The Misrecognised as the Least the Advantaged Citizens in Plural Democracies

Authors

  • Mark Blythe University of Alberta

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24124/c677/2011230

Keywords:

liberalism, multiculturalism

Abstract

John Rawls’s “Justice as Fairness” is the most systematic attempt in recent decades to provide a liberal grounding for justice in plural democratic societies. Rawls argued that social and economic inequalities are justifiable only if they are to the advantage of society’s least-advantaged members. Rawls argued that the least-advantaged position in society was occupied by the citizen with the lowest expectation for primary social goods (all-purpose means like income and opportunity). This paper argues that the least-advantaged citizens, in part, are those whose identities are misrecognised. Misrecognition of identity can cause harm; it can restrict the agency and opportunity of the misrecognised. Minority identity groups (whose identities are often misrecognised) do not do as well as others citizens in social, economic and political terms. This paper argues that the misrecognition of identity constitutes unreasonable democratic practice because it can harm members of minority identity groups.

Author Biography

Mark Blythe, University of Alberta

Mark Blythe has taught in the Department Political Science at the University of Alberta, Canada since 2004. Blythe’s interests centre on identifying the least advantaged citizens in plural democracies. He argues that the least-advantaged citizens are those who: a) are not capable of using general means like income and opportunity to achieve their ends, and b) those whose identities are misrecognised. The capability concern was addressed in the Canadian Journal of Political Science 41:4, December 2008. The current concern is to show that the misrecognised also constitute part of the least-advantaged in plural democracies.

Downloads

Published

2012-01-27

How to Cite

Blythe, M. (2012). The Misrecognised as the Least the Advantaged Citizens in Plural Democracies. Canadian Political Science Review, 5(2), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.24124/c677/2011230

Issue

Section

Articles