طرح و نقد «سیاست به رسمیت شناختن حقوق اقلیت‌ها» در مکتب اجتماع‌گرایی با تأکید بر آثار «چارلز تیلور»
محورهای موضوعی : پژوهش سیاست نظری
1 - دانشجوی دکتری جامعه‌شناسی سیاسی، دانشگاه امام صادق، ایران
2 - دانشیار گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه امام صادق، ایران
کلید واژه: سیاست شناسایی, چندفرهنگ¬گرایی, لیبرالیسم, هویت و اجتماع¬گرایان. ,
چکیده مقاله :
یکی از معضلات اخیر دولت‌های مدرن، «حقوق اقلیت‌ها»ست که اندیشمندان سیاسی نیز در دهه‌های اخیر توجه ویژه‌ای به آن نموده‌اند. این امر، دو دلیل دارد؛ نخست اینکه حقوق اولیه لیبرالی که از عصر روشنگری رفتهرفته سامان یافته است، پاسخگوی تقاضاهای گروه‌های جدید نیست؛ دوم آنکه نظریههای شهروندی که پس از جنگ جهانی دوم مطرح شده نیز ناتوان از حل این معضلات در لیبرال دموکراسی‌هاست. ظهور نظریههای چندفرهنگ‌گرایی لیبرال، نتیجه همین چالش‌هاست. «چارلز تیلور»، فیلسوف بزرگ اجتماع‌گرا به نقد نظریههای چندفرهنگ‌گرایی لیبرال پرداخته است. او معتقد است که می‌شود اهدف جمعی را در یک اجتماع پیش برد و همزمان اصول اولیه لیبرالی که شامل حقوق و آزادی‌های اولیه فردی است، صدمه‌ای نبیند. تأکید تیلور بر «عدم همگون‌سازی» و «ایجاد معیار برای شناسایی حقوق» است، تا به دور از «ترحم»، حقوق اقلیت‌ها به رسمیت شناخته شود. اما دیدگاه تیلور نیز دچار چند نقص بزرگ است که عبارتند از: توجه به اقلیت‌های متمرکز جغرافیایی و عدم توضیحی برای اقلیت‌های غیر متمرکز، عدم ارائه معیار مناسب برای تمییز حقوق بنیادین از غیر بنیادین و مهم‌تر از همه آنکه اقلیت‌های ملی به دنبال «ارزشمندی برابر» نیستند، بلکه آنان به دنبال «جایگاه برابر»ند.
One of the recent dilemmas of modern governments is the "rights of minorities," which political thinkers have also paid special attention to in recent decades. There are two reasons for this: first, the primary liberal rights that have gradually been organized since the Enlightenment do not meet the demands of new groups; second, the theories of citizenship that have emerged since World War II are also unable to solve these problems in liberal democracies. The emergence of liberal multiculturalism theories is the result of these challenges. Charles Taylor, a great communitarian philosopher, has criticized liberal multiculturalism theories. He believes that it is possible to pursue collective goals in a society while at the same time not harming the basic liberal principles that include individual rights and freedoms. Taylor's emphasis is on "non-assimilation" and "establishing a criterion for identifying rights" so that minority rights can be recognized without "pity." However, Taylor's view also has several major flaws, including: focusing on geographically concentrated minorities and not explaining non-concentrated minorities, failing to provide a suitable criterion for distinguishing between fundamental and non-fundamental rights, and most importantly, national minorities are not seeking "equal value," but rather they are seeking "equal status."
Problem statement:
Today, most countries are culturally diverse. Conflicts between minorities and majorities exist in all societies, just as they have in the past. Minority groups include ethnic, racial, and religious minorities, and many other categories can exist based on different classifications. The existence of these groups raises questions for governments and these groups themselves: What is the responsibility of minorities towards national unity? Should political positions be distributed in accordance with the principle of national or ethnic proportionality? Should internal divisions of countries be such that a religious or ethnic minority forms a majority in a particular region? What language should be accepted as the official language in government offices, institutions, and national media? Is it the government's duty to invest in promoting different ethnic languages? What is the government's duty towards religious minorities?
Minorities and majorities are increasingly clashing over issues such as language, regional autonomy, the election of politicians, educational programs, and citizenship. Moreover, in recent decades, the diversity of these groups has increased, as movements such as feminism have given rise to various groups that, while perhaps not differing from the majority in terms of ethnicity, race, or even religion, see themselves as marginalized in social institutions and politics based on different criteria. The existence of traditional minorities (ethnic, racial, and religious) with their specific political and legal demands, coupled with the emergence of such new groups (feminism), has crystallized the issue of "recognition politics," which entails recognizing minorities, as a necessity for governments in practice and for intellectual schools in theory. Therefore, intellectual schools and governments are in urgent need of taking a stance and developing an acceptable theory in this regard; a theory that can address the demands for recognition and legitimization of diverse identities.
