The question “Who” means much more for people as individualization and cultural differences became more observable than ever. Turkish author, Sabahattin Ali, who had been murdered afterwards, had stated that “Nothing could ever scare me more than obligation of changing an opinion about me”. Ali's death, was completely about the wall of prejudgements caused by sovereign political and cultural atmosphere surrounding him. Today, not only people like him, but also ethnic, cultural and other types of groups are under the threat of destruction that is an outcome misrecognition or lack of recognition. Also this destructive potential is not a simple result of violence but also a triggering factor of self destruction of a culture. Charles Taylor (1994: 25) states that “Nonrecognition or misrecognition can inflict harm, can be a form of oppression, imprisoning someone in a false, distorted, and reduced mode of being.” By the reference of his words, we can clearly state that in order to clarify our identity in right way, we need recognition. However, when the subject is recognition of a group and its rights by a state, since there must be reconsideration of social order, there comes a tension between “politics of universalism” and the “politics of difference” and rises the key question of this article: Does each culture deserve total respect and what or who determines if a culture is worth respect or not with reference to which universal principles?
Actually, modern political theory's meeting with recognition policies was in second half of 20th century because of the issues like rise of nationalism in Eastern Europe after the fall of Berlin Wall or political activism by religious conservatives in USA as Spinner – Halev states (2008: 546). Those developments caused the tension that we observe. States and citizens had a problem of recognition of former and new cultures different from the sovereign culture.
Taylor (1994,26) states , “...since 1492 Europeans have projected an image of such people -aboriginals- as somehow inferior, uncivilized.” The term uncivilized is the keyword of my thesis in this article, because it gives a birth to the question: Which civilization?
Today, all the politics of multiculturalism suffer from the unintended hierarchy of civilization, cultures. Taylor, tries to find out a solution to this problem by universalization of some basic rights and preferences while caring about the politics of difference at the same time. As known, women in social state were given basic rights which are thought to be more comprehensive than traditional liberal state. However, as Habermas claims, this results in a new border limiting their areas of working, preferences of single or married life, and give them some professional roles based on assumptions of patriarchal societies. Like Habermas, Taylor states that, “Women in patrirarchal societies have been induced to adopt a deprecatory image of themselves” and because of this “..they are condemned to suffer the pain of low self-esteem. (1994: 25,26) Here, we look for a solution that recognizes women without restricting them nor making concessions from politics of universalism.
Taylor, relying on Hegel, states that without analyzing the social hierarchies within a society we can never reach right understanding of recognition and its importance. Honor which is “intrinsically linked to inequalities” and Dignity which is “only compatible with a democratic society” are the terms he borrows from Hegel. He claims that, there had been a transformation from Mrs. or Miss to Ms. And this collapse is an inevitable result of equal recognition policies of Democracy. Up to this point, the has been a small tension between difference and universalism politics. But, after 18th century, importance of recognition has been modified and intensified by new understanding of individual identity. (Taylor, 1994: 28) Taylor states authenticity developed there like the idea of dignity also in part an offshoot of the decline of hierarchial society. (1994: 31) Referencing to Rousseau's “le sentiment de'l existence” he focuses on human's positioning of him/herself dialogically and states “Just like individuals a volk should be true to itself as well”. Here, we face to the politics of difference, by his reference of self-esteem and being true to the self, since cost of trueness to the self is struggle with politics of universalism. Politics of universalism supposes the equal dignity of all citizens. So, while politics of difference take their roots from potential for forming and defining one's own identity, politics of equal dignity is based on universal human potentials. To expand, while politics of difference ignores a dominator majority identity, universalisation of rights as regular outcome of politics of equal dignity creates a sovereign culture that dominates and restricts differences. Moreover, it negates identity of people by homogenizing them. So, a crisis occurs between politics of universalism and politics of difference. Here, there are two perspectives towards that problem multiculturalism has. Spinner-Halev summarizes those perspectives. For him, while “Liberal multiculturalists tend to view respect for cultural groups in instrumental terms – that is cultural groups are respected because doing so helps secure the liberal goal of individual autonomy.”; Non-Liberals claim that “...cultures deserve respect because they are intrinsically valuable.” (2008: 546) Let's observe those two perspectives from our angle of the struggle between politics of difference and politics of universalism with some examples.
Multiculturalism examples with wrong and right applications:
Liberals' defend for their thesis of multiculturalism is that socialization into a culture is what shapes individual freedom. For instance, after the collapse of Soviet Union, Russians in Estonia and Latvia experienced too many difficulties, they had to change their culture, language. This adaption process caused an assimilation of a culture there. (Spinner-Halev, 2008: 548). Here, lack of multiculturalism policies gave a birth to inequality struggling with politics of dignity and created a domination of a culture to a culture. The multiculturalists' policies would have preserved rights of Russians there, but lack of Multiculturalism policies there caused a strict distinction between cultures and an assimiliation became inevitable.
