Taking ethnicity as peoples from different cultures, religious background and countries then we consider this question in the light that no modern nation is without national minorities owing to the growth in globalisation with the flow of economy and multi-national corporations across territorial boundaries which bring in a cosmopolitan heterogeneous culture to every country worldwide nowadays making civic nationalism the product of many ethnicities that forms one single dominant ethnicity from combined rights for minorities and the majority. There are different meanings attached to civic nationalism also, one is more extreme than the other but nowadays, it is the general consensus that there is one people in a nation including different peoples from different cultures which make up this unifying people of the nation. In this sense, ethnicity is important for civic nationalism but on the other and civic nationalism can be, as Smith clearly emphasises’, the idea of ‘the people’ as being one specific dominant group which overrides the nation. This sort of nationalism does not involve any idea of ethnicity in its definition. The traditional understanding of civic nationalism the that the civic nationalists expect its citizens to respect for the nation in which they live, and to instill loyalty and respect for the nation’s values and principles but Kymlicka makes sure to distinguish civic nationalism from patriotism.
In relation to the national state, the individual is a citizen with civic rights and duties and receives the benefits of modernity through an impersonal and impartial bureaucracy. Hence the nationalism of the national state is bureaucratic and civic. Also necessary for the definition of the civic nation is the recognition that the people are citizens and ethnic members. When this works fully, there is no tension between the civic and ethnic components because culture and citizenship nourish each other and then the full potential of the nation is recognised. (Smith ‘nations and nationalism in the global era.’) It is when the power balance shifts between the dominant ethnie and the national minority that multi-cultural society does not work and citizenship and ethnicity are brought into conflict. For civic nationalisms demand the surrender of ethnic community and individuality, the privatisation of ethnic religion and culture as a price for receiving citizenship and its benefits. It is not only ethnic communities that are demanding greater representation and rights within the nation but also civic nationalisms which may demand the eradication of minority cultures and communities on the assumption not just of equality through uniformity but that ‘high culture’ and ‘great nations’ are of greater value than ‘lower culture’ or the culture of ethnic groups. (Smith) This vision of the nation state is limited since the dominant model of the nation state seeks to build a culturally and politically homogenous unit, most states are multi ethnic and multi-cultural whose communities have different views. This diversity has given rise to very vocal demands from ethnic groups for the recognition and support for their particular identity and culture. This is not surprising considering civic nationalisms devalue ethnic cultures or minorities and does so consciously and deliberately. Some national states are unlikely to give in easily to demands from their ethnic minorities. In, for example, Canada, governments have worked hard to accommodate the requests from ethnic groups. (Smith)
In place of the preoccupation with homogeneity that characterises dominant models of the nation state, including the liberal ideal of civic nationalism, Taylor and Carens suggest a different model of ‘liberal democratic citizenship that seek to recognise multiple forms of belonging to the political community and overlapping identities and citizenships.’ (Baumeister 2003) On Taylor and Carens’s model, they suggest that individuals from minority groups should be granted collective group rights so that they are part of the state as members of their cultural or national group. This they label ‘deep diversity’ or the ‘communitarianist’ point of view which accept that cultures should have their own laws to protect their traditions. (Wieviorka 1998) so the membership of the relevant cultural or national group becomes the primary focus of political identity. If this is to occur, then it may be difficult to obtain political stability for if multi-culturalism or differentiated citizenship is to succeed, it must answer questions surrounding political stability and the equality of citizens. (Baumeister 2003)
Multi-culturalism depends on ethnic communities not enjoying a wide range of unifying myths of origin but that they exist within an overriding national legal and political framework as well as participating in political and cultural spheres. This system can be seen in Canada. In Quebec, there has been a commitment to multi-culturalism and the ideal of a polyethnic nation. However the problems with this ‘plural’ model or model of ‘deep diversity’ or ‘communitarianism’ are rife. Compared with the civic and ethnic models, it has only recently obtained support in national states such as Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand (Smith). ETHNIC AND MULTI-C DIFFERNETIATION Where former dominant ethnic groups have established the linguistic, legal and educational framework, the national identity of the nation changed because of the influx of other ethnic nationalities as immigrants who changed the character of the national community and pluralised its former identity. The central difficulty of the multi-cultural nation is seen through its inability to secure political stability after abandoning both the ethnic model and the civic uniformity model. It is difficult to see what common good the state will secure.
The liberal regime which is meant to include a multi-cultural society can exist in different contexts. For states must make decisions about which official language to use, which public holidays to observe and how to draw internal boundaries. Since these decisions reflect the norm of the majority culture, they tend to place ethnic minorities at a disadvantage. The majority culture is allowed to shape the public domain and is therefore perceived as ‘normal’ with the minority being ‘different.’ This may lead to a lack of confidence or self-esteem for those in the minority which makes it difficult for them to become functioning participants in society. (Baumeister 2003) Kymlicka has argued that minorities should be granted group-specific cultural rights in order to ensure that the autonomy of all citizens is protected equally (Kymlicka 1998.) He says that ethnic groups wish to integrate into larger society and to be accepted as full members of it. Their aim is not to become a separate and self governing nation but want larger society’s institutions and laws to be modified to make mainstream society more accommodating of cultural differences. He also states the link between civic nationalism and multi-culturalism in explaining that a country which contains more than one nation (a nation being a ‘people’ or ‘culture’) and a country that contains more than one nation is not a nation-state but a multination state where the smaller cultures form ‘national minorities.’ The formation of a multination state arises voluntarily when different cultures agree to form groups for their mutual benefit. (Kymlicka 1998.) and there are many countries throughout the world who are multinational including pre-existing and previously self governing cultures.
