You are on page 1of 2

Charlie Wright - VCR

To what extent is multiculturalism compatible with liberalism? (45)

There is what can be characterised as an ambivalent relationship between liberalism and


multiculturalism. There are obvious concessions between the two in the form of liberal
multiculturalism, in which toleration and freedom remain crucial. However, the former emphasises
the need for individual freedoms and personal liberty, whereupon the latter is often criticized for the
way in which it conflicts with the individual, upholding pluralist and in some cases, collectivist
ideals; highlighting the incompatible nature of the two ideologies.!

Firstly, similarities can be discernibly shown within liberal multiculturalism. Commitments both to
the freedom of choice in the moral sphere and toleration epitomise the compatible nature of both
liberal and multiculturalism. For multiculturalists, it is cultural recognition which underpins political
stability and thus provides a base for a free, liberal society. However, multiculturalists such as
Charles Taylor believe that cultural recognition can be applied to any political system, as long as
diversity and toleration are upheld. This contrasts inherently with the widespread liberal preference
for a liberal democracy as the only legitimate political system. Liberalists thus often denounce
other political systems as illegitimate, even if they uphold multicultural values; a clear instance of
incompatibility.!

Multiculturalists argue with this tendency to uphold only liberal democracies as aligning with the
dominant cultural group; consequently not recognising and thus ignoring the needs of minorities in
a number of circumstances. Additionally, liberal multiculturalism often accentuates the distinctions
between private and public life. Whilst the former implies total freedom, and allows for the
expressing of cultural, religious and language identities, the latter is held together by a bedrock of
shared civic allegiances. Similarly to conservatism, many liberals believe that there must be a
common belief in society in order to ensure political and social stability. This conflicts with the
multicultural belief in absolute freedom to express and be recognised culturally in all walks of life;
shown by acts such as the Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988 in which public displays of
cultural alignment must be respected and not discriminated upon. !

By favouring a shared civic unity which in many cases would take the form of or align with the
dominant culture, liberalism and multicultural liberalism alike may be seen to discriminate upon
the minority cultures who, from the aforementioned viewpoint, could be seen as a threat to civic
unity and thus political stability. Multiculturalists such as Will Kymlicka have shown a contrastingly
incompatible viewpoint to this liberal belief, particularly through advocating the ideas of minority
rights and thoroughly protecting the values of minority cultures as well as the individuals who align
themselves with such groups.!

Liberalism also retains a number of criticisms concerning multiculturalism, including its purportedly
inherent threat to personal identity and individualism as an entirety. Multiculturalists often believe in
the idea of identity politics and thus associate the beliefs of an individual with the cultural group or
community with which they associate themselves. Prominent multiculturalists Alasdair MacIntyre
and Michael Sandel have highlighted this belief in the theory of communitarianism, which implies
that humanity itself is constructed from different communities made distinctive through their
religious, ethnic and/or cultural backgrounds. This conflicts considerably with Rawls conceptions of
individualism and the autonomy of the individual; core to much of liberal belief. In fact, a number of
predominantly classical liberals have heavily castigated this multicultural viewpoint, claiming that it
subordinates the rights and needs of the individual to those of the social group. As a consequence,
from a traditionally liberal standpoint, the ability for individuals to self-develop and remain
autonomous is considerably diminished when multicultural policies are implemented in society.
Universalist liberals have been particularly involved in the criticism of multiculturalism, claiming that
it threatens individual liberty whilst serving to legitimise illiberal and oppressive beliefs. !

MacIntyre and Taylor argue that the language of reasons and interpretive framework of each
cultural community heavily influences the moral standpoint of an individual as they mature and so it

Charlie Wright - VCR

is not collectivist at all to group individuals in such a manner. Moreover, M. Walzer and Taylor have
both promoted views linking cultural recognition and the social inclusion of individuals in society; as
cultural communities become recognisable and subjective rights are instilled in society, the
individuals pertaining to such cultural communities may become more comfortable with their
positions in society and consequently involve themselves with both political and social systems to a
greater extent. In this, culture affects not only the prioritization but synchronous justification of
rights. This viewpoint may become implemented as social policy in the form of Kymlickas
polyethnic minority rights to ensure that all cultural, ethnic and/or religious groups are made
comfortable in society; an important feature in a politically stable society. In contrast, classical
liberals are intrinsically opposed to any form of state intervention that may affect the autonomy of
an individual; in this case, Kymlickas minority rights as they work to limit offence caused and thus
may prohibit classical liberal ideals such as freedom of speech. An example of this was shown by
the Charlie Hebdo attack of 2014; whilst a number of multiculturalists castigated what many
deemed as offensive material released by the French satirical magazine, classical and modern
liberals alike contrastingly upheld the values of free speech in defending the publications - a clear
instance of incompatible and contrasting viewpoints from either ideology.!

As discussed previously, a key feature of multiculturalism is the belief in toleration; whether it be


achieved through the politics of recognition or Kymlickas minority rights. However, whilst liberal
multiculturalism may support toleration to minorities, this support is not absolutely extendible to all
cultural groups. In fact, liberal toleration may be seen to extend only to those groups whose values
are both politically and socially compatible with personal freedom and autonomy; two intrinsic
aspects of Rawls conception of liberalism. This may further imply intolerance towards cultural
groups or practices that are in the aforementioned values, illiberal and/or oppressive. An example
of this would be the purportedly harsh system of Sharia as seen in Saudi Arabia whose King Fahd
explicitly declared that [liberal democracy], predominant in the world, is not a suitable system for
the peoples of [Saudi Arabia]. !

This is inherently incompatible with the multicultural belief in absolute toleration of all cultural
minorities, no matter their beliefs. From this, J. Gray was led to claim that liberal multiculturalists
and most multiculturalists in fact demonstrate a post-liberal stance - multiculturalism may only
arise when liberal democracies no longer dominate the world. However, cosmopolitan
multiculturalists may share a slightly more compatible view with liberals in the way that they hope
for minority assimilation eventually resulting in a melting pot society in which civic unity becomes
palpable. However, pluralist multiculturalists find this achievement of unity at the expense of
something greater; diversity. !

Through liberalisms preference for unity, as highlighted by the subjective framework for toleration
many liberals uphold, diversity may as a consequence be lost and so a monotonous liberal
society conceived. Charles Taylor further criticized liberal societies for the way in which they have
been guilty of block thinking; having a tendency to identify many cultural groups as monolithic. In
contrast, Taylor claims that multiculturalism seeks to recognise all intricacies and sub-groups within
cultures and religions alike; promoting the Twelver sub-sect of Shia Islam as a prime example,
whilst warning of the dangers that come with block thinking whilst extremist views exist - this will,
as Taylor states, lead to S. Huntingtons clash of civilizations.!

In conclusion, whilst liberal multiculturalism demonstrates slight compatibility between


multiculturalism and liberalism, some may label this a strand of conciliatory beliefs - not properly
encapsulating the true values of either ideology. An example of this would be the liberal rejection of
any political system that does not resemble a liberal democracy, deeming it illegitimate, as well as
the liberal subjective framework that determines whether or not a cultural group or set of beliefs
should be tolerated. Both liberal beliefs conflict considerably with the absolute toleration and of all
cultural groups and subsequent diversity from which multiculturalism is founded upon. In a similar
manner, liberals such as C.B. Macpherson have castigated multicultural policy in the way that it
resembles collectivism through the belief in communitarianism - further denouncing the latter
ideologys incompatible nature with classical liberal ideas such as possessive individualism.

You might also like