DC-I

Semester 2: Political Theory: Concept and Debates

Lesson: HOW DO PLURAL SOCIETIES

ACCOMMODATE DIVERSITIES?

Issues of Toleration and Multiculturalism

Lesson Developer: Sushma Gupta

Motilal Nehru College (Evening)

University of Delhi

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

 Content

I. Introduction

II. Introducing Toleration

a. Meaning & Origin of Toleration
b. Reasons for Toleration
c. Toleration and Liberal Theory
d. The Limits of Toleration

III. Introducing Multiculturalism

a. Meaning & Origin of Multiculturalism
b. Difference between Plurality, Diversity and Multiculturalism
c. Recognizing and Valuing Cultural Diversity
d. Responding to Diversity
e. Limits of Permissible Diversity
f. Foundations of Multiculturalism
g. Multiculturalism: The Policy Perspective
h. The Case of India
i. Critiques of Multiculturalism
j. Challenges to Multiculturalism in Age of Terror

IV. Conclusion

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

To quote Robert Toscano:

“Diversity is a fact of life. Homogeneity is a lie; a biological, historical and a cultural lie.”
(Robert Toscano’s article, 2013)

Diversity in its manifold manifestations- linguistic, cultural, ethnic, social etc. has become
the order of the day in contemporary plural societies. Most societies of the world are
internally diverse. The challenge posed by diversity is not merely a philosophical one but
also a political one. Diversities of opinions, values, beliefs and life styles create problems of
adjustment and accommodation in societies and can produce deep conflicts.Modern states
,whether liberal democratic or not, are increasingly facing difficulties in meeting the
challenge posed by diversity and differences.

Toleration and Multiculturalism are two important political and philosophical concepts that
try to address the problems posed by diversity, difference and plurality. The political ideal of
Toleration emerged in the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries to solve the problem of
religious wars that devastated Europe after the Reformation. Three centuries later, in the
late twentieth century, Multiculturalism emerged as a political idea to overcome the
inadequacies of the traditional conceptions of toleration. Multiculturalism attempts to
respond properly to religious and cultural diversities. The traditional conception of toleration
as non-interference was found incapable in addressing the marginal and subordinate
positions of minorities and marginalized groups who were demanding public affirmation of
their differences and an equal space in the public sphere along with majorities in society.

INTRODUCING TOLERATION

Toleration is a social virtue and a political principle allowing for peaceful coexistence of
individuals and groups, holding different views, practicing different ways of life and having
different identities within the same society. It is, indeed, central to political theory and
political practice both historically and in contemporary times. Even more than threecenturies
after, when the case of toleration received classic exposition in the writings of John Locke
and others, the ground and limits of toleration still remain hotly contested. The recent
decades have witnessed the growth and flourishing of a new scholarly literature devoted to
the idea of toleration. While the concept has featured in liberal political thought for
centuries, the increasing moral and cultural diversities of modern democratic societies and a
related intensification of intolerance has served to restore the issue to the very centre of
interest and concern. But the value and perception of tolerance has considerably changed.
Toleration has been pronounced as an elusive virtue. Increasingly it has come to be seen as
an interim value. (Williams.1996:26)Amid this growing sense of dissatisfaction, some
scholars have tried to redefine the idea of toleration in order to render it as a more
affirmative concept. A prominent example of this is Anna ElisabettaGaleotti’s argument for

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

toleration as recognition. In her view toleration, constitutes the first step in a strategy for
the full inclusion of members belonging to oppressed and marginal groups. (Galeotti.2002:
10) The positive meaning of toleration as recognition and acceptance is discussed in detail
in the subsequent section on multiculturalism. Here we are concerned with the traditional or
core conception of toleration as co-existing with other people.

Meaning and Origin of Toleration

In its more general sense, toleration is the willful putting up with the beliefs and practices
of others by a person or a group that disapproves of them, and who would otherwise be
inclined to prohibit or suppress them if they had the power to do so. Toleration, as such, is
a deliberate exercise of self-restraint. Even if one finds a behavior objectionable, one resists
interfering with it coercively.Hence it is an attitude and practice of restraint, typically
distinguished from approval, indifference and mere acquiescence.

The term toleration is derived from the Latin word ‘Tolerare’meaning to endure or to bear
with. It involves a two-step process comprising disapproval and permission. One judges a
group practice or belief negatively, yet makes a conscious decision not to interfere with it or
suppress it. In other words, all forms of toleration whethera belief, behavior, doctrine or a
practice must be thought of as wrong and bad otherwise it would not be counted as a fit
case of toleration but rather one of indifference or acceptance. As such, objection is an
integral part of toleration. However, toleration also requires that the object of toleration
is,approved of or accepted in some respect. This component of acceptance, according to
Frost, may not cancel out the negative judgment but give certain positive reasons which
triumph the negative ones in the relevant context. The said practices and beliefs are then
considered to be wrong but not intolerably wrong. (Frost.2003: 72)

According to Cohen “Anact of toleration is an agent’s intentional and principled refrain from
interfering with an opposed other (or hisbehaviour etc.) in the situation of diversity where
the agent’s believes he has the power to interfere.” (For details see Cohen’s article ‘What is
Toleration?’)

What makes toleration distinctive and interesting is its combining of negative appraisal with
a refusal to disallow what it appraises negatively. This combination of reasons has often led
commentators to characterise toleration as paradoxical. (Mendus.1989:9)
Toleration, in the above sense, is a negate ve freedom. It is ‘a kind of liberty’fitted well with
classical liberalism and other traditions that define liberty as the absence of constraints and
external interference. It is, infact, allowance of various form of dissent. John Harrison calls it
‘the practice of deliberately not curtailing the freedom of others’. For Horton and Nicholson
it is a deliberate choice not to interfere with conduct that is disapproved. (Quoted in
Murphy’s article Tolerance, Toleration and the Liberal Tradition: 596)
Toleration has the following features:

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

1. Difference: What is tolerated differs from the tolerator’s conception of what should be
done, valued or believed.

2. Importance: What is tolerated by the tolerator is not trivial to them.

3. Opposition: The tolerator disapproves of and/or dislikes what they tolerate.
4. Power: The tolerator believes themselves to have the power to suppress what is
tolerated.
5. Non Rejection: The tolerator does not exercise this power.
6. Requirement: Toleration is right and/or expedient and the tolerator is virtuous and/or
prudent and/or just. (McKinnon’s article Democracy, Equality and Toleration: 127-128)

There are several forms of toleration which may include religious and cultural toleration and
the ability to accept different behavior and different speech. Further, lack of toleration may
be observed in other ways, for example, a society may not accept an illegal activity such as
use of drugs or a society may fail to tolerate a legal but socially censored activity such as
inter-religion marriages in India or homosexuality. It may be noted that in the exercise and
practice of toleration different parties that are involved can be the state, the citizen and the
groups.

To have a clear meaning of toleration, it is worthwhile to distinguish between toleration and

tolerance. Toleration can be considered as a set of ‘social and political practices’while
tolerance can be seen as a ‘set of attitudes’. An individual may be intolerant (holding firmly
to the objective correctness of a set of beliefs to the absolute exclusion of all the others) yet
support a policy of toleration (for e.g. one might consider abortion to be morally wrong and
yet oppose legislation banning it).

