A Comparison between Charles Taylor and Will Kymlickas views on Multiculturalism with Minority Rights - Essay Example

You're 02 June 2006 A Comparison between Charles Taylor and Will Kymlicka's views on Multiculturalism with Minority Rights With regard to Charles Taylor's view and Kymlicka's view on multiculturalism and minority rights, it can be seen that there are similarities as well as unique differences also. With regard to Charles Taylor's literature he clearly is pointing out that all voices should have a form of recognition, especially in the arena of politics, while Kymlicka states that some problems within multiculturalism simply can not be avoided despite the efforts to provide equality. However, the implementation of equality and sharing of beliefs is the only way that discriminatory issues can be avoided and minority rights upheld, according to Taylor's philosophy. I personally tend to favor Taylor's point of view since it appears to have the most solidity in the view's being given. Of course he makes quite a few other interesting points in his writing, from my personal interpretation of it. Multiculturalism has a strong purpose in politics as when there are other nationalities living in a country they want to be able to feel they are a part of it (Taylor 1994). The only way this is possible is if they have awareness that they are included in the many political debates of the many topics concerning the country's needs or desire's for the people. Furthermore, Taylor shows the notion of multiculturalism gives identity to people as it defines them as human beings. If the politics of a nation where only centered around the natural origin of those living in a country, such as Americans in the United States, then there would be no sense of a multiculturalist identity for those who were of a foreign body that also dwelled in America as well. Therefore Taylor points out that it is crucial to acknowledge all people who reside in a country and that developing a political identity with the concept of multiculturalism is the way to go about creating equality and a sense of individuality for all of the various ethnic cultures within the body of a nation. A political body can not simply step up to a podium and refer to all people as Americans or Europeans and expect there to be unity in that nation. This is one of the strongest views of Taylor and this author feels it has a good relevance to the effect political bodies have on the citizens of a nation. If there is a lack of inclusion of one type of nationality there is going to be discord and inequality but if there is an inclusion of the whole concept of multiculturalism then it will make a nation stronger and the citizens of the communities will be united, or so it would appear. Also, Taylor also emphasizes the fact that recognition of different cultures is extremely important to provide equality in a nation. However, there can be various dilemmas with what people know about others and therefore the idea of misrecognition of a culturally diverse group can create just as many problems as actually not identifying their presence can create. For example people in a country often make assumptions about foreigners who live there. Before the facts are gathered false interpretations develop such as with Latino's, many people in America often identify all Latino's as being from Mexico and speaking the same form of language but this is the wrong impression. Latino's span out across many regions and they all do not look alike or speak alike therefore this is a simple example that can be given following Taylor's points of misrecognition of a culture between ethnicities. In fact Taylor states that the wrong idea can cause severe harm onto a culture as they are then faced with many discriminatory issues and don't feel a sense of equality either, which is one of the problems that is prevalent in many countries today, especially in the United States in particular. This results in a distorted image of a culture and impacts them in a negative way as they begin to feel that the main representative cultural body within a country is not willing to learn more about them in order to acquire the correct interpretation of their ethnicity. If the wrong image is mirrored back onto a culture repeatedly enough it can result in disharmony among other ethnicities and therefore promote violence and misunderstandings, as Taylor is obviously trying to show in his writing. The points he is making are indeed very true as there are definite issues of inequality among ethnicities in the United States. Some would say that this is due to the fact that the concept of multiculturalism and minority rights in particular is not wholly appreciated but simply just tolerated. Therefore there are many issues of inferiority and lack of understanding among ethnicities. This is something that Taylor was stating could lead to many more complications in a nation, if in fact the concept of multiculturalism was not entertained, not only in a political sense but in a community sense as well. This is the interpretation that this author is gleaming from Taylor's words in any regard, and they do seem like an accurate understanding of what he is implying. Furthermore, Taylor goes on to show how the concept of feminism has been affected as well. Women have been faced with discriminatory issues for a number of years and even though they hold more equality today than from 50 years ago there are still significant problems, especially in the area of politics and even in employment issues as well. Because there has been such a false identity with women for such a long period of time many of them have fallen into a role of inferiority. That isn't to say that all women feel this way but a good percentage feel that their rights as well as their roles in society are minimized. In fact, Taylor (1994) shows that women can be presumed to be a minority in a country the same as a foreign or minority group is and therefore faced with the same issues of inequality. In this regard, women