Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (Oxford Political Theory)

Kymlicka's analysis of multiculturalism here is outstanding. He distinguishes between several different types of group rights, different types of groups, and different kinds of differential treatment for minority groups to construct an argument I think is very difficult for individualist liberals to disagree with. I remain uncertain of my position, but Kymlicka is certainly far more delicate through these distinctions than several previous thinkers of multiculturalism had been (Charles Taylor and Iris Marion Young come to mind). I think even if you're the most ardent atomistic individualist this book and Jacob Levi's Multiculturalism of Fear offer strong liberal/individualist reasons for hopping on board for at certain elements of the multicultural view. At a bare minimum, it is exactly what you want from political philosophy: exceptionally well reasoned, clearly written, and offering a compelling vision of how society should look.

This text further clarifies a YouTube video from Professor Kymlicka and will help me facilitate a white anti-racist group.

IntroductionMost modern states face multicultural problems. For example, the Catalans in Spain strife for their own state. Belgium consists of two nations, Flanders and Wallonia, which causes trouble for the future of Belgium. The rise of worldwide migration causes large ethnic minorities with ethnic and racial tensions.This diversity is often ignored by a "benign neglect" on the part of liberal theorists because a liberal government should assign equal rights to its citizens. Distinctions based on creed, gender, colour or culture should not influence one's rights and duties. This contemporary liberal concept is challenged by Will Kymlicka. In his book "Multicultural Citizenship" (1995), he asserts that a government cannot be culturally neutral, even if it wants to be. Decisions such as state language and education are made by the majority culture, and minority cultures are put in an unequal and unjust disadvantage. This injustice can be cured by giving such minority groups special rights, such as self-governance, special representation and "polyethnic rights", explained below. Does it follow that not all citizens should enjoy the same rights in a multicultural state? His answer is both yes and no, as will be explained below.Multination states and polyethnicityKymlicka replaces the word "multicultural" by two more specific terms. Multination states are states that harbour two or more nations. A nation is a "historical community, ... occupying a given territory or homeland, sharing a distinct language and culture". An example is Canada, in which Quebec is a nation of its own and where Indian tribes have special rights. Polyethnic states, on the other hand, have ethnic minorities as a result of immigration. Such immigrants come on an individual or familial basis and typically do not form a nation of their own in their new homeland. Most modern states are multinational, polyethnic, or both. This distinction between two types of minorities has important consequences.National minorities have a historic claim on self-governance, education in their own language, and protection of their land and institutions. Group-differentiated rights are needed to give them equal opportunities in a state where the majority culture speaks another language.Immigrants who form polyethnic minorities, on the other hand, have chosen to leave their own culture out of free will. It is not unreasonable to require them to adapt to the new culture of their own choosing. Thus, most of the minority rights defended in the book are meant for national minorities.Self-governmentSelf-governance is a collective right that can both restrict its members and protect its members. A group can require its members to behave according to the rules of the community. Some rules restrict individual freedom, such as the exclusion of woman of education. Such internal protections should not be granted to a national minority in a liberal state. But external protections can protect the culture without restricting individual freedom of its members. For example, a national minority can be given more self-governing rights to control migration to its territory and to arrange education in their own language.Collective rights are not conflicting with individual rights as long as only external protections are provided and as long as the collective rights are needed to protect the minority against an unjust advantage of a majority culture. The protection of cultural membership is important because a societal culture does provide its members with a rich menu of individual choice.Special representationMinority cultures must be represented to include them in the political decision making. The line of argument in the book is based on the Anglo-Saxon political system where each district elects one representative. In such a system, minorities will often be underrepresented. Strangely, Kymlicka does not explore the possibility of a proportional electoral system such as in The Netherlands, where even very small political parties will be represented in the parliament. He also makes no mention of Arend Lijphart, who has done extensive research in this field. Instead, he proposes measures to fix the Anglo-Saxon system, while he admits that such an approach can be difficult to implement.Polyethnic rightsSikhs in Canada enjoy exception from motor-cycle helmet laws and police uniform laws because their religion requires them to wear a tulban (p. 31). Kymlicka is enthusiastic about such measures, because in this way ethnic or religious groups can be included in the society. He calls such financial and legal protection polyethnic rights.I am not sure if such exceptions are as great as Kymlicka assumes. Treating people different based on their religion can erode the respect for, in this case, motor-cycle helmet laws. If some person X with religion Y is allowed without a helmet, why am I not allowed? Lady Iustitia carries a sword and scales and is often depicted blindfolded. The blindfold not only ignores religion, it also symbolises that justice should be meted out without regard to identity.ConclusionsIn the view of Kymlicka, some individuals should get additional rights because they are member of a minority culture. At first sight, this means that the state no longer consists of citizens with equal rights. But members of such minorities are put in a disadvantage, and the additional rights are only meant as an external protection against unjust majority decisions. By giving group-differentiated rights, equality can be restored.I am not sure of the practical value of his solutions. Polyethnic rights pose ethical problems, while his chapter on special representation is too much focused on the peculiarities of the Anglo-Saxon electoral system. Self-governance can surely strengthen minority cultures, but this idea is not novel and is already implemented in many states such as Canada.Still, Kymlicka offers an interesting group and culture oriented liberal political theory. He is right that contemporary liberalism is often blind for cultural dilemmas. His book offers a well-balanced theory to think about multicultural problems in a liberal framework. This is a huge improvement over the "benign neglect" that characterizes many liberals today.

