AN EVALUATION OF WILL KYMLICKA’S THEORY OF MULTICULTURALISM THROUGH BHIKHU PAREKH’S CRITICISMS: THE FUTURE OF SOCIAL UNITY

Bahar Ok

Makale detayları

AN EVALUATION OF WILL KYMLICKA’S THEORY OF MULTICULTURALISM THROUGH BHIKHU PAREKH’S CRITICISMS: THE FUTURE OF SOCIAL UNITY

Yazarlar:

Bahar Ok

Yayıncı:

Mersin University

Ana Başlıklar:

Siyaset Felsefesi | Çağdaş Felsefe

Dergi:

Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi Issue 1, pp.85-104

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

4/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001347212

pISSN:

2148-9327

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 In this article, Will Kymlickas liberal minority theory and Bhikhu Parekhs flexible multiculturalism will be discussed comparatively. In this context, a discussion will be conducted on the basic problematic of whether it is possible to achieve social unity in multicultural societies and, if so, which theoretical framework can best support this. Kymlicka analyzed the political implications of the concept of multiculturalism and created a liberal political theory. Based on the treatment of minority groups in the past, he discussed how to ensure the protection and recognition of the rights of minority groups in multicultural societies. He explained the aim of the theory he developed for this purpose as the formation of social unity in multicultural societies. Although Kymlickas understanding of multiculturalism has been generally accepted, it has faced various criticisms. The most prominent of these criticisms, as Kymlicka notes, was made by Parekh. Parekh argues that Kymlickas liberal theory of multiculturalism draws a narrow framework for multiculturalism. He characterizes Kymlickas framing of multiculturalism theory with liberalism as a paradoxical and inconsistent attempt and offers alternative approaches by stating that this framework should be expanded. According to Parekh, Kymlicka, by demarcating the theory of multiculturalism with liberalism, moves away from and hinders the ideal of social unity, which was its main purpose. In sum, the aim of this study is to understand the contributions of the Kymlicka and Parekh debate to the problematic of the possible theoretical and practical foundations of cohesion and integration in multicultural societiesand the ways unity can be achieved within cultural pluralism. Methodologically, the study is based on comparative philosophical analysis. Firstly, Kymlickas liberal minority theory is presented by adhering to his own liberal framework. Parekhs criticisms of Kymlickas theory and the flexible multiculturalism views he proposes are discussed. Then, the extent to which the models presented by both thinkers are consistent and applicable in terms of building social unity in multicultural societies is examined. Finally, although Kymlicka and Parekhs theories of multiculturalism make important contributions to the search for social unity and complement each others shortcomings, it is revealed that they have some practical shortcomings. Kymlickas liberal framework does not allow enough flexibility to cultural diversity, while Parekhs flexible multiculturalism theory is inadequate because it does not adequately protect individual rights. In conclusion, developing more inclusive and sustainable policies that can ensure social cohesion remains the greatest need of contemporary multicultural societies.

 In this article, Will Kymlickas liberal minority theory and Bhikhu Parekhs flexible multiculturalism will be discussed comparatively. In this context, a discussion will be conducted on the basic problematic of whether it is possible to achieve social unity in multicultural societies and, if so, which theoretical framework can best support this. Kymlicka analyzed the political implications of the concept of multiculturalism and created a liberal political theory. Based on the treatment of minority groups in the past, he discussed how to ensure the protection and recognition of the rights of minority groups in multicultural societies. He explained the aim of the theory he developed for this purpose as the formation of social unity in multicultural societies. Although Kymlickas understanding of multiculturalism has been generally accepted, it has faced various criticisms. The most prominent of these criticisms, as Kymlicka notes, was made by Parekh. Parekh argues that Kymlickas liberal theory of multiculturalism draws a narrow framework for multiculturalism. He characterizes Kymlickas framing of multiculturalism theory with liberalism as a paradoxical and inconsistent attempt and offers alternative approaches by stating that this framework should be expanded. According to Parekh, Kymlicka, by demarcating the theory of multiculturalism with liberalism, moves away from and hinders the ideal of social unity, which was its main purpose. In sum, the aim of this study is to understand the contributions of the Kymlicka and Parekh debate to the problematic of the possible theoretical and practical foundations of cohesion and integration in multicultural societiesand the ways unity can be achieved within cultural pluralism. Methodologically, the study is based on comparative philosophical analysis. Firstly, Kymlickas liberal minority theory is presented by adhering to his own liberal framework. Parekhs criticisms of Kymlickas theory and the flexible multiculturalism views he proposes are discussed. Then, the extent to which the models presented by both thinkers are consistent and applicable in terms of building social unity in multicultural societies is examined. Finally, although Kymlicka and Parekhs theories of multiculturalism make important contributions to the search for social unity and complement each others shortcomings, it is revealed that they have some practical shortcomings. Kymlickas liberal framework does not allow enough flexibility to cultural diversity, while Parekhs flexible multiculturalism theory is inadequate because it does not adequately protect individual rights. In conclusion, developing more inclusive and sustainable policies that can ensure social cohesion remains the greatest need of contemporary multicultural societies.

