Liberating Ourselves from the Image that Captivates Us – An Interview with Charles Taylor on Cultural Pluralism, the Mind, and the Role of Philosophy

1. We would like to express our sincere gratitude, Professor Taylor, for accepting our invitation. We would like to start our dialogue by asking you about your academic influences, diverse interests, and the multiple topics in which you have had a significant impact. Who were the most influential individuals in shaping your interests in philosophy and politics (if such individuals existed)? Was there an event or book that introduced you to phenomenology?

I decided to focus on philosophy during my preparation for my doctorate. Prior to that, I earned a bachelor’s degree in history from McGill University and another degree in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics from the University of Oxford. My trajectory was in politics. However, during my studies in this second degree, I found myself increasingly dismayed by the dry and sterile approach to philosophy in the dominant English tradition, which was built upon modern epistemology following Descartes, Locke, and Hume. I was so bothered that I reconsidered my future plans. My intention, until my second degree, was to complete my studies and work for international non-governmental organizations in student assistance (such as the International University Services organization).

However, instead of that, I enrolled in a Ph.D. program intending to research a philosophical position that would refute the empiricist doctrine I had been taught at Oxford and replace it. I delved into my search for potential sources and came across Merleau-Ponty’s book, Phenomenology of Perception, which I read with great enthusiasm. The way out of the empiricist impasse became clear to me: through phenomenology (and my doctoral thesis was published in a book titled The Explanation of Behaviour).

2. However, since then (1964), it seems that the prevailing philosophy in the English-speaking world (meaning analytical philosophy) has undergone significant changes. For instance, the “political turn” with works by philosophers like John Rawls, and it appears that there has been a growing interest in issues that were largely neglected in the early history of analytical philosophy (such as ethics, morality, and the philosophy of “the good life,” etc.). How do you evaluate these changes? And what do you still consider to be a fundamental problem in this philosophical tradition?

You are right, there has been a significant “political turn” in analytical philosophy, and it can be largely attributed to the highly influential book by John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (I hope I remembered the title correctly). However, I did not share the same enthusiasm for it as my fellow analytical philosophers did since it revealed some of the same unquestioned assumptions in analytical epistemology. The epistemology taken for granted in analytical philosophy was that of Descartes and Locke, which I mentioned in my response to the first question. There was a focus on the individual in political theory, without a genuine attempt to understand the various forms of social bonds (in their historical variations) and the internal dynamics of different types of societies that resulted from them. It was a political theory without politics.

3. What is your stance on religious freedom and its public practice in Canada? And what are the philosophical (or social or political) foundations that inform your position on the freedom of Muslim women to wear the hijab in Canada?

I strongly support the general position on religious freedom in Canada. The exception is the legislation in Quebec that imposes certain restrictions on individuals wearing “religious symbols,” particularly women wearing the hijab, and based on these laws, they are prohibited from employment in teaching positions in schools. I have opposed this legislation from the beginning, as I was involved in chairing a committee formed when these restrictions were first raised. Our report strongly objected to these restrictions.

4. You talk in your writings about different cases of secularism that vary with time and place. How do you define secularism? And can it coexist with religion (at least in Western countries)? How do you interpret the relationship between secularism and majority-Muslim countries?

The reason I discuss this is that we support the concept of a secular society, in which there is a separation between church and state, based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, there are three concepts upon which this separation can be built, three basic forms of secularism in this sense (in French: Laïcité):

1. A concept aimed at protecting religion from government interference.
2. A concept aimed at protecting the state from the dominance of a particular religion.
3. A concept based on human rights, proposing the existence of a neutral state between religions, as well as between religion and non-religion. This concept defends freedom of conscience and ensures the free practice of religions within certain clear boundaries (for example, one religion’s practice should not hinder the practice of another religion).

The first concept was present during the establishment of the American Republic in 1787, and the second concept was implicit in the French legislation of 1904 and 1905 (when a strong Catholic royalist movement sought to abolish the republic). However, only the third concept is suitable for our context, where there is no dominant religion, but rather diverse and varied religions and metaphysical beliefs among citizens.

