The Liberalism of Rights and the Policy of Equal Respect - Essay Example

Multiculturalism - Freedom, Recognition and Authenti by The of the The of the School ) The City and State where it is located The Date Multiculturalism - Freedom, Recognition and Authenticity A. B and C, my dear friends, from the bottom of my heart I thank you for joining me today in my humble residence! Today I would like to discuss ideas that belong to Charles Taylor, according to which variations in law might be a suitable tool that contributes to achievement of harmony within a social environment that is comprised by diverse groups of people. In other words I would like to discuss some of the fundamental principles of multiculturalism with regard to legal framework which guides the society. B. The pleasure is all ours, since we all you that you, A, is a wise man and I personally find a particular joy while discussing different matters with you. A. All right, you all must have heard about liberalism of rights. It is often thought that this is the best framework that would accommodate different parts of the population, especially if they come from various cultural, religious or other backgrounds (Appiah 2007, p. 14). Nevertheless, I have considered some of the peculiarities of it and came to a conclusion that that it may be flawed to a certain extent. B. I absolutely agree with you, liberalism is nothing but a silly dream about the way people, who are different, may life together in peace. C. Excuse me, my friends, but I can not fully agree with you. Liberalism is a great way to organize the human society. One of the best ideas that it offers is the politics of equal respect. A. That is exactly what I wanted to talk about. Do not you, wise men, think that this is too unrealistic? Equal respect is truly a platform that the stability of a diverse society rests on, but it is too abstract, especially when it comes to actual application (Abbey 2000, p. 118). B. Our friend is absolutely right here, equality is something that can hardly be achieved in a society where citizens are different in numerous aspects, starting from the level of income and up to the very place where they live. It is virtually impossible to create equal conditions for everyone. C. You are absolutely right, but this is regarded as the major responsibility of the government, you know. It should make sure that everyone’s difference is respected. A. C, my friend, I can see where you are going with this, but I would like to point out that the politics of equal respect, the one that you like so much, is actually inhospitable to difference (Ferrelly 2004, p. 88). B. I fully agree. C, you see, diversity is a factor that is dynamic, it is not static; in other words, one can hardly make a set of coordinates that would include all the differences and find harmony between them. In addition to that, acknowledgement of difference requires a constant change with in the social framework. C. I respect you ideas, but I can not fully see, why the above mentioned politics is inhospitable to change. A. I will try to explain this to you. Please tell me one of the fundamental principles of it. C. Uniform application of the rules. A. Exactly! Do not you see that this is absolutely the opposite of what the system was designed for. The universal application that you have mentioned relies on one size fits all ideology. In other words, while claiming to respect the difference, this politics actually eliminates it (Fraser & Honneth, 2003, p. 30). B. Indeed, if two groups of people believe in different, sometimes opposite values, do you think that there can be a single policy that would unite them. Nevertheless, if the principle of universal application is abandoned, the opponents of the system will condemn any such action is discriminating! C. I guess, I never thought about it. A. B is absolutely right. The major flaw of the universal application is not only lack of exceptions, but also lack of desire to design some (Kymlicka 2002, p. 10). It is often thought that if a law does not have exceptions, it is perfect, just like the law of gravity. However, there is a Latin expression that proves quite the opposite: Exceptio firmat regulam which stands for Exception proves the rule (“Exceptio firmat regulam” n.d.) B. Right, think about it this way: if the government has exceptions in law, it does not favour one side over the other, it simply provides the two sides the necessary amount of cultural space in order to practice one’s characteristic features. C. I suppose, some changes might be made there. I will have to think about it some time. A. If you think about this long enough, you will be able to see that the politics that we started our discussion with is quite suspicious of collective goals (Modood 2007, p. 19). C. What you do mean by that? A. You see, any group of people may be compared to a living organism; while every living organism has some sort of a goal: a lion feeds of its prey; a koala looks for eucalyptus; a mole digs holes in the group. In other words, if their collective goals as spicies are not taken into account, their life will be at risk. C. All right, I understand what you are saying, but please note that policy of equal respect, multiculturalism or liberalism were not designed to abolish any cultural differences between the people who comprise the society (Mulhall & Swift 1992, p. 92). There may have been some setbacks in their history, but can you name an approach that was perfect from the very beginning? A. My dear friend, I do not try to prove that the policy that you value so much has any kind of negative effect of the cultural differences. Moreover, I do not think that any government is pursuing a goal to abolish them to make the social environment more unified. B. Right, such approaches towards organizing social life died with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or Imperialist Japan. If you take a close look at the states in the modern world, you will be able to see that the majority of them adhere to the policy of respecting diversity in any of its manifestations. C. So, why do you see problem with multiculturalism then? A. In my opinion, the answer to this question lies in the fact that it can hardly accommodate the ultimate collective goal. Any ideas what it can be? C. I do not know, maybe, finding harmony in the social environment? A. You see, there may be societies that are homogenous in many ways, so harmony would not be a problem for them. Anything