Toleration has both moral and political dimensions. In its moral dimension, it is seen as
virtue in interpersonal relations and its political dimension as a solution to religious, moral
and cultural disagreements. Besides, ithas both intrinsic as well as extrinsic value.
Intrinsically, it is valuable because it is partly constitutive of what respect for others
involves. Extrinsically, its importance is derived from the fact that it makes it easier for
individual and groups with different beliefs and value systems to live and co-exist together.

The history of Toleration is both long and complex. One can find examples of toleration
throughout the history, but scholars generally locate its modern roots to the sixteenth and
seventeenth century’s struggles led by religious minorities to achieve the right to worship
free from state prosecution. In the world of seventeenth century, where the prosecution of
heterodoxy of beliefs and suppression of diversity of practices was the norm, the advent of
toleration represented a significant advance. Though grudgingly, toleration provided some
space to minorities in which they can practicise their beliefs and values. The principle and
practice of toleration that emerged in the religious sphere, in early modern period, was
gradually extended to new arenas of social and political life such as race, gender, sexualities
and culture.

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

Reasons for Toleration

As discussed earlier, toleration is a social virtue and a political principle. But the important
question is why do we need it? Why one allows the behavior one disapproves? Like many
other things, we can value toleration for number of reasons. Why and what we need to
tolerate depends on circumstances existed in different societies at different times.
Although,The practice of putting up with other people is a near universal feature of human
life and experience. The success of marriages, friendships, families, businesses and nations
all depend on our ability to put up with things which we disapprove, from time to time.
Toleration is nota ad-hoc tool which we find ourselves groping for in times of political
trouble. It is a fundamental feature of all human relationships. It is a capacity without
which human race would not have lasted very long. And which will be absolutely necessary
for its survival in the foreseeable future. As long as, there is a human race, the need for
toleration would remain because people will always have disagreement and dissent over
certain issues. The virtue of toleration teaches us that people have the right to live,
according to their beliefs and values, though these values and beliefs may, sometimes,
come in conflict with others beliefs and values.

John Rawls famously remarked that “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions as truth is
of system of thoughts.” (Rawls.1971: 3) But if we are literally unable to put up with each
other, argue Edyvane and Matravers, there would be no social institutions to form the
subject of distributive justice. Therefore if justice is the first virtue of social institutions,then,
toleration is the first virtue of social life.

For some scholars toleration is not a metaphysical idea but a pragmatic and practical
instrument to deal with the fact of diversity. Today, we encounter radical diversities in
societies which are further accentuated by the forces of globalization. We have diverse
beliefs and deep differences of value and way of life which cannot be effectively resolved
either in theory or in practice for whatever reasons. Homosexuality and abortion are issues,
more so in western liberal societies, on which two parties of the conflict have deep mutual
differences. Toleration provides a particular sort of social and political space within which
significant differences that are essentially conflictual in nature can be accommodated. It
makes possible the peaceful coexistence of groups that are antagonistic to each other. It
precisely does so because it permits mutual antagonism some space for social expression.
According to Rawls toleration is a pragmatic value, the need for which arose from the fact of
diversity and general human desire for peaceful coexistence. .

Toleration and the Liberal Theory

Toleration has been called ‘the substantive heart of liberalism’. It has long been considered
a cardinal virtue of liberal political theory and a practice endorsed by such important
thinkers such as John Locke, John Stuart Mill and John Rawls and it continues to speak to a
variety of contemporary political and legal debates including issues of race, gender and
sexual orientation. It is the liberal traditions that are most powerfully articulated the
grounds, significance and potential of tolerationist ideas in recent years. The relevant
circumstances for this political principle of toleration is the pluralism of contrasting views,
traditions and cultures. Modern liberal theory has built its approach to social differences and

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

diversity generally upon the cornerstone of toleration as a blueprint for addressing socially
divisive phenomena. Locke’s essay ‘A Letter concerning Toleration’ (1691) is considered the
most important liberal defense of religious toleration. Locke argued that it is not possible to
produce orthodoxy by way of coercion therefore the state should tolerate dissent. His basic
position in the essay was that the state has no business in the realm of religious beliefs
partly because no one can trust the magistrate (state) when it comes to the salvation of the
soul and partly because people are not harmed by others religious beliefs and practices.

Besides Locke the other important early modern figures who contributed to the spread of
tolerationist ideas in Europe were Pierre Bayle and Baruch Spinoza. The French philosopher
Voltaire in his work ‘Treatise on Toleration’ (1779) had advocated the cause of Toleration in
the matters of religion. Further, Immanuel Kant’s ‘What is Enlightenment?’ (1784)
broadened the scope of toleration by championing the cause of free enquiry and freedom of
speech and thought.

In 19th century, J.S. Mill argued for the need of toleration of dissenting opinions which
further strengthened the Locke’s view on religious Toleration. In his noted work ‘On Liberty’
(1859), Mill promoted the cause of freedom of speech and expression. According to Mill, an
individual has right to act in his deepest belief in matters that do not harm others. Further,
it is necessary to protect this individual freedom not only from legal and political sanctions
but also from the tyranny of majority opinion.

In the late twentieth century, Rawls, one of the most famous political philosopher argued
that toleration is the result of two elements. The first is the fact of reasonable
disagreements. Even after due consideration of fact, reasonable people can still disagree
with one another about the most fundamental questions in life. The second is the
requirement of reasonability. Reasonable people are willing to cooperate with each other on
terms fair to all. Toleration then, claims Rawls, is the only principle to which all reasonable
would agree. (Rawls.1993:51-61)

The concept of toleration continues to extend into other areas of social and political life.
Over time, tolerationist arguments have been employed in attempts to protect groups
marginalized on account of race and gender. In the twenty-first century matters of sexual
orientation continue to engage the attention of legal and political theorists so as to probe
the nature and limits of toleration.

Toleration has been as important in practice as it has been in theory. In the words of
Richards, toleration lies ‘at the very moral heart of the dignity of the constitutional law’.
(Richards.1986) Toleration lies at the heart of constitutional rights provided by states and
the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Embodied in universal rights, toleration
enlarges its scope, it now implies equal liberties and rights to all citizens. Liberal toleration
is derived from justice and spelled out in the language of rights and duties rather than grace
and virtue. From a political perspective, liberal toleration implies not disapproval but simply

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

disregard of conflicting differences and equal rights to the freedom of expression,
association and personal liberty. These rights tend to nurture pluralism and pluralism within
limits is seen as a value by liberals because it offers individuals real choices from which to
choose.

