Recognizing strangers: The cosmopolitan content of the liberal democratic nation

Are liberal nations ethnocentric or cosmopolitan? I agree with critics of cosmopolitanism who argue that democratic norms cannot be supported by a "view from no where." Similarly, constitutional patriotism, allegiance to the universal principles or basic rights embodied in a particular constitution, is not enough. Democratic constitutions must be supported by a certain form of ethical life. One way of putting this is that constitutional patriotism itself implicitly relies upon an ethical life that promotes forms of mutual recognition that build on, but is deeper than, the recognition of the equal rights of persons. This democratic ethical life is particular to a nation's history and values; yet, it is not ethnocentric. In fact, far from being ethnocentric, democratic ethical life is the product of the critical encounter of different cultures in a context where all forms of life are free to "jostle for recognition" and each is equally open to comparison and moral learning. This form of ethical life has taken root in the liberal nations that have sustained modern democracy, while remaining an idea that is incompletely realized. The emergence of multicultural democracies---democracies in which the reproduction of dominant traditions is no longer conceivable---is actually offering liberal nations the opportunity to more completely realize the potential of a dynamic form of ethical life. Instead of turning back to the other heritage that has taken root in the liberal nation, a heritage linked with the forced assimilation of other cultures (especially non-European cultures), liberal nations should take up the unprecedented opportunity to fully open democratic culture to learning from the cultures of the world. Faced with what has now become an open struggle between the reproduction of a dominant culture (that assimilates others) and the dynamism of democratic ethical life, liberal nations should once and for all reject the former and embrace the latter. Just as we have learned much from the struggles of "internal strangers" (i.e. the various minorities who have not only claimed equal rights but also the right to re-interpret the "national" values in light of which rights are given meaning), we should now learn from the many immigrants who come to liberal democracies without assimilating. We rightfully expect immigrants to not seek to retain and protect their own cultures in ways that will devalue respect for basic rights. It is, however, reasonable for immigrants to expect a right to "mutual hospitality" or a right to participate in a dynamic form of ethical life that learns from different cultures, as opposed to expecting all to assimilate to one dominate culture. Even if we resist mutual hospitality, we should anticipate democracy's growing recognition of different values, since (1) other people's values are not simply irreconcilable with basic rights and (2) the "strangers" who live with us will (as a fact of the matter) possess and assert "denizenship" rights, and hence transform the meaning of rights and the cultural values that serve as the context for rights.