: A liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Kymlicka, Will. (1995). New York: Oxford University Press.
Chapter 1. Introduction (1-9)
In his view, cultural diversity world-wide gives significant rise to clashes between majorities and minorities over languages, regional autonomy, political representation, curriculum, etc. and imposes the greatest challenge to democracies today. Taking a liberal stance of minority rights, he distances himself from the post-war liberals. He criticizes that post-war liberals framed minority rights within an extension of universal human rights as demonstrated in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and at the same time defined the rights only in private spheres; post-war liberals thus neglected public recognition of minority groups and some of them focused on anti-discriminatory action as a temporary remedy.
Refuting this traditional liberal approach, Kymlicka states that minority rights are required to obtain basic human rights because minorities are more vulnerable to social injustice. He argues in addition that traditional human rights, such as freedom of speech and the right to vote, do not solve problems such as language policies, power distribution among governments, etc. which arise in diverse societies. Thus for Kymlicka, critical is to supplement traditional human rights with minority rights by giving minority groups a permanent political identity and group specific rights or 'special status' to ensure culture difference. Minority rights, however, are not unlimited to Kymlicka. He argues that minority rights are limited by principles of individual liberty, democracy and social justice. (Thereby he proposes two concepts, internal restriction and external protection.)
Chapter 2. The politics of multiculturalism (10-33)
For Kymlicka, it is important to distinguish two patterns of cultural diversity: multinational and polyethnic. By nation he means "a historical community, more or less institutionally complete, occupying a given territory or homeland, sharing a distinct language and culture" (p. 11) closely related to a people or a culture. In this view, a country that consists of more than one nation is not a nation-state but a multination state. Polyethnicity, on the other hand, is an outcome of immigration. According to Kymlicka, immigrant groups neither occupy homelands nor ask to set up a parallel society; instead, they usually integrate into the dominant culture(s) and increasingly assert the rights to preserve their ethnicity. Thus he defines Canada and the United State as both multinational and polyethnic.
Kymlicka asserts that multiculturalism arise from national and ethnic differences. According to him, the confusion between the two concepts led to criticism of the Canadian government's multiculturalism policy; while French Canadians think that the policy reduces the status of Quebecers to the level of immigrants, other people fear that the policy treats immigrant groups as nations. According to Kymlicka, neither is justifiable because the multiculturalism policy supports polyethnicity within the English and French cultures. [The criticism is not all, there is an inherent problem in the official policy of multiculturalism. So isn't there any mentioning of Aboriginal rights in multicultural policy?] In this category, African-Americans, who neither form a nation nor are fully integrated into the society as immigrants, and refugees, who disassociate themselves from their own homeland and culture, are exceptional.
Kymlicka proposes three fundamental forms of group-specific rights: self-government rights, polyethnic rights and special representation rights. In the case of Quebec, Kymlicka states:
One difficulty in a federal system is maintaining the balance between centralization and decentralization. While most Quebecers want an even more decentralized division of powers, most English Canadians favour a stronger central government. One of the challenges facing Canada, therefore, is finding an acceptable form of 'asymmetrical federalism' which grants Quebec powers not given to other provinces. Other federal states face a similar problem. (p. 28)
Chapter 3. Individual Rights and Collective Rights. (34-48)
Kymlicka forcefully argues that group-differentiated rights are consistent with liberal principles of individual freedom and equality.
Kymlicka distinguishes two forms of claims that an ethnic or national group make to protect the stability of their own communities. They are internal restriction and external protection. According to Kymlicka, while minority groups tend to suppress internal dissent ('internal restriction'), they also demand protection from external forces. For Kymlicka, not all the claims are acceptable. Within a group, individual rights take a precedence to group rights. He states:
[L]iberals can and should endorse certain external protections, where they promote fairness between groups, but should reject internal restrictions which limit the right of group members to question and revise traditional authorities and practices. (p. 37)
Kymlicka casts a new perspective on the debate on the primacy of individual or collective rights by proposing the concept of group-differentiated rights/citizenship. According to him, group-differentiated rights can be accorded to members of a group, to the group as a whole, or even to a province/state where the group forms the majority. For instance, the rights of French Canadians to use French in federal courts is a right accorded to individuals because language rights are one component of the national rights, which immigrant groups are not granted. The Indian rights to hunt and fish are accorded to the group, not individuals. The rights of Quebecers to promote their culture is accorded to the province of Quebec, whose citizens are predominantly Quebecers.
