__________________________________________________
Call for Papers "Heterogeneity and Democracy" Comparative Sociology Edited by David Sciulli Special Issue __________________________________________________ Modern democratic societies are facing manifold challenges. The most apparent internal challenge seems to be the increasing heterogenisation of democratic societies, manifesting at least in two dimensions: culturally as ethnic and religious heterogenisation and, structurally, as socioeconomic and social heterogenisation. Democratic societies are therefore confronted with identity-based and interest-based differences that often result in conflicts about recognition and resources. On the identity-dimension, the growing ethnic and religious heterogenisation of Western and non-Western societies originate either from migration processes or from unsolved disputes with indigenous fractions of society that have to be managed adequately through democratic processes. Deprived groups of different kinds call for recognition and respect, and it is far from clear how successful democracies are in managing these challenges. On the interest- dimension, socioeconomic disparities are on the rise (again) in many societies causing severe legitimatory problems for democratic governance. This is even more the case when socioeconomic inequalities and questions of recognition interfere with each other. Multidimensional forms of heterogeneity decrease the chance of successful democratic management of diversity, and identity politics can be exploited for socioeconomic purposes and vice versa. As some cases in Latin America show, sometimes the mix of identity politics and socioeconomic conflicts culminates in sturdy secession disputes that make solutions of heterogeneity conflicts even more difficult. The reason for the return of heterogeneity-issues is twofold: Migration processes on the one hand and the rediscovery of demands of indigenous people on the other reinforced ethnic and religious heterogenisation all over the world and, at the same time, offered the chance for a discussion and re-evaluation of existing heterogeneities that are gaining political importance again. Together with growing socioeconomic differences these issues pose challenges to democracies and raise severe questions: How much homogeneity between citizens is necessary to meet various social, economic, and cultural heterogeneities? What kinds of heterogeneity are intrinsic to democracy (and therefore unproblematic) and what kinds are hostile to democratic governance (and therefore to be mitigated)? Under which circumstances do socioeconomic or ethnic differences have disintegrative effects and deteriorate the quality of democracy? To answer these questions, we got to know more about the puzzle whether and how heterogeneity can be measured adequately and what the impact of heterogeneity on the quality of democracy really is. For OECD and for non-OECD democracies as well as for young and old democracies it seems essential to analyse whether “more homogeneous” democracies are also qualitatively “better” democracies (and how this can be determined theoretically and empirically). These questions can not only be addressed empirically, however. We also have to look for normative answers to potential problems caused by heterogenisation within the framework of democratic theory or political philosophy (e.g., the role of the secular state, the role of religion in democracy, discourses of recognition, deprivation theories, etc.). The problems touched upon can be discussed under two general perspectives: - First, one can ask for the consequences of the heterogenisation of democratic societies on the quality and functioning of these democracies (democracy as a dependent variable of analysis): How much heterogeneity is compatible with democratic governance—and how much may even be essential for a liberal society? Is there such a thing as a “productive” heterogeneity required for the functioning of democratic processes—and under which circumstances can this heterogeneity be hazardous to democracy? To what extent has the societal and cultural context to be incorporated into the answering of these questions? - Second, we have to explore the impacts of various institutional designs on processes of heterogenisation, their consequences, and feasible strategies of conflict resolution (democracy as an independent variable). Mainly, we have to study conciliatory strategies of democracies: Do democracies per se have a specific problem solving capacity concerning processes of heterogenisation, and does this capacity rise with the quality of democracy? Beside institutional resolutions, affirmative-action-efforts can as well be analyzed as social politics or political communication strategies. Papers dealing with one of these issues (cross-national case studies, comparative quantitative or qualitative studies, and theoretical or conceptual analyses) shall be submitted until October 31, 2010 Send them to <[email protected]> with an e-mail message expressing interest in this special issue. The length of an article should be between 8.000 and 10.000 words. For the Basic Format see the Instructions for authors: http://www.brill.nl/AuthorsInstructions/COSO.pdf __________________________________________________ InterPhil List Administration: http://interphil.polylog.org Intercultural Philosophy Calendar: http://cal.polylog.org __________________________________________________
