3 Theorizing Difference
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
Attempts to move beyond the liberal egalitarian approach to equality within
political theory frequently appeal to diVerence, which signals an assertion of
group cultural and political equality. Advocates of a politics of recognition, or
diVerence theorists, insist that liberal egalitarianism has privatized cultural,
religious, and other diVerences, which the state should recognize and take
into account in its laws, institutions, practices, and policies. Treating citizens
as equals does not entail treating them equally: laws may legitimately grant
exemptions to some groups and not to others and public policies may focus
on those groups whose cultures are under threat (see Kymlicka 1995 ). From
this perspective a politics of redistribution deWnes justice too narrowly and
fails to focus on the importance of the diversity of ways of thought, of life,
tastes, and moral perspectives.
One of the most inXuential theorists of a politics of recognition is Charles
Taylor, who explains that treating people equally will entail distributive
concerns but treating them as equals need not, because this entails recogniz-
ing what is diVerent and distinctive about them. Treating people as equals will
require giving due acknowledgment to each person’s identity, and this entails
recognition of what is peculiar to each (Taylor 1992 , 39 ). Accordingly, recog-
nizing the unique identity of everyone requires not an identical set of rights
for all, but public acknowledgment of the particular worth of each. The
argument that each individual’s unique identity ought to be recognized in
order to grant that person dignity, frequently slips into a correlative—but
distinct—claim thatgroupidentities require recognition. These two claims
are linked by the assumption that the expression of one’s unique identity will
take the form of a group identity—that groups portray an authentic expres-
sion of one’s individuality (Benhabib 2002 , 53 ).
This second assertion of the importance of group diVerence challenges the
individualism of liberal egalitarianism, emphasizing instead the culturally
embedded nature of people. Whilst liberal egalitarians do, of course, acknow-
ledge that individuals diVer culturally and religiously, they tend to view these
diVerences as contingent and politically non-pertinent. From the perspective
of a politics of recognition, this move is suspect: far from abstracting from
diVerences, liberal polities and policies have more frequently institutionalized
the values and norms of the dominant culture. DiVerence theorists therefore
suggest that, rather than denying the signiWcance of these cultural norms, the
478 judith squires