This thesis uses philosophical and conceptual analysis to examine communitarian
critiques of homogenous liberal conceptions of citizenship and the contemporary recognition
pressures in the Canadian polity. It attempts to make some observations on the degree of
difference that the Canadian society could support without destroying the sentimental bond of
citizenship that develops when citizens feel they belong to the same moral and political
community. The assumption made in our introduction is that diversity or differentiation becomes
too exaggerated when citizens no longer feel like they are similar and can reach agreement on
common objectives. This thesis is consequentialist in nature. It seeks to respond to the question
of whether or not the “federal spirit” that has preserved the Canadian state intact can help
Canadians take the conceptual leap necessary to accept further differential citizenship for
aboriginal and Québecois national minorities who seek expanded self-government and special
provisions to preserve and promote their collectivities, and for non-territorial groups united by
a shared life situation who seek group rights and representations.
In Part I of this thesis we examine theoretical considerations about diversity and
uniformity in both liberal and communitarian conceptions of citizenship and review Kymlicka’s
attempt to reconcile cultural membership within liberal theory. We observe that liberals reject
group rights and radical cultural pluralism out of concern that they may lead to a reduction of individual autonomy and an erosion of cross-group dialogue. We demonstrate that although the
liberal state is not completely neutral with regards to the promotion of a certain conception of
the good life, it is more neutral than a communitarian state because it provides for individual
autonomy and creates a structure for democratic dialogue. However, Kymlicka’s work shows
that within the global economy, cultural identity is an increasingly important qualitative element
in an individual’s life, providing her with an enhanced local social structure and with personal
self-respect.
Although a reconciliation of liberal and communitarian conceptions of citizenship appear
unlikely in pure theory, in the Canadian context, constitutional provisions have already acted
to create elements of individual and collective rights. This reality implies that new theories have
to be developed to explain the dynamic between individual and collective rights in particular
political cultures. In Part II, we attempt to reconcile the fragmented concepts of citizenship
which afflict the contemporary Canadian polity. This Thesis sets out that status quo federalism
and homogenous liberal citizenship are threatening the stability of the Canadian polity.
However, because of the interactive loyalties and differentiation inherent in the Canadian federal
regime, federalism may provide the flexibility to accommodate the demands of Québécois, as
well as aboriginal nationalists. Conversely, this thesis maintains that the arguments in favour
of a politics of difference for oppressed social and cultural groups should be rejected, not on
the grounds that these groups do not exist or that they do not speak in “different voices”, but
because it would undermine the democratic dialogue and test the fragile ties which bond citizens
to one another. A further reason to reject a politics of difference or radical cultural pluralism is that it would limit the autonomy of individual members of groups who want to be judged by
their actions and words rather than their ethnicity, culture or gender. The liberal state can pursue
policies to include non-territorial groups without granting group rights and representation.
For their part, Aboriginal communities and the province of Quebec should be recognized
as distinct societies in Canada. The meaning of distinct society should be defined using section
1 of the Charter as a model. These distinct societies should be given minor group right
provisions, in order to preserve and promote their collectivities which do not violate
fundamental human rights These minor provisions could be considered reasonable limitations
in free and democratic aboriginal and Québécois distinct societies within Canada.
Concomitantly, any new constitutional accommodation must also recognize that a precondition
of federal citizenship is that all citizens whether members of self-governing aboriginal
communities or citizens residing in the province of Quebec must accept decisions of the federal
jurisdiction and be able to transcend their personal or national motivations and acknowledge
their responsibility to others in the Canadian moral community if they hope to retain the
benefits that our community provides all of its citizens.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:LACETR/oai:collectionscanada.gc.ca:BVAU.2429/5337 |
| Date | 11 1900 |
| Creators | Horner, Byron Bennett Magnusson |
| Source Sets | Library and Archives Canada ETDs Repository / Centre d'archives des thèses électroniques de Bibliothèque et Archives Canada |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
| Relation | UBC Retrospective Theses Digitization Project [http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/retro_theses/] |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds