Transcript Liberal theory of Minority Rights, Myth on Neutrality of

Liberal theory of Minority
Rights, Myth on Neutrality
of the State and
Ethnocultural Justice
UNIT 3
Selma Muhić-Dizdarević, MA
Questions




What is a concrete
society based upon
Is there such a basis
What is the meaning
and value of the nationstate
Welfare state and
immigration

Theoretical perspective:
is a liberal theory of
minority or collective
rights possible
Background for the discussion



Dominance of instrumental reason over all
other powers of mind (Horkeheimer)
Civic privatism as its corresponding political
reflection (Habermas)
Social atomism on the level of individuals
(Taylor)
Individual and Nation




The core stone of liberal theory: rights of
individuals
Perspective of communitarianism:
contextualized and socialized individuals
Nation as a possibility for achieving that
No metasocial guarantees
Why is national integration
relevant? (Birch)




Hegel – historical necessity
Mill – assimilation is good for national
minorities
Mill – representative democracy must be based
on a feeling of national unity
The only stable basis for political authority
Problems with the concept of nation


Lack of a non - arbitrary definition of the
nation
Many nations – all should be treated equally as
citizens
Membership (Phillip Cole)
The citizenship and the lack of it cut in two
directions:
1.
They make outsiders and members, drawing
a line around community – members and
non-members
2.
They make subjects and citizens, drawing a
line within society – activities (subject –
private, citizen – public)
Neutrality of a liberal state
Neutral law
 Universal and rational individual
 National and cultural unity
All three points as presuppositions for neutrality of the
state, which:
 Does not support or disable existence of cultural,
ethnic, religious or any other group
 Does not grow out of a certain definition of value or
interpretation of good
The only value is equal freedom for everybody to
decide on their own good within or out of the groups.

Neutrality of the state




Cultural background as ornament in life, no
political relevance
It is hard to imagine a state, which would
function in such a way
Walzer: state and ethnicity should be separated
according to model of the church-state division
Minority rights could be corrosive for political
unity and stability
Three liberal principle according to
Weinstock
1.
2.
3.
Individual autonomy
Neutrality of the state
Non-teleological i.e. procedural view of the
political process
Questions





What is “wrong” with a classical concept of
traditional human rights?
Why do some minorities feel unsatisfied with a pure
concept of equality before the law?
Why is it necessary in a publicly relevant way to take
into consideration the fact of existence of
heterogeneous groups in a society?
Does an ethnoculturally neutral state exist and what is
the relevance of a negative answer to the question?
Were democracies perfect, would there be still a
necessity for collective rights?
Definitions of the state
Weber: monopoly on use of legal
force
 Gellner: monopoly on education

Arguments against ethnocultural
neutrality of the state
Education
 Legal system
 Diffusion of language
 Relation to different ethnical/ethical questions:
slavery, polygamy, polyandry, incest, euthanasia,
suicide, capital punishment, abortion, coerced
marriages, divorce on demand, gay and lesbian
marriages, etc.

Criteria for differentiation between
liberal and illiberal nation-building
states (Kymlicka)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Degree of coercion in
promoting national
identity
Diminished concept of
public space, expanded
concept of private space
Minorities can express
publicly their requests
Inclusiveness
Thinner concept of
national identity
6. National identity is not the
ultimate value
7. More cosmopolitan
8. An individual can have more
national identities
9. Willing to share social space
with minorities, who
consider important to be
recognized in such a way
Definition of societal culture
(Kymlicka)
It is the concept of culture, which
includes common language and
political institutions, and does not
relate to religious beliefs, family
customs or individual habits
Three models according to
public/private difference (Parekh)
1.
2.
3.
Procedural assimilationism (minimal state)
Civic assimilationism
(Verfassungspatriotismus)
Millet model (loyalty to primarily to the
cultural groups)
Types of society (Rex)
Type of society
Public domain
Private domain
Multiculturalism Unitary
Diverse
Assimilationism
Unitary
Unitary
Colonialism,
apartheid
Racist society in
the pre-civil
rights period
Diverse
Diverse
Diverse
Unitary
Belonging to a group


Subjective path: taking as relevant how an
individual sees her/his belonging
Objective path: after satisfying certain stated
demands, an individual will be considered to
be a member of a group
Issues that challenge state
sovereignty
1.
2.
3.
Fiscal responsibility (i.e. economic
issues)
International stability (i.e. security)
Human rights agenda
Different minority groups, different
claims and expectations








National minorities
Indigenous people
Immigrants
Refugees
Guestworkers
Descendants of slaves
Roma
Religious groups

Autonomy

Fair terms of integration

Inclusion
Affirmative action
Difficult cases


Liberal position


Dworkin: substantial and procedural
rights
Rawls: individual autonomy
supplemented by non-discrimination
provisions should always carry more
importance than collective rights
Communitarian position


Decision-making on the concept of good life is
in the individual's competence, but
environment in which the competence is
applied is not
Extra-individual predeterminations, like
culture
Questions:
Does the importance of culture for an
individual mean that the culture should be state
sponsored and protected?
 Does that take away it's vitality and reduces it
to endangered species?
Habermas – Taylor – Walzer debate

Ethnocultural justice (Kymlicka)
Two main ideas:
 Minorities are also entitled to various degrees
of nation-building
 Minority rights are a supplement not a
substitute for human rights
Two types of rights minorities can
claim (Kymlicka again)


Internal restrictions, i.e. rights of a group
against its own members
External protection, i.e. rights of a group
against the larger society
Conclusion

Ethnocultural neutrality is a myth in the sense that
believing in it narrows the space for non-dominant
cultures to participate in division of social space, but
it does not imply that society can become culturally
neutral, once this awareness is achieved. Gaining the
awareness though does open the possibility to manage
different cultural interests in a way similar to
managing different interests, which are not of the
cultural origin (e.g. sexual or financial). This again in
my opinion requires constant spelling out of the
“ground rules” of the changing society.