Democracy, difference, and belonging: Taylor, Kymlicka, Habermas and the challenge of cultural accommodation

Canada is a prime example of a liberal democracy where immigrants, national minorities, English and French-speaking members of the majority culture and others are required to "share identity space," to borrow from Charles Taylor. All are considered citizens and are accordingly entitled to those rights held by the citizenry in common. Yet is the state relieved of its duty to ensure equality simply by bestowing identical rights? Current thought in liberal democratic theory would suggest that the answer is a resounding "No!"I begin the thesis by laying the foundation for the proceeding chapters clarifying terms and providing some background. Next, I begin examining the ideas of Charles Taylor, who, in attempting to reconcile liberalism with communitarianism, sees cultural accommodation as correctly concentrating on the social context of identity and the "vital human need" to have one's identity (cultural or other) recognized as having worth. Will Kymlicka and his "liberal culturalist" approach are the subject of the third chapter. For him, cultural accommodation lies in the recognition that different groups require different rights in order to experience belonging. Jurgen Habermas' position is one that can be classified as democratic. Habermas views cultural accommodation as the interdependence of what he calls "private autonomy," or the right to pursue one's personal conception of the good, and "public autonomy," the right to participate in the public forum and the democratic decision-making process. It is by activating citizens' rights that understanding about the nature of equality will be reached. A final chapter considers some points upon which the three converge and diverge, some critiques of note, and ends with my own analysis and argument as to why Habermas' approach is most favourable.The thesis argues that Habermas' emphasis on deliberative democracy best addresses cultural accommodation because it serves three important purposes: first, it allows those who might typically feel disenfranchised a forum in which to have their voices heard second, it allows minorities and members of the majority alike to identify what sort of treatment could be considered 'equal' third, it minimizes the possibility of states unilaterally and often paternalistically deciding on policies designed to produce equality, which have historically been subject to criticisms including charges of "reverse-racism" as well as the dire consequences of mistakenly interpreting the goals of the minorities.This thesis concentrates on the writings of Charles Taylor, Will Kymlicka and Jurgen Habermas who argue that, in order for a liberal democracy to truly promote equality in its citizens, and ultimately foster a sense of belonging, some form of cultural accommodation is required. By cultural accommodation, I mean an attempt by the state, as well as the rest of the citizenry to address the sources that lead to status inequality, democratic exclusion and a feeling of not belonging. Cultural accommodation seeks to address barriers to citizens' opportunities to pursue their own conception of "the good life." While there is agreement on the fact that cultural accommodation is a good, there is disagreement amongst the three as to the most effective approach. By examining each of the thinkers' ideas regarding the questions of identity, universality and nationalism, the thesis explores how their theoretical commitments inform their approach to cultural accommodation.