|
February 08, 2006
In the reaction to the publication of the 12 Muhammed cartoons Enlightenment liberals assert the universal principles of free speech. Yet liberalism also presupposes the universal principle of equal dignity of all individuals.
How can these universal principles be reconciled with the realities of a multicultural Australia that recognises and respects cultural difference? Most of the commentary around the 12 cartoons is silent about the struggle for recognition in civil societyas it is framed by orientalism. Tim Dunlop raises the problem at Road to Surfdom.
One approach to reconciling universal principles of human dignity and autonomy with the realities of cultural difference is through the recognition. that has its roots in Fichte and Hegel. Both argued that free indiviudality cannot be achieved alone, but ultimately rests on intersubjective recognition, with Hegel placing the emphasis on the struggle leading to the unequal relationship of mastery and servitude in the Phenomeology of Spirit and the risking of one's life.
In his essay, "The Politics of Recognition" Charles Taylor develops this as he points out that our identity is formed in interchange or dialogue and that it:
"...is partly shaped by recognition or its absence, [...] and so a person or group of people can suffer real damage, real distortion, if the people or society around them mirror back to them a confining or demeaning or contemptible picture of themselves." (Taylor 1994, p. 25).
The assumption is that being recognised in one's cultural particularity is a basic need of every human being. Thus universal dignity leads to the politics of difference, for it demands that we give "due acknowledgement only to what is universally present---everyone has an identity--through recognising what is peculiar or specific to each. Hence the concern is to reconcile liberalism's principle of equal human dignity with cultural differences. Here is the argument from Amy Gutman in her 'Introduction' to Taylo'’s essay on multiculturalism:
“Do most people need a secure cultural context to give meaning and guidance to their choices in life? If so, then a secure cultural context also ranks among the primary goods, basic to most people's prospects for living what they can identify as a good life. And liberal democratic states are obligated to help disadvantaged groups preserve their culture against intrusions by majoritarian or 'mass' cultures. Recognising and treating members of some groups as equals now seems to require public institutions to acknowledge rather than ignore cultural particularities, at least for those people whose self-understanding depends on the vitality of their culture. This requirement of political recognition of cultural particularity---extended to all individuals---is compatible with a form of universalism that counts the culture and cultural context valued by individuals as among their basic interests." (Gutmann 1994, p. 5)
We do need a scultural context to give meaning and guidance to our choices in life? But note the way that Gutman reworks Hegel's master slave dialectic by watering it down into, disadvantaged groups and majoritarian or mass cultures. What is lost is the tough fear of death that is central to Hegel's analysis.
Hegel's master slave dialectic then moves to a consideration of a variety of dualistic strategies adopted by the servant or slave to affirm his/her independence in the face of their wordly dependence. Thus we have the anti-atomistic point that genuine freedom cannot be achieved alone but ultimately rests on intersubjective recognition.
The reconciliation of conflicting goods comes from the underming of the indvidualism of liberalism.
|