To me, it is clear that the third concept, and no other, is the only form of secularism that can be defended in a diverse society like Canada. Legislative measures such as the current Law 21 in Quebec clearly violate the rights of certain citizens, and they are particularly harsh towards women who are often recent immigrants. Therefore, they are exposed to such injustice, as they lack the support system that long-established individuals have in our country.

That’s why I strongly oppose this legislation and will not rest until it is repealed. Until then, I feel ashamed to be a Quebecer.

5. Should we confine the third concept of secularism to Western countries? Do you believe that other cultures are required to understand themselves without reference to secularism (in the third concept you just mentioned)?

No, I don’t believe this question applies exclusively to Western societies; it applies to all religiously diverse societies. This classification includes societies that historically have one religion, but their citizens do not adhere to this religion, for whatever reason, including atheists and non-religious individuals. India, during the time of the Gandhi-Nehru constitution, serves as an example of a republic that was secular in the sense I mentioned. There is a very concerning attempt by the Bharatiya Janata Party government in India to overturn this constitution, making Muslims second-class citizens and even subjecting them to persecution. I hope they do not succeed in doing so.

6. You have a critical view of individualism in Western societies, as mentioned in your book Ethics of Authenticity. In your opinion, can the contemporary individual maintain their identity without sinking into selfish individualism, especially in our current days where the COVID-19 pandemic is spreading and bringing people together and strengthening familial bonds?

There are multiple sources of solidarity in modern democracy, often forming what we might call a “political identity”: coming together to create a political structure that ensures the common good and the flourishing of all members of society, where everyone expresses their view on what constitutes this common good. Usually, this shared goal is motivated by a sense of belonging that we can call “nationality,” and pride in being a member of this community (which is why I feel ashamed if I fail to achieve our goal of defending the well-being of all members of society).

Nationality is a strong motivator for solidarity, but it can be reinforced by our universal ethics or religious commitments. However, these ethics and commitments can be marginalized and often are. This usually happens when there is a sharp division on how to define political identity, which we are currently experiencing in many democratic countries. Some suggest that certain groups of citizens should have all the rights and privileges, excluding others (such as men compared to women, white Europeans compared to people of African descent or indigenous populations, Hindus compared to Muslims, as the current government in India is doing). These biases legitimize injustices that should not be defended, narrow the boundaries of solidarity, and ignite conflicts where our cherished political identities become a cause of discord rather than a source of unity.

7. Canada is known for its racial and cultural diversity, where people live together without major conflicts. What is your vision for the future of “cultural diversity” in the cultural village we live in? Are the current inhabitants of the world obligated to coexist in a multicultural society?

Yes, this is the result of various accumulations that we call “globalization”: economic, cultural, and those resulting from mass migrations that lead us to live among neighbors of different cultural, ethnic, religious, and linguistic backgrounds, etc. This experience can be lived in two ways: either an increasing aversion of the population towards “foreigners” (as we have witnessed in the reactions of many European countries towards refugees from the war in Syria and others), or the realization by the “indigenous” population that their lives have become enriched by the arrival of people with different appearances, skills, cultural practices, arts, dances, etc. This positive response has led to the strengthening of what we call “cultural diversity” in Canada.

I do not want it to be understood from my words that we are all virtuous; indeed, both positive and negative reactions exist in our country regarding the presence of immigrants (for example, consider the support for Bill 21 in Quebec). The fact that the country was built by immigrants is what has led to the reinforcement of “cultural diversity” in Canada. However, regardless of that, there is no option to confront hostility and suspicion towards others in a world that is increasingly diverse and mixed, except by adopting a mindset of “cultural diversity,” where diversity is seen as enrichment rather than a threat. What guarantees the survival of cultural diversity is the lived experience, especially among young people who find that their lives have become richer, deeper, and more inclusive in the sense of humanity through their friendships with people of diverse backgrounds, religions, and cultures.

(On a personal level, I can say that this has been my lived experience. For example, some Muslims I have met and read about have helped shape my identity. The wave of Islamophobia sweeping the West is not just a scourge; it is also futile and contrary to facts.)

8. What is the role of language in building culture and shaping identity? Do you believe that linguistic diversity has led to cultural diversity and multiple identities? Do you see linguistic homogeneity – as in the Arab region – as revealing cultural and identity unity?

Language is essential in shaping cultures and identities. Therefore, linguistic diversity is of great importance in today’s globalized world, where different cultures coexist. Linguistic diversity enhances understanding and undermines the demonization of the other.

9. Two questions related to the concept of democracy:

• Do you accept that democracy – inherited by the West from the ancient Greeks and practiced in various contexts throughout a long history – can coexist with other political systems? Do you accept the existence of democracy?
• The majority of the world’s contemporary population (specifically in the West) lives in a “democratic” atmosphere, but you have mentioned on several occasions that democracy is experiencing weakness and decline. Should we change and develop democracy? Or should we invent a new social and political system?

To answer the first question, there is no doubt about it. Those who live in democratic countries recognize its presence as providing them with a path to a better life through the freedoms it offers, guaranteed by the law, and the opportunities it provides for participation in shaping laws and policies. I mean this when democracy fulfills its functions as it should, not as is the case in countries like Russia, where the rule of law is not ensured, and elections are partially symbolic. However, democracy should not be imposed on people from the outside; it must coexist with other systems.

This does not mean that we do not welcome the progress of democracy when it occurs or the economic measures – such as boycotts – that may undermine non-democratic political systems, particularly those that violate human rights.

To answer the second question, sustaining and improving democracies is necessary, and more importantly, preventing their decline, as we see in current events. There are deep divisions regarding democratic political identities, as I mentioned earlier in my answer to the sixth question.

The crisis in these situations is partly rooted in the inequalities embedded in political and historical identities: men compared to women, whites compared to Blacks and Indigenous populations, and the persecution of LGBT individuals. We live in a time of growing awareness that defending these injustices is unacceptable and demands to end these injustices are emerging. This has generated a strong reaction and a struggle that has led to deep divisions and fundamental differences regarding the nature of our political identities. I hope that future generations will support and celebrate equality more than older generations such as mine.

10. You are known as a philosopher, but you have strict positions on various aspects of life such as politics, society, education, and others. Do you believe that the role of philosophy today is limited to thinking about people’s daily lives? Or is there an essential role that philosophy must play in understanding our contemporary lives? Do you think that philosophy has lost its previous role and needs to rebuild itself in accordance with the changes that have occurred in the modern individual?

I would define philosophy as an attempt to define our fundamental concepts that we talk about and think through in various aspects of reality, and to critically examine these concepts. There are philosophical questions about physics, sociology, politics, and so on, and philosophy must find a foothold, otherwise we would be blind and follow patterns of thinking that have not been properly examined, as was the case with the empirical theories of knowledge that we relied upon. All fields of knowledge require philosophical contemplation from time to time, but it is not valid for philosophy to be a separate field, as it used to see itself. While certain areas of philosophy, like logic, can be studied independently, others are deeply intertwined. Philosophical issues that underpin the humanities – those concerning the human essence, the foundation of knowledge, the core of emotions, and the nature of society (e.g., philosophical anthropology) – demand a comprehensive understanding of human life in all its facets. These include forms of society, mental and emotional aspects, and the nature of linguistic communication. Philosophy, in this respect, cannot be a separate discipline. To illustrate, approaching philosophical questions about society necessitates a strong foundation in the social sciences, like sociology and politics. Similarly, engaging with the history of philosophy requires historical knowledge, and so on.

In short, philosophy will not lose its role except through the “oversimplification” of human thought in general, but this role will not be exercised without the assistance of specialized sciences.

11. In your book The Language Animal, you presented your concept of the role of language in shaping the human mind and the surrounding universe. Can you summarize your view on language and its role in shaping individuals? Does it play a role in shaping individual and collective identities?