According to Kymlicka, the conflation of group-differentiated rights with collective rights has brought a fatal impact on the current debate over individual and group rights. In this regard, he contests that the members of different groups are to be accorded different rights which depend on their group-differentiated citizenship. For Kymlicka, justice between the members of different groups is relative to the groups to which the individuals belong.
Chapter 6. Justice and Minority Rights (107-130)
Kymlicka contests that the ideal of 'benign neglect' that states should not interfere with maintenance of of particular cultures is a myth because majority cultures and minority cultures do not have a level playing field in cultural market-place: states support the majority culture inevitably and systematically through languages, public holidays, state symbols, etc. whereas minority groups face disadvantages that the majorities do not. Thus, he calls for a political recognition of these minority groups and a provision of differential treatment to differential needs in order to sustain fairness among members of minority groups.
Kymlicka differentiates minority national rights from polyethnic rights. For Kymlicka, minority national rights are primarily to eliminate inequalities inherited to members of the minority groups and to maintain the particularities of their cultures under the theme of 'external protection', whereas polyethnic rights are rather limited to promoting equal access to the mainstream culture(s), thus enforcing common rights of citizenship among immigrants, by providing language training, for instance. [For Kymlicka, immigrants rights are very limited, just comprising a cultural mosaic and conformity to mainstream. HERE COMES THE CRITICISM.]
Kymlicka, however, does not reject entirely the idea of cultural market-place. He argues that, once national minority cultures are externally protected through language rights and territory autonomy, members of the groups should determine internally the character of the culture based on the rule of cultural market-place. [CRITICISM: what about in case there exists inherent patriarchal orders and internal unjust social issues? Are these seen problems they have internally within their own culture? Culturalization...]
With respect to minority national rights, in particular, Kymlicka stresses that the view on justice, that is, achieving fairness through differential external protections, is in fact attuned to a liberal egalitarian theory that emphasizes the importance of rectifying unchosen inequalities as Rawls argued. [TALK ABOUT RAWLS]
As to current argument over cultural diversity and its diffuse benefit to all, Kymlicka states that the argument itself is not sufficient to justify minority rights, arguing, "the diversity argument supplements, but cannot replace, justice arguments based on equality or historical agreement" (p. 123). The reasons include that diffuse benefit is rather by-product of national rights and promoting bilingual education for diversity does not explain special language training offered to immigrants.
Chapter 9. The Ties that Bind. (p. 173-192)
Kymlicka argues that citizenship is important to a liberal democracy because it provides a level of civic virtue and public-spiritedness to create a sense of solidarity across cultures and nations. He questions whether citizenship can be still achieved in the situation where rights are distributed on the basis of group membership.
Kymlicka argues that the common rights of citizenship, originally defined by the majority, can be extended to culturally excluded minority groups such as immigrants, black, women, religious minorities, gay and lesbian, only if group-differentiated rights are granted so that they can feel accepted to the community.
Kymlick contests that polyethnic rights do not tribalize society, but instead integrate members of ethnic groups into a political community as a citizen. He explains the reasons for the public backlash against multiculturalism: first, it is because a racist fear of non-White immigrant groups. Secondly, it is because entrenched conflicts between national or racial groups are displaced onto relatively modest demands of ethnic groups.
Kymlicka notes that self-government rights among nations challenge the integrative function of citizenship more seriously than polyethnic rights. In this regard, he suggests that it is necessary to take national identities as givens to some extent. In particular observing ethnonationalist conflict around the world, he argues that imposing common citizenship on national minorities is likely to promote alienation and increase conflict in a multination state like Canada.
Kymlicka asks about the basis of social unity in a multination state. He argues that sharing principles of justice is not enough and there should be the idea of a shared identity; however, shared identity comes mostly from commonality of history, language and perhaps religion, which are not shared in a multination state. The only viable solution for him is to accommodate and nurture national identities within the larger polity.
Book Reviews: Multicultural Citizenship. By Charles Taylor. (The American Political Science Review, Vol. 90, No. 2 (Jun., 1996), p. 408)
Taylor values highly some philosophical and political distinctions made by Kymlicka. First, the demarcation of multinational from polyethnic situations.
