The major aim of this study is to evaluate the role of Turkish non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the consolidation of democracy in Turkey regarding the characteristics defined by the classical pluralist theories, starting with the ideas of Alexis de Tocqueville, and by contemporary pluralist approaches to civil society. To that end, characteristics of two examples, iHD and KiH-Y&Ccedil / V will be examined using three dimensions: effectiveness, enhancing solidarity and responsibility, and the dimension of inner democracy. As the methodology of the case study, in-depth interview techniques were adapted for capturing the qualities of the organizations in a detailed way. At that level, in-depth interviews from each organization were conducted with members having different positions. In addition to this, all written documents obtained from the organizations were scanned and the relevant ones have been examined for the sake of the study. Since the aim of the study is to understand what part Turkish NGOs play in the consolidation of democracy in Turkey considering the assumptions of classical and contemporary pluralist school in their analysis of voluntary associations and interest groups, this study espoused an associational concept of democracy as the method of work, which is a contemporary concept that underlines the democratic role of free and voluntary associations. In this context, this study tries to discuss the following questions: To what extent are Turkish NGOs independent from the state? To what extent can they have leverage on governmental policies? Do they mitigate conflict through overlapping interests? Do they enhance social trust, tolerance, compromise and a sense of solidarity in society and within their organization? To what extent are they democratic, pluralist and horizontally structured inside their organization and to what extent they are democratic regarding their decision making process? Are they open and inclusive enough in their membership recruitment techniques?

Religious diversity is the inevitable corollary of globalization and with it comes the challenge and opportunities of greatly increased interaction with religious Others. The United States was founded on an Anglo-Saxon Protestant basis but has now become "the world’s most religiously diverse nation" according to one Harvard religious studies scholar. To deal with this development, American thinkers, mainly Christians, have devoted a good deal of scholarship in the past three to four decades construing strategies how to meet and interact with the religious Other. During the 70’s and 80’s, a typology of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism was developed by Christians as a response to religious diversity. Many see today that it is a necessity to find an alternative to hostility and violence and therefore dialogue is the order of the day. Since Christians are still by far the largest faith-group, and the US has economic resources, US Christians have a natural predominance in dialogue. Is that good or bad from the stand point of the minority Other? One such minority is a major sub-division of Hinduism, namely Vaishnavism. Christian-Vaishnava dialogue in the US is a new phenomenon in the past two decades and an emerging minority representative is a globalized Vaishnava organization ISKCON, popularly known as the Hare Krishna movement, which has its Western roots in the counter-culture of the 1960’s. While ISKCON struggled for legitimacy in the 70’s and ‘80’s, it has in recent decades become a major factor in Hindu and especially Vaisnava representation. How American Christians respond today to Vaishnava dialogue and how this typology arose and functions as a theoretical basis for the on-going development of Christian-Vaishnava dialogue is the subject of this action-research minor field study.

Not available / text

Not available / text

This study examines the connections between a commitment to educating for citizenship in the university and pedagogical strategies used to realize the goals associated with this commitment. One of the most common themes of the political philosophy and education literature regarding citizenship has to do with communicating across our differences. I used Jodi Dean's (1996) concept of reflective solidarity to explore the possibilities of this communication, particularly in the face of claims to morality. Reflective solidarity focuses on the communicative nature of solidarity by exploring contestation across our differences as we work toward understanding. I interviewed ten educators from a variety of disciplines at the University of British Columbia to explore their experiences translating this commitment to social justice into practice. My analysis of their contributions resulted in three primary categories and numerous sub-categories of data that I referred to as (a) perspective on theory (the university as a site for citizenship education, defining educating for citizenship); (b) perspective on self (curriculum as contested space, teacher's role, selfreflective practice, solidarity through difference); and (c) perspective on other (voice, silence, listening, pluralism, safety and risk, power). All of the participants discussed the dynamics of power, voice, silence, risk, pluralism and resistance that characterize their efforts to educate in a manner that promotes social justice. The pedagogical challenge of responding to heterosexism and homophobia in the classroom was specifically identified as difficult and increasingly contentious. This theme became central as I wove together the literature, the participants' contributions and my own experiences. As a response to Dean's inattention to the context of the communicative relationships at the core of reflective solidarity, I propose the idea of reflective accountability. Reflective accountability challenges critical educators to think deeply about the sometimes taken-for-granted aspects of educating for social justice. Reflective accountability necessitates a critique of open public discourse and understanding as the unassailable cornerstone of education and highlights the possibility that there may be times when certain points of view need to be more critically examined, challenged and perhaps silenced when they are grounded in oppression.

