Multiculturalism without Culture by Anne Phillips

Feminist Legal Studies, 2008

Marek Zirk-Sadowski, Bartosz Wojciechowski, Karolina M. Cern (eds.), Towards Recognition of Minority Groups. Legal and Communication Strategies, Ashgate, Farnham 2014: 103-109. ISBN (Hardback) 978-1-4724-4490-5; ISBN (Ebook - pdf) 978-1-4724-4491-2; ISBN (Ebook - epub) 978-1-4724-4492-9

Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Right of Exit in Liberal Multicultural Societies, 2012

Ethnicities, 2008

Across Europe, the discourse and practices of multiculturalism are in crisis. Politicians compete to stress the importance of a strong sense of national identity and belonging, and have come to regard diversity as a problem rather than a resource. The language of integration-once perceived by many as objectionably close to assimilation-increasingly dominates debate. Newspaper articles call on immigrants to confirm that they have opted for the values of their host society, while governments insist on applicants for citizenship undergoing courses in the national language and what are said to be the values of the host country. Multiculturalism-never as powerful a force in European politics as its critics have suggested-has come to be associated with ethnic ghettos and people living 'parallel lives'. Multiculturalism was attacked from the right almost from its inception, and was repudiated by segments of the left for allegedly burying the inequalities of race in vague celebrations of cultural difference. It was never adopted as official policy in any part of Europe, though Belgium has long pursued what might be described as policies of multiculturalism in relation to its major language groups, and Norway, Sweden, and Finland have increasingly recognized the rights of the indigenous Sami people, most notably with the creation of a Sami Parliament in Norway. In France, however, multiculturalism was rejected pretty much out of hand as at odds with republican principles; 1 in Germany, as at odds with a predominantly ethnicized conception of citizenship; while in Italy or Spain, multiculturalism barely figured in either popular or political discourse until the last few years. In those countries most commonly cited as exemplars of multicultural

Across Europe, the discourse and practices of multiculturalism are in crisis. Politicians compete to stress the importance of a strong sense of national identity and belonging, and have come to regard diversity as a problem rather than a resource. The language of integration – once perceived by many as objectionably close to assimilation – increasingly dominates debate. Newspaper articles call on immigrants to confirm that they have opted for the values of their host society, while governments insist on applicants for citizenship undergoing courses in the national language and what are said to be the values of the host country. Multiculturalism – never as powerful a force in European politics as its critics have suggested – has come to be associated with ethnic ghettos and people living ‘parallel lives’. Multiculturalism was attacked from the right almost from its inception, and was repudiated by segments of the left for allegedly burying the inequalities of race in vague celebrations of cultural difference. It was never adopted as official policy in any part of Europe, though Belgium has long pursued what might be described as policies of multiculturalism in relation to its major language groups, and Norway, Sweden, and Finland have increasingly recognized the rights of the indigenous Sami people, most notably with the creation of a Sami Parliament in Norway. In France, however, multiculturalism was rejected pretty much out of hand as at odds with republican principles;1 in Germany, as at odds with a predominantly ethnicized conception of citizenship; while in Italy or Spain, multiculturalism barely figured in either popular or political discourse until the last few years. In those countries most commonly cited as exemplars of multicultural G U E S T E D I T O R I A L

Contemporary Political Theory, 2003

Multiculturalism as a liberal policy to accommodate minority interests in liberal states has gained more and more attention from political theorists. Its defenders argue that rights accorded to minority cultures are necessary in order to protect them from oppression by the majority state. Its critics often argue that such rights give leeway to illiberal groups to oppress their own members, particularly women, whose discrimination is often justified on the grounds of 'traditional' cultural practices. Shachar helpfully addresses this central debate, by examining the jurisdictional tensions between state, nomoi groups (i.e. groups that share a comprehensive and distinguishable worldview that extends to creating a law for the community, p. 2), and individual group members. She provides a model of conflict resolution that is sensitive to the concern of liberal states for citizenship rights and individual interest for equality and autonomy while keeping in mind the need to safeguard minority cultures that do not necessarily subscribe to liberal values. In her model of adjudication, Shachar focuses on family law as an area of law that pertains to the community because it is through the family that cultural values are transmitted while often discriminating against women. Her motivation is clearly to design a model that would avoid putting members of cultural minority groups in the deadlock position of having to choose between either cultural affiliation or citizenship rights. Shachar identifies religious and cultural minorities as the groups most prone to come into conflict with majority state laws, while using examples taken from the accommodation of Aboriginal Peoples to illustrate her point. Indeed, the starkest conflicts between state, group, and individual will arise from those minorities that are embedded in a liberal state yet aim for more autonomy by claiming more encompassing self-government and self-determination rights. Put differently, those cultural groups that aim for political and cultural accommodation, including their own community laws. To tackle conflicts between cultural minorities and the liberal state that may arise from different conceptions of law, Shachar emphasizes that state and minority groups should share responsibilities for regulating contested submatter areas in her proposal for a joint governance arrangement. For example, when it comes to marriage, the religious community should implement rules for

abstract The idea of liberal subjectivity prevalent in Western legal traditions assumes a highly autonomous and context-free agent. This assumption of categorical individual agency, I argue, is also a central tenet underlying the debates on female vulnerability/autonomy relating to multiculturalism, feminism and more precisely, to the cultural defence. The notion of agency appears dichotomous when it is discussed in relation to women and culture: the two roles available for women in these discussions are those of either victims or agents. By introducing a case from a Finnish District Court, I challenge this simplified view of female vulnerability/autonomy and look for a more nuanced way of understanding a legal subject's agency.

