Sakiko Fukuda-Parr
Cultural freedom &
human development today
A dangerous fear is spreading around
the world–a fear of cultures that seem
threatening, for one reason or another.1
This fear has generated questions about
the role of culture in human progress
that have increasingly come to dominate
public debates. Per esempio: Does His-
panic immigration erode the American
culture and threaten identity? Is Islam
an obstacle to democracy? Does the
power of traditional cultures explain
stagnation in Africa? Will the conflicts
between Shiite and Sunni communities
lead to civil war in Iraq?
Allo stesso tempo, much recent lit-
erature in the social sciences has ap-
proached culture in purely instrumen-
tal terms–as if culture were merely a
means to some other end (moderniza-
zione, Per esempio), rather than an end in
itself and one of the chief goals of human
development.
In what follows I will argue that the
ability to choose an attachment to one or
Sakiko Fukuda-Parr is director of the Human
Development Report Of½ce for the United Na-
tions Development Programme (undp). She
was chief author of the undpreport for 2004,
“Expanding Cultural Liberty in Today’s Diverse
World.”
© 2004 dall'Accademia Americana delle Arti
& Scienze
more cultures is an intrinsic value, to be
protected and promoted as a basic hu-
man freedom. Individuals acting alone
cannot achieve this goal: only public
policies can ensure that distinct cultures
and cultural identities coexist within the
borders of any given state (a recognition
of different cultures often referred to as
‘multiculturalism’). As economic global-
ization advances, states must also devise
policies that expand rather than reduce
cultural diversity. But before I say more
about the reasons for regarding culture
as an intrinsic value, it will be helpful to
discuss my understanding of progress in
terms of human development.
As the economist and philosopher
Amartya Sen has recently argued, hu-
man development is a process of ex-
panding capabilities–of ensuring that
people have the freedom to lead full and
creative lives according to what they val-
ue. Along with the capabilities of being
educato, people value being able to en-
joy as long and healthy a life as possible,
and also to participate in the political life
1 This essay draws from Human Development
Report 2004: Expanding Cultural Liberty in To-
day’s Diverse World (New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 2004), which I helped write as lead
author. The views expressed here are strictly
my own, and not necessarily those of the
United Nations Development Programme.
Dædalus Summer 2004
37
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
/
e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
3
3
3
3
7
1
8
3
1
5
2
9
0
0
1
1
5
2
6
0
4
1
5
0
4
4
7
0
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Sakiko
Fukuda-
Parr
SU
progress
of their community. Inoltre, Sen ar-
gues, and I agree, people value the free-
dom to choose a cultural identity of their
own.2 All people want to live in dignity,
without suffering discrimination or rid-
icule from the larger society, and with-
out being restricted from following their
own chosen way of life. These freedoms
are entrenched in universal human
rights, and states have an obligation to
protect and promote them.
Exercising such cultural freedom en-
tails being able to choose multiple identi-
ties–to identify oneself as Belgian and
Flemish, or Muslim and Indian. It also
entails being able to participate in shap-
ing the culture of the groups with which
one identi½es–to scrutinize and reinter-
pret their values, habits, and norms of
behavior, and to introduce new modes of
expression into them.
Despite the wish of all people to
choose a cultural identity freely and to
live in dignity, suppression of cultural
freedom is widespread around the
mondo. According to the Minorities at
Risk data set, about nine hundred mil-
lion people, or one in seven, belong to
groups that face some form of exclusion
based on their ethnicity, religion, or lan-
guage.3
Cultural exclusion takes two forms.
One is participation exclusion, Quale
prevents people who belong to speci½c
cultural groups from participating in
social, economic, or political opportuni-
ties, such as in schools, jobs, or elected
2 Amartya Sen, “Cultural Freedom and Human
Development,” background paper for the Hu-
man Development Report 2004; Sen, Reason Before
Identity (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1999); and Sen, “Democracy and its Global
Roots,” The New Republic, 6 ottobre 2003.
3 See the Minorities at Risk data set, a project
of the University of Maryland,
of½ce. The other is living-mode exclu-
sion, which denies recognition and ac-
commodation of a lifestyle or of a cho-
sen cultural identity. Examples include
religious oppression and the insistence
that immigrants or indigenous people
speak the language of the state in schools
or courts. Such exclusions are deeply
rooted in history. Through the centuries,
on every continent, conquerors and set-
tlers, despots and democratically elected
governments, have tried to impose their
lingua, religion, and way of life on the
people under their rule in an effort to
build loyalty through a common and sin-
gle cultural identity.
