Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
FAQs
Figures
Introduction
References
All Topics
Philosophy
Political Philosophy

MULTICULTURALISM AND LIBERAL VALUES

Profile image of Nebojsa Nash JocicNebojsa Nash Jocic

2015, multiculturalism and liberal values

Abstract

I always had an impression that a single sentence uttered by Dr. Martin Luther King can be used as the main principle for describing the liberal democracy: ‘I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.’ The emphasis in his quote is clearly on two important points: multiculturalism (colour of their skin) and liberal values (content of their character). As many states have paraded multiculturalism as their first headline in establishing the trust of the electorate by announcing that the equality of different races, religions and cultures is their priority, I will argue that not enough has been done to bring them together in the homogenous and cohesive community. I will argue that calling those different racial, religious and cultural groups minorities is a wrong approach. The concept minority automatically suggests that there is a majority, as those two opposites co-substantiate one another. Although there can be a ‘healthy balance’ or unity between majority and minority (in reality or thought), when political emphasis is one the majority, the unity can be easily broken (it even further empowers the meaning of concept minority by evoking the fact that minority is always outnumbered and outvoted). The term minority can arouse feelings of weakness, marginalisation and humiliation. Instead I will call these different groups comprehensive groups. I will argue that achieving only co-existence of different comprehensive groups in the society is not enough to bring them under the ambarella of unity and cohesion. Instead I will argue that integration of different comprehensive groups represents more important task for the societal cohesion. Co-existence does not mean integration or unity; it is often culpable for misunderstanding, blame and animosity among comprehensive groups. And for that reason co-existence has to be protected but very stringent laws which keep comprehensive groups away from each other, not closer. It is the fear from the law that makes co-existence sustainable, not understanding and friendship of different groups that is the only way that can lead to complete integration. By integration I discern mutual understanding of different comprehensive groups that will help them to become closer to each other under the cover of liberal democratic society which guaranties their freedom and prosperity. Integration does not mean abandoning the traditions and cultural identity of comprehensive groups, but in accepting differences of others enriching their own and bonding together into the society that belongs to all equally. Regarding the second important point in Dr. King’s quote, liberal values as the content of one’s character, more is to be said. In this dissertation I will argue that multiculturalism is not only sustainable in a liberal society but that a society based on liberal values is the only place where multiculturalism can fully prosper, meaning that all cultural groups are free and equal and have the same rights and duties, without one dominating another. The fundamental values, on which liberal societies are built, such as individual freedom, equality and autonomy, have allowed equal treatment for all individuals as well as comprehensive groups whose doctrines include the full system of values according to which people should live their lives. Comprehensive groups may be religious, moral or philosophical and can also have opposing views on a good life. Some communitarian political philosophers, as well as some liberals, argue that liberal society cannot accommodate equal treatment for all individuals and comprehensive groups and that in fact, liberal society restricts their freedom. This is why some have insisted on different factors that matter more to social unity such as nationalism, patriotism, special rights for some groups etc. But, to offer freedom and equal rights to all individuals, liberal society cannot allow unrestricted, absolute freedom to all comprehensive groups, since that will mean compromising the same values on which it is built. No other political type of society has ever offered as much equality and prosperity to all different cultural groups within it, as liberal society does. Throughout history, there have been examples of multicultural states where it was a regular practice that a single ‘official’ or preferred culture or religion dominated all the others. It was a common practice of different empires, monarchies, republics, dictatorial and communist regimes. One culture and way of life or one religion has always been ‘official’, and therefore dominant whilst others have been suppressed, even outlawed, and have witnessed their members being expelled or prosecuted. In non-liberal societies, historically and even in this day and age, non-dominant cultural groups could have only existed under the conditions of oppression and marginalisation. In the following three chapters, I will develop the argument by starting with liberal values as the pillars of liberal society. Thanks to liberal values such as freedom and equality, and especially autonomy, different cultural groups can be fully open to all individuals who will voluntarily decide which community or association they will join and follow their teachings or way of life. Explaining the development of liberal values through political philosophy in the first chapter, I will discuss the liberal theories of John Locke (often credited as the founder of liberalism), Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, John Rawls, Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek. In the second chapter, I will introduce communitarian views and their criticisms of some liberal values. As communitarians insist on the community’s value over the individuals, their criticisms are directed mainly towards the individual autonomy. I will then discuss the issue of special rights demanded for different comprehensive groups (Iris Marion Young and Bhikhu Parekh), the criticism of Rawls’ theory of person (Michael Sandel), the defence of a nation (Roger Scruton), nationalism (David Miller) and patriotism (Alasdair MacIntyre) as opposites of the fundamentals of liberal society. In the third chapter I will present the defence of liberalism and prove that multiculturalism can only fully prosper in a liberal society. As Rawls suggested in his early work, what we aim for ourselves should be always allowed to everyone else. This means that that political freedom, free choice of religion and other comprehensive doctrines should be allowed to all as essential attributes of free and equal individuals. What is often happening is that cultural groups demand special rights in order to increase their powers over their members, therefore avoiding the liberal laws being implemented over the group regarding specific issues. I will also question the nature and validity of special rights and their purpose and necessity in a liberal society. I will support my thesis with John Stuart Mill, John Rawls, Brian Barry and Amy Guttmann’s views. The world as a community of societies is definitely going in the direction foreseen by liberal philosophers rather than their critics. Purely ethnic societies don’t exist anymore in the developed world. Multiculturalism was a simply unavoidable consequence of the industrial revolution, expansion of the world trade and global economics. Free transport of goods, people and ideas is not wishful thinking anymore, but rather the reality of a modern world. Progress has no national feelings, patriotic bondage or religious dominance. The world in which humanity expresses its potentials has changed the landscape of pragmatic and romantic political theorists. Empires have collapsed, dictators have failed, and democracy has created new political conditions in which people as individuals have found their place and justified the current national and ever-increasing global politics. Politics that are not justified by the majority of citizens and cultural groups will undoubtedly fail. In order to be justified they have to be liberal. They have to guarantee freedom and equality to all, regardless of their religious, philosophical, moral or other doctrines.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

