Will Kymlicka

Will Kymlicka

Introduction:

Will Kymlicka is a Canadian political philosopher best known for his work on multiculturalism. His views on multiculturalism are regarded as an important that can be applied to current issues and debates. One of his main concerns throughout his work is providing a liberal framework for the just treatment of minority groups.

His Liberalism, Community, and Culture analyses communitarian writers and issues related to cultural membership. His arguments regarding Multicultural Citizenship are clear and well presented, with many Canadian examples like aboriginal people and immigrant groups. Kymlicka's carefully reasoned arguments force the reader to rethink his or her approach to issues related to minorities and group rights, and deal with prejudice, misconception, and fuzzy thinking. 

Life sketch:

            Will Kymlicka is born in 1962 in Canada. Kymlicka received his B.A. (Honours) in philosophy and political studies from McGill University in 1984, and his D.Phil. in philosophy from Oxford University in 1987, under the direction of G. A. Cohen.

Kymlicka has held professorships at a variety of different universities in Canada and abroad, and has also worked as an advisor to the Government of Canada. From 2004-6, he was the President of the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy.

His Writings:

Kymlicka has written extensively on multiculturalism and political philosophy mainly on issues of Democracy and diversity in particular on models of citizenship and social justice within multi-cultural societies. This includes Liberalism, multiculturalism, citizenship and minority rights.

He has published eight books and over 200 articles, which have been translated into 32 languages.

Influence:

            Kymlicka’s work  is influenced by writings of J.S. Mill, John Rawls, Ronal Dworkin, Gerald Cohen.

Background:

            What makes Kymlicka what he is, is his views on multiculturalism and minority groups. Kymlicka has studied these ideas in a Canadian context.

Cultural diversity has become a central feature of contemporary society, and seems likely to become more so in the immediate future. Increasing contact among societies as a result of improved communication and transportation has made for population movements and population change. Increased diversity in Canada is the result of changed patterns of immigration, with many more people of colour immigrating to Canada. Policies related to immigration, land claims, self-government, language, and customs have all changed in recent years into a multicultural policy of Canada which is a notable example.

His Political thoughts:

Multiculturalism:

      Multicultural and multiculturalism have been used in various ways. One approach is to include the "perspectives of women, minorities, and non-Western cultures in recognition of the increasingly diverse character of life in modern Western societies." (The Columbia Dictionary of Modern Literary and Cultural Criticism).

Viewed this way, all the social categories could be included. While Kymlicka's approach might be extended to include all of these, his focus is on ethno-cultural groups - ethnic groups, national minorities, nations, and peoples.

Some of the key characteristics of Kymlicka’s multicultural theory are-

1.      Liberal theory:

                  Kymlicka sets his analysis firmly within the tradition of liberalism. This is the political theoretical counterpart of neo-classical economics. That is, liberalism looks on the individual as autonomous and able to act. Emphasis is placed on "individual freedom, whether defined as freedom from coercion, as moral self-determination, or as the right to individual happiness" (Seidman, p. 15). Tolerance and respect for the rights of others are part of this, so that pluralism in social and political affairs is a necessary feature of a liberal society. Freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of association are some of the rights that have typically been associated with liberalism and liberal democracies. As a political philosophy, liberalism has often been seen as "primarily concerned with the relationship between the individual and the state, and with limiting state intrusions on the liberties of citizens" (Kymlicka, Liberalism, p. 1).

2.      Individualism and individual rights: 

      They are often viewed as the defining characteristic of liberalism, so that there are minimal or no group rights that are part of collectivities. All rights adhere to the individual, and liberalism has often been criticized for being excessively individualistic.

      In contrast, Kymlicka argues that "liberalism also contains a broader account of the relationship between the individual and society - and, in particular, of the individual's membership in a community and a culture" (Kymlicka, Liberalism, p. 1). It is this argument that Kymlicka pursues in Multicultural Citizenship, and where he argues that group rights are part of liberal thought. Group rights can be viewed as admissible within liberalism and even necessary for freedom and equality.

