Mitja Sardoc

In this interview, Emanuela Ceva points to some of the practical and political issues (alongside various conceptual disagreements) associated with toleration. In particular, she stresses the centrality of l’affaire du foulard that galvanized contemporary discussions on toleration and the accommodation of diversity in general. Of particular relevance is her emphasis on the danger that the inflatory use of concepts such as toleration brings. In the final section of this interview, she accentuates the importance of studying the historical aspect of toleration as well as understanding that ‘the normative study of toleration […] seems to be an important feature of a public ethics for diverse democratic societies. […] To study toleration within this context is important to understand the extent to which the capacity to deal with diversity in a respectful manner, whether this means through forbearance or recognition, is an important way to grapple with human diversity and ensure that the richness of human forms of life is nurtured and not endangered’.

The interview with Thomas Scanlon explores the main issues associated with philosophical research on toleration. His focus on some of the contemporary controversies illustrates the importance of conceptual research on issues that continue to divide our societies. Of particular relevance is Prof. Scanlon’s further elaboration of his ideas published in two of his most well-know essays on toleration (i.e. ‘The Difficulty of Tolerance’ (2003) and ‘Further Reflections on Tolerance and its Difficulty’ (2018)) and the way these two essays stand against (as well as complement) each other.

In the interview with him, Yossi Nehushtan elaborates on several important issues related to the study of toleration. His emphasis on the importance of distinguishing ‘between the concept of toleration and the moral evaluation of the practice, politics, or attitude of toleration—or of the virtue of toleration’ is an important observation. By focusing on his own writing on the topic as well as on the work by other scholars (e.g. Glen Newey, Bernard Williams), he discusses the different points of contention between the advocates and critics of toleration. His discussion on the limits of (liberal) toleration is particularly interesting as he frames it as part of the interaction between two main principles (the principles of reciprocity and that of proportionality). In the last part of the interview, he discusses the phenomenon of unjustified liberal intolerance and the importance of research on it.

Rainer Forst takes up one of the central controversies associated with toleration, i.e. the plurality of normative justifications that have been and can be given for or against toleration. At the same time, he elaborates on the distinction between a general concept and particular conceptions of toleration. He contrasts a “permission conception” of toleration with a “respect conception.” By contextualizing his intellectual journey influenced by scholars such as Jürgen Habermas, John Rawls and T.M. Scanlon, he provides an insight into the development of his research on toleration culminating in his landmark book Toleration in Conflict. He also emphasizes the importance of non-Western conceptions of toleration and their importance for future discussions in this area of scholarly research.Disagreement.

The interview with Charles Larmore kicks off the conversation with an analysis of the ‘three major points of disagreement vexing the concept of toleration’ and their centrality for discussions over issues associated with toleration (including the critique of it). Interestingly enough, he returns to these points of disagreement in several of the other questions in this interview. His reply to the final question on the need to study toleration today is particularly revealing. As he emphasizes, ‘[t]o my mind, the principal reason for studying toleration today is that we thereby acquire a clearer understanding of the nature of liberalism’.

As one of the most renowned scholars on multiculturalism (and related issues), Tariq Modood discusses the post-1989 phenomenon of identity politics and the major theoretical developments by the advocates of multiculturalism, the politics of recognition and the politics of difference. The initial part of the conversation retains the original discussion with Prof. Modood where he shares his thoughts on how the interview would best be carried out. In the central part of the interview, he discusses the contribution of the Bristol School of Multiculturalism to both theoretical, policy and practical issues associated with the accommodation of diversity (e.g. the idea of multicultural secularism he developed with his colleagues).

In this interview, Teresa Bejan revisits her minimalist conception of ‘mere civility’ as articulated in her book Mere Civility: Disagreement and the Limits of Toleration (2017). At the same time she also discusses some of the refinements of her argument from this book and the importance of civility for ‘imperfect societies’. Of particular interest is her further elaboration of conceptual inflation (‘concept-creep’ as she calls this phenomenon) as it applies to different concepts (including toleration) as well as the different language registers where the concept of toleration is being used. Her discussion of the foundational questions associated with toleration is particularly interesting. In the final section of the interview, Prof. Bejan discussed her current and future work related to toleration (editing the Clarendon edition of John Locke’s Four Letters on Toleration).

The interview with Sune Laegaard delves into the various issues associated with coexistence and the handling of diversity in contemporary plurally diverse societies. He frames toleration ‘as a way of handling diversity and resulting conflicts rather than as a mechanism that is supposed to make the problem go away’. He emphasizes that toleration is a first (and perhaps the most important step) ‘towards a different view of certain differences’. His distinction between ‘descriptive and moralized conceptions of toleration’ is particularly illuminating. In discussing the relationship between toleration, respect and recognition, he identifies the different modalities between these different approaches of handling diversity. As he emphasizes, ‘I think it is much more useful to see many of the debates that have been going on under the heading of multiculturalism as debates about in which ways we should go ‘beyond’ toleration, i.e. about toleration is not sufficient, rather than as fundamental alternatives to or criticisms of toleration’.

