Policy makers need a conception of linguistic disadvantage to supply guidance about the relative priority of inequalities with a linguistic dimension and to inform decisions about whether such inequalities require correction or compensation. A satisfactory conception of linguistic disadvantage will make it possible to compare the situations of speakers of different languages and to assess the normative significance of a range of linguistic inequalities. This paper evaluates four rival conceptions and asks whether they satisfy these criteria. Respectively, these conceptions associate linguistic disadvantage with inadequate communicative opportunities, with being unable to do the things that one cares about, with lacking (access to) important resources, and with capability deprivation. It is argued that a conception of linguistic disadvantage derived from the capabilities approach is the most promising option available to policy makers.
Justifications for cultural exemptions (CE) have been a controversial feature of recent discussions of multiculturalism. Some hold that CEs are justifiable (if at all) only on grounds of prudence (for instance, in order to secure political stability). According to the prudence-only view, CEs are justified inequalities. Meanwhile, some multiculturalists claim that at least some CEs are required to respect the equality of citizens from minority cultures. Sometimes this follows from a particular interpretation of what 'luck egalitarianism' requires, and sometimes it follows from a particular account of equality of recognition. In each case, the claim is that CEs are not justified inequalities but are justified for equality. This article rejects the prudence-only view and casts doubt on the two dominant egalitarian arguments for CEs, instead defending a version of a 'basic interests' argument. This approach is then shown to be supported by some widely held views about the importance of self-respect for democratic citizenship.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.