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

1. Liberaltheoryof Minority Rights, Myth on Neutrality of the State and Ethnocultural Justice UNIT 3 Selma Muhić-Dizdarević, MA

2. 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 rightspossible Questions

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 corestoneof 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 – representativedemocracy 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 • Individual autonomy • Neutrality of the state • 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. Degree of coercion in promoting national identity Diminished concept of public space, expanded concept of private space Minorities can express publicly their requests Inclusiveness 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 Criteria for differentiation between liberal and illiberal nation-building states (Kymlicka)

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) • Procedural assimilationism (minimal state) • Civic assimilationism (Verfassungspatriotismus) • Millet model (loyalty to primarily to the cultural groups)

17. Types of society (Rex)

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 • Fiscal responsibility (i.e. economic issues) • International stability (i.e. security) • Human rights agenda

20. National minorities Indigenous people Immigrants Refugees Guestworkers Descendants of slaves Roma Religious groups Autonomy Fair terms of integration Inclusion Affirmative action Difficult cases Different minority groups, different claims and expectations

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.