Tesis para optar al grado de Magister en Filosofía mención en Axiología y Filosofía Política. / El objetivo de esta Tesis es presentar y discutir la teoría liberal de los derechos de las minorías elaborada por el filósofo político canadiense Will Kymlicka. Dicha teoría propone un modelo de ciudadanía multicultural que establece un conjunto de „derechos diferenciados en función de grupo‟ para los miembros de las minorías culturales.

This paper looks at liberal multiculturalism through the lens of its cosmopolitan critics. In particular I examine the arguments of four theorists who issue a variety challenges to the concept of state-sanctioned minority rights. The first two of these theorists, K. Anthony Appiah and David Hollinger, offer cosmopolitan challenges to multiculturalist views on identity (Appiah) and historical critiques of the effects of racial and ethnic political claims-making (Hollinger). My analysis attempts to show how these views are indicative of distinctly a American emphasis on race and immigration which inhibits them from a better appreciation of the Canadian experience with national minorities, one of liberal multiculturalism's main concerns. The third theorist, Patchen Markell, presents a theory of incomplete individual agency the acknowledgment of which he argues is necessary for an adequate political theory yet remains unappreciated by proponents of recognition. I attempt to show that while his concept is useful, it is simply misplaced to the arguments he wishes to criticize. The fourth theorist whose work I examine is Seyla Benhabib. She presents a more substantial account of what cosmopolitan minority claims might look like, relying on a postnational view of world affairs which eschews the state-centric approach of liberal multiculturalism. I largely reject her criticisms, but I argue that this postnational vision is one that could have implications for liberal multiculturalism. I finally offer a modest account of what these implications might be and where the terrain of this multiculturalist-cosmopolitan debate may be headed. / Thesis (Master, Philosophy) -- Queen's University, 2008-09-12 17:41:13.204

Thesis (M.Ed.)--York University, 2006. Graduate Programme in Education. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 176-184). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:pqdiss&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:MR19751

Thèse (M.A.)--Université Laval, 2007. / Bibliogr.: f. 100-102. Publié aussi en version électronique dans la Collection Mémoires et thèses électroniques.

Will Kymlicka’s seminal work on Multicultural Citizenship has done much to advance the case for minority rights worldwide. Agreeing with communitarians that culture is important, yet unwilling to relinquish liberal equality and fairness, Kymlicka builds on John Rawls’s monumental Theory of Justice to show group rights are not only accord with liberalism, but are its true fulfilment. Yet, while Kymlicka’s theory has received accolades for elegantly tying liberalism and culturalism together theoretically, it has been met with equal scepticism over the tenability of its praxis. In this book, I argue that much of the criticism wielded against Kymlicka’s theory results from his crucial reliance on the definition of societal cultures and the contradictions embedded therein. This is further compounded by the tendency of Kymlicka to neglect his commitment to dynamic culture and liberalism in favour of a monolithic treatment of culture, leading us down the path to illiberal conclusions. I suggest that for Kymlicka’s theory of “Multicultural Citizenship” to embrace a truly vibrant multiculturalism, the theory must overcome its internal contradictions and reaffirm its commitment to a multi-layered and recursive approach to group rights. I shall review the strengths and weaknesses of Kymlicka’s theory set against contemporary debates on the topics of nationalism and minority rights and will suggest how the theory can reduce its inner tensions to embolden its critical support for multiculturalism in Canada and worldwide.

The purpose of this thesis is to offer a comparative study of Michael Walzer and Will Kymlicka¡¦s theories on citizenship. By comparing their different perspectives on conception of person and political equality, I demonstrate that due to their differing views on the significance of culture, they, as a result, have divergent theories of citizenship. Looking from a liberal multiculturalist perspective, Kymlicka defends the centrality of personal autonomy and sees cultures as important references that allow persons to choose their respective ideal ways of life. Walzer, on the other hand, faults liberalism for its hyper-individualist assumptions and misunderstanding of the significance of culture to human agency. Walzer insists that culture is not a resource/object for humans to appropriate but a constitutive part of human self-understanding that cannot be disregarded in human actions. These two distinct ideals of citizenship, I maintain, can therefore be seen as a continuation of the liberal-communitarian debate in the 1980s.

