Past Paper Questions
to what extent do multiculturalists promote divisions within society
→some national identity but essentialism vs universalism, minority rights can create divisions and unequal treatment but actually enables integration, significant diversity causes retreat but shallow vs deep diversity
to what extent do multiculturalists disagree over the extent of tolerance
→ legal tolerance vs minority rights and pluralism, cultural tolerance vs assimilation, diversity tolerance vs limits of shallow and deep
to what extent do multiculturalists disagree over the role of the state
→ legal role of the state, private sphere versus broader displays of culture, one state versus
to what extent does multiculturalism’s support for minority rights promote divisions within society
→ creates divisions vs encourage integration, undermines common culture vs different extents, unfair to majority vs readdresses inequality
to what extent do multiculturalists agree over the type of society they would like to create
→ diversity within society vs extent, plural cultures vs national narrative, interactions vs essentialism
to what extent are multiculturalists more united than divided
→ diversity, minority rights, tolerance
to what extent do multiculturalists take a consistent view of diversity
to what extent do multiculturalists agree about the protection of minority cultures
‘To what extent do multiculturalists promote divisions within society?’
→ essentialism versus universalism, state’s role in minority group rights, extent of diversity
all strands acknowledge an idea of national identity and argue that cultures form a sub-sect of a broader national identity and that this national identity is important to the state and society e.g. hyphenated identities, Parekh saying Britain must have a national identity, Modood and creating a national narrative
BUT
the extent of this national identity varies significantly between ideologies, essentialism and communitarianism vs universalism and cultural exchange, hybrid identities
State’s role in minority rights can contribute to divisions as groups are treated differently, Kymlicka and three minority rights, taken further by Parekh and legal plurality
But
Others would argue this causes the possibility of harm, Rawls’ harm principle and toleration, even Berlin’s politics of indifference existed within a liberal framework, trying to create uniting laws whilst acknowledging diversity
All argue that some form of diversity is essential and MC as an ideology argues that diversity itself doesn’t inherently create divisions
BUT
Extent of diversity ultimately determines the divisions; deep diversity accepts a ‘retreat’ into minority cultures and enables a lack of interaction whereas
Shallow diversity approaches a more unified society as it argues still have to exist within a broader framework of society, universalism although Parekh disagreed he said that conclusions could be drawn from conversations, learning from one another
All multiculturalists (and particularly pluralist multiculturalists), through their acceptance of diversity and cultural differences, promote a degree of divisions in society. However, much of MC advocates for the sharing of cultural values (even if these aren’t exchanged) and a degree of united public life, suggesting that MC overall promotes difference but not divisions
‘To what extent do multiculturalists disagree over the extent of tolerance?’
- although all strands of MC want to promote a diverse and formally equal society, they disagree largely about the extent of tolerance in such a society
→ legal toleration, cultural and diversity toleration, difference toleration
Legal Toleration:
- formal equality under the law
- PM want legal plurality recognising cultural differences
- some similarities with Will Kymlicka and his ideas of group-differentiated rights but to a lesser extent
- biggest disagreement between PM and CM/LM because the latter uphold liberal values as fundamental, harm principle, issues like FGM
Cultural Toleration:
- all promote diversity, tolerating different practices
- might be limited under the harm principle for LM but still promote a diversity of culture and toleration of diversity
- extent to which groups should remain entirely separated versus assimilated
- private/public sphere, universalism versus essentialism
Difference Toleration:
- arguably the area with the most agreement, that we have differences
- advocation for cultural rootedness, idea that we have a history and identity formed by cultural differences
- disagree about the extent to which this informs the differences but all strands acknowledge that the existences of these differences should be tolerated
- mildly different approach from CM; advocate for cultural hybridity and interactions of cultures, critiqued by people such as Parrekh for misunderstanding culture, want a global consciousness
- but still fundamentally underpinned by a desire to tolerate, if not preserve, those differences
to what extent are multiculturalists more united than divided
to what extent are multiculturalists more united than divided
To what extent does multiculturalism support of minority rights promote divisions within society
Promotes divisions vs encourages integration
conservative critiques of multiculturalism argue that the promotion of minority rights create divisions in society e.g. prevents proper integration/stops the minorities from conforming to a wider identity
some strands of MC might also suggest this e.g. through the deep diversity that PM promote, they value the culture, arguing that liberal approaches ‘protect the individual identity at the expense of the community’ (Charles Taylor)
BUT
promotion of minority rights is vital to enable any degree of integration
recognition is a ‘vital human need’ (Taylor)
minority rights will lead to greater integration (Kymlicka)
Undermines a common culture vs different levels
critiques of MC that it undermines a common culture, therefore creating a divided society where groups operate as divided
some strands align with this criticism e.g. particularist MC believe that a common culture is neither achievable nor desirable
BUT
most MC actually argue that they are striving for a shared culture to some degree
Modood + Parekh both argued for the need of a ‘national identity’ informed by MC
protection of minority rights for liberals ensure things like justice and fairness, which enables integration into the majority culture
Unfair against majority vs readdresses inequality
opposition to minority rights and positive discrimination because it is unfair and disadvantages the majority
e.g. in America 67% of people oppose affirmative action
criticisms about minority cultures not reciprocating how they should e.g. David Goodhart on the welfare state, used against the majority
BUT
most MC would claim it actually readdresses inequality and therefore enables integration
Will Kymlicka and group-differentiated rights: not everyone gets the same extent of rights, only a minority would get self-representation rights, for example
idea that, especially for liberals, it readdresses unchosen inequality
cosmopolitan MC and eventually MR will cease to exist on the grounds that a universal culture has been constructed
PM and protecting things like cultural history and minority rights, allows for a richer identity
‘To what extent are multiculturalists more united than divided?’