Cultural exclusion results from delib-
erate state policy involving brutal repres-
sion or institutionalized suppression.
But more frequently it comes from a
simple but pervasive lack of respect for
the culture and heritage of a people. Questo
lack of respect is reflected in state poli-
cies that disregard excluded groups, In
national calendars that do not observe
their religious holidays, in schoolbooks
that leave out the achievements of their
leaders, and in support for the arts that
ignores their artistic heritage.
Living-mode exclusion often overlaps
with participation exclusion through
discrimination and disadvantage in
employment, housing, schooling, E
political representation. From indige-
nous groups in Latin America to blacks
in South Africa to the Roma in Central
Europe–minority groups and oppressed
majorities are often the poorest, have the
lowest health and educational outcomes,
are treated the worst by the legal sys-
tems, and so on. Many groups, especial-
ly large minorities such as the Kurds in
Turkey and the indigenous people of
Guatemala, are excluded from political
participation and economic opportuni-
ties because the state does not recognize
their language in schools, law courts,
38
Dædalus Summer 2004
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
/
e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
3
3
3
3
7
1
8
3
1
5
2
9
0
0
1
1
5
2
6
0
4
1
5
0
4
4
7
0
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
and other of½cial arenas. This of course
has often led to intense ½ghting.
Sometimes, Tuttavia, living-mode and
participation exclusion do not overlap.
For instance, some economically domi-
nant minorities such as the Chinese in
Southeast Asia have been pressured to
take on local names and restrict their
use of their native language.
While cultural exclusion is nothing
new, what is new today is the rise of
identity politics and the growing as-
sertiveness of groups in claiming cultur-
al recognition. From indigenous people
in Latin America to religious minorities
in South Asia to ethnic minorities in the
Balkans and Africa to immigrants in
Western Europe–people in vastly dif-
ferent contexts and by vastly different
methods are mobilizing anew around
old grievances along ethnic and religious
lines. The spread of democracy has en-
larged the political space for such action,
and global networks have strengthened
these movements. And in this era of
globalization a new class of political
claims and demands has emerged: In-
digenous people protest investments in
mining and logging that undermine
their livelihoods; local communities fear
the loss of their national cultures with
the unprecedented increase in immigra-
zione; and immigrants, in turn, want to
keep much stronger ties with their coun-
tries of origin as they reject involuntary
assimilation.
Whatever the context, states today
face an urgent challenge to respond to
these claims. If handled badly, these
struggles over identity can turn violent,
sow the seeds of conflict for years to
come, and retard development. Repress-
ing identities is not the solution–not
only because it violates the rights of peo-
ple but because this approach is no
longer feasible. It may have worked in
authoritarian states, and involuntary
assimilation may have worked in demo-
cratic ones, but today people are increas-
ingly assertive about mobilizing politi-
cally against cultural exclusion. People
feel strongly about their identities. E
denigration of culture is an affront to
human dignity, leaving scars and outrage
that may live on for decades or even cen-
turies.
States need to ½nd ways of forging
national unity amid this diversity. An
economically interdependent world can-
not function unless people build unity
through common bonds of humanity
but also respect cultural difference. In
this age of globalization the demands
for cultural recognition can no longer be
ignored by any state or by the interna-
tional community. And confrontations
over culture and identity are likely to
grow: the ease of communications
and travel have shrunk the world and
changed the landscape of cultural diver-
sity, as the spread of democracy, human
rights, and new global networks have
given people greater means to mobilize
around a cause, insist on a response, E
get it.