How does the integration of diverse cultural groups enhance societal cohesion?add

The study argues that integration, rather than just co-existence, fosters mutual understanding between comprehensive groups, promoting unity. Effective integration enables individuals to preserve their cultural identities while contributing to a cohesive society.

What undermines the concept of minorities in multicultural societies?add

Labeling groups as minorities reinforces feelings of marginalization and dominance, thus weakening societal cohesion. The paper advocates for recognizing these groups as comprehensive groups to promote equality and inclusion.

Why is liberalism essential for the prosperity of multiculturalism?add

The research indicates that liberal societies uniquely facilitate equality and freedom for all cultural groups, enhancing their rights and duties. Historical examples, like those from communist regimes, illustrate the failure of non-liberal societies to support cultural diversity.

What challenges do special rights pose within liberal frameworks?add

The study finds that special rights can risk undermining individual equality and create barriers to integration. While claiming cultural preservation, special rights can conflict with liberal laws protecting individual freedoms.

How do communitarian critiques fall short concerning liberalism's pluralism?add

Communitarian perspectives often prioritize communal over individual rights, risking polarization within multicultural societies. This approach contradicts liberalism's fundamental tenet of treating all individuals equally, regardless of their cultural affiliations.

Figures (1)

Related papers

Reviews: Constructing Inequality: Richard Shweder, Martha Minow and Hazel Rose Markus, eds, Engaging Cultural Differences: The Multicultural Challenge in Liberal Democracies. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2002, 485 pp., ISBN 9780871547958, US$22.95
ESWARAPPA KASI

Int Sociol, 2010

View PDFchevron_right
Liberalism, and the limits of pluralism
Raphael Cohen-Almagor

Terrorism and Political Violence, 1995

View PDFchevron_right
Liberalism, Tolerance and Multiculturalism: The Bounds of Liberal Intervention in Affairs of Minority Cultures
Raphael Cohen-Almagor
View PDFchevron_right
Liberalism and the Limits of Multiculturalism
Raphael Cohen-Almagor

