Phillips and Young - the common critique of liberalism and the divergence of views on democracy, the equality and rights

Extract

[...] Kymlicka and Young agree that minorities should be given special rights. The former's aim is to provide a liberal framework for the just treatment of minority groups. He distinguishes two categories of minority groups: polyethnic or immigrant groups, and national minorities. Kymlicka argues that such minority groups deserve unique rights from the state by the nature of their unique role and history within the national population. Young does not include in her essay the historical criterion and does not make a difference between oppressed groups. [...]

[...] Phillips and Young- the common criticism of liberalism and the divergence of views on democracy, equality and rights Introduction : Our modern society has been solidly founded upon liberal principles; the Enlightenment constitutes one of the most influential political ideas in the nation-building process. Yet, some criticism has emerged as our society seems to fail to provide all its citizens political equality. Inequalities remain and affect several social groups. Phillips[1] and Young[2] analyze why basic assumptions of liberalism are no longer relevant and explain what changes are needed. [...]

[...] As a result, Young and Phillips agree that liberalism is limited but they do not share the same opinions on how to eliminate inequalities. II. A different conception of group rights and their implementation All Young's theory is based on the concept of differentiated citizenship. Liberals consciously excluded some people from citizenship on the grounds that they could not fit in society and could upset the common good. Young opposes universality to particularity, universality is advocated by liberals and she is in favor of particularity. [...]

[...] But Young argues that such an impartial general perspective is impossible. Thus different groups have different aims, different experience, and different needs. As a result, she argues that instead of a universal citizenship in terms of generality, a group differentiated citizenship and a heterogenous people are required.[7] A part of the solution lies in providing institutionalized means for the explicit recognition and representation of oppressed groups. Young focuses on social groups. These social groups should be given institutional means which guarantee self-organization and a right to veto when they are directly concerned by certain policies or political issues. [...]

[...] Goodin & Philip Petitt, Contemporary Political Philosophy, 2nde ed., Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers Iris Marion Young, “Dealing with difference: A politics of ideas or a politics of presence ?”, in Robert E. Goodin & Philip Petitt, Contemporary Political Philosophy, 2nde ed., Cambridge : Blackwell Publishers Iris Marion Young, ibid, p.256. Anne Phillips, ibid, p.175. Imanuel Kant, « Metaphysics of moral » (1797), in Micheline Ishay, The Human Rights Reader, 2nde ed., London : Routledge p Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emile : or, on Education, NuVision Publications Iris Marion Young, ibid, p Iris Marion Young, ibid, p.261-269. [...]