This introductory essay to the Making Sense of Toleration book of interviews and conversations brings to the forefront the importance of dialogue as one of the original forms of philosophical inquiry. Its opening allusion to one of the most memorable stories from the ‘literary nonsense’ genre points to a growing trend in contemporary academic publishing that strive for more flexibility in discussing various issues or problems in a less formal and more engaged way (equally beneficial to both its reading audience and the contributors alike). At the same time, this introductory essay underscores that the dialogue format is particularly well-suited to a topic of as complex and controversial as toleration. It emphasises that each interview published in this volume goes beyond the customary refinements of arguments and positions usually embedded in academic conversations and provide a multilayered set of responses and reformulations, standard formats of scholarly publishing may struggle to deliver.

In this interview, Benjamin Kaplan revisits some of the central issues toleration has been grappling with over the last few centuries. In the introductory section he discusses various controversies and disagreements arising out of the different definitions of toleration. He then discusses the influence of other disciplines on the study of toleration allowing historians ‘to put the present into crucial perspective’. In the central part of this interview, he takes a closer look at the key developments in the study of the history of toleration and the principal ‘lessons’ emerging from the ‘study of the early modern era’. In the final part of the interview, he identifies three main challenges we are confronting in the study of toleration. His elucidation of the way historiography deals with toleration-related issues is a truly welcoming addition to research on toleration.

In this interview, Prof. Wendy Brown revisits her critique of tolerance as laid out in her book Regulating Aversion (2006). Her meticulous reply to each and every question clarifies both her position towards tolerance as well as the social and political context that needs to be taken into account when discussing identity-related issues. As she emphasizes, tolerance needs to be understood ‘as something that doesn't simply operate as a concept or an individual practice, but rather a discourse that carries power, the power to organize subjects and subjectivity’.

This interview with Peter Jones provides an in-depth examination of the main issues tackled by contemporary discussions on toleration in liberal democratic societies. In particular, his discussion of the vertical and the horizontal dimension of toleration is a useful distinction that clarifies various issues in need of further elaboration. Furthermore, his presentation of philosophy’s many contributions to the study of toleration provides a much-needed insight into some of the most challenging conceptual issues associated with this area of scholarly research. His analysis of some of the most challenging contemporary controversies demonstrates the practical relevance of conceptual research on toleration and related ideas. Ultimately, his extensive reply to the foundational questions associated with toleration testifies that some of the central issues are far from settled.

This book brings together a collection of interviews and conversations with leading scholars across different disciplines and areas of research including moral and political philosophy, history, sociology, political theory, psychology, and jurisprudence, among others. It provides an authoritative presentation of contemporary accounts of toleration, their conceptual foundations, and a comprehensive presentation of the different concepts most commonly associated with it (e.g. civility, dignity, coercion, harm, conflict, disagreement, secularism, power, domination, trust, non-interference, neutrality, fairness, pluralism, respect, recognition and ultimately diversity itself). The interviews and conversations published in this volume address some of the most pressing controversies on toleration (and related issues) at both the theoretical and practical levels. Alongside customary refinements of arguments and positions usually embedded in academic conversations, these interviews provide unique insights into the 'behind the scenes' on one of the central topics in contemporary scholarly research.

As one of the most distinctive books in scholarly publishing, The Rise of the Meritocracy by Michael Young is considered not only a classic work in the sociology of education but one of the most intriguing books ever published. Well over half a century since it first appeared, this book continues to exert an important influence in both academia and public life (as well as high politics). Despite a number of journal special issues, symposia, edited volumes, and biographies, The Rise of the Meritocracy remains to a large extent a “riddle wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma” (just like its author). This chapter revisits some of the defining elements of this thought-provoking book as well as some of the touchstone moments from the life and career of Michael Young. The introductory section sketches some of the main points, while the central part takes a closer look at some of the issues raised in The Rise of the Meritocracy and by its author that have remained largely below the radar of academic scholarship. The following section analyzes the three main scenarios advanced by the contemporary reception of the book. The concluding section identifies some of the distinguishing features of the idea of “meritocratic rationality” as elaborated in The Rise of the Meritocracy, with equality of opportunity as its flagship representation.

Equality of opportunity has been one of the most important social ideals associated with contemporary societies. In fact, no single idea has arguably had a more profound impact on the overall fairness of the distribution of advantaged social positions or the attainment of a particular social good in spheres of life as diverse as education, employment, health care, housing, etc. At the same time, its promise of fairness and the progressive idealism emanating from it have fueled some of the major social movements and institutional reforms related to antidiscrimination, desegregation, gender equality, equity, and inclusion. Nevertheless, equality of opportunity is far from straightforward or uncontroversial. To complicate things further, several of its most well-known conceptions advocate a plethora of diversified or even conflicting commitments. Both advocates and critics alike therefore face an unlikely challenge of how to make sense of this important social ideal. This chapter outlines some of the most distinctive contemporary tensions, problems, and challenges (as well as other complications) equality of opportunity has been associated with.

