global justice 1 - intro and multiculturalism Flashcards
global justice 1: Fabre’s rubric
Basic mantra: “A theory of justice sets out what is owed to whom. In other words, it sets out the content of justice and delineates its scope” (Fabre 2007: 1)
the “core” concepts delineated the content of justice
- building blocks, principles we have discussed until now
this “spotlight” delineates its scope (over space and time)
space: commitments are not bounded
- internally: states are non-homogeneous (multiculturalism, national self-determination)
- externally: interlinked (global justice, immigration) = what do we owe to other peoples?
we also increasingly recognize we have commitments across time:
- looking into the future (future generations; climate change)
- looking into the past (reparative justice)
-> so how do we go about studying these questions of scope?
- liberal egalitarianism
- libertarianism
- communitarianism
liberal egalitarianism
= baseline of liberal thought, trying to weigh equality and freedom
- liberal = it defends fundamental individual freedoms.
- egalitarian = assumes that all individuals are morally equal and mandates an extensive distribution of material resources (income and wealth) towards those who have fewer such resources” (Fabre 2007: 3)
- Rawls and Dworkins
- given our commitment to liberty, how can we also commit to equality?
-> variations how much equality/inequality matters:
- luck egalitarianism: individuals should not be made worse off through no fault of their own -> compensate for brute luck, not option luck (ambition-sensitive, but endowment-insensitive)
- sufficientism: all that matters is that individuals have enough resources (on global scale uncomfortable with radical redistribution)
communitarianism
“[Communitarians critique Rawls] for mistakenly grounding justice on universal foundations, and for overlooking the (non-instrumental) importance of communal values” (15)
- liberty is about personhood -> global, not limited to borders of states
question whether the individual is prior to the community ->
- put less primacy on individual rights
- more emphasis on political and communal participation
- doubt whether principles of justice can travel (outside the community, nevertheless nation)
libertarianism
“Coercive taxation for distributive purposes, violates individuals’ ownership rights over the product of their labour and, thereby, over themselves” (22).
essential principles:
- Strong theory of ownership – we own property just as we own ourselves.
- Negative theory of rights – contra infringement by others.
- Minimal role for the state (outside of the protection of rights).
multiculturlaism: the basics
Must theories of justice account for cultural, religious and ethnic diversity?
diversity is rising + the kind of diversity is changing too (visible immigration: not white people)
“The question [of multiculturalism] is that of the social arrangements which a polity ought to adopt in the face of its diversity” (Fabre 2007: 51).
This is a thin conception of multiculturalism – responding mostly to the rise in global diversity
A thick conception of multiculturalism also reacts to what “normal” is – i.e. the understanding the normal, or universal, really meant “white,” “male,” “straight,” etc.
- we’re doubting what diverse means, what normal means, what the normal citizen is
“In the past, this diversity was ignored or stifled by models of the ‘normal’ citizen, which were typically based on the attributes of the able-bodied, heterosexual white male. Anyone who deviated from this model of normalcy was subject to exclusion, marginalization, silencing or assimilation … Today, however, previously excluded groups … demand a more inclusive conception of citizenship which recognizes (rather than stigmatizes) their identities, and which accommodates (rather than excludes) their differences” (Kymlicka 2002: 327)
- basic liberalism: it doesn’t matter
- multiculturalism asks if it should matter: ought we to face diversity and accomodate it
-> what problem does “difference” pose to liberalism (or democracy)?
can the ideal of universal citizenship accomodate difference?
does liberalism just “eliminate” difference?
- in making people universal, does liberalism get rid of differences we ought to accomodate?
multiculturalism the basics pt 2
rather than eliminate difference in the name of commonality; the point is to accommodate difference (differentiated citizenship) -> people understood both as individuals and as part of groups
-> debate redistribution vs recognition
- politics of redistribution: socio-economic injustices, such as poverty, exploitation or marginalization
- politics of recognition: cultural injustices, incl. through patterns of mis- or non-representation, cultural domination or disrespect
Taylor - politics of recognition: Misrecognition shows not just a lack of due respect. It can inflict a grievous wound, saddening its victims with a critical self-hatred. Due recognition is not just a courtesy we owe people. It is a vital human need
Fraser - politics of recognition: .. [Claims for recognition] seek to establish the subordinated party as a full partner in social life, able to interact with others as a peer. They aim, that is, to deinstitutionalize patterns of cultural value that impede parity of participation and to replace them with patterns that foster it
what claims do minority groups make on their majority?
individual-level rights (as a member of a minority group)
- equal right claims
- legal exemptions - such as exemption from a law, or educational requirement (e.g. if there’s school on a Jewish holiday)
- special assistance - such as multilingual schools, or ballots
- e.g. exemption from having to wear a helmet bc you wear a headscarf
- right of a ballot bc you are member of a group
group-level rights (for minorities as a group)
- Territorial autonomy – such as in Indian Reservations in the US.
- Guaranteed seats – special legislative seats that ethnic groups can choose for themselves.
- Majority-Minority districts.
- Court provisions. Allowing traditional courts jurisdiction over certain aspects of law (such as family law).
individual rights bc part of groups + rights for the group
-> question of group rights = kind of hard to justify for liberalism
multiculturalism: liberal egalitarianism
Kymlicka’s liberal culturalist position
= most common position
= specific way of defining group rights, some are defensible
- It is now not that controversial to say some version of “community” or “group” matters for individual autonomy.
- There is a broad consensus here, what Kymlicka calls the “liberal culturalist” position.
