Abstract
A growing number of theorists have argued that toleration, at least in its traditional sense, is no longer applicable to liberal democratic political arrangements—especially if these political arrangements are conceived of as neutral. Peter Jones has tried make sense of political toleration while staying true to its more traditional (disapproval yet non-prevention) meaning. In this article, while I am sympathetic to his motivation, I argue that Jones’ attempt to make sense of political toleration is not successful.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
My criticism of Jones’ argument is different to that of Glen Newey (2011). Newey’s primary interest is in defending against Jones his claim that toleration is always symmetrical; that is, that toleration involves at least two groups which can legitimately charge each other with intolerance, and thus if a democratic state intervenes, there is no tolerant option, it can only choose which intolerance to favour. This means that Newey’s understanding of toleration, if correct, rules out political toleration of the sort Jones is intending to demonstrate. The symmetry thesis is rejected by Jones (2011).
Preston King (1976, p. 22) when making this distinction, describes the powerless version of tolerance as ‘acquiescence’. I prefer ‘enduring’ as it avoids the sense of indifference and voluntariness that sometimes goes with acquiescence.
An ‘objection’ component is part of King’s definition (1976, pp. 44–54), and also that of Rainer Forst (forthcoming, chap. 1).
References
Bayle, Pierre. 2005 [1686–1688]. A philosophical commentary on these words of the gospel, Luke 14: 23, ‘Compel them to come in, that my house may be full’. eds John Kilcullen and Chandran Kukathas. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Inc.
Churchill, Robert Paul. 2003. Neutrality and the virtue of toleration. In Toleration, neutrality and democracy, eds Dario Castiglione, and Catriona McKinnon, 65–76. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Forst, Rainer. Toleration in conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Forthcoming).
Galeotti, Anna Elisabetta. 2002. Toleration as recognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gray, John. 1995. Enlightenment’s wake: Politics and culture at the close of the modern age. London: Routledge.
Heyd, David. 2008. Is toleration a political virtue? In Toleration and its limits (NOMOS 48), eds Melissa S. Williams, and Jeremy Waldron, 171–194. New York: New York University Press.
Horton, John. 1996. Toleration as a virtue. In Toleration: An elusive virtue, ed. David Heyd, 28–43. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jones, Peter. 2003. Toleration and neutrality: Compatible ideals? In Toleration, neutrality and democracy, eds Dario Castiglione, and Catriona McKinnon, 97–110. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Jones, Peter. 2007. Making sense of political toleration. British Journal of Political Science 37: 383–402.
Jones, Peter. 2011. Political toleration: A reply to Newey. British Journal of Political Science 41: 445–447.
King, Preston. 1976. Toleration. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Locke, John. 1983 [1689]. A letter concerning toleration. ed. James Tully. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Meckled-Garcia, Saladin. 2001. Toleration and neutrality: Incompatible ideals? Res Publica 7: 293–313.
Newey, Glen. 1999. Virtue, reason and toleration. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Newey, Glen. 2001. Is democratic toleration a rubber duck? Res Publica 7: 315–336.
Newey, Glen. 2011. Political toleration: Reply to Jones. British Journal of Political Science 41: 223–227.
Seligman, Adam B. 2003. Tolerance, tradition and modernity. Cardozo Law Review 24: 1645–1656.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Glen Newey, Susan Mendus, John Horton and a referee for useful comments on an earlier version of this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Balint, P. Not Yet Making Sense of Political Toleration. Res Publica 18, 259–264 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-012-9177-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-012-9177-3