Jacob T. Levy
- Published in print:
- 2000
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198297123
- eISBN:
- 9780191599767
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198297122.003.0009
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
Examines symbolic ethnic politics: the politics of place names, group names, national symbols, official apologies, and other matters that do not affect the rights or resources of any particular ...
More
Examines symbolic ethnic politics: the politics of place names, group names, national symbols, official apologies, and other matters that do not affect the rights or resources of any particular persons. Such symbolism is important in ethnic politics, and a theory with nothing to say about it is unsatisfactory. Disputes over symbolic issues, however, are poorly suited to compromise and easily escalate into rallying points for wider conflicts. In addition, it is often impossible to meet the symbolic demands of all groups simultaneously. The chief constraint on symbolic politics should be non‐humiliation and the avoidance of the celebration of past injustices and violence, a standard that can be met for all groups simultaneously. Official apologies in particular are considered at length; they are defended against the charges of collective guilt and anachronism, but are found to be limited by considerations including the passage of time and institutional discontinuities.Less
Examines symbolic ethnic politics: the politics of place names, group names, national symbols, official apologies, and other matters that do not affect the rights or resources of any particular persons. Such symbolism is important in ethnic politics, and a theory with nothing to say about it is unsatisfactory. Disputes over symbolic issues, however, are poorly suited to compromise and easily escalate into rallying points for wider conflicts. In addition, it is often impossible to meet the symbolic demands of all groups simultaneously. The chief constraint on symbolic politics should be non‐humiliation and the avoidance of the celebration of past injustices and violence, a standard that can be met for all groups simultaneously. Official apologies in particular are considered at length; they are defended against the charges of collective guilt and anachronism, but are found to be limited by considerations including the passage of time and institutional discontinuities.
Cécile Fabre
- Published in print:
- 2016
- Published Online:
- September 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780198786245
- eISBN:
- 9780191839092
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198786245.003.0009
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Political Philosophy, Moral Philosophy
As chs. 5 to 7 show, epistemic uncertainty about who committed which wrong against whom, scarcity of resources, and the sheer number of perpetrators and victims make it very hard, and indeed ...
More
As chs. 5 to 7 show, epistemic uncertainty about who committed which wrong against whom, scarcity of resources, and the sheer number of perpetrators and victims make it very hard, and indeed undesirable, to try and implement a just peace simpliciter. The fact that so many wrongs go unaddressed and so many needs go unmet is likely to deepen the feelings of anger and hatred which the war itself aroused on all sides; this in turn is likely to undermine (imperfect) restitutive, reparative, and punitive processes, and to lead to war again. This chapter examines and defends the view that reconciliatory practices are well suited to foster mutual trust amongst enemies. Such practices include, non-exhaustively, truths and reconciliation commissions; traditional justice fora such as Rwandese gacaca, and the offering of official apologies for war crimes.Less
As chs. 5 to 7 show, epistemic uncertainty about who committed which wrong against whom, scarcity of resources, and the sheer number of perpetrators and victims make it very hard, and indeed undesirable, to try and implement a just peace simpliciter. The fact that so many wrongs go unaddressed and so many needs go unmet is likely to deepen the feelings of anger and hatred which the war itself aroused on all sides; this in turn is likely to undermine (imperfect) restitutive, reparative, and punitive processes, and to lead to war again. This chapter examines and defends the view that reconciliatory practices are well suited to foster mutual trust amongst enemies. Such practices include, non-exhaustively, truths and reconciliation commissions; traditional justice fora such as Rwandese gacaca, and the offering of official apologies for war crimes.