The Limits of Toleration

Toleration does not have endless boundaries. Defining these boundaries poses a complex
and tricky problem for each and every society. In other words, it is difficult to determine
where to draw the line between the tolerable and the intolerable. Undoubtedly, there are
certain acts that virtually all societies criminalise and for which no one is likely to advocate
toleration, for e.g. murder, rape, assault, fraud and robbery etc. But there are still manifold
cases in which the limits of toleration are controversial. Consider some of the following
examples: abortion, homosexuality, pornography, research using human embryos,
recreational use of drugs, cultures that violate the basic value to which we subscribe.
(Jones’ article: 46)

The issues in which the limits of toleration are to be tested are difficult ones because the
circumstances that generate tolerance may also generate disagreements about its limits.
The existence of diverse and conflicting beliefs and values give rise to the need for
toleration and each party involved in it (the state, citizen and group) have the option of
accepting or rejecting divergent beliefs and values. Rainer Frost beautifully captures this
paradox of toleration when he says…
“All toleration necessarily implies intolerance towards those who are seen as intolerable and
quite often, as intolerant as defined by those limits. The concept of toleration makes no
sense without certain limits, though as soon as these are substantially defined, tolerance
seems to turn into nothing but intolerance. There is thus no true tolerance. To resolve this
paradox a conception of toleration must show how far its limits can be drawn in a mutually
justifiable and non-arbitrary
way.” (Frost.2003: 72)

The issue of what is intolerable is so large and various in its consideration that it is difficult
to comment on it in any meaningful way. Jones argues that for the proper limit of toleration
we might think in terms of three zones: a middle zone that is the zone of proper toleration;
a lower zone defined by the intolerable; and an upper zone for which the need for toleration
should not arise. Every society can decide what should fall within each zone. (Jones’ article:
48) In India, religious and caste differences fall within the middle zone. Religious differences
between the two major communities, the Hindus and the Muslims, often invoke intolerance
towards the other community and invariably lead to violent clashes. Also, the intolerance
shown by the higher castes towards lower castes/Dalits has been the cause of social
disharmony and injustice towards the lower castes. Even after granting of equal rights and
liberties to all by the constitution, atrocities against Dalits continue to be committed. In the
western liberal democracies issues such as homosexuality abortion and banning hate
speech lead to sharp polarization of opinions and tend to create situations of intolerance.

The practice of toleration raises some important issues.In contemporary times, religion has
been de-privatized and its use in the political-public sphere has increased considerably for

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

political mobilization, as a medium of protest, as a tool of identity politics and even to justify
the act of terrors.

This creates problems for liberal democratic societies. Liberal societies pride themselves on
the degree to which individual and associational freedom contributes to the existence of a
plethora of social groups. But the problem arises when potentially violent intolerant groups
such as militias, anti-government extremists and religious fundamentalists disturb social
peace and law and order.

Scholars are of the opinion that society should not extend toleration to those who deny
rights to others. Cecil places fairly strict limits on toleration advocating punishment for
those who abuse freedom of speech and press by utterances tending to disturb peace and
order, corrupt morals and incite crime. (Cecil. 1990: 149) It seems, toleration would always
remain a fragile achievement because it will continue to confront intolerance.

The traditional conception of toleration as non-interference has been found inadequate in

dealing with the problems of diversity in contemporary societies. Therefore, McKinnon
proposes a double extension of the concept: a spatial extension from private to public
sphere and a semantic extension from non-interference to recognition. (McKinnon. 2012:
140) A new concept ‘Multiculturalism’ extends toleration beyond its traditional meaning.

INTRODUCING MULTICULTURALISM

http://ndla.no/en/node/91578

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

Cultural diversity has become our everyday reality. The world has some six thousand
communities and as many distinct languages. Such vast differences naturally lead to
diversity of visions, beliefs, values and practices. People move across the globe more than
ever before ever since progress in mass communication and transport technology enabled
the world to overcome geographical boundaries. Globalization is also about the cross
border flow of ideas that affect cultural diversity. Cultural diversity presupposes ways of
living together and participating in the cultural life of one’s choice. The concept of culture
itself seems to have expanded to influence that of the identity of individuals. In
contemporary plural societies, challenges posed by the cultural pluralism (differences rooted
in color, ethnicity, language and religion) have become quite significant and divisive.

Meaning and Origin of Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is a political idea that tries to address the issue of cultural diversity.
Theories of multiculturalism argue for a more inclusive conception of citizenship, justice and
democracy which extends special recognition and rights to cultural minority groups.
Multiculturalists contend that the proper response to cultural diversity is to supplement the
common set of civil, political and social rights with a set of group-differentiated rights and
accommodation for marginalized groups. Multiculturalism is not just a statement of fact, it is
also a value. Cultures existed alongside each other long before the concept of
multiculturalism came on the scene. Mere coexistence of cultures does not count as
multicultural practice but some acknowledgement or recognition of the many-culturedness
is what counts as multicultural practice. What multiculturalism wants is a society in which all
the diverse communities live together with equal dignity and concern. It envisions a society
which offers equal opportunities and environment of peaceful coexistence to various groups
within the same territory.

Ever since its emergence in the Anglo-American world in the seventies and eighties,
multiculturalism has been conceptualized and defined in a variety of ways. It is an umbrella
term closely associated with ‘identity politics’, ‘the politics of recognition’ and ‘politics of
difference’. All these theories share a commitment to revaluing disrespected identities and
changing dominant patterns of representation and communication that marginalized certain
groups.

One thing that the multicultural turn in political theory has done is to put cultural and ethnic
diversity at the center of contemporary debates. It broke the explicit mono-culturalism that
existed at the heart of many of the dominant ways of conceiving modern statehood and
citizenship. The broad array of theories, beliefs, norms, practices and policies of
multiculturalism seek to provide public recognition and support to accommodate non
dominant ethno-cultural groups. The nature of these non-dominant groups may vary. Some
maybe immigrant minorities, others maybe historically settled minorities such as Quebecois
in Canada or tribals in India. What is distinctive about the multicultural approach to the
social and cultural diversity is the aim to go beyond the protection of basic civil and political
liberties associated with liberal citizenship to forms of differentiated citizenship that allow
groups to express their distinctive identities and practices. (Kymlicka.1995.2007)

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

The term Multiculturalism was first used in Canada in 1971 and then in Australia in 1978 to
describe new public policies that moved away from assimilation of ethnic minorities and
immigrants in particular towards policies of acceptance and integration of diverse cultures.
(Lopez.2003: 2-3) It entered the American and British lexicon in the eighties. It is only in
the nineties that scholars and academic community increasingly started discussing
multiculturalism. Though multiculturalism is a recent phenomenon in political and social
theory, it now occupies a central place in the public culture of western liberal democracies
and increasingly in global political discourse. Even more recently multicultural ideas have
spread to debates over the nature of global justice and the search for global norms of
human rights and redistributive justice.

One of the most important political developments in western democracies towards the end
of the last century has been the emergence of minority cultural groups claiming official
recognition and rights. As immigration has made democratic societies increasingly pluralist
and multicultural, minority ethnic and cultural groups have argued that not only must their
individual members be granted equal rights and protection but also groups themselves are
entitled to recognized status and collective rights. The groups making these claims were
diverse: they include ethnic immigrants, refugee communities, indigenous peoples, religious
communities and descendants of those who were brought to the country against their will.
Their claims also cover a wide spectrum: some groups demand that their language, culture,
customs, religious beliefs or history be included in public ceremonies or school curricula;
some groups request that they be exempted from usual regulations regarding dress and
holidays; indigenous groups or national minorities demand the right to self-governance,
perhaps over territory, resources or over policy issues that affect them.

