Difference, Diversity, And the Limits of Toleration : McClure

8/12/2019 Difference, Diversity, And the Limits of Toleration : McClure

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/difference-diversity-and-the-limits-of-toleration-mcclure 1/32

Difference, Diversity, and the Limits of TolerationAuthor(s): Kirstie M. McClureSource: Political Theory, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Aug., 1990), pp. 361-391Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/191593 .

Accessed: 18/08/2013 23:22

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].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 99.0.118.126 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 23:22:50 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

http://www.jstor.org/stable/191593?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/191593?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage



DIFFERENCE, DIVERSITY, AND

THE LIMITS OF TOLERATION

KIRSTIE M. McCLURE

Johns opkins niversity

We haveno patternsor elatingcross urhuman ifferencess equals.

Advocatinghemeretolerancef differenceetweenwomen s thegrossestreformism....Differences ust e notmerely olerated,ut eenas a fund fnecessaryolarities....

-Audre Lorde

T HERE IS A FAMILIARSTORY about heprinciplendpractice f

toleration,nethat igureshe eventeenth-centurymergencef religiousfreedoms the riginary omentna historical arrativef iberalustice.From herecent residentialnauguralo thework fprominentocial andpolitical heorists,olerationnd theconventionalarrativen which t isembedded asbeen ncreasinglyoregroundeds a central ndsignificantelement f ontemporaryolitical nderstanding.orJohn awls, olerationappearss oneof he settled onvictions'fWestemulture hich nderpinsthe iberalnotion f justice s fairness.'n MichaelWalzer's galitarian

pluralistritiqueftraditionaliberalism,tprovidesnexemplarynstanceoftheart f eparation' ecessaryothemaintenancef spheresfustice'that emarcatevarietyfdistinctocialpractices. olerationsthematizedin an equally entral osition y Richard orty, ho notonly ocates he"moralworth" f"bourgeoisiberal ulture"n ts tolerance f diversity,"butgoes on to identifyhe "heroes" f that ulture s thosewhohave"enlargedts apacity or ympathyndtolerance."2

AUTHOR'SNOTE: Research orthis rticlewassupported y fellowshipt thePembrokeCenter or Teachingnd Research n Women,rownUniversity.would ike to thankhemembersfthePembroke eminar1989-90), s well as BonnieHonig, ortheir houghtfulresponseso n earlier raft f he rgument.

POLITICALTHEORY,Vol.18No.3, August 990 361-391C)1990Sage Publications,nc.

361







362 POLITICAL THEORY/AUGUST 1990

Amidst hisgeneral horus fapprobation,owever,ery ittle riticalattentionasbeendirectedothe oliticalmeaningnd pecificityftolera-

tiontself.3ndeed,n heworks oted ere,he heoreticalalue nd ulturalvalenceof tolerations notonlytaken s givenbut s presumedo besufficientlyecure stoprovidehemoral quivalentf stabletartingointfor olitical eflectionnthese ostmodern,ostfoundationalays f heatetwentiethentury.heapparentritical isinterestn he oliticsf olerationbecomesmore heoreticallyngaging, owever,n light f claimswithincontemporaryeminism,uch as theepigraphs hich penedthis ssay,chosen romwo ssaysbyself-identifiedlack, esbian, eministoet nd

literaryritic, udre orde. freligiousoleration,y mplication,ails oprovide pattemfor elatingcross urhuman ifferencessequals," nd,indeed,f tolerance fdifference"an beunderstoods gross eformism,then erhaps here s somethingfootncontemporarymerican oliticalculture hat alls for criticaleconsiderationf the uestion ftoleration.It s this hat hepresentssayhopes o nitiate,ycalling ttentionowhatappears ome to be a notable acuna nmost ontemporaryreatmentsftoleration:hehistoricaloincidencef ts mergence ith hemore r esssimultaneousevelopmentn seventeenth-centuryuropeofthemodemstate ndempiricistpistemology.

.

Perhapshebestway tobegin swith simple uestionfconventional

meaning:Whats this olerationhats soeasily aken s a settledonvictionorexemplaryrinciplefWesternolitics? heOxfordnglish ictionary(OED) offers numberfdefinitionsf the erm,hreefwhich ppear obeparticularlyelevant.irst,t s"the ction f llowing; ermissionrantedby uthority;license o ctions,ractices,rconscience."econd, t s "theallowance,with rwithoutimitations,ytheruling ower f the xerciseofreligiontherwisehannthe ormfficiallystablishedrrecognized."Finally,ndmost roadly,t s the action f llowingr oleratinghat hich

isnot ctuallypproved;orbearance;ufferance."onsideredn he ontextofdemocraticocial andpoliticalnstitutions,wospecificf nterrelatedaspects ftolerationan bedelineateds politicallyignificant.irst,tcanbeseen s amatterfpolicy,hats, sanofficialtance nthe artfpoliticalauthorityithregard osomeparticularomain factions, ractices,rbeliefs.econd, hough,nd mplicitnthe roaderonnotation,tmightlsobeunderstoodsa socialvirtue,hats, sanelementfwhatmight ecalled







McClure THE LIMITS OF TOLERATION 363

a political r ivic ulture.hus, s theOED continues,o olerateomethingis to allow tto exist, rbe doneorpracticed, ithoututhoritativenterfer-

ence; to adopt n official olicy fneutralityith egardo t;and t s toexpress socialvirtue,tobear omethingithoutepugnance,"o allow t"intellectuallyr in taste, entiment,r principle,"r,more ointedlyer-haps, to putup with t."

Tolerationo understoodasnever eenwithoutts ritics,s ithasneverbeen withouttsdefenders. odern riticism, owever, asgenerallyt-temptedodefinets imits r establishtsboundariesn substantiveerms,to indicate hedividingine between uchactions, ractices,r beliefs s

wereproper bjects f tolerationnd thosewhichwerenot.Discussion fthe imits ftolerationn these erms entersrincipallyndistinguishingbetween he tolerable nd the ntolerable,rawing line of separationbetween hose hingshatustly eserve obebornewithoutepugnancendthosewhich, or nereason ranother,re notworthyftoleration,hingstowhich he tate ouldnot ustain policy fneutralityndtoward hichthe ocialvirtue ftolerationhould e seen s inappropriater mpossible.4

To open, hen, ith brieftatementfpurpose,would ike odistinguishtheperspectiveeveloped erefrom hismore onventionalormf criti-cism.My aim is not to question heappropriatenessr desirabilityftolerationnsubstantiveerms rparticularasesbutratheroconsidertsmeaningnd ssess ts dequacyntheoreticalermsnthehistoricalerrainof iberal olitical iscourse.hopenot osaywhere olerationhould ndby specifyinghe ntolerable ut rather o highlighthe contours f thediscursiveramewithin hich oleration akes ense, nd to suggest heconceptual oundaries f that rame, oundaries eyondwhich olerationappears oreclosedssenseless,s non-sense,nboth rinciplendpractice.I willnot, hen,dentifyarticularhingshat rebeyond he aleof olerationbut nsteadryo shed ome ight n the dgesofthediscursive ield crosswhich uchquestions rise n the irst lace, s well as suggest omeoftheimplicationsfthisnthe ontext fcontemporaryolitical nd theoreticalcontroversy.

What sinquestion ere,n hort,s the oliticalmeaningnd pecificityoftoleration,oth s a socialvirtuend s state olicy.Having riefly otedsomecontemporaryxpressionsf the tandard iewofreligiousiberty,perhaps critical erspectiven thestorymight ruitfullyeginwithquestion uggested yJohn awls'spresentationfthe ssue. n hisongoingelaborationf justice s fairness,'olerationppears ot nly s thehistor-icallynotable olution o thereligious arsof earlymodern urope ut stheparadigmaticolitical rincipleor socialconditionharacterizedy a








"diversityfdoctrines"nda "pluralityfconflictingnd.. incommensu-rable onceptionsf thegoodaffirmedythemembersfexisting emo-

craticocieties."5nA Theory fJustice,hepoint akes he ollowingorm:

Thequestionf qual ibertyfconsciences settled.t sone ofthe ixed ointsnourconsideredudgmentsfustice. utpreciselyecause f his actt llustrateshe atureofthe rgumentor heprinciplefequal liberty.he reasoningnthis ase canbegeneralizedoapply oother reedoms.6

The "intuitivedea"here, s Rawlsnotes,s to"generalizeheprinciplef

religiousolerationo socialform,herebyrrivingt qual ibertynpublicinstitutions."7Inthis ssay, shall ake ssuenotwith heustice freligiousoleration

per e butwith he dea that hereasoning hich nderliest snecessarilyaspoliticallyenigns itmighteem nd, urther,hatt anbequite oeasilygeneralizedeyond he ealm freligious reedom. ore pecifically,hatI propose oquestionsboth hepresumedoliticalnnocenceftolerationin the context f the moderntate nd thesuggestionhat ts historical

'success' inthecontext fcompetingeligious laims annecessarilyeextendeds a politicalmodel or social onditionharacterizedy onflict-ing ecular onceptionsf thegood. To givesubstanceothese bjectionsandalsotogive ome ontentlong hewaytothe istinctionmpliednthetitle etweendifference'nd diversity,'shalldevote he ulk f he ssaytoa considerationfthe uestionf tolerations it sposed nthework fJohn ocke.

InturningoLocke's textswould ike oofferhe ossibilityf rather

differenteading f thepolitics f tolerationhan hat dvancedby theconventional arrative. oreprecisely, will suggest hat olerationnLocke's various ssays operates eitherimply s a matterf faith ornarrowlys a matterfpolicy, or uite oclearlys a reasonableemarca-tionofprivateibertiesecured rom oliticalnterference.ather,willsuggest hat olerationn his ontextignifiesomething orend therhananethical ormr socialvirtue,omething ore ndother han politicalexclusion ndthedelineationf a realm factivityoward hich he tate

must tand nstrict eutrality.ndeed, t sthese hings, ut t salso, willargue, omethinglse.Here, willprovisionallypecify his somethingelse,'this xcessofmeaning,s a distinctiveoliticalogicor, ndifferentterms,s the epresentationf political ositivityandonewhich, ar rombeing ontainedythepolitical nddiscursiveontextfthe eventeenthcentury,arries strongnd, s I willsuggest nthe losing ection fthe







McClure THE LIMITSOFTOLERATION 365

essay, olitically roblematicesonance ithinignificantreasofcontem-porary olitical ebate.

1 .

