Lecture 9: Global Justice I: Intro & Multiculturalism Flashcards
(14 cards)
Theory of Justice (Fabre): Scope and Content
Content of Justice: A theory of justice sets out what is owed to whom. It defines the rights, goods, and obligations that justice covers. (Fabre, 2007)
Scope of Justice: This refers to where justice applies—across space and time:
Space: States are both internally non-homogeneous (multiculturalism, national self-determination) and externally interlinked (global justice, immigration).
Time: Justice applies across generations—toward both future generations (climate change) and past generations (reparative justice).
Fabre emphasizes the importance of understanding both the content (what justice includes) and the scope (where justice applies, across different contexts).
Liberal Egalitarianism (Fabre)
Definition: A theory of justice that defends fundamental individual freedoms and assumes moral equality of all individuals. It mandates distributing resources (income and wealth) to those with fewer resources. (Fabre, 2007)
Key Variations:
Luck Egalitarianism:
“Individuals should not be made worse off through no fault of their own.” (Fabre, 2007)
Compensation for brute luck (circumstances outside one’s control) but not for option luck (outcomes from choices or decisions).
Based on Dworkin’s idea of respecting people’s choices: ambition-sensitive, but endowment-insensitive.
Sufficiencyism:
Concerned with protecting against destitution rather than aiming for full equality.
Inequality is acceptable as long as everyone has enough resources.
Communitarianism critique on liberalism (Fabre)
Communitarians critique Rawls for grounding justice on universal foundations and overlooking the non-instrumental importance of communal values.
They question whether the individual is prior to the community, challenging the primacy of individual rights.
They place more emphasis on political and communal participation rather than individual autonomy.
Principles of justice are context-derived, meaning they depend on specific communities and cultures, and cannot universally apply across all nations.
Communitarians reject the idea of absolute, sacrosanct principles of justice.
Libertarianism (Fabre)
Libertarians argue that using taxes to redistribute wealth is wrong because it violates individuals’ right to own the results of their work and, by extension, their own bodies.
Essential principles:
Strong theory of ownership: We own our property just as we own ourselves.
Negative theory of rights: People should not interfere with each other’s rights.
Minimal state: The government’s role should be limited to protecting individual rights.
Must theories of justice account for cultural, religious, and ethnic diversity?
Focuses on practical responses to rising global diversity.
Thick Conception:
Challenges past ideas of what is considered “normal” — historically centered on able-bodied, heterosexual white men.
Calls for a more inclusive idea of citizenship that values diverse identities rather than excluding or assimilating them.
Core Debate:
Can liberal democracy truly embrace difference, or does it rely on enforcing a narrow model of identity?
Differentiated Citizenship & Politics of Recognition
Differentiated Citizenship: Accommodating differences instead of eliminating them, recognizing people as both individuals and group members (Young 1989).
Redistribution vs. Recognition:
Redistribution focuses on socio-economic issues (poverty, exploitation).
Recognition focuses on cultural injustices (misrepresentation, domination).
Charles Taylor: Identity is shaped by recognition; misrecognition can cause harm and self-hatred.
Nancy Fraser: Misrecognition prevents equal participation in society; the goal is to replace harmful cultural patterns with those that foster equality.
Minority Group Rights and Claims
-What types of rights do minority groups claim?
-How do individual-level and group-level rights differ?
Individual-Level Rights (Minority Member Claims):
Equal Rights – Ensuring fairness in treatment.
Legal Exemptions – Exemptions from certain laws or requirements.
Special Assistance – Providing support like multilingual schools or ballots.
Group-Level Rights (Minority Group Claims):
Territorial Autonomy – Control over specific regions (e.g., Indian Reservations).
Guaranteed Seats – Special seats in legislative bodies for ethnic groups.
Majority-Minority Districts – Electoral districts that ensure representation for minorities.
Court Provisions – Allowing traditional courts to handle certain legal matters (e.g., family law).
Liberal Multiculturalism – Kymlicka’s Position
Liberal Culturalist Position:
Kymlicka argues that community or group matters for individual autonomy. There is broad consensus on this idea in liberal thought.
The key question is how much and what kinds of group rights should be granted?
Two Types of Group Rights:
Special Representation Rights – Ensuring minority groups are represented in political decisions.
Rights to Self-Government – Allowing minority groups to govern themselves within their community.
Controversy in Liberalism:
Liberalism protects individuals from the group, while multiculturalism protects minorities from the majority.
Kymlicka defends external protections (e.g., minority rights that protect them from majority domination) but not internal restrictions (e.g., rights that restrict individual freedoms within the group).
Liberal Multiculturalism:
Good minority rights should protect individuals within the group and promote equality between groups.
External protections like special representation rights and language rights help to reduce dominance from the larger group and promote equality.
