Group Vulnerability, Asymmetrical Balance, and Multicultural Recognition

• Author: Fabio Macioce
• Published date: 01 December 2018
• Date: 01 December 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12228

© 2018 The Author. Ratio Juris © 2018 John Wile y & Sons Ltd

Ratio Juris. Vol. 31 No. 4 December 2018 (469–484)

Group Vulnerability, Asymmetrical

Balance, and Multicultural Recognition

FABIO MACIOCE

1. Introduction: How Populism Adds Fuel to the Fire, aga inst

Multicu ltural Politic s

Multicultural strategies of accommo dation differ, and are largely dependent on

local factors and specif ic circumstances: These strategies of accommod ation may be

placed in different categories (Murphy 2012), such as policies of autonomy (policies

granting mi norities a voice in decision-making), policies of sym bolic recognition

(apologies for injustices in the past, or inclusion of minor ity cultu res in school cur-

ricula), policies of protection (e.g., specific measures to preserve cultura l and lin-

guistic mi norities from assimi lation), exemptions from specific legal requi rements

(for instance, the exemptions concerni ng the wearing of Sik h turbans), and direct

assistance policies (through f unding or affirmative action).

All these policies, even when related to dif ferent national contexts (Kymlicka

1989; Modood 2005; 2013; Taylor 1994), are characterised by a more or less extensive

recognition of minor ity claims, and provide solutions to the con flict between spe -

cific practices and the lega l system. In other words, these policies of accommodation

offer some solutions (at times precarious) to the tension between t he identity of a

specific minor ity and the rules of legal systems. It may be argued that some of thes e

policies are better th an others, or that some are bet ter attuned tha n others to the

specific charact eristics of a given situation. In any cas e, these policies (or at least, a

number of them) are conceived as the outcome of a process of public recognit ion:

Minority claim s are considered publicly relevant and worthy of consideration, and

are thus admitted to the public sphere, so as to t ransform, modify, accommodate, or

adapt the rules previously shaping it.

What is noteworthy, however, is the increa singly contested status of these poli-

cies. In Europe, we are witnessing a g rowing aversion to these policies, not only in

terms of their practical i mplementation, but more in depth in terms of the possibility

of recognising diversity i n the public sphere, either in the name of promoting funda-

mental liberal democratic princ iples and constitution al values (e.g., the principle of

equality between t he sexes) or in the name of protecting national values, traditional

culture, and local identities. I n other words, in addition to traditional critici sms of

multicultural policies, focu sing over the past two decades on their weaknesses, the

Fabio Macioce

470

Ratio Juris, Vol. 31, No. 4© 2018 The Author. Ratio Juris © 2018 John Wile y & Sons Ltd

rise of populist movements across Europe quest ions the public recognit ion of mi-

nority and group rights.

Policies of recognition, and policies ai med at the accommodation of ethno- cul-

tural minorit ies in various societies, have attracted critic ism for a number of reasons.

They have been perceived as too abstract and unconcer ned about redistributive ef-

forts to tackle socia l inequalities; as essent ialising groups base d on undetermined

notions of culture; as lik ely to undermine socia l cohesion; as being unconcerned

with individual rights, and with i nequalities within groups; as incon sistent with the

right of the majority to live and rule accordi ng to their own c ulture, and their own

tradition (Malloy 2014b).

Among others, this last concer n is, so to speak, classical: it is about the right of the

majority to preserve their own c ulture, which would be jeopardized by the increas-

ing presence of ethno -religious groups. In thi s perspective, multicultural pol icies

have attracted criticism for fail ing to create integrated and cohesive societ ies, for

accommodating unacceptable (or even illegal) practices, and for favouring cu ltural

differences rather tha n fostering a st ronger integration between diverse g roups. In

sum, multiculturali sm jeopardises social cohesion to the extent that it promotes ac-

commodation of minority trad itions and culture, rather than fosteri ng a progressive

integration within t he core values of Western tradition (whatever they may be). The

Council of Europe’s “White Paper on Intercultural Dialog ue,” noting that multicul-

turalism as a polic y has been inadequate, stated: “Multicultu ralism is now seen by

many as having fostered commun al segregation and mutual i ncomprehension, as

well as having contributed to the u ndermining of the rights of indiv iduals” (Council

of Europe 2008, 19).

These concerns have become even more evident recently, due to the rise of popu-

list movements across Europe. The reasons why populi sm is bolstering the so-cal led

“multicultural retreat” (Joppke, 2004), which is itself a phenomenon dating back

more than two decades, are rooted in t he typical featur es of populist movements.

Populism is per se linke d to the idea that the population knows what is bet ter: “a

rationale R counts as a public justific ation only if the members of the public fi nd

R acceptable in light of their exist ing [subjective motivational sets]” (Eberle 2002,

200). In diverse societies, according to this l ine of reasoning, public c laims should

be acceptable not simply to the population after a reasonable and democ ratic debate,

but to the mass of people who are (or are perceived to be) insiders: those who share

the same culture, who belong to an al leged nation, who speak the same la nguage,

who profess the same religion, who simply believe (or think they b elieve) in certai n

specific values and princ iples. They are those who should decide, because only they

are really “the people.”

Religion, language, ethn icity, or even some core values can be used a s a means to

separate those who belong to the people from those who do not; however, whatever

the group of people who belong to the “true” population, minorities ar e always on

the wrong side. In diverse societies, popul ism fatally becomes a majority identitar-

ian populism, based on a paradig m that opposes a majoritarian mass to one or more

minority groups, which do not belong to the cu lture of the majority, and do not share

majoritarian practices a nd values (or are supposed not to share them). To the extent

that multicultural policie s are perceived as something that comes from above, from

bureaucratic, academic, or political elites, they are rejecte d and depicted as a threat

to the wellbeing of the masse s (Lazaridis and Campani 2017, 2).