Different from assimilation, dominance or oppression from a culture or group to another as a state policy is another problem that occurs in lack of politics of difference as well. From popular culture to literature, usage of cultural stereotypes can cause harm. Today, when we consider black population in 1960s that Martin Luther King represented and 2000s black population represented by Obama or 50 Cent, we can see black people as industrialized minorities. They were reproduced with norms of white population. Their rights might have been equalized, however do they really reflect their original identities or the one that's installed to their minds by sovereign power which is christian culture in United States of America. Their music, lifestyle, literature and authenticity have been adopted into a new one. Here, we face the dilemma, no matter how active multiculturalism policies are, since there are two subjects and one of them is sovereign materially and politically, inequality and oppression emerge there.
Toleration, Acceptance and Borders of Politics of Difference:
We have to look at the term “toleration” that's used in liberal terminology since all multiculturalism policies are dependent on that term in liberalism 2. Galeotti; ( 2008: 566 ) states that “differences which can be proper candidates for the virtue of tolerance are: ( a ) disliked or disapproved; ( b ) important; ( c ) choosable or revisable; ( d ) not belonging to the realm of what is universally condemned”. All those choices may look self-centered. However, her explanation for toleration is not that strict. For instance, in terms of headscarves in France, her point of view is egalitarian and in accordance with politics of difference like Taylor. She claims that, since such a right -being educated- is given to non-religious ones and Christians, France's that laicist understanding is just an example of double standard. (2008: 576) Here, sovereign state, demands muslim women to change their attitudes towards religion while it doesn't require to do so from people who demand same education as well. So, her understanding of toleration goes beyond the limits of liberalism 1 and creates a new sphere for people to survive like the ones that Taylor provides. So, even if it might look self centered and ethno-centrist like Taylor was criticized by Walzer afterwards; “Toleration as recognition is not a mosaic society or at the preservation of cultures as endangered species, but at making people, whatever their differences and identities, feel at ease with themselves, and at ease with their choice to identify or not with certain differences.” (Galeotti, 2008: 577)
Taylor's choice becomes clearer here. Even if he seems to be objective, his decision is just there. He is against the sovereign's culture's positioning of itself as organizer and regulator of other cultures. Here, like the problem that feminists state, politics of difference may create a new route for stereotypes and doesn't cause a strict development. So as Galeotti claims (2008: 574, 575) “Public recognition of differences has nothing to do with the public appreciation of a difference and of its value, not to say its public endorsement”. What's needed here is an acceptance or inclusion rather than appreciation. Here, politics of difference and politics of universalism meet under a rational point.
However, some cultures may not be that innocent like women or black people. Spinner-Halev claims that “Respecting a culture, however, need not mean a blind acceptance or support of every cultural practice”. (2008: 551) In questionable practices that avoid people from their basic rights alike education, socialization, living, liberals who support multiculturalism oppose the state simply imposing its values on cultural minorities. They defend that, negotiation with minorities in that step will be the best method for survival of minorities at that time. (Spinner-Halev, 2008: 551) Here, non-liberals criticize them from the point that identity and culture are not the same and they point out that, group differentiated rights must exist independent from autonomy or self-respect. So here, Taylor's decision an answer becomes coverable for us.
Quebec and Liberalism's hard choice
Taylor tries to find out a solution for these discussions over politics of difference and politics of universalism. In Taylor's understanding of multiculturalism, which is composed of criticism of liberalism 1 and application of liberalism 2, Taylor defends liberalism 2 as in his example of Quebeckers. For him liberalism 1 can give only a very restricted acknowledgement of distinct cultural identities. (1994: 52) Liberalism 1 may cause problems afterwards, like in his criticism to Rousseau's three unseperables. Especially, similarity between Liberalism 1 and dependence on general will. For him this has been the “...formula for the most terrible forms of homogenizing tyranny, starting with Jacobins and extending to the totalitarian regimes of our century”. (Taylor, 1994: 51). Let's observe his liberalism 2, through his own example of Quebec. Quebeckers and Aboriginals in that case are the main sides of multiculturalism discussions. Quebeckers demand their recognition as a distinct society. Actually, their demands are result of English Canada's oppression over French Canada. And their demands turned into policies. Quebec is a nice model for multiculturalism policies since their demands are results of collective goals. (Taylor; 1994, 58) Quebeckers designed a new type of liberal society. They demand education in french for Quebeckers around and they block usage of English in companies which have more than 50 employees. We quoted the perception of non-liberals about this issue. They used to tag such policies as nationalist, so in order to understand Quebeckers better we need to take a look at situation. Here, the aim is not nationalism, it is making sure that there is a population here in the future that will want to avail itself of the opportunity to use the French language. Actually, Quebeckers are trying to secure that, coming generations are going to identify themselves as French-Speakers. (Taylor, 1994: 58,59) They made this policy a collective goal for themselves and reproduced understanding of their life around it. Taylor, produced his understanding of two liberalism forms out of here. Taylor assumes that, liberalisms like the one Quebec tries to have, are based on common goal and integrity of cultures is secured by that model. Survival of culture is provided that way and this way is an acceptable way that does not involve nationalism but a result of a collective goal.