According to Kymlicka, a multinational state is the home of multiple nations, which claim self-determination and the ownership of a defined territory and share a distinct language or culture. A polyethnic state is, on the other hand, characterized with various immigrants who entered a society with their own distinct language and culture but without the intention of forming nations; however, they usually integrate into the dominant society while simultaneously demanding protection for their cultural preservation. (Chapter 2)
For Taylor, this distinction is important in Canada, where Quebec and aboriginal nations as national groups and voluntary immigrants as ethnic groups coexist. Taylor notes that the confusion between the two contexts has led fatal discussions by "attempting to treat Quebecois as immigrants or fearing that immigrants might demand the same things as Quebecois" (p. 408).
Taylor also points out that Kymlicka, taking a liberal stance, emphasizes that liberals neither are blind to group rights--in fact, he writes that group rights are important to supplement individual rights (chapter 1. politics of vernacular)--nor deny justice. Responding to Kymlicka concerning justice from a liberal perspective--in which the autonomy of all individuals is central, Taylor states that autonomy can be achieved in a condition where we are able to conceive what the good life is for us and this thinking can only be possible when we have a 'home' culture. Thus, he stresses that liberalism should protect and promote minority cultures that are under great pressure in the larger society if it attempts to ensure equality in autonomy.
Taylor points out internal restriction and external protection as the third crucial distinction that Kymlicka made. By internal restriction, Kymlicka means that group rights can be protected as long as they do not enforce conformity among their group members; by external protection, he means that minority culture should be protected against majority pressure.
Showing posts with label liberal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberal. Show all posts
Friday, February 5, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Will Kymlicka
Immigration, Multiculturalism, and the Welfare State
Will Kymlicka & Keith Banting (2006). Ethics & International Affairs, 20(3), 281-304.
In spite of a increasingly prevailing public assumption of a potential trade-off between inclusive immigration policies and the maintenance of a robust welfare state, Kymlicka and Banting argue that there Besides the issues of security and terrorism that prevail in many circles about massive immigration, Kymlicka and Banting point out that there is little evidence about the impact of increasing ethnic diversity on the welfare state and the claim of an inevitable trade-off between them may be premature.
Kymlicka and Banting defines two concerns in this debate: (1) A growing heterogeneity/ethnic diversity in society will inevitably loosen national solidarity across ethnic lines, thus resulting in making more difficult achieving redistribution of resources or sustaining a robust welfare state (the heterogeneity/redistribution trade-off) (2) Multiculturalism policies that promote recognition of each culture will exacerbate weaken the politics of (economic) redistribution (the recognition/redistribution trade-off).
In the first case, the authors state that a general acceptance of the trade-off is generally drawn from case studies done in the United State, where scholars concluded that there is a universal tendency for people to resist interethnic redistribution. The authors argue that the studies are deeply rooted in the country's peculiar history of slavery and segregation, thus providing little evidence for a potential erosion of Canadian welfare state as a result of a growing ethnic diversity that new immigrants bring into the society.
Secondly, the authors observe the debate even among multiculturalism defendants over the dilemma between the politics of recognition and the politics of redistribution in the process of their commitment to social justice and equality. In this regard, the author state that this concern, unlike the first one, is not based on empirical studies but entirely speculative and conjectural.
Within this context, the authors conclude their research on the trade-offs as follows:
"There is no evidence here that countries with large immigrant populations have greater difficulty in sustaining and enhancing their historic welfare commitments. But large changes do seem to matter. It is the pace of social change rather than the fact of ethnic diversity per se that stands out here as politically unsettling." (p. 293)
Examining change in social spending as a proportion of GDP and change in the redistributive impact of taxes and transfers between 1980 and 2000 in twenty-one countries, the authors conclude that "the countries with the strongest immigrant multiculturalism policies did better than the other groups, providing a hint that perhaps multiculturalism policies may actually ease possible tensions between heterogeneity and redistribution." (p. 295)
They support this conclusion with a similar study conducted with indigenous peoples and national minorities: there is no evidence a politics of recognition that entails a trade-off with a politics of redistribution. Instead, the authors suggest that it is state management and politics that turns ethnic diversity into a source of erosion of the national welfare state and solidarity and trust among peoples.
The authors delineates three ways in which multiculturalism policies promote solidarity: (1) in contrast to claims made by critiques of multiculturalism, multiculturalism policies can help to combat the stereotypes and stigmatizations that currently erode feelings of solidarity across ethnic and racial lines. (2) the policies should be supplemented with nation-building policies, such as language training programs, citizenship education in the schools, the shared celebration of national heroes and holidays, citizenship ceremonies for immigrants, and so on. (3) What's more, these policies should be sustained with the national adoption of multiculturalism as a national identity. In this regards, the authors write, "Multiculturalism arguably plays this role in Canada. Affirming multiculturalism has become part of what it means to ‘‘be Canadian,’’ and, more specifically, part of what it means to be a ‘‘good Canadian" (p. 301). Thus the authors call attention to multiculturalism as an essential Canadian nationhood.
The authors' nation-centered narrative seems to stem from their perspective on nation solidarity:
"On the one hand, our findings cast doubt on pessimistic claims about the conflict between diversity and solidarity, and this should indirectly lend support to the struggles of noncitizens, making greater space for an open-minded consideration of their claims on their own merits. On the other hand, however, our findings do not cast doubt on the importance of national solidarity, and our own best guess is that those countries that have done well in combining diversity and solidarity have done so by linking immigration and multiculturalism to the promotion of national citizenship." (p. 303-304)
Liberal Nationalism and Cosmopolitan Justice. (2006). In Seyla Benhabib, Another Cosmopolitanism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kymlicka states, "at the heart of citizenship rights are individual liberties" (p. 128).
He regards the nation-state as the privileged locus for political participation, self-government, and solidarity. Looking at the model of citizenship developed within the liberal democratic political system in the West in the past two centuries, Kymlicka points out that this political reordering was nearly universal and embarked on "'national-building' policies aimed at the diffusion of a common national identity, culture, and language throughout the territory of the state" (p. 129)
He argues that, while this model of "liberal nationhood" succeeded in ensuring democracy, individual rights and economic prosperity, it involved injustice against immigrants, indigenous or regional minorities and neighboring nation-states.
Refuting the thought that these injustices are not intrinsic to liberal nationhood, Kymlicka contests that they are inherent risks of the pursuit of liberal nationhood and in fact responsible for many harms executed in the twenties century. In this dilemma, Kymlicka argues two options: (1) taming liberal nationhood approach, by adopting a multicultural concept for immigrants, a multination concept for indigenous and substate minorities to condone autonomy, and geopolitical agreements with neighboring nation-states. or (2) transcending liberal nation by building postnational or cosmopolitan citizenship.
In his response to Benhabib's call for cosmopolital norms instead of liberal nationhood, Kymlicka argues that the two concepts are commensurate. He states:
[O]ne concept of the nature and function of cosmopolitan norms is precisely to pomote (a tamed form of) liberal nationhood, and that this conception is conceptually coherent, politically feasible, and morally progressive. (p. 131)
Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizenship. (2001). New York: Oxford University Press.
For Kymlicka, crucial in the theories and practices of West democracies is to see claims for minority rights as a defensive response to an assault on the basic dignity and respect in the process of state nation-building, instead of 'special status' or 'privilege'. He states that the Western democracies are a complex package of robust forms of nation-building constrained by robust forms of minority rights.
Kymlicka refutes the discourse of minority rights as the old liberalism-vs-communitarianism debate, such that communitarians supported rights of ethnocultural communities whereas liberalism opposed them in the name of individualism. He asserts that debates over minority rights within liberalism are increasingly about fair accommodations of cultural diversity within liberal institutions.
Kymlicka also argues that human rights are insufficient to ensure justice between ethnocultural groups, thus minority rights must supplement human rights.
Chapter 1.
Kymlicka summarizes that the debate over minority rights before 1989 was characterized with theoretical confrontation between liberals and communitarians. Kymlicka explains that liberals prioritize individual freedom to choose the good life, whereas communitarians dispute the concept of autonomous individuals and rather regard individuals as the product of social practices which define the good life. In this stage, minority rights were viewed as the communitarian critique of liberalism, defending communal group rights against liberal individualism.
This dichotomy, however, is an old one, according to Kymlicka. Kymlicka highlights recent debate over minority rights within a liberal perspective. Central to this debate is to distinguish 'good' minority rights to supplement individual rights.
Kymlicka observes the current tendency of nation-building efforts in modern liberal states by creating a societal culture that involves a common language and social institutions, as seen in the United States. Kymlicka questions the impact of nation-building on minority rights and justice.