Locke'snumerouseflectionsn the uestionftolerationaveprovidedample rist or he nterprctiveills ftwentieth-centurycademic oliticaltheory,articularlyn light fthefact hathis now-canonicalefense f

tolerationnthe ettcrf 1689wasprecededome wenty-fiveears arlierbytwounequivocal,funpublished,ffirmationsfthemagistrate'sightfulpower o determineheforms nd ceremonies freligious ractice.8uchdisparateonclusionsave hallengedmanymodernnterpretersoprovidesome ccount fhowtheyoung ocke,variouslyescribed s 'absolutist,''authoritarian,'r conservative,'evelopednto hemore amiliarmature,'tolerant,liberal'Lockeof the1680s and1690s.Typicallyramedntermsofdoctrinalhiftsr ntellectualiography,hese ccounts ot nly enerally

fall hortf criticalpproachothe oliticalmeaningftolerationut akelittle ote fthediscursiveimits ndepistemologicalrounds ftolerationexplicitlydvancedn he extshemselves,t east sthese eflectnLocke'sarticulationf state ower.9o begin oglimpse hepoliticalpecificityftolerationn thiscontext, rather ifferentpproach o the questionsnecessary.

Most mportant,t sessential oresist he erspectivef culturehat aslargely ccepted he rinciplefreligious olerations wellas its ccompa-

nying endencyo cast theoperative ynamic f earlymodemreligiousconflictetrospectivelys one of"intolerance."ntheoreticalerms,olera-tion s no more he solution' othe problem' f ntolerancehan ealth sthe solution' o the problem' fdisease or peace is the solution' othe'problem'fwar.neachexample, hat s taken obe a positive rdesirablestate f ffairss uxtaposed gainstts pposite,ts bsence rnegation;uta focus n the ogical ppositionlone erves nly oobscure he iscursiveconstructionfthebinarytself.ndeed, n discursiveerms,t s only rom

inside he tandpointftolerationhathe ectarianonflictsf arlymodemEurope anappear s intolerance;nd eventeenth-centuryecular efensesoftolerationave to be understood,irstf all, as devoted oprovidingprecisclyhis tandpointf nterpretation.ttheir wnpoint f nunciation,however,heywcre nterventionsnto discursiveerraincrosswhichuchcontroversiesad ong ndvociferouslyeen articulatedromwithineli-







366 POLITICALTHEORY/AUGUST 1990

gious perspectivess 'warsoftruth."'Given his errain,hepolitical nddiscursiveask facedby advocatesof toleration as to find way to

characterize,oredescribe,he takes f these onflictsrom purelyivilorpolitical erspective.hat s,their heoreticalask t theoutsetwas toarticulate point f view fromwhich ompetingnd incommensurablevisions f religious ractice ould be seennot s conflictingruthlaimsrequiringllegiancenddefense,ut atherspoliticallyndifferentattersofprivateelief.

It s n he ontextfthis iscursiveask hat ocke'searly ssays eservemore eriousheoreticalttentionhan hey avegenerallyeceived, artic-

ularlyn relationo theposition orwardedn hissubsequent orks.Mostimportant,nd thinknadequatelyaptured ythebiographicalnddoc-trinal ccounts oted arlier ere,s the xtent owhich he arly racts,oless than he ater etters,esolutelyefuse o accommodatehepositiveclaimsof thereligious erspective.n bothcases,notonlyareLocke'sdivergentolicypositions efended s legitimateoliticalmeans o socialpeace,but heir rgumentsre forwardednemphaticallyecular nd civilterms.he1660 ustificationf mposederemonies,nother ords, o essthanthesubsequent efense f toleration,eploys central istinctionbetween he his-worldlyoncern or ivilorder ndthe ther-worldlyarefor he alvation f souls. n the arlywork, o be sure, hisdistinctionsarticulatednaformhat indicatesuch mpositionsa rightfulivilpower;but tdoes obymakingt matterf hemagistrate'siscretionaryuthorityoverthings indifferent"osalvation, constructionhatnmoremodemterminologyeaves he tate's olicy ptions pen, s twere, ithero mposeconformityr to toleratelternativeeligious ractices,s itfindsmostconduciveo public rder."

Locke's early osition,hen,snot hat iverse eligious racticesre, nprinciple,ntolerableutratherhathe ption f mpositionrtolerationsitself matterfrightfulovernmentalrerogative.he ssue s constructedas a purely olitical uestion romhe utset nd one which hemagistratehas no obligation,nprinciple,ither roadly r narrowlyonceived, odecide nanyparticular ay.Bycontrast,he aterworks efend olerationas a broad, utby no means nqualified, agisterialuty nd one which squite xplicitlyircumscribed.nparticular,he imits fpermittedracticearedescribedhroughn extendedresentationf he ivil nd pistemolog-icalgroundsor istinguishingetweenhis-worldlyattersroperlyubjecttocivil urisdictionndappropriatelyther-worldlyeligious oncerns.12nlight fsuchconsiderations,hatneedsto be accounted or n thepolicyshift etween he arly nd atetexts s perhaps ess why he ame author







McClure THE LIMITS OFTOLERATION 367

might avemoved romuthoritarianismo iberalismhant s how he exts'civildiscoursentolerationransformedhe ssuefrom matterfpolitical

prerogative,hat s,fromdiscretionaryightttributedocivilgovernment,into broad utnonethelessery pecificallyircumscribedutyn the artof he tate. y pursuinghis uestionn omedetail, e canbegin oglimpsethe istinctiveharacterf he oliticsf olerations well stheir iscursivelimitsnrelationo state ower.

Ill.

TheRestorationebate ver theGreatQuestion" freligiousolerationturned n the xtent,haracter,ndgroundf themagistrate'suthorityodeterminediaphoraor "indifferenthings."'I3 stapleof Reformationpolitical ontroversy,he xpression eferredo a domain f humanctionsthatwereneitherommanded or rohibitedyScripture,ctionshatwere,intheterminologyf theperiod, indifferent"atherhan necessary"o

salvation. heScriptures,ornstance,ommandedheworshipfGod ustas they orbadeheft;oberemissntheformerbligationrtoviolate helatter as to chalkup a sinonone'sheavenlyccount, moralwrong orwhich newasultimatelyccountableoGod's udgment.eft ree, owever,and indifferent"ecauseundeterminedyBiblical njunctionsbearingnsalvation, ere host fsocialpracticesmbeddednordinaryife:what oplant, at,drink,rwear;howto raise hildren,ispose fwaste, onstructcities,ndthe ike. cripture,hough, asambiguousn the uestionfust

how he ommand oworship odwas to befulfilled,ndreligiousonflictintheperiodwas articulatednterms fsignificantndwidespreadontro-versy vera numberfdifferentnterpretationsf what hismight ntail.Whethertwas tobedone tandingrkneeling,nplain arb r n urplices,with rwithoutomeversion f church ierarchy,ach ofthese s well asothereremonial attersere he tufffconflictingnterpretationsfwhatreally leasedGod;alternativeshich, ifferentiallyombined,ecombined,andordered,iterallyonstitutedifferentracticesfworship mong ari-

ousreligious rofessions.Inthis ontext,ocke'sdefense f mposed eremonies as, nthewhole,a conventionalxpressionfAnglican rthodoxy.'4he keystonef thatposition,ut nassumptionommonothemajor articipantsnthe ebate,was the resumptionf n objectivemoral ierarchy,rderedy aw,withinwhich ach evel f tipulatedommandsndprohibitionsperatedoframe







368 POLITICALTHEORY /AUGUST1990

a subset f "indifferent"ctswhich nturn rovidedhefield foperationfor henext ower evelof egislation. s Locke'ssecondTract osesthe

matter:

[A]llthe hingshat re ndifferento far s a higheraw s concernedre he bjectsndmatterfa lower,ndthe uthorityfthe ndividualrevailsn all mattersotwhollyprescribedy uperioraw.... Forwhere he ivine awsetsbounds o ts ction,heretheauthorityf themagistrateegins, nd whatever s classed indeterminatendindifferento thataw ssubordinateo the ivilpower.

Filling utthisperspective,ndagaincentral o the defense fimposedceremonies, as a very pecific onstructionfreligiousnecessity,"ne

that mphasizedhedispositionf themind o faith atherhan he ctionsofthebody nthepracticefparticulareremonies.ivineworshipnthisviewconsistedn"that nnerworshipf theheartwhichGoddemands."'6Although ecessarilyxpressed y theoutwardctions fthebody, heselatter ereby definitionubject tothediscretionfthemagistrate"o be"inwhatever ay oever njoineds heshouldudgebest nthe ight fthe

times nd the ustoms fthepeople, nd as theneeds fthe hurchhoulddemand."'7 husarticulatedround ratheriteral eparationf mind ndbody,piritualapacityndworldlyction,mposed eremonies ere eentorequiremere odily cts.Theydid notrequire ne toembracehem snecessaryo alvationnd,ndeed, eednot eunderstoodnreligiousermsat all, fortheywerestipulated otas articles f faith r necessarynthemselvesutas civilcommandsonvenientosocialorder. n this c-count,nsum,noone's final atewasaffectedymere utwardonformity

to imposed racticend,given hePauline njunctionoobeythehigherpowers,his ould venbeseenas itselfulfillingmoral uty.Within hisconstruction,owever,t is importanto note thatwhile

impositionppears s a rightfulivilpower,s a matterfdiscretiontwasbut nepolicy ptionmong thers.With he uestionast soneofpoliticalprudence atherhan eligious uty ndfocused n actions hatwere nthemselvesindifferent,"articularolitical uthorities ight hoosetoimpose trictonformity.ut heymightust s legitimatelyptforatitudi-

narian omprehensionf a rangeof acceptable eremoniesr,indeed,commandolerationfa diverse ange freligious ractices,ependingnthemagistrate'sudgmentfwhat est onducedopublic rder. rom hisstandpoint,urther,t sperfectlyonceivable oupholdmpositions bothjustifiablendprudents a matterfpolicy nd imultaneouslyoacknowl-edgethe esirabilityf olerations a socialvirtue. nd his,ndeed,ppears








to approximate ocke's own position, or hortlyefore omposing isdefense f mposition,eallowed n a privateetterhat naccount f "the

testimonyfdaily xperience"nother ations ould demonstratehatmenofdifferentrofessions ay . . unanimouslyarryhe amecivil nterestandhandnhandmarchothe ame ndofpeaceandmutualociety houghthey ake ifferentays oheaven."'8

The apparentension ere etweenwhatwas seen as politically rudentand whatwas viewed s socially esirable houldnot,however,imply edismisseds anotherfLocke'soft-notedonfusions.ather,t s drivenyan elaboratelyheorizedbjection othe rgumentsdvancedgainstmpo-

sition ythosewho dvocated olerationn the cripturalroundf libertyof conscience.' nd t s here hat ocke'sexpressionf thedominantivildiscoursen"indifferenthings"ot nly rojectshemage f tsdiscursiveother ut, nso doing, an be understoodo frame reciselyhepoliticalproblematichat issubsequentefense f tolerationroceededo address.Here, the often cknowledged ut little xplored extual actthat venLocke's later etters efusedhe libertyfconscience' s suchprovideswindow n a significanthiftnearlymodem olitical iscourse, window

that ot nlydiscloses hediscursiveimits ndspecificityf religious ol-eration, ut fferss well a viewof ts ntimateheoreticalmbricationiththeriseof the tate nd the mergencefempiricistpistemology.nthiscontext,criticalereadingfthe elationshipetween ocke's clearrejec-tion ftheprinciplef libertyfconscience' ndhisequally leardefenseof tsmeasured xpressionnpractice uggests ratherifferentccount fthe olitics f tolerationhan hat fferedythe onventionalarrative.

