Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, Jürgen Habermas has provoked a conversation about some fundamental questions in public discourse. In the wake of numerous terrorist incidents, he has interrogated the polarisation of worldviews that splits societies into religious and secular camps. Habermas identified the need for a ‘postsecular’ discourse within which religious and secular contributions can learn from each other, and forge the solidarities that are necessary if violence is to be avoided. Although he suggested that fundamentalism in some parts of the world may reflect ‘failures in decolonization’(Habermas, 2006, p 1), he has confessed in another context that his own proposals may not be readily applicable in settler colonial contexts. He seems to suggest that Indigenous cultures might need to be considered ‘external to egalitarian law’ in Western societies like the US, Canada and Australia (Habermas, 2008, pp 304-5). This chapter investigates some of the ‘failures in decolonisation’ in Australia, and also considers new opportunities that may be enabled by postsecular discourse. I argue that a political ethic of reconciliation focused on restorative justice can be informed by a variety of religious traditions, and that such a political ethic can address the gaps created by utilitarian policies. Along with Habermas, we may acknowledge at the outset that there is no easy way to integrate Indigenous cultures within democratic systems of government. The utilitarian norms that embrace the wellbeing of the majority, and which commonly underpin democratic arrangements, are manifestly inadequate when it comes to the protection of minority interests. Similarly, policies designed to address social disadvantage rarely stretch far enough into the past to address the historic injustices committed against Aboriginal peoples in settler colonial contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".