Evaluation: Is reconciliation possible or is it a dream?
While analysing Taylor, it has to be known that his liberalism is beyond classical understanding of liberalism. Moreover, his thesis of Multiculturalism goes from the point of questioning rather than claiming. Here, we can see that, by Quebec examples and all the comments on multiculturalism quoted above there is an easily observable situation: Multiculturalism brings the problem of hierarchy between cultures if it is applied in liberalism 1 form. That form is so much dependent on politics of universalism and equal dignity that, it ignores the fact that socialization into a culture causes a person to establish his/her relationship with reality. Let's clarify this via one example.
Today, in Southeast of Turkey, there is an accommodated Kurdish population, which have been thought to be there much more time than Turkish population had been here. Moreover, they have never had a nation-state securing their rights. After change of the structure of state in 1923, transformation to nation state caused a situation like situation of Quebeckers in Canada or Russians in Latvia. They became strangers in their own lands. Today, each effort they pay is commented as nationalist movement against the state. Quebec example is thought to be a nationalist movement by some people as well. Taylor, clearly defines why they are liberal rather than totalitarian or nationalist through their worries of survival. Here, Taylor creates a legitimate area for politics of difference. However, it doesn't mean that Taylor demonstrates same attitude towards each authenticity. Unlikely, he is more strict than some liberals under the principle of collective goals liberalism.
Let's keep on going from the geography that Kurdish existence and language problem emerged. In Middle East, relationships of state with citizens and citizens with citizens are organized by patriarchal understanding. Honor kills, polygamy, incest are some of the widespread traditions of some groups in the area. In order to find a reconciliation factor in Taylor's politics of universalism and politics of difference we have to analyse these situations. Actually, in such situations Taylor's attitude is towards negotiation. He never blindly accepts differences of cultures, especially when they are harmful for equal dignity. And he never hesitates to keep balance between human dignity and respect to differences. Like Galeotti's theory of toleration and its limits, he aims to make peopl feel at ease with themselves. (2008: 566, 567, 568) As such applications can't be an outcome of healthy, democratic society, Taylor's view towards minorities that demand such violence involving cultures is not excluding at the start but opens way of negotiation rather than blind acceptance.
So, without concessions and getting away from the primary principles, for Taylor, it is still possible to apply liberalism 2. Because liberalism 1, and states applying it as multiculturalism will somehow face with question of which culture is civilized and which one is not. We can summarize, his point of reconciliation, that we can call Multiculturalism without denial or dominance of others, with his own words: “This brings us to the issue of multiculturalism as it is often described today, which has a lot to do with the imposition of some cultures on others, and with assumed superiority that powers this imposition” (1994: 63)
He never denies the colonial history of Western civilization and continues criticizing the cultural centrist perspective of Western States. He assumes that, it is not enough to recognize the equal value of different cultures which has no value in practical world, he suggests that we should not only let them survive but also acknowledge their worth. (1994: 63) Colonial world's system, based on imposition of image of the colonized, needs to be changed to pre-colonial conditions for Taylor. From, academy to street, Taylor needs a new perception that replaces “dead white males” with new order. For instance, in terms of education system and academic area, in that new order “A greater place ought to be made for women, and for people of Non-European races and cultures.”; “...secondary schools, where an attempt is being made, for instance, to develop Afrocentric curricula for pupils in mainly black schools.” (1994: 64,65)
His way of observing the multiculturalism, like in the Quebeckers example is beyond classical drafts of Multiculturalism because of its long term effects and its reliance on objective reason rather that Europe Centered vision of civilization.
From academy to the land Taylor's perception of Multiculturalism is, keeping human dignity and differences in same importance level and does never divide dignity from the differences that individuals have. He always defends dignity of humankind given to him/her by his/her choices or cultural background and never hesitates to rethink the borders of multiculturalism through negotiation each time. For all those reasons, we can state that, with long term plans and developed relationship level between differences and equal dignity, Taylor opened us a great door to go beyond nationalism and creating a multicultural social and political order.
Galeotti, Anna Elisabetta; “Identity, Difference, Toleration”, The Oxford Hanbook of Political Theory; (ED) Dryzek, John S. ; Honig, Bonnie ; Phillips, Anne; Oxford University Press, 2008
Spinner – Halev, Jeff; “Multiculturalism and its critics”, The Oxford Hanbook of Political Theory; (ED) Dryzek, John S. ; Honig, Bonnie ; Phillips, Anne; Oxford University Press, 2008
Taylor, Charles; “The Politics of Recognition”, Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition, Princeton University Press, 1994.
Walzer, Michael; “Comment”, Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition , Princeton University Press, 1994.
No comments:
Post a Comment