Critiques of Multiculturalism by Parekh, Taylor, Barry, and Kymlicka
Criticism by Parekh
•
Many multiculturalists have criticized Kymlicka’s liberal
defence of minority rights.
Parekh,
for example,
questions Kymlicka’s claim that immigrants waive the
right to live by their culture when they leave their
country of origin.
•
He argues,
‘since culture is for Kymlicka a primary
goods, it is difficult to see one can abandon one’s
right to it any more than to one’s life or liberty’.
•
Furthermore, Parekh
does not believe that Kymlicka’s
liberal justification of minority rights is fair to
nonliberal cultures because it does not respect them
in their ‘authentic otherness’.
Criticism by Taylor
•
Taylor’s criticism seems valid if one considers what
Kymlicka says about the children of parents who emigrate.
Kymlicka claims that ‘it is important that governments
should strive to make the children of immigrants feel “at
home” in the mainstream culture,
to feel that it is “their”
culture’. But one can then ask
why should we not support
the same policy for the children of national minorities?
•
In addition to championing the rights of national
minorities, multiculturalists also defend special treatment
of providing financial support or legal protection for
members of ethnic or religious groups.
•
Multiculturalists fear that like the aspiration to assimilate
national minorities,
the aim of assimilating immigrants
also unfairly privileges ways of life of the dominant
culture over other ways of life.
A Multi-faceted Egalitarian Critique by
Barry
•
Barry
develops a
multi-faceted egalitarian critique of
multiculturalism.
One of Barry’s central complaints is
that
multiculturalists abuse culture
. They do so when
they maintain that
it is some sort of defence of a
practice to say that it forms an element in the culture
of the group whose practice it is
(e.g. when one
defends
exemptions from humane slaughter
regulations on the grounds that it is part of the
culture of Orthodox Jews and observant Muslims
that
they butcher animals in a way that contravenes those
regulations).
•
But this kind of reasoning
provides grounds for
justifying unjust historical practices such as slavery
as
well as
falsely assuming that human beings do not
have a capacity for cultural adoption.
Multiculturalism: A Public Philosophy
for Tolerating Unjust Practices
•
Many critics of multiculturalism share Barry’s concern
that
multiculturalism commits us to a public
philosophy that will require tolerating unjust
practices.
•
Kymlicka shares
this concern with Barry. He does not
believe that culture itself is intrinsically valuable. He
would agree with Barry
that
culture itself cannot be a
defence of a practice
.
•
For Kymlicka cultures are valuable and warrant
protection because they
contribute to some more
basic human interest.
•
Thus,
when cultural practices are in conflict with
these basic human interests the justification for
protecting these practices is dissolved.
Internal Restrictions Vs External
Protections
•
According to Kymlicka,
Liberal Principles impose two
fundamental limitations on minority rights.
•
The basic civil or political liberties of all citizens,
including members of the minority culture, cannot be
compromised
(Internal Restrictions).
•
In addition to these ‘internal restrictions’, ‘liberal
justice cannot accept any such rights which enable one
group to oppress or exploit other groups, as in
apartheid’
(External Protections).
•
Thus,
a minority culture’s demands for ‘external
protections’ ‘are legitimate only in so far as they
promote equality between groups
, by rectifying
disadvantages or vulnerabilities suffered by the
members of a particular group’.
Liberals’ Emphasis on Human Beings’
Capacity for Cultural Adoption
•
According to some liberals
we are more
adaptive than what multiculturalists and
communitarians presuppose.
•
Thus, liberals would argue,
claims about
preserving cultural identity are not as urgent
or pressing as multiculturalists often portray
them.
For example,
Jeremy Waldron does not
believe that people are connected to their
own culture in any deep way but live in a
‘kaleidoscope of cultures’.
Politics of Recognition Vs Politics of
Redistribution-Barry
•
Another central concern of Barry is that
a
politics of recognition undermines the
politics of redistribution.