Before the recent developments, it was assumed that liberalism had found a suitable solution to these questions. Liberals claimed that fundamental liberal rights, based on individual humanity, could determine what rights should be given to minorities and what limitations and powers should be assigned to the majority and their decisions. However, developments such as decolonization, the formation of new nation-states, the phenomenon of nationalism, and increased migration have led to widespread criticism of liberal responses to these questions. Critics typically view liberal "assimilation" policy as one in which liberal governments, in addressing issues such as "equal rights for individuals," have adopted a homogenizing policy that ignores differences and effectively deprives minorities of the differences they seek. Because of these criticisms, a solution has been adopted, namely "multiculturalism." The recognition politics that liberal multiculturalism has presented has also been criticized by communitarians. Therefore, neither earlier liberal theories nor their newer theories under the title of multiculturalism have been able to properly understand the differences that minorities seek, and communitarians have criticized both views. Charles Taylor, a communitarian philosopher, has, through a critique of multicultural recognition politics, developed a "recognition politics" that seeks to "see differences."
Discussion
Taylor offers two major developments in the modern era to answer the question of why the "need for recognition" has become so important today. First, with the collapse of the old hierarchical order, the concept of "dignity" has emerged in place of "honor." In the traditional order of the past, individuals had their own special dignity based on their place in that hierarchy and the class into which they were born, and they found their identity based on it. Nevertheless, with the collapse of this order, everyone has equal dignity, and a universal equal dignity has prevailed. The second transformation stems from an individualized identity; a specific way of being that belongs to me, what is now called the "ideal of authenticity." This involves a moral transformation, in that previously, an individual needed to look to a source outside of themselves, such as God or the "exemplary good," to distinguish right from wrong; but now, in order to become complete and distinguish between good and evil, a person must look within himself or herself. Morality is not an external matter, but an internal call, and we must turn to the depths of our being.
Understanding the origin of this moral transformation, Taylor identifies a contradiction in governments' recognition policies towards minorities. On the one hand, after the replacement of honour with dignity, a Universalist policy has emerged according to which all citizens have equal dignity and, because of their equal human dignity, everyone should be given equal respect. As a result, a policy of equalizing rights emerges. According to this, concepts such as "first-class citizen" and "second-class citizen" have no meaning and should be avoided. On the other hand, the second change, namely the expansion of the modern understanding of identity, has created a "politics of difference." According to this, each person should be recognized for their different identity. But recognition here has a different meaning. In this recognition, differences are considered that if someone ignores these differences on the pretext that all people have equal rights and moves towards "homogenization," they have betrayed the ideal of authenticity. Therefore, although the origin of both principles is "equal respect," they ultimately oppose each other, because based on the principle of equal respect, we must treat people without considering their differences, and based on the other principle, we must recognize "specialness." The criticism of the first principle against the second is that it ignores the principle of non-discrimination, and the criticism of the second principle against the first is that by ignoring people's identity, it forces them to conform to a single form.
According to Taylor, many liberals believe that any political unit that encourages specific collective goals is flawed in two ways. First, collective goals may impose restrictions on individual behavior that violate their rights. Second, supporting the collective goals of an in-group may, in itself, be discriminatory.
In contrast, Taylor initially states that liberalism cannot claim neutrality. Liberalism is a militant creed. Then, Taylor accepts another reading of liberalism that differs from that of most liberals. According to Taylor, those who pursue collective goals offer a different definition of a liberal society. In their view, society can be organized around a definition of the "good" without diminishing the value of those who disagree with this definition. If that good required collective pursuit, then that issue should become a matter of public policy. According to this view, the criterion of a liberal society is how it interacts with minorities who do not accept the common definition of good and what rights it considers for them. These are the rights that are known today as fundamental rights; the right to life, freedom of speech, and the free exercise of religious duties. This is Taylor's chosen view.
Furthermore, criticizing "liberal multiculturalism," Taylor presents recognition politics based on five principles: 1. It should not be homogenizing. 2. It should not limit basic liberal rights. 3. In recognition, the assumption of "equality of cultures" should be considered. 4. Recognition should not imply "pity." 5. Recognition should arise from "awareness" and be "criteria-based" so as not to fall into the abyss of groundlessness."
