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

Résumé du document

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. Nevertheless, 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 and Young analyze why basic assumptions of liberalism are no longer relevant and explain what changes are needed. Their relative conception of democracy differs on the grounds of implementation of group rights

Extraits

[...] 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. [...]

[...] Liberalism has involved a distinction between public and private sphere which Young and Phillips firmly criticize. This distinction has lead to the relegation of women in the private sphere as they were considered too sensitive and unable to understand politics. Besides, Kant and Rousseau were against women's participation in political life. For Kant, it was justified by the fact that women were dependent on other people such as their husband[5], and Rousseau argued they did not fit to what politics requires[6]. Thus Young and Phillips reject these assumptions. [...]

[...] 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. [...]

[...] We can analyze Sen's criticism about conception of equality in various political theories, how he manages to deconstruct their premises. 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. [...]

[...] That is why, she advocates a politics of presence elaborated alongside with the politics of presence. According to Phillips, the very idea of democracy lies in expressing our difference which means we need to bring them to the public debates. The aim is a future transcendence of difference. Her point of view differs from Young's for the latter advocate's recognition of every difference which does not aim transcendence. Phillips does not want identity to be written in stone so to speak. [...]