The Myth of the Civic Nation – Bernard Yack

1.   Yack distinguishes two trends in political theory regarding nationalism – the distinction between ethnonationalism and civic nationalism. What is this distinction?

2.   Why does Yack think that it a mistake to take nationality as something that can be voluntarily chosen? Why does he also think that it a mistake to take it as something preordained?

3.   What is the ‘myth of consent’? Why is it an attractive idea to Americans in general and liberal academics in particular?

4.   How does the ancient Greek separation of ethnos and demos differ from modern views?

5.   "The idea of the civic nation defends the Enlightenment’s liberal legacy by employing the very concept – that of the political community as a voluntary association – whose plausibility has been undermined by the success of nationalism." Why has the strategy failed?

The Politics of Recognition – Charles Taylor

1.   Taylor begins with a brief summary of the argument usually given for the need for multiculturalism. What is it? (pp. 25-26)

2.   What is the democratic ideal of ‘dignity’? (pp. 27-28)

3.   On pages 28-31, Taylor traces the evolution of out concept of ‘authenticity’. It begins with a moral concern to look into our own hearts for the right thing to do, continues to an idea that we have a unique perspective and ends in the modern claim that we are unique beings and that this uniqueness is intensely personal. This ideal is common today –" Well, that’s my opinion!, Be an individual!, Who’s to say what’s right for me?". It usually is thought that our views should be our own and that no one else should influence them. What do you think of this view?

4.   On pages 32-34, Taylor attacks the view I outlined above. He contrasts ‘monological’ and ‘dialogical’ views of how we acquire identity. What is the difference? Taylor claims we come to have an identity dialogically. How does he think this happens? Do you agree?

5.   Given that we are shaped dialogically, why is the need for recognition so strong? What can go wrong if we are not recognized or misrecognized? (pp. 36-37)

6.   What’s going on in pages 37-40 is an attempt to show that our sense of what is just has split into two camps – the ‘politics of equal dignity’ and the ‘politics of difference’. The first is concerned that we treat all citizens equally (i.e. the same) whereas the second demands that we recognize and respect the differences that exist between them.

7.   Taylor notes that each camp bases their claims on a universal principle. On 41, he talks of the Kantian inspired version that the ‘equal dignity’ camp uses. What is it? On 42, he talks about the ‘difference’ version. What is it? On 43-44, he notes the conflict that occurs between these principles. What does each side accuse the other of doing?

8.   In the last pages of the articles, Taylor attacks both the ‘dignity’ and the ‘difference’ camps. He begins with showing how the claims of the dignity camp are often arrogant. What is the argument? He closes the paper by claiming that the difference camps’ views are too strong. What does Taylor think is an appropriate response to the demands of the difference camp?

Comment – Susan Wolf

1.   Wolf thinks that Taylor’s suggestion regarding the difference camp (see #8 above) ignores an important part of recognition. What is this? Do you agree?

1.  Rawls thinks that ‘political liberalism’ can be a strong enough glue to hold a society together. Yack disputes this claim (and the claims of social contract theorists in general) by pointing out that (i) it is not political principles that hold a society together and (ii) that liberals (unfairly) presuppose the existence of an already existing community. (But if so, they beg the question. What accounts for the boundaries of the particular group we find as opposed to a larger/smaller set of contractors?) Take one of the criticisms and analyze its effectiveness.

2.   Conversely, Yack thinks that a society bound solely by political principles will turn out to be unattractively intolerant. "We should be willing to exclude anyone from such a community who disagrees with its basic principles." Is Rawls vulnerable to this charge?

3.   Discuss the ancient Greek view on loyalty to the state and treason. Compare this with our own sense of political community. Which is more attractive and why?