3.      Minority Rights:

One of his main concerns throughout his work is providing a liberal framework for the just treatment of minority groups which he divides into two basic categories:

 (i) National minorities and

 (ii) Poly-ethnic groups or immigrant groups.

      A particular state could be a combination of these, as is Canada. Most states have aspects of each, although Canada is more clearly an example of a country with at least two national minorities and many ethnic groups.

·         National minorities are groups that have in common some or all of history, community, territory, language, or culture. Each of these is sometimes referred to as a nation, people, or culture. Each of these may have become a minority involuntarily through conquest, colonization, or expansion, or it could have voluntarily agreed to enter a federation with one or more other nations, peoples, or cultures.

       I.            Kymlicka defines national minorities in terms of culture, and argues that if these minorities wish to retain their cultures, they should be recognized as distinct.

    II.            The group rights that may be associated with national minorities are self-government rights or special representation rights. While these have to be worked out on a case by case basis, Kymlicka makes a strong case for these rights where national minorities have a claim to be peoples or cultures.

 III.            For Kymlicka these are not temporary rights, but are rights that should be recognized on a permanent basis, because these are inherent rights of the national minority.

 IV.            Of course, these groups could decide to secede, and this may be the best solution in some cases.

But in other cases, it may be possible to accommodate the rights of national minorities through a combination of self-government and special representation rights. 

·         Ethnic groups and poly-ethnic rights:

       I.            In contrast, Kymlicka argues that immigrant groups are generally ethnic groups, and can be accorded what he calls poly-ethnic rights in a poly-ethnic state.

    II.            Kymlicka notes that immigration is voluntary (he deals separately with the issue of refugees) and argues that immigrants generally wish to integrate into the society and culture that they enter.

 III.            At the same time, they may wish to retain some aspects of their culture, and retention of these is especially important to them.

 IV.            Among the rights that Kymlicka argues, could be given to these ethnic groups are policies related to ending racism and discrimination, education, some types of affirmative action, exemption from some rules which may violate religious practices, and public funding of cultural practices. 

4. Culture:

            Kymlicka has many useful comments concerning the meaning of culture and the importance of culture for individuals. The particular culture that is discusses is societal culture, the history, traditions, and conventions that go along with the society, and the set of social practices and institutions that are associated with the societal culture.

            Culture of origin provides a basic resource for people, and integration into a new culture is difficult for people. In these circumstances, it may be important to strengthen the culture andprovide protections for various minority groups. But note that this leads in quite different directions for national minorities than for immigrant ethnic groups. That latter generally wish to integrate, the protections may not need be permanent, and are often fairly limited. For national minorities, the argument may lead in the direction of strengthening their societal culture, as a permanent feature, with extensive self-government rights. Kymlicka does not argue for self-government rights for ethnic groups.

5. Basis for group rights:

            As a basis for group rights, Kymlicka makes two arguments.

                I.            The equality argument is that some minority rights actually increase equality, and that true equality requires different treatment for different groups. The problem is that depriving groups of rights such as language and access to land may leave a group culturally disadvantaged, and unable to fully participate in society. Examples include land and fishing rights for aboriginal people, imposing few restrictions on the minority but having an especially important impact on improving the position of aboriginal people. Part of the argument here is that the state cannot be culturally neutral, there is usually an official language, has particular procedures used in the exercise of power, and determines boundaries that my affect representation for communities of interest. With respect to polyethnic rights, holidays, work week scheduling, education, and public symbols may all present problems for some ethnic groups. 

             II.            Historical agreements such as treaties, terms of federation, agreement concerning boundaries and use of language should be recognized, especially for national minorities.

          III.            Cultural diversity is a third argument that is sometimes used to argue for special minority rights. For the majority, increased cultural diversity is likely a positive development, but this is diversity within the culture. This can be achieved, and presently is occurring, by having more immigrant groups integrate into the majority culture. 

        Group rights adhere not just to the national minority or ethnic groups but may be part of the rights of individuals in these groups. For example, special land rights for aboriginal people may be part of the rights of the aboriginal group. But hunting and fishing rights may be primarily important for individuals in these groups. Similarly, allowing Sikhs to avoid wearing motorcycle helmets is a special right that individual Sikhs may wish to exercise. 