Conclusion
The homogenization of liberalism, as manifested in modern governments, has marginalized ethnic, racial, and religious diversities. The disregard for differences, which liberals advocated, not only failed to liberate cultures in their practices but also caused them to dwindle within majority cultures. With the increase of phenomena such as migration and crises such as asylum-seeking, many countries, including "multicultural" countries, have emerged. Some liberal thinkers, the most prominent of whom is Will Kymlicka, have presented a policy of liberal multiculturalism. Within the framework of the liberal-communitarian debate, Charles Taylor has criticized liberal multiculturalist policies to provide a more comprehensive theory.
Taylor proposes a politics of recognition that includes these indicators: it is not homogenizing; it does not limit basic liberal rights; the assumption of the equal value of cultures is considered; it does not have a condescending view and is based on awareness and criteria derived from intertwined horizons. According to Taylor, multiculturalists, like earlier liberals, face the problem that emphasizing the principle of respect for differences is necessarily in conflict with the other principle of equal dignity. Also, the notion that we must consider all cultures as equally valuable is unjustified; rather, we can only approach them with this assumption. Finally, multiculturalism, according to Taylor, is tragically homogenizing; because by valuing all cultures, it implies that it has criteria for evaluation that are derived from Western European and North American culture and civilization.
However, despite providing understandable indicators for a suitable recognition politics, Taylor's theory still falls short of presenting a comprehensive theory. Taylor's theory faces criticisms such as: It conditions the value of other cultures on our valuation of them within an intertwined horizon. It does not provide an answer to how these horizons are intertwined. It is only concerned with ethnic minorities like Quebec in Canada, which have the ability to form governments, and does not include other minorities that fit into a cultural policy but do not have the capacity to form governments. Even within ethnic minorities, his theory only includes "concentrated" minorities, and it also does not provide a clear criterion for distinguishing between rights that can never be violated and those that, under certain circumstances, are sacrificed for collective goals. This indicates that contemporary Western liberal democracies face a problem for which the perspectives of two major groups of political theorists have proven inadequate in providing a comprehensive theory that encompasses all the groups involved in this issue and serves as a foundation for government action. This issue remains an unresolved phenomenon that will continue to challenge the principles of liberal democracy in the future.
Keywords: Recognition Politics, Multiculturalism, Liberalism, Identity, Communitarians
References
Azizi, S. M. (1396) Liberalism against communitarianism: A look at liberals' criticisms of communitarians. Fasalnameh-e Siyasat, 40(2), 451-470.
Baratalipour, M., & Zireki Heidari, A. (Spring 1394) Liberal multiculturalism: A critical perspective. Quarterly Journal of Political Studies, 7(27), 1-22.
Hadavi, H. (1385) Charles Taylor and the philosophy of identity recognition. Fasalnameh-e Elm-e Pejooheshi, (Special Issue on Political Science), 79-96.
Hosseini Beheshti, A. (1380) The theoretical foundations of politics in multicultural societies. Boq'eh.
Karimi Maleh, A. (1386, Fall) Multiculturalism and its approaches. Pajuheshnameh-e Olom-e Siyasi, 2(4), 211-248.
Karimi Maleh, A. (2007, Fall) Multiculturalism and its approaches. Research Journal of Political Science, 2(4), 211-248.
Kymlicka, W. (1396) An introduction to contemporary political philosophy (M. Badamchi & M. Mobasheri, Trans.). Negah-e Moaser.
Nash, K. (1395) Contemporary political sociology: Globalization, politics, power (M. T. Delfruz, Trans.). Kavir.
Rousseau, J. J. (1341) The social contract (G. H. Zirakzadeh, Trans.). Chahar.
Taqvi, S. M. (1383) Recognizing cultural differences in the public sphere: A critique of Charles Taylor's theory. Nameh-e-Mofid, 44, 127-152.
Taqvi, S. M. (1383) Recognizing cultural differences in the public sphere: A critique of Charles Taylor's theory. Nameh-e-Mofid, 44, 127-152.
Taylor, C. (1397) A secular age: Faith and freedom in a secular age. Culture Rajaee (Trans.). Agah.
Taylor, C., & others. (1392) Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition (T. Khadiv & S. Rizouandi, Trans.). Rokhdad-e-No.
Tusli Roknabadi, M., & Salehzadeh, S. (1394) The theoretical foundations of multicultural citizenship in the thought of Will Kymlicka. Rahyafteha-ye Siyasi va Bina-almelali, 5(37), 33-62.
Bachvarova, Mira, and Margaret Moore (2006) "Liberalism, Communitarianism, and the Politics of Identity." Annual Canadian Political Science Association Conference, York University, Toronto.
Beaney, M. (Ed.) (2013) The Oxford handbook of the history of analytic philosophy, Oxford University Press.
Dworkin, Ronald in Hampshire, S. (1978) Public and private morality, Cambridge University Press.
Rawls, J. (1971) Atheory of justice. Harvard University Press. Cambridge (Mass.).
Sandel, Michel (1982) Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
------------------ (2009), Justice: Whats The Right Thing to Do? Great Britain: AlenLanc.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Identity Politics (2019)
Taylor, Charles (1991), The ethics of authenticity, Harvard University Press
------------------ (1985) Philosophy and the Human Sciences: Philosophical Papers, vol. ii (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
--------------------- (1997), nationalism and modernity in The Morality of Nationalism, Edited by Robert McKim and Jeff McMahan, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 31-55.
-------------------- replies (1994) In J. Tully & D. Weinstock (Eds.), Philosophy in an Age of Pluralism: The Philosophy of Charles Taylor in Question (pp. 213-257) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
------------------- (1994) Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition, Princeton University Press, 41 William St., Princeton.
Thompson, simon (2006) The political theory of recognition, polity press, pages 21-24, 45-48.
براتعلی¬پور، مهدی و علی زیرکی حیدری (1394 بهار) «چندفرهنگ¬گرایی لیبرالی؛ نگرشی انتقادی»، فصلنامه مطالعات سیاسی، سال هفتم، شماره 27، صص 1-22.
تقوي، سید محمدعلی (1383) «به رسمیت شناختن تفاوت¬هاي فرهنگی در عرصه عمومی ¬جامعه: بررسی و نقد نظریه چارلز تیلور»، نامه مفید، شماره 44، صص 127-152.
تیلور، چارلز (1397) زندگی فضیلتمند در عصر سکولار، ترجمه فرهنگ رجایی، تهران، آگاه.
تیلور، چارلز و دیگران (1392) چندفرهنگ¬گرایی؛ بررسی سیاست شناسایی، ترجمه طاهر خدیو و سعید ریزوندی، تهران، رخداد نو.
حسینی بهشتی، علیرضا (1380) بنیاد نظری سیاست در جوامع چندفرهنگی، تهران، بقعه.
روسو، ژان ژاک (1341) قرارداد اجتماعی، ترجمه غلامحسین زیرک¬زاده، سهامی چهر.
عزیزی، سید مجتبی (1396) «لیبرالیسم علیه اجتماع¬گرایی؛ نگاهی به انتقادهای لیبرال¬ها به اجتماع‌گرایان»، فصلنامه سیاست، مجله دانشکده حقوق علوم سیاسی، دوره چهل¬وهفتم، شماره 2، صص 451-470.
کیملیکا، ویل (1396) درآمدی بر فلسفه سیاسی معاصر، ترجمه میثم بادامچی و محمد مباشری، تهران، نگاه معاصر.
نش، کیت (1395) جامعه¬شناسی سیاسی معاصر؛ جهانی شدن، سیاست، قدرت، ترجمه محمدتقی دلفروز، تهران، کویر.
Bachvarova, Mira, and Margaret Moore (2006) "Liberalism, Communitarianism, and the Politics of Identity." annual Canadian Political Science Association Conference, York University, Toronto.
Beaney, M. (Ed.) (2013) The Oxford handbook of the history of analytic philosophy, Oxford University Press.
Dworkin, Ronald in Hampshire, S. (1978) Public and private morality, Cambridge University Press.
Rawls, J. (1971) Atheory of justice. Harvard University Press. Cambridge (Mass.).
Sandel, Michel (1982) Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
------------------ (2009), Justice: Whats The Right Thing to Do? Great Britain: AlenLanc, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Identity Politics (2019).
Taylor, Charles (1991), The ethics of authenticity, Harvard University Press.
------------------ (1985) Philosophy and the Human Sciences: Philosophical Papers, vol. ii (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
--------------------- (1997), nationalism and modernity in The Morality of Nationalism, Edited by Robert McKim and Jeff McMahan, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 31-55.
-------------------- replies (1994) In J. Tully & D. Weinstock (Eds.), Philosophy in an Age of Pluralism: The Philosophy of Charles Taylor in Question (pp. 213-257) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
------------------- (1994) Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition, Princeton University Press, 41 William St., Princeton.
Thompson, simon (2006) The political theory of recognition, polity press, pages 21-24, 45-48.