Kymlicka says that a liberal democracy’s basic commitment is to the freedom and equality of its individual citizens, and Taylor concludes in his article, that ‘a liberal society can legitimately adopt measures designed to protect and promote the culture and way of life a community provided that their measures respect the liberal rights of all citizens and grant equal citizenship to all members of society.’ Liberal democracies should embrace deep diversity as being a positive basis for unity. However, the consolidation of cultural identity that is most likely to impair the sense of solidarity and equality that liberalism advocates, may also undermine the freedom of autonomy of group members. Although universal laws are meant to ensure equal opportunity, these laws also place restrictions upon group members (Kymlicka 1998) An example can be seen in Canada where both French and English are used as official languages. Laws say that commercial signs must be in French and specify that children of French speaking parents and immigrants must attend French language schools which simultaneously restricts the availability of English language-based education and limits the use of English in social life. All states need a common language or two and public schooling is only available in the dominant language. As Baumeister states:
‘Given that both English and French are official languages in Canada and that Quebec is already obligated to provide publicly-funded English language-based schools for the children of Anglophone parents, a typically liberal regard for individual freedom and autonomy arguably entails that where the state is already committed to funding English language-based schools, the children of French-speaking parents and immigrants should be free to choose in which official language they wish to be educated.’
The liberal state can expect immigrants to learn the dominant language in order to enable them to participate in all spheres of life. If cultural survival is to be assured, then restrictions which make a culture socialise citizens into the language, values and norms of that culture is essential. If the choices of citizens is restricted then this can occur. However attempts to fix the identity of future generations are not compatible with the original ideals of individual freedom and self-determination which liberalism and hence civic nationalism is based on. A distinction can be drawn however between the civic sense of a nation based upon the common identity of a group and their culture and at the same time, discourses of cultures provide the basis for the collective identity of a nation.
As we can see the problem with cultural identity and multi-culturalism may not only restrict the freedom of group members but could also be oppressive to existing group members. With this model of multi-culturalism, even if individual rights are respected, pressure for individuals to define themselves outside of their group membership rather than other things which may shape a person’s identity. Who decided which category people fall into? According to Baumeister, ‘the construction of cultural identity is an inherently political process characterised by powerful intracultural struggles to determine whose description is to count for as authoritative.’ This shows yet another problem with multi-cultural citizenship as the primary model for the nation as critics have questioned whether the case of women therefore, should be recognised as a group defined in terms of their gender as a repressed group in society. Multi-culturalism cannot be civic nationalism if a genuinely differentiated citizenship requires liberal societies to tolerate gender differences in religious or ethnic cultures. There is an abundance of Islamic literature about Muslim women as being inferior to men in society now. Cultural identity is equated to the liberal ideal of equal respect.
Another point of view is that as a result of cultural diversity or multi-culturalism, a differentiated citizenship is more likely to promote civic integration than the unitary model of civic citizenship but if the main identity of citizens is as members of their particular community then it is hard to see what common good the nation will secure. Allegiance to a state is based on purely instrumental and economic reasons (Taylor DATE) A multi-cultural society must have a shared culture if it is to provide the basis for civic nationalism and mutual recognition, a concept which James Tully discusses (Tully DATE) then it must be based on something more substantial than purely instrumental considerations. While one side of multi-culturalism involves granting recognition for national minorities, such actions can reinforce differences between communities and prohibit attempts to develop a shared culture and a civic nationalism with an over-riding of national identity (Tully DATE) There are many different demands for different cultures for recognition, the scope is too large and the state cannot possible satisfy everybody. While in a multi-cultural society, the recognition of diversity involves the institutions helping in providing recognition and political identity that constitutes the nation, the most important argument for the theory to put into practice is that people must be open minded and respect each other’s cultures and there must be equality between the majority and the minority. One way of solving this is suggested by Ayelet Shakar where he says that in order to take account of this power dynamic, the state should should make decisions on authority allocation in favour of the minority group so, for example, the group can be given the opportunity of setting the agenda for negotiations or given authority to take into its own hands matters it find most crucial regarding the law. (Shakar 2001) Generally by promoting a sense of cooperation and communication between the powerful and traditionally marginalised groups within society, then multi-culturalism can work. But I shall remind us of Wieviorka’s statement that it is very difficult to have an ‘equal and just’ system of mult-culturalism to promote both the individual and the group. People feel strongly about the language they use, the buildings they worship and so on because they display the governing ethnic group’s strength to hold their own and struggle for survival. This is why multi-culturalism is weak in standing as a framework for a nation in ensuring political and economic stability and shows how, in my opinion, civic nationalism is better for the survival of a country threatened by external forces.
Different ethnicities have different political goals all of which cannot come together to form a strong ally against economic or political threat. Mutual tolerance, in my view, is an ideal concept found in the multi-cultural model which unfortunately different ethnic groups cannot sustain. This is evident in our world today, it is happening in front of our very own eyes with war and terrorism, Perhaps it is due to America’s strong civic nationalism that is causing it to win as a nation against the rest of the world in its fights for power. Even if America contains many different ethnic minority groups, they tend to accept their position and violence and ethnic riots are not so common event thought they do exist. Western national concepts have been adopted by political elites in Asia and Africa in an attempt to create a ‘nation’ but have failed to reach their national goals because there remains a big gap before the population can become a homogenous nation. This is where the ethnic model of the nation comes in as it has its emphasis upon descent, populism, culture and nativism. (Smith 1987)
Kymlicka ‘multi-cultural citizenship’ Oxford University Press’ 1998 p
Fenton ‘Ethnicity racism, class and culture’ Macmillan Press LTD p172
Baumeister ‘Ways of Belonging’ SAGE Publications 2003 p398