as well as other minority groups often fail to see the opportunities that they have before them due to the fact that they have been oppressed for so many years. African Americans have dealt with these same types of injustices due to a lack of joint multicultural identity in the United States in particular, and even in foreign countries such as Australia Both the United States and Australia have carried a sense of white imperialism throughout history and even though Taylor shows that these belief systems have changed and many of the discriminatory elements have been removed, African Americans, Latino's, and other foreigners, including women alike have still been left to deal with feelings of self-depreciation due to the historic relevance of former view points (Taylor 1994). Europeans are even found to be guilty of this type of representation of Aboriginal people, as history shows that they did not hold multicultural views to a high importance in the past either. In fact many people (Aboriginals) were held back and projected as being inferior and uncivilized. Even though there has now been a state of multicultural unity developed in Australia, Europe, the United States and other parts of the world now, as Taylor is emphasizing in his literature the remnants of the past still grossly affect these people's interpretations of themselves and continue to place discriminatory barriers in their way of progress in society. This is true even in the political elements of these countries as well. Therefore, because of the past transgressions, Taylor defines the fact that recognition of minorities and women is not something that is owed but indeed it is something that they duly deserve and need to have in order to feel like equal and social human beings (Taylor 1994). I totally agree with Taylor on this because it is true that if people are not treated fairly and equally for years upon years, then simply introducing the idea of multiculturalism and equality is not going to mean that the ties of inferiority and low-self esteem will be wholly stripped away in a direct context. Now of course, in the political arena of political recognition Taylor shows that there has been great transformations over the years, allowing for a sense of individuality of all people and genders which has been very important in building a democratic society in many countries, again with particular emphases to the United States and Europe. When I analyze views Taylor's points compared to Kymlicka's it is evident that there are differences yet similarities as well. Kymlicka's focus is on the unique diversity that exists in every country today, more so than any historical relevance that might have bearing on the present state of affairs in multiple countries today. Kymlicka (1995) states that because of this diversity and so many from a multinational orientation there of course are going to be cultural clashes, he states it is something that is inevitable and that even incorporating a stronger position of multiculturalist unity in a society can not change it. The point he makes is that because of the unique beliefs of the various ethnicities there are going to be disagreements over which national anthem should be used, what religion is best suited to follow, the educational system, national symbols and even national holidays. There is no avoiding it according to the literary writing of Kymlicka. He acknowledges that countries allowing for this very diversity of other cultures within a country are one of the reasons for some of the societal problems that do exist. For example, Kymlicka points out that even when countries try to promote a better sense of equality there still remains a sense of unfairness to other ethnicities due to the main cultural beliefs that are present in society. It is hard to understand why there can't simply be unison between cultures and a sharing of joint beliefs but just as Taylor stated, history has a part to play in this and as Kymlicka says the diversity promotes aggravation as well. Kymlicka (1995) also feels a more liberal approach to the problem might be best as it could develop building blocks within other national countries to expand upon and therefore promote more fairness for all citizens. This is a similarity between these two as though both view the facts that a starting point of equality needs to develop firstly before a more in-depth approach to solving the problems can ensue. Kymlicka (1995) does give an example of where in history some countries tried to eliminate much of the controversies that were posed due to ethnical differences by expunging other ethnicities from the country that were more aggressive than others in their belief systems. This was known as "ethnic cleansing" but instead of clearing the confusion it only compounded upon it because it created more confusion and disjointedness among international cultural identities (Kymlicka 1995). I agree with this and find it to be more of an issue of genocide as Germany took part in which was not ethically or morally right and did not change the problems that existed among cultures. What it did do was create more moral issues that those of Jewish descent and those of German descent had to deal with. It provoked and agitated violence rather than expelling it from the land. In this regard the author feels that many ways that were used to extinguish ethnic uprisings were very wrong and not the right path of action to take from any kind of political stand point whatsoever. However there were other policies that did bring improved living standards for other cultures within a country. They were somewhat negative as well as they were not giving people a choice to decide what they wanted either, but yet they were not as harsh as the reality of genocide was. Some of these other policies which have been carried out have been shown to be ones that were seemingly forced on other ethnicities. For examples they were left with no personal choice (as I have stated) but to learn the natural language spoken within the country and