else? B. I suppose, survival as a nation. In spite of the fact that government might control its citizens, there is no body that will be able to control governments of the world. In other words, there is some anarchy within the world political system. A. Exactly! That is the reason why any nation really tries to secure its survival (O’Neill 1996, p. 36). What is more important is that not all states in the world are nation states; that is why a certain nation might connect its future with a particular state and become an active power in the process of its evolution. B. Right, take a look at the Jews: they were able to enjoy their state, but later for many centuries they could only see themselves as parts of other societies. While some of them did their best to preserve their traditions, a considerable number of them contributed to the development of the social environment around them (Rawls 1973, p. 89). A. Sure, you can even find examples from the modern history: no matter how sorrowful it may be, but genocides also happen in the today’s world. While the world greatly condemns such actions and there are numerous organizations that prevent them from happening, the question of survival is the one that may be essential for some nations (Rorty & Mendieta, 2005, p. 65). That is why when immigrants come to a new country, the most suitable question to ask them is what they were trying to flee. C. Now I can see that there are much more realistic threats to the nations than the ones I thought of. A. I am glad that you see it. So, let us discuss why survival should be regarded as the ultimate collective goal that is not addressed properly by the policy of equal respect. B. I suppose, a part of the answer is that the above mentioned policy simply can not fully reflect the danger that a certain part of the population is facing (Swift 2006, p. 171)? A. You are quite right. Policies of multiculturalism are often promoted in the countries where the majority of the population feels safe enough to accept outsiders, since nothing can be done to its dominance. C. But supremacy of a particular ethnicity within a society is what multiculturalism is trying to avoid! B. Sure, but take a look at the United States of America, the United Kingdom or Canada – they all promote respect for other cultures and celebrate diversity; however, the white part of the population is the main actor here. In other words, it is not the initiative of the entire society, but only the part that is actually able to make decisions. C. It can not be true. A. All right, but can you explain why with the policy of equal right and mutual respect, the government is primarily comprised by white people? Is it because there are no ambitious or skilful people in the minorities? We have seen African American President, but can you imagine a black Prime Minister or an Inuit Governor General? This shows that within the framework of the proclaimed equality, there is some inequality (Taylor et al 1994, p. 109). C. All right, my friend, I can see that you reject some of the ideas that I adhere to, but can you provide any solution for the problem? A. I sure can. I believe that variations in the kinds of law that are applicable to different parts of the population might be quite effective. Just like I pointed out before, these variations should not be seen as recognition of inability to design perfect laws; they simply provide different groups of population within a state (Williams 2002, p. 252). In other words, variations will provide the necessary dynamic for the government to address the peculiarities of its social life. C. I understand now, but do not you think that the model that you propose will work only in the abstract environment and might fail in the real world. A. Not at all, take the example of Canada. This is the second largest country in the world, but few people know that it is actually divided into English Canada and French Canada. The difference is so big that a Canadian might live in a certain part of Canada all one’s life, move to a different part and feel as a complete stranger. Do not forget the native people as well. Keeping all this in mind, is not it obvious that the government should design some variations in laws that would suit each of the actors of the social life? C. My dear friends, now I can clearly see why liberalism of rights as well as the policy of equal respect can not fully be hospitable to changes: on the one hand, it relies on universal application of rules, not allowing different groups of citizens the much needed space for cultural peculiarities; on the other hand, it does not take into account collective goals of various parts of the population. I fully agree with you that variations in law might be needed in order to address the issue properly and provide the people ability to express their cultural characteristic features without any damage to the society in general. A. I am glad that you found our discussion helpful. Thank you all for participating in the discussion! References Appiah, KA 2007, Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, Penguin, London. Abbey, R 2000, Charles Taylor, Acumen Publishing, Teddington. “Exceptio firmat regulam” n.d., Retrieved January 22, 2015, from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Exceptio+firmat+regulam+in+casibus+non+exceptis Farrelly, C 2004, Introduction to Contemporary Political Theory: A Reader, Sage, London. Fraser, N & Honneth, A 2003, Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange, Verso, London. Kymlicka, W 2002, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction, 2nd edn., OUP, Oxford. Modood, T 2007, Multiculturalism: A Civic Idea, Polity Press, Cambridge. Mulhall, S & Swift, A 1992, Liberals and Communitarians, Blackwell, Oxford. O’Neill, J 1996, Hegel’s Dialectic of Desire and Recognition: Texts and Commentary, State University of New York Press, Albany. Rawls, J 1973, A Theory of Justice, Oxford University Press, London. Rorty, R & Mendieta, E 2005, Take Care of Freedom and Truth Will Take Care of Itself: Interviews with Richard Rorty, Stanford University Press, Stanford. Swift, A 2006, Political Philosophy: A Beginners" Guide for Students and Politicians, Polity, Cambridge. Taylor, C et al 1994, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition, Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Williams, B 2002, Truth and Truthfulness: an essay in genealogy, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Read More