長文問題
【本文】
Through a combination of immigration and difference in birthrate among ethnic groups, many countries in western Europe are experiencing a change in their ethnic and cultural composition.
There are various reactions to these developments. At one end of the range are the radical cosmopolitans, who view nation states and national identities as dangerously old-fashioned. At the other end are the ethnic nationalists who wish to defend the purity of their own nation against all newcomers. My own position lies between these extremes. Immigration on a modest scale brings benefits in the form of diversity and new ideas, but the
pace of the present transformation in Europe worries me. I
believe it inevitably invites conflict.I also believe that nations are historical communities that have the right to shape their own collective future as they see fit, and to resist developments that gradually injure their identity and sense of continuity. I do not believe that national identity can, or should, be remade at will by a cosmopolitan elite to be consistent with its own vision of how the world should be. Many nations, especially in Europe, have deep roots and their existence promotes the global diversity that cosmopolitans claim to value. Many cosmopolitans agree that “oppressed peoples”such as the Palestinians have rights to a homeland and identity, but they deny such rights to the historic majorities of western Europe.
European nation states are facing a challenge on many different levels. It is not just an issue of immigration and ethnic transformation. Global economic developments in trade, production and finance have partly undermined the internal unity of their national economies, while political developments are challenging their sovereignty and internal democratic structures. It is not surprising that the people most hostile to immigration are also the most hostile to economic globalization and to supranational institutions.
They are raising, although often in anti-foreigner form, issues of community, identity and self-determination that should concern all democrats.
Benedict Anderson invented the term “imagined community” to describe a nation. Some writers have interpreted this term as practically equal to“imaginary”and therefore unreal. But this is false. A nation is no more imaginary than a language. Indeed,they are similar and related. Both have an abstract, symbolic aspect that establishes a connection between
people who do not personally know each other. Both have historical roots and, once established in the minds of the people, take on a life of their own.
A nation is a community and as such is to some extent exclusive. Its members share a sense of common identity and have special moral duties to each other. The national community also has moral duties to outsiders, although these are more limited than towards its own members. Not everyone in the community will share this sense of identity and duty to the same extent. Some people may hardly feel part of the nation at all because they are too self-absorbed or too cosmopolitan in attitude. Some people may identify strongly with certain features of the nation, but not with others. But these differences do not matter, as long as there is enough common ground to give the nation internal unity and preserve a sense of historical continuity.
本文の原文は、こちらのページから引用しました。
http://www.gakushuin.ac.jp/univ/adm/adm/test/ippan/05/q/1e.pdf
設問はこのページの問題とほぼ同じでした。
A,C,F,Hの問いについて、お願いします。自分は、イ,イ,ロ,ロと選んで見ました。特にAの問いが良く分かりませんでした。
