irrelevance. Cosmopolitan right is not doing any special work on intermediate categories such
relations between peoples.
Waldron does say that the lessons of cosmopolitan right should show us that there is
something inauthentic about identity politics, where culture is something consciously flaunted
rather than something we just do. Those who engage in identity politics present non-negotiable
demands that to not respect our culture is to not respect us. For Waldron, we should instead see
that culture is a set of (proposed) solutions to common human problems.
to regulate our actions through right despite our disagreement.
However, I believe that the “presentation” of identity is not always an inauthentic move,
but is a reflection that what is desired- a space to work out the problems of the group- has been
denied. Groups that exist under “internal colonization” do not really have much choice but to
express themselves in a way that thematizes identities that have mostly been suppressed. Groups
have often been forced to speak in the language of the conqueror, so when they finally are able to
articulate their culture in some way, this can hardly be faulted as “inauthentic,” given the
circumstances. When the “presentation” of identity involves an assertion that claims should not
be worked out in the context of the unitary state model, is this unacceptable and inauthentic? This
demand may not be the impossible demand for isolation or cultural purity or a refusal to share the
world on any terms. A group may demand its own sphere of jurisdiction so that it can engage in
sharing the world on new terms. Identities can be presented from separate perches, and dialogue
can take place across distinct (but overlapping) public spheres. Negotiation can take place on a
nation-to-nation or shared-sovereignty model.
If I were to draw lessons on the domestic level from cosmopolitan right, I might say that
we should try to emulate the model of balance and negotiation embodied in Kant’s cosmopolitan
right. Even at the level of the state, there may be room for measures to protect the cultural
integrity of sub-state groups like indigenous peoples. Even if cultural purity is not possible or
100
“What is Cosmopolitan?” pp. 241-243; “Taking Group Rights Carefully,” p. 219; “Multiculturalism and Mélange,”
pp. 99-100; “Cultural Identity and Civic Responsibility,” pp. 168-171.
29
Convention