[V

Therejectionf theprinciplefconsciencenLocke's Tracts mergesfromheirffirmationf he ominantonstructionf indifferency,"hich,as we have een,definedllthings eitherxpresslyequired or xpresslyprohibited y Scriptures propermattersf civil urisdiction.n light f

this, ecause articulareremoniesrenowheretipulatedyGod'srule,ikeany ther utwardodily cts, heyrebydefinitionssubjectocivil oweras anythinglseleft ndeterminedyScripture,uch s taxes, rban rchi-tecture,griculturalmprovements,nd he ike. n this iew, rdereds it sbythe ssumptionfanobjective ierarchyf Divineand civil aw,com-binedwith strictlyarallel ssertionfthemind-bodyistinction,heres







370 POLITICALTHEORY/AUGUST1990

noway to distinguishetweeneligiousndcivil indifferency,"ndhencenowayto differentiateetween eligiousndcivil cts.As Locke'ssecond

Tract uts t:

[A]sthe ndifferencyf all thingssexactlyhe ame... , the nly ifferenceeingntheway heyreviewed, hereeing ogreateristinctionhan heres between gownworn n themarket-placendthe elf-sameownworn nchurch,t s clearthat hemagistrate'suthoritymbraceshe netype f ndifferenthingss much s the ther.19

From hisperspective,rgumentsemandingolerationor nyparticular

ceremony,nyparticularosturerdispositionf he ody,n the roundfconscienceimplymadenosense, incewithinhe ieredtructuref aw,noseparation etween cts of purely eligious oncem and thoseproperlysubject o civilpower ould be made, nd theauthorityf the ndividualbecame perationalnly fterhe igherevels f heurisdictionalierarchyhadsettled heirommands.

Inthis ontext,he uestionf libertyf onscience' resentedwo atherdifferentorts fdilemmas: neaddressedormallys a matterfprinciple

and the ther rameds observationsbout tspoliticalmplicationsrawnfromecenteligious iscoursend ocialpractice. efined ntheTractss"nothingut n opinion fthe ruthf nypracticalroposition,hichmayconcernny ctions s well moral s religious,ivilas well as ecclesiasti-cal,"20 onsciencewas representeds a fearfullylippery lope andonewhich,f cceptedsagroundodeny ivilurisdictionver ny indifferentthings," ouldnecessarilyunctionodeny t ver ll of hem,neffect,veranybodily actionwhatsoever. onstrued s synonymous ith private

judgment,"onscienceresentedformfradicalubjectivityhich,f eftits wn way,ould seasily laim nconscientiousrounds ot opay axesas itcould laim xception rom he eremoniesfthe stablishedhurch.21Hence,given he ubjection fthebody ocivilpower nd thediscursiveimpossibilityfdifferentiatingivilfrom eligious cts, ogrant oliticalexemption o consciencen principle as to forward he ndividual otsimplysthe inaludgeof he roprietyfreligiousracticeut s the inaljudgeofcivil aw andpolitical ractice s well.From hedominantivil

perspectiven the ssue, he ppealto liberty fconscience' ntailed hesubversionfthe ntire ierarchyf aw.Toadopt ton principle asthus,onLocke'saccount,

to overturnhe rder fthings . ,to establish ot rder ndgovernmentn theworldbut narchy,ndto ownno otheregislatorut hemeanestndmostgnorant emberofthemob.... [I]f hiss oncegranted,iscipline illbeeverywheretanend, ll aw








will collapse, ll authorityill vanish rom he arth nd . each wouldbe his ownLawmakernd hisownGod.22

In addition, owever,o thisformal ejection f theprinciple f con-science, ocke's arly exts lsogestureowardts ontemporaryxpressionsinsocialpractice;t s nthis ontexthatwhat shall eferoasthe ilemmaof "difference"merges s theproblematicther o the dominantivildiscoursenthe uestion freligiousoleration.23ere, refer o a figurethat oth pensLocke's Tractsndhauntsheirmargins, figurehat owand again ntrudesecisivelynto heirmeasuredrgumentsn "indiffer-

cncy."Emblematic f thedanger o civil order resented y 'libertyfconscience's the ecurrentmage f he zealouspartisans"omprisingtheseveral ands fSaints," ach convinced fthe ruthftheir wnpractice,whosemutual onflictnd uspicionccasionedwhat ockereferso s the"conscientiousisorders"frecentxperience.24ntheirresence,indiffer-ency"wasa "provocativeuestion"roundwhich,nLocke's characteriza-tion, deeds lmost lways ollowwords,"ndonewhich is hardlyaisedinpublic ut s attendedy train f smany iolent cts s there repoints

ofview."25 hedifficultyere snot generallyessimisticiewof humannature' ut rather ore recise epresentationfthe otentialor iolenceperceived s endemicwhere he conviction f conscience onvertedheScripturalndeterminacyf indifferenthings"nto self-confidencentherighteousnessf specific ractices fworship.There s," Locke observes,"noaction o indifferenthich scrupulousonscience illnot etchnwithsomeconsequence rom cripturend makeof Spiritual oncernment."26And nEngland ithin ecentmemory,uch hingss"meats ndhabits" nd

"times ndplaceofworship"adofferedsufficientccasion fhatredsndquarrels"ndprovideddistinctionsbletokeepusalways t distance,ndeagerly eady or .. violence ndcrueltys often s teachershould larmthe onsciencesftheir ealousvotariesnddirecthemgainsthe dverse

party."27

This s somethinguitedifferentrom hefear f radicalndividualismthatmarked ocke'sformalreatmentftheprinciplefconscience, or hethreatfviolence esides ot implyn he ubjectivityf privateudgment"

but n tsworldly rticulationnto onflicting,ncommensurable,nd oftenmutuallyxclusive isions freligiousdentityn thepart f a widerangeofprofessions.28ere, onscientiousonvictionfthe ruthndrectitudefspecific eligious racticess itself heproblem,or t marks relationshipto the uestion f"indifferency"hat,nLocke'sview, does notpermitfcalmorpassive istenersut nspires,ncites ndarms hem,nd ets hem,bitternd incensed, gainst ne another."29n this ontext,he zealous'







372 POLITICAL THEORY/AUGUST1990

partisans'laims oconsciencereembeddedn a discourse ithin hichwords nddeedsare nextricablyound ogether,ndthe ntimacyftheir

associationignals hedisruptionf theparallelhierarchieshat rameheconventionalivildiscoursen"indifferency."ost ignificant,uch laimsappear s thethreateningutside,hedestabilizingther,o Locke'sowndeploymentf themind-bodyistinctiono activate aralleldiscursiveseparationsetweenhoughtnd ction, ivine nd ivil bligation,eligiousfaithndpolitical bedience. nd t s this haracteristicfconsciencehatfrom ocke'sperspective ade policy ftoleration,oweveraudable rsuccessfullsewhere,mprudentmong people who re pt oudge veryother xercise ofreligion]s an affrontotheirs,"ndwho,considering"both he ersonsndpracticesfotherss condemnedyGodalready,"re"ready o takecommissionrom heir wnzeal to be their xecutioners,and . . thinkhey oGodgoodservice."30

The discursiveite where his inkage fwords nd deedswas mostexplicitnthe eriod ell nder he echnicalescriptionf scandal," termwhichnot nlyreferredo civil ibelandoffensiveehaviorngeneral utfunctioned ithin eligious iscourse n a very pecific elation o theoperationfconscience.nthe atterontext,ndcentralo the ontroversyover indifferency,"he ermpplied o"conduct n thepart f a religiousperson hat roughtiscreditponreligion" r tothe perplexityfcon-scienceoccasionedby theconduct f one whowas lookedup to as anexample,"nddescribeds well somethinghat indershe eceptionf hefaith robedience oDivine aw;anoccasionfor nbelief rmoral apse;a stumblinglock."3'Notwithstandingocke's conventionallyejorativecharacterizationfreligiousonflict,nthe ontextfvariousnterpretationsofwhatwas scandalous' ot nly etween hedifferentissentingects utonthepart fscrupulousmembers ftheAnglican ommuniontself,hedilemma epointedowas agenuinene:from he erspectivefthosewhobelievednconsciencehatheir wnpracticeleasedGodbest, lternativepracticesmight ellbeseenas 'scandalous,' ffensiveoGod, nd nneedof orrectiony nymeans ossible estweaker rethren'ecome onfusedorstumbleyadoptingheirxample.

It is,as I suggestedmuch arlier,asyenough romhedistance fthepresentoconstrueuchbehaviors 'intolerance.'uttounderstandhe

politicalpecificityftoleration,thinkbettererms"difference,"termthatnseventeenth-centurynglishtill etainedhe races f ts tymolog-icalroots nMedievalFrench,perating ot nly s a noun ut s a verb swell.Thus"todifference"hings as "toperceive rmark hedifference"between hem inthemind r inspeech,"whiletheresultantounform








referredo a "discriminationr distinctioniewedas conceived y thesubjectrather han s existingn objects."32 ontemporarysageretains

somethingf he lavorf his nthe hrase making difference,"ywhichwe typicallyesignateomethinghat eadsus todistinguishetweenhingsor choices hat,n itsabsence, ppear ndifferent,nterchangeable,r un-marked. omethinghat makes difference"nthis ense s a considerationthatingles ut ny ne of numberf lternativessprivilegedrdesirableby specifyingomethingeculiar o t nrelationo a criterionf udgmentthat s at once eparable rom he escriptionsfthe bjects hemselvesndproductivef objective' ifferencesetween hem. or nstance,he hoice

to take ither planeor a bus from oston oCaliforniamay ypicallyumon considerationsftime rmoney,utno enumerationf thematerialsrcapacitiesf irplanesndbuses ssufficientn tselfodeterminehe hoicebetween hem. nd, fcourse, omethinghatmakes difference"yac-cording riorityoone alternativey pecifyingomethingeculiaro tne-cessarilymarksts thers ith he bsence r nsufficiencyfthis haracter-istic, ndhence imultaneouslyndbydefinitioneprivilegests ltematives.