Observing the recent public recognition that difference-blind rules may cause disadvantages for minority groups, Kymlicka rightly points out that multiculturalism is widely accepted although there remain profound disagreements over specific policies of multiculturalism. Along with this general disposition, he remarks another common argument that recognition of minority rights threatens to erode citizenship. With this respect, Kymlicka argues that recognizing minority rights, on the contrary, would strengthen solidarity by removing barriers that prevent minority from full participation in political institutions.
Chapter 8. The theory and Practice of Immigrant Multiculturalism (152-176)
"The first country to officially adopt such a 'multiculturalism' policy at the national level was Canada in 1971" (p. 154).
For Kymlicka, demands for multiculturalism is a response to the government's nation-building of pressuring immigrants to integrate into common educational, economical and political institutions operating in the national language. In particular about immigrant multiculturalism policy, Kymlicka disputes critiques that multiculturalism continues to ghettoize immigrants and balkanizes society. He emphasizes that the policies are clearly integrationist and promotes institutional integration through education and citizenship practices. He argues:
The idea that multiculturalism is promoting an apartheid-like system of institutional separatism is, I think, wholly misplaced. But is it promoting a kind of mental separatism, encouraging immigrants to dwell on the life they left behind, rather than the opportunities available in their new country? This is a more plausible worry. However institutional integration is likely to generate over time a sense of psychological identification. The fact that common institutions bring together the members of different ethnic groups has important ramifications both personally and politically. At the personal level, it means that people meet (and indeed often fall in love with) members of other ethnic groups, propmoting inter-ethnic friendships and marriages. These relationships are intimately tied up with one's new life here, not with the Old World. (p. 167-168)
[Criticism: his division between new world and old world, new opportunities are not that rosy in the new world, some interpersonal relations do not melt inveterate racism and other hierarchy. In fact, people do not mix as much as he imagines.]
According to Kymlicka, immigrants must engage in common institutions and contribute to democratic citizenship under the institutional multiculturalism policies. He states:
Politically, it[multiculturalism] means that people must learn how to negotiate with the members of other ethnic groups...The inevitable result is that groups must focus on how to contribute to the new life here, rather than simply dwelling on the society left behind. In short, institutional integration makes possible the kind of civic engagement that supports democratic citizenship. (p. 168)
Kymlicka calls his view of multiculturalism 'pluralizing' or 'hybridic', which "does not involve the preservation of distinct cultures (since ethnic identities weaken and incorporate aspects of the larger culture), but nor is it assimilation (since ethnic groups change the larger society as they integrate)" (p. 168-169). He asserts that immigrants common demands for language training assistance, for instance, indicate their intention of integration. Central to his argument appears to be the backlash against immigrant multiculturalism among native-born citizens. He argues:
[T]he logic of multiculturalism involves accepting the principle of state-prescribed integraion, but renegotiation the terms of integration...So immigrants accept the principle of integration into common institutions: they are simply seeking fairer terms of integration. If the state is going to pressure immigrants to integrates into common institutions operating in the national language, then immigrant groups understandably want to ensure that the terns of integration are fair. This demand is not only justified, but long overdue. (p. 169)
Will Kymlicka & Keith Banting (2006). Ethics & International Affairs, 20(3), 281-304.
In spite of a increasingly prevailing public assumption of a potential trade-off between inclusive immigration policies and the maintenance of a robust welfare state, Kymlicka and Banting argue that there Besides the issues of security and terrorism that prevail in many circles about massive immigration, Kymlicka and Banting point out that there is little evidence about the impact of increasing ethnic diversity on the welfare state and the claim of an inevitable trade-off between them may be premature.
Kymlicka and Banting defines two concerns in this debate: (1) A growing heterogeneity/ethnic diversity in society will inevitably loosen national solidarity across ethnic lines, thus resulting in making more difficult achieving redistribution of resources or sustaining a robust welfare state (the heterogeneity/redistribution trade-off) (2) Multiculturalism policies that promote recognition of each culture will exacerbate weaken the politics of (economic) redistribution (the recognition/redistribution trade-off).
In the first case, the authors state that a general acceptance of the trade-off is generally drawn from case studies done in the United State, where scholars concluded that there is a universal tendency for people to resist interethnic redistribution. The authors argue that the studies are deeply rooted in the country's peculiar history of slavery and segregation, thus providing little evidence for a potential erosion of Canadian welfare state as a result of a growing ethnic diversity that new immigrants bring into the society.
