Real freedom for all turtles in Sugarscape? - Presses universitaires ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

D e S c h u t t e r – L e t ' s B r u s s e l i z e t h e w o r l d ! 203native language group, then go for the equal recognition ideal central to theBrussels model. Only if no significant diversity can be found is an ROBmodel acceptable. The Brussels model is the standard rule, and deviatingfrom it is only acceptable in cases which already instantiate an Icelandparadigm.There is no reason to protect more than one language groupwithin Iceland, since there are none. Note that even in such cases, noinjustice would be committed by implementing a Brussels model instead. IfFrench speakers from Wallonia choose to move to Flanders in an imaginedBelgium where the Brussels model is universalized within Belgium (and noROB model exists), no injustice would be committed: both language groupswould get language rights.On this Brussels model, multilingual language policies are installed, whichgrant equal recognition to the existing linguistic identities of citizensthrough equal language rights, such as the provision of police services,schools, voting ballots and welfare services in both languages. Languagerights are then granted pluralistically, by granting equal sets of languagerights to all. On this territory, members of each language group are enabledto experience their language identity and make use of the availableresources to change it if wanted: this includes assimilating to anotherlanguage, assuming or acquiring a bilingual language identity, or staunchlyassuming a monolingual identity (even though incentives for knowing thelanguage of the other language group(s) are to be given and encouraged, inthe interest of stimulating a shared community). Each of the native languagegroups should enjoy equal language rights, and the territory’s institutionsbecome effectively bilingual. Surely there are practical limits here: it’s hardto imagine pentalingual or hexalingual territorial communities. But even insuch situations special accommodations can be imagined: while one or twoshared languages will need to be fostered as shared languages ofcommunication and democracy, special provisions for the minorities can beimagined.Should we protect languages from erosion?One important problem needs to be discussed at this stage. 3 It has to dowith what Philippe calls ‘kindness-driven agony’, which he bases on theinsights of the Canadian sociolinguist Jean Laponce. Laponce states that incases of peaceful contact between languages the more powerful languagetends to dominate and assimilate the other(s) (2001: 188-189). Philippe has3There is also the important problem of fleshing out the various levels of efficiencyassociated with both models.
204A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t i c eaptly summarized this ‘Laponce mechanism’ as: “The nicer people are withone another, the nastier languages are with each other” (2000: 219). This lawhelps to explain the radical transformation of Brussels from a predominantlyDutch speaking city at the end of the 19 th century to a predominantly Frenchspeaking city today. The rationale behind the ROB model, then, is that it willseriously constrain the spontaneous process of language contact andlanguage shift, and thereby protect the territorially privileged language: thelanguage status of the territory is fixed, and the official institutionsmassively encourage and coerce people into speaking the language of theterritory, even if a more powerful language would without such massiveencouragement of the territorial language tend to encroach upon it. AsPhilippe puts it: “To protect vulnerable languages, there is, undercircumstances of high mobility, at best one effective strategy, the firmapplication of the linguistic territoriality principle: Cuius regio, eius lingua”(2000: 219).This argument calls for a reaction from defenders of the Brussels model. Isit not a problem that equal intra-territorial status for languages may lead tothe effective domination of one language over the other? Not necessarily. Itis important to see that the Brussels model is not a ‘laissez-faire’ solution.Equally recognizing two languages, say Catalan and Spanish in Catalonia,French and Dutch in Brussels, or Russian and Ukrainian in Ukraine, confersactive protection on those language groups, which will help guard themagainst massive linguistic assimilation pressure. Given the fact that the twolanguages in such cases receive active state support and symbolic benefits,equal language protection will help forging future people’s (and people’sfuture) language identities, which are more likely to be beneficial to theprotected language groups than to others outside of the territory. But thismodel does not