Friedrich Nietzsche famously asserted that philosophical systems are the projection of the heart's desires. His other prophetic words on the death of God did not prevent the emergence of barbarous "secular theologies" in the blood-soaked 20th century. One wonders how many people will be killed in this century at the command of our new theologians. This impressive collection brings together scholars who take pluralism seriously. The essays are of a consistently high standard and should be accessible to a nonspecialist audience. The collection moves from the philosophical sources of pluralism, through to an exploration of liberalism and finishes with the pressing issue of accommodating pluralism.
The contributions by Maria Baghramian and Philip Pettit are reminders that acknowledging multiple perspectives need not mean an acceptance of relativism. John Gray, correctly I think, views our current problem not as a clash of ideals from personal life but as a conflict between incommensurate ways of life. If we accept strong pluralism, and we need not, then the imposition of another way of life is straightforward coercion. For Gray, the way forward is a compromise which recognises the importance of coexistence given the fact of strong pluralism.
Iseult Honohan argues against the idea that a liberal, or nationalist, or even communitarian state is the way to deal with difference. What is required is the active pursuit of public spaces of expression and deliberation which do not exclude arguments in principle from debate. She does not believe this will negate radical conflict but it will function as an incentive to participate. It would appear from this that an assertive form of deliberative (or perhaps more accurately social) democracy is required.
Will Kymlicka and Raphael Cohen-Almagor explore the issue of ethnocultural minorities in liberal democracies. Here the challenge is to present a defensible theory of group rights. What remains remarkable is the lack of serious theoretical engagement with the treatment of immigrants and national minorities in liberal democratic states.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest a persistent lack of respect for pluralism. The earth is full of the bodies of those killed in the name of particular truths. This army of the dead must, if we are to behave ethically at all, continue to haunt our present and future. There is an ethical imperative to be attentive to the past, even in our absentminded times. To kill the "other" is the strongest denial of difference and effectively ends the social conversation.
As Martha Nussbaum makes plain, we cannot always wait around for a time when everyone will agree and like what we have to say. The struggle to achieve social justice is not rendered redundant simply because pluralism exists. What respect for pluralism does demand is that we commit ourselves to provoking localised participation and dialogue. It is within the contours and constraints of our continuing conversations that rational ways forward will be found. Guidance for our constitutional futures will be discovered in the principles which underpin the acceptance of dialogue as the only ground upon which we all finally stand or fall together. In practice, this means the state, and others, must guarantee the conditions which make effective democratic dialogue possible. This fine book on pluralism is essential reading for all those seeking to reflect on the theoretical problems of realising this complex objective today.
Colin Harvey is Professor of Constitutional and Human Rights Law at the University of Leeds