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

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.

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.

The content of the diploma thesis entails proving of compatibility between liberal variant of multiculturalism and liberalism. Critique by Brian Barry this compatibility denies and understands liberal multiculturalism, which it personifies in Will Kymlicka, as illiberal. This critical view is related to the liberal-communitarian debate, through which are interpreted Brian Barrys critique as well as new conceptual elements in Will Kymlickas liberal multiculturalism that make it an update of modern liberalism. The thesis legitimizes this update, as well as firm attachment between liberal multiculturalism and liberalism through interpretation of Kymlickas postulates that is based on Rawls theory of justice and through establishing connection between those postulates and the wider postulates of liberalism.

Submitted by JOSIANE SANTOS DE OLIVEIRA (josianeso) on 2018-05-11T15:32:26Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Odair Camati_.pdf: 1067364 bytes, checksum: 5f0ed114a31bc5d5fcfe07a390e1b15c (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-05-11T15:32:26Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Odair Camati_.pdf: 1067364 bytes, checksum: 5f0ed114a31bc5d5fcfe07a390e1b15c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-03-21 / CAPES - Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / Neste trabalho sustentamos a tese de que o encontro entre as teorias de Charles Taylor e Will Kymlicka oferece boas perspectivas para o estabelecimento de um projeto multicultural em sociedades liberais e democráticas, mas possui limites quando da tentativa de universalização desse mesmo projeto. As dificuldades quanto à universalização se apresentam de formas distintas nos autores referidos. Para o liberal Kymlicka, os valores tradicionais do liberalismo são suficientes para o reconhecimento de todas as diferentes manifestações culturais. Com isso a universalidade estaria pré-concebida, o que, segundo nosso entendimento, impediria um diálogo construtivo com aqueles que não comungam os mesmos valores. Taylor, por sua vez, propõe um modelo de razão prática com raízes hermenêuticas que ofereceria elementos para o estabelecimento de juízos de valor com validade para todas as comunidades humanas que se colocassem em processo de compreensão mútua. As limitações residem na dificuldade para estabelecer condições mínimas para que esse processo se desenvolva sem distorções. Para chegar a esse momento, faremos antes uma retomada dos principais elementos envoltos nas discussões multiculturais no sentido de provar a necessidade de debater tal temática. Na sequência, apresentaremos criticamente os fundamentos conceituais desenvolvidos pelos filósofos canadenses em suas teorias do multiculturalismo. Basicamente, a autonomia é o conceito central em Kymlicka e o reconhecimento ocupa o mesmo espaço em Taylor. Por fim, a partir de um liberalismo brando, da não possibilidade de total neutralidade estatal e da valorização do contexto de escolha, propomos que existem elementos suficientes para desenvolver um projeto multicultural em sociedades liberais e democráticas. O que não significa, necessariamente, que temos elementos para um projeto multicultural com validade universal / In this work, I support the thesis that even though the encounter between Charles Taylor’s and Will Kymlicka’s theories offers good prospects for the establishment of a multicultural project in liberal and democratic societies, it has some limits when we try to universalize it. The difficulties regarding universalization are presented in different ways by the aforementioned authors. On the one hand, Kymlicka’s liberalism holds that the traditional values of liberalism are sufficient for the recognition of all different cultural manifestations. On this view, the universality would be preconceived, which, according to our understanding, would preclude a constructive dialogue with those who do not share the same values. On the other hand, Taylor proposes a model of practical reason with hermeneutical roots that would provide elements for the establishment of value judgments valid for all human communities that put themselves in a process of mutual understanding. The limitations of this model lie in the difficulty of establishing minimum conditions for this process to be developed without distortions. To get this point, we shall first take up the main elements involved in multicultural discussions in order to prove the need to discuss such issues. After that, we shall critically expose the conceptual foundations developed by both Canadian philosophers in their theories of multiculturalism. Basically, while autonomy is Kymlicka’s core concept, recognition is Taylor’s one. Finally, from a soft liberalism, which claims the lack of state neutrality and the valorization of the context of choice, we propose that the encounter between the two theories has enough elements to develop a multicultural project in societies that are both liberal and democratic. Yet this does not necessarily mean that we have elements for a multicultural project with universal validity.

Severe poverty and ethnic-conflicts are the two most devastating problems of the contemporary world. Eighteen million persons die every year from causes related to poverty and a vast amount of developing countries suffer from tremendous processes of destabilization –frequently involving highly violent actions– associated to the relations between majority and minority groups. In both cases, the intervention of international powers and institutions has not been helpful enough to make a difference, and this present reality projects itself as a distressing scene for the future. Human rights and minority rights are the most powerful international tools in trying to change this sad global scenario. However, there is an extensive debate on the nature of these rights in a theory of international justice. This is often characterized as a debate between “minimalist” who seek to reduce the currently –recognized list of human rights to a bare minimum in order to accommodate non-liberal societies, and more expansive liberal approaches, which seek to expand the list of human rights to include the full set of civil and political rights characteristic of modern liberal-democracies. In this thesis, I will argue in favour of a third position. In line with some of the more minimalist approaches, I will argue that constraints of legitimacy rule out attempts to include full civil and political rights into our list of human rights. However, I will argue that these same constraints of legitimacy advocates for expanding the currently-recognized list of human rights in at least two key respects: the recognition of certain basic social and economic rights; and the recognition of certain minority rights. In short, we should be minimalist on some issues, while more expansive in others. In developing this argument, I will relay on the framework provided by The Law of Peoples of John Rawls. / Thesis (Master, Philosophy) -- Queen's University, 2007-09-05 10:41:44.771

