Will Kymlicka, in his Multicultural Citizenship book, makes the case for inclusion and enabling of special right for certain cultural and national minorities that reside in a larger liberal nation. In essence, group differentiated rights might be counter intuitive to the liberalism, treating a minority group differently by ways of exclusion or special treatment, however according to Kymlicka, group rights should exists in order to uphold the main agenda of liberalism. Kymlicka strongly reasons that these minority groups have rights to preserve their culture and way of life called the “external rights” (Kymlicka), which do not clash with autonomy. The main claim is that autonomy requires involvement in and preservation of one’s own culture.
…show more content…
He recognizes that there needs to be a more clarified distinction between the different minority groups, due to the variety of the circumstances, special group needs are different for each minority group within the larger nation. Therefore, Kymlicka pigeonholes the cultural minorities into two groups; national and ethnic groups. Although both of the groups are in need of special group rights, the distinction of the needs are based on what category they fall in. For example, both national and ethnic groups require representational rights, yet for two separate reasons; For national minorities representational rights are acquired due to the need for self-governance, whose objective is to maintain themselves as a distinct people. Whereas for ethnic minorities, its purpose is to properly represent the group, considering the political disadvantages they have, in crucial times of vast decision-making processes. Ethnic minority groups are demanding inclusion into the dominant national culture” (Kymlicka, 180). These special group rights “ensure their integration into a common culture” (Kymlicka, 180), and cultivate in them “a sense of shared loyalty to a common civilization” (Kymlicka, …show more content…
In addition, I find it crucial for a liberal government to publically recognize the nation’s cultural plurality in the name of innovational progress and promotion of multiculturalism. When Kymlicka makes a move to distinguish the kinds of cultural minorities in order properly develop specific arguments to achieve justice, he fails to properly pluralize the culture by limiting the categories merely to a duality instead of a plurality. Perhaps even a sub-group that differentiates the different types of national and ethnic groups. My argument is that the duality between nation and ethnicity is too categorical, and that the categorical distinctions Kymlicka sets up are too rigid and even a contradictory account of multicultural citizenship. I believe, loosening this distinction and creating a continuum would better serve Kymlicka’s purposes. As a certain point, Kymlicka himself proposes that cultural minority differences should be based on a continuum (Kymlicka, 25), however he rejects this idea and fails to provide a clear explanation for the
He recognizes that there needs to be a more clarified distinction between the different minority groups, due to the variety of the circumstances, special group needs are different for each minority group within the larger nation. Therefore, Kymlicka pigeonholes the cultural minorities into two groups; national and ethnic groups. Although both of the groups are in need of special group rights, the distinction of the needs are based on what category they fall in. For example, both national and ethnic groups require representational rights, yet for two separate reasons; For national minorities representational rights are acquired due to the need for self-governance, whose objective is to maintain themselves as a distinct people. Whereas for ethnic minorities, its purpose is to properly represent the group, considering the political disadvantages they have, in crucial times of vast decision-making processes. Ethnic minority groups are demanding inclusion into the dominant national culture” (Kymlicka, 180). These special group rights “ensure their integration into a common culture” (Kymlicka, 180), and cultivate in them “a sense of shared loyalty to a common civilization” (Kymlicka, …show more content…
In addition, I find it crucial for a liberal government to publically recognize the nation’s cultural plurality in the name of innovational progress and promotion of multiculturalism. When Kymlicka makes a move to distinguish the kinds of cultural minorities in order properly develop specific arguments to achieve justice, he fails to properly pluralize the culture by limiting the categories merely to a duality instead of a plurality. Perhaps even a sub-group that differentiates the different types of national and ethnic groups. My argument is that the duality between nation and ethnicity is too categorical, and that the categorical distinctions Kymlicka sets up are too rigid and even a contradictory account of multicultural citizenship. I believe, loosening this distinction and creating a continuum would better serve Kymlicka’s purposes. As a certain point, Kymlicka himself proposes that cultural minority differences should be based on a continuum (Kymlicka, 25), however he rejects this idea and fails to provide a clear explanation for the