Article published in:
Linguistic Equality
Edited by Humphrey Tonkin
[Language Problems and Language Planning 39:3] 2015
► pp. 269–281

Zamenhof and the liberal-communitarian debate

| Princeton University
This paper proposes to analyze the early thinking of Ludwig Lazarus Zamenhof (1859–1917) in light of the so-called liberal/communitarian debate. In the early 1980s, the debate was launched: On the liberal side were proponents of a liberal self bearing rights, irrespective of identity (John Rawls) and on the communitarian side, champions of communities with prerogatives and purposes (Michael Sandel). But this debate has become in recent years a dialogue, each side challenging the other to assimilate its claims, be they ontological, political, or ethical. This paper argues that, a century earlier, Zamenhof was involved in a similar dialogue between liberalism and communitarianism, inventing a movement that could potentially balance human rights with notions of the good espoused by different communities. The political potential of Esperanto, however, was undermined (though not collapsed) by the Declaration of Boulogne, which eschewed deliberative debate and abjected religious and ethical ideals.
Keywords: John Rawls, Charles Taylor., Zamenhof, liberal-communitarian, Esperanto
Published online: 25 February 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.39.3.04sch
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Alcalde, Javier
2018.  In Language Policy and Linguistic Justice, ► pp. 65 ff. Crossref logo
Tonkin, Humphrey
2016. Invented cities, invented languages. Language Problems and Language Planning 40:1 ► pp. 85 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 05 january 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

References

References

Boulton, M.
(1960) Zamenhof: Creator of Esperanto. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Burke, E.
(1986 [1790]) Reflections on the revolution in France. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
De Schutter, H.
(2007) Language policy and political philosophy: On the emerging linguistic justice debate. Language Problems and Language Planning, 3(1), 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Etzioni, A.
(1995) Rights and the common good: The communitarian perspective. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
(1996) The responsive community: A communitarian perspective. American Sociological Review, 61(1), 1–11. http://​www​.gwu​.edu​/~ccps​/etzioni​/A243​.html DOI: CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gutmann, A.
(2003) Communitarian critics of liberalism. In D. Matravers and J. Pike (Eds.), Debates in contemporary political philosophy: An anthology (pp. 182–194). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Korĵenkov, A.
(2009) Homarano: La vivo, verkoj kaj ideoj de D-ro L. L. Zamenhof. Kaliningrad: Sezonoj; Kaunas: Litova Esperanto-Asocio.Google Scholar
Kymlicka, W.
(1995) Multicultural citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kymlicka, W., & Patten, A.
(Eds.) (2003) Language rights and political theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lins, U.
(1990) La danĝera lingvo (2nd ed.). Moscow: Progreso.Google Scholar
Okrent, A.
(2009) In the land of invented languages. New York: Spiegel and Grau.Google Scholar
Patten, A.
(2001) Political theory and language policy. Political Theory, 29(5), 691–715. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J.
(1971) A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(2003) The domain of the political and overlapping consensus. In D. Matravers and J. Pike (Eds.), Debates in contemporary political philosophy: An anthology (160–181). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sandel, M.
(1998) Liberalism and the limits of justice (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Liberalism and the limits of justice. In D. Matravers and J. Pike (Eds.), Debates in contemporary political philosophy: An anthology (pp. 140–159). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schor, E.
(2010) L. L. Zamenhof and the shadow people. Language Problems and Language Planning, 34(2), 183–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, C.
(1994) The politics of recognition. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition (pp. 25–73). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Cross-purposes: The liberal-communitarian debate. In D. Matravers and J. Pike (Eds.), Debates in contemporary political philosophy: An anthology (pp. 195–212). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tönnies, F.
(2001) Community and civil society [Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft]. (trans. J. Harris and M. Hollis). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://​site​.ebrary​.com​/lib​/princeton​/Doc​?id​=10062261 DOI: CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Universal Congress of Esperanto
(1905) Declaration of Boulogne. (Trans. unidentified.) E at I. http://​aktuale​.info​/en​/biblioteko​/dokumentoj​/1905
Van Parijs, P.
(2011) Linguistic justice for Europe and for the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walzer, M.
(2004) Politics and passion: Toward a more egalitarian liberalism. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
World Conference on Linguistic Rights
(1996) Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights. UNESCO, Paris. http://​www​.unesco​.org​/cpp​/uk​/declarations​/linguistic​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Zamenhof, L.L.
(1889) Doctor Esperanto’s international language (trans. R.H. Geoghegan). http://​www​.genekeyes​.com​/Dr​_Esperanto​.htmlGoogle Scholar
(2006 [1896]) Letter to [Nikolai] Borovko 1896 In A. Korĵenkov (Ed.), Mi estas homo (pp. 33–38).Kaliningrad: Sezonoj.Google Scholar
(2006 [1901]) Hilelismo. In A. Korĵenkov (Ed.), Mi estas homo (pp. 39–96). Kaliningrad: Sezonoj.Google Scholar