 In this article, Will Kymlickas liberal minority theory and Bhikhu Parekhs flexible multiculturalism will be discussed comparatively. In this context, a discussion will be conducted on the basic problematic of whether it is possible to achieve social unity in multicultural societies and, if so, which theoretical framework can best support this. Kymlicka analyzed the political implications of the concept of multiculturalism and created a liberal political theory. Based on the treatment of minority groups in the past, he discussed how to ensure the protection and recognition of the rights of minority groups in multicultural societies. He explained the aim of the theory he developed for this purpose as the formation of social unity in multicultural societies. Although Kymlickas understanding of multiculturalism has been generally accepted, it has faced various criticisms. The most prominent of these criticisms, as Kymlicka notes, was made by Parekh. Parekh argues that Kymlickas liberal theory of multiculturalism draws a narrow framework for multiculturalism. He characterizes Kymlickas framing of multiculturalism theory with liberalism as a paradoxical and inconsistent attempt and offers alternative approaches by stating that this framework should be expanded. According to Parekh, Kymlicka, by demarcating the theory of multiculturalism with liberalism, moves away from and hinders the ideal of social unity, which was its main purpose. In sum, the aim of this study is to understand the contributions of the Kymlicka and Parekh debate to the problematic of the possible theoretical and practical foundations of cohesion and integration in multicultural societiesand the ways unity can be achieved within cultural pluralism. Methodologically, the study is based on comparative philosophical analysis. Firstly, Kymlickas liberal minority theory is presented by adhering to his own liberal framework. Parekhs criticisms of Kymlickas theory and the flexible multiculturalism views he proposes are discussed. Then, the extent to which the models presented by both thinkers are consistent and applicable in terms of building social unity in multicultural societies is examined. Finally, although Kymlicka and Parekhs theories of multiculturalism make important contributions to the search for social unity and complement each others shortcomings, it is revealed that they have some practical shortcomings. Kymlickas liberal framework does not allow enough flexibility to cultural diversity, while Parekhs flexible multiculturalism theory is inadequate because it does not adequately protect individual rights. In conclusion, developing more inclusive and sustainable policies that can ensure social cohesion remains the greatest need of contemporary multicultural societies.