From heperspectiveftheudging ubject,uch differencing'stab-

lishes,nshort, hierarchicalelation etween hings,ut hierarchyhat,while n a sense objective,' illbe persuasive nly o such therss concurwith heprinciple f differenceeployedntheparticularase. For thoseshort n time nd ong nmoney,he peed fair ravelmay e the ecisivefactor, hilefor therswith mple imebut ittlemoney, conomymightserve o ettle hematteruite ifferently.heexample oubtlessppears nitsfacefar emoved romolitical ontroversy,nd tmay eemdifficultoimagine vitriolicrgumentverwhich ort f ravel as the right' ne. f,however, e weretothink fourhypotheticalhoosers ot ndependentlyas autonomousreferencerderers utrelationallys social subjects,somewhatifferenticturemightmerge.t s, think, ardlynconceivablethatooking utthewindows f theirhosen ransporto a distant limpseofthe ther,heymightnderstandheir elative ositionsn very ifferentterms:ity, ride,rcomplacentomfort,n onehand, erhaps; esignation,resentment,renvy, nthe ther. ut neitherase,dependingn the xtenttowhich lassantagonismsavebeen rticulated,heir espective odes f'differencing'aywellbe significantlyraught ith oliticalmeaning.

Tobring his obear n the ebate ver eligiousmposition,onsiderheimmense apbetweenocke's rticulationf he ominantultural erspec-tive nd thediscursive rame f the onscientiouseliever.Withinocke'sconstructionf he uestion,laims f onscienceperatedspurelyubjec-tiveudgments,s mere pinionshatmistakenlyeployed nodd ssortment








ofScripturaleferencessconsiderationso difference'etweenhingshatwere nthemselvesindifferent."rom he tandpointfthe onscientious

memberf anyparticulareligiousommunity,owever,t was preciselythese onsiderations,arrantedn theirudgmenty Scripturalnference,that ot nly istinguishedheir wnpracticesrighteousut imultaneouslymarked he ritual bservancesfothers s inferior,ndeed, or ome, srepugnantnthe yesofGod. Understoodnthese erms,hisdifferencing'onthe art f he onscientiousasnot imply matterf ttitudesrbeliefsbutoperated athers whatwe todaymight nderstands identity. hereconsciencemakes he ifference'etween he ighteousnd he orrupt,he'difference'nformingractice asprecisely hatmarkedhemembersfone's own hurchs membersf godly ommunity,devoutndrighteouscommunion,ncomparisonithwhich llother eligious racticesouldbeseen, tbest, snecessarilyrroneousnd, tworst,sscandalouslyorrupt.

In ight fthis, series fmore eneralbservationsre norder. irst,tshould e apparenthat he onvergenceetween laims fconscience ndjudgmentsf candal rameddiscoursehat,romhe ivil erspective,asdoubly roblematic.nonehand,mpositionf eremonies asbynomeansnecessarilyoreclosed;ut or uch smightountenancempositiontwas,ofcourse,nly heir wnpracticehatmight erequired.quallymportant,however,rom omeof these eligious erspectives,oleration asnot noption, ither,twas notsimply practical,ut a moral nd cognitiveimpossibility.rom he standpointf thescrupulouslyonscientious,oallowalternativeeremony as notonlyto acceptungodly ractice, oacquiesce nscandal; tmarked newho could viewwithoutepugnance'differentractices fworship,ncludinghemagistrate,s demonstratinglapse offaithrweakness fconvictionn the ruthftheir wnpractice.Viewedbothhistoricallynd nmore heoreticalerms,his onjuncturefconscience ndscandal nthereligious iscourse f theperiod onfrontedattemptsoframepurelyivilperspectiven the uestionf"indifferency"withwhatmightetermedhe double-bindfdifference."he crux fthematter,ndoneexplicitlyresenteds an insoluble olitical ilemma nLocke'searly exts, as that othmpositionndtolerationerebound o

be viewed s scandalous ytheconscientious embers fone oranotherreligiousommunion.ndgiven he ange f cruplesnthematter,sLockenotes isparagingly,hemagistratewillfind t mpossible ot ooffend,ndburden great art, omebeing s conscientiouslyarnest or onformitysothers or iberty,nd a law fortoleration ould as muchoffendheirconsciencess of imitationthers."33headoption f itherolicy,n hort,"willnotremovehe ffense,"ut only astthe candal nthe ther ide








anddisturbhe eaceof he ontraryersuasion."34twas a contextnwhichtheneutralityf awwasquite mpossible.

This attributionfthepotentialntimacyf wordsand deeds' in theoperationfconscience uggestswothings:t evokesthecontoursf areligious iscoursewithin hich oleration as forecloseds anoptionnboth rinciplendpractice,nd tdisplayshe imits f he onventionalivilperspectiven the uestionn thefaceof the double-bindf difference."Read nconjunctionith is arly ssays, ocke's ubsequentiscussionftolerationan beunderstoodoforegroundn alternativeerspectiventheissue,one whichprovides response ohisown earlier emand hat he

defendersf tolerationroduce omewayofdistinguishingetween eli-gious ndpolitical indifferency."35nso doing, ocke's aterextsonstitutea newaxisof distinctivelyolitical udgment,ne that efusesodispensewith hehierarchyf aw,yetmanages onethelesso stake ut nemphati-cally worldly ather hanScripturalriterion ordifferentiatingetweenbodily acts properly ubject o civil powerand thoseexempt rom tsauthoritativeetermination.t s a perspective,s we shall ee,thatmanagestoopen ivildiscourse osome laims fconscience tthe ame ime hat t

endows ivil uthorityith oth he ightnd he pistemologicalroundodistinguishetweenuch onscientiousinkagesf words nddeeds" s areappropriateorldly xpressionsfa concem or alvation,nd hus it obetolerated,nd hosewhich ouldbe understoods injuriousocivil rder ndhenceustly xcluded rom ublic xpression.

V

Widely ecognizeds one of the entral lements nderpinningocke'sseparationfreligionndpoliticss theuncertaintyf human nowledgeregardingeligious ruth.ess commonly oted, owever,s the ther ideofthis pistemologicaloin, hats, ts ositive rticulationf heknowledgeproper o worldly owers. Particularmatters f fact,"Locke observeselsewhere, retheundoubted oundationsn which ur civil and natural

knowledges built;" ndthis pecificationftheground fcivilknowledgeoperatess anequally ivotal lementnthe eciprocalxclusion fpoliticsandreligion rommutual etermination.36oth constructsre intimatelyrelated, or thatdesignation f properly ivil knowledge ntersectsndcombines ith he resentationf ognitive eficiencyn mattersfreligiontoframe distinctiveolitical iscourse or heemergenttate. arlier,referredothis sapoliticalogic rpositivitytructuringocke'sdiscussion








of toleration,nd as we turno his aterwork,twill perhaps e helpfulocharacterizehismore recisely.

Recalling he eventeenth-centuryenteringf he uestionnthe ebateover indifferenthings,"want o uggesthat ocke'sdefense f olerationcan be understoods assertingheprimacy f facticityo effect civilreversal f the processof conscientiousdifferencing'escribedn theprevious ection, nd that tspoliticalpositivity ight est be seen asunmakinghatdifference.'n thefaceof conscientiousonsiderationshatorderlternativeeligious ractices ierarchically,ocke'sdefense ftoler-ationforwards cognitiveecularground or eveling uchdifferences,

specifically y deployinghecategoriesfempiricistpistemologys thesource fa new and distinctivedifference'hat rivileges factual ivildiscourse ver tsScripturallyramedheologicalther. o putthepointanotherway, Locke's Letter dvances a way of convertingectarian'differences'nreligiousmattersntodiversity,'y constitutingrealm fcivilfacticityodissolve hosehierarchicalnd ntrinsicallyelationalon-scientiousdifferences'freligious racticento quivalentnd ndependent,thats to ay, eparate,qual, nddiverse,lternativeeligiousommunities.The difference,'notherwords, etween errestrialreality' nd specula-tion,' etweenfact' nd fiction,'tthe ore fempiricisms offeredntheLetters a wayofdirectingivilpower o the are ndregulationfthingsthat an be 'objectively' nown,t the ametime s itrelegates eligiousbelief o the tatus f subjective'onviction.

To saythis s to callattentionoanaspect f the etter enerallyassedover nmodernnterpretations,ndthats itsreconstitutionf the uestionof"indifferency"yadducing pistemologicalrounds ordistinguishingbetween eligiousndcivilconcernsnpractice.n this ontext,nd un-dergirdinghe bvious hiftnpolicy,what ignals significantonceptualshiftetween heTractsnd he etters the atter'snclusion fmagistracyitself,s well as membersf theestablishedhurch,mong heranks f'zealouspartisans'eady odefendnd nforcehedifference'f heir reedwith he anction fworldly iolence.The political ifficultyhich hisentails s not nly hedisorderhreatenedy somewho "under retensef

religion. . seek mpunityor heiribertinismnd icentiousness"ut hat

presentedy those n powerwho "color their pirit f persecutionndun-Christianruelty ith pretensef carefor hepublicweal."37hus heLetter ot nly ontinueso express nxiety hat he laimsof consciencemightperatesacover or opular narchyut oses he dditionalroblemthat he anguage f ivil rdertself,he oncern orthepublicweal,' ouldfunctions a mask forreligious ersecution.n short, hat heLetter s








framed o address s theneed tosettle oth ivilandreligious iscourseswithin eterminantoundaries, ffixedn some preciseway toworldly

practice,nd oprovidecriterionfudgmentapablenot nly fdelimitingtheir espectiveracticalxpressionsut fexposinghe xcessofpretenseineitherdiom.

