Cultural Diversity v. Economic Solidarity: Resolving the Tension

Date: 

Thursday, April 8, 2004, 4:30pm to 6:00pm

Location: 

Starr Auditorium, Belfer Building, KSG

Speaker: Philippe Van Parijs, Professor, Faculty of Economic, Social & Political Sciences, Universite Catholique de Louvain - Chaire Hoover

Summary by Ian MacMullen, Edmond J. Safra Graduate Fellow in Ethics

Professor Philippe van Parijs told an audience at Harvard's Center for Ethics and the Professions that non-native English speakers must be prepared to use that language in deliberative forums to make powerful arguments for greater economic justice in the global community; he certainly practices what he preaches. Van Parijs proposed that there are significant tensions between cultural diversity and economic solidarity, where the latter is understood as the existence of institutionalized transfers from the lucky rich to the unlucky poor, and he argued that the appropriate response to this tension depends upon the type of cultural diversity that is at stake. Locally-existing cultural diversity, usually a result of immigration, does not deserve the same protection that we should afford to territory-based diversity, the long-standing (and especially linguistic) differences between regions. Furthermore, the widespread diffusion of competence in a lingua franca is vital if territorial linguistic diversity is not to frustrate our aspirations for economic solidarity.

Local diversity has three immediate effects with implications for the achievement of economic solidarity: barriers are raised to interaction among citizens, it is harder to agree on a conception of economic solidarity, and mutual identification arises less spontaneously. As a result, the rich are less likely to see the legitimacy of any system of economic transfers and the poor find it hard to cross cultural boundaries, whether individually in search of jobs or collectively to mobilize broad political groups to promote their common economic interests. Hence some multicultural policies which defend or enhance local cultural diversity are inimical to the achievement of economic solidarity. Although the instincts for cultural accommodation and for a generous welfare state may naturally arise together, the practice of cultural accommodation may undermine those generous economic instincts in the long run.

Intensive interpersonal contact between citizens of different cultures, especially in integrated workplaces and schools, might seem to reconcile solidarity with local diversity, but van Parijs argued that such contact only really succeeds in promoting economic solidarity by eroding cultural diversity (as is seen, for example, in increased rates of intermarriage among cultural groups). But should we worry that the pursuit of economic solidarity in this way might undermine local cultural diversity? Van Parijs says no: preservation of local cultural diversity should not be a political concern, and it is not unfair even if some cultures are squeezed out altogether.

Turning his attention to territorial cultural diversity, Professor van Parijs noted that many of the same factors that cause tension between local diversity and economic solidarity also make uneasy bedfellows of territorial diversity and economic solidarity. Furthermore, political entities marked by territorial linguistic diversity – such as the European Union, Canada, and Belgium – are likely to have decentralized policy-making structures which mean that economic solidarity is liable to be organized only at the level of linguistically homogenous regions. Territorial diversity poses a threat to economic solidarity both across and within such regions. The aforementioned barriers to dialogue and mobilization inhibit transfers from rich to poor regions, while all regions face incentives to reduce their internal economic solidarity to attract increasingly mobile capital investment: this competition among regions is a race to the bottom in levels of economic solidarity. Furthermore, as elite learn English as the lingua franca that enables them to pursue jobs in other regions, they lose the incentive to support systems of social insurance to safeguard themselves and others in their region against a decline in the regional economy. All of this suggests, according to van Parijs, that the historically high levels of economic solidarity in Europe may be under threat because of territorial linguistic diversity.

What is to be done to combat this threat? Focusing his attention on the European Union, Parijs argued that an important part of any solution for the English language to be taught to and learned by people of all social classes. The purpose of broadening and deepening competence in English is not to create a European ethnos rooted in Anglophone culture: that would simply be to sacrifice territorial diversity for the sake of economic solidarity. Rather, we should aspire to fashion a European demos: English should be taught as a (mere) lingua franca because near-universal competence in such a lingua franca is a precondition for the kind of democratic life that sustains true economic solidarity. All people, not just rich elites, need to be able to talk to one another if the claims of economic justice are to be pressed effectively in politics. Of course, this emphasis on teaching and learning the English language, even when it is intended only as a lingua franca, does still threaten to erode territorial diversity, as local languages are increasingly driven out of important social institutions and public spaces. If we want to prevent the lingua franca from becoming the dominant cultural language, we must adopt the "linguistic territoriality principle" to guide public policy. In practice, this means that regions and countries must mandate use of the local language in various institutions, most notably public schools and the various institutions of government.

The question arises, however, whether it is justifiable for governments to adopt the linguistic territoriality principle. Perhaps the costs of requiring all residents to use the local language are unacceptably high? Van Parijs is unconvinced that traditional accounts of the value of linguistic diversity – appeals to the aesthetic value of minority languages or their role as incubators for new ideas that would otherwise be swamped in the dominant Anglophone discourse – are sufficient to justify adoption of the linguistic territoriality principle. But he concluded his lecture by suggesting two defenses of linguistic territorial diversity that might be sufficient. Evidence suggests that immigrants' refusal to learn and use the language of their new homeland is a significant source of inter-group violence. Hence there might be benefits to security from requiring all residents of a region to educate their children in the local language and to use it themselves in the public sphere. In addition, van Parijs argued, it is an appropriate demonstration of humility and respect to learn and use the language of a country if one moves to that country: immigrants should accept the right of each European language to be king in its own territory, much as a non-Muslim should recognize the obligation to take off his shoes before entering a mosque. These defenses of the linguistic territoriality principle are powerful, van Parijs argued, but they must still be weighed against our reasons to oppose coercing citizens' language choices: as we decide the details of public policy, we must strike a balance between these competing legitimate concerns.