L’Europe engendre des transformations majeures de l’État national, influence sa structure politique, sa conception de la démocratie et du droit, et produit des effets sur les rapports majorité minorités. Elle a pour effet d’éloigner l’État national du modèle traditionnel de l’État-Nation ethniquement ou culturellement homogène en l’amenant à reconnaître la pluralité de ses composantes nationales. Ces mutations sont le résultat du processus même d’intégration communautaire et des politiques de régionalisation et de décentralisation que favorisent les institutions européennes. Soumis au double processus d’intégration supranationale et de désagrégation infranationale, l’État national se transforme. Son rapport avec les minorités, également. L’Europe commande des aménagements de la diversité. Pour y arriver, elle impose un droit à la différence, lequel s’inscrit toujours dans la protection générale des droits de l’homme mais vise spécifiquement à reconnaître des droits identitaires ou poly ethniques aux personnes appartenant à des minorités, en tant que groupe, dans le but évident de les protéger contre la discrimination et l’intolérance. En faisant la promotion de ce droit à la différence, l’Europe propose un modèle alternatif à l’État-Nation traditionnel. La nation (majorité) peut désormais s’accommoder de la diversité. La nation n’est plus seulement politique, elle devient socioculturelle. En faisant la promotion du principe de subsidiarité, l’Europe incite à la décentralisation et à la régionalisation. En proposant un droit de la différence, l’Union européenne favorise la mise au point de mécanismes institutionnels permanents où la négociation continue de la normativité juridique entre groupes différents est possible et où l’opportunité est donnée aux minorités de contribuer à la définition de cette normativité. Le pluralisme juridique engendré par la communautarisation reste par ailleurs fortement institutionnel. L’État communautarisé détient encore le monopole de la production du droit mais permet des aménagements institutionnels de l’espace public au sein d’un ensemble démocratique plus vaste, donc l’instauration d’un dialogue entre les différentes communautés qui le composent, ce qui aurait été impensable selon la théorie classique de l’État-nation, du droit moniste et monologique. Ainsi, assistons-nous à la transformation progressive dans les faits de l’État-nation en État multinational. La question des minorités soulève un problème de fond : celui de l'organisation politique minoritaire. La volonté de respecter toutes les identités collectives, de donner un statut politique à toutes les minorités et de satisfaire toutes les revendications particularistes n’a pas de fin. L’État-Nation n’est certes pas le meilleur –ni le seul- modèle d’organisation politique. Mais l’État multinational constitue-t-il une alternative viable en tant que modèle d’organisation politique ? / The European Union provokes major transformations of the national state. It influences its political structure, its conception of democracy and of Law and it affects the majority-minority relations. It diverts the state from the traditional Nation-State model, ethnically and culturally homogenous, and makes it lean towards a pluralistic multinational state model. These changes are the results of the European integration process and its politics of regionalization and decentralisation. Subjected to both the supranational integration and the infranational disintegration, the Nation-State transforms itself. So does its relation to its minorities. By imposing the recognizance of a right to be different (droit à la difference), which is rooted in the individual protection of human rights, the European Union commands arrangements of the diversity. It allows the recognizance of identity and polyethnic rights to members of a minority and offers protection against discrimination and intolerance. Europe provides an alternative to the traditional Nation-State. From political, the nation becomes socio-cultural. By promoting decentralization and regionalization, in application of the principle of subsidiarity, the European Union favours the recognizance of a right to difference (droit de la difference) which permits the institutionalization of minorities and the creation of permanent mechanisms, where the minorities can participate to the public life and contribute to the elaboration of the norms that will apply to them. Legal pluralism engendered by the European Union is however very strongly institutionalized. The national state still holds the monopole of the production of law although it allows institutional arrangements within the public sphere and the instauration of a dialogue between the various communities that compose the state. Such a situation is not conceivable under the traditional theory of the Nation-State and its monist and monological conception of the Law. Slowly, under the pressure of the European Union, the national state tends towards the multinational model of political organization. The question of minorities raises a fundamental problem: the political organization of minorities. The will to respect all collective identities, to provide a political status to all minorities and to satisfy all their claims is endless. The Nation-State is surely not the best nor the only model of political organization for a state. But, is the multinational state a viable alternative? Key words: minorities, right to be different, right to difference, legal pluralism, multinational state, Nation-State, European Union, liberalism, communitarism

