<section name="raw">
    <SEQUENTIAL>
      <record key="001" att1="001" value="LIB907706204" att2="LIB907706204">001   LIB907706204</record>
      <field key="037" subkey="x">englisch</field>
      <field key="050" subkey="x">Forschungsbericht</field>
      <field key="076" subkey="">Politikwissenschaft</field>
      <field key="079" subkey="y">http://www.ihs.ac.at/publications/pol/pw_08.pdf</field>
      <field key="079" subkey="z">Bauböck, Rainer, Integration in a Pluralistic Society (pdf)</field>
      <field key="100" subkey="">Bauböck, Rainer</field>
      <field key="103" subkey="">Department of Political Science, Institute for Advanced Studies</field>
      <field key="331" subkey="">Integration in a Pluralistic Society</field>
      <field key="335" subkey="">Strategies for the Future</field>
      <field key="403" subkey="">1. Ed.</field>
      <field key="410" subkey="">Wien</field>
      <field key="412" subkey="">Institut für Höhere Studien</field>
      <field key="425" subkey="">1993, May</field>
      <field key="433" subkey="">14 pp.</field>
      <field key="451" subkey="">Institut für Höhere Studien; Reihe Politikwissenschaft; 8</field>
      <field key="461" subkey="">Political Science Series</field>
      <field key="517" subkey="c">from the Table of Contents: Political Community and Normative Discourse; Cultural Boundaries and the Dynamics of Nationalism;</field>
      <field key="Rac" subkey="i">sm and Ethnic Closure; Liberalism, Democracy and Pluralism; Freedom of Movement and Boundaries of Political Communities;</field>
      <field key="544" subkey="">IHSPW 8</field>
      <field key="753" subkey="">Abstract: This essay deals with two questions: Is an internal pluralism of cultures compatible with the basic norms of a</field>
      <field key="pol" subkey="i">tical order supported by principles of liberalism and democracy? Can societies remain integrated at the level of</field>
      <field key="ter" subkey="r">itorialpolitical communities when they become increasingly mobile and open for international migration? Both questions are</field>
      <field key="ans" subkey="w">ered affirmatively, but with certain reservations against evolutionary optimism and cosmopolitan liberalism. Modernity has</field>
      <field key="unl" subkey="e">ashed a dynamic of cultural homogenisation within nation-states, and at the global level, too. This has not eliminated</field>
      <field key="cul" subkey="t">ural boundaries but rather turned them into political ones, charged with potentials for violent conflict. Liberal norms of</field>
      <field key="tol" subkey="e">rance are not strong enough to undermine the logics of nationalism and modern racism. New inclusive forms of democratic</field>
      <field key="cit" subkey="i">zenship ought to represent rather than restrain internal cultural plurality, and at the same time provide incentives for</field>
      <field key="bou" subkey="n">dary transgressions and against communal closure. With regard to the second question, there is a contradiction between the</field>
      <field key="acc" subkey="e">leration of international migrations on the one hand, and the need for stable and bounded membership in democratic polities</field>
      <field key="ont" subkey="h">e other. This conflict can be resolved by developing transnational forms of citizenship which are based on territorial</field>
      <field key="res" subkey="i">dence but allow for external, changing, and multiple forms of political membership. However, even if narrow conceptions of</field>
      <field key="nat" subkey="i">onal sovereignty can be overcome, the national institutionalisation of social rights and the global gaps of unequal social</field>
      <field key="cit" subkey="i">zenship still remain as the main obstacle for a universal right of free movement.;</field>
    </SEQUENTIAL>
  </section>