Ethnic Challenges to the Modern Nation …, 2000

PDF-PowerPoint presentation of the talk I gave on Thursday, 1st February, at the III Braga Colloquium in the History of Moral and Political Philosophy, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, 1st – 2nd February 2018, Theme: Radicalism and Compromise Abstract Is multiculturalism bad for women? Radicalism and compromise on multiculturalism, group-rights, forms of liberalism and compatibilities between cultures In my contribution, whose title refer to the article of Susan Moller Okin „Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?“ , I would like to deal with different position on multiculturalism expressing opinions in favour or against the compatibility of multiculturalism with individual rights and, likewise, expressing opinions whether rights must be conceded only to individuals or whether groups too should be received particular rights. Radical position for or against multiculturalism and its implications are accompanied by more moderate positions. For my investigation I will refer mainly, besides the mentioned study, of Susan Moller Okin to the following studies: Doriane L. Coleman’s “Individualizing Justice through Multiculturalism: The Liberalsʼ Dilemma”, Seyla Benhabib’s “The Claims of Culture. Equality and Diversity in the Global Era”, Will Kymlicka’s “Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights” and “Multicultural Odysseys: Navigating the New International Politics of Diversity”, Ronald Dworkin’s “Liberalism”, Charles Taylor’s, “The Politics of Recognition”, Chandran Kukathas’ “Cultural Toleration”; Brian Barry’s “Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism”. The analysis von Moller Okin will explain which problems are represented by the integration, into a liberal society, of illiberal cultures for the rights of women: the study will offer us a first instrument in order to understand which problems every theory of integration will have to solve, if a correct integration between different groups in the same society is to be reached. The analysis of Coleman will introduce us in the interesting problem of the cultural defences and of the problems that the strategy of the cultural defences poses for the American and not only the American tribunals: Is a pluralistic interpretation of the law in a right state to be accepted, as those who sustain cultural defences want to, or is a pluralistic interpretation of the law to be refused? The analysis of Coleman gives us highly valuable elements in order to understand the problems posed by some interpretation of multiculturalism for the equal protection clause. The comparison between different form of interpretations of liberalism in Dworkin, Taylor, Kukathas and Barry will give us the possibility of discussing form of radicalism in the interpretation of liberalism: for instance, Barry’s radical interpretation of liberalism as a theory defending the autonomy of the person strongly opposes Kukathas likewise radical interpretation of liberalism as meaning tolerance: Barry excludes every form of diminution of individual liberty and of diminution of protection of the individual liberty in his interpretation of liberalism and in the connected duty assigned to the state as to the protection of the fundamental rights of the individuals, whereas Kukathas considers the state as only being an aggregation between groups without having, therefore, any authority of coercion in relation to the groups: since liberalism is tolerance, the rules holding in the different groups ought in the opinion of Kukathas to be tolerated, even if these rule are oppressive, intolerant and illiberal for the members of the group itself. The opposition between Dworkin and Taylor will introduce us into the opposition between a procedural and a substantive interpretation of liberalism. Finally, Kymlicka’s rather moderate liberal theory of group rights, on the basis of which the acknowledgment of rights to groups and, therefore, not only reserved to individuals is to be interpreted as an extension and natural development of the liberal tradition, will be compared with the strong and radical criticism expressed by Barry in relation to every form of group rights. My opinion will be that liberalism has to be interpreted as a theory of autonomy and of defence of the autonomy of the individuals. The primacy ought to be done to individual and to the defence of the individuals against groups. Notwithstanding, I believe that group rights are indispensable in a geopolitical dimension in order to protect minority groups from abuse perpetrated by majority groups.

2011

Draft paper, not for circulation, comments most welcome I. Tensions between Gender and Cultural Claims A challenging conundrum The upsurge of interest in multiculturalism in debates of political justice is linked to the fact that most democratic countries are nowadays confronted with demands for accommodation by various types of historically marginalized identity groups. As the groundbreaking work of political philosophers such as Will Kymlicka (1995), Charles Taylor (1992, 1993) or Iris M. Young (1990) helped to elucidate throughout the 1990s, such demands typically involve the recognition of some form of differentiated citizenship. Within the scholarly debate, this idea has been often interpreted as requiring group rights for certain types of minorities, thus offering a rationale for legal dispositions and public policies intended to promote the long-term viability of their cultures 1. Different theories have been worked out that try to establish the moral relevance of cultural belonging, so as to substantiate the defence of group rights. Perhaps the most influential account is that of Kymlicka (1989, 1995), which emphasises the reconcilability and interdependence of autonomy and culture. Participation in what he dubs a 'societal culture' provides the tools for understanding cultural narratives, and this is a precondition for making meaningful choices about how to lead our livesthat is, for becoming autonomous 2. Alternative accounts of group rights appeal, instead, to toleration and to the intrinsic value of pluralism embedded in cultural diversity 3. Overall, by addressing the question of the requirements of justice in diverse societies, this literature offers a new grammar to assess the grounds, moral and political, underlying some of the main struggles for justice in the world today: from the rights of indigenous peoples and linguistic and national minorities to the morality of asymmetrical forms of federalism. To many, this development is appealing: it provides a better picture of identity conflicts, offering modes of accommodation that broaden liberal ideals of freedom and equality to account for patterns of inter