Social Justice

Chapter 4 turns to normative political philosophy and introduces and defends the liberal egalitarian framework that provides the normative basis for assessments of policies that aim to promote social cohesion in diverse liberal democracies. Apart from the basic liberties, this framework includes a concern for equality, where a distinction between equality of opportunity and luck egalitarianism is introduced, and versions of each are developed, and it is pointed out that both these egalitarian theories can be used to support the conclusions about immigration and integration policies that are developed in the book. It is also argued that both theories should be sensitive to inequality of religious and cultural opportunities and that the concern for equality sometimes speaks in favour of multicultural policies.

Multiculturalism

Where multiculturalists have argued that shared multicultural values and multicultural policies may form the basis for national unity and secure the allegiance of minorities to the polity and its members, critics have suggested that multiculturalism fractures society and promotes commitments to ethnic in-groups rather than trust and solidarity at the societal level. Based on a review of existing studies, this chapter concludes that multicultural policies do not seem to make much of a difference for these aspects of social cohesion, but that insofar as they do have an impact, it seems to be positive. More importantly, multicultural values seem to have positive direct value effects, not only on out-group trust and solidarity, but also on trust and solidarity in the in-group. Thus, as argued in Chapter 4, multicultural policies are in some cases supported by concerns for equality, and there is furthermore no evidence that such policies are detrimental to the social basis for egalitarian redistribution. In fact, the evidence suggests that states can strengthen social cohesion by engaging in community-building based on liberal and multicultural values.

Ethnocultural Neutrality and Nation-Building: A Critical Evaluation of Will Kymlicka's Fairness Based Argument for Minority Cultural Rights

<p>This thesis looks at an argument by Will Kymlicka in which he claims that the idea of an ethnoculturally neutral state is "manifestly false" and should be replaced by liberal political theorists with a model of the state as engaging in "nation-building" (Kymlicka 2001 pp23 - 27). Once we do this, Kymlicka argues, we see that the burden of proof regarding minority cultural rights has shifted away from the defender of such rights and falls equally on those who seek to deny those rights. We see this, Kymlicka claims, because the nation-building model of the state highlights a number of burdens that are placed on cultural minorities, burdens which are otherwise disguised by a norm of ethnocultural neutrality. Kymlicka argues that this means that the debate over minority cultural rights has moved on from substantive debates about the worth of cultural units (including his well known argument that we have a fundamental interest in the success of our own culture). In this thesis I argue for two main claims. The first is that the idea of ethnocultural neutrality is not manifestly false so long as it is understood as part of a requirement that state institutions and policies should be capable of an appropriate justification. Moreover I shall suggest that acceptance of such a norm can in fact be used by Kymlicka in order to ground the specific fairness based claims that he wants to make about majority nation-building in liberal democratic states. Secondly I shall argue that Kymlicka's claims about the fairness of majority nation-building rely upon the kind of substantive account supplied by his earlier argument that we have a fundamental, autonomy based, interest in the survival of our own societal-culture. In this respect, then, Kymlicka is wrong to suggest that the debate has moved on. My defence of ethnocultural neutrality helps us to see where there is underlying agreement amongst liberals on a number of multicultural policies and also highlights the areas of substantive disagreement which, I shall suggest, do not revolve around acceptance, or not, of a norm of ethnocultural neutrality but instead are deep rooted disagreements about the worth of our cultural and national attachments and how they are to be weighed against each other and against other interests that we have. On this score I suggest that Kymlicka's own autonomy argument is unconvincing.</p>

Ethnocultural Neutrality and Nation-Building: A Critical Evaluation of Will Kymlicka's Fairness Based Argument for Minority Cultural Rights

<p>This thesis looks at an argument by Will Kymlicka in which he claims that the idea of an ethnoculturally neutral state is "manifestly false" and should be replaced by liberal political theorists with a model of the state as engaging in "nation-building" (Kymlicka 2001 pp23 - 27). Once we do this, Kymlicka argues, we see that the burden of proof regarding minority cultural rights has shifted away from the defender of such rights and falls equally on those who seek to deny those rights. We see this, Kymlicka claims, because the nation-building model of the state highlights a number of burdens that are placed on cultural minorities, burdens which are otherwise disguised by a norm of ethnocultural neutrality. Kymlicka argues that this means that the debate over minority cultural rights has moved on from substantive debates about the worth of cultural units (including his well known argument that we have a fundamental interest in the success of our own culture). In this thesis I argue for two main claims. The first is that the idea of ethnocultural neutrality is not manifestly false so long as it is understood as part of a requirement that state institutions and policies should be capable of an appropriate justification. Moreover I shall suggest that acceptance of such a norm can in fact be used by Kymlicka in order to ground the specific fairness based claims that he wants to make about majority nation-building in liberal democratic states. Secondly I shall argue that Kymlicka's claims about the fairness of majority nation-building rely upon the kind of substantive account supplied by his earlier argument that we have a fundamental, autonomy based, interest in the survival of our own societal-culture. In this respect, then, Kymlicka is wrong to suggest that the debate has moved on. My defence of ethnocultural neutrality helps us to see where there is underlying agreement amongst liberals on a number of multicultural policies and also highlights the areas of substantive disagreement which, I shall suggest, do not revolve around acceptance, or not, of a norm of ethnocultural neutrality but instead are deep rooted disagreements about the worth of our cultural and national attachments and how they are to be weighed against each other and against other interests that we have. On this score I suggest that Kymlicka's own autonomy argument is unconvincing.</p>

