Difference and Dissent: Theories of Tolerance in Medieval and Early Modern Europe by Cary
J. Nederman; John Christian Laursen
Review by: Pascal Massie
The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 52, No. 2 (Dec., 1998), pp. 471-472
Published by: Philosophy Education Society Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20131167 .
Accessed: 27/10/2014 16:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Philosophy Education Society Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Review of Metaphysics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 134.53.245.8 on Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:58:25 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AND COMMENTS
SUMMARIES
471
and Dissent:
John Christian.
Cary J. and Laursen,
Difference
Nederman,
in Medieval
and Early Modem Europe.
Theories
Lanham,
of Tolerance
1997. ix + 240 pp. Cloth, $62.50; paper,
Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield,
a
for protecting
liberal democracies
$23.95?Western
praise themselves
and groups.
The origin of
full range of differences
among individuals
de Tolerantia.
is thought to be Locke's Ep?stola
this ongoing process
it is assumed,
"a multiplicity
of beliefs was
the Reformation,
Before
as well as evil; diversity was, so to speak, the
to be dangerous,
deemed
it existed
itwas to be stamped out" (p. 1). Yet,
devil's work, and where
liberal discov
although flattering to liberalism, the conceit of a modern
is both conceptuaUy
and histori
ery of liberty of conscience
simplistic
The main virtue of this volume
is to challenge
this tale
cally misleading.
to
The
seek
demon
of Western
essays presented
political history.
(1)
thinkers generated
alternative
theories of tolera
strate that premodern
to a phUosophical
analysis of tolerance.
tion; and (2) to contribute
A number of contributors
the claim according
successfully
challenge
to which
for a strong theoretical
the only valid point of departure
de
must be some conception
of subjective
fense of legitimate differences
of Padua,
John of Salisbury
and Marsiglio
human rights.
Contrasting
of rights tended to be
Nederman
argues that "Medieval understanding
status ... Con
under issues of group identity and functional
subsumed
was
often
filtered
individual
Uberty
intermediary
sequently,
through
to particular
tasks and duties performed
identities organized according
within
the context of the communal
community"
(p. 19). Thus, tolera
tion is not a "privilege" granted at the whim of some superior authority
Kate
but a "necessity" built into the very terms of social interaction.
that a
analysis of Christine de Pizan, establishes
Forhan, in a convincing
"theory of toleration can be based on primarily functional
grounds" (p.
is grounded on
79). Gary Remer shows that Bodin's theory of toleration
a positive conception
of divine truth rather than on the underlying
skep
ticism of modern
liberal arguments.
Stephen Lahey's essay on John Wy
clift shows how the demands of a theology of Grace and a metaphysical
of systematic
tolerance.
realism can entail the promotion
the question
of historical
Yet beyond
this book offers im
accuracy,
of
tolerance.
reformulations
Several
studies
portant
suggest that Tur
chetti's opposition
between
"toleration" (which implies the ineliminabil
and "concordance"
ity of religious diversity)
(which implies temporary
to difference)
but never approval of, or resignation
needs to
forbearance
be
revised.
can really ac
One might wonder,
functionalism
however, whether
or whether
it reduces the other to its particular
count for differences,
the whole
of the social body.
function within
Tolerance
is limited to
those forms of actions and behefs that do not impinge on the intercom
munication
of functions
As Forhan
among the parts of the community.
a "willingness
to accept
of tolerance demonstrates
puts it, the discourse
in spite of itself rather than because of difference"
otherness
(p. 71).
Glenn Burgess's
essay iUustrates this point by showing that the narrow
concerns
toleration
allowed
the "duty" of the sovereign
by Hobbes
rather than the "right" of individuals.
There lies a fundamental
aporia.
One cannot call for unlimited
toleration without
contradiction.
Should
This content downloaded from 134.53.245.8 on Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:58:25 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
472
ALBERT E. GUNN AND STAFF
we
If one is to answer no, then one is not fuUy
tolerate the intol?rants?
to intoler
tolerant, if one answers yes, then one's tolerance contributes
ance. Thus, tolerance either requires or promotes
intolerance.
Eventu
a functionalist
account has a better answer
ally, it is not clear whether
to this riddle than a Uberal one. Nevertheless,
the
by demonstrating
this book opens promising paths of
broad array of theories of tolerance,
inquiry for political philosophy.?Pascal
Massie, Vanderbilt University.
and Benhabib,
Passerin
and
Maurizio,
d'Entr?ves,
Seyla, eds. Habermas
on The Philo
the Unfinished
Critical
of Modernity:
Project
Essays
Studies in Contemporary
German So
ofModernity.
sophical Discourse
cial Thought.
Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1997. 305 pp. Cloth, $35.00; pa
collection
of ten essays
per, $17.00?This
"by a team of leading
social scientists,
inteUectual historians
and literary crit
philosophers,
ics" (p. 2) aims to critically engage J?rgen Habermas's
critique of post
in The Philosophical
modernism
Discourse
of Modernity
(Cambridge,
Massachusetts:
Polity Press, 1987). Five of the essays have been previ
and Habermas's
essay,
ously published,
"Modernity: An Unfinished
is also reprinted here. The book also contains a very helpful
Project,"
introduction
by Passerin d'Entr?ves, and an index.
we find two power
criticisms
of postmodernism,
Habermas's
Among
to the thought of Derrida,
ful and familiar points, which apply especially
and Lyotard. First, on one reading, postmodernist
Foucault,
thought re
and truth to the "free play" of signification,
and there
duces all meaning
rel
fore plunges us into a kind of irrational chaos. This epistemological
leads to the collapse of the distinction
between
ativism also inevitably
wishes
to re
and Uterature, a distinction which Habermas
ph?osophy
these thinkers are subtly in
tain. Second, on another reading, perhaps
their own theory of truth (or set of metaphysical
claims) and
troducing
are thereby contradicting
because
each is op
themselves,
(officially)
... the belief in transcenden
reason
posed to "oppressive, monological
... a discourse
on false ideas of
tal arguments,
truth claims
premised
In short,
and power" (Christopher
theoretical mastery
Norris, p. 98).
as either relativistic,
or seff-contradic
Habermas
rejects postmodernism
it provides no serious analysis of key concepts,
tory, and also because
and so forth.
namely,
language, speech, meaning,
in one way or
All of the essays attempt to deal with these criticisms
and Heidegger
from
Fred Dallmayr defends Hegel, Nietzsche,
another.
of Habermas's
Habermas's
critique, and then offers a critical assessment
and David
Norris
Christopher
rationality.
theory of communicative
in particular,
from Habermas's
Couzens Hoy attempt to defend Derrida,
includes a fine sum
In an interesting and detailed essay, which
attack.
can es
mary of Foucault's
ideas, James Schmidt argues that Foucault
On Habermas's
cape the many criticisms of Habermas.
charge that Fou
us to relativism,
Schmidt apparently
cault's work condemns
agrees (p.
This content downloaded from 134.53.245.8 on Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:58:25 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions