Liberal Theory of Minority
Rights, Myth on Neutrality
of the State and
Ethnocultural Justice
Selma Muhič Dizdarevič
(main subject: Immigration and Integration
Policies
in the European Union and the Czech
Republic)
Context of the discussion


Political dimension: what is identity of a given
society, challenged by newcomers; how do we
discern what are the basic values of a given
society; how do we explain and justify existence
of borders in a liberal state; relation of migration
and security; relation to nation-state concept;
relation to welfare state concept; why it is easer
for some societies to cope with multiculturalism
Theoretical dimension: domination of instrumental
aspect of reason, civic privatism in political
matters and social atomism on individual level =
western liberal societies
Research target group


Immigrant as opposed to national minorities
(or asylum seeker, refugees, indigenous
people etc.) – either citizens of discernable
immigrant origin or denizens (Hammar)
Core theoretical problem: individual vs.
collective rights from the point of view of
liberal theory of minority rights (Kymlicka)
Liberal theory of minority rights


Core stone of any liberal theory: intrinsic
value of an individual. Ideal for negative
rights: protection from the state and other
individuals. Freedom of denomination –
prototype of liberal rights.
Analogy to sharp division of state and
religion and division of state and ethnicity. –
ethnoculturally neutral state.
Liberal theory of minority rights
(some problems)


LTMR presumes and abstract individual as such.
Rights, however, can be effectively guaranteed
only concretely. Candidate for the concretization –
nation state.
National integration defines general framework of
solidarity, bounders of competency of political
authority, provides stable basis for it and enables
creation of institutions, which can be perceived as
representing all segments of society. (Birch)
National integration from denizens´
perspective



Lack of non-arbitrary definition of a nation –
normative problem
Practical problem: integration requires
some degree of certainty and definition of
what one should integrate into. There is
nothing natural in national self-definition, it
has to be articulated, when challenged.
Concept of culture instead of nation???
Problem of membership (Cole)
Euro-Atlantic paradigm
Fiction of neutrality of the law +
 Fiction of a universal and rational individual +
 Fiction of national integration =
Ethnoculturally neutral liberal state (non-teleological
i.e. procedural)
 Insertion of the key questions – can a state be
neutral and why do we need collective/cultural
rights? Is it necessary and possible to take into
account in a publicly relevant way existence of
culturally heterogeneous groups in a given
society?

Arguments against factual existence of
ethnoculturally neutral state





Weberian and gellnerian concept of the state
(monopoly on legal force and monopoly on
education)
Diffusion of national language/s („Politics in the
Vernacular“, Kymlicka)
Legal system as a result of cultural embededness
and historical development
Necessity to take attitude towards social
phenomena
Cultural relativism
Consequences of the impossibility of
neutrality


Liberal and illiberal nation-building states
Criteria of differentiation: degree of coercion of
national identity; thin concept of public sphere and
thick concept of private sphere; openness for
public voicing of minority demands; degree of
inclusion; belonging to the nation is not the
ultimate societal value; multiple national identity of
individuals; willingness to share social space with
minorities, which require recognition. (Opalski,
Kymlicka)
Societal culture


Concept of culture, which includes common
language and political institutions and does
not relate to religious conviction, family
customs or individual habits. (Opalski,
Kymlicka)
Main subject: relation of private and public
space.
Three models according to Parkeh (of
private/public and multiculturalism)
1.
2.
3.
Procedural assimilationism (consesus on
structure of authority)
Civic assimilationism (common political
culture, not just recognition of the same
authority) – related to
Verfassungspatriotismus (Habermas)
Millet model (primary loyalty to cultural
group and derivatively to the state)
Types of societies according to status
of private/public (John Rex)
Type of society
Public sphere Private sphere
Multiculturalism
Unitary
Diversity
Assimilationism
Unitary
Unitary
Colonialism,
apartheid
Racist society
before recognition
of civil rights
Diversity
Diversity
Diversity
Unitary
Types of minorities, types of
expectations (Kymlicka)








National minorities
Indigenous people
Immigrants
Refugees
Temporary workers (Gastarbeiter)
Descendants of slaves incl. forced labor
Roma
Religious groups
Liberalism vs. communitarianism
Liberals – individual rights
 Communitarians – cultural rights
Question: If a culture is so relevant for
individuals, does it mean that a state has
obligation to protect and sponsor it and
does that reduce a culture to the
endangered species level (Walzer´s
expression)?

Ethnocultural justice (Kymlicka)
Two main aspects:
1.
Minorities are also entitled to various degrees of
nation-building
2.
Minority rights must be supplement not
substitute to human rights
Two types of rights minorities claim:
1.
Internal restrictions (suspicious)
2.
External protection (consistent with liberal
theory of minority rights)
(False) Universalism of human rights


Social contract between immigrants and
domicile inhabitants
Symmetrical rights and responsibilities
Conclusion

Ethnocultural neutrality is a myth in the sense that
believing in it narrows the space for non-dominant
cultures to participate in division of social space,
but it does not imply that society can become
culturally neutral, once this awareness is
achieved. Gaining the awareness though does
open the possibility to manage different cultural
interests in a way similar to managing different
interests, which are not of the cultural origin (e.g.
sexual or financial). This again in my opinion
requires constant spelling out of the “ground
rules” of the changing society.