Kymlicka’s Three Principles for Group Rights
Equality (Autonomy)
The state must ensure equal autonomy for everyone.
Autonomy means the ability to choose, revise, and pursue one’s conception of the good.
Cultural protection is essential for autonomy, enabling people to pursue their values.
The state should intervene if majorities prevent minorities from enjoying their autonomy.
Historical Agreement
States are often formed through treaties or contracts between groups.
Even if a group becomes a minority, the terms of the original treaty should still apply.
The agreements made in the past continue to hold, even if the status quo changes.
Cultural Diversity
A world with cultural diversity is better for society.
Diversity helps to improve social systems and enriches society as a whole.
Objections to Kymlicka’s Theory of Group righst
What Counts as a Culture?
Kymlicka argues only societal or national groups qualify for group rights.
But how do we determine what qualifies as a societal or national culture?
National Groups vs. Immigrants
Kymlicka distinguishes between national groups and immigrants, but this distinction may become unclear after multiple generations.
Does the Equality Justification Hold?
Cultural group rights may promote autonomy vis-à-vis the majority, but could this come at the cost of women’s autonomy, especially in more traditional cultures?
Illiberal Minorities
What about subtle harms or minor abuses within illiberal minority groups?
If self-government rights are granted, does it become harder to stop these harms, and how can we identify them?
Kymlicka’s approach balances community and equality, but liberal values require protection from the group’s potential harm.
Multiculturalism: Communitarianism
Key Idea: Community = Group Rights. But, what makes the communitarian defense of multiculturalism different?
1) Group Membership is Intrinsically Valuable
For communitarians, group membership is valuable in itself, regardless of whether it enhances individual freedom.
2) Conflicts Can’t Be Resolved by Liberal Principles
Communitarians argue that conflicts between groups can’t always be resolved by defaulting to universal (liberal) principles like autonomy or individual rights.
Fabre: Communitarians value group membership as intrinsically important, not just as a means to promote individual autonomy.
Cultural conflicts should be solved through cultural dialogue, not by appealing to universal principles.
Bhikhu Parekh’s Rethinking Multiculturalism (2000):
Bhikhu Parekh’s Rethinking Multiculturalism (2000)
1) People Are Embedded in Cultures
Individuals are shaped by and connected to the cultures they belong to.
2) Not All Cultural Practices Are Worth Protecting
Parekh acknowledges that some cultural practices may not deserve protection, but…
3) Good Cultural Practices Can Justify Restrictions on Individual Autonomy
Limits on Freedom of Speech: Parekh argues that freedom of speech should have limits, especially when it comes to criticizing religious groups.
Example: Just as libel laws protect individuals from defamation, freedom of speech should be restricted when:
The group being criticized is easily identifiable.
The group holds significant meaning for its members, making them feel personally attacked.
The group is particularly vulnerable to discrimination.
The Problem: How Do We Determine Which Communities Deserve Protection?
Universal Standard: While Parekh supports protecting cultural practices, he recognizes the need for a universal standard to decide which groups deserve such protection—something liberalism aims to provide.
Chandran Kukathas: Libertarianism & Multiculturalism (2003)
1) Libertarian Principles
Strong individual rights
Weak states
Society exists for individuals to pursue their own ends.
2) Cultural Minority Groups
If individuals choose to belong to cultural minority groups, those groups can have extensive powers over their members.
The state’s role is only to provide security, not to mediate between different “conceptions of the good”.
Thus, society will consist of many sub-state organizations (including illiberal ones) that may hold power over their members.
3) Conditions for Group Rights
a) Individuals must have the freedom to exit their groups when they wish.
b) There must be mutual toleration between groups, even illiberal ones.
Conclusion:
If individuals opt into illiberal organizations (like cults), the state has no right to intervene.
Objections:
-High cost of exit: Leaving groups may be difficult.
-Abuses against children: How should the state intervene?
-Vulnerable adults: How should we protect them in illiberal groups?
Critiques of Multiculturalism:
Cosmopolitan Critique (Waldron 1995; Benhabib 2002)
Essentializing culture: Multiculturalism risks defining cultures in rigid, unnatural ways, creating an “other”.
This stunts the natural evolution of cultures by freezing them in place.
Redistribution Critique
Politics of recognition: Focusing on cultural recognition can divert attention and resources from addressing real material needs (like poverty).
Economic goals (redistribution) and cultural goals (recognition) often require different resources, and focusing on one may limit the other.
Arguably, redistribution may need some degree of cultural homogeneity, so these two goals could conflict.
Feminist Critique
Protection of cultures: In the name of cultural protection, individuals—especially women—may be subjected to illiberal practices.
Women, sub-minorities, mixed-race individuals, and children may especially suffer within illiberal cultural groups.