Despite their different demands these groups share one thing in common, i.e the identity of
individual members of the group are shaped or influenced by their un-chosen or ascribed
membership. It is the deep and un-chosen nature of group membership that differentiates
cultural groups from other kinds of associations based on shared interests or opinions. As
Paul Hirst puts it cultural groups constitute ‘communities of faith’ rather than ‘communities
of choice’ and deserve to be treated differently from voluntary groups and association to
which people belong. (Hirst.1994)

The origin of Multiculturalism may partly be explained by historical injustices against

minorities (racial and ethnic) along with classical liberal theory’s lack of attention on the
value of community. Multiculturalism criticized simultaneously both liberalism and
modernity and both these criticisms overlap. Liberalism is criticized from the vantage point
that it gives undue importance to individuals and individual rights. Modernity implied a
particular kind of rationality i.e. scientific and technological rationality which emerged in the
west and led to the worldwide homogenization of culture. It has been argued by
multiculturalists that in an effort to maintain neutrality among diverse ways of life,
liberalism has in fact, promoted a uniform way of life.

The multiculturalists contend that though liberal theory has been able to focus and pay
attention to discrimination arising from birth, status, gender, class, race etc. but it has left a
very important area unattended i.e. cultural discrimination. This has happened because

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

liberalism takes the individual as the core of all values and rights. But it should not be
forgotten that the individual is not an abstract category but is culturally embedded in the
sense that he/she grows up and lives within a culturally structured world and organize
his/her life and social relations in terms of a culturally desired system of meaning and
significance. (Sheth and Mahajan. 1999:5) Since culture is seen to constitute personal
identity it is valued for itself and respect for individual entails respect for their distinct way
of life.

The emergence of Multiculturalism can also be traced to the fact that contrary to the belief
of classical liberal theory, individual identities have not been dissolved in the market
economy and the democratic politics.Therefore a need for fresh thinking on political
institutions in multicultural and multinational societies was felt so that these unmeltable
identities could be taken care off. The theories and practices of multiculturalism were
response to this pressing concern. Multiculturalism rejects assimilationist policies
represented by images such as ‘melting pot’. Rather they prefer the image of the ‘salad
bowl’ or the ‘glorious mosaic’ wherein each ethnic and racial identity maintains its own
uniqueness. Multiculturalism thus, represents a new kind of politics in which individuals are
included into the nation-states not only as abstract individuals but also as members of
different but equal communities.

Chandhoke has traced multiculturalism with the collapse of the grand vision of a culturally
homogenous nation state. Classical liberal theory conceived the nation state as a political
community with a shared history and culture. For the existence and the survival of the
nation state, this sense of common identity is of utmost importance. Hence, under such
circumstances, nation states treat all expressions of cultural differences with mistrust and
suspicion. This understanding of nation state as a homogenous community creates problems
for communities within it who want to maintain their separate identities and existence. It
further creates and sharpens conflicts within the polity. At the most basic level, theories of
multiculturalism argue that any nation state is not a single nation state, rather it is a
multinational state inhabited by people belonging to different communities with their distinct
cultures and identities. One has to recognize the fact, that citizens have two kinds of
membership. They are members of political communities and at the same time, also
members of a particular cultural community. Thus, political arrangements needed to be
mindful of the diversities that existed at the level of cultural membership. It is argued, that
though democracies in western societies have taken a great deal of care not to discriminate
but national cultural life in contemporary western societies place certain groups at a
disadvantageous position. The difference-blind policies of nation states which vowed to
remain neutral among different conceptions of good life pushed the minorities further to the
margins. Excluded from the mainstream, different groups thus, suffered ‘systemic
disadvantage’. (Young.1990)
Rise of multiculturalism, therefore, is seen as a movement against the politics of mono-
culturalism followed in the countries of Western Europe and the USA. The validity and value
of plurality of cultures, in the last quarter of twentieth century, strengthened the
multicultural ethos and put a great question mark on what Bhargava has called the
unicultural policy. (Bhargava.1999)

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

Difference between Plurality, Diversity &Multiculturalism

In common usage all the three terms are used interchangeably. These terms are used to
describe societies that comprise of different religions, races, languages and cultures.
However, far from being synonymous, they are discrete concepts with distinct meanings and
contextual parameters. To understand the meaning of multiculturalism and its relevance in
contemporary societies, it is necessary to make a distinction among these three terms.

Plurality has been in existence in many societies since ages. However, plurality is not same
as multiculturalism. It only denotes the presence of many as opposed to the presence of
one. Plurality does not tell us anything about the nature of many. i.e, how multiple forms
are structured and how they relate to one another. Different caste communities in India,
can be considered as a sign of plurality though these castes are arranged hierarchically. A
plural society may also consist of multiple races but these races may relate to each other in
a relationship of domination and subordination. Further, we may associate the presence of
many interest groups in a society with pluralism but some groups may be relatively
powerless in comparison to others. The idea of pluralism was being used by political
theorists to study the western industrialized society and it is on the basis of this
understanding they distinguished between totalitarian and democratic systems. Here again
plurality indicates the presence of more than one but that is all.

Diversity, on the other, hand moves a step further than pluralism. It points to the existence
of many that are not the same, are heterogeneous and often incommensurable. In other
words, it can be said that diversity means multiplicity that is not collapsible into one
(Mahajan 1999). The German historian Herder defined the concept of culture during the age
of enlightenment. He argued that each culture is the creation of the people who constitute
it. As such each culture is unique in its own way and has a historical specificity of its own.
He further emphasized the unique nature of each culture. (Herder.1969). At another level
the conception of diversity surfaces in the writings of contemporary liberals. Liberals argue
that presence of different perspectives, lifestyles; ideas and moral values are crucial test of
tolerance and democracy in the society..

The concept of multiculturalism endorses the idea of diversity but it goes a step further and
asks the state to grant recognition and equal status to different cultures. Respect for
diversity, in viewof multiculturalists, implies equal space and opportunity for different
cultures to sustain themselves. Theories of multiculturalism grant positive value to cultural
diversity. According to them, the presence of diverse culture enriches social life.
Multiculturalism highlights the discrimination of minority cultures within the nation states
and argues for group differentiated rights.

. In sum,the concept of multiculturalism is significantly different from that of plurality and

diversity. While plurality simply represents the existence of many multiculturalism points to
the existence of many who are equal in public arena.

