The fundamental concept of group and individual rights leans on understanding of what a group is; Group as an aggregate of individuals or group as a distinctive entity which is beyond the collection of individuals? Before discussing these themes it’s vital to look disruptive and vague loophole of group-differentiated rights.
Group-differentiated rights are a gray and confusing line between individual and group rights.This term was first coined by Will Kymlicka in 1995.
According to Will Kymlicka (1995) Group-differentiated right is a right that is accorded to a particular group but not to the larger society within which the group exists. Thus,from the definition we can understand that Group-differentiated right is a particular group right[1]. Since it’s a sub group which aims to entertain“group specific rights” as a result of its distinct nature from individual and other group rights that exist within the system or a whole set of which the group exists.
Group rights have two basic distinctive characteristics; the first one is right holder is groups because such rights are manly exist to protect societal values which can only be experienced by two or more individuals such as language, culture, state building and cessation&religious rights. The second one is,each member has a right to enterior exit in the group; however, individual’s choice to stay or to leave or change of membership of the group doesn’t result in-existence or inalienability of rights exercised by the group as a group.
Some scholars who put their deep thought on this matter made distinction of groups using right holder as a parameter of dividing group as a collection of individual wright holders or group as a distinctive right holder only as a group. In 1984 Peter French distinguishes groups as “aggregate collectivists” and “conglomerate collectivists”
“An aggregate collectivity is a mere collection of individuals such as a crowd or the people standing at a bus stop or a statistical category such as middle-income earners. If we were to ascribe either moral responsibility or moral rights to an aggregate, that responsibility and those rights would be reducible, without remainder, to the responsibilities and rights of the individuals who make it up”.
Thus, in this case, an aggregate collectivity is a mere collection of individuals. Within which a right exercised by the group is reducible to be exercised at individual’s level. Therefore, even though individuals are able to form a group they are not entertaining a group right as a group, since a right holders are individuals in a group.
[1]Group right is a right held by a group as a group rather than by its members severally(peter jones, 2016) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-groupor group rights are supposed not to be reducible to the individual rights of their members(James griffin, 2003) Doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248254.003.0010
Therefore, forming a group doesn’t necessarily result a capacity to exercise group. On the other side a conglomerate collectivity, doesn’t depend on the identities of the persons in the group since one person’s leaving and another’s joining does not result in a formation of new group or organization.
“Such Organizations possess identities that are not exhausted by the identities of the persons in them; one person’s leaving and another’s joining does not result in a new organization… also responsibilities are not reducible to the individuals who are currently associated with it”. In this case a group is capable of exercising a group right as a group.
Dwight Newman (2004) has described this concept in another terminology; Newman distinguishes group and individual right holder using terminologies of “sets” and “collectivities”. “A set has no identity separate from the individuals who make it up. A collectivity, by contrast, remains identifiable as the same collectivity even though its membership changes.”
In vein with the above we can see some examples of group rights which can only be exercised as a group.Such as the right of self-determination up to cessation, the right to use ones owns language and exercise cultural practices and the right to assembly. As per the characteristics discussed above those rights are possessed and exercisable only as a group[1] collectively since any individual can’t exercise such right on any of those issues as an individual.
To relax the issue, If we consider the right to self-determination; any individual is not able exercise it as individual outside of or individual in a group —which is a mere collection of individuals—since, the type of right is not reducible to individual level. Moreover, in a democratic or liberal system which is based on individual right; such type of right can only be practiced by majority choice of individuals who have similar interest individually but then they can only exercise it if and only if they act as a group. On contrary the minority voters who are against or in favor of the notation would tumble as a group. Since they are not able to exercise their choice or right of self-determination as an individual or a group— which is a mere collection of individuals who can is reducing the right and exercise it at individual level.
Therefore, other word,considering the aggregate view approach —which recognize a group as a collection of individuals which can satisfy independent interest of all its members— is also not able to satisfy diversified interest of individual right of choice in a group using any inclusive and accommodative choice making modality. As I softly explained above, let’s contemplate democratic principles as an instrument to insure the right of individual choice in self-determination matter. ”Democracy as a Majority rule and Minority Rights” in light with the senior on the right of self-determination some minority of individuals might be against or in fever of the notion.So, how can we satisfy minority rights who are against or in favor of the notion? Thus, individual based rights approach is not able to address such scenario.
The fundamental reasons for failures of individual right to be exercised on collective matters which can only be exercised as a group are, one;some rights are only be possessed and exercised as a group not as a collection of individuals that has form a group which can satisfy all individual right of choices within the group. The other reason is the nature of group right; when one person exercises his or her right simultaneously and implicitly s/he is making decision on the collective right of all other members of the group who have different interests. When we comprehend it to the political debate; individual right approach is limited to entertain diverse interests or choices of group members on a collective matter of choice.
To windup; philosophically this concept has been controversial and critical over the years since it’s a foundation for all political and economic decisions on the sky of Political economy. I strongly argue these two rights are complement each other and to some extent in the framework of comprehensive rights both of them are only mutually inclusive or complementary in every socio, economic and political decisions. Assuming of a handpick of one right approach over the other is similar with flying a plane with a single wing on the skies of political economy.
Publication Details
- Originally Published At: August 1, 2019
- Originally Published On: LinkedIn