Undergraduate thesis by Emanuela Ceva

ENGLISH ABSTRACT

This work is an attempt to analyse situations of uncertainty about individual and collective identities: more precisely, the thesis deals with issues concerning a person’s identity and his or her need for social recognition. In order to define this area of interest more precisely, I considered, as a first important circumstance of uncertainty, the so-called "multicultural" perspective - that is to say, the situation characterized by a plurality of identities and conceptions of the good, which is typical of most western contemporary societies.

The process of globalisation, on the one hand, and the increasing call for "embeddedness", on the other, seem to challenge the validity and meaning of traditional spheres of recognition, which were defined in terms of ethnic and cultural homogeneity; even theoretical and normative models, that have been built to solve problems of coexistence, seem to be going through a crisis that is affecting a number of dimensions of our political, social and cultural life. As things are, we are witnessing the meeting of different cultures in a single social context; a meeting which seems to involve a struggle between different elements which are "fighting" to obtain the public recognition of their values; a meeting which brings new and complex challenges of inclusion, toleration and peaceful coexistence.

I believe my analysis to have achieved at least one important result: it brings out the intrinsic unsteadiness of modern identity (this fact also implies persons’ continuous search for stability). The result of the analysis is that modern identity cannot be correctly described as something you achieve once and for all, but instead should be better conceived of as a project everyone should continually try to reflect on and think about. What we therefore see in most cases concerning modern identity is a tension towards certainty: in the face of the unsteadiness of our condition (i.e. in the face of the ever new challenges we must tackle, given all those different people we have to compare ourselves with, and given our struggle for the recognition of our identities), we attempt to reach states of steadiness; such states should be able to dilute or even solve our uncertainty and doubts.

I have assumed that it is possible to deal with uncertainty by means of some theoretical solution, and have tried to outline some theoretical and normative models, through which we might reach the best model - one that can satisfy the requests of recognition, connected to pluralism, and design institutions which are able to build a new political structure capable of filling the gap left by the crisis of the traditional model of the nation. I have therefore considered some of the most important theoretical models which are discussed in contemporary political philosophy.

I began with the so-called communitarian theory, in particular by considering Charles Taylor’s most important works. I argue that Taylor’s theory is be strictly bound to theoretical models characterized by cultural, ethical and political homogeneity; the main problem concerning these models is that they cannot really understand the specific challenges brought about by pluralism. Secondly, I considered the liberal and neutralist theory of Charles Larmore and John Rawls (in particular, Rawls’ view as expressed in his Political Liberalism). Here, the crucial point seems to be the idea of political neutrality: this idea is blind to the request of ‘social visibility’, for which - as I have said - minority groups fight. It follows that political neutrality condemns many minority groups to political insignificance. Thirdly, I considered Jurgen Habermas’s democratic theory. (Schematically, this should be placed, I think, in the middle - between communitarianism and neutralism.) The main achievement of Habermas’s theory is that of giving prominence to the problem of identity recognition and, at the very same time, paying attention to political neutrality, in particular when we have to face up to cultural or ethical pluralism. The theory conceives the political debate as shaped in an ethical way - for example, by putting emphasis on the importance of democratic dialogue (this is the idea that every citizen can participate through a system of political representation to a continuous exchange of information between the centre and the periphery).

Habermas’ theoretical model displays strong ethical attributes. However, we don’t have to think of consensus among citizens as something involving all dimensions of persons’ lives (that is to say, from persons’ conception of the good up to persons’ opinions about distributive justice). The consensus, which gives rise to social life, is merely a political one, a merely procedural consensus.

In conclusion, I felt the need to test the possibility of actually applying the democratic model in a context of pluralism. I therefore considered a complex case - that of the project of the European Union. I tried to outline a model of political integration, which could be also be respectful towards the ethical features of different national dimensions.