The mechanismeployedoeffecthisnthe ettersdeceptivelyimpleand otaken-for-grantedncontemporaryolitical iscoursehat t shardlysurprisingofindt argely eglectednmodem ccountsfthework.Whileit is certainly he case thatthetext ccommodates arlierdefenses fconscience y acknowledginghatno worship nacceptableo thecon-

science an be safefor he eliever,t lso makes lear hat his rivilegeasits pistemologicalroundnd imitnthe bsence fworldlynjury.Indif-ferenthings"emain he eculiarjurisdictionf ivil uthority,ut distinc-tionbetween ivilandreligious indifferency"s markedythe laim hatproperly eligious ractices oncern nly care for alvation nd cannot"eitherdvantagerprejudicehe ife, iberty,restate" fcivil ubjects.38Conversely,olitical uthorityver ndifferenthingssspecificallyirectedto uch hingss doproduce iscemible orldlyffects.hus hemagistratemaynot, nthis ccount,implyegislatetpleasure egardingll ndifferentthings,or thepublic ood s the ule ndmeasure f all lawmaking,"ndif anythingis notuseful o thecommonwealthhought be never oindifferent,tmaynot resentlyeestablishedy aw."39

This nvocationf ocialutilitys the imit fcivil aw is,asmany avenoted,nexpressionfa generally ragmaticolitical ensibility,ut uchpragmatismtself ests nthepresumptionhat he ocial consequences fparticularctsorpolicies reobjects fknowledgehe ealityfwhich anbe graspedwith ome confidence fcertainty.s an interventionntheseventeenth-centuryebates vertoleration,owever,his ragmaticon-densation fcivilattentionnworldlyffectsarrieswith t a rather orespecific olitical urchase,ne that uts na number fdifferentirectionsprecisely ecause t nsists n demonstrableffectss both heground ndlimit f civil urisdiction.irst,withrespect o the Restorationilemmapresented ythequestion f scandal, temphaticallyestrictsheuse ofcoercion nd the are forworldlynterestso the xclusive rovenancefcivilauthoritynd nsists hat eligiousmatters,roperlynderstood,aveno civilbearing.4"'nlike heTractswhich onsistentlyigure he ealot nthethird erson,heLetter ddresses he crupulous artisan irectlyndcalls attentiono theabsence of civil effects ntailed y competing rincommensurableeligiouseliefs. hould nyone rr rom heright ay,the etter otes,it shisownmisfortunendno njuryothee;nor herefore








art hou opunish imnthe hingsf his ife ecause houupposestewillbe miserablen thatwhich s to come."41 hus,however nemight e

convincedn conscience f theproprietyf theworship f one's ownreligiousommunionnd henferiorityr rrorfothers,t stheword loneand thepower fpersuasionhatmust uffices a means f correctionrconversion. owever ffensivelternativeracticemay ppear o the on-scientious,ts ackof his-worldlyonsequencesendersts ubjectivelyeltrepugnanceuiteiterallymmaterialnboth ivil nd pistemologicalerms.Second, ndconcomitantith his, ecause ivil uthoritieshemselvesrepresentedntheLetters similarlyrone othe onscientiousonvictionf

theirwnorthodoxy,he mphasis nworldlyffectsperatesoforeclosethe seof oercionnreligious attersven n hehands f hoseegitimatelyentitledowield t n thedomain fcivil nterests. agistratesrenomoreauthorizedhan nyone lse toencourage orrect elief ordoes theirivilposition ntail reaternowledgef what hismight e.42 hustheir ivilduty,s well as thedeploymentfforce hat s itsdistinctive eans, srestrictedoensuringndpromotingcivilinterests'lone,defined s the"just ossession f hose hingselongingo hisife."43n Locke's ccount,then,thepart f the ivilmagistratesonly o take arethat he ommon-wealth eceivenoprejudice" romhe ctions f tscitizens,andthat oinjury edone oanyman ithern ife restate."44

Taken ogether,hese onsiderationsffectivelyrameeligiouseliefs smattersfprivate oncem irectedosuch eremonialses of"indifferentthings"s oneconscientiouslyelieves est oassure hefate fone's soul.This hould ot, owever,e taken o mply he doptionfthe rinciplef'libertyfconscience' s such; foron Locke's account,whileonemustbelieve practice obeacceptable oGodfor t obeconducive o alvation,beliefalone is notsufficiento insulate articularractices rom ivilpurview. rom he llowance hat here s nosafetynadopting practicethat nedoesnotbelievetobe true ndtheadmissionhat elief n therectitudef anyparticularracticesanessential lement f aving aith,tdoesnot ollowhatny eliefsreligiousimply y laimingobeso or hatany uch laim emovestsworldlyeferentromivilurisdiction.nstead,andquite othe ontrary,t spreciselyhe ivilcriterionfworldly

njurythatperates o ircumscribehe cope nd imits fwhatmight eadvancedasanappropriatexpressionfreligiouselief ndpracticen he irstlace.

Two of theexamples orwardedntheLetter o address he ssue ofoutwardractice illclarifyhepoint: hat f nfantacrifice,nonehand,andthat fanimal acrifice,nthe ther.nboth ases, he ext mphasizesmattersfworldlyffectsthe entralnd xclusiveoncernf ivilpower.








With egardothe acrificef hildren,he ivilprohibitionfworldly armoperates oforeclosenypretenseo tolerations a religious ractice:uch

thingsarenot awfulnthe rdinaryourse f ife, or nanyprivateouse;and thereforeeitherretheyntheworship fGod,or in anyreligiousmeeting."45hile hismay eemperhapsobelabor he bvious,toperatesrhetoricallyo et he tage or hemore ointedxample f nimal acrifice.The atterractice, owever candalousrappallingtmighteemfromhestandpointfChristian orship,n this ccountmust e allowed:

[Ilf nypeople ongregatedn account freligionhould e desirous o acrificecalf,

I denyhathatught obeprohibitedy law.Meliboeus, hose alf t s,mayawfullykillhiscalf thome, nd burn nypart f tthat ethinks it. ornoinjurys therebydonetoanyone, oprejudiceo anotherman'sgoods.Andfor he amereason emaykillhiscalf lsoin a religious eeting.46

Here, s inthe aseof nfantacrifice,he riterionstablishinghe copeoftolerations internalo civil law itself:What civil authorityermitsnordinarysecannot e prohibitednreligiousractice. ut he onverselso

remainshe ase,not nlywith egardo uch bsolute rohibitionss humanviolence utwith eferenceocontingentrohibitionsswell; thats, evensuch hings s mightemporarilyeprohibiteds injuriousycivilpowercan also be curtailedn religious ractice or heduration f their ivilnecessity.n this ontext,ndextendinghe xample f nimal acrifice,heLetterndicatesontinuingivilpurviewver uch mpiricalontingenciesas mayperiodicallyustify olitical estraintsnreligiouseremonynde-pendentfparticularractices' eneral itness or oleration:

[I]f . . the nterestf the ommonwealthequiredll slaughterfbeasts hould eforborneor omewhile,norder o the ncreasingfthe tock fcattle hat ad beendestroyedysomeextraordinaryurrain,ho seesnot hat hemagistrate,nsuchcase,mayforbidll his ubjectsokill ny alvesfor nyusewhatsoever? nly t s tobeobservedhat,n his ase,theaw s notmade bout religious ut politicalmatter;nor s the acrifice,ut he laughterfcalves, herebyrohibited.47

Recalling hedeploymentfthemind-bodyistinctionn theTracts o

secure he eparationfreligiousndpoliticaloncerns,he ondensationocivilattentionnworldly armmay nitiallyeemtodemarcate space ofbodilyction n he ervice freligionhatsfree romivil uthority.s thisexample fthe alf uggests,owever,npractice,hat ine tselfsa matterof ivildeterminationndremainsubject orevisions the ontingenteedsofthenationmightequire,rovided,fcourse, hathe mpiricalecessity








ofsuch djustmentsclear.48nthisnstance,s well as inothers,he etterconsistentlynscribesactual onsiderationsfworldly arm r benefits

the efiningeaturendboundaryf civildiscourse hat tonce rticulatesandcircumscribesheproperxercise fpolitical ower.And, s thedis-placementf sacrifice' y he ivil ermslaughter' ightuggest,hessuehere s as muchone of an appropriatelyfactual' anguage f politicalsignifications it is a question f the acts themselves.Withrespect otoleration,hismphasisn a civil anguageffacticitydvancesmpiricismas the pistemologicalasis ofpolitical istinctionsetween ermittedndprohibitedorldlycts, etween olerablend ntolerableorldlyractices,andthus rovides he xpressionfcivilpowerwith descriptiveanguagedevoid freferenceothe alidityr ppropriateness,ndhence eutral ithregardo the truth,'fparticulareligiousracticesndtothe heologicalidioms hroughhich heyrearticulated.

The factual haracterfworldlyffectshus onstitutesstandpointromwhich ll permittedracticesfworshiprerenderedqual, ndependentndpoliticallyndifferent,distinctlyivilperspectivehat eploysmpiricismas a mechanismor ffectivelyonvertingeligiousdifference"nto eli-gious diversity."herule ftolerationhat esultss thus onstructedotonthe rinciplefconscience ut n the bsence fworldlynjury;ndthefreedomfworshiporwardednthe etterssecured yanassertionftheprimacyf civil aw,at least nsofar s this bserves tsproper omain nattendingoworldlyffects.o the xtent,hats,that tconcernstself ot,inLocke'sterms, ith he truthfopinions" ut ather ith he safetyndsecurityf he ommonwealth,nd very articular an's oods ndperson"within t,theneutralityf civil awwith espect oreligions guaranteedepistemologically.toperatesimply opermit,rohibit,rcommand artic-ular ctions nlywith egard o theiremporalonsequences, hich ntumarerepresentedsempiricallynowablen mannerpecificallyeniedwithrespecto the truth'freligiouslaims.Thuscivilpurview verreligiouspractice s not o muchremoved s it is constrainedo follow he sameepistemologicalriterions civilauthorityveranyotherworldly ct orsocialpractice. nd f his sthe ase,the easoninghat nderliesockeantolerations

not o muchdistinctiveith egard oreligion erse as it sdefinitivefthe pistemologicalrounds fstate owermore enerally.49It s inthis ppropriationf mpiricistpistemologys a definingeature

of the civil standpointhatwe can discern seconddiscursiveimit otoleration. here hefirst,ocated tthe ntersectionfscandal nd con-science cross varietyf ncommensurablerticulationsfreligious ruth,presentedivilauthorityith he double-bindfdifference,"his ne,by








resolvinghose ifferencesnto iversity,peratesimultaneouslyodelimitand to empower he state s the sole legitimatedjudicatorfworldly

practice.heboundaryf olerationo understoods tobecivilly efinedythe criterionf harm; hats, bytheempirical eterminationfwhetherparticularctsandpracticesredemonstrablynjuriouso the afetyndsecurityf the tate r to the ivil nterestsf tscitizens, ith hese atterdefinednequally mpiricalerms s theirnjoymentfthethingsfthisworld' n theform f "life, iberty, ealth,ndolencyf body;and thepossession f outwardhings,uch s money,ands,houses, urniture,ndthe ike."50

VI.