just provide protection for the official languages of theterritory vis-a-vis other languages outside the territory. The Brussels modelalso protects the languages internally vis-a-vis each other. Whatever the lureof French may be, Dutch is actively protected: hospital, city council andpolice services will continue to benefit the Dutch minority in Brussels.Of course evolutions are possible here, and the group of French speakersmay grow while the number of Dutch speakers may decline. But even if thathappens, the Brussels defenders should bite the bullet. Even if, under suchan equal status language policy, the mechanism of free language contactsstarted to work toward the gradual erosion of one language group and thegrowing strength of another, then some members may regret this, but noinjustice is committed. For, the switches made by those who ‘leave’ theweaker group and join the stronger one are choices made against thebackground of government-supported linguistic liberty and equality. On the
Page 5 and 6:
© Presses universitaires de Louvai
Page 7 and 8:
6A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t i
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 50 and 51:
Marriages as assets?Real freedom an
Page 52 and 53:
A l s t o t t - M a r r i a g e s a
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
The guaranteed income as an equalop
Page 64 and 65:
A r n s p e r g e r & J o h n s o n
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 80 and 81:
Reflections on the limits of argume
Page 82 and 83:
B a k e r - R e f l e c t i o n s o
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Taxation, fees and social justiceFr
Page 90 and 91:
B l a i s - T a x a t i o n , f e e
Page 92 and 93:
B l a i s - T a x a t i o n , f e e
Page 94 and 95:
Real freedomfor all turtles in Suga
Page 96 and 97:
B o u l a n g e r - R e a l f r e e
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Linguistic diversityand economic se
Page 108 and 109:
B o w l e s - L i n g u i s t i c d
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Legitimate partiality, parents and
Page 118 and 119:
B r i g h o u s e & S w i f t - L e
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124:
Page 127 and 128:
126A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 136 and 137:
Distributing freedom over whole liv
Page 138 and 139:
C a r t e r - D i s t r i b u t i n
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154: 152A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t
Page 158 and 159: Why do we blame survivors?Jean-Mich
Page 160 and 161: C h a u m o n t - W h y d o w e b l
Page 166: C h a u m o n t - W h y d o w e b l
Page 203: 202A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t
Page 230 and 231: English or Esperanto:a case for lev
Page 232 and 233: F l e u r b a e y - E n g l i s h o
Page 234 and 235: F l e u r b a e y - E n g l i s h o
Page 236: F l e u r b a e y - E n g l i s h o
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 262 and 263:
Should a Marxistbelieve in human ri
Page 264 and 265:
L a c r o i x - S h o u l d a M a r
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 284 and 285:
A universal duty to careIngrid Robe
Page 286 and 287:
R o b e yn s - A u n i v e r s a l
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
The ideological roots of inequality
Page 294 and 295:
R o e m e r - T h e i d e o l o g i
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Philosophers andtaboo trade-offs in
Page 306 and 307:
S c h o k k a e r t - P h i l o s o
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 322 and 323:
On genetic inequalityHillel Steiner
Page 324 and 325:
S t e i n e r - O n g e n e t i c i
Page 326 and 327:
S t e i n e r - O n g e n e t i c i
Page 328 and 329:
A federal electoral district for Be
Page 330 and 331:
S t o j a n o v i c - A f e d e r a
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 368 and 369:
Lamentationin the face of historica
Page 370 and 371:
V r o u s a l i s - L a m e n t a t
Page 372 and 373:
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376:
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 388 and 389:
Why we demand anunconditional basic
Page 390 and 391:
W i d e r q u i s t - T h e E C S O
Page 392 and 393:
Page 394 and 395:
Page 396 and 397:
Linguistic protectionismand wealth
Page 398 and 399:
W i l l i a m s - L i n g u i s t i
Page 400 and 401:
Page 402 and 403:
Page 404 and 405:
In defense of genderlessnessErik Ol
Page 406 and 407:
W r i g h t - I n d e f e n s e o f
Page 408 and 409:
Page 410 and 411:
Page 412 and 413:
Page 414:
Page 417 and 418:
Page 419 and 420:
Page 421 and 422:
Page 423:
show all

Real freedom for all turtles in Sugarscape? - Presses universitaires ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?