The latter relies on a
sense of solidarity in which citizens conceive
of politics as ‘a society-wider conversation
about question of common concern’. But the
politics of multiculturalism is divisive and
thus undermines the commitment to social
equality.
Many multiculturalists criticize Kymlicka's liberal defense of minority rights, questioning his views on immigrants and children of parents who emigrate. Parekh and Taylor argue against Kymlicka's approach to culture and minority rights, while Barry criticizes how multiculturalists use culture to defend certain practices. Concerns are also raised about tolerating unjust practices in the name of multiculturalism. Kymlicka emphasizes limitations on minority rights based on liberal principles.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Criticism by Parekh Many multiculturalists have criticized Kymlicka s liberal defence of minority rights. Parekh, for example, questions Kymlicka s claim that immigrants waive the right to live by their culture when they leave their country of origin. He argues, since culture is for Kymlicka a primary goods, it is difficult to see one can abandon one s right to it any more than to one s life or liberty . Furthermore, Parekh does not believe that Kymlicka s liberal justification of minority rights is fair to nonliberal cultures because it does not respect them in their authentic otherness .
Criticism by Taylor Taylor s criticism seems valid if one considers what Kymlicka says about the children of parents who emigrate. Kymlicka claims that it is important that governments should strive to make the children of immigrants feel at home in the mainstream culture, to feel that it is their culture . But one can then ask why should we not support the same policy for the children of national minorities? In addition to championing the rights of national minorities, multiculturalists also defend special treatment of providing financial support or legal protection for members of ethnic or religious groups. Multiculturalists fear that like the aspiration to assimilate national minorities, the aim of assimilating immigrants also unfairly privileges ways of life of the dominant culture over other ways of life.
A Multi-faceted Egalitarian Critique by Barry Barry develops a multi-faceted egalitarian critique of multiculturalism. One of Barry s central complaints is that multiculturalists abuse culture. They do so when they maintain that it is some sort of defence of a practice to say that it forms an element in the culture of the group whose practice it is (e.g. when one defends exemptions from humane slaughter regulations on the grounds that it is part of the culture of Orthodox Jews and observant Muslims that they butcher animals in a way that contravenes those regulations). But this kind of reasoning provides grounds for justifying unjust historical practices such as slavery as well as falsely assuming that human beings do not have a capacity for cultural adoption.
Multiculturalism: A Public Philosophy for Tolerating Unjust Practices Many critics of multiculturalism share Barry s concern that multiculturalism commits us to a public philosophy that will require tolerating unjust practices. Kymlicka shares this concern with Barry. He does not believe that culture itself is intrinsically valuable. He would agree with Barry that culture itself cannot be a defence of a practice. For Kymlicka cultures are valuable and warrant protection because they contribute to some more basic human interest. Thus, when cultural practices are in conflict with these basic human interests the justification for protecting these practices is dissolved.
Internal Restrictions Vs External Protections According to Kymlicka, Liberal Principles impose two fundamental limitations on minority rights. The basic civil or political liberties of all citizens, including members of the minority culture, cannot be compromised (Internal Restrictions). In addition to these internal restrictions , liberal justice cannot accept any such rights which enable one group to oppress or exploit other groups, as in apartheid (External Protections). Thus, a minority culture s demands for external protections are legitimate only in so far as they promote equality between groups, by rectifying disadvantages or vulnerabilities suffered by the members of a particular group .
Liberals Emphasis on Human Beings Capacity for Cultural Adoption According to some liberals we are more adaptive than what multiculturalists and communitarians presuppose. Thus, liberals would argue, claims about preserving cultural identity are not as urgent or pressing as multiculturalists often portray them. For example, Jeremy Waldron does not believe that people are connected to their own culture in any deep way but live in a kaleidoscope of cultures .
Politics of Recognition Vs Politics of Redistribution-Barry Another central concern of Barry is that a politics of recognition undermines the politics of redistribution. The latter relies on a sense of solidarity in which citizens conceive of politics as a society-wider conversation about question of common concern . But the politics of multiculturalism is divisive and thus undermines the commitment to social equality.