Journal of Canadian Studies, 2001

One of the most pressing issues facing liberal democracies today is the politicization of ethnocultural diversity. Minority cultures are demanding greater public recognition of their distinctive identities and greater freedom and opportunity to retain and develop their distinctive cultural practices. In response to these demands, new and creative mechanisms are being adopted in many countries for accommodating difference. This essay discusses some of the issues raised by these demands, focussing in particular on the difficulties that arise when the minority seeking accommodation is illiberal. Undoubtedly, ethnocultural relations are often full of complications that defy simple categories or easy answers; however, we can make some progress if we draw some distinctions between different kinds of groups and different kinds of group rights. This essay probes the nature of liberal tolerance and then delineates the limits of state intervention by looking at some troubling practices and analyzing pertinent court judgements.

View PDFchevron_right
Liberal Citizenship in a Multicultural Society –
Tahmina Yesmin Shova

2017

This thesis demonstrates a comparative and analytic discussion of citizenship idea based on two distinct liberal doctrines of two contemporary political philosophers: Brian Barry and William Galston. Barry’s egalitarian liberalism argues for ‘common citizenship’ notion in order to promote liberty and equal treatment of all individuals irrespective of any social differences. On the other hand, ‘liberal pluralist citizenship’ of William Galston’s signifies his liberal pluralism to mitigate cultural and religious conflicts of liberal democratic society. The fundamental disagreements among these liberal approaches over the issues of public recognition of group rights and restricted state authority are analysed in this study. Finally, by analysing both the liberal positions under the challenge of multicultural issues the author defends Galston’s liberal idea and judges it as more convincing than Barry’s liberal approach.

View PDFchevron_right
Liberal State and Multiculturalism : Confrontation or Compromise ?
V Bijukumar

2020

Classical liberalism with its genesis from Enlightenment took a negative approach to cultural diversity and minority rights. It does not recognize identities based on ethnicity, gender, cultural, nationality. Modern liberalism’s commitment to cultural diversity and minority rights emerged out of criticisms from within and outside. Modern liberalism recognizes and accommodates cultural diversity through institutional and policy mechanisms. However, modern liberal states are not free from tensions and conflicts. The competitive demand for accommodation and recognition by various communities and groups lead to instability in contemporary liberal democracies.

View PDFchevron_right
DEBATING LIBERALISM AND COMMUNITARIANISM: FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF MINORITY RIGHTS
JAGAN NATHAM

TOWARDS EXCELLENCE , 2021

The paper is an attempt to examine liberalism. It further evaluates the interrelation between liberalism and Communitarianism to understand the importance the minority rights and their dignity. The paper also proposes to understand Rawls's theory of justice. The paper also attempts to bring out the limitations of liberalism. Importantly the paper focuses explicitly on Justice. Further, it interrogates several stages of minority rights. It further examines the significance of participatory democracy which strive towards democratization. It also focuses upon multiculturalism to conceptualize the relevance of group rights. The paper discusses the approaches to minority-related issues. To examine critically, the paper intends to assess theoretical interventions and the relevance of communitarianism and the importance of minority rights in India.

View PDFchevron_right
Nationalism, Multiculturality and Liberal Political Theory: Some Reflections
SHIBASHIS CHATTERJEE

Jadavpur Journal of International Relations, 2002

View PDFchevron_right
Liberalism and Citizenship
Phil Triadafilopoulos

Encyclopedia of Citizenship Studies , 2024

How have the contending logics of citizenship and liberalism resolved themselves in the context of existing liberal-democratic states, especially as regards immigration and the treatment of ethnic, racial, and religious minority groups? In practice, liberalism has tempered its universality, adapting itself to the demands of citizenship and democratic self-determination. In eras and contexts in which race and ethnicity have formed the basis of self-determining democratic peoples, liberals have interpreted liberalism accordingly. During the era of colonialism, the enjoyment of individual rights and autonomy was reserved for individuals that had reached an advanced stage of “civilization.” Racialized subjects of imperial powers were denied rights granted to their “white” counterparts. More generally, throughout the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries, liberalism conformed itself to the exclusionary demands of scientific racism, colonization, and white supremacy. It was only after the Second World War that liberalism parted ways with “scientific racism” and shifted toward a more universalizing ethic. This movement, catalyzed by the postwar reaction to Nazi atrocities, decolonization, and the concurrent emergence of a global human rights regime, helped break down discriminatory barriers to immigrants and ethnic, racial, and religious minorities in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Arguably this liberalizing process continues to this day, expanding rights to gay, lesbian, transgender, and non-binary individuals, and others hitherto excluded from the mainstream because of their sexuality. Yet, we are also witnessing a backlash against liberal multiculturalism. Since the late 1990s, and especially since the turn of the millennium, governments in liberal-democratic states have demanded more in the way of integration from immigrants, especially those seeking to attain citizenship through naturalization. Toleration—a core liberal precept—has come under fire, as critics maintain that the accommodation of “non-Western” cultures has eroded the rights of sexual minorities, women, children, and animals, harming liberal progress. The principal target of those opposed to liberal multiculturalism is Islam. Immigration, integration, and citizenship policies targeting Muslims reflect not only Islamophobia and racism, but also a belief that Muslims pose an existential threat to liberal democracy. Liberal states have therefore taken to employing illiberal means to preserve liberal values, such as gender equality and the separation of church and state.

View PDFchevron_right
Theme: Radicalism and Compromise Is multiculturalism bad for women? Radicalism and compromise on multiculturalism, group-rights, forms of liberalism and compatibilities between cultures
Gianluigi Segalerba

PDF-PowerPoint presentation of the talk I gave on Thursday, 1st February, at the III Braga Colloquium in the History of Moral and Political Philosophy, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, 1st – 2nd February 2018, Theme: Radicalism and Compromise Abstract Is multiculturalism bad for women? Radicalism and compromise on multiculturalism, group-rights, forms of liberalism and compatibilities between cultures In my contribution, whose title refer to the article of Susan Moller Okin „Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?“ , I would like to deal with different position on multiculturalism expressing opinions in favour or against the compatibility of multiculturalism with individual rights and, likewise, expressing opinions whether rights must be conceded only to individuals or whether groups too should be received particular rights. Radical position for or against multiculturalism and its implications are accompanied by more moderate positions. For my investigation I will refer mainly, besides the mentioned study, of Susan Moller Okin to the following studies: Doriane L. Coleman’s “Individualizing Justice through Multiculturalism: The Liberalsʼ Dilemma”, Seyla Benhabib’s “The Claims of Culture. Equality and Diversity in the Global Era”, Will Kymlicka’s “Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights” and “Multicultural Odysseys: Navigating the New International Politics of Diversity”, Ronald Dworkin’s “Liberalism”, Charles Taylor’s, “The Politics of Recognition”, Chandran Kukathas’ “Cultural Toleration”; Brian Barry’s “Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism”. The analysis von Moller Okin will explain which problems are represented by the integration, into a liberal society, of illiberal cultures for the rights of women: the study will offer us a first instrument in order to understand which problems every theory of integration will have to solve, if a correct integration between different groups in the same society is to be reached. The analysis of Coleman will introduce us in the interesting problem of the cultural defences and of the problems that the strategy of the cultural defences poses for the American and not only the American tribunals: Is a pluralistic interpretation of the law in a right state to be accepted, as those who sustain cultural defences want to, or is a pluralistic interpretation of the law to be refused? The analysis of Coleman gives us highly valuable elements in order to understand the problems posed by some interpretation of multiculturalism for the equal protection clause. The comparison between different form of interpretations of liberalism in Dworkin, Taylor, Kukathas and Barry will give us the possibility of discussing form of radicalism in the interpretation of liberalism: for instance, Barry’s radical interpretation of liberalism as a theory defending the autonomy of the person strongly opposes Kukathas likewise radical interpretation of liberalism as meaning tolerance: Barry excludes every form of diminution of individual liberty and of diminution of protection of the individual liberty in his interpretation of liberalism and in the connected duty assigned to the state as to the protection of the fundamental rights of the individuals, whereas Kukathas considers the state as only being an aggregation between groups without having, therefore, any authority of coercion in relation to the groups: since liberalism is tolerance, the rules holding in the different groups ought in the opinion of Kukathas to be tolerated, even if these rule are oppressive, intolerant and illiberal for the members of the group itself. The opposition between Dworkin and Taylor will introduce us into the opposition between a procedural and a substantive interpretation of liberalism. Finally, Kymlicka’s rather moderate liberal theory of group rights, on the basis of which the acknowledgment of rights to groups and, therefore, not only reserved to individuals is to be interpreted as an extension and natural development of the liberal tradition, will be compared with the strong and radical criticism expressed by Barry in relation to every form of group rights. My opinion will be that liberalism has to be interpreted as a theory of autonomy and of defence of the autonomy of the individuals. The primacy ought to be done to individual and to the defence of the individuals against groups. Notwithstanding, I believe that group rights are indispensable in a geopolitical dimension in order to protect minority groups from abuse perpetrated by majority groups.

View PDFchevron_right

References (18)

  1. -Kukathas, C. 1997. 'Multiculturalism as fairness: Will Kymlicka's Multicultural Citizenship' in Journal of Political Philosophy, 406-27
  2. -Kymlicka, W. 2002. 'Contemporary Political Philosophy', (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
  3. -Kymlicka, W. 1995. 'Multi-Cultural Citizenship', (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
  4. -Macintyre, A. 2011. 'After Virtue', (London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc)
  5. -Macintyre, A. 'Is patriotism a Virtue?' in 'Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy' 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press)
  6. -Mill, J. S. 2005. 'On Liberty' (New York: Cosimo)
  7. -Miller, D. 2003. 'In defence of Nationality' in 'Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy' edited by Derek Matraveres and John Pike, (Oxon: Routledge)
  8. -Mulhall, S. and Swift, A. 1992. 'Liberals and Communitarians', (Oxford, Blackwell Publishing)
  9. -Nozick. R. 1974. 'Anarchy, State and Utopia', (Oxford, Basil Blackwell Ltd)
  10. -Parekh, B. 2003. 'Contemporary Liberal Response to Diversity' in 'Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy' edited by Derek Matraveres and John Pike, (Oxon: Routledge)
  11. -Rawls, J. 1993. 'Political Liberalism' (New York: Columbia University Press 2005, first published)
  12. -Rawls, J. 1971. 'A Theory of Justice', (Cambridge, Harvard University Press)
  13. -Rawls, J. 1993. 'Political Liberalism', (New York, Columbia University Press, 2005, first published in)
  14. -Sandel, M. 2003. 'Liberalism and Limits of Justice', 1982 in 'Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy' ed. Derek Matraveres and John Pike, (Oxon: Routledge) 66
  15. -Scruton, R. 2003. 'In Defence of Nation' in 'Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy' eds. Derek Matraveres and John Pike, (Oxon: Routledge)
  16. -Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/multiculturalism/, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/autonomy-moral/, viewed April-May 2015
  17. -Weinstock, D.M. 2002. 'Citizenship and Pluralism', in The Blackwell Guide to Social and Political Philosophy, ed. Robert l. Simon, (Oxford: Blackwell)
  18. -Young, I.M. 2001. 'Polity and Group Difference' in 'Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy' ed. Derek Matraveres and John Pike, (Oxon: Routledge)

Related papers

Liberal principles alone cannot provide optimal social justice or cohesion in diverse societies.
Eva Janique

Liberal principles alone cannot provide optimal social justice or cohesion in diverse societies. Discuss.

View PDFchevron_right
LIBERAL MULTICULTURALISM: AN OXYMORON? 1
Ranjoo S Herr

The Philosophical Forum, 2007

Will Kymlicka argues that societal culture matters to liberalism because it contributes to its members’ freedom. If so, multiculturalism that advocates group rights to sustain minority societal cultures in the liberal West is in fact entailed by liberalism, the core value of which is individual freedom. “Freedom,” then, functions as the main bridge between liberalism and multiculturalism in Kymlicka’s position. Kymlicka is correct that societal culture contributes to its members’ freedom by providing them with meaningful options. The sense of freedom enabled by culture, however, is not equivalent to the notion of freedom advocated by mainstream liberalism, liberal autonomy. I argue in this paper that Kymlicka’s liberal multiculturalism is an inconsistent and therefore implausible theoretical construct because Kymlicka unwittingly equivocates on “freedom” in using its two distinct senses interchangeably.

View PDFchevron_right
Liberal Ethnicity: Beyond Liberal Nationalism and Minority Rights
Eric Kaufmann

This paper tries to make the case for a variant of the good life based on a synthesis of liberalism and ethnicity. Liberal communitarianism's treatment of ethnicity tends to fall under the categories of either liberal culturalism or liberal nationalism. Both, it is argued, fail to come to terms with the reality of ethnic community, preferring instead to define ethnicity in an unrealistic, cosmopolitan manner. A further problem concerns the tendency of these theories to focus on political and cultural questions, while ignoring the deeper issues of ethnic boundary-maintenance and mytho-symbolic particularism. In contrast, this essay squarely confronts four practices that are central to the reality of ethnic community: symbolic boundary-maintenance; exclusive and inflexible ethnic mythomoteurs; the use of ancestry and race as group boundary markers; and the desire among national groups to maintain their ethnic character. This paper argues that none of these ethnic practices need contravene the tenets of liberalism so long as they are reconstructed in such a way as to minimise entry criteria and decouple national ethnicity from the state. The notion of liberal ethnicity thereby constitutes an important synthesis of liberal and communitarian ends.

View PDFchevron_right
Just, Reasonable Multiculturalism Theory A Liberal Perspective
Raphael Cohen-Almagor

Politics and Rights Review , 2024

In my book Just, Reasonable Multiculturalism, I argue for the feasibility of harmonizing liberalism with multiculturalism, drawing upon the intellectual legacy of thinkers like Kant, Mill, Rawls, Kymlicka, and Habermas. My theory of just, reasonable multiculturalism suggests that liberal democracy can coexist with the rich tapestry of cultural and religious diversity, posing the challenge of determining the liberal state’s legitimate scope of intervention against illiberal cultural practices.

View PDFchevron_right
Democracy and Multiculturalism
Raphael Cohen-Almagor

One of the most pressing issues facing liberal democracies today is the politicisation of ethnocultural diversity. Minority cultures are demanding greater public recognition of their distinctive identities, and greater freedom and opportunity to retain and develop their distinctive cultural practices. In response to these demands, new and creative mechanisms are being adopted in many countries for accommodating these differences. This chapter discusses some of the issues raised by these demands, focusing in particular on the difficulties, which arise in North America and Israel when the minority seeking accommodation is illiberal. Historically, liberal democracies have hoped that the protection of basic individual rights would be sufficient to accommodate ethnocultural minorities. And indeed the importance of individual civil and political rights in protecting minorities cannot be underestimated. Freedom of association, religion, speech, mobility, and political organisation enable individuals to form and maintain groups and associations, to adapt these groups to changing circumstances, and to promote their views and interests to the wider population. However, it is increasingly accepted that these common rights of citizenship are not sufficient to accommodate all forms of ethnocultural diversity. In some cases, certain ‘collective’ or ‘group-differentiated’ rights are also required. And indeed there is a clear trend within liberal democracies toward the greater recognition of such group-differentiated rights. Yet this trend raises a number of important issues, both theoretical and practical. How are these group rights related to individual rights? What should we do if group rights come into conflict with individual rights? Can a liberal democracy allow minority groups to restrict the individual rights of their members, or should it insist that all groups uphold liberal principles? These are genuinely difficult questions. Ethnocultural relations are often full of complications, which defy simple categories or easy answers. However, we can make some progress if we draw some distinctions between different kinds of groups, and different kinds of ‘group rights’. In this essay we first make a distinction between two forms of cultural pluralism: multination states and polyethnic states, and then make a further distinction between internal restrictions and external protections. The concept of internal restrictions concerns the rights of a group against dissenting members of the same group; whereas the concept of external protections concerns the rights of a group against the society at large. We proceed by probing the nature of liberal tolerance and then delineate the limits of state intervention.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Political Philosophy
  • Political Liberalism
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved