The idea of toleration as the appropriate response to difference has been central to liberal thought since Locke. Although the subject has been widely and variously explored, there has been reluctance to acknowledge the new meaning that current debates offer on toleration. This book starts from a clear recognition of the new terms of the debate, reflecting the capacity of seeing the other's viewpoint, and the limited extent to which toleration can be granted. Theoretical statements on toleration posit at the same time its necessity in democratic societies, and its impossibility as a coherent ideal. There are several possible objections to, and ways of developing the ideal of, reasonable tolerance as advocated by John Rawls and by some other supporters of political liberalism. The first part of the book explores some of them. In some real-life conflicts, it is unclear on whom the burden of reasonableness may fall. This part discusses the reasonableness of pluralism, and general concept and various more specific conceptions of toleration. The forces of progressive politics have been divided into two camps: redistribution and recognition. The second part of the book is an attempt to explore the internal coherence of such a transformation when applied to different contexts. It argues that openness to others in discourse, and their treatment as free and equal, is part of a kind of reflexive toleration that pertains to public communication in the deliberative context. Social ethos, religious discrimination and education are discussed in connection with tolerance.
The ethics and politics of memory in an age of mass culture
Memory is not commonly imagined as a
site of possibility for progressivepolitics. More often, memory,
particularly in the form of nostalgia, is condemned for its solipsistic
nature, for its tendency to draw people into the past instead of the
present. This is the case, for example, in Kathryn Bigelow’s 1995
film Strange Days , in which the use of memory – usually
Budget’, said Lloyd George, was to place ‘burdens on the broadest shoulders’ and to ensure ‘that wealth shall pay its fair share’. As he elaborated:
‘There are many in the country blessed by providence with great wealth,
and if there are amongst them men who grudge out of their riches a fair
contribution towards the less fortunate of their fellow-countrymen they
are very shabby rich men’ (30.7.1909, Limehouse; 9.10.1909, Newcastle;
BT: 156, 161, 145).
Overall, this rhetoric drew on a substantial body of progressivepolitical
thought about distributive questions. These
follows, those elements of the contributions to this volume that
suggest a more productive critique of the Third Way are identified
and elaborated. This account is presented against the stated
criteria of: taking the Third Way seriously; engaging with social
change; and showing where progressivepolitical interventions might
identity formation. Examining specific ‘memory work’
within contemporary Hollywood cinema, Part II explores the specificity of
film in constituting memory narratives that can function in coercive ways
but that can also, alternatively, hold the potential for progressivepolitical understanding.
The first two chapters concentrate on the former tendency.
Considering cinematic articulations of the Vietnam War in Hollywood film
sensitivity when campaigning on issues of racism.
Welcoming asylum seekers (be they political, economic or cultural) into our
communities as equals and sharers in our good-fortune may not appear particularly radical, but their effects can be felt throughout society. Similarly, saying
‘hello’ to our neighbours (whoever they are, wherever they come from), writing
a letter to the local paper, challenging a bigoted remark at work or responding
with outrage to racist attacks all go a long way to challenging the racism within
our society as well as building more progressive
Transgressing the cordon sanitaire: understanding the English Defence League as a social movement
more progressivepolitics, capable of not only fighting but
dismantling racisms, might be the excising of the discourse of ‘race’ (Paul, 2014:
704). These arguments for and against a conscious renunciation of ‘race’ are
returned to in Chapter 4.
The connection between racism and Islamophobia is, according to Garner and
Selod (2015: 11), already ‘definitively made’. ‘Islamophobia’ can be operationalised
to understand ‘a set of ideas and practices that amalgamate all Muslims into one
group and the characteristics associated with Muslims (violence, misogyny, political
particular time and
This championing of a popular,
locally rooted aesthetic, shaped by the social relations of its own
colonised locations, marked the cultural dimensions of
Calder-Marshall’s commitments to a broader progressivepolitics.
It also anticipated the intellectual affiliations of Caribbean
structural not individual, the product of historical and present-day violence and exploitation (Lentin 2004 ). Where progressivepolitics – including state socialist anti-imperialism – has often projected a ‘racism without racists’ (Bonilla-Silva 2013 ), conflating race and ethnicity in post-Yugoslav – and wider east European – studies has created a postcoloniality without race.
Yet accounting explicitly for race, racialisation and whiteness does not suddenly unmake existing approaches to postsocialist marginalisation and exclusion. Quite the opposite: a
Before moving on, however, there is one loose thread from this chapter
that needs tying down.
I need to qualify the earlier assertion that diverse reciprocity is not the
same thing as weak reciprocity. In fact, diverse reciprocity is both weak
and strong, according to the diachronic dimension of progressivepolitics.
Let me explain. Whereas Dworkin seems to assume a 50/50 cut between
endowment-insensitivity and ambition-sensitivity, those such as Arneson,
Cohen and Roemer (from a more radical Left-liberal position) suggest that
luck and circumstance outweigh