Secondly, the authors observe the debate even among multiculturalism defendants over the dilemma between the politics of recognition and the politics of redistribution in the process of their commitment to social justice and equality. In this regard, the author state that this concern, unlike the first one, is not based on empirical studies but entirely speculative and conjectural.
Within this context, the authors conclude their research on the trade-offs as follows:
"There is no evidence here that countries with large immigrant populations have greater difficulty in sustaining and enhancing their historic welfare commitments. But large changes do seem to matter. It is the pace of social change rather than the fact of ethnic diversity per se that stands out here as politically unsettling." (p. 293)
Examining change in social spending as a proportion of GDP and change in the redistributive impact of taxes and transfers between 1980 and 2000 in twenty-one countries, the authors conclude that "the countries with the strongest immigrant multiculturalism policies did better than the other groups, providing a hint that perhaps multiculturalism policies may actually ease possible tensions between heterogeneity and redistribution." (p. 295)
They support this conclusion with a similar study conducted with indigenous peoples and national minorities: there is no evidence a politics of recognition that entails a trade-off with a politics of redistribution. Instead, the authors suggest that it is state management and politics that turns ethnic diversity into a source of erosion of the national welfare state and solidarity and trust among peoples.
The authors delineates three ways in which multiculturalism policies promote solidarity: (1) in contrast to claims made by critiques of multiculturalism, multiculturalism policies can help to combat the stereotypes and stigmatizations that currently erode feelings of solidarity across ethnic and racial lines. (2) the policies should be supplemented with nation-building policies, such as language training programs, citizenship education in the schools, the shared celebration of national heroes and holidays, citizenship ceremonies for immigrants, and so on. (3) What's more, these policies should be sustained with the national adoption of multiculturalism as a national identity. In this regards, the authors write, "Multiculturalism arguably plays this role in Canada. Affirming multiculturalism has become part of what it means to ‘‘be Canadian,’’ and, more specifically, part of what it means to be a ‘‘good Canadian" (p. 301). Thus the authors call attention to multiculturalism as an essential Canadian nationhood.
The authors' nation-centered narrative seems to stem from their perspective on nation solidarity:
"On the one hand, our findings cast doubt on pessimistic claims about the conflict between diversity and solidarity, and this should indirectly lend support to the struggles of noncitizens, making greater space for an open-minded consideration of their claims on their own merits. On the other hand, however, our findings do not cast doubt on the importance of national solidarity, and our own best guess is that those countries that have done well in combining diversity and solidarity have done so by linking immigration and multiculturalism to the promotion of national citizenship." (p. 303-304)
Liberal Nationalism and Cosmopolitan Justice. (2006). In Seyla Benhabib, Another Cosmopolitanism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kymlicka states, "at the heart of citizenship rights are individual liberties" (p. 128).
He regards the nation-state as the privileged locus for political participation, self-government, and solidarity. Looking at the model of citizenship developed within the liberal democratic political system in the West in the past two centuries, Kymlicka points out that this political reordering was nearly universal and embarked on "'national-building' policies aimed at the diffusion of a common national identity, culture, and language throughout the territory of the state" (p. 129)
He argues that, while this model of "liberal nationhood" succeeded in ensuring democracy, individual rights and economic prosperity, it involved injustice against immigrants, indigenous or regional minorities and neighboring nation-states.
Refuting the thought that these injustices are not intrinsic to liberal nationhood, Kymlicka contests that they are inherent risks of the pursuit of liberal nationhood and in fact responsible for many harms executed in the twenties century. In this dilemma, Kymlicka argues two options: (1) taming liberal nationhood approach, by adopting a multicultural concept for immigrants, a multination concept for indigenous and substate minorities to condone autonomy, and geopolitical agreements with neighboring nation-states. or (2) transcending liberal nation by building postnational or cosmopolitan citizenship.
In his response to Benhabib's call for cosmopolital norms instead of liberal nationhood, Kymlicka argues that the two concepts are commensurate. He states:
[O]ne concept of the nature and function of cosmopolitan norms is precisely to pomote (a tamed form of) liberal nationhood, and that this conception is conceptually coherent, politically feasible, and morally progressive. (p. 131)
Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizenship. (2001). New York: Oxford University Press.
For Kymlicka, crucial in the theories and practices of West democracies is to see claims for minority rights as a defensive response to an assault on the basic dignity and respect in the process of state nation-building, instead of 'special status' or 'privilege'. He states that the Western democracies are a complex package of robust forms of nation-building constrained by robust forms of minority rights.