This collective paper on radicalization and violent extremism part of the ‘Philosophy of education in a new key’ initiative by Educational Philosophy and Theory brings together some of the leading contemporary scholars writing on the most pressing epistemological, ethical, political and educational issues facing post-9/11 scholarship on radicalization and violent extremism. Its overall aim is to move beyond the ‘conventional wisdom’ associated with this area of scholarly research best represented by its many slogans, metaphors and other thought-terminating clichés. By providing conceptual lenses on issues previously compartmentalized primarily [or even exclusively] in security and intelligence studies or at the fringes of scholarly interest, radicalization and violent extremism turn out to be much more complex than ‘radicalization studies’ has been eager to acknowledge.

This Handbook provides an authoritative exposition of key contemporary conceptions of equal opportunities. It presents the different concepts most commonly associated with equality of opportunity, and discusses the many problems dominating the controversies on equality of opportunity at the theoretical, policy or practical level. The chapters give a concise exposition of the different conceptions and basic concepts of equal opportunities. They clarify variables that are part of the 'algorithm of equal opportunities', e.g. opportunity, equality, non-discrimination, obstacles, fairness, responsibility, chance and choice, excellence, qualifications, effort, talent, merit, desert, inequality, and risk. The idea of equality of opportunity has traditionally been associated with a set of largely unquestioned ideals, and over the last 50 years, it has been at the very centre of the major progressive social changes and firmly entrenched in political rhetoric. Yet, the idea of equality of opportunity is far from unquestionable or unproblematic as the only solid assumption different conceptions have in common is their rejection of fixed social relations but not hierarchy itself. Disagreements over the fundamental principles, criticism over the inefficiency of policies aiming to ensure equal opportunities, and objections to their unfairness, all pose questions that current conceptions answer in different ways. This Handbook examines a wide variety of questions about issues of motivation, procedures, genealogy, taxonomy, and compensation.

The Palgrave Handbook of Toleration aims to provide a comprehensive presentation of toleration as the foundational idea associated with engagement with diversity. This handbook is intended to provide an authoritative exposition of contemporary accounts of toleration, the central justifications used to advance it, a presentation of the different concepts most commonly associated with it as well as the discussion of the many problems dominating the controversies on toleration at both the theoretical or practical level. The Palgrave Handbook of Toleration is aimed as a resource for a global scholarly audience looking for either a detailed presentation of major accounts of toleration, the most important conceptual issues associated with toleration and the many problems dividing either scholars, policy-makers or practitioners.

For much of its modern history, the notion of talent has been associated with the idea of ‘careers open to talent’. Its emancipatory promise of upward social mobility has radically transformed the distribution of advantaged social positions and has had a lasting influence on the very idea of social status itself. Nevertheless, unlike concepts traditionally associated with distributive justice, e.g. fairness, (in)equality, desert, equality of opportunity as well as justice itself, the notion of talent has received only limited examination. This article discusses some of the most pressing problems and challenges arising out of a reductionist understanding of talents’ anatomy and a distorted characterization of their overall distributive value. In particular, it aims to address those issues revolving around talents’ anatomy existing conceptions of distributive justice leave either neglected or outrightly ignored. The introductory part outlines the basic egalitarian conception of equal opportunities and then proceed with the examination of fairness embedded in it. The central part of the paper identifies the key elements of talents’ anatomy. We then discuss some of the implications egalitarianism either leaves out of the discussion or neglects. In particular, we challenge the idea of moral arbitrariness as the key mechanism to discard talents as a form of unfair advantage in the process of competition for advantaged social positions. In the final part, we outline two fundamental problems that call into question the cogency of egalitarian conceptions of talent(s) as a form of unfair disadvantage.

This essay reviews Michael Peters' book The Chinese Dream: Educating the Future, an edited collection of his articles exploring the concept of the Chinese Dream. The essays starts with the analogy between dreams and their role in psychoanalysis and dreams as an ideal representation of a nation's ethos. The introductory part illustrates this analogy with the example of the growing importance of the Chinese Dream. The central part of the essay examines the most important aspects of Peters' book The Chinese Dream: Educating the Future. The concluding part raises the importance of education in the national dream narrative.

Michael Walzer is currently at the School of Social Science, Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton, New Jersey. Professor Walzer has written Just and Unjust Wars; The Revolution of the Saints and has edited Toward A Global Civil Society. In this interview, he discusses some of the current concerns about education, political theory and the current state of the art of toleration, and acceptance and accommodation of different racial, ethnic, social and minority groups. He has published extensively and his work has been translated in several other languages. In this interview, he responds to questions about his work, his writings and his current concerns