Will Kymlicka a formulé une théorie libérale du droit des minorités en arguant que l'on doit protéger les cultures minoritaires des influences extérieures, car, selon lui, ces cultures fournissent aux individus un contexte de choix significatif qui permet la prise de décision autonome. Il limite donc la portée de sa théorie aux minorités « culturelles », c'est-à-dire les minorités nationales et immigrantes, qui peuvent fournir ce contexte de choix significatif aux individus. Évidemment, les injustices vécues par ces deux types de minorités, aussi sévères soient-elles, n'épuisent pas les expériences d'injustices vécues par les membres de groupes minoritaires et minorisés (i.e. minorités sexuelles, femmes, Afro-Américains, etc.). On pourrait donc être tenté d'élargir la portée de la théorie du droit des minorités pour rendre compte de toutes les injustices vécues en tant que minorité. Toutefois, je défends la thèse selon laquelle cette extension est impossible dans le cadre d'une théorie libérale, car une de ses méthodes typiques, la « théorie idéale », limite la portée critique des thèses de Kymlicka et parce que l'autonomie individuelle a un caractère si fondamental pour les libéraux, qu'ils ne peuvent rendre compte du fait que certaines décisions individuelles autonomes peuvent contribuer à perpétuer des systèmes et des normes injustes. / Will Kymlicka defends a liberal theory of minority rights, arguing that we must protect minority cultures from outside influences, as these cultures provide individuals with a meaningful context of choice that allows autonomous decision-making. This defence of minority rights limits the scope of his theory by focusing on 'cultural' minorities, that is to say, national minorities and immigrants, which can provide individuals with this meaningful context of choice. Obviously, the injustices experienced by these two types of minorities, however severe they are, do not exhaust the injustices experienced by members of minority groups and minoritized groups (i.e. sexual minorities, women, African Americans, etc.). One might be tempted to expand the scope of the theory of minority rights to account for all the injustices experienced as a minority. However, I argue that this extension is not possible within a liberal theorical framework where 'ideal theory' limits the critical force of Kymlicka’s thesis and in which the centrality of individual autonomy prevents liberals to realize that certain individual decisions contribute to the perpetuation of unjust systems, values and norms.

Will Kymlicka a formulé une théorie libérale du droit des minorités en arguant que l'on doit protéger les cultures minoritaires des influences extérieures, car, selon lui, ces cultures fournissent aux individus un contexte de choix significatif qui permet la prise de décision autonome. Il limite donc la portée de sa théorie aux minorités « culturelles », c'est-à-dire les minorités nationales et immigrantes, qui peuvent fournir ce contexte de choix significatif aux individus. Évidemment, les injustices vécues par ces deux types de minorités, aussi sévères soient-elles, n'épuisent pas les expériences d'injustices vécues par les membres de groupes minoritaires et minorisés (i.e. minorités sexuelles, femmes, Afro-Américains, etc.). On pourrait donc être tenté d'élargir la portée de la théorie du droit des minorités pour rendre compte de toutes les injustices vécues en tant que minorité. Toutefois, je défends la thèse selon laquelle cette extension est impossible dans le cadre d'une théorie libérale, car une de ses méthodes typiques, la « théorie idéale », limite la portée critique des thèses de Kymlicka et parce que l'autonomie individuelle a un caractère si fondamental pour les libéraux, qu'ils ne peuvent rendre compte du fait que certaines décisions individuelles autonomes peuvent contribuer à perpétuer des systèmes et des normes injustes. / Will Kymlicka defends a liberal theory of minority rights, arguing that we must protect minority cultures from outside influences, as these cultures provide individuals with a meaningful context of choice that allows autonomous decision-making. This defence of minority rights limits the scope of his theory by focusing on 'cultural' minorities, that is to say, national minorities and immigrants, which can provide individuals with this meaningful context of choice. Obviously, the injustices experienced by these two types of minorities, however severe they are, do not exhaust the injustices experienced by members of minority groups and minoritized groups (i.e. sexual minorities, women, African Americans, etc.). One might be tempted to expand the scope of the theory of minority rights to account for all the injustices experienced as a minority. However, I argue that this extension is not possible within a liberal theorical framework where 'ideal theory' limits the critical force of Kymlicka’s thesis and in which the centrality of individual autonomy prevents liberals to realize that certain individual decisions contribute to the perpetuation of unjust systems, values and norms.

May the state, from a liberal point of view, operate laws and institutions that impede the mobile lifestyle of nomadic Roma and Travellers, or should the state take steps to accommodate their nomadic way of life? This is the essence of the problem of Roma and Traveller itinerancy and the question that is at the heart of this three-partite dissertation. The first part of the dissertation looks at public policy in France and the United Kingdom and describes the six public policy problems that constitute the problem of Roma and Traveller itinerancy. These problems concern the education of children, the French travel permits system, the legal conditions for voter registration and for GP registration, the housing benefits system, and the public provision of halting sites. The second part looks at liberal political theory. It suggests that contemporary liberalism divides into two strands that take different views on the entitlements of cultural and religious minorities, and it provides a detailed outline of the prime articulations of each approach, namely the multiculturalist liberalism of Kymlicka and the classic neutrality liberalism of Barry. The third part investigates what the two said liberalisms imply for the six policy problems from part 1. These analyses suggest that the two liberalisms have slightly diverging implications for the halting sites problem, the housing benefits problem and the problem of GP registration. They suggest furthermore that the two accounts converge on the question of voter registration and agree that the voter registration system must accommodate nomads, and may not make the possession of a fixed residence an absolute condition for voter registration. And the analyses suggest finally that the two liberalisms also converge over the education question and the travel permits question, but here support polices that are potentially inimical to Roma and Traveller itinerancy. The broader implications of these findings are that liberalism is potentially, but not necessarily and not intrinsically, inimical to Roma and Traveller nomadism, and that the disagreement between classic neutrality liberalism and multiculturalist liberalism is weak insofar as public policy is concerned.