The apparent complicity of South African Jews with apartheid rule is of social scientific interest in that it is unexpected. Pronounced left-liberalism is considered to be the default position of Jewish politics in Western societies. Yet in South Africa, while a small minority of Jews were conspicuous players in left-radicalism, the vast majority of Jews seem to have complied with the discriminations and injustices of apartheid. This thesis challenges the commonplace assumption that the political records of SA Jewry under apartheid refutes the oft-noted pattern of left-liberalism among modern Jews in the Diaspora. I argue that political actions do not necessarily reflect political values, especially under authoritarian regimes. Jews may strongly subscribe to liberal values, but, as a result of pressures both extrinsic and intrinsic to their particular communities, be less able or less willing to express these values in a politically overt manner than Jews elsewhere. I suggest that, in the South African case, voting patterns and official postures obscure rather a Jewish preference for liberal values. The Jewish community in SA while unusually cohesive was, like other Diaspora communities, not monolithic. The ???united front??? presented by the Jewish community in apartheid SA disguised a predictably diverse range of political opinion. It is appropriate that our quest to understand and explain political values goes beyond that which is openly expressed and peers into the shadows of political behaviour. The point is not to morally redeem the South African community, whose record, after all, may still be found wanting. Rather, it is to recognise that hidden in the official deliberations and directives, and in the domestic dilemmas and incidental actions of SA Jews, is the material from which we may form a fuller picture of SA Jewish political values. More generally the case highlights the complexity of studying, comparing, and generalising about political behaviour.

This thesis aims to use general assertions of moral uncertainty as a perspective by which to explore and illuminate contemporary strands of liberal theory. It examines the work of the earlier contemporary liberal theorists, including John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Ronald Dworkin and Bruce Ackerman, as well as the more recent accounts of liberalism that express ideas of pluralism (Michael Walzer, Joseph Raz, John Gray, William Galston, George Crowder), political liberalism (John Rawls, Charles Larmore), public reason (Amy Gutmann & Dennis Thompson, Gerald Gaus), multiculturalism (Charles Taylor, Will Kymlicka, Brian Barry, James Tully, and Bikhu Parekh), and postmodernism (Richard Rorty). The development from the earlier to more recent liberal theories represents a fundamental shift in justificatory strategy: where earlier liberal conceptions aim at universality, and at overcoming or transcending uncertainty, later approaches make this uncertainty, usually in the form of pluralism or difference, central to the liberal project. In order to achieve this, these latter theories tended to presuppose the circumstances of western society, or western democratic values. Generally speaking, these approaches fail to respond adequately to moral uncertainty, and to meet their own justificatory aims. This manifests, in the earlier theories, as plausible but contestable central conceptions, and, in the more recent theories, as the inability to justify particular liberal conceptions in the face of persistence difference. This is an important result, and suggests the need for further developments in liberal justificatory strategies. I suggest that one viable approach would be for liberal theory to accept moral uncertainty, and work from a model of society and self towards a more successful liberal conception.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Oregon, 2007. / Typescript. Includes vita and abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 171-182). Also available for download via the World Wide Web; free to University of Oregon users.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2007. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Oregon, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 255-258).

Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Adelaide, Dept. of History, 1980.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of New South Wales, 2004. / Also available online.

Thesis (M.A.) - Carleton University, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 96-100). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph.D.) - Carleton University, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 368-413). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 2008. / Title from first page of PDF file (viewed Dec. 5, 2008). Available via ProQuest Digital Dissertations. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 235-251).