Kymlicka refutes the discourse of minority rights as the old liberalism-vs-communitarianism debate, such that communitarians supported rights of ethnocultural communities whereas liberalism opposed them in the name of individualism. He asserts that debates over minority rights within liberalism are increasingly about fair accommodations of cultural diversity within liberal institutions.
Kymlicka also argues that human rights are insufficient to ensure justice between ethnocultural groups, thus minority rights must supplement human rights.
Chapter 1.
Kymlicka summarizes that the debate over minority rights before 1989 was characterized with theoretical confrontation between liberals and communitarians. Kymlicka explains that liberals prioritize individual freedom to choose the good life, whereas communitarians dispute the concept of autonomous individuals and rather regard individuals as the product of social practices which define the good life. In this stage, minority rights were viewed as the communitarian critique of liberalism, defending communal group rights against liberal individualism.
This dichotomy, however, is an old one, according to Kymlicka. Kymlicka highlights recent debate over minority rights within a liberal perspective. Central to this debate is to distinguish 'good' minority rights to supplement individual rights.
Kymlicka observes the current tendency of nation-building efforts in modern liberal states by creating a societal culture that involves a common language and social institutions, as seen in the United States. Kymlicka questions the impact of nation-building on minority rights and justice.
Observing the recent public recognition that difference-blind rules may cause disadvantages for minority groups, Kymlicka rightly points out that multiculturalism is widely accepted although there remain profound disagreements over specific policies of multiculturalism. Along with this general disposition, he remarks another common argument that recognition of minority rights threatens to erode citizenship. With this respect, Kymlicka argues that recognizing minority rights, on the contrary, would strengthen solidarity by removing barriers that prevent minority from full participation in political institutions.
Chapter 8. The theory and Practice of Immigrant Multiculturalism (152-176)
"The first country to officially adopt such a 'multiculturalism' policy at the national level was Canada in 1971" (p. 154).
For Kymlicka, demands for multiculturalism is a response to the government's nation-building of pressuring immigrants to integrate into common educational, economical and political institutions operating in the national language. In particular about immigrant multiculturalism policy, Kymlicka disputes critiques that multiculturalism continues to ghettoize immigrants and balkanizes society. He emphasizes that the policies are clearly integrationist and promotes institutional integration through education and citizenship practices. He argues:
The idea that multiculturalism is promoting an apartheid-like system of institutional separatism is, I think, wholly misplaced. But is it promoting a kind of mental separatism, encouraging immigrants to dwell on the life they left behind, rather than the opportunities available in their new country? This is a more plausible worry. However institutional integration is likely to generate over time a sense of psychological identification. The fact that common institutions bring together the members of different ethnic groups has important ramifications both personally and politically. At the personal level, it means that people meet (and indeed often fall in love with) members of other ethnic groups, propmoting inter-ethnic friendships and marriages. These relationships are intimately tied up with one's new life here, not with the Old World. (p. 167-168)
[Criticism: his division between new world and old world, new opportunities are not that rosy in the new world, some interpersonal relations do not melt inveterate racism and other hierarchy. In fact, people do not mix as much as he imagines.]
According to Kymlicka, immigrants must engage in common institutions and contribute to democratic citizenship under the institutional multiculturalism policies. He states:
Politically, it[multiculturalism] means that people must learn how to negotiate with the members of other ethnic groups...The inevitable result is that groups must focus on how to contribute to the new life here, rather than simply dwelling on the society left behind. In short, institutional integration makes possible the kind of civic engagement that supports democratic citizenship. (p. 168)
Kymlicka calls his view of multiculturalism 'pluralizing' or 'hybridic', which "does not involve the preservation of distinct cultures (since ethnic identities weaken and incorporate aspects of the larger culture), but nor is it assimilation (since ethnic groups change the larger society as they integrate)" (p. 168-169). He asserts that immigrants common demands for language training assistance, for instance, indicate their intention of integration. Central to his argument appears to be the backlash against immigrant multiculturalism among native-born citizens. He argues:
[T]he logic of multiculturalism involves accepting the principle of state-prescribed integraion, but renegotiation the terms of integration...So immigrants accept the principle of integration into common institutions: they are simply seeking fairer terms of integration. If the state is going to pressure immigrants to integrates into common institutions operating in the national language, then immigrant groups understandably want to ensure that the terns of integration are fair. This demand is not only justified, but long overdue. (p. 169)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