Minority Rights:
all agree that there needs to be some foundational level of equality, protected through formal equality, all offer some degree of minority rights and protection
BUT
variance in the extent of this, legal plurality offered by PM whereas liberals see rights as operating within a liberal framework, CM argue that eventually minority rights should be encompassed in a broader framework and in essence there should be no minority to protect, liberals limit extent of minority rights
Diversity:
all agree diversity is essential for society, all acknowledge that fundamental or part of identity, diversity encourages understandings, leads to an understanding of each other and ourselves, ‘mutually beneficial’ according to Parrekh
BUT
liberals - limited within a liberal framework so it has to comply with dominance of liberal values, support a degree of assimilation, cosmopolitans see diversity as an interaction between cultures and everyone being hybrids on the way to a “pick and mix” global consciousness
In direct opposition pluralists argue for communitarianism in their defence of essentialism, monoculturalism
Toleration:
as an extension of diversity, MC have to be tolerant of other cultures, might be toleration of cultures in the public or private sphere but different expressions of culture are fundamentally allowed and are important in supporting diversity
BUT
extent of tolerance is hugely different - Karl Popper’s paradox of tolerance, liberals have limited tolerance for things that risk being intolerant e..g FGM (outlawed in 1985), all have to comply to an overarching liberal framework
contrastingly, PM embrace deep diversity and argue that as liberal values cannot be shown to be objectively superior in any way they cannot hold a moral high-ground, therefore embrace a much wider degree of tolerance that might even accept intolerant cultures - “collisions of values are the essence of what they are”
to what extent does multiculturalism’s support for minority rights promote divisions within society
to what extent does multiculturalism’s support for minority rights promote divisions within society
To what extent do multiculturalists take a consistent view of diversity?
importance but extent:
all multiculturalists acknowledge the significance of diversity within society
as part of the fundamental advocacy for multi-culturalism, they all share a desire for diversity
culture as an anchor/recognition is a vital human need
BUT
they disagree over the extent of diversity
deep diversity vs shallow diversity
liberal MC advocate for shallow diversity, operating in a framework of overarching liberal values, contingent on Rawls’ harm principle
CM and deep diversity as no other values are demonstrably better
PM and diversity in a different sense, global consciousness
national identity but how this is formed
all acknowledge some form of national identity is needed which this diversity can operate within
significant for culture, provides a framework
BUT
very different extents
LM might advocate for an overarching liberal framework, accepting the values of the society already in it
PM and the need for a more plurality national identity, informed by minority cultures, ‘The Parekh Report’
Modood; we have to ‘rethink what it means to be British
why is it important
while all strands also agree over the vitality of culture they disagree over its importance
liberalism — culture ‘provides an anchor for self-identification’ means our choices exist in a cultural context, Appiah - ‘cultures only matter because individuals matter’
vs PM — cultures are important for communitarian reasons, recognition is a vital human need, politics of difference above politics of equal dignity
CM — kind of similar to LM but believes diversity will form a universal identity
its about developing individual identities from a pick and mix of cultural options
To what extent do multiculturalists agree over minority rights
nature
all accept a need for minority rights
recognition and culture
diversity