Loin de se cantonner à la notion triviale de simple séparation Église/État, la laïcité classique, selon Marcel Gauchet, est plutôt le mouvement propre de l'autonomie participative du corps politique. Ce mouvement, se dédoublant en État et société, autorise tant l'autonomie de l'État, face à toute idéologie (laïcité), que celle des individus de la société civile (libertés politiques et civiques.). Or, un avatar de cette laïcité, la laïcité sociale, tentant de repenser l'autonomie politique, selon un rapport de proportionnalité, entre l'État et les individus, exige, sur le modèle de la négociation marchande, comme l'illustre, avec beaucoup d'à-propos la réflexion éthique de David Gauthier, que l'autonomie de tout un chacun émane non plus de la généralité de la participation politique mais, plutôt, de la reconnaissance juridique de chaque singularité. La question s'est alors posée de savoir, si le modèle prévalent de la laïcité devrait désormais se penser comme forme politique ou réalité sociale. Autrement dit, la laïcité classique, structure politique de la cité, doit-elle céder le pas à cette matière sociale, en constante renégociation, selon la transposition des principes de la société de marché, qu'est la laïcité sociale? On a bien tenté de concilier ces deux formes de laïcité, sous le concept de citoyenneté différenciée, comme s'y est ingénié Will Kymlicka, mais l'autonomie, étant un concept exclusif, les deux formes de laïcité, politique et sociale, parce que régies par deux ordres différents de rapports à l'autonomie, relation participative, pour la laïcité classique, analogie de proportionnalité, pour la laïcité sociale, s'avèrent incompatibles. De plus, nous rappelant que toute société est immédiatement politique, Julien Freund nous apparaît faire cause commune avec Gauchet et répudier toute admission de quelque version sociale de la laïcité. Car, la laïcité, étant forme politique d'une matière sociale, qu'elle unifie et clôture, ne peut tolérer, sans se nier, le fractionnement ou la démultiplication de cette matière, comme la reconnaissance juridique des singularités individuelles nous y conduit, ainsi qu'y aspire la laïcité sociale, sans compromettre la stabilité et l'existence même du corps politique. Ainsi, le plaidoyer de Gauchet pour la laïcité classique, forme politique de la cité, est-il conforté dans ses droits. La laïcité est, donc, l'expression unique du dédoublement autonome du corps politique, en État et en société. En outre, l'autonomie politique, consacrée par ce dédoublement, s'offre à elle-même son propre a-venir, en tant qu'auto-nome ou pro-jet. De sorte que, loin de se pétrifier en forme politique abstraite, la laïcité classique est bien plutôt le gage dynamique de la survie et de la stabilité de toute cité démocratique. ______________________________________________________________________________ MOTS-CLÉS DE L’AUTEUR : Gauchet, Laïcité, Freund, Multiculturalisme, Kymlicka.

In pursuit of a just political order, Will Kymlicka has defended a liberal conception of multiculturalism. The persuasive appeal of his argument, like that of secular-liberalism more generally, is due to presenting liberalism as a neutral and universal political project. Utilizing Charles Taylor’s genealogy of ‘exclusive humanism’ in A Secular Age, this thesis attempts to re-read Kymlicka in order to make certain theological commitments in his work explicit. Here I argue that Kymlicka, in order to make his conception of multiculturalism plausible, relies on a theologically-thick and controversial humanism operating under secular conditions of belief. By committing himself to a particular conception of the human and specific conditions of belief, Kymlicka’s liberal multiculturalism is rendered provincially incoherent because it fails to treat in a neutral manner certain theological commitments.

One of the most influential authors of the past decade who has tried to assess a theoretical model of defense of 'cultural rights' from a liberal prospective is Will Kymlicka. Kymlicka appears even to believe that his model of multiculturalism represents the only systematic account of minority rights that is yet available within liberal theory. He assumes that other liberal thinkers---e.g. Raz, Taylor, Habermas---'have sketched some concepts or principles which they think should govern liberal approaches to ethnocultural demands' but their views constitute, at the end of the day, 'more outlines than systematic theories' (Kymlicka 1997: 86, n. 1). This essay stems from my critical reading of Kymlicka's theory. / It is not my intention here to provide an alternative model of dealing with 'cultural differences'. My aims are much more modest. First, I want to provide a critical assessment of Kymlicka's theory by pointing out some of its conceptual ambiguities. Second, I want to discuss the case of Switzerland by defending the thesis that it does not constitute a multinational state. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

Thèse (M.A.)--Université Laval, 2006. / Bibliogr.: f. 192-200. Publié aussi en version électronique dans la Collection Mémoires et thèses électroniques.