<p>This study is concerned with the contradiction in
liberal-democratic society between the persistence of group inequalities
on the one hand, and the firm commitment to individualism
on the other. Individualism requires that group inequalities be
absent, and that "particularistic policies" be avoided. Consequently,
liberal governments tend to either ignore the issue of group inequality
or abandon the liberal framework in order to deal with it. By examining
the communal structure in pre-liberal societies, and the nature of modernday
support for particularism, it has been found that the norm of
universalism is to be preferred. The Indians in Canada have been used
as an example illustrating the effects of a particularistic policy when
applied in a liberal context. An analysis of the Indian case suggests
that legal group differentiation does not reduce group inequality even
within a liberal framework. The argument is advanced that a "liberal"
solution to this problem is possible. Since liberal theory has been
mute on this point, a solution is worked out by exploring what is consistent
with classical liberal foundations as laid down by John Locke.
In general, group differentiation may be practised (sic) in a qualified way
provided it remains the exception, and is not established as a new norm.</p> / Thesis / Master of Arts (MA)
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:mcmaster.ca/oai:macsphere.mcmaster.ca:11375/16124 |
| Date | 11 1900 |
| Creators | Lewis , Denise Felicia |
| Contributors | Brotz, Howard, Sociology |
| Source Sets | McMaster University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
Page generated in 0.0124 seconds