The question is how much, and to what end? Specifically: what kinds of group rights?
1) special representation rights
2) rights to self-government
What do these rights afford?
- External protection against the will of the majority group.
- Ability to impose internal restrictions on their own members
-> this is justified:
- liberalism requires that you protect the individual from the group (you protect the individual within the group and from the group) = maintains liberal perception of rights
- protect the minority from the majority (multiculturalism)
- also the individual from the group (liberalism) - you need a form of liberal multiculturalism:
Kymlicka: double-sided conception of rights - internal and external
- care about: minority rights that are external = protect minority groups from domination
- not about internal rights; those that restrict individual rights in the group (don’t want to restrict individual rights within the group) = keep the integrity of people within the groups
“Liberal defenders of multiculturalism [must] distinguish the ‘bad’ minority rights that involve restricting individual rights from the ‘good’ minority rights that can be seen as supplementing individual rights … External protections need not create such injustice. Granting special representation rights, land claims, or language rights to a minority need not, and often does not, put it into a position to dominate other groups. On the contrary, such rights can be seen as putting the various groups on a more equal footing, by reducing the extent to which the smaller group is vulnerable to the larger … Minority rights are consistent with liberal culturalism if (a) they protect the freedom of individuals within the group; and (b) they promote relations of equality (non-dominance) between groups” (Kymlicka 2002: 340-2)
= protect the groups and make sure the individuals are protected in the groups
- e.g. religious community: can make their own education, but if it doesn’t want to educate women, the women can make a claim against this
messy part = who gets those rights? = very limited
- Kymlicka favors National Groups = claims to special representation and self-government
- not: immigrants = really diff to define as groups: don’t have a territory -> hard to give them group rights
rights can only be afforded if group protections don’t enable groups to oppress their own members
multiculturalism - liberal egalitarianism - what principles can ground these rights claims?
- equality (autonomy)
- state duty to guarantee we all have equal autonomy (that’s why we have rights)
- autonomy: capacity to frame, revise and pursue a conception of the good
- cultural protection is necessary for autonomy - i.e. for people to pursue their own conceptions of the good - historical agreement (sounds a lot like consent)
- states are frequently formed by treaty (contract) -> in so far as there is a contract, you are to follow it bc you consented
- circumstances/history change, but still contractually binding
- national groups agree to terms, given the status quo at the time
- even if the status quo changes (and one group becomes a minority), the terms of the treaty still hold - cultural diversity (most utilitarian conception)
- a diverse world is a better world
- diversity helps us improve social systems
multiculturalism: liberal egalitarianism objections
- what counts as a culture?
- has to be societal or national in scale -> how is this determined? - Kymlicka distinguishes between national groups and immigrants - can this distinction hold?
- what about after several generations?
- when does an immigrant become a person, when do immigrant groups become nations? - does the equality justification hold?
- cultural group rights may help them gain autonomy vs the majority, but what if this comes at the cost of women’s autonomy? - what to do about illiberal minorities?
- if the abuse is egregious, stop them, but what about subtle harms which fall beneath this level?
- when you grant self-gov rights, does this become harder? and how would you know? -> can’t intervene as easily
basic intuition we need to know about multiculturalism - liberal egalitarianism
for the sake of communty and group and equality
we ought to have a conception of group rights
- but bc we are liberal we also care the individual is protected fromt he group
multiculturalism: communitarianism
!communitarianism is not a defense of groups : it is a defense of that the community preceeds the individual, not the group (multiple overlapping groups etc.)
basic insight = you could defend group rights independent of indvidual rights
communitarianism defenses of community are the entire community, over and above smaller ones
- group membership is intrinsically valuable (regardless of whether it promotes individual freedom)
- conflicts between groups can’t be resolved by defaulting to universal (liberal) principles
Fabre: “Whereas egalitarian liberal proponents of group rights such as Kymlicka ground their theories in one or another overarching individualist value such as freedom or autonomy, [communitarians] implicitly or explicitly affirm that group membership is valuable irrespective of the extent to which it fosters individual freedom. Correlatively, conflicts between cultural minorities and the majority cannot be solved by appealing to universal principles, but on the contrary must be resolved through cultural dialogue” (63)
universal values vs constant cultural debate
how to defend this? Parekh:
- argues that there are limits on freedom of speech, particularly when the latter is exercised in criticism of a religious group
- people are embedded in cultures
- not all cultural practices are worth protecting but
- good cultural practices can justify restrictions on individual autonomy (over and above what most liberals allow)
= some circumsntaces allow for cultural rights to take precendence over ininvidiual rights
but problem remains: how do we determine which communities deserve protection? -> you need some universal standard, which is what liberalism provides
multiculturalism: libertarianism
Kukathas
it would seem libertarians would have little to say about group rights but Kukathas disagrees
groups as state replacements
- he supports classic libertarian principles:
- strong individual rights
- weak states
- the point of society is for individuals to pursue their own ends - thus, if cultural minority groups are chosen by individuals, they can have extensive powers over their members
- bc if the state should only provide security, and not adjudicate between conceptions of the good, the society will consist of numerous sub-state organizations that may have great power over their members - this is true if and only if:
a. all people can exit their groups when they wish
b. there is mutual toleration between groups, even illiberal ones
conclusion: if people opt into illiberal organizations there is nothing the state can/should do to intervene
if you can opt in and out of groups, they are the most libertarian ways of society, you consented (also if you choose an illiberal group)
objections:
- there is a high cost of exit
- how do you handle abuses against children?
- what about vulnerable adults?