5.  Problem cases:

      Kymlicka does not shy away from dealing with problem cases and examples which do not fit his approach.

I.       He recognizes that each group, or parts of groups, may require different types of treatment. One example is African-Americans in the United States - neither a voluntary immigrant group nor a national minority. In general, African-Americans have desired integration and an extension of full individual rights to them, rather than requesting group rights.

II.      A second group that may not fit is refugees, who leave their country and culture involuntarily, and may or may not wish to enter the culture of the new country where they find refuge. Some may wish to return to their country of origin, others may become more similar to voluntary immigrants. Note though that in the Regina Refugee Study, there were a number of refugees for whom Canada did not seem to be the first choice, and who were quite unhappy with their situation here. 

Illiberal Cultures:

      A considerable part of the discussion involves illiberal cultures and how liberals can deal with them. These are cultures which limit the liberty of members and where respect for individual freedom of choice is limited or non-existent. These could be national minorities or societal cultures that people decide to leave when they become immigrants.                                 Being a liberal, Kymlicka does not agree with these traditions and practices, but argues that if national minorities are to be self-governing, then liberals cannot selectively intervene on some of these issues. This is an important policy point, because some first nations groups may argue that they should not be subject to the Charter and to Canadian courts if they are to be truly self-governing.

      For ethnic groups, maintaining such practices is inconsistent with integration into a liberal society. For example, treatment of girls and women within some cultures seems inappropriate -customs like arranged marriage, female circumcision, etc. For these groups, Kymlicka argues that internal restrictions on group members be limited or non-existent. He argues for external protections for these groups, but that liberal rights should exist for individuals within these groups. 

Liberal Tradition:

      Kymlicka notes that the liberal tradition is not exclusively individualistic, but that this exclusive focus on individualism is of recent origin. He argues that all liberal societies recognize group rights in some form - even the United States, where liberal democracy is considered most dominant.

The Marxist and socialist tradition in the nineteenth century was little different, with the assumption that the great powers - France, Britain, Germany - should be nation-states, but that small nationalities should disappear. More recently socialists have adopted a variety of different approaches, but many of these have the same problem as noted by Folbre, they emphasize class and the achievement of socialism over the cultural and national issues. Many assume that these issues are part of ideology that is used by the economically and politically powerful to divide the weak and oppressed. As a result, the socialist tradition does not have a strong theory of culture.

Ø  By requiring freedom within and equality between groups, Kymlicka's approach may fall into the same trap that Mill and Marx did. Some have questioned on what basis liberal emphases on individual rights could be forced on cultures that do not have such a tradition.

Ø  Kymlicka argues that liberals cannot force such traditions on other countries, and should go easy on attempting to enforce such individual rights in national minorities. However, for ethnic groups that voluntarily come to a liberal, democratic country, and who wish to integrate into such a society, requiring recognition of individual rights in these groups does not seem unreasonable. In fact, rights such as those in the Charter may generally be supported by such immigrant, ethnic groups and individuals in those groups.

Solidarity and social unity in the nation state: Chapter 9 deals with these issues, and may seem to be a pessimistic conclusion to an otherwise optimistic approach. For ethnic groups, integration is key, and many newcomers are among the most committed citizens. In Canada, through multiculturalism, these newcomers are tolerant of and welcome diversity, and seek to work to create a better society.

·         With respect to ethno cultural minorities, Kymlicka is very optimistic in terms of creating a shared civic identity.

·         Where he is more pessimistic is with respect to national minorities. While he supports group rights for these, he also recognizes that these rights are inherently divisive, are not integrative, and do not support the same sense of shared civic identity.

·         Kymlicka does note though that as a liberal, if a group wishes to separate, and members of the group consider that this improves their situation, the liberal solution would be to permit or encourage separation.

·         Finally, Kymlicka notes that the shared identity associated with the nation state may be difficult to develop in a multination, polyethnic state like Canada. In fact, he refers to Canada as having a situation of deep diversity, with diverse cultural groups and diverse ways of belonging. He presents no magic solution or national goals, but argues that we have to work at developing the sense of shared identity if we want Canada to stay intact.