Space For Individual Rights In A Multicultural Society

SPACE FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IN A MULTICULTURAL SOCIETY

Cultural diversity has been present in societies for a very long time. In Ancient Greece, there were various small regions with different costumes, traditions, dialects and identities, for example, those from Aetolia, Locris, Doris and Epirus. In the Ottoman Empire, Muslims were the majority, but there were also Christians, Jews, pagan Arabs, and other religious groups. In the 21^stcentury, societies remain culturally diverse, with most countries having a mixture of individuals from different races, linguistic backgrounds, religious affiliations, and so forth. Contemporary political theorists have labeled this phenomenon of the coexistence of different cultures in the same geographical space multiculturalism. Multiculturalismis the phenomenon of multiple groups of culturesexisting within onesociety, largely due to the arrival ofimmigrantcommunities, or the acceptance and advocacy of this phenomenon. It could, indeed, be classified as asnarl wordor a buzzword, depending on the audience. Right-wingers sometimes call multiculturalismcultural suicideornational suicide. The term ‘multiculturalism’, however, has not been used only to describe a culturally diverse society, but also to refer to a kind of policy that aims at protecting cultural diversity. Although multiculturalism is a phenomenon with a long history and there have been countries historically that did adopt multicultural policies, like the Ottoman Empire, the systematic study of multiculturalism in philosophy has only flourished in the late twentieth century, when it began to receive special attention, especially from liberal philosophers.Multicultural society is metaphorically referred to as “the orchestra of the human race” in which every ethnic group is equally valuable tool, preserving its diversity, but nonetheless ready to play in an orchestra, that is to work within a given community or society. It seems therefore quite trivial to say that in every 21^stcentury society there are various forms of social life. Among numerous different styles (forms) of a goodhuman life there are also those that are neither better nor worse nor equal in value in respect to one another but they are valuable in a disproportionate or diverse manner. The fact of multiculturalism plays an important role in shaping the law and in the way how various state institutions function. In general terms, within contemporary political philosophy, the concept of multiculturalism has been defined in two different ways. Sometimes the term ‘multiculturalism’ is used as a descriptive concept; other times it is defined as a kind of policy for responding to cultural diversity. In the next section, the definition of multiculturalism as a descriptive concept will be explained, followed by a clarification of what it means to use the term ‘multiculturalism’ as a policy.

a.Multiculturalism as a Describing Concept for Society
The term ‘multiculturalism’ is sometimes used to describe a condition of society; more precisely, it is used to describe a society where a variety of different cultures coexist. Perhaps the chief ways in which a country can be culturally diverse is by having different religious groups, different linguistic groups, groups that define themselves by their territorial identity and variant racial groups. Religious diversity is a widespread phenomenon in many countries. India can be given as an example of a country which is religiously diverse, including citizens who are Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, among other religious groups. The US is also religiously diverse, including Mormons, Amish, Hutterites, Catholics, Jews and so forth.These groups differentiate from each other via a variety of factors. Some of these are the Gods worshiped, the public holidays, the religious festivals and the dress codes. Linguistic diversity is also widespread. In the 21^stcentury, there are more than 200 countries in the world and around 6000 spoken languages (Laitin, 2007). Linguistic diversity usually results from two kinds of groups. The second kind of groups that are a cause of linguistic diversity are national minorities. National minorities are groups that have either settled in the country for a long time, but do not share the same language with the majority.The fourth kind of group diversity is race. Races are groups whose physical characteristics are imbued with social significance. In other words, race is a socially constructed concept in the sense that it is the result of individuals giving social significance to a set of characteristics they consider that stand out in a person's physical appearance, such as skin color, eye color, hair color, bone/jaw structure and so forth. However, the mere existence of different physical characteristics does not mean that there is a multicultural environment/society

b. Multiculturalism as a Policy

The term ‘multiculturalism’ can also be used to refer to a kind of policy. This kind of policy has two main characteristics. First, it aims at addressing the different demands of cultural groups. That is, it is a kind of policy that refers to the different normative challenges (ethnic conflict, internal illiberalism, federal autonomy, and so forth) that arise as a result of cultural diversity. For example, these are policies that aim at addressing the different normative challenges that arise from minority groups, like Quebecois, wishing to have their own institutions in a different language from the rest of Canada. To contrast with redistributive policies, multicultural policies are not primarily about distributive justice, that is, who gets what share of resources, although multicultural policies may refer to redistribution accidentally (Fraser, 2001). Multicultural policies aim at correcting the kind of disadvantages that some individuals are victims of, and that result from these individuals’ cultural identity. For instance, these are policies that aim at correcting a disadvantage that may result from someone being a member of a certain religion. In the case of some Muslims, this can mean addressing the problem of Muslims living in a Christian country and demanding different public holidays than the majority to celebrate their own festivals such asEid-al-Fitr. Kenan Malik states that "The experience of living in a society transformed by mass immigration, a society that is less insular, more vibrant and more cosmopolitan, is positive" but contrasts this with the political process of multiculturalism, which "describes a set of policies, the aim of which is to manage diversity by putting people into ethnic boxes, defining individual needs and rights by virtue of the boxes into which people are put, and using those boxes to shape public policy."

The idea of one-nation and monocultural state collapsed because multicultural societies have become a historical fact. Naturally, this fact has not yet been grasped in a fairly adequate or heuristically fertile idea that would enable the creative, peaceful, and so devoid of hostile tension coexistence of these multicultural societies. Monological culturality became the past from the perspective of the state, as evidenced best by the emancipatory efforts of entities belonging to national minorities, ethnic communities and nomadic groups, all that demand their own cultural space. Maybe this is the reason why – due to common crossing ways, the colourfulness of varied life, the fear of often incomprehensible otherness – multiculturalism and social heterogeneity encounter in the social reality the lack of acceptance and tolerance. Multiculturalism is the institutionalization of collective grouping. It is extremely harmful from a human relational perspective. It divides human beings rather than bringing them together. It encourages elevation of certain groups over other groups. It tends to deconstruct everything which Individualism would build. Individualism will never become the dominant human relational philosophy unless multiculturalism is seen for what it is.

At the narrative level, multiculturalism simply shows the cultural diversity of a given society, but it at the same time shuns any theoretical legitimacy of a universal model of culture, and it settles for its understanding as a kind of mirror reflecting the political, educational and socio-economic relations in multi-ethnic societies. It should be emphasized, however, that while the concept of culture is negated in its anthropological, overall – that is universal – interpretation, it is back in multiculturalism as an essentialist concept of the cultural baggage often associated with ethnic group and race. The consequence of the latter is a re-reification of the concept of culture, because each ethnic, racial group should treat the values of their culture as a proof of a permanent and visible distinctiveness. Multiculturalism constitutes a set of phenomena, including: individuals, cultural groups, processes of development and of universalization of these groups, the mechanisms of forming territorial, racial, ethnic, linguistic and even religious bonds. As a result, it forms the basis for creating the dominant, relatively orderly shaped patterns of relations between cultural groups. From the perspective of intercultural dialogue it is indispensable not only to recognize the values professed by the Other, but also a specific situation in which the Other lives. What constitutes a point of departure is the conception of a generalised Other, which allows us to treat each individual as a rational being and as an addressee of such rights and duties as correspond with ours. “A generalised Other” is “an important Other”, namely, the point of reference for our activities. The latter originates from granting all subjects equal and inborn dignity and, at the same time, recognising equal rights.While in most Western societies, individual rights are absolute and community rights limited or non-existent, in India, the situation is the opposite.While individual rights are not respected, community is valorised and glorified in India. Individual rights still do not command social legitimacy as opposed to the sentiment of “collective hurt.” The “hurt sentiment” phrase is often quoted to define or represent the feelings of a larger group and rarely of an individual, when outrage is created. And this is when vested interests can latch on to “hurt sentiments” to accentuate any act that supposedly critiques a group or tradition or culture as it has happened in the case of Murugan. Experts say there is a clear exploitation of religiosity in projecting “hurt sentiment.” Whose hurt sentiments, the question is. “Individual right is not established while community rights, which are valorised and glorified, are easy to manipulate,” says Subhash Gatade, author.It is not that theindividual’s right to criticise others, including communities and religions, should be made absolute. “Criticism should be given space, but it should be done under a certain sense, under a limit.