François Levrau

By rethinking authenticity and reaffirming the significance of social norms, this paper sheds light on the challenges of fragmentation in late-modern societies and offers insights into promoting coexistence. While authenticity - celebrated as self-expression and individual freedom - has facilitated significant social and emancipatory advancements, its hyper-individualistic interpretation increasingly erodes civility and collective values. Bridging philosophical discussions on authenticity with sociological theories of social norms, the paper explores the concept of ‘moral stagecraft’, a model demonstrating how deliberate role-playing and adherence to shared norms can cultivate moral growth and rebuild trust. By redefining authenticity as an aspirational alignment with one’s better moral self - grounded in shared norms and values, and linked to the ideal of ‘positive liberty’ - the paper contributes to contemporary debates on morality, individuality, and collective responsibility. Practical applications illustrate how this redefinition reconciles personal freedom with social cohesion, offering a viable path forward in an era shaped by hyper-individualism.

There are many shades and nuances in the debate about faith and science. According to Ian Barbour, the multitude of positions can be reduced into four distinct categories: ‘conflict’, ‘independence’, ‘dialogue’ and ‘integration’. In this chapter, we discuss this four-way division, elaborate on the main critics and examine the implications for religious education (RE). What kind of RE is to be preferred if one holds that science and religion cancel each other out, are fundamentally different, should dialogically engage or can be mutually integrated? And what are the implications of these positions for liberal education (LE), which aims to prepare children for an autonomous life in a democratic society, provides them with the best available and objective information and learns them the skills of critical thinking?

Religie op het werk? Over positieve en negatieve godsdienstvrijheid bij private ondernemingen en tendensondernemingen In this article we elaborate on the place of religion in the workplace. Does the individual freedom of religion imply that employers must always accommodate the religious claims of employees or can they boast a number of arguments allowing them to legitimately limit that freedom? And, conversely, do employers not also have a right to freedom of religion and a right to formulate certain religious expectations for their employees? In this contribution, we deal with these and related questions from a legal-philosophical perspective. The overall aim is to illustrate the extent to which univocal answers are jeopardized because of conceptual ambiguities. We first make a normative distinction between two strategies (i.e. difference-blind approach and difference-sensitive approach) and subsequently illustrate and elaborate on how and why these strategies can lead to different outcomes in legal cases. We illustrate the extent to which a contextual and proportional analysis can be a way out in theoretical and practical conundrums.

In this article, we scrutinize several arguments that are frequently used to legitimize a ban on religious symbols for civil servants. Most arguments, however, do not stand up to the test of Rawlsian political liberalism. One argument stands out as underpinning such a general ban: state neutrality. While this argument has the most potential, we argue why it is still not decisive for a ban on all religious symbols for all civil servants. We conclude that from a political liberal point of view the discussion is inconclusive, and therefore advocate a context-sensitive and balanced approach to the matter of civil servants’ dress code with respect to religious symbols. By arguing that political liberalism is indecisive, our position is different from both ‘exclusive neutrality’ and ‘inclusive neutrality’.

Although there was never a consensus about multicultural policies for immigrants, at the beginning of this new millennium, multiculturalism found itself in cloudy water. Within a short period, politicians Merkel, Cameron, and Sarkozy all informed us that multiculturalism had failed. While this political statement drew many objections—How could these politicians claim we should abandon multiculturalism, given that multiculturally conscious notions of justice and their concomitant laws and policies for immigrants have never even been implemented in their respective countries? —political and philosophical critique of multiculturalism have nonetheless become more vigorous (Vertovec and...

The central notion in this article is ‘pluriform accommodation,’ a term that we have coined to defend two lines of thought. The first is a plea for inclusive and consequential neutrality; the second is a closely linked plea for reasonable accommodation. With ‘pluriform accommodation’ we emphasize that the multicultural recognition scope should be expanded. The need for inclusive and accommodative rules, laws, and practices is a matter of principle and as such cannot be reduced to the inclusion of people with an immigration background who bring with them all kinds of ethnocultural and religious practices, convictions, and traditions. Furthermore, the enshrined freedom of religion does not provide the needed protection for the multiplicity of conscientious identifications, convictions, and strong allegiances that might be central to one’s sense of self. We argue that we should not engage in (top down) debates about the rights of individuals and groups of different types and think in terms of identity hierarchies, but instead should consider the various claims being made (bottom up), aiming for common standards and criteria to assess the validity of these claims and the reasonableness of the associated accommodations.

A common current refrain laments that multiculturalism has failed as a policy model and that it should be replaced by interculturalism. In this article, we present a critical analysis of the backgrounds and targets of multiculturalism and interculturalism. While multiculturalism concerns rights, equality and justice, interculturalism relates to social cohesion, shared participation and practices. Instead of merely juxtaposing these two paradigms, we illustrate the extent to which they are both different and complementary, as well as why they should be implemented simultaneously. Intercultural and multicultural policies can be mutually reinforcing, in addition to adjusting or compensating for possible undesirable outcomes. By emphasising their complementarities, we go beyond the arguments of those who would expel multiculturalism in favour of interculturalism, as well as those who believe that multiculturalism already incorporates the merits of interculturalism. We also demonstrate the presence of both multicultural and intercultural aspects in the ‘civic integration’ policies that are being implemented with increasing rigour in several countries of immigration.

Communitarians and liberals have long held vigorous discussions about the status of the self. The former argue that we do not actively choose our ends, but that they come to the fore through self-discovery. This implies that the self is encumbered and that the liberal self—one capable of choosing his ends—is unrealistic. In this article, we consider these two paradigms and especially Will Kymlicka’s position within this debate. Kymlicka defends a liberal theory without relying on an unencumbered self, and may therefore have rescued liberalism from communitarian attacks. In the first part of our article, we argue that Kymlicka’s theory can only be sustained if it involves an unencumbered self that is prior to its ends. Ultimately, this means that the communitarian critique on liberalism can no longer be refuted. In order to support our argument, we introduce a distinction between the metaphysical depiction of the self as an unencumbered chooser and the psychological depiction of the self, which draws upon people’s understanding of themselves as being constitutively bound to certain ends. In the second part of our article, we invoke Jacques Lacan’s psychoanalytical theory in order to assert that neither communitarians nor liberals are entirely able to explain what is at stake when individuals describe being bound to ‘extimate ends’—ends they feel they did not choose, yet cannot relinquish. Although both philosophical paradigms cannot fully account for the ‘extimate subject’, in the policies they respectively defend, liberalism is the one that should be preferred