Culture is an important component of a person’s identity; however, the same culture could have vastly different manifestations in different individuals. This is because culture, like identity, is an organic and dynamic concept. An immigrant rich county l can expect a diverse range of cultures, and an even more diverse range of manifestations due to exposure to both native and other immigrant cultures. The government should adopt an accommodation policy that supports the development of civil society groups within identity groups in Canada. This post will first examine the need for government to adopt a policy of cultural accommodation, the resulting problem of the paradox of multicultural vulnerability [hereon: multicultural paradox](Shachar 2000), articulate the nuances of the civil society proposal, and finally consider some of the consequences of this proposal.
There are numerous rationales for the government to pursue a policy of cultural accommodation. Among the most persuasive reasons for a policy of cultural accommodation is that members within minority cultures (or identity groups) are more likely to be discriminated against by mainstream society. In this regard, cultural accommodation is often a form of affirmative action. The maintenance of minority and immigrant cultures also adds a diverse voice in the democratic discourse. Cultural accommodation and promotion promotes a vibrant democracy by allowing minority groups a chance to voice their opinions. The premise is that a state which has a high level of immigrant population, cultural accommodation is an essential policy for the state.
While the government should adopt a policy of cultural accommodation, there are varying degrees by which the policy could be pursued. The problem with state support of culture is that the state will inevitably endorse one version of a culture over another. The ‘multicultural paradox’ exists when the government’s endorsement of a particular version of culture reinforces the power hierarchies that exist within that culture. An example of the multicultural paradox is the government giving cultural groups the right to adjudicate family law issues. In Israel, the government’s acceptance of religious jurisdiction of family law under extensive circumstances has undermined the citizenship rights of woman within those religions (Ibid, 77-79).
Another problem with the government pursuing a policy of multiculturalism is that by pursuing only one version of a particular culture, it is retarding the evolution of that culture. When sponsoring a version of a cultural identity, the government is giving those who disproportionately gaining an incentive to discourage change to the culture’s identity. Specifically, it allows the current cultural elites to accuse those who advocate for a change in the status quo of ‘destroying the culture’. The fact that all culture experience evolution disproves such accusations and the government should not consider all promotion of cultural evolution as destruction of the target culture.
The problem that the government faces with the multicultural paradox is the tension created by the governments need to respect, and provide accommodation, for non-dominant cultures and the dominant philosophy of liberal individualism. The extremes of either pole present troubling consequences. If the government adopts a policy that defers to minority cultures, the government is abandoning the minorities within those minority cultures to the whim of the majority (Kymlicka 1995, 41). If, on the other hand, the government adopts a policy to protect individual’s citizenship rights, the government effectively limits the diversity of voices available in a democratic society. It is also imposing the values of the majority on the minority, also a situation contrary to liberal theory.
A possible solution to this problem is for the government to adopt a concurrent policy of cultural accommodation and support for the establishment and maintenance of culture-specific civil society-like organizations for minorities within the cultural identity group. In this dual-track policy, the government would continue to support and accommodate protections for critical cultural practices. This would include practices that directly or indirectly reinforce the power of the cultural group’s elites and would be detrimental to minorities within the cultural group. The difference in this policy is that the government would actively support the emergence and sustenance of culture-specific civil society groups for cultural minorities.
The civil society groups that the government should support can, and should, range in their mandates and form. In the case of the religious groups, the government should sponsor groups from organizations helping woman who leave their husbands establish a new life (hand-on aid agencies) to those who would advocate for a change in the group’s divorce procedures (advocacy organizations). The existence of such organizations provides a venue by which minorities within cultural groups could organize to effect change within the culture. This program allows the government to respect the importance of a diverse cultural mosaic while promoting the evolution of those cultures by empowering the weak minorities within the culture.
This policy is employs a similar philosophy to theorists who argue that development of civil society within a state is vital to ensuring that that state respects individual rights. The government’s role in the establishment of civil society should only be limited to providing the environment (in funding and other areas) that would promote minorities within the culture to form the civil society organization itself. A government established organization would have the same effect as the government dictating the direction that the evolution should take. By allowing the minorities to form the organizations, the government can ensure that the core of the culture’s evolution remains in the hands of members of the group. The government, in short, should only enable and not direct change.
The dual-track policy is not without its flaws, especially in the areas of selection bias, delayed impact, and inconsistency in government policy. The problem of selection bias is similar to the argument made about cultural accommodation. The government, in choosing which advocacy group to fund is at risk of establishing legitimate minorities that receive funding and support, as opposed to ‘illegitimate’ minorities that do not. While selection bias is a real problem in the dual-track policy, the fact that minorities are being organized forces the established elites to be more receptive of minority concerns. It also breaks the mainstream conception of a homogeneous cultural identity, and alerts the public to the fact that nuances to cultural identity exist.
The delayed impact critique of the proposed policy refers to the fact that cultural evolution requires a significant period of time to occur. During the time when the minority groups are being established to the time when successful evolution takes place, many minority cultural group members remain second-tier citizens. The continued subordination of cultural minorities is an unfortunate cost of the dual-track policy. The alternative, of unconditionally privileging individual liberties over the integrity of minority cultures, is more costly. The destruction of cultural integrity would not only have the detrimental effects mentioned at the beginning of this post, but also expose the culture's minorities to being cast as traitors of the culture (Shachar 2000).
Finally, the government sponsorship of cultural minority groups advocating for change within their culture and its implicit endorsement of cultural elites via cultural accommodation has the government in effect sponsoring both sides of the debate. The government is concurrently pursuing a policy to respect of minority culture while attempting to foster evolution of such culture. The dual-track policy is not fundamentally inconsistent; the promotion of cultural minority groups is predicated on respecting minority cultures while empowering cultural minorities to advocate for change within the mainstream minority culture. The policy adopts a more nuanced approach to culture and cultural evolution; it also allows the government to strike a balance between respect of minority cultures and the rights of minorities within culture.
While it is tempting for citizens of the mainstream identity to argue for the unconditional primacy of individual rights over cultural accommodation, it is contrary to the fundamental principle of multiculturalism to adopt such a stance. The dual-track policy, even with its flaws, provides the government with the ability to balance between supporting cultures and minorities. The multicultural paradox may not be fully resolved by the dual-track policy; however, the policy represents a positive step to resolve the paradox. Until a more comprehensive multicultural citizenship model can be developed the dual-track policy represents the optimal course of action for the government.
Works Cited List
Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship (Oxford, 1995), pp. 34-49
Ayelet Shachar, "On Citizenship and Multicultural Vulnerability," Political Theory 28,no. 1 (2000): 64-89
No comments:
Post a Comment