state should acknowledge the diversity of cultures within the polity, grant
laws that exempt some groups from laws and not others, create political
institutions that give special group representation rights to marginalized
groups, and modify cultural symbols in recognition of the presence of diverse
groups.
Even some theorists working within the distributive paradigm have come
to acknowledge the importance of cultural recognition to the pursuit of
equality. Will Kymlicka, for example, argues that genuine equality requires
group-speciWc rights for ethnic and national minorities. Accordingly, he
endorses the ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court that: ‘‘the accommoda-
tion of diVerences is the essence of true equality’’ (Andrewsv.Law Society of
British Columbia 1 SCR 143 ; 56 D:R ( 4 th) 1 ). Arguing against those who
suggest that equality requires equal rights for each individual regardless of
race or ethnicity, he suggests that some minority claims may eliminate
inequalities and are therefore just. This argument for group rights invokes a
distributional perspective in that group-diVerentiated rights—such as terri-
torial autonomy, veto powers, guaranteed representation in central institu-
tions, land claims, and language rights—are argued to help rectify
disadvantages associated with being outvoted by the majority group. These
demands for increased powers or resources are necessary to ensure the same
opportunity to live and work in one’s culture (Kymlicka 1995 , 110 ).
This argument for group-diVerentiated land rights is based on a theory
of distributive justice in that the claims are based on what groups need now
to sustain themselves as distinct societies. This distinguishes Kymlicka’s
defense of group rights from others, which are critical of the distributive
paradigm.
Cultural recognition is therefore introduced onto the egalitarian agenda,
eclipsing the primary status previously given to issues of redistribution. In
this way the shift in concern from economic to cultural inequalities is
accompanied by a shift in focus from sameness to diVerence. Equality now
appears to require a respect for diVerence rather than a search for similarities.
It also tends to focus on the importance of equality between groups rather
than between individuals, incorporating analyses of the systems and struc-
tures that constitute and perpetuate the inequalities under consideration in
theWrst place. Advocates and theorists of equality who focus their attention
on oppression rarely claim that maldistribution is unimportant, but they do
introduce other pressing concerns, which some critics now argue diverts
attention away from this agenda.
equality and difference 479