Multicultural Citizenship

1. Multiculturalism is rooted in distinct forms of cultural diversity: multinational and polyethnic.

Generalizations about the goals or consequences of multiculturalism can therefore be very misleading.

Two patterns of diversity. Cultural diversity arises from two primary sources: the incorporation of previously self-governing, territorially concentrated cultures into a larger state (multination states), and individual and familial immigration (polyethnic states). These distinct origins shape the nature of minority groups and their desired relationship with the larger society.

National minorities vs. ethnic groups. National minorities typically seek to maintain themselves as distinct societies alongside the majority culture, often demanding autonomy or self-government. Ethnic groups, on the other hand, generally wish to integrate into the larger society while retaining aspects of their ethnic heritage, aiming to modify mainstream institutions to accommodate cultural differences.

Examples of each. Canada, with its English, French, and Aboriginal populations, exemplifies a multination state. The United States, with its diverse immigrant communities, is a prime example of a polyethnic state. Recognizing these distinct patterns is crucial for understanding and addressing the challenges of multiculturalism.

2. Minority rights encompass self-government, polyethnic accommodations, and special representation.

In the Canadian experience, it has not been enough to protect only universal individual rights.

Three forms of group-specific rights. To accommodate national and ethnic differences, democracies employ three main types of group-specific rights:

• Self-government rights: Delegation of powers to national minorities, often through federalism.
• Polyethnic rights: Financial support and legal protection for specific practices associated with particular ethnic or religious groups.
• Special representation rights: Guaranteed seats for ethnic or national groups within the central institutions of the larger state.

Examples of each. Quebec's jurisdiction over education and language exemplifies self-government rights. Funding for ethnic associations and exemptions from laws conflicting with religious practices are examples of polyethnic rights. Guaranteed seats for ethnic or national groups in central legislatures illustrate special representation rights.

Interplay of rights. These three types of rights can overlap, with some groups claiming more than one. Indigenous groups, for instance, may demand both special representation and self-government. Understanding these distinct forms of minority rights is essential for crafting effective and equitable policies.

3. Liberalism balances individual and collective rights through external protections, not internal restrictions.

We need to distinguish two kinds of claims that an ethnic or national group might make.

Internal restrictions vs. external protections. Ethnic or national groups may seek to protect their stability through two types of claims: internal restrictions, which limit the liberty of their own members, and external protections, which limit the power of the larger society over the group. Liberals should endorse external protections that promote fairness between groups but reject internal restrictions that limit individual liberty.

Internal restrictions endanger individual rights. Internal restrictions involve intra-group relations, where the ethnic or national group may seek the use of state power to restrict the liberty of its own members in the name of group solidarity. This raises the danger of individual oppression.

External protections promote fairness. External protections involve inter-group relations, where the ethnic or national group may seek to protect its distinct existence and identity by limiting the impact of the decisions of the larger society. This raises certain dangers—not of individual oppression within a group, but of unfairness between groups.

4. Post-war liberal theory's shift away from minority rights was influenced by specific historical factors.

Contemporary liberals, by contrast, have been surprisingly silent about these issues.

Historical debates on national minorities. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, liberals actively debated the rights of national minorities, particularly within empires like the Habsburg and Ottoman. They saw national self-government as essential for individual liberty.

Factors contributing to the shift:

• Decline of the British Empire: Reduced focus on managing diverse populations in colonies.
• Failure of the League of Nations: Discredited minority protection schemes due to Nazi manipulation.
• American racial desegregation: Emphasis on color-blind laws led to skepticism about group-specific rights.
• Ethnic revival in the United States: Concerns about the politicization of immigrant groups.

Ethnocentric denigration. The call for a common national identity was often tied to an ethnocentric denigration of smaller national groups. It was commonplace in nineteenth-century thought to distinguish the ‘great nations’, such as France, Italy, Poland, Germany, Hungary, Spain, England, and Russia, from smaller ‘nationalities’, such as the Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Basques, Welsh, Scots, Serbians, Bulgarians, Romanians, and Slovenes.

These factors led to a post-war liberal consensus against group-differentiated rights, often based on overgeneralizations and a neglect of the unique challenges faced by national minorities.

5. Individual freedom is intrinsically linked to cultural membership and societal culture.

Individual choice is dependent on the presence of a societal culture, defined by language and history, and that most people have a very strong bond to their own culture.

Societal culture defined. A societal culture provides its members with meaningful ways of life across the full range of human activities, including social, educational, religious, recreational, and economic life, encompassing both public and private spheres. These cultures tend to be territorially concentrated and based on a shared language.

Freedom requires cultural context. Individual freedom involves making choices among various options, and our societal culture not only provides these options but also makes them meaningful to us. Understanding the language, history, traditions, and conventions of our culture is a precondition for making intelligent judgments about how to lead our lives.