The point f theprecedingnalysis as notbeentodeny hehistoricalsignificancef religious olerationutrathero offern account f thediscursiveperationshat onditionedhe ossibilityf ts mergence,f ts

enunciations both tate olicy nd socialvirtuenearlymodernngland.If, s I havesuggested,his ossibility as affectedythe pistemologicalrelegationfreligiouselief o he ealmf peculationnd he imultaneousaffirmationf stateurisdictionvermattersfworldlyonsequence,hepresumptionf ts oliticalnnocenceeems ifficulto ustain.he questionthat emains,owever,vengiven uch n acknowledgementfthe oliticalspecificityfreligiousolerationna particulariscursiveonstructionfstate ower,s whetherhe oliticalogic rreasoninghat nderliestmight

yet e extendedrom he ontextfconflictingeligious iews osimilarlyincommensurableecular nd ocialvisions fthegood ife.From ne perspectivc,he esponse o this uestion ould ppear obe a

simple ffirmative.nsofar s thepolitics ftolerationffirmhe tate ndcivil aw as the ole egitimateocus f oercive orcenthe ocialorder nddefine hepurposesfstate ower s attentiono mattersfworldly armandbenefitatherhan he stablishmenty awof omeparticularision fthegoodsociety,ts ogicwould eem o hold. n this ontext,he riticism

often irectedorecent ommunitarianrguments,hat heir ontestationfthe riorityfthe ightver hegood opens he oor o ntolerance,s itselfan indicationf the continuing urchase f this ogic in contemporaryAmericanolitical iscourse.5' gainst his ccusation,ommunitariane-buttalshat hepriorityf therights itself vision f thegoodmay corepointsntheoreticalebate ut tdoes ittle ocounterhe racticaloliticalpoint f he riticism.emporalonceptionsf he ood ociety,onstitutive







382 POLITICAL THEORY/AUGUST1990

of ocialpracticecross rangefhistoricalnd ontemporaryommunities,have ndeed een ssociated ithmore r essegregiousxpressionsfwhat

a goodmany fus would ee asworldly arm, hethernthe ormf ocialoppressionnd political xclusion r,moresignificant,n theform finstitutionalizediolence,nthe ervice fmaintainingominantommunalnorms.

Butthe eaffirmationfthe tatistnd mpiricistlementsfthe ogicoftolerationnthe ace f uch xampless more omplexhan tmightppear,for tscriticismfcommunitariansests reciselynan insistencehat tleast ome ncommensurableisions f he ood ociety,r,more ccurately,

their racticalmbodiments,annot eunderstoodspoliticallyndifferentmattersfprivateelief,ractice,r peculation.ndeed,he ssertionf helogic f olerationn his ontext ould ppearorequire,ssuggestedarlierwith especto the mpiricallyontingentoncessionsoconsciencentheseventeenthentury,ontinuingivilpurview ver he racticalxpressionsof uch onstitutiveonceptionsfthegood nworldlyractice.f, notherwords, onflictingemporalrticulationsfthegood ife reassimilable othe aseofreligiousreedom,hey re o notbyanextensionf libertyfconscience' s a fundamentalrincipleut ratherhroughhecontinuingapplicationfthe pistemologicalroundsnitiallydduced o ustify olit-ical urisdictionver hepracticalxpressionsf thatiberty,hats, bytheabsence fworldly armntailed ythe ocialpracticesheyonstitutendthe egitimacyfcivilprohibitionhere his imitstransgressed.

Few ofus, suspect, ould einclinedodefend he iew hatommunalpracticesroductivef harmhould eallowed olely nthe roundshatparticularommunityrgroup inds hem ecessary, eaningful,rdesir-able. But thisreluctancetself oints o a ratherignificantly n thisvenerable intment,nd that s thehistoricallynd culturallynstablesignificationf harm' tself. hedifficultyf settling' hat s tocount san instance fharms perhapsmost ommonlyaised nthecontext fcultural ifferences,ndthe ontinuingebateswithin eminismverthepoliticalmeaning f suchpractices s veiling r theself-immolationfwidowsoffermpleevidence fthepolitical ontestednessfthe erm.52Such

debates,owever,epresentut hemost bvious ontemporaryxpres-sionsof thedilemma, or heirmbeddednessncross-culturalifferencestends orewritehe nstabilityftheirpistemologicalore long ninter-pretiveivisionf ulturalommensurabilitynduniversalism,none side,versus ulturalarticularismnd ncommensurability,n the ther.

Buttoconsider hetherheogic f olerationanbegeneralizedomes-tically ithinWesternonstitutionalrdersuch stheUnitedtates, rather








differentfrelated spect f the ontestedignificationf harm's at ssue.In thiscontext,heproblem wantto point o is not so much ultural

incommensurabilitythoughhis,ndeed,sbecomingn ncreasinglyrom-inentrticulation)s it sthat he ivildiscourseffacticitytself asbecomea site iddled ithonflictingnterpretationsfwhich articularets f ocial'facts' re tobe consideredndicative f the sort f harm' ppropriatelysubject opoliticalurisdiction.53f,toput hematter ore oncretely,etoday till oncurwith heLockeanpositionhat ur"life, iberty,ealth,indolencyfbody" nd"thepossession foutwardhings,"owever ari-ously onstrued,recivil oncernmentsrentitlements,t snonethelesshecase that substantialroportionf ourpoliticaldisagreementsevolvearoundustwhich fthe things f this ife' areto count s civil nterestssusceptibleoharm ndwhat orts f hingsretobedesignateds injurioustothem. ere referowhat anbe understoods a double ransformationofLockean ategoriesver he ast hree enturies.nonehand,hat eriodhaswitnessed historicalhiftnwhat ounts s a worldlyhing r fact.'The political ffectf theLockeanformula or njury,or nstance,n itsinsistencenthe ivil ndepistemologicalmmaterialityfconscience ndscandalwas preciselyoexcludefromhe real' suchcontemporaryegalcategoriess mentalrueltyrduress.naddition,owever,othis bjecti-fication fwhatnLockean pistemologyere ubjective r nwardtates,we mightlsonote he roliferationf facticity'crossnferencesstablish-ing he ystematicityrrelationalharacterf he particular attersffact'consideredyLocke tobe thefoundationsf civilknowledge.With hegrowthf thehuman ciences verthe nterveningeriod, rom olitical

economyopsychology,ociology osexology,facts' re nolonger epre-sented s generallysolated ccurrencesndependentfoneanotherut sknit ogetherna complexweb ofcause and effect.WhenProudhon,orexample,ook he tance hat propertys theft"rMarxredescribedom-moditiesndcapital s congealed abor, he olitical alence f uch rticu-lationsay n he ersuasivenessf he laim hat he thingness"r facticity'ofpropertyas essbruteact han rutalrtifact,socialproducthe ealityofwhichwasconstitutednthe ystematicnjurynddeprivationfproduc-

ersofvalue atthe ametime s itspoliticalmeaning as obscured ythelegalfictionf tsprivate haracter.Similarly,henCatherine acKinnonnalogizeswomen's exualityo

theMarxistnderstandingf abor, s thatwhich smost ne'sown ndyetmost akenway,"t s the ystematicatherhan he ersonal roductionfinjuryhatsbeing rticulated.54hese, fcourse,repoliticallyontentiousclaims, s counterclaimsf the private' r 'natural' haracterf sexual








relationsrproperty ightuggest. utthis s preciselyhepoint, or heyoperate o reconstitutes injurious,ndhencepolitical,facts'whichwere

previously nderstoods civilly enign. hediscoursef civilfacticity,nshort, owconstitutess itsobject ndreferentworld ery ifferentromthat nderstoods factual' rom he tandpointfthe eventeenthentury'semergentmpiricism.n a Lockeanworld,he unctionfthe tatend ivillawwas to ensure he njoymentf the hingsfthisworld gainst raud,injury,rviolence tthehands fparticularthers,ncludinghe ossessorsof ivil ower.Whatwetodaymightall society'nd epresents a complex,dynamic,nd nterrelatedet f mpiricalocialprocessesnfoldingn ime,

with articularorts f knowableystemicffects,as for ockesimplymatterf"flux,"o which ivil awmightdjust etrospectivelyutwhichcouldnot e known'n ny ense elatedodominantontemporaryoncep-tions f ocialknowledge.55ndwhile he rgumentsfMarx,MacKinnon,ortheNewRightmighthemselveseem ounderlinehe irtue f olerationinthe ontemporaryontext,hissonly ossible,wouldnsist,yperform-ing he ame perationnthemhat ockeperformednreligion:ydenyingtheirmpiricalalidityndrelegatinghem othe ategoryfspeculativetruthsithout orldlyffect. tthe ointwherenyonemightctthem utaswhat ockecalled practicalmaxims' rwhat ome ontemporaryoralphilosophers ould understands norms onstitutivefpracticesay, fsomeone ook ffnyour ar .. ifpropertystheftt sn'tyours' nyway),they merge rom he rotectedealm fprivateeliefsnto hepurviewfpolitical uthority,ndtheir erpetratorsremore ikely o be markedscriminalshan s 'tolerable'ccentricsiven ooddspeculations.

Insuch context,thinkdifferentpproach ounderstandinghe oliticsof tolerations necessary. ather han eiteratinghe egitimacyfstatepowerwith egard omattersfworldly armndbenefit,nalternateiewmightegin ycasting criticalyeonthediscursiveperationhat onsti-tutes he pistemologicaloreofthe tate's oliticalogic:thedeploymentofempiricisms a mechanismor onvertingdifference'ntodiversity.'While his,s I have rgued,mayhaveguaranteedheneutralityf ivil awwith egardosectariandentityndpracticeyrelegatingeligioustruth'tothe ealm f peculation,ts dequacynthe ace fpoliticallyignificantcontemporaryxpressionsf difference's not tall so clear.

Considerhe ntagonismseneratedetweenonflictingrticulationsfthepoliticalmeaningndvalencesurroundinguestions fgender,ace,ethnicity,ulture,r exuality.hese ontroversiesoth esemblenddifferfrom eventeenth-centuryonstructionsf religiousdifference,'nd theways nwhich hey oso may erve ounderscorehe imitsf the ogicof








tolerationnthe ontemporaryontext. n onehand, uchcurrentxpres-sions f difference're nalogous o eventeenth-centuryeligiousonflicts

insofars theyreconstitutivefsocial dentityndpractice. eministndNewRight iscourses nsexualityndgender,or xample,re not implythe peculativebeliefs' r attitudes'fotherwiseimilar umanreatures;theyreconstitutivefdivergentracticesf sexual ndgenderelationsswell as of the exualor genderdentitiesf the ubjects f those ractices.Asseventeenth-centuryeadingsfScriptureput he ifference'nalterna-tive eligiousracticess righteousrcorrupt,o docontemporaryeadings(of nature,'r history,'r socialprocesses,'r culturalexts') ifferentiate

betweenppropriatend nappropriater normal nd bnormalractices fgender r sexualrelations. ndtheironstitutiveharacter ith espectosocial dentityndpractice eneratesimilarlyncommensurableand,onemightdd,oftenmutuallyffensive)racticalxpressionsf such lementsofthe ocialgoodas are nvestednthose elations.

But in thisregard,nd on theother and, rom he tandpointf civilfacticity,ucharticulationsf identityndpracticerequiteunlike heirScripturallyonstitutedndustifiedredecessors,or hedifferences'hatthey oth peak nd peak o, hatheyimultaneouslyxpressnd onstituteas politicallyignificant,rethemselvesffereds accounts f the oliticalweightnd meaning fsocial facts.'Withinhese arious rticulations,nother ords,uch facts' sbeingmaleorfemale,markedyracial rethnicdifference,ndpositioned s wellwithregard o sexualpractice renotadvanced n thesamediscursive egisters beingCatholic,Quaker, rPresbyterian.he 'differences'etween arious pologist, eformist,rradical esponsesothefact' hat hetraditional'amilyequires omen'sdomesticabor r the fact'that heworkplaces hierarchicallytructuredalong ines fgender,ace, nd thnicityannot eunderstoodsequivalentto diverse' ositions ith egard othe ssertionhat elief n theTrinitysessential o salvation. uiteto thecontrary,ontemporaryxpressionsf'difference'renoted ndrendered eaningfulot spoliticallyndifferentprivate eliefs ut hrough orldlyccounts f a socialstructurenwhichprivilege,espect, ndmaterialpportunityreunderstoodo be differen-tially llocatedwithinngoing ocialandculturalrocesses. uch differ-ences,' nshort,rethemselvesrticulateds 'mattersffact.'

This snot, fcourse, oclaim hat veryone fparticularenitalia,kincolor, thnic erivation,rsexualpracticesnecessarilyoliticizedroundthem,nymore han llseventeenth-centuryhurchgoersere crupulouslyconscientious.ut t s tosuggesthat oday, here uch dentities,onsti-tutedndmaintainedhroughulturend ocialpractice,repoliticized,his








politicizations effectedhroughheir rticulationn the ivildiscoursefworldly ffects nd injury. nd therecentlyeveloped ounterweighto

affirmativectionnrevcrse iscriminationhould erve o ndicatehathispoliticizationasnonecessary irectionality.osaythis s not implyonotethat he ultural omain as become siteofcivilcontroversy,hatncom-mensurablendconflictingiewsofthe amily,he elativeocialroles ndstatus fwomen ndmen, r the ocialacceptabilityf same-sex elation-ships, or xample,r rgumentsver henecessityrdesirabilityf ustain-ing the ntegrityf racialor ethnic ommunities,ave somehow endered'political' hingshat erepreviouslyot o.Beyondhis,t sto uggesthat

the lementsf ulturehus oliticizedavenot nly een ssimilatedothediscoursef civilfacticityuthavebeensignificantlyocialscientized,tleast n he oose ense fpresuminghe ocumentedistributionfpositionswithinystemsf ocialstratificationo be notGod-givenr naturalfacts'but thecomplexresult f human ctions menable o somedegreeofinfluence r directiony specific orms fpoliticalntervention.ndthepossibilityf uch nterventionsnturn ends obeconstructedarticularly,thoughotnecessarilyxclusively,s a questionf ctions rpolicies n thepart fthe tate.

Whatever lse thismay imply, wouldsuggest hat t representsdiscursive evelopment ithinwhichthelogic of tolerationecisivelybreaks own. hepolitical ositivityfthatogic, have rgued,onsequenton the pistemologicalrivilegeccorded ofacticityithinivildiscourse,lies n ts rticulationfcivilpowerwithin differentiscursiveegister,sit were,from ontroversialxpressions f "difference."his discursiveseparationromther-worldlyoncerns asprecisely hat ndergirdedhecapacityfcivildiscourse o convertncommensurablexpressionsfreli-gious difference"nto politicallyndifferentdiversity"freligious rac-tices. n the ontext, owever,fcontemporaryxpressionsf difference,"themselvesrticulatednterms fworldly arm,heneutralityf civil awand statepolicy, uaranteedpistemologicallyith espect o religion,sextinguishednboth ogical ndpractical erms.Where elations etweenwomen nd men,Anglos nd domesticminorities,nd between ominantand

marginalexualities

avebecome oliticallyroblematizeds questionsof dentity,ommunity,ndalternativeractice,ny xercise fcivilpowerwillnecessarilyrivilegeneor notheroliticallynvestednterpretationfsocialharm.neffect,he double-bindfdifference"hat enderedmposi-tion nd olerationqually ontentiousnd iable ooffendn he eventeenthcenturystoday econstitutedithin he ivildiscourse ffacticitytself.tisnot, erhaps,hatwe haveno patternsor elatingcross urdifferences








as equals so much s that heonewe do have nthe ogicoftolerationsinadequate oaddress heir resentrticulation,ndthat he mpiricistast

thatmarked he artof separation'n its nitial ormulationasbeenpro-blematized y tsvery uccess.

NOTES

1. Audre orde, isterOutsiderTrumansburg,Y: Crossing ress, 984),115 and111.

The epigraphsrefromAge,Race,Classand Sex: WomenRedefiningifference"nd"TheMaster's oolsWillNever ismantle heMaster'sHouse," espectively.2. John awls,A Theory fJusticeCambridge, A: Harvard niversityress, 971),

esp. chap.4,sections3-35, nd"Justices Fairness: oliticalNotMetaphysical,"hilosophyandPublicAffairs4 Summer 985), 08-322;MichaelWalzer, pheres fJusticeNewYork:BasicBooks, 1983)and "LiberalismndtheArt fSeparation,"oliticalTheory2 (August1984), 315-330; Richard orty,On Ethnocentrism:Reply o Clifford eertz,"MichiganQuarterly eview 5 (Summer 986), 25-534.

3. There re, fcourse, otablexceptions.ee, for xample, he ollectionfessays yHerbert arcuse, arringtonoore, nd Robert aulWolffnA Critique fPure Tolerance(Boston:Beacon,1965). Morerecently,homas . Dummhas rgued hat oleration ighteseen s linkedoconfinementnQuaker racticend hus onnectedo he iscipliningf ocialsubjects;ee hisDemocracynd PunishmentMadison:UniversityfWisconsinress, 987).

4. The classic xample ere s the uestionf oleratinghe ntolerant,ddressed yRawlsinA Theory fJustice,ection 5;but eealsothe ssays nACritiquefPureTolerance.

5. Rawls, JusticesFairness,"25, eealso 228-231, 49.Theexemplarytatusccordedreligious olerationy beral heorys,of ourse, ot recentccretion.t s figuredn similarfashionyJohn tuartMill nthe irsthapterfOnLiberty.

6. Rawls,A Theory fJustice,06.

7. Ibid., 05-206.8. John ocke,publishedy PhilipAbramsed.) as TwoTracts nGovernmentCam-bridge: ambridge niversityress, 967),hereafteroted s Tracts. oranindicationf therange f nterpretationsdvanced oexplain heir elation o Locke's aterwork, he ollowingmaybe useful:Richard. Aaron, ohn ocke Oxford: larendon ress, 937),3-5; JohnW.Gough, ohn ocke'sPoliticalPhilosophyOxford: larendon ress,1950),chap.VII; andW.VonLeyden, ohn ocke:Essays on theLaw ofNature Oxford: larendon ress, 954),21-30.

9. Morerecent ritical iscussion asbegun oengage his ssue hroughn emphasis nthe ecular atherhan eligiousharacterf he arious reatmentsf olerationnLocke's exts.See Robert . Kraynek,John ocke: FromAbsolutismo Toleration," merican oliticalScience Review 4 (March1980), 53-69; GeorgeWindstrup,Freedom ndAuthority:heAncient aith fLocke's Letter nToleration,"eview fPolitics 4 (April 982), 242-265;and Sanford essler,John ocke'sLegacy fReligious reedom," olity 7 Spring 985),484-503.

10. The phrases taken rom erschel aker'swork reatinghedemise f themedieval'axiom ofknowledge'ntheearlymodern eriod,Wars f Truth: tudies n theDecay ofChristian umanismGloucester, A: Peter mith, 969).







388 POLITICAI THEORY/AUGUST 1990

11. Thecriterionhat ocke forwardsntheTracts n this ointsvague:themagistratesto determineuchthingsor decencynd order," otions he ndeterminacyf which ockereadilyonceded o"dependwholly pon he pinionsnd fancies f men" Tracts, 46).

12. See John ocke,ALetter oncerningolerationIndianapolisndNew York:Bobbs-Merrill,955),hereafteroted s Letter. he ine hat ockedraws ere see esp.50-52)managestoexcludeCatholics romolerationyvirtueftheirllegiance oa 'foreign rince,' hats,thePope, swell as for hat hurch'snsistencenthe ightoexcommunicateolitical ulers.(Elizabeth had, nfact, een xcommunicatedyPopePiusV,who also relieved er ubjectsfromhe utyfallegiance o her.)

13. The term eceivedwidecirculation,utprovidedhe title orEdwardBagshaw'spamphletf 1660 TheGreatQuestion oncerning hingsndifferentnReligiousWorship),whichrestedprincipallyn Scripturalrgumentso defend heprinciple f 'liberty f

conscience' s theground ortoleration.ocke's EnglishTract s a detailed efutationfBagshaw's ssay. or generalverviewfwhatwas at ssue nthis ispute,ee PhilipAbrams'sintroductoryssaysprefacedo his edition f theTracts, sp. 17-25 nd36-49, s wellas hisbibliographyn the opicncluded sAppendix1b),250-254.

14. Again, ee Abrams's ntroductoryssays,36. On therange f shared ssumptionsbetween ocke andBagshaw,ee 17-18.

15. Tracts, . 227.Civilpowern this iewmighteiteratehe ommandsndprohibitionsof higheraw, s was understoodobethe ase for awsregardingheft;ut his idnotmposea newobligationo much s reinforcenexistingne p. 223).