I agree with Aristotle when he said that language is the defining characteristic of humans; we are “the language animal” (in Greek: zoon echon logon). However, my fundamental difference is that I see language often defined narrowly. The experimental tradition in philosophy has treated language as a means of encoding and preserving information, but it is more than that. In my book, I sought to explore other roles that language plays, such as its formative roles in shaping emotions, or in articulating our deepest thoughts on ethics and religious faith, or in establishing the common ground on which we stand when we exchange ideas – for example, do we stand as equals or as followers? Leave aside the role of poetry or its relationship with music. I addressed some of these issues in The Language Animal and paved the way for others, which I continue to explore in the second part of this book.

12. Can you mention some details about this second part? What are the main ideas that you seek to explore in it?

Just as The Language Animal builds upon the language theories that emerged among the German Romantics (both poets and philosophers), the second part discusses some attempts by the Romantic poets and the post-Romantics (Germans and others) to regain a connection with the universe (the cosmos).

13. You collaborated with the late Hubert Dreyfus in co-authoring the book Retrieving Realism, and we would like to discuss this book in some detail through the following questions:

• The book begins with a quote from Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations: “There is a picture that holds us captive,” and the entire book seems to be an explanation of this quote. Without going into details, what is this “picture”? How does your critical diagnosis and analysis of our inclination to fall into the trap of this “picture” differ from other criticisms directed towards the “foundationalist tendency” typically found in epistemological texts within the analytic philosophy tradition?
• This “picture” is more than just an academic discussion about an epistemological subject; it may be seen as something with significant consequences for our understanding of ourselves and the world around us. Have you elaborated on this idea?
• Richard Rorty was the present/absent figure in this book. What did Rorty fail to understand about this “picture”?
• It seems that in this book, you have a preference for a certain direction in philosophy of mind and cognitive science, namely “embodied cognition.” How do you understand “embodied cognition”? And can this approach help us escape the grip of this “picture”?

In simple terms, the “picture” that captivates us in Cartesian-Lockean epistemology is the mind [or the intellect] inside the body, which receives sensations from the external world through the senses and is claimed to provide us with a perception of the “external” world. Consequently, this theory raises a skeptical question: How do we know that our internally constructed theory about the world aligns with the reality “out there”?

We wanted to replace this picture with a more appropriate one, where the understanding of the human agent’s relationship with the world emerges from their continuous attempts to engage with their environment. Firstly, as an embodied agent, they navigate their way by grasping objects, exploring their surroundings, and forming an understanding of the world in the process, including the acquisition of language. Our primary inspiration for this philosophical understanding stems from the tradition of phenomenological philosophy, specifically the philosophy of Merleau-Ponty.

Our understanding of the world does not solely arise “in” the mind but in the space of interaction between the mind and the world. Hence, the term “embodied cognition” emerged.

As for Richard Rorty, we shared many criticisms directed towards the tradition of analytic philosophy. However, in our view, he ultimately accepted many of the skeptical epistemology’s prevailing conclusions, which means that he placed our understanding of embodied cognition on the same level as historical epistemology. Both, in his view, are equal in the sense that they lack a foundation, and the key aspect, in his perspective, is to choose the “conversation” in which one participates, along with the adoption of non-foundational assumptions.

14. We were delighted to have this conversation with you, Professor Taylor. We would like to conclude this discussion by asking about your current intellectual concerns, apart from the continuation of “The Language Animal,” that we might see the outcomes of in the foreseeable future. Are there any philosophical projects that you would like the younger generations of philosophers to engage in?

Among my current projects is the study of post-Romantic poets, as I mentioned earlier in my response to Question 12. I am also deeply interested in the challenges faced by contemporary democracies that suffer from various forms of xenophobia, exclusion of foreigners, and the marginalization of cultural minorities. Additionally, I am working on a concept of the ethical evolution of humanity, based on Karl Jaspers’ notion of the “axial revolution.” I believe this growth must be understood globally, not solely in the light of a single religion or philosophical tradition. Rather, this evolution, if I may express it, emerged among all these traditions, with the assistance of each of them.

T1711