 Bu makalede, Will Kymlickanın liberal azınlık teorisi ile Bhikhu Parekhin esnek çokkültürlülük anlayışı karşılaştırmalı olarak ele alınacaktır. Bu bağlamda, çokkültürlü toplumlarda toplumsal birliği sağlamanın mümkün olup olmadığı ve eğer mümkünse hangi teorik çerçevenin bunu en iyi şekilde destekleyebileceği temel sorunsalı üzerinden bir tartışma yürütülecektir. Kymlicka, çokkültürlülük kavramının siyasi yansımalarını incelemiş ve liberal siyasi bir teori oluşturmuştur. Geçmişte azınlık gruplarına yapılan muamelelerden yola çıkarak, çokkültürlü toplumlarda azınlık gruplarının haklarının korunması ve tanınmasının nasıl sağlayacağını ele almıştır. Bu amaçla geliştirdiği teorisinin amacını çokkültürlü toplumlarda toplumsal birliğin oluşumu olarak açıklamıştır. Kymlickanın çokkültürlülük anlayışı genel olarak kabul görmüş olsa da çeşitli eleştirilerle karşılaşmıştır. Bu eleştirilerden en dikkat çekeni, Kymlickanın da belirttiği gibi, Parekh tarafından yapılmıştır. Parekh, Kymlickanın liberal çokkültürlülük teorisinin, çokkültürlülük için dar bir çerçeve çizdiğini savunur. Kymlickanın çokkültürlülük teorisine liberalizm ile çerçeve çizmesini paradoksal ve tutarsız bir girişim olarak nitelendirir ve bu çerçevesinin genişletilmesi gerektiğini belirterek alternatif yaklaşımlar sunar. Parekhe göre, Kymlicka çokkültürlülük teorisine liberalizm ile sınır çizerek esas amacı olan toplumsal birlik idealinden uzaklaşmakta ve bu ideale engel olmaktadır. Özetle, bu çalışmanın amacı, çokkültürlü toplumlarda uyum ve entegrasyonun teorik ve pratik temellerinin neler olabileceği ve kültürel çoğulculuk içinde birliğin nasıl sağlanabileceği sorunsalına Kymlicka ve Parekh tartışmasının yaptığı katkıları anlamaktır. Metodolojik olarak çalışma karşılaştırmalı felsefi analiz yöntemine dayalıdır. Öncelikle, Kymlickanın liberal azınlık teorisi, kendi liberal çerçevesine bağlı kalınarak aktarılmıştır. Parekhin Kymlickanın teorisine getirdiği eleştiriler ve önerdiği esnek çokkültürlülük görüşleri ele alınmıştır. Daha sonra, her iki düşünürün sunduğu modellerin çokkültürlü toplumlarda toplumsal birlik inşası açısından ne ölçüde tutarlı ve uygulanabilir olduğu irdelenmiştir. Son olarak, Kymlicka ve Parekhin çokkültürlülük teorileri, toplumsal birlik arayışına önemli katkılar sunup birbirlerinin eksiklerini tamamlasa da pratikte bazı eksikler barındırdığı ortaya konmuştur. Kymlickanın liberal çerçevesi kültürel çeşitliliğe yeterince esneklik tanımamış; Parekh ise esnek çokkültürlülük teorisinde bireysel hakları yeterince korumadığı için yetersiz kalmıştır. Sonuç olarak, toplumsal birliği sağlayabilecek daha kapsayıcı ve sürdürülebilir politikalar geliştirmek, çağdaş çokkültürlü toplumların en büyük ihtiyacı olmaya devam etmektedir.

Makale detayları

AN EVALUATION OF WILL KYMLICKA’S THEORY OF MULTICULTURALISM THROUGH BHIKHU PAREKH’S CRITICISMS: THE FUTURE OF SOCIAL UNITY

Yazarlar:

Bahar Ok

Yayıncı:

Mersin University

Ana Başlıklar:

Siyaset Felsefesi | Çağdaş Felsefe

Dergi:

Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi Issue 1, pp.85-104

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

4/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001347212

pISSN:

2148-9327

Multiculturalism

Social Unity

Liberal Minority Theory

Integration

AssimilationÇokkültürlülük

Toplumsal Birlik

Liberal Azınlık Teorisi

Entegrasyon

Asimilasyon.

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Bahar Ok

Yayıncı: Mersin University

Ana Başlıklar: Siyaset Felsefesi | Çağdaş Felsefe

Dergi: Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi Issue 1, pp.85-104

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 4/2025

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001347212

pISSN: 2148-9327

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Bahar Ok

Yayıncı:

Mersin University

Ana Başlıklar:

Siyaset Felsefesi | Çağdaş Felsefe

Dergi:

Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi Issue 1, pp.85-104

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

4/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001347212

pISSN:

2148-9327