16. Tracts,14.

17. Ibid., 17.18. Tracts,n"Letter o S. H." printedyAbrams sAppendix (a),243.19. Tracts,29.20. Ibid., 38.Thispositions reiteratednLocke'sEssayConcerningumanUnderstand-

ing, ,chap. ,no.8.21. Tracts,38.22. Ibid., 26-227.23. 1 takethephrasefromMarthaMinow's "Learning o Live withthe Dilemmaof

Difference:ilingual nd SpecialEducation,"nLaw and ContemporaryroblemsSpring

1985),157;andhermore xtended reatmentfthe ssueof differencentheForeword o theSupreme ourt 986term,Justicengendered,"arvard awReview 01 1987),10-95. nmany espects,myown thinkingas been nspiredythiswork s well as numerousthercontemporarynterrogationsfthemeaningf difference,'lthoughhepresentssay eeks oraisequestions bout hepossibilityfadjudicatingdifference'hroughaw as a meansofresolvinguch uestionsnthe ontemporaryontext.

24. Tracts, 20-121. his was not nly matterfsectarianolitics rom he ecentivilwars, or rising f theFifthMonarchiststowhichLocke alludes n theremainderf thispassage)hadoccurredn LondonnJanuary660.

25. Tracts,10.

26. Ibid.,140.27. Ibid., 21.28. 1use articulation'ere n a sense kin othatfErnesto aclau andChantalMouffen

their ecent egemonynd Socialist trategyLondon:Verso, 985); thats, as a "discursivestructure"hats "notmerely cognitive'r contemplative'ntity"ut n articulatoryracticewhich onstitutesndorganizesocialrelations"p.96). In borrowinghis erminology,meantoemphasizehat eligiousonflictsftheperiodwerenot implydifferencesfopinion" rbelief ver he ight ay oheaven, otmerely roundlessntellectualonstructshose ivisions








engaged passions' atherhanreason' ver ontroversialeadingsfScripture.hat heyanbe read hisway sperhaps estimonyothe uccess f he ivildiscoursef he eriod,owhichLocke's workwasa significantontribution.nreferringothem, owever,s 'articulations,'what want opoint o s theways nwhich heir ivisionsnthe eading fScriptureperatedto onstituteectarianracticesndhence ocially o mbodyifferentialxpressionsf dentity,whichwereframednterms frighteousersus orruptracticesfworship.

29. Tracts,10.30. Ibid.,161-16231. See theOxfordnglish ictionaryOxford, 933).32. Ibid.33. Tracts, 40.34. Ibid., 66-167.

35. See,for xample,he nglish ractp. 139),which sks: Ifoutwardndifferenthingsbethingsf piritualoncernmentwish ur uthorBagshaw]would o usthe ourtesyo howus the ounds feachandtellus where ivil hingsnd nd piritualegin."

36. "Of theConduct f theUnderstanding,"eferredobyLockeina letter oWilliamMolyneux 10 April1697),was written or nclusionn thefourth dition f theEssayConcerningumanUnderstanding.dited yThomas owler nd ugmentedith n ntroduc-tory ssay nd notes,hiswas publisheds Locke'sConduct f heUnderstandingNew York:Burt ranklin, 882)and reissued yLenoxHill infacsimilen1971. The phrase sedhereappearsnsection III, "Observation,"6.

37. Letter,6-17.38. Ibid., 6.39. Ibid., 6.40. This snot osuggesthatmoral uestionsramedyLocke as 'practicalmaxims're

not elevantopoliticalrder. othe ontrary,f pecial ivil oncernrepreciselyhosemoralruleswhich oncernhemutual elationsf humangentsnsociety,houghgain he tate sinterestednly nthose hat rerelatedo the rohibitionfharmLetter,2, 46-49).

41. Letter,4.42. Ibid.,18,29-30, nd31-32, espectively.43. Ibid.,17.

44. Ibid., 9.45. Ibid.46. Ibid.47. Ibid., 0.48. See,fornstance,ocke's similarreatmentnthe etterp. 39) ofa civil ommando

wash nfantsncontrasto a requirementfbaptism:

[L]et tbegrantedhat hewashingf n nfant ithwaters n tselfn ndifferenthing;let tbe grantedlso that hemagistratenderstanduchwashing obe profitableothecuring rpreventingfanydiseasethe hildrenre subject o, ndesteem hematterweightynough obe taken are fby law. n that ase hemay rderttobedone.Butwillanyone hereforeay that magistrateas the ameright o ordain y awthat llchildrenhall ebaptized ypriestsnthe acred ontnorder othe urificationf heirsouls?The extremeifferencesvisible oeveryone.

49. Althoughoncerned orewith ocke's ecularisms such atherhan ts pistemolog-icalaspect, hework fProfessor rayneknt. here) endsoward parallelnterpretation.

50. Letter, 7.








51. See,for xample, myGutmann'senerallyalanced resentationn"CommunitarianCriticsfLiberalism,"hilosophynd PublicAffairs4 Summer985), 08-322.nresponse

tothe ommunitarianlaimthat evitalizingour traditions's a guard gainst atherhan ninvitationo ntolerance,utmannuestions hat s meant y the ort fcivicrepublicanism'implicit ithin ur radition'."ertainly,heobserves,

not hemainstreamfour raditionhat xcludedwomen ndminorities,ndrepressedmost ignificanteviationsrom hite, rotestantoralityn thename fthe ommongood.Wehave ittle eason odoubt hat liberal oliticsfrightssmorallyetterhanthat ind frepublicanism.ut f andel sarguinghat henmembersf society avesettled oots nd establishedraditions,heywilltolerate he peech, eligion,exual,and associational referencesfminorities,hen istoryimply oesnot upport is

optimism. great eal of ntoleranceas comefromocieties f elves o confidentlysituated'hathey ere ure epressionould erve higherause. P.319;the eferenceis to MichaelSandel's MoralityndtheLiberal deal,"NewRepublic, May1984,15-17)

See also H. N. Hirsch,TheThrenodyfLiberalism: onstitutionalibertynd theRenewalofCommunity,"oliticalTheory4 August 986),423-449.

52. For critical iscussionf he ndian racticef uttee,eeGayatrihakravortypivak,"Can the ub-Alternpeak?" n Marxismnd the nterpretationfCulture,aryNelson ndLawrence rossberg,ds. Urbana:Universityf llinois ress, 988),271-313.

53. For n lluminatingiscussionelatedo his, nthe haracterf egalreasoningroundthe ssueof theright-bearingubject,ee GaryPeller, TheMetaphysicsfAmerican aw,"California aw Review73 (1985), 1151-1290, sp. thecritical nalysis f legal realism,1219-1258. heemergencefcultures a politicallyontestederrainnU.S. domesticoliticsisperhapsmost lear n ontemporaryebates ver ducationnd culturaliteracy,'ebates nwhich he uestionfwhoorwhat s harmed' ythe ulturalontentfhumanitiesurriculaiscentral.ompare, or xample, he erspectivesdvanced yAllanBloom nTheClosing ftheAmericanMind NewYork:Simon& Schuster,987) and E. D. Hirsch, r. nCulturalLiteracyBoston:Houghton ifflin,987)to he ssays resentedn heGraywolfnnual ive,

Multi-Culturaliteracy, ickSimonson ndScottWalker,ds. SaintPaul,MN: GraywolfPress, 988).

54. Catherine acKinnon,Feminism, arxism,Method,nd theState:AnAgenda orTheory,"igns7 (Spring 982), 15-544.

55. See,for xample, ocke'scharacterizationfthe ocialworld nTwoTreatises,eterLaslett, d. (Cambridge: ambridge niversityress,1963); II, 156-157 specially, hereLocke'sconcernsfor he uncertaintyndvariablenessfhumanffairs":

Things fthisWorld re nso constant Flux, hat othingemainsong n the amestate. husPeople,Riches, rade, ower,hangeheirtations;lourishingightyitiescometoruine,ndproventime eglectedesolate orners, hilstthernfrequentedplacesgrownto opulous ountries,illedwithWealthnd nhabitants.p. 157)

Interestingly,ocke'srecoursen the aceofsuchuncertaintys a reliance ntheprerogativepower fthe xecutive.








KirstieM.McClure s an Assistantrofessorn theDepartmentfPolitical cience ttheJohnsHonkins niversity.he iscurrentlyorkingna bookPostmodernityndtheubjectfRights,hichxploreshe oliticalimitsndpossibilitiesf heanguage

ofrightsn the ostmodernondition.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

TheHarvardniversityrogramnEthicsnd he rofessionsnvitespplica-tions or ellowshipsnProfessionalthics. ixFellowships illbeawardedn1991-92o utstandingeachersnd cholars howish odevelopheirompetencetoaddressthicalssues nschools fbusiness,overnment,aw, ndmedicine.Fellowswillparticipaten weeklyeminar,ttendoursesnoneofthe rofes-sional chools f heGraduatechool fArts nd ciences,nd onductheirwnresearch.hefellowshipsuallyxtendsromeptemberhroughuly.pplicantsusually old postgraduateegreenbusiness,overnment/publicolicy,aw, rmedicine,nd/ordoctoratenphilosophy,oliticalcience,r heology.pplica-

tion eadlinesJanuary, 1991.Forfurthernformation,ontacteanMcVeigh,Administrator,rogramnEthicsnd he rofessions,ennedychool fGovern-ment,9J.F.K.treet,ambridge,A02138617/495-1336).

International ellyPrize nPoliticalThought

Theconferenceor heStudy fPolitical houghtCSPT) announcesheestablishmentftheGeorge rmstrongelly rize or he estournalrticle,rpublishedaper fsimilar

engthndscope, n thehistoryfeighteenth-ndnineteenth-centuryoliticalhought.heprizewillbeannouncedachyear t theannualmeetingf he SPTandwill nclude cashgrant.

Thefirstrizewillbeawardedn1991 ndwillhonorhe est rticleublishedin 1989.Subsequentwardswillhonorrticlesublishednsubsequentears.Submissionsor he irsthree earsarticlesublishedn1989, 990, nd1991)will be limited o thetheme fGermanpolitical thought n theeighteenthndnineteenthenturies.uturehree-yearycleswillhonorrticlesnFrencholiticalthought,nglo-Americanoliticalhought,ndpoliticsndreligion.his s aninternationalrize: ntries illbeacceptedromny ountry,lthoughherticles

must e nFrench,erman,rEnglish.Thedeