From Historical to Enduring Injustice

Advocates of remedying historical injustices urge political communities to take responsibility for their past, but their arguments are ambiguous about whether all past injustices need remedy, or just those regarding groups that suffer from current injustice. This ambiguity leaves unanswered the challenge of critics who argue that contemporary injustices matter, not those in the past. I argue instead for a focus on injustices that have roots in the past, and continue to the present day, what I call enduring injustice. Instead of focusing on finding the party responsible for the injustice, I argue that we use history to help us understand why some injustices endure, which I suggest is partly due to the limitations of liberal justice. I conclude with a conception of responsibility for repairing enduring injustice that deemphasizes searching for the causal agent, and instead focuses on how to repair the injustice, which I explain through an expansive conception of shared space

Negotovi teoretični temelji kulturnih pravic

Will Kymlicka’s Liberalism, Community and Culture attempted to explain why cultural identity was important to people, and how liberal theory could accommodate cultural identity. Kymlicka’s book argued that minority cultures deserve to have certain kinds of rights to help them survive. Cultural membership, he argued, was such an important good that liberal political theory was amiss in overlooking it; it needed to be amended in order to recognize that the self-respect of most people was tied to cultural membership, and that people needed a secure cultural context in which to make choices. Yet the importance of the self-respect argument fades in Kymlicka’s later book Multicultural Citizenship, which gives more emphasis to larger cultural groups that are marked off by language. In this article, I focus on the shift that Kymlicka makes between the two books, arguing that the revisions that Kymlicka made to the argument in Liberalism, Community and Culture were necessary, while making the argument less theoretically satisfying.Prispevek se ukvarja s knjigo Willa Kymlicke Liberalism, Community and Culture, ki skuša pojasniti pomen kulturne identitete za ljudi ter način, na katerega bi jo lahko sprejela liberalna teorija. V knjigi je avtor trdil, da si manjšinske kulture zaslužijo določene pravice, ki jim pomagajo preživeti, in da je kulturna pripadnost tako pomembna dobrina, da se je liberalna politična teorija zmotila, ko jo je spregledala. Za spoznanje, da je samospoštovanje večine ljudi povezano s kulturno pripadnostjo in da za sprejemanje odločitev potrebujejo varen kulturni kontekst, jo je bilo treba dopolniti. Vendar pa argument po samospoštovanju v njegovi poznejši knjigi Multicultural Citizenship zbledi, saj v njej bolj poudarja večje, z jezikom omejene kulturne skupine. V članku se osredotočam na premik, ki ga je Kymlicka naredil v novejši knjigi, z utemeljitvijo, da so popravki argumenta v knjigi Liberalism, Community and Culture sicer nujni, vendar pa to ni v njegov prid