Y. A: What, if any, moral obligations are attached to our ethnic identity? [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] KAA: I'm inclined to say that the most straightforward answer to your questions is: None. That's because I think it's not the ethnic identity itself but the particular features of the way it works in social and ethical life that is likely to generate moral obligations, not the ethnic identity as such. In a moment, I'll give you some examples of the sort of thing I have in mind. But first, I think it's important to distinguish between ethnic identities and national identities in approaching this question. By national identities, I mean, roughly, ethnic identities that are identified with a modern nation state. For national identities, the major obligations we have are in virtue of our shared citizenship: they are political obligations, civic duties. But where an ethnic identity is not a national one, where it is not associated with a state, the answers are more various, I believe, because ethnic identities are various and so are the relations of individual people to their ethnic identities. As you know, I am inclined to approach such questions from the perspective of the individual. So I would begin by saying that one of the central questions many people have, wherever they live, is they take their ethnic identity up as an important element of who they are. I don't say whether they chose to take their ethnic identity up, because in some contexts you may have little choice as to you take your ethnic identity seriously, because you live in a society where others will respond to you as a member of some ethnic group, you like it or not. What sociologists call ascriptive identities--like gender and, in may places, race-shape your experience of the social world because others are going to respond to you as a member of the group, whatever you chose. Of course, you still have choices to make, about how you are going to respond to an identity ascribed to you by others. But where your identity is a subordinated identity, so that powerful social groups are able to dominate people of your ethnicity, one natural response is to develop a norm of solidarity: we will work together to relieve our social burden. What sort of argument could you develop for the view that this might be not just a natural response, nor even just an attractive response, but an actual duty? Well, if there are other members of your group who are engaging in a social movement to relieve the burdens of ethnic oppression, and you are benefiting from their struggle, you might have a duty to bear your fair share of the burden of the struggle. After all, we normally suppose that we have a duty of fairness to share the burdens of sustaining institutions and practices from which we profit. (That's why we often condemn so-called free-riders: people who, metaphorically speaking, take the train but don't pay for the ticket.) These obligations go along with obligations that everyone has, which derive from considerations of justice, to work to undo social oppression. You might also think that where an ethnic group is carrying a particular cultural tradition that is of value, its members might feel they ought each to contribute to protecting that cultural tradition, as long as doing so doesn't place a great burden on them, something that will get in the way of their living a decent life. People who are especially well-placed to contribute to an important goal ought, generally speaking, I think, to pursue it if they can. So, against a particular background, I think ethnic obligations can arise, but, as I say, I think it does just depend on the background. And usually what sustains ethnic practices isn't duty but desire: people value some of the ways of doing things that they grew up with and they keep them going for that reason, not because they feel obliged. Even when they do feel obliged, it will often be an obligation of piety--a sense that you should do things for your parents and earlier ancestors, to sustain a legacy they have left you. …
Read full abstract