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal

At present we are living in a global market economy. As a result, international business and cooperation between two or more counties is a growing phenomenon. Global business managers and leaders are challenged to broaden their minds to create new methods of leading and managing what has become an increasingly diverse and cross-cultural workforce. This workforce will bring with it both advantages and disadvantages to global organisations. In general, the global leaders and managers will face the challenge of how to cope with workers from diverse cultures, whilst at the same time respecting the needs of workers from their own culture. There is also the problem of dealing not only with the workforce, but also with partners, competitors and customers from diverse cultural backgrounds. In global organisations the biggest challenge is how to effectively organize, lead, manage and monitor diversity in a cross-cultural workforce. More and more leaders and top managers are becoming aware of the importance of learning about various cultures, different languages, cross-cultural communication and negotiation skills in a global context. The global business environment influences the development of Chinese businesses; more and more Chinese companies are exploring foreign markets, and in recent years many Chinese investment organisations have invested in and are thriving in the South African market. Most of these are operating in the clothing or textile companies. Starting up a business in a foreign country is a difficult task for any manager or leader. They face many barriers including having to cope with different languages and with differences in culture, politics and social environments. This is especially true of the situation in South Africa, as South Africa is a richly multi-cultural country with many cultures and subcultures that observe different religions, that use different languages and that display different habits. This study will investigate how Chinese managers and leaders can be led to a better understanding of these differences so that they can formulate new organisational cultures that maximize their companies’ success in a global environment. In these case studies the sample selected will be the Chinese clothing and textile industries in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). Although the leaders and managers of Chinese investment organisations in KZN have attempted to increase their awareness of the local management culture and have tried to learn more about local political, social and economic structures, they still have not placed sufficient emphasis on language training and cross-cultural knowledge acquisition. Despite the fact that they already have basic language, communication and negotiation skills with which to deal in some measure with a cross-cultural workforce, this study shows that Chinese managers and leaders have to further improve their understanding and their communication skills. / Thesis (M.Com.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Westville, 2011.

This study investigates how upper secondary school students constitute relations between the environment and humanity. The aim of the study is to analyse relations that emerge between and within the Earth´s major systems (humanity included) and how these relations are composed when students are faced with a fictional decision of consuming a pair of jeans.                        Using workshop as a data collection method, students creatively visualize their discussions through participatory modelling in groups. The results of the study are based on the analyses of the concluding presentations of the completed models. The results show difficulties in submitting relations between the three dimensions of the concept of sustainable development together with a dualistic worldview, indicating a lack of complexity in the presentations. Therefore, a gap can be identified between the empirical results and the aims of education for sustainable development (ESD) that, according to the Ministry of Education and Research, should be a part of Swedish upper secondary education. In addition, a gap between the steering documents for the Swedish upper secondary schools and the UNESCO guidelines on ESD is revealed, consisting of the latter more distinctly promoting systems thinking and embracing pluralism.                                                                  Three national programmes are represented in the study; social science, science and economics. Differences between the three are established. Groups with a focus on social science present complexity to higher extent than groups on science orientation. Groups with a focus on economics present least complexity in their presentations.