Page - 99 - in JRFM - Journal Religion Film Media, Volume 02/01

Images of the Muslim Woman | 99www.jrfm.eu 2016, 2/1, 91–110 tation of anyone else’s life”.24 This “notion gives importance to being true to myself. If I am not, I miss the point of my life; I miss what being human is for me.”25 This notion of authentic identity has given rise to what Taylor calls the “politics of difference”, in which distinctions are the basis of differential treatment: “The aim is to cherish dis- tinctness, not just now but forever. After all, if we are concerned with identity, then what is more legitimate than one’s aspiration that it never be lost?”26 Cherishing dis- tinctions requires introducing policies involving “collective goals” designed for “cul- tural survival”.27 Taylor insists that a society with strong collective goals can still be liberal if it is “also capable of respecting diversity, especially when dealing with those who do not share its common goals; and provided it can offer adequate safeguards for fundamental rights”.28 Fundamental rights aside, Taylor considers it quite possible that the rights of individuals will be restricted if the state focuses on safeguarding its collective goals; he also acknowledges that the pursuit of the collective end will prob- ably involve treating insiders and outsiders differently. Taylor’s concept of identity is not concerned with identity at the individual level. He focuses on the collective identity of a cultural group. This cultural group may be aboriginal bands or French Canadians, especially Quebeckers. It could also be a group designated by its gender, for example women. It could be a religious group, like the Muslims. His main motivation in describing the politics of recognition and hence dif- ference is fear of “imposing” a hegemonic culture on the culture of a minority. His aim is to protect minority rights. From this perspective his aim is certainly noble. The problem lies in Taylor’s attempt to ensure that the collective identity of a cultural group can survive. Here he falls into an essentialist trap: focusing on the authentic identity of a cultural group assumes that it has fundamental, unchangeable traits. This assumption ignores the fact that cultures do change, that they are not static. What we considered to be part of our cultural norms and identity yesterday may look quite abhorrent today. In addition, minority groups are not homogenous, as Taylor as- sumes. They do not represent one cultural block with similar, standardised features. Often members of minority groups have a complex set of identities that they express differently in different settings. Taylor also ignores the power structures within minor- ity groups, which further complicate matters, especially when some members claim to be representatives of a cultural group and assume the right to define what this group’s authentic identity is, and what it is not. Taylor tries to protect certain rights for particular groups, but his efforts create a mess. When we propagate the concept of a group’s rights, we also justify the vio- lation of human rights within minority groups as an expression of different cultural 24 Taylor 1994, 30. 25 Taylor 1994, 33, emphasis in the original. 26 Taylor 1994, 40. 27 Taylor 1994, 61. 28 Taylor 1994, 61.