<p>This study is concerned with the contradiction in liberal-democratic society between the persistence of group inequalities on the one hand, and the firm commitment to individualism on the other. Individualism requires that group inequalities be absent, and that "particularistic policies" be avoided. Consequently, liberal governments tend to either ignore the issue of group inequality or abandon the liberal framework in order to deal with it. By examining the communal structure in pre-liberal societies, and the nature of modernday support for particularism, it has been found that the norm of universalism is to be preferred. The Indians in Canada have been used as an example illustrating the effects of a particularistic policy when applied in a liberal context. An analysis of the Indian case suggests that legal group differentiation does not reduce group inequality even within a liberal framework. The argument is advanced that a "liberal" solution to this problem is possible. Since liberal theory has been mute on this point, a solution is worked out by exploring what is consistent with classical liberal foundations as laid down by John Locke. In general, group differentiation may be practised (sic) in a qualified way provided it remains the exception, and is not established as a new norm.</p> / Thesis / Master of Arts (MA)