Liberal theory of Minority Rights, Myth on Neutrality of the State and Ethnocultural Justice

1
Liberal theory of Minority Rights, Myth on
Neutrality of the State and Ethnocultural Justice

• UNIT 3
• Selma Muhic-Dizdarevic, MA

2
Questions

• What is a concrete society based upon
• Is there such a basis
• What is the meaning and value of the nation-state
• Welfare state and immigration

• Theoretical perspective is a liberal theory of
  minority or collective rights possible

3
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)

4
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

5
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

6
Problems with the concept of nation

• Lack of a non - arbitrary definition of the
  nation
• Many nations all should be treated equally as
  citizens

7
Membership (Phillip Cole)

• The citizenship and the lack of it cut in two
  directions
• They make outsiders and members, drawing a line
  around community members and non-members
• They make subjects and citizens, drawing a line
  within society activities (subject private,
  citizen public)

8
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.

9
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

10
Three liberal principle according to Weinstock

1. Individual autonomy
2. Neutrality of the state
3. Non-teleological i.e. procedural view of the
   political process

11
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?

12
Definitions of the state

• Weber monopoly on use of legal force
• Gellner monopoly on education

13
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.

14
Criteria for differentiation between liberal and
illiberal nation-building states (Kymlicka)

1. Degree of coercion in promoting national identity
2. Diminished concept of public space, expanded
   concept of private space
3. Minorities can express publicly their requests
4. Inclusiveness
5. 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

15
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

16
Three models according to public/private
difference (Parekh)

1. Procedural assimilationism (minimal state)
2. Civic assimilationism (Verfassungspatriotismus)
3. Millet model (loyalty to primarily to the
   cultural groups)

17
Types of society (Rex)
Type of society Public domain Private domain
Multiculturalism Unitary Diverse
Assimilationism Unitary Unitary
Colonialism, apartheid Diverse Diverse
Racist society in the pre-civil rights period Diverse Unitary
18
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

19
Issues that challenge state sovereignty

1. Fiscal responsibility (i.e. economic issues)
2. International stability (i.e. security)
3. Human rights agenda

20
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

21
Liberal position

• Dworkin substantial and procedural rights
• Rawls individual autonomy supplemented by
  non-discrimination provisions should always carry
  more importance than collective rights

22
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

23
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

24
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

25
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

26
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.