Because it impinges upon so much from bilingual education,

Because it impinges upon so much—from bilingual education, political
correctness, and Afro-centred 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 for recognition and respect of 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
Quebec. However, he plausibly argues that to recognize only sameness is
to fail to recognize much that is necessary for real ―recognition‖, since 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. For 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, since even his
favourite example of Quebec'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 Quebeçois 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.

1. The author‘s primary purpose in the passage is to:
A. criticize Taylor‘s definition of liberalism.
B. define the concept of multiculturalism.
C. defend an account of the historical development of multiculturalism.
D. assess the adequacy of a thesis about the nature of multiculturalism.
E. praise Taylor‘s definition of multiculturalism


2. The author‘s two references to the ―distinct society‖ of Quebec are primarily
intended to:
I. give an example of a multiculturalist demand.
II. give an example for which Taylor‘s analysis is inadequate.
III. give an example of a group for which special treatment is sought.
A. I only
B. III only
C. I and II only
D. I, II, and III
E. None of the above

3. 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
mentioned in the passage?
A. They are adequate for most contexts in which recognition is demanded.
B. They do not safeguard fundamental rights for individuals in aboriginal
groups.
C. They reflect a disguised attempt by a privileged group to maintain its
power over other groups.
D. They reflect an impoverished conception of the individual person.
E. They are vital for the survival of democracy in a country

4. In the context of the passage as whole, the statements made in paragraph 3
can best be characterized as which of the following?
A. A criticism of an argument is raised, and then shown to be superficial.
B. A weakness in an argument is revealed, and then developed.
C. An opinion is related, and then a subsequent position is stated.
D. A cultural trend is outlined, and then a defense of that trend is given.
E. A cultural trend is defined and then criticised severely

OAs will be posted after receiving few responses. Please share your reasons to choose the answers...