Because it impinges upon so much—from bilingual education, political correctness, and Afro-centered curricula to affirmative action and feminism—the current discussion on multiculturalism is essential to understanding Western academic culture today. Charles Taylor’s account of the development of multiculturalism out of classical liberalism traces it through changing conceptions of what he terms “the politics of recognition.”
Deft as his historical account may be, any analysis of the motivations for multiculturalism solely in terms of “recognition” must remain fundamentally incomplete. In his analysis are two central demands for recognition underlying classical liberal thought: the demand for the equal recognition of human dignity, and the demand for the recognition of and the respect for all human beings as independent, self-defining individuals. Multiculturalism, according to Taylor, rejects both of these ideals and their political application in an official “difference-blind” law (which focuses on what is the same in us all). Instead, it embraces laws and public institutions that recognize and even foster particularity—that cater to the well-being of specific groups. These two modes of politics, then, both having come to be based on the notion of equal respect, come into conflict.
Taylor acknowledges that it can be viewed as a betrayal of the liberal ideal of equality when the multiculturalist calls for a recognition of difference rather than similarity, and seeks special treatment for certain groups—such as aboriginal hunting privileges or the “distinct society” of Québec. However, he plausibly argues that to recognize only sameness is to fail to recognize much that is necessary for real “recognition” because we are all cultured individuals with personal histories and community ties. Still, Taylor does not stray far from classical liberalism, insisting that multiculturalism be able to “offer adequate safeguards for fundamental rights.”
The more extreme forms of multiculturalism, which Taylor disavows, commit the crucial error of reducing all ethical and normative standards to mere instruments of power because in doing so any distinctly moral arguments for these positions become absurd. Though Taylor seems correct to reject this diminution, he’s wrong to think that the “recognition” model alone can sufficiently account for the demands made by various minority groups for both the promotion of discrete cultural identities and the transformation of the dominant culture. What many in these groups desire is much more than mere recognition or approval: it is the power to more effectively and independently control their own destinies.
It’s even become common to disdain the respect or solidarity professed by those in the dominant group in an attempt to consolidate separate cultural identities. How Taylor misses this fact is not clear because even his favorite example of Québec’s distinct society presents a case in which the primary function of the demand for recognition is to acquire the power necessary for those within to maintain, promote, and even enforce their way of life. Taylor understands that the Québécois want more than to merely preserve their culture, or to have others appreciate it. They also want to create a dynamic, autonomous society in which future generations will participate as part of a common project. Unfortunately, he does not consider how this fact undercuts the notion of “recognition” as an adequate lens through which to view their project.
According to the passage, extreme multiculturalists make which of the following mistakes?
According to the argument posed by the author in the passage, multiculturalism may be seen as a betrayal of liberal ideals because:
The author’s two references to the “distinct society” of Québec are primarily intended to:
Which of the following can most reasonably be inferred from the passage about the author’s attitude toward the two classical liberal ideals of equality?
Based on the information provided in the passage, it would be most reasonable to expect the author to agree that Charles Taylor’s “politics of recognition” model is:
Peter Gay’s book, The Education of the Senses, re-examines Victorian bourgeois attitudes about sensuality and sexuality in an attempt to discredit the pervasive and negative view of the Victorian bourgeois as repressed and repressive people whose outward prim public appearances often hypocritically masked inner lascivious thoughts and private behaviors. One of the most interesting facets of Gay’s study is his discussion of the necessary, yet taboo, issue of birth control during the latter part of the nineteenth century.
Gay points out that the very process of giving birth was dangerous to both the newborn and the mother—that most women suffered greatly during the birth, that many children and new mothers died within five years of a birth, and that many women approached the child-bearing process with trepidation although they believed that producing offspring was a woman’s ultimate fulfillment. Advice or assistance from the medical profession—whether licensed doctors or self-trained midwives—was sorely lacking and inconsistent, hardly capable of reassuring the expectant mother and father as to the woman’s and the baby’s safety.
In fact, the medical profession itself was largely responsible for promulgating myths and rumors about the dangers of attempting to limit family size through use of some forms of birth control, regardless of the fact that so many women and children died each year due to complications of pregnancy or birth. Some medical, religious, and social experts did acknowledge that the continual cycle of birth was not only detrimental to the health of the mother but also could take a toll on the quality of life of the family because multiple children increased the financial burden and responsibility of the father. Furthermore, women were often caught in this cycle of pregnancy and childbirth well into their late 40s, greatly increasing the health risks and mortality rate of mother and child alike. It seemed appropriate and even necessary, then, to makes efforts to limit the number of offspring in order to benefit the family unit and thus the greater good of the larger society itself.
Nonetheless, open discussion of birth control methods, both natural and device-assisted, was rare, even between a doctor and his patient. Most information was passed along by word-of-mouth, which inevitably led to a great deal of unchecked misinformation that was, at times, deadly. Gay maintains that a primary motivation for this reticence was deeply ingrained in the Victorian bourgeois mindset that emphasized the value of family and traditional roles and thus encouraged women to be productive—in the very literal, procreative sense. Though concerned husbands certainly did take steps to assure that their wives and families were not jeopardized by an overabundance of offspring, a widespread effort to limit family size was not firmly rooted in society until the advent of a strong women’s movement, which did not make many real and meaningful strides in changing public attitudes and behaviors until the early twentieth century. Thus, Victorian bourgeois women were obliged to fulfill their societal role as child bearers despite very real fears about the toll this could take on their health and on the well-being of their family.
Which of the following is NOT, according to the author, a reason that most Victorian women did not use any form of birth control?
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously WEAKEN Gay’s argument that deeply ingrained social attitudes were responsible for the lack of open discussion about birth control?
The passage suggests that which of the following was/were commonly associated with childbirth during the Victorian era?
Which of the following general theories would be most consistent with Gay’s arguments as presented in the passage?
The passage suggests that Peter Gay is LEAST likely to agree with which of the following statements?
Based on the passage, which of the following does the author consider was the most important factor contributing to the high danger associated with Victorian childbirth?