This article challenges the widespread and influential claim - made by
many liberals and non-liberals - that cultural membership is a prerequisite of
individual autonomy. It argues that liberals like Joseph Raz and Will Kymlicka,
who ground autonomy in culture, underestimate the complex and internally
diverse nature of the self, and the extent to which individual agents will often be
shaped by many different attachments and memberships at once. In
'selectively elevating' one of these memberships (culture) as the most
important to one's autonomy or identity, culturalist liberals present a skewed
and simplistic account of individual autonomy and, hence, of liberalism.
Instead, autonomy should be seen as arising not out of any particular
membership or attachment, but out of the interaction between those different
memberships which shape the individual's understanding of themselves and
the world in which they live. This alternative account holds important
implications for liberal theory, particularly the tensions between 'political' and
'comprehensive' liberals about the scope of liberal principles and the nature of
public reasoning about justice.
History
School
Social Sciences
Department
Politics and International Studies
Published in
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy
Volume
11
Issue
(3)
Pages
315 - 333
Citation
PARVIN, P., 2008. What's special about culture? Identity, autonomy and public reason. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 11 (3), pp. 315-333.
This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published in Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy on 11-08-2008, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/13698230802276447.