Is multiculturalism compatible with individual rights?
Multiculturalism can be defined as a form of identity politics which aims to link personal and social life, seeing individuals as embedded in a particular cultural, social institution or ideological context, advocating equality, rights and cohesion between all different cultural groups. Therefore it is rooted in communitarianism, the idea that we are shaped and defined by the community we live in, and advocates minority group rights. Individual rights are a liberal idea which advances the interests of every individual person, rather than the rights of a group of people.
Liberals hold a central belief in the rights of the individual, stemming from the belief that we are all rational, autonomous beings capable of making our own decisions in our own best interests, protecting our own individual freedom. Multiculturalism on the other hand does not specifically extend the rights of the individual, instead, advancing the rights of minority groups as a whole, embedded in the idea of group and social identity. Therefore, Liberals have accused multiculturalists of being ‘just another form of collectivism’ not respecting the rights of individuals. For example, Amartya Sen attacked ‘solitaristic’ theory which underpins multiculturalism. This suggests human identities are formed by membership of a single social group, which can lead to miniaturisation of humanity and increases violence as people identify with only their own monoculture and fail to recognise the rights and integrity of those from other cultural groups. Instead, Liberals believe that our identity is self-determined, and therefore, we should advance the rights of individuals, and only then will we be able to have a mutual respect for other individuals. Therefore, in this sense, multiculturalism is not compatible with individual rights due to its dedication to minority rights, which are not compatible.
Multiculturalism countered this by pointing out that it still upholds the idea of freedom of choice and moral autonomy. Herder stated that humans are culturally defined, and our culture being our beliefs and values which we share with other people, which may be through an attachment to a language, religion, territory or a set of political beliefs. We therefore have individual choice to be a part of culture and only we can decide for ourselves whether we identify with one. Multiculturalism then campaigns for rights for these minority cultural groups. Therefore, multiculturalism allows for freedom from the majority, enabling individuals to express themselves without fear of any repercussions, protecting the rights of the individual. Therefore, in this sense, multiculturalism is compatible with individual rights.
However, there is the argument of ‘culture as captivity’. Culture is largely passed through generations through socialisation, rarely being based on free and informed choice. Therefore, cultural identity amounts to an affront to individuality and personal autonomy. This reflects John Stuart Mills idea of the ‘despotism of culture’ and is most prominent in pluralist multiculturalism, where despite being acceptant and respectful of the other cultures, diversity is limited and access to different cultures to our own is restricted, making it especially difficult to choose to change culture. For example, a person born into a Hindu family with a Hindu family will almost always become a part of this religion themselves, as they have been brought up with the practices and beliefs being embedded into their everyday lives, and have not been exposed to any alternative ideas. Additionally, it is extremely difficult to ‘leave’ or ‘opt out’ of a culture once you are in. This would indicate that there is not always the free choice that multiculturalists claim to uphold, which means that by protecting the minority they are not protecting the individual, making multiculturalism incompatible with individual rights.
However, pluralist multiculturalism, despite being incompatible with individual rights in some ways, can be seen as compatible in that it allows for open discussion and debate between different cultures (as advocated by John Locke). This free market of ideas allows individuals to challenge and question their own and other cultures and develop a fuller understanding of what each is comprised of. This protects against becoming subordinate to majority cultures and ‘tyranny of the majority’- the idea by John Stuart Mill that the majority idea is not necessarily a superior or better one. This in turn protects individual rights as each individual is not subject to the dominance of one culture over their own.
On the other hand, there is also the argument that the promotion of group and community rights reduces the complex notion of individual identity. By protecting diversity, the individual’s freedom to choose may be affected. There is nothing to say that the individual agrees and identifies with every single aspect of their culture, they can identify with it without wanting to be subject to all of the practices or not sharing all of the beliefs. For example, feminists argue that by protecting the rights of Islamic women to wear the Burkah, they are upholding the idea of female subordination and separatism, discriminating against the individuals who have to wear them. This is a contradiction of individual rights, making multiculturalism incompatible.
There is additionally the argument that minority rights in turn protect the rights of the individual through the rights to self-government, poly ethnic and special representation rights, as advanced by Will Kymlicka. Self-Government rights belong to national minorities and involve the devolution of political power, usually via federalism, to political units that are substantially controlled by the members of the national minority. This may extend to rights of succession and therefore sovereign independence. Therefore, the individual has the right to govern themselves, and therefore, have the individual right to self-determination. Polyethnic rights then help ethnic groups or religious minorities which have developed through immigration to express and maintain their cultural distinctiveness, for example the legal exemptions of Muslim girls from school dress codes. This enables the individual to choose freely to move to a different society and still have their rights to culture protected. Thirdly, special representation rights redress the under-representation in education, politics and public life of those in the minorities. This includes positive discrimination to ensure full and equal participation, guaranteeing public policy reflects the interests of all, not merely those in traditionally dominant cultures. Therefore, each individual is represented at a higher level in society to ensure that their rights are protected. In this way once again, multiculturalism is compatible with minority rights.
In conclusion, we cannot say that the individual is entirely the same, with the same needs, desires and beliefs as everybody else in the culture that we define ourselves as part of. Therefore, by protecting the rights of minorities, it does not account for the individual differences between the members of these minorities, and therefore cannot be said to protect individual rights. Although they may to a certain extent, by protecting practices such as the wearing of the Burkah, the minority of Islam in the UK, it goes against the individual rights of the people as women. Therefore, it cannot be said that multiculturalism is compatible with individual rights, we must choose whether it is more important to subordinate culture for the benefit of the wider culture or to protect the individuals who make up the culture itself.