The second dimension of reflections on justice is related to cultural recognition, rather than to collection and redistribution of material goods. Though some thinkers consider the debate on recognition less important than reflections on redistribution (Swift, 2014, p.99), many others see equalisation of cultural recognition as one of the key aspects of reflections on justice. As discussed in 3.8, Mills (2007) defends that, though currently everyone aims towards building a society in which all cultures are equally recognised, neutrality in this regards does not guarantee justice. He correctly claims that some minority groups have suffered historical oppression and neutrality does not nullify this situation. Thus, based on actual circumstances, rectifications have to be promoted in order to reduce oppression over groups such as women, black people, ethnic minorities, the LGBT community, disabled people etc.
Depending on how the state deals with this situation, individual liberties can be increased or decreased. As introduced in 4.1, on the one extreme, conservatives defend that the state should only preserve cultural values historically built by the society, while, on the other, avant-gardists consider that the state should defend values that are rationally superior and protect the individuals regardless of their difference in cultures. In between these ideas on how to deal with moral values, there are intermediary positions that combine respecting tradition and protecting individuals through observing reason.
94
Two types of communitarianism defend that peoples‟ traditions have to be respected. One, named “republicanism” or “republican communitarianism”, supports patriotic traditions that encourage communal/social responsibility. The other, named “multiculturalism” or “multicultural communitarianism”, sees that the fact of people identifying themselves with certain communities is enough justification for the state doing something in order to preserve these communities and to make other people recognise and respect them. From a perspective that does not focus on conserving cultures, though that not necessarily is against preserving patriotic spirit or encouraging minority cultures, it is possible to reflect on cultural values only based on rational individual rights. This perspective normally considers individuals less determined by their cultures and more by their self-consciousness.
Chapter 2 defends the idea that, since the seventeenth and eighteenth century liberal revolutions, a certain tradition was solidified and refined in Western societies. This tradition has been grounded on the ideas of equal liberty, social responsibility towards unknown members of the nation and democratic participation of all. Identifying this, however, is different from defending that patriotic traditions have to be reinforced by the state. Even so, given the fact that political systems are based on nation-states structures – something called by Ben-Porath (2013) as “shared fate” (3.5) – it seems helpful to stimulate people‟s feeling of social responsibility towards their co-citizens. In this sense, cultivating patriotic traditions is a powerful way of establishing such a connection. Thus, as republicans like Taylor40 (1995a) propose, a somehow holistic view of society is more aligned with Western values than a view based on a simple aggregation of individuals (atoms).
Obviously, patriotism can be very dangerous. Associated with this idea, nationalistic attitudes can be degenerated towards isolationism, cultural imposition and xenophobia. A first problem of patriotism is, then, that, in a world in which the economy is progressively globalised and the effects of public policies are not restricted to national borders, these issues orient debates on global justice. Thus, any patriotic feeling has to take into account the existence of these dynamics. The challenge is of how nations should see their neighbours: either as “players” whose interests can conflict with theirs, something that demands certain compromises; or as “brothers and sisters” whose interests are also theirs and whose destiny inexorably goes to the formation of a global society? These reflections on global justice are out of the scope of this
40
Some do not classify Taylor as a republican. However, at least in the mentioned paper, his defence of societies in which people have strong responsibilities with unknown co-citizens is evident.
95
thesis, since this thesis‟ main aim is to think of how to better guarantee stability within Western nations. It is questionable if stimulating patriotism is good or bad in order to develop cosmopolitan values and, if the premise is accepted that cosmopolitanism should be cultivated, this point has to be further explored.
Moreover, it is quite common through history that the dominant groups impose their values over the others. Thus, it is a challenge for republicans to create the conditions that stimulate a sense of belonging and solidarity/compassion among co-citizens without oppressing minority groups. Based on this, certain conservative attitudes towards preserving minority cultures within the nations have to be cultivated. Regarding this, Taylor (1995b, p.249) complains against the fact that liberalism calls itself “blind to cultural values”, though Christian values are evident in its everyday Western policies. This fact oppresses other religious groups within these nations. More room for minority religions should be opened and/or the participation of Christian practices and symbols should be reduced. In the same way, as is explored in the final chapters, it is so important that the history of minorities is also taught in Western schools, as black history is in the US and Brazil. As Taylor says, “enlarging and changing the curriculum is therefore essential not so much in the name of a broader culture for everyone as in order to give due recognition to the hitherto excluded” (1995b, p.251). In this way, based on the need to stimulate social responsibility and, at the same time, respect people‟s self- identification, a room for different types of cultural conservatism has to be guaranteed in state practices.
However, many times, dominant and minority cultures cultivate values that oppress some of their members. It is true that black people (for example, in US and Brazil) or indigenous peoples (in Chile and Australia) are subjugated by the white majority. However, it is also true that women and LGBT people suffer discrimination regardless of whether they belong to dominant or minority groups. Being all cultures sexist and homophobic (though in different degrees), women and LGBT people fight for equal recognition appealing not to the respect of the tradition, but to rational individual rights. Interestingly, such an appeal is directly related to the development of the idea of equal liberty from the Western liberal revolutions. Okin takes exactly these Western consensual values to defend gender equality based on reason and criticise the extreme appeal to multiculturalism:
96 [W]omen in more liberal cultures are, at the same time, legally guaranteed many of the same freedoms and opportunities as men. In addition, most families in such cultures, with the exception of some religious fundamentalists, do not communicate to their daughters that they are of less value than boys, that their lives are to be confined to domesticity and service to men and children, and that their sexuality is of value only in marriage, in service of men, and for reproductive ends. (1999, p. 17)
In this sense, Okin‟s criticism focuses much more on cases in which women have their individual rights violated by practices of certain cultural groups. According to her, advocates of violence and oppression against women often support their points by building “cultural defences” which, among other things, support polygamy, abortion ban, sexual abuse, violence against homosexuals and Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).
Kymlicka‟s solution to this conflict balances multicultural demands and human rights derived from Enlightenment ideas. According to him, following a multiculturalist demand, different cultures must be protected from external threats such as the imposition of a dominant culture; however, following a requirement of defenders of individual/human rights, this protection should be limited by internal constraints, by ensuring protection to the weakest members of the culture against the oppression of the members who are in a position of superiority (2002, p.342-3).