Liberalism and cultural membership. A liberal society is concerned with both the freedom to pursue one's conception of the good and the freedom to question and revise that conception. This requires access to a societal culture that provides a context for choice and enables individuals to assess and learn what is good in life.

6. Group-differentiated rights are justified by equality, historical agreements, and the value of diversity.

A comprehensive theory of justice in a multicultural state will include both universal rights, assigned to individuals regardless of group membership, and certain group‐differentiated rights or ‘special status’ for minority cultures.

Equality-based arguments. Group-differentiated rights can rectify unfair disadvantages faced by minority cultures, ensuring they have the same opportunity to live and work in their own culture as members of the majority. These rights may include territorial autonomy, veto powers, guaranteed representation, land claims, and language rights.

History-based arguments. Historical agreements, such as treaties with indigenous peoples or agreements to federate, can provide a basis for group-differentiated rights. These agreements define the terms under which minority groups joined the larger state and limit the state's authority over them.

Diversity-based arguments. Cultural diversity enriches society by providing alternative models of social organization and expanding cultural resources. Protecting minority cultures can contribute to a more interesting and vibrant world.

7. Group representation ensures minority voices in political decision-making.

To resolve these questions fairly, we need to supplement traditional human rights principles with a theory of minority rights.

Under-representation in legislatures. Throughout Western democracies, women, ethnic minorities, racial minorities, and indigenous peoples are often under-represented in legislatures, leading to concerns that their views and interests are not effectively represented.

Mechanisms for ensuring representation:

• Making political parties more inclusive
• Adopting proportional representation
• Reserving seats for members of disadvantaged groups

Group representation as affirmative action. Group representation rights are often defended as a temporary measure to address systemic disadvantage and barriers in the political process. These rights are intended to ensure that minority groups have a voice in political decision-making until society removes the oppression and disadvantage that necessitate them.

8. Liberalism must define the limits of tolerance when minority cultures restrict individual liberties.

A liberal theory of minority rights, therefore, must explain how minority rights coexist with human rights, and how minority rights are limited by principles of individual liberty, democracy, and social justice.

Internal restrictions vs. external protections. A liberal theory of minority rights cannot justify internal restrictions, which limit the basic civil and political liberties of group members. However, it can accept external protections, which limit the power of the larger society over the group, to ensure that the resources and institutions on which the minority depends are not vulnerable to majority decisions.

The value of autonomy. Liberalism is committed to the value of individual autonomy, which means that individuals should have the freedom and capacity to question and possibly revise the traditional practices of their community. This commitment to autonomy imposes limits on the extent to which liberals can tolerate illiberal practices within minority cultures.

Promoting liberalization. While liberals should not forcibly impose liberal values on illiberal minorities, they can promote liberalization through education, persuasion, and financial incentives. The goal is to encourage internal reform, rather than external imposition.

9. Social unity in multination states requires accommodating, not suppressing, national identities.

Identifying the bases of social unity in multination states is, I believe, one of the most pressing tasks facing liberals today.

Group-differentiated citizenship and social order. Many worry that group-differentiated rights for minority cultures will inhibit the development of a shared identity necessary for stable social order. Citizenship is supposed to serve an integrative function, but can it do this if citizenship is not a common legal and political identity?

Representation and polyethnic rights. Representation rights and polyethnic rights are consistent with integrating minority groups, and indeed may assist in this integration. Self-government rights, on the other hand, do pose a serious threat to social unity, since they encourage the national minority to view itself as a separate people with inherent rights to govern themselves.

Identifying the bases of social unity. Identifying the bases of social unity in multination states is one of the most pressing tasks facing liberals today. Denying self-government rights can also threaten social unity, by encouraging secession.

10. Liberalism must address minority rights to remain relevant in a diverse, globalized world.

The nature of ethnic and national identities is changing in a world of free trade and global communications, but the challenge of multiculturalism is here to stay.

Globalization and minority rights. Globalization has made the myth of a culturally homogeneous state even more unrealistic and has forced the majority within each state to be more open to pluralism and diversity. The nature of ethnic and national identities is changing in a world of free trade and global communications, but the challenge of multiculturalism is here to stay.

The future of multicultural citizenship. Many people, of all political stripes, have hoped and assumed that ethnic and national identities were a transient phase of human history. These parochial allegiances were supposed to fade as the world becomes increasingly integrated both economically and politically.

The challenge of multiculturalism. In reality, ‘globalization’ has often created more room for minorities to maintain a distinct identity and group life. Globalization has made the myth of a culturally homogeneous state even more unrealistic, and has forced the majority within each state to be more open to pluralism and diversity.

Last updated: April 24, 2025