Upon recognizing how challenging it is to reconcile the tensions that arise in a modern liberal society as a result of cultural diversity, it becomes increasingly clear as to why Jean Jacques Rousseau conceptualized his ideal state as a homogenous one . That is not to say that cultural diversity is not valuable and should not be promoted, but rather that Rousseau, as many of us often are, was inclined to take the easy way out. Nevertheless, as zo0oz perceives, cultural diversity should be fostered in any state that truly wants to call itself liberal—and not because of the old cliched adage that teaches us that diversity is beautiful, but because cultural diversity, as Will Kymlicka argues, promotes freedom. Then the important question becomes
…show more content…
Tying culture to institutions, as well as customs, beliefs, and language, allows us to better understand what aspects of culture immigrants are able to bring with them, and what aspects they must sacrifice. There is no question that in choosing to leave their homeland, immigrants are indeed consenting to giving up a part of their own societal culture and to gaining a new societal culture—they are agreeing to relinquish the institutions, and in part the language and customs, of their homeland and to acquire the institutions, language, and, to an extent, customs, of the country that they have emigrated to. It is important to realize that in this case, immigrants then are by no means compelled to shed their previous beliefs and adopt new ones. This is derived not only from the liberal principle of freedom of thought, but also from the basic human need for recognition and authenticity as Charles Taylor elucidates upon in his, Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Thus, the extent to which immigrants must assimilate into society and the degree to which states must adapt to immigrants primarily depends upon the definition of …show more content…
As a result, the slippery slope that Shadovner fears becomes a nonissue since it is clear as to where exactly the line lines—to reiterate immigrants must be allowed to keep their beliefs, mother tongue, and all customs that do not violate the established institutions of the society. Furthermore, avoiding group exemptions would also placate the concerns of individuals such as madz987 and zo0oz that cultural minorities may, in turn, hurt internal
Tying culture to institutions, as well as customs, beliefs, and language, allows us to better understand what aspects of culture immigrants are able to bring with them, and what aspects they must sacrifice. There is no question that in choosing to leave their homeland, immigrants are indeed consenting to giving up a part of their own societal culture and to gaining a new societal culture—they are agreeing to relinquish the institutions, and in part the language and customs, of their homeland and to acquire the institutions, language, and, to an extent, customs, of the country that they have emigrated to. It is important to realize that in this case, immigrants then are by no means compelled to shed their previous beliefs and adopt new ones. This is derived not only from the liberal principle of freedom of thought, but also from the basic human need for recognition and authenticity as Charles Taylor elucidates upon in his, Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Thus, the extent to which immigrants must assimilate into society and the degree to which states must adapt to immigrants primarily depends upon the definition of …show more content…
As a result, the slippery slope that Shadovner fears becomes a nonissue since it is clear as to where exactly the line lines—to reiterate immigrants must be allowed to keep their beliefs, mother tongue, and all customs that do not violate the established institutions of the society. Furthermore, avoiding group exemptions would also placate the concerns of individuals such as madz987 and zo0oz that cultural minorities may, in turn, hurt internal