As we start a new millennium, the conviction that exclusionary practices need to be fought at all levels of society is becoming gradually more accepted. Nevertheless, as I show in this thesis, many if not most researchers on High School Philosophy (HSP) operate from what Iris Marion Young (1990) calls a logic of identity, which continues to be exclusionary even when it attempts to reach “all.” My objective in this thesis, therefore, is to map out the HSP literature in terms of Young’s “Politics of Difference,” and, by doing that, to suggest ways in which it could be more inclusive. This adaptation of Young’s Politics of Difference to HSP is presented in this thesis in six chapters. In chapter 1, I summarize the main aspects of Young’s argument. In chapter 2, I give an overview of the current literature on HSP, showing that it is scarce and scattered. This thesis’s first contribution, therefore, is as a representative, though not exhaustive, catalogue of the HSP literature. In chapter 3, I present a deeper analysis of the HSP literature, dividing it into two main strands, “the selective” and the “universal” approaches to HSP. I also argue in this chapter that both these approaches are problematic, because they exclude many, privileges some over others and alienate all. In chapter 4, I present a brief analysis of the epistemology informing both the selective and the universal approaches to HSP. In this chapter, I focus on the so-called “Myth of Neutrality,” which is another manifestation of the logic of identity. Using as illustration the works of two authors, Robert Simon and Harvey Siegel, I show in this chapter how the myth of neutrality manifests the positivism and reductionism typical of the logic of identity. Finally, in chapter 5 I present my positive proposal for HSP, which I called “Philosophy of Many” (PoM), as a more inclusive alternative to both the selective and the universal approaches to HSP. The final chapter reviews the main conclusions of this study and suggests direction for further research.

As we start a new millennium, the conviction that exclusionary practices need to be fought at all levels of society is becoming gradually more accepted. Nevertheless, as I show in this thesis, many if not most researchers on High School Philosophy (HSP) operate from what Iris Marion Young (1990) calls a logic of identity, which continues to be exclusionary even when it attempts to reach “all.” My objective in this thesis, therefore, is to map out the HSP literature in terms of Young’s “Politics of Difference,” and, by doing that, to suggest ways in which it could be more inclusive. This adaptation of Young’s Politics of Difference to HSP is presented in this thesis in six chapters. In chapter 1, I summarize the main aspects of Young’s argument. In chapter 2, I give an overview of the current literature on HSP, showing that it is scarce and scattered. This thesis’s first contribution, therefore, is as a representative, though not exhaustive, catalogue of the HSP literature. In chapter 3, I present a deeper analysis of the HSP literature, dividing it into two main strands, “the selective” and the “universal” approaches to HSP. I also argue in this chapter that both these approaches are problematic, because they exclude many, privileges some over others and alienate all. In chapter 4, I present a brief analysis of the epistemology informing both the selective and the universal approaches to HSP. In this chapter, I focus on the so-called “Myth of Neutrality,” which is another manifestation of the logic of identity. Using as illustration the works of two authors, Robert Simon and Harvey Siegel, I show in this chapter how the myth of neutrality manifests the positivism and reductionism typical of the logic of identity. Finally, in chapter 5 I present my positive proposal for HSP, which I called “Philosophy of Many” (PoM), as a more inclusive alternative to both the selective and the universal approaches to HSP. The final chapter reviews the main conclusions of this study and suggests direction for further research.

I develop a feminist critique of three features in contemporary views of race: the meaning of race is essentially biological; each of us has exactly one kind of racial identity; and our racial identities are permanent. Having revealed each of these features to be confusions about the language of racial identification, I contend that our racial concepts currently permit a wider range of racial identifications than we currently acknowledge. Finally, I critically evaluate the political and ethical ramifications of treating race as a unified, permanent identity. Resistance to systems of racial and gendered oppression should challenge our identities as unified and permanent. / text

The dilemma of diversity is the tension that exists when prescriptive claims are required across reasonable pluralism. Scholar and philosopher Dwight Boyd believes that the dilemma of diversity must be addressed for the continued health of multicultural societies, and suggests that the solution can be found through democratic reciprocity. Though the International Olympic Committee (IOC) markets unity and peace through its Olympic Games, does the Olympics relieve the dilemma of diversity? By critically examining the IOC’s historic and recent treatment of Aboriginals, its encouragement of divisive nationalism, and its educational programs, it is clear that the IOC does not embrace reasonable pluralism. The IOC’s public pedagogy is one that conceals its dominance through diversity. In exposing this dominance, I will argue that the IOC must embrace democratic reciprocity that allows for conversation across difference. Adopting an authentic acceptance of difference will alleviate the IOC’s propagation of Western ideology through neo-imperialism.