Co-navigating Migrant Reception Services: Engaging Practices of Collaborative Anthropology in Emilia-Romagna, Italy

Drawing on a support program for foreign women, this article discusses anthropological collaboration with local services for migrants in one of the Italian regions most advanced in terms of multicultural policies. Often treated as a pre-given good, collaborative work is here revealed as a site for exploring ways of practicing anthropology with professionals engaged in migrant reception services. On one hand, I examine the potential of collaborative anthropology to interrogate workers’ taken-for-granted assumptions as well as the moral implications and institutional constraints that shape their ambiguous encounters with female “Others,” perceived as both passive victims and manipulative users. On the other hand, I highlight the meaningful position the anthropologist gains to capture the multi-faceted worlds that social actors navigate in their efforts to negotiate blurred rights in a shifting, contested arena. Moving beyond a narrow conception of applied work, I conclude by casting collaborative anthropology as a call for renewed reflection on political engagement in social policies but also as a challenging opportunity for further investigations of local reception services.

Tracing roots of group representation among MPs with immigrant backgrounds: A content analysis on parliamentary questions in the Netherlands

This study investigates the representative patterns of MPs with immigrant backgrounds in the case of the Netherlands. Departing from existing literature on minority representatives, we claim that minority representatives can adopt suppressive, as well as supportive, framings when addressing constituencies with whom they share similar backgrounds. A content analysis was conducted on the parliamentary work of minority representatives to detect which frames those representatives adopt when they address cultural and/or religious rights and liberties. As for explanatory variables, we examined the role of the retreat from multicultural policies in the Netherlands on the one hand and individual and group related variables on the other. Our content analysis reveals no fundamental linear shift towards more suppressive framing during the 2002–2017 period. Minority MPs from progressive parties are more likely to use supportive frames than those MPs from conservative parties. Coming from a Turkish background – the most organized ethnic group with the highest social capital in the country – significantly adds to the likelihood of a supportive form of representation. Gender is another significant variable explaining where minority representatives stand, with male MPs being more inclined to use supportive frames on ethnic and/or religious rights and liberties than female MPs.

The Ongoing Domestication of Global Models

Despite their political and cultural similarities, Anglosphere countries have developed distinct national multicultural education policies. These policy differences can be understood by examining the interrelated ways these nations domesticated multiple global cultural models over time. First, in response to the model of multiculturalism, Anglosphere nations decided whether or not to adopt official national multicultural policies. Second, in response to the model of neoliberalism, these same nations decided whether or not to centralize control of curriculum and testing. The nexus of these two decisions concerning the institutionalization of multiculturalism and the centralization of schooling created nation-specific trajectories for multicultural education policies.

ԲԱԶՄԱՄՇԱԿՈՒԹԱՅՆՈՒԹՅԱՆ ՔԱՂԱՔԱԿԱՆՈՒԹՅԱՆ ԽՆԴԻՐՆԵՐԸ ԵՎՐՈՊԱԿԱՆ ՄԻՈՒԹՅԱՆ ԱՆՋԱՏՈՂԱԿԱՆ ՇԱՐԺՈՒՄՆԵՐԻ ԱԿՏԻՎԱՑՄԱՆ ՀԱՄԱՏԵՔՍՏՈՒՄ/MULTICULTURAL POLICY ISSUES IN THE CONTEXT OF ACTIVITY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION SEPARATIVE MOVEMENTS/ПРОБЛЕМЫ МУЛЬТИКУЛЬТУРНОЙ ПОЛИТИКИ ЕВРОПЕЙСКОГО СОЮЗА В КОНТЕКСТЕ ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ СЕПАРАТИСТСКИХ ДВИЖЕНИЙ

Considering the nationalist tendencies in the EU, the transformation of European nation-states, the increasing influx of immigrants, the socio-economic issues, it is necessary to identify the impact of the EU's multicultural policies on groups with different cultural norms and customs. The multilayered nature of the topic will provide a more comprehensive view of the issues of overcoming separatist crises. The article identifies the link between separatist demands of subdivisions with different cultural norms, and multicultural policies pursued by the state as a strategic tool for responding adequately to separatist challenges, restoring civic solidarity, and preventing the growth of social conflicts.