342 Rethinking Multiculturalism
commitment to the political community involves commitment to its
continuing existence and well-being as defined earlier, and implies that
one cares enough for it not to harm its interests and undermine its
integrity (Mason, 1999; Viroli, 1995, pp. 160-87). It is a matter of
degree and could take such diverse forms as a quiet concern for its
well-being, deep attachment, affection, and even intense love. While
different citizens would develop different emotions towards their community,
all that is necessary to sustain it and can legitimately be
expected of them all is a basic concern for its integrity and well-being;
what one might call patriotism or politicalloyalty.3 They might criticize
the prevailing form of government, institutions, policies, values, ethos
and dominant self-understanding in the strongest possible terms, but
these should not arouse unease or provoke charges of disloyalty so long
as their basic commitment to dialogue is not in doubt.
Commitment or belonging is reciprocal in nature. Citizens cannot be
committed to their political community unless it is also committed to
them, and they cannot belong to it unless it accepts them as belonging
to it. The political community cannot therefore expect its members to
develop a sense of belonging to it unless it equally values and cherishes
them in all their diversity and reflects this in its structure, policies, conduct
of public affairs, self-understanding and self-definition. Although
equal citizenship is essential to fostering a common sense of belonging,
it is not enough. Citizenship is about status and rights, belonging is
about being accepted and feeling welcome. Some individuals and
groups might enjoy the same rights as the rest but feel that they do not
quite belong to the community, nor it to them. This feeling of being full
citizens and yet outsiders is difficult to analyse and explain, but it can
be deep and real and seriously damage the quality of their citizenship
and their commitment to the political community. It is caused by,
among other things, the narrow and exclusive manner in which wider
society defines the common good, the demeaning ways in which it talks
about some of its members, and the dismissive or patronizing ways in
which it behaves towards them. Although such individuals are free in
principle to participate in its collective life, they often stay away or
ghettoize themselves for fear of rejection and ridicule or out of a deep
sense of alienation.
As Charles Taylor (1994) correctly observes, social recognition is
central to the individual's identity and self-worth, and misrecognition
can gravely damage both. This raises the question as to how the un- or
misrecognized groups can secure recognition, and here Taylor's analy-