adopt the traditional morals and values or otherwise leave and go back to their own lands. However there have been many steps implemented by other countries such as Poland and Germany which have developed into bilateral treaties that Kymlicka emphasizes. If anything, these have worked to improve upon the equality and minority issues far better than any other policies that have been brought into existence, although there still have been many problems in existence. But as was said earlier, Taylor and Kymlicka both define the fact that some issues are not going to be avoided because of the heavy diversity of cultures. It is simply not plausible to assume that simply because a country is trying to promote more rights for minority ethnicities that every single problem associated with it is going to evaporate or improve as well. It is just not that simple as both of these literary bodies point out. Due to the past problems with discrimination among women and minorities it is hard for many people to move past these transgressions against them, therefore both Taylor and Kymlicka are correct in pointing out how the many difficulties of multiculturalism are going to exist regardless of the policies that are meant to try and curtail them. Time is the only resolution, time and a mutual understanding of all citizens is the only essential therapy that will be what is going to help people adapt to one another's differences and adjust to the various beliefs due to multiculturalism and diversity of other nationalities. When I evaluate how Taylor might approach Okin's political standpoints, I tend to believe that he would highly agree with her points that she is making. Women have had a very difficult time with bringing the identity of feminism into society although now it is obviously present. That of course is beside the point and Taylor would state this himself. As has been stated past transgressions can mar the future for many minorities, women being among them. He would also agree with Okin on the fact that women should not have to face any disadvantages simply based on their gender. They would both seemingly see eye to eye on this subject as Taylor himself has made the same types of points in his own literary writing on the subject of feminism and how the past discriminatory issues have affected many women. Now on the idea of multiculturalism they would more than likely agree with one another in this area as well. Okin is seemingly showing that the problems with multiculturalism stem from how people are taught to accept one another. The various influences that people come in contact with are through educational experiences, history, literature, philosophical teachings, societal opinions, and of course a personal view point as well. Okin states that many people are discriminated against based on their sexual orientation, their nationality, religious beliefs, and many other varying characteristics along with personal traits. Taylor makes mention of these same identifying points as well, also stating that it is a current problem as well as a past problem with regard to the attempt of bringing a more multicultural concept into society. Also another similarity that Taylor and Okin apparently have and would argue together is the fact that many groups that are isolated have no true form of protection from being alienated against or mistreated by others in society due to a lack of understanding. There are obviously no safeguards for minorities in many nations which promote even more concrete adversities and brings on a disillusionment of what reality should really be like. What is meant by this is that other cultures want to protect their own individuality and hold onto their personal beliefs but many times they are forced to adapt to the main nationality in a country which is not morally right. Okin stresses this as being "a way of life" that other ethnicities want to hold on to and there is nothing wrong with that, which Taylor agrees upon as well (1998). So therefore it is easily seen how much alike their views and beliefs really are between one another. On the other hand Kymlicka would somewhat agree with Okin but would refute it by saying that diversity in itself is the main problem within a country, not just the individual ethnicities themselves. Kymlicka's (1995) points are that there exists such an extreme amount of different ethnicities in a nation that it causes confusion in what ideal's should hold more accountability and of which should promote social growth. Okin and Taylor are different in this view as they state that diversity is not the main problem but rather a lack of understanding of one another is what the main complication stems from. Therefore Okin (1998) and Kymlicka (1995) would not be united in all of their views and beliefs and although they would not oppose each others thought concepts they would lean in opposite directions as to the causes of the problems in society. As this research moves on to the political views and opinions of multiculturalism and racial disparity with inequality issues by Clause Offee (1998, p. 113) I can easily see the similarities of ideas from all of these literary writers in regards to the points that are made in a social and cultural context in particular. This is especially true with Kymlicka because his views coincide with many of the points Offee lays out in his literature, for example the idea about diversity having more to do with the problems of inequality rather than the concept of individuality among one another. Also, the mention of sovereignty in a country is seemingly viewed in almost an identical manner when a comparison is done between Offer and Kymlicka. They both state that one recognizable governing body can place adverse repercussions upon a nation that has an extremely diverse population (Offer 1998, p. 114). Therefore Kymlicka would of course agree with Offee in the idea that there needs to be some form of separation from identities to allow for a sense of personal culture instead of keeping a wholly diverse