Recognizing and Valuing Cultural Diversity

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

The multicultural discourse puts greater emphasis on cultural diversity. It has been pointed
out, that the culture has not been given its due place in liberal political theory. In fact,
multiculturalism has become a kind of a master narrative widely invoked by scholars,
journalists and policymakers alike to explain the evolution of contemporary debates about
diversity. One of the arguments of multiculturalism is that, cultural diversity offers benefit
to wider society not just the members of any cultural minority. Cultural diversity in the form
of ethnic food, festivals, music, dance etc. creates a richer, more cosmopolitan and
aesthetically pleasing society for all. (Kymlicka.1995)

Cultural diversity is not only a source of entertainment or pleasure that enhances our overall
quality of life but it also fundamentally governs our view about how life should be led.
Parekh, a leading multicultural theorist, opines that exposures to the beliefs, values and
practices of other cultures not only expands and enriches our knowledge of human
condition, but, it also offers a fresh perspective from which to question and possibly revise
our own established cultural practices and perceptions. Access to a broad array of
alternative cultural resources and world view is ‘an important constituent and condition of
human freedom’ which encourages us to step out of the confines of our cultural structure to
see its limitations and contingencies and explore alternative ways of living. (Parekh. 2000:

To Parekh, central insights of multiculturalism are three:

1. Human beings are culturally embedded. They grow up and live in a culturally structured
world and organize their life and social relations in terms of a culturally derived system of
meaning and significance.
2. Secondly, different cultures represent different systems of meaning and good life. Each
culture enriches itself by looking at the other cultures and by learning from them. No culture
is inferior or wholly worthless.
3. Thirdly, each culture is internally plural and reflects a continuing conversation between its
different traditions and strands of thought. A culture cannot appreciate the value of others
unless it appreciates the plurality within itself. The converse is also true. (Parekh. 1999)

Cultures provide human beings with what Chandhoke calls ‘evaluated resources’. It helps in
making sense of the world. It provides cultural capital to think with. It helps in
understanding and interpreting the world. The traditions and shared system of meaning
provided by the community supply a mode of evaluation and cognition. (Chandhoke. 1999)

Responding to Diversity: Multiculturalism and Group Rights

Multicultural discourse, consider groups not individuals as a unit. Cultural identity has been
made as important criteria to be adhered to while granting rights to the citizen. The
multiculturalists believe that minority cultures are undoubtedly, at a disadvantageous
position viza viz the majority cultures. For these cultures to thrive and acquire the same
high status and power as enjoyed by the dominant cultures, it is imperative that they be
given special rights. These rights were termed as group differentiated rights. Arguments in
favour of minority/group rights have been supported by Chandhoke (1999), Mahajan (1998-
99), Parekh (1997), Taylor and Kymlicka (1995)among others.

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

Group-differentiated rights are seen not as some kind of favour to minority cultures but
rather as a means to provide them with equal respect that is already available to dominant
culture. Group rights are also looked upon as giving strength to social justice and fostering a
sense of belongingness. Declaring everyone as a citizen does not produce a feeling of
attachment to a particular political community. Citizenship is not all about status and rights
but also about belongingness that requires acceptance, welcome and a sense of
identification. Examples of African Americans in USA and Asians in Britain show that
citizenship rights and the feeling of being outsiders may go hand in hand.

Special or group rights can be put into two categories- those that are assimilative in
character and those that are given to safeguard the uniqueness of a culture. The former
consist of policies of affirmative action and the latter can be put into three categories-
cultural rights, self-government rights and special representation rights. (Mahajan. 2002:
93
Examples of group differentiated rights or cultural accommodation include exemptions from
generally applicable laws (e.g. religious exemptions), assistance to do things that the
majority can do unassisted (e.g. multilingual ballot), funding for minority language schools
and ethnic associations (e.g. affirmative action), representation of minorities in government
bodies (e.g. ethnic quota in elections and political parties) and limited self-government
rights (e.g. recognition of tribal sovereignty and federal arrangements recognizing the
political community).
Will Kymlicka has identified three kinds of groups and three kinds of group rights. They are
special representation rights, self-government rights and poly-ethnic rights. (Kymlicka.
1995: 176)

Limits of Permissible Diversity

Multiculturalism is not about granting any right or conceding any demand that the minority
community may ask for.The rights of the individual and the state, at large are taken into
consideration while considering such demands. The state has the right to deliberate on each
new demand and take a decision based on the feasibility of the demand. Demands that are
atrocious and result in inhuman practices cannot be permitted. If the members of the
community concerned are subject to such customs and practices that are unjust and
inhuman then they have every right to seek redressal from the state. In the end, the
members have the right to exit from the community. More importantly, if a stipulation is
such that the interest of the state is harmed in any way then such a practice cannot be
tolerated. Parekh uses the term ‘Limits of Permissible Diversity’ for this. (Parekh. 1995)

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

It has been brought to light that there are many demands which cause no harm to the
society. In fact, they make the state machinery more efficient and significantly more
representative. Some such examples are – the permission to the Sikh community to wear
turbans instead of helmets or any other head gear in defense or police force, allowing
Islamic women to wear hijabs to their workplaces, permitting Jewish and Islamic
shopkeepers to close their shops on Friday instead of Sundays as their day of prayer is
Friday unlike Christians who go to church on Sunday, allowing some women to wear long
dresses to work as their community does not allow them to wear short skirts which may be
part of the uniform and other cases of similar nature where the quality of work is not
compromised. In all such cases the state does not lose anything as the people being
employed are capable of doing their job well and what they ask for is a little concession in
order to practice their religion and culture. Liberalism has always stood for equal treatment
to all and discrimination to none. It has to be realized, that not giving these concessions to
the members of the minority community would actually lead to discrimination. If the Sikhs
are not permitted to wear turbans then they will have to forgo the jobs in the defense
forces. Being a marshal race, they are capable of doing such jobs better than any other
person. Not granting them consent will lead to injustice to them.

Foundations of Multiculturalism

The basis of Multiculturalism can be found in the different strands of political thinking.
Prominent among them are Communitarian, Liberal and the Post-Colonial.

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

Communitarian

Wikipedia

Communitarian critique of Liberalism provides fertile ground for Multicultural theories. A

serious challenge to Liberal political philosophy, in last few years, is posed by
Communitarian thinkers such as Alasdair Macintyre, Charles Taylor and Michael Sandel.
Communitarians fundamentally attack at liberal social ontology. Liberals are ethical
individualist; they insist on individual freedom to choose and pursue one’s own conception
of good life. Liberal philosophy gives primacy to individual rights and liberties over
community life and collective goods. Communitarians reject the idea - ‘Individuals is prior to
Community’. For them, Community has a fundamental and irreplaceable place in the life of
human beings. ‘Community’ is intrinsically rather than instrumentally valuable for
individuals. Communitarians emphasize that human beings are not fundamentally
autonomous or having ‘unencumbered self’, but are social beings embedded in beliefs and
practices that they do not make but which rather, in a sense, make them by constituting
their identities.

In his famous essay, ‘Politics of Recognition’, Taylor made a normative case for the
recognition of collective identities. He argues that individuals form their identities and
conception about themselves as free and equal agents through a dialogical process using
certain cultural scripts. We not only evaluate and understand the world through culture but
culture forms a fundamental part of our being also. Hence, misrecognition or non-
recognition of a culture can inflict harm and is a form of oppression. This non-recognition
may imprison someone in distorted and reduced form of a being. (Taylor.1995, Page 25)

The politics of recognition, in a multicultural society, is about recognizing and

accommodating difference. Some theorists have called it as politics of difference. The
recognition of equal worth of diverse cultures requires replacing the traditional liberal
regime of identical liberties and opportunities for all citizens with a scheme of special rights
for minority cultural groups.