This is a long-awaited book. Those who believe that the liberal tradition requires a back row, laissez-faire attitude to the problems of minorities are put to flight.Kymlicka shows clearly that there has been a long tradition of leading liberals who have felt that in order for national minorities to be as free as majorities, they need affirmative action to counteract the all-pervading influence of dominant cultures, through the education system, the media, and the general majority discourse.He sees the individual's freedom as the right to belong to his of her ancestral group, and this of course means that unless the group's rights are recognised and implemented, the individual that belongs to the group cannot be a free person. Kymlicka distinguishes neatly between minorities whose aim is to be considered and treated as the same as anyone else (that is, anyone belonging to the dominant group): women, Afroamericans, etc.; and between minorities who wish not to lose their differentiated culture and identity: American Indians, Quebeckers, Catalans, Welsh, etc. He points out to majority members that what they take for granted is neither the only worldview possible, nor the best worldview, and defends minorities' right to hold other views, their own.He is also masterly in drawing the limits to allowing national minorities full control over their own affairs: naturally, no-one should tolerate practices, however ancient, which clash with universal human rights. These include the individual's freedom to leave the group, the rejection of female ablation, etc.The fact that the book has been published in Catalan attests to its international appeal.

Kymlicka's Multiculturalism well explains about the importance of cultural pluralism and how to equally treat and respect each distinctive group in the multi nation state such as USA and Canada. This book is not so entertaining, rather it's more like scholastic text book, however the book was very knowledgeable and helpful to understand and accept the reality of multiculturalism in the United States. There's no doubt that Kymlicka's argument and examples to support his thesis were impressively logical and reasonable. Because each typical group is very clearly categorized and precisely explained, it's not so difficult to understand. Recommended for people who're interested in Philosophy, Law, Politics, Sociology etc.

Along with Tamir's "Liberal Nationalism" and Miller's "On Nationality", "Multicultural Citizenship" is fast becoming a classic work on liberal nationalism. Of the 3, Kymlicka's may be the most clearly laid out. It uses case material, particularly that of aboriginals in Canada, very effectively. A more refined version of some of the arguments presented in "Liberalism, Community, Culture". Highly recommended.

This book is very hard to read, the concepts and arguements are not difficult to understand but are very one sided. May questions are raised, but the author does not provide any answers. This book needs a makeover starting with triming some of the long-winded areas and adding some opposing veiw pionts.

Kymlicka's arguement is both forceful and articulate, making Multicultural Citizenship a valuable work for both specialists and those simply currious about political thought and multiculturalism. While by no means perfect, this book does an admirable and subtle job of reconciling individual and group rights within the context of the liberal-democratic state.

Interesting book

Excellent book - highly recommend it.