Recognition of cultural diversity in-
evitably raises a concern that is a chal-
lenge to individual rights, since rights
that are extended to language, religion,
or other forms of culture inevitably have
a collective dimension. Recent writings
by Charles Taylor, Will Kymlicka, Seyla
Benhabib, Amy Gutmann, and other
scholars have revived a very heated
debate pitting communitarianism
against liberalism.4 In the course of
4 Seyla Benhabib, ed., Democracy and Differ-
ence: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political
(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,
1996); and Benhabib, The Claims of Culture:
Equality and Diversity in the Global Era (Prince-
ton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2002);
Cultural
libertà
& human
development
today
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
/
e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
3
3
3
3
7
1
8
3
1
5
2
9
0
0
1
1
5
2
6
0
4
1
5
0
4
4
7
0
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Dædalus Summer 2004
39
Sakiko
Fukuda-
Parr
SU
progress
this debate, partisans of collective rights
have shown that much of liberal philoso-
phy, with its relentless focus on individ-
uals, has failed to address the obstacles
that minorities and oppressed majorities
face. Allo stesso tempo, scholars like Ben-
habib, Gutmann, and Kymlicka agree
that liberalism, if suitably revised, can
indeed be reconciled with multicultural-
ism.
For such theorists, a legitimate con-
cern is with cultural liberty–the free-
dom to make choices about one’s cul-
tural af½liations. While individual, civil,
and political rights and equitable access
to economic and social opportunities are
essential to cultural freedom, they are
not suf½cient to address cultural exclu-
sion. Equity for individuals who choose
to identify with minority groups or op-
pressed majorities requires policies that
acknowledge difference. E, Ovviamente,
basic civil and political rights are indis-
pensable for ensuring that individuals
participate in shaping the norms and
values of the cultural group with which
they identify–an essential element of
cultural freedom. Cultural norms have
shifted in virtually every society, as peo-
ple engage in debates that have changed
their ways of living. A clear example is
the changing role of women away from
traditional norms.
While multicultural policies have been
endorsed by a growing number of liberal
thinkers, they have been less warmly
received by most political leaders. Al-
though few today would support the
brutal repression of minority cultures,
the conventional wisdom among politi-
cal leaders has long been that allowing
Amy Gutmann, ed., Multiculturalism (Prince-
ton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994);
and Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship:
A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1996).
diversity to flourish weakens the state,
leads to conflict, and retards develop-
ment. In this view, the best approach to
diversity is assimilation around a single
national identity, and suppression of
other cultural identities.
In the last half century, state building
and development have been dominant
concerns, especially for the newly inde-
pendent states of Africa and Asia. IL
governments of most countries (except,
notably, of nations such as India, Malay-
sia, Mauritius, and Switzerland) Avere
suppressed or ignored separate identi-
ties. And many countries that have prid-
ed themselves on their democratic prin-
ciples have ignored demands for cultural
recognition. In the United States, bilin-
gual schooling has been discouraged,
and the celebration of African American
heritage was only introduced in response
to the civil rights movements of the
1960S. Nel frattempo, Western European
countries have hesitated to promote the
rights of minorities.
Even some human rights activists have
hesitated to embrace minority rights and
cultural rights. Cultural rights are the
least well de½ned of the ½ve areas of hu-
man rights (the other four are political,
civil, social, and economic). The un
Commission on Human Rights has only
adopted one resolution on cultural
rights, and that was in 2002. Nel
drafting of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, much heated debate
arose over whether to recognize minori-
ty cultural rights, or simply to af½rm an
individual’s right “to participate in the
cultural life of the community.”5 The lat-
ter prevailed.6
5 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, arti-
cle 27.
6 Elsa Stamatopoulou, “Cultural Policies or
Cultural Rights: un Human Rights Responses,"
unpublished manuscript, 2002.
40
Dædalus Summer 2004
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
/
e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
3
3
3
3
7
1
8
3
1
5
2
9
0
0
1
1
5
2
6
0
4
1
5
0
4
4
7
0
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
In order to persuade political leaders
that cultural rights are worth acknowl-
edging, it will help to dispel four widely
held myths about the incompatibility of
cultural freedoms and democratic devel-
opment:
• Myth 1: People’s ethnic identities compete
with their attachment to the state, so there is
a trade-off between recognizing diversity
and unifying the state.
Individuals can and do have multiple
identities that are complementary–
ethnicity, lingua, religion, and race
as well as citizenship. Identity is not a
zero-sum game; each individual can
identify with many different groups
simultaneously. In Belgium, for ex-
ample, citizens overwhelmingly said
both when asked whether they felt
Flemish or Walloon. In Spain, citizens
tended to give the same reply when
they were asked if they felt Catalan or
Basque. These two countries, along with
others, have worked hard to accommo-
date diverse cultures. They have also
worked hard to build unity by fostering
respect for identities and trust in state
istituzioni.
Analogously, immigrants need not
deny their commitment to the cultures
of their countries of origin when devel-
oping loyalties to new countries. Fears
that immigrants who do not assimilate
will fragment countries into irreconcil-
able cultural groups are unfounded. In-
voluntary assimilation is no longer a
viable model of integration.
There is no trade-off between diversity
and state unity. Infatti, multicultural
policies are one way to build uni½ed
stati.
• Myth 2: Ethnic groups are prone to violent
conflict with each other in clashes of values,
so there is a trade-off between respecting
diversity and sustaining peace.
There is little empirical evidence that
cultural differences and clashes over val-
ues are themselves the cause of violent
conflict. But there is widespread agree-
ment in recent research that cultural dif-
ferences by themselves are not the rele-
vant factor causing ethnic wars. Some
even argue that cultural diversity re-
duces the risk of such conflict by mak-
ing group mobilization more dif½cult.
Nel frattempo, studies offer several alterna-
tive explanations for these wars: eco-
nomic inequalities between the groups
as well as struggles over political power,
land, and other economic assets. In Fiji,
indigenous groups initiated a coup
against the Indian-dominated govern-
ment because they feared their land
might be con½scated. In Sri Lanka, Di-
cades of conflict were triggered by the
Sinhalese majority that was econom-
ically deprived relative to the Tamil
minority.
Cultural identity does have a role in
these conflicts–not as a cause, but as a
catalyst for political mobilization; Guida-
ers invoke a shared identity, its symbols
and its history of grievances, to rally the
troops. Nel frattempo, cultural suppression
can set off violent mobilization. Under-
lying inequalities in South Africa were at
the root of the 1976 Soweto riots, Quale
were triggered by attempts to require
the teaching of Afrikaans in black
schools.
While the coexistence of culturally
distinct groups is not in itself a cause of
violent conflict, it is dangerous to sup-
press cultural differences or to allow
economic and political inequalities to
deepen between these groups, because
they can be easily mobilized to contest
these inequities.
There is no trade-off between peace
and respect for diversity, but identity
politics need to be managed so they do
not turn violent.
Cultural
libertà
& human
development
today
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
/
e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
3
3
3
3
7
1
8
3
1
5
2
9
0
0
1
1
5
2
6
0
4
1
5
0
4
4
7
0
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Dædalus Summer 2004
41
Sakiko
Fukuda-
Parr
SU
progress
• Myth 3: Cultural liberty requires defending
traditional practices, so there could be a
trade-off between recognizing cultural di-
versity and progress in development, Di-
mocracy, and human rights.
Some argue that multiculturalism is
a policy of conserving cultures, even of
conserving practices that violate human
rights, and that movements for cultural
recognition are not governed democrati-
cally. But neither cultural freedom nor
respect for diversity should be confused
with the defense of tradition. Cultural
liberty is about expanding individual
choices, not about preserving values and
practices with blind allegiance to tradi-
zione.
Culture, tradition, and authenticity are
not the same as cultural liberty. They are
not acceptable reasons for allowing prac-
tices that violate human rights and deny
equality of opportunity (such as equal
access to education).
It is not rare for interest groups to be
dominated by self-appointed leaders
who have an interest in maintaining the
status quo and who thus act as gatekeep-
ers of traditionalism. Those making
demands for cultural accommodation
should abide by democratic principles
and the objectives of human freedom
and human rights. One good model is
the Sami people in Finland, who enjoy
autonomy in a parliament that follows
democratic procedures and is part of the
Finnish state.
There does not need to be any trade-
off between respect for cultural diversity
and human development. But the pro-
cess of development involves the active
participation of people ½ghting for hu-
man rights and shifts in values.
• Myth 4: Ethnically diverse countries are
less able to develop, so there is a trade-off
between respecting diversity and promoting
socioeconomic development.
42
Dædalus Summer 2004
There is no evidence of a clear relation-
ship, good or bad, between cultural
diversity and socioeconomic develop-
ment.
While it is undeniably true that many
diverse societies have low levels of in-
come and human development, there is
no evidence that this is related to cultur-
al diversity. Some argue, nevertheless,
that diversity has been an obstacle to
such development. One recent study, for
instance, claims that diversity has been a
source of poor economic performance in
Africa7–but this is actually the result of
political decision making that follows
ethnic rather than national interests, non
of diversity itself. Just as there are multi-
ethnic countries that have stagnated,
there are others that have been spectacu-
larly successful. Malaysia–with a popu-
lation that is 62 percent Malays and oth-
er indigenous groups, 30 percent Chi-
nese, E 8 percent Indian–was the
world’s tenth fastest growing economy
during 1970–1990, the same period
when it implemented af½rmative action
policies. Mauritius–with its diverse
population (of African, Indian, Chinese,
and European origin) questo è 50 per cento
Hindu, 30 percent Christian, E 17 per-
cent Muslim–ranks sixty-fourth in the
Human Development Index, the highest
in sub-Saharan Africa.
There is no trade-off between respect-
ing diversity and promoting socioeco-
nomic development.
In short, policies recognizing cultural
identities and encouraging diversity to
flourish do not result in fragmentation,
conflict, weak development, or authori-
tarian rule. Such policies are both viable
and necessary, for it is often the suppres-
sion of culturally identi½ed groups that
7 William Easterly and Ross Levine, “Africa’s
Growth Tragedy: Policies and Ethnic Divi-
sions,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112
(4) (1997): 1203–1250.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
/
e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
3
3
3
3
7
1
8
3
1
5
2
9
0
0
1
1
5
2
6
0
4
1
5
0
4
4
7
0
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
leads to tensions. If the history of the
twentieth century showed anything, Esso
is that the attempt either to exterminate
cultural groups or to wish them away
elicits a stubborn resilience. By contrast,
recognizing cultural identities has re-
solved what seemed like never-ending
tensions. For both practical and moral
reasons, Poi, it is far better to accom-
modate cultural groups than to try to
eliminate them or to pretend that they
do not exist.
The advance of cultural liberty must be
a central aspect of human development.
This requires going beyond expanding
social, political, and economic opportu-
nities, since doing so will not guarantee
cultural freedoms for all people. Al
same time, cultural liberties must not
be promoted at the expense of social,
political, and economic rights. In other
parole, multicultural policies that are
designed to address cultural exclusions
must also be consistent with social, po-
litical, economic, and civil rights.
Much work on human development
policies has been concerned with three
broad areas. The ½rst relates to econom-
ic growth with equity, such as pro-poor
growth or international trade rules that
give fair opportunities to poor countries
and debt reduction to countries with
unsustainable debt burdens. The second
area concerns equitable expansion of so-
cial opportunities, such as greater equity
and ef½ciency in social spending, pro-
tecting the environments that sustain
the livelihoods of poor people, and de-
veloping and opening access to technol-
ogy to meet health needs. The third area
includes deepening democracy with
measures that empower people to partic-
ipate in decisions that affect their lives.
These areas focus on expanding peo-
ple’s capabilities and freedoms in social,
political, and economic areas. Fostering
cultural freedom requires additional pol-
icy solutions–multicultural policies–
that address living-mode and participa-
tion exclusion. New approaches are
needed to integrate multicultural poli-
cies into a strategy for promoting hu-
man development.
Some argue that such policies are not
necessary, that providing individuals
with civil and political rights is suf½-
cient to allow them to freely pursue their
cultural beliefs and practices. Others ar-
gue that cultural exclusion is a product
of inequitable social and economic poli-
cies, so that when these are corrected,
cultural exclusion will disappear. But as
the persistence of cultural exclusion in
countries like Norway attests, such ex-
clusions do not simply disappear in the
presence of democracy and social equity
alone. As long as the language of instruc-
tion is not one’s mother tongue, or the
state does not recognize a day of reli-
gious celebration as a holiday, or chil-
dren are taught history that belittles the
achievements of their heritage, exclu-
sion will continue. Cultural exclusion is
rooted in institutionalized obstacles to
equal participation and to a sense of dig-
nity.
This is why fair multicultural policies
involve the institutionalized recognition
of ethnic, religious, and linguistic identi-
ties. In multiethnic democracies, Questo
means some form of recognition in the
constitution and in the design of institu-
tional arrangements that ensures po-
litical representation, such as through
asymmetric federacy arrangements or
electoral systems with proportional
rather than winner-takes-all representa-
zione. Attention also needs to be given to
legal pluralism so that people can have
access to justice according to the norms
and values of their culture. Language
pluralism is particularly important, Rif-
quiring not only state recognition of a
Cultural
libertà
& human
development
today
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
/
e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
3
3
3
3
7
1
8
3
1
5
2
9
0
0
1
1
5
2
6
0
4
1
5
0
4
4
7
0
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Dædalus Summer 2004
43
Sakiko
Fukuda-
Parr
SU
progress
multitude of mother tongues, but also
the teaching of the of½cial language to
all citizens.
Yet multicultural policies often raise
questions, especially when they seem to
conflict with policies that promote de-
mocracy and equitable socioeconomic
development. Multiculturalism involves
the recognition of difference, which jars
with the idea of equal treatment to
achieve equity. Much, Ovviamente, Di-
pends on how equity is de½ned. Af½r-
mative action policies that give reserved
seats to scheduled casts in India and ac-
cess to jobs for the Bumiputra in Malay-
sia would not be acceptable in the Unit-
ed States, where promotion of equal op-
portunity for African Americans relies
on other approaches.
Yet some proponents of cultural rec-
ognition do in fact advocate policies that
would undermine economic and social
progress as well as political freedom. Ex-
amples abound: legal pluralism that ob-
serves customary law that denies inheri-
tance rights to women; schooling for in-
digenous children conducted exclusively
in their native language, denying them
the opportunity to learn the of½cial lan-
guages of the state; the banning of im-
ports of foreign books, ½lms, and music
in order to preserve the local culture un-
der the pressure of globalization.
In my view, a form of multiculturalism
intended to promote the full range of
human rights must be centrally focused
on promoting cultural freedom, not on
the defense of tradition, and must be
combined with equitable policies in the
three other critical areas of human de-
velopment. Taken out of this broader
context, multicultural polices run the
risk of becoming oppressive.
Designing such policies in the larger
context of human development is a chal-
lenge. Multicultural democracies such as
India and Switzerland have been grap-
pling with such policy dilemmas for
decades. Norway developed policies for
cultural recognition of the Sami indige-
nous people, but is now struggling with
accommodation of immigrants. Euro-
pean countries are struggling to develop
immigrant integration policies that rec-
ognize multiple cultural identities, mul-
tiple loyalties, and multiple citizenships.
Successes in these countries show that
multicultural policies embedded in a
human development approach are possi-
ble and do work. There are no solutions
that ½t all situations, but apparent ten-
sions between cultural recognition and
deepening democracy, between econom-
ic growth and social equity, can be
worked out. Per esempio, indigenous
people may protest mining investment
in their territories and want to opt out
of the global economy; multinational
investors and indigenous communities
can devise projects that involve bene½t-
sharing and avoid disrupting cultural
tradition. Territorially based ethnic
minorities may want greater autonomy
and self-rule; asymmetric federacy can
accommodate such demands without
the state falling apart. Immigrant com-
munities may want to hold fast to their
traditions and not assimilate into the
wider society; the state can still grant
expanded access to economic, political,
and social opportunities to these indi-
viduals to facilitate group interactions.
These multicultural policy approaches
combine with principles of participa-
zione, equity, and the promotion of devel-
opment.
Human development requires ad-
vances in several dimensions. These dif-
ferent dimensions–economic, social,
political, and cultural–are important in
their own right and need to be pursued.
They are mutually compatible objec-
tives, and often mutually reinforcing,
44
Dædalus Summer 2004
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
/
e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
3
3
3
3
7
1
8
3
1
5
2
9
0
0
1
1
5
2
6
0
4
1
5
0
4
4
7
0
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
though the links need not always be
strong. But cultural freedom is strongly
related to all three of the other human
development dimensions.
In a world where nine hundred million
people belong to groups that experience
cultural exclusion, developing multicul-
tural policies is an enormous challenge.
But it is a challenge worth meeting, if
states are to continue to promote devel-
opment as a process of progressively
expanding human capabilities.
Cultural
libertà
& human
development
today
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
/
e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
3
3
3
3
7
1
8
3
1
5
2
9
0
0
1
1
5
2
6
0
4
1
5
0
4
4
7
0
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Dædalus Summer 2004