The dilemma of diversity is the tension that exists when prescriptive claims are required across reasonable pluralism. Scholar and philosopher Dwight Boyd believes that the dilemma of diversity must be addressed for the continued health of multicultural societies, and suggests that the solution can be found through democratic reciprocity. Though the International Olympic Committee (IOC) markets unity and peace through its Olympic Games, does the Olympics relieve the dilemma of diversity? By critically examining the IOC’s historic and recent treatment of Aboriginals, its encouragement of divisive nationalism, and its educational programs, it is clear that the IOC does not embrace reasonable pluralism. The IOC’s public pedagogy is one that conceals its dominance through diversity. In exposing this dominance, I will argue that the IOC must embrace democratic reciprocity that allows for conversation across difference. Adopting an authentic acceptance of difference will alleviate the IOC’s propagation of Western ideology through neo-imperialism.

For the 70 years since Independence, India has been facing a two-fold problem: on the one hand, there is a strong need of a just society on the basis of cultural and religious diversity. On the other hand, however, there is a strong urge to find an overarching unifying idea which could keep the polity together without any risk of further fragmentation. Taking the communitarian philosophy of Charles Taylor and his distinction between the politics of equal dignity and politics of difference as the basic conceptual framework, the thesis pursues three different objectives. First, to prove that affirmative approach towards recognition of minorities does not provide stability in the Indian case. Second, to rehabilitate the Nehruvian secularism as a viable state ideology of independent India. And third, to interpret the Indian political discourse on the level of political practice as a struggle for hegemony between the elites and bourgeoisie in the Gramscian sense. The rise of identity politics and Hindu nationalism is thus perceived not as an outcome of the failure of the Indian secularism as such, but rather of its ineffective application and subsequent crisis of legitimacy. Keywords: India; multiculturalism; politics of difference; secularism; anti-modernism; Hindu nationalism; hegemony; passive revolution

對於已開發國家而言，都市土地的開發往往趨於飽和，因此多藉助舊有土地再開發之策略增加居住或者使用空間，並以此為「公共利益」而證立其正當性。然而，開發行為亦涉及諸多對人權之干預，尤其在強制拆遷的執行上，一方面侵害既有居住者之私人與家庭生活，另方面則因欠缺程序權保障而徒增糾紛。同時，因為臺灣當前對強制拆遷之司法論述，仍聚焦於財產權範疇，而使司法人權保障難以及於非正式住居者。 本文擬以非正式住居之居住權保障為中心，整合人權法治與政治思想，透過國際人權法與當代正義理論的詮釋，以討論公權力主張公共利益執行強制拆遷之界限。本文主張，衡平權利衝突之公共利益，應進一步以差異政治之觀點加以審視。法律做為一種權利保障機制，應避免制度設計對於對社會弱勢形成壓迫、支配。故自承認政治的觀點出發，非正式住居者亦應受正當法律程序保障，才是社會正義實踐之基礎。 / For developed countries, urban region was overdeveloped. Facing with this condition, the government used to resort to the strategy of urban renew, trying to make the most efficient use of the urban land and claim the renew project was based on the public interest. However, the urban renew project execution often violate the human right condition, especially the execution of forced eviction. In Taiwan, the government disobeyed the due process principle, infringed the right to respect for private and family life. The process also resulted the conflict between government and citizens. Such kind of dilemma reveals that the legal protection of housing right was limited primarily to the property rights, and it’s also the reason why informal settlement resident in Taiwan still couldn’t acquire the legal protection. In this article, we will focus on the housing right of the informal settlement and ascertain the boundary of the public interest in which created by urban renew, by the international humanitarian law and contemporary justice theory perspectives. In the end, from the point of the politics of difference, we consider that the informal-settled resident still should have the legal due process protection. The law should protect the social vulnerable from the oppression and domination of the injustice institution.