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

Liberal Egalitarians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Kymlicka

An important foundation of multiculturalism comes from within liberalism. Liberal

Multiculturalism has been one of the most dominant forms of Multiculturalism over the last
few decades. The leading theorist of Liberal Multiculturalism is Will Kymlicka. The issue is
raised by Kymlicka for the first time in his book ‘Liberalism, Community and Culture’ (1989).
Another book by Kymlicka – ‘Multicultural Citizenship’ (1995) is also one of the most cited
text in relation to political multiculturalism.

Kymlicka has listed five crucial conditions that enabled liberal multiculturalism to emerge in
the Western World (Kymlicka 2007, Page 49):

I. Increasing Rights consciousness

II. Demographic Change
III. Multiple access points for non-dominant groups to communicate their claims
IV. Desecuritization of ethnic relations
V. Consensus on Human rights

Kymlicka’s theory of multiculturalism is based on the liberal values of autonomy and

equality. The value of culture for individuals stands from two reasons. Firstly, the Culture
enable individuals to exercise autonomy. Autonomy is referred as having an adequate range
of options from which to choose. Culture which Kymlicka calls as ‘Societal Culture’ provides
context of choices to people and make their social scripts and narratives meaningful from
which people can fashion their lives (Appiah 2005). Secondly, Culture is valuable for the self
respect of individuals. Drawing cue from the theories of Communitarianism and Nationalism,
Kymlicka argues that there is a deep connection between a person’s self respect and the
respect accorded to his/her cultural group. As per Kymlicka, People cannot easily leave their
cultural group, thus the membership in One’s own group must be secured.

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

From this premises about the value of cultural membership, Kymlicka moved to egalitarian
claim. He suggests that in contrast to the membership of majority culture, the membership
in minority culture is disadvantageous in terms of access to the culture. Therefore, the
members of minority culture should be given special protections. The inequality stemming
from minority culture, native talents and social starting position are unchosen in nature.
Thus, the members of minority groups can demand that members of majority culture should
share the cost of accommodation stemming from inequality in access to cultural
memberships based on luck and not on one’s own choice. As per liberal egalitarian theory,
the Minority groups’ rights that emphasizeon rectifying unchosen inequalities are justified.
(Kymlicka. 1995: 109)

According to Kymlicka, In a culturally diverse society, one can easily find patterns of state
support for some culture groups over others. While the State may prohibit racial
discrimination and avoid official establishment of religion, it cannot avoid establishing one
language for public and other state services. Culture and linguistic advantage can translate
in political and economic advantage, since members of dominant cultural communities have
advantageous position at school, workplace and politics (Kymlicka 1996:111).

Post-Colonial

https://www.britac.ac.uk/fellowship/elections/index.cfm?member=4444

Lastly, some philosophers have looked beyond liberalism in arguing the case of
multiculturalism. This is especially true of theorist writing from the Post-Colonial
perspective. Since the early eighties, post colonialism has developed as a body of writings
that attempts to question the dominant ways in which the relations between Western and
non-western people and their world are viewed. Post-colonialism offers a way of saying
things differently; it is also a politics and a language that puts a question mark on the
Western way of looking at things.

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

 Parekh, one of the leading scholars of Multiculturalism, argues that multicultural societies
consist of diverse religions and ethical outlooks and if the liberal society is to take such
diversity seriously, they must recognize that liberalism is just one of the many substantive
outlooks based on a specific view of man and society. Liberalism is not free of culture but
rather expresses a distinctive culture of its own. This is true not only across territorial
boundaries between liberal and non-liberal states but also within liberal states and its
relations with non-liberal minorities.

Parekh believes that liberal theory cannot provide an impartial framework governing
relationship between cultural communities (Parekh 2000). He proposed an open model of
cultural dialogue in which constitutional values of a liberal society serve as the initial
starting point for the cross-culture dialogue while also being open to contestation. Ideas
about ‘What is reasonable and moral?’ are not universal as claimed by the Liberals but are
embedded in and mediated by the Culture. Members of non-liberal cultures often relate to
their culture differently and do not attempt critical judgment on their Culture. Parekh rejects
the dichotomy between liberal and non-liberal cultures drawn by liberals. Rather, the
cultural community should be respected and allowed to transmit its culture as long as it do
not contravene any basic universal value such as respect for human life (Parekh 2006:110).

Multiculturalism: The Policy Perspective

Multiculturalism is not just an ideal but something that exists as a policy idea qualifying
citizenship and informing actual policies of the states as well as group relations in civil
society. It is a demanding ideal to realize in practice. Adopting a multicultural perspective
and implementing multicultural policies has real costs. It asks people to change the way
they think about the world and how they interact with each other and especially the shape
and look of their public institutions. It asks states to change the way they engage in nation
building and also change its distribution of economic and political power. There is no
standard practice of multiculturalism that can be applied to each and every situation,
regardless of context. The practice of multiculturalism depends on host of factors, such as
patterns of immigration, power relations between different groups in civil society and
historical evolution of different societies.

Though cultural diversity is a fact of life in most democracies, relatively few have official
policies recognizing minority cultures. In Australia and Canada, multiculturalism was
officially adopted at the federal level in the seventies and the policy was included in the
Canadian Constitution in 1982. In both countries governments have formally committed
themselves to recognizing the diverse cultural backgrounds of their citizens and to support
projects aimed at maintaining and publicly celebrating minority cultures. Some European
countries including Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark followed suit. Concern about the
assimilation of Asian immigrants had been publicly debated in Britain throughout the 1990s
in response to the Rushdie affair of 1989 (in which Muslims protested blasphemy against
Prophet Muhammad in one of Rushdie’s works ‘the Satanic Verses’). The official policy in
Britain has been of integration that does not mean assimilation and ethnic and cultural
interests can be maintained unless they are contrary to the public’s interest. In the US, the

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

rights of cultural minorities are said to be well addressed by the government, though
controversies and new demands arise from time to time. Here ethnic minority groups such
as the Amish have been granted the right to exempt their children from education in a state
curriculum that contravenes their values. In the United States, Native American tribes have
powers of self-government similar to those of states in federal systems. They manage their
natural resources and enforcement of law. Most Native American communities have local
court systems that deal with local ordinances. In Canada, the indigenous first nations Inuit
and Metis peoples are officially recognized in the constitution and claim varying degrees of
self-determination and sovereignty. Canadian federal legislation recognizes Quebec as a
distinct nation within Canada. French is its sole official language and English speakers are
recognized as linguistic minority within the province. The situation of indigenous people is
very different in New Zealand. Since the eighties the New Zealand government has granted
limited self-determination and self-management rights to Maoris, the indigenous community
of that state. In short, different states have taken different policy responses to the claims of
minority communities.

The Case of India

India is, perhaps one of the most socially and culturally diverse countries of the world,
inhabited by the people of different religions, languages, cultures and ethnicities. The
diversities in India did not arise as a result of immigration in the recent past, as is the case
with the Western liberal democracies. It has, in fact grown in the long period of its history
resulted from invasions, conquests, settlements and colonial intervention. India became
independent in 1947alongwith the Partition of the country. The Constitution of India
contains detailed provisions so that religious, cultural and caste diversities could be
accommodated and adjusted. Religious and Linguistic minorities have been given special
rights through Article 29 & Article 30 of the Constitution. The members of Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribes have been given reservation and representation rights as well. The
tribal communities, at specified locations, also get the right to their custom and culture
through the Constitution. As a matter of fact, India was among the first few democracies to
embark on the multicultural path. India recognized minority rights and cultural diversity at a
time when Western liberalism was still advocating neutrality and difference blind approach
to diversity. Structures and institutions were devised inIndia with the understanding that
the diverse communities must be treated as equals in the public arena. The leadership in
India knew that a strong and unified India could be built only by retaining its cultural
diversity. (Mahajan in Will Kymlicka. 2005:284)

Critique of Multiculturalism

The criticism of multicultural theories has been voiced by the thinkers coming from different
traditions. Some of the major criticisms of multicultural theories are as follows:

1. Problem of Vulnerable Internal Minorities

A key challenge before multiculturalism which advocates protection to minority groups is

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

that it may oppress vulnerable members within the minority. This has been labeled by
scholars as ‘problem of internal minorities’. It is likely that policy measures that provide
protection to minority groups from dominant majorities may also provide power to certain
dominant members of the minority group to undermine the basic rights and liberties of
vulnerable members within the group. Vulnerable members within minority groups may
include religious dissenters, sexual minorities and children. Some of the most oppressive
group norms and practices revolve around the issue of gender and sexuality. Many feminist
critics have highlighted the tensions between multiculturalism and feminism. Susan Okin
argues that a tension exists between the rights of women and increasing multicultural
concern for cultural diversity. This is particularly clear when cultures openly discriminates
against women and attempt to deny them rights to which they have legal and constitutional
guarantees in the wider society, for e.g. the right to be educated or to marry freely or to be
allowed to move around or vote or express themselves freely. (Okin. 1999). Shachar refers
to this phenomenon as the paradox of multicultural vulnerability where well-meaning
accommodation by the state may leave members of minority groups vulnerable to severe
injustice within a group and may in fact work to reinforce some of the most hierarchical
elements of culture. (Shachar. 2001: 3)
2. Diversion from Politics of Redistribution
A second major criticism of multiculturalism is that it is ‘politics of recognition’ that
wwdiverts attention from the ‘politics of redistribution’. (Barry.2001, Fraser and Honneth.
2003) We can distinguish analytically between these two modes of politics: A politics of
recognition challenges status inequality and remedy it seeks is cultural and symbolic
whereas politics of redistribution challenges economic inequality and exploitation and the
remedy it seeks is economic restructuring. Critics worry that multiculturalism’s focus on
culture and identity undermines the struggle for economic justice. It has been thought as
being a distraction from class struggle or even as a scam on the part of global capitalism.
(Zizek. 1997) A more radical version of this critique has been articulated by Bannerji who
argues that a multiculturalism grounded in the value of minority differences is little more
than an exercise in the politics of distraction that keeps far more pressing issues of
minorities’ socio-economic and political marginalization safely off the agenda and as such is
incapable of posing any serious challenge to the unequal distribution of resources, power
and opportunities in liberal societies. (Bannerji. 2000)

3. Toleration requires indifference not accommodation

One of the most difficult challenges before multiculturalism is how to strike a principled
balance between group differentiated minority rights and individual human rights. The
greatest weakness of multiculturalism is that it may threaten rather than promote the
freedom and equality of individuals.As a scholar points out argues that there are only
individual rights no group rights. By granting ‘cultural groups’ special protections and rights
the state oversteps its role. State should not pursue cultural integration but rather a politics
of indifference towards minority groups. (Kukathas. 2003) Critics argue that the major
problem that may arise in granting rights and protection to groups would be that groups
may practice internal discrimination against it members and state would have little authority

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

to interfere in such a condition.
4. Cosmopolitan view of culture

Some critics argue that view of culture taken by the multiculturalists is problematic. As per
some scholars a culture cannot be considered as a given whole rather it evolves through
influences from other cultures via warfare, trade and migration. Today through global
migration and economic and communication networks, people in many parts of the world
live in a multicultural context and possess multiple identities. Indeed, many cultures
themselves are already cosmopolitan, characterized by cultural hybridity rather than purity.
Even traditional cultures are not untouched for good or ill by the global exchange of
information and knowledge. Moreover, aiming at preserving a culture runs the risk of
privileging one allegedly pure version of culture, thereby crippling its ability to adapt to
change in circumstances. (Waldron. 1995 and SeylaBenhabib. 2002)

Challenges to Multiculturalism in the Age of Terror

If in the last quarter of the twentieth century, multiculturalism was vigorously championed
by political theorists and statesman alike, at the start of twenty-first century, it was being
attacked by statesmen and scholars alike. The newspapers and magazines in western liberal
democracies came up with articles titled “Multiculturalism has failed”, “Multiculturalism in
political retreat”, “Multiculturalism is dead”, “Multiculturalism under seize”. (quoted in
Modood. 2007: 145) In recent years, there has been considerable denunciation of
multiculturalism and a reassertion of ideas of nation building, common values, identity and
unitary citizenship. The 9/11 bombing of the US Trade Towers and subsequent terrorist
attacks in London, Madrid and Canada have raised doubts about the appropriateness of
pursuing the agenda of multiculturalism. Much of the recent animosity towards
multiculturalism has been focused on immigrant driven diversity and great anxiety has been
shown towards Muslim immigrants in European countries. The title of a recent book
“Surrender: Appeasing Islam Sacrificing Freedom” (Bawer. 2009) epitomizes this kind of
reaction and anxiety. The ever present fear of Islamic fundamentalism and its links to
domestic and international terrorism feed this Muslim focused anxiety. The horrific public
slaying of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, ethnic riots across France in 2005, the ongoing
fallout from the Danish cartoon controversy and attempted bombing of Times Square in New
York in 2010 have helped nourish a climate of fear and mistrust and the conviction that
Muslims are committed to a profoundly illiberal value system which renders them imperious
to even most open and generous policies of accommodation. (Murphy. 2012: 1)

Undoubtedly, terrorism erodes the very roots of multiculturalism and democracy. It

promotes stereotyping and creates a negative image of communities and groups and thus,
hampers the growth of multicultural polity. Fusco beautifully sums up this when she says
“We welcome you, but first we must fingerprint you, interrogate you, probe you…We
exempt you, we absolve you, we exonerate you, but only if you qualify for our

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

benevolence…We forgive you, but first we must certify you, standardize you, normalize you,
merge you, melt you, validate you, authenticate you, assimilate you…”. (Fusco. 1989)

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in USA, the relationship between security
and liberty has become a central concern of contemporary Western political theory. But
according to Waldron, in the Western liberal democracies the balance being struck was not
between security and liberty but between the security of the majority on the one hand and
liberties of the minorities on the other. Kymlicka argues that there has been re-
securitization of ethnic relations and this has considerably eroded both the democratic
spaces to voice the minority demands and the likelihood that those demands will be
accepted (Kymlicka.2007: 120).
The ‘othering’ of ethnic minorities have led to cultural confrontations in societies more so
Western liberal societies and undermined the very possibility of nurturing a multicultural
society.

To conclude, the discourse of multiculturalism has put cultural and religious diversity at the
center of political theory and state policies. But it has raised more questions than it has
solved i.e. what happens if different cultural groups fail to agree on where the line between
acceptable and non-acceptable is to be drawn and if there is a clash between individual right
and a group right, which one should be given priority. Questions such as these and others
are difficult to answer in abstract terms. More and more theorists from across the
multicultural spectrum are turning to a case and context specific approach to the
accommodation of ethno-cultural and ethno-national diversities.

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

Exercise

I. Discuss and analyze the liberal notion of Toleration.

II. What are the various conceptions of Toleration? How they are different from each
other?

III. Toleration cannot be extended to intolerants in the Society. Assess critically the
above statement.

IV. What do you mean by the term Multiculturalism? What factors are responsible for
origin of Multiculturalism?

V. Explain the difference among Plurality, Diversity and Multiculturalism.

VI. As per theories of Multiculturalism, What measures are suggested for

accommodating Diversities?

VII. Illustrate the following statement –

a. ‘Terrorism posses a great setback to Multiculturalism’
b. ‘Multiculturalism is an extension of the Policy of Toleration’

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

REFERENCES

Toleration

 Cecil, Andrew.1990. Equality, Toleration and Loyalty. Dallas: University of Texas

Press.

 Cohen, Andrew Jason. 2004. What Toleration is, in Ethics, Volume 115, No. 1: 68-
95. University of Chicago Press.

 Edyvane, Derek and Matravers, Matt. 2011. Toleration Re-examined, in Critical

Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, Volume 14, No. 3: 281-288.

 Frost, R. 2003. Toleration, Justice and Reason in the Culture of Toleration in Diverse
Societies. Edited by C. McKinnon and D. Castiglione. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.

 Galeotti, A.E. 2002. Toleration as Recognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

 Horton, John. 2011. Why the Traditional Conception of Toleration still matters, in
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, Volume 14, No. 3:
289-305.

 Jones, Peter Nigel. 2010. Toleration and Recognition: What should we teach, in
Educational Philosophy and Theory, Volume 42, No. 1.

 Mendus, S. 1989. Toleration and the Limits of Liberalism. Basingstoke: MacMillan.

 Murphy, Andrew R. 1997. Tolerance, Toleration and the Liberal Tradition,inPolity,

Volume 29, No. 4: 593-623. Published by Palgrave MacMillan.

 Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

 Rawls, J. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

 Richards, D.A.J. 1986. Toleration and the Constitution. New York: Oxford University
Press.
 Toscano, Robert. 2013. Group Identity and Difference,inSeminar, No. 649.

 Williams, B. 1996. Toleration: as Impossible Virtue,in D. Heyd, Toleration an Elusive

Virtue: 18-2. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Multiculturalism

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

  Appiah, K.A. 2005. The Ethics of Identity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

 Barry, B. 2001. Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

 Bannerji, H. 2000. The Dark Side of the Nation: Essays on Multiculturalism,

Nationalism and Gender. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.

 Bawer, B. 2009. Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom. New York:

Doubleday.

 Bhargava, R. Sudershan, R and Amiya Bagchi (edited). 1999. Multiculturalism,

Liberation and Democracy. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

 Benhabib, S. 2002. The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in Global Era.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.

 Caren, Joseph. 1997. Liberalism and Culture,inConstellations, Volume 4, No. 1.

Oxford: Blackwell.

 Caren, Joseph. 1999. Justice as Evenhandedness,inSeminar, No. 484.

 Chandhoke, Neera. 1999. Beyond Secularism: The Rights of Religious Minorities.

New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

 Chandhoke, Neera. 1999. The Logic of Recognition,inSeminar, December 1999: 36-

40.

 Fraser, N and Honneth, A. 2003. Redistribution or Recognition, A Politico-

Philosophical Exchange. London: Verso.

 Fusco, C. 1989. Border art workshop/taller de arte fronterizo,in Nation, 284(17):

602-604.
 Glazer, Nathan. 1975. Affirmative Discrimination: Ethnic Inequality and Public Policy.
New York: Basic Books.

 Glazer, Nathan. 1997. We are all Multiculturalist now. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.

 Goldberg, D.T. 1994 (edited). Multiculturalism: A Critical Reader. Basil Blackwell.

 Herder, J.G. 1969. On Social and Political Culture,translated and edited by F.M.
Bernard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 Hirst, Paul. 1994. Associative Democracy: New forms of Economic and Social
Governance. University of Massachusetts Press.

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

  Kukathas, C. 1992. Are there any Cultural Rights?,in Political Theory, Volume 20:
105-139.

 Kymlicka, W. 1989. Liberalism, Community and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

 Kymlicka, W. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 Kymlicka, W. 2001. Politics in Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism and

Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 Kymlicka, W. 2007. Multicultural Odysseys. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 Lopez, M. 2000. The Origin of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics. Melbourne:

Melbourne University Press.

 Modood, Tariq. 2007. Multiculturalism: A Civic Idea. Cambridge: Polity Press.

 Mahajan, Gurpreet. 1998. Edited. Democracy, Difference and Social Justice. New
Delhi: Oxford University Press.

 Mahajan, Gurpreet. December 1999. Rethinking Multiculturalism,in Seminar.

 Mahajan, Gurpreet. 2002. The Multicultural Path: Issues of Diversity and

Discrimination in Democracy. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

 McKinnon, Catriona. 2012. Issues and the Political Theory. Oxford University Press.

 McKinnon, Catriona. Democracy, Equality and Toleration,in the Journal of Ethics,

Volume 11, No. 2, June 2007.

 Murphy, M. 2012. Multiculturalism: A Critical Analysis. London and New York:

Routledge.

 Okin, S.M. 1999. Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women,in Cohen, J, Howard

MandNussabaum A. edited Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? Princeton: Princeton
University Press.

 Parekh, Bhikhu. December 1999. What is Multiculturalism? ,in Seminar. New Delhi.

 Parekh, Bhikhu. 2002. Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political

Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

 Phillips, A. 2007. Multiculturalism without Culture. Princeton: Princeton University

Press.

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

  Shachar, Ayelet. On Citizenship and Multicultural Vulnerability,in Political Theory,
Volume 28, No.1: 64-89.

 Sheth, D.L. and Mahajan, Gurpreet (edited). 1999. Minority Identities and the Nation
State: 5. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

 Taylor, Charles. 1994. The Politics of Recognition,in Amy Gutman edited

Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.

 Waldron, Jeremy. 1995. Minority Cultures and the Cosmopolitan

Alternative,inKymlicka, W. Rights of Minority Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

 Young, Iris Marion. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.

 Zizek, S. September- October 1997. Multiculturalism or, the Cultural Logic of

Multinational Capitalism, in New Left Review, I /225.

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi