From Recognition to Regulation: Rethinking the Idea of Multiculturalism

While the question of multiculturalism became a matter in the post-modern world, mostly  the researchers and policy analysts asserted that the possibility of multiculturalism is naturally associated with religious diversity. I begin with Charles Taylor’s view on multiculturalism  through the lens of recognition. He argues that the acknowledgement of a group’s unique cultural  identity by the authority is a fundamental human need for individual and collective manifestation. Taylor’s multiculturalism is interconnected with various components, especially identity recognition. For instance, he believed that a person’s identity is not formed in isolation but is shaped through the interplays of dialogues with others, or by the lack of dialogue, and by  the social environment. The respect for individual dignity and identity is another essential role in  molding an individual’s identity, cultivated throughout the cultural factors. Moreover, Taylor  asserted that multiculturalism is a political demand for minority or marginalized groups for their  identity to be affirmed publicly. 

Similarly, John Rawls claimed that the multiculturalism is for to ensure fair social cooperation and political stability among citizens who hold different, perhaps conflicting, moral,  religious, and philosophical viewpoints. However, Taylor’s intention to redefine secularism is a major leap for accommodating diverse religions in a modern democratic state. He never placed religion in the private sphere, as traditional secularists did. Instead, he believed the modern  democratic state’s central task for achieving religious diversity is not to confine religion to the private sphere, but to ensure the complete freedom of all religions in their practices, ensure the equality between people of different faiths and beliefs, and ensure the inclusivity of all basic  positions, religious or non-religious, by the state. All of these frameworks of Charles Taylor and John Rawls never break the systematic affiliation of state sovereignty. Jason Blakely clearly  mentioned the incompatibility of post-modern skepticism in the thoughts of Charles Taylor and  Alasdair MacIntyre. He stated: “According to Taylor and MacIntyre, social science and political  theory should be engaged both empirically and normatively… both do not offer a radical  postmodern skepticism according to which all facts are colored by value.” In this vantage point, Taylor is trying to assert the possibility of a fare social cooperation within the state's sovereign power, in the most mundane sense, a state critique. 

Moreover, while the theorists claim multiculturalism as an essential condition for recognition and social stability, I contend that modern multicultural policy operates primarily as a mechanism for regulating state sovereignty, thereby failing to address the fundamental  challenge posed by demands for religious sovereignty and ultimately reducing religious agency  to a state-defined category of civil society. Charles Taylor defines civil society primarily is “in  Western societies a web of autonomous associations independent of the state, which bind citizens  together in matters of common concern, and by their existence or actions could have an effect on  public policy.”

And when I say “religious sovereignty,” most often refers to the ultimate, supreme authority of a deity in the source of law and way of life. The case of the Claimant, a year 10  school pupil in England, that her school prohibits pupils from performing prayer rituals on  school premises, is an example of the state sovereign power asserting its authority over the  manifestation of Claimant’s religious sovereignty. In this case, Claimant admitted that “(1) the  policy breached her freedom to manifest her religious beliefs; (2) the policy indirectly  discriminated against Muslim pupils, contrary to the equality,” and other discriminatory practices  of the school. Here, the administrative court admitted that the school had performed religious discrimination; however, due to the school’s policy and restrictions court allowed the school to continue its right to protect the rules and regulations. The context is very clearly framing the  limitation of religious agency in a modern democratic state. 

From this challenge, some scholars suggested certain alternatives by criticizing multiculturalism as well as secularism. Vincent Lloyd, one among them, put forward the idea of  “Black natural law”. He defines Black natural law as a distinctive tradition of ethical and  political reflection within the African American community, rooted in the idea of a higher law  that is superior to human laws, contradicting the worth of the oppressed. At the same time, he radically criticized secularism and multiculturalism. He stated: “As an ideology, multiculturalism  in the United States affirms the value of cultural diversity and some degree of cultural autonomy. I contend that, where secularism excludes and manages religion, multiculturalism excludes or  manages race.” From this point of view, he viewed the Black natural law, which is compatible with the American socio-political landscape, while African Americans were oppressed by white hegemony. 

However, Lloyd’s framework that for me, is nothing beyond an ideologically affirmative proposal. It is a potential counter to the secular democratic state by raising the sovereignty of the  marginalized community. The sovereignty that I mentioned here is the concept that is  antagonistic to freedom, singular will, and plurality. Lloyd’s framework shows us how  multiculturalism cannot protect the religious diversity, and asserts traditionally bounded African  American communal sovereignty.  

Most poignantly, saying, multiculturalism as an ideology is not about accepting the religious or cultural diversity, instead, it is all about regulating the state sovereignty. For instance, the state has the authority to accommodate the religion and culture until it is tolerable  with the state policy. A modern nation-state cannot recognize any of the communities that are  capable of preserving their own autonomy in ethical and legal order. Therefore, the limit of  individuals from any of the religions or cultures is situated within the boundary of civil society. I contend that the category of civil society does not preserve any specialty other than how other  communities preserve their own. For this reason, civil society as a category is already defined under the state sovereignty. From a perspective of political science, the political ideologies such  as communism, Islamism, and other kinds of “isms” are the fundamental critique of this state  sovereignty while it regulates the category of civil society. More importantly, while the state is  proposing multicultural policies, in fact, the policy is always under the definition of civil society,  nothing beyond that. Therefore, multiculturalism is an ideology that is often failed to protecting  religious and cultural diversity.