nature of identity within a nation. That is not to say that different ethnicities should live apart but there should be established areas that they can call their own to provide them with their own sense of self worth and identity, separate from the rest of the nation. In this way the diverseness can still be considered a good entity in a nation as long as there is some form of sanctity for all ethnicities to focus on their own customary beliefs and values, in my opinion of course. Notably the difference here that would be found with Taylor is the fact that he views unity and joint beliefs as the best way to bring a community together in a nation. He believes that sharing equal values and ideas brings more awareness of each individual cultural which is not the same as what Offee is presenting in his literature. He is more focused on separation of personal view points and values rather than uniting them together it seems to me. For example, Offee points out that a states people "form a nation", where as Taylor states that inclusion of all people regardless of whether or not they are from that region also form the meaning of a nation with the natural identities of it as well. The difference here is easily seen and although it is a similar view point it is opposite at the same time, leaning in different directions as I stated that their opinions would when I initially began discussing their ideas. Also, Offee defines the sovereignty of a nation being one governing force, " a constituted government" if you will (Offee 1998, p. 114). This does not seem to leave much room for democratic politics either, especially if foreign views within a nation are not being met with a form of understanding or of which are undermined by the main authoritative body of the nation. So whereas, Taylor states that even an issue like this could be overcome by accepting the diversity of a nation, Offee points out it is the very thing that creates confusion and discord due to oppression of other beliefs, as Kymlicka shows as well. These are of course just my personal interpretations being taken away from the literature, and there is always the plausibility that I have the wrong idea but I feel strongly that these various views are being summed up correctly. Overall I do feel that every one of these literary persons are trying to express that there must be liberty and progression for all social bodies within a nation in order for there to be peace and contentment (Offee 1998, p. 115). The problem is that many diverse nations are lacking any equality, or it is felt that they are anyway. Fierlbeck (1996, p. 3) clearly shows that these are issues within politics that have been in existence for many, many years, only slightly changing to acknowledge some individuality within a nation but not quite enough. Fierlbeck also points out that democratic justice has been highly exacerbated upon due to the fact that there is a lack of understanding of other ethnicities and cultures in all nations, even though there have been implementations (which have been discussed) to try and refrain from misunderstandings and controversies of different beliefs, view points, religious ideas, and other social practices among multicultural identities. It appears to me that all of these literary writers have a tendency to follow the beliefs and points that Fierlbeck points out in her writing, as much of it is found to coincide with all the various positions of Taylor and Kymlicka, with only slight differences being noticed by myself. For example it is perceived by both the aforementioned writers that western democracy is not the whole answer to bringing a unity among a diverse group of people, and although Taylor does not wholly agree with Kymlicka about the liberal approach being more reliable to ward off further complications in the areas of multiculturalism, he doesn't refute them either. Thereby both of them would tend to agree with the writing of Fierlbeck and her points on what it would obviously take to bring joint unity to a nation. Also, as Taylor and Kymlicka have both stated, there does need to be a sense of an individual's own cultural beliefs in society or otherwise the issues of human rights enters the picture wholeheartedly showing that western democracy simply has not got a niche to fulfill its obligation to all ethnic groups which would allow for universal liberal rights to all people (Fierlbeck 1996, p.4). Therefore, it isn't going to be a just one resolution type of philosophy to bring peace and contentment to all people in society but rather it would take more than one implementation to fix the existing problems of minority issues and multiculturalism. For another example, the country of Australia would have to do away with the idea of white imperialism entirely if unison is going to be reached among Aboriginals and native Australians. This is true in Europe with indigenous people and Europeans, as well as in America with a mixture of races trying to find a way to live amongst each other. There are many issues that have to be over come and none of them are easily approached. In conclusion this research has done a comparison of two literary writers to bring clarity into the idea of minority rights and multiculturalism from a societal and political context. It has found that while they have differing view points they both want the same thing for a nation and that is peace and a land minimized of strife amongst the people. There have been many points discussed which might work to improve upon the rights of other ethnicities in a country and bring about more equality. However, in the end only time is the real answer, time and a logical plan to guarantee that there is a sense of individuality and a freedom to follow an individual belief system as well, without discrimination or stereotyping. Coming to understand each other as individual beings seems to be the only correct way to change the adverse patterns that have taken place throughout history. Both Taylor and Kymlicka would agree on this position. Read More