
From Chandran Kukathas’s introduction to his book The Liberal Archipelago: A Theory of Diversity and Freedom:
Ultimately, the present work [Kukathas’s book] is an attempt to answer the question, what is the place of authority in a free society? Having asked how can a diversity of people(s) live together freely given their differences, it asserts that the answer lies in the way authority is allocated. More particularly, it argues that in a free society—which is to say, a liberal society—there will be a multiplicity of authorities, each independent of the others, and sustained by the acquiescence of its subjects. A liberal society is marked by respect for the independence of other authorities, and a reluctance to intervene in their affairs.
And:
Political thinkers have generally assumed, or asserted, that the world is divided up into nations or dominions, each presided over by some ultimate authority. The problem they have addressed is that of accounting for the legitimacy, and the proper role, of the authority in each one of these closed societies. While they have disputed the basis of legitimacy, they have generally agreed that one important role of political authority is to preserve the unity of the state. How, they have asked, can the many be made one? The good society, they have suggested, is a political order marked by a degree of social unity. This work [Kukathas’s book], however, takes a more sceptical attitude to this question, and the assumption that underlies it. Social unity, it suggests, is not nearly as important as has been intimated. On the contrary, the good society is not something confined by the boundaries needed to make it one. Political authority is necessary in any good society; but political authority should be understood as something which has a place in the good society, rather than as something which circumscribes it.
I agree with this approach to the multicultural society, whish is the exact opposite to Nicolas Sarkozy’s nationalistic identity project and David Cameron’s “muscular liberalism”.
Update: Kukathas writes more about classical liberal multiculturalism in this essay. I like his take on so-called weak multiculturalism:
While assimilation may be difficult to enforce, it is also difficult to avoid. In any society in which there is a reasonable degree of freedom, people will associate with and imitate one another. There is a tendency to conformity that is as difficult to eradicate as is the inclination of some individuals to go in a different direction. And for reasons of expediency or prudence, newcomers or minorities in any society will be inclined to follow the dominant norms simply because it makes life easier, less costly, or more enjoyable. It is easier to learn the language that most people speak than to wait for them to learn our own. It is easier to make friends with people with whom we share something in common. And it is better to have a wide range of people with whom to speak or form friendships than to be confined to the company of a few who are like-minded in every way.The multiculturalist response to the fact of cultural diversity is neither to try to prevent diversity from emerging in society by isolating it from others, nor to try to prevent diversity from taking root by assimilating minorities into the whole. Early immigration policy in Australia was concerned—alarmed—by the prospect of non- Anglo-Celtic minorities making their homes in Australia. In 1971, the then Minister for Immigration, Phillip Lynch, while willing to continue the new policy of accepting European and Asian immigrants, expressed a concern that Australia would be home to a large number of ‘undigested minorities’. The multicultural outlook, however, is both willing to accept a diversity of newcomers to a society, and untroubled if they remain undigested. The doors should be open to anyone who wishes to enter society; and the extent to which anyone assimilates should be determined by the desire and capacity of each individual to do so.
In other words, true freedom of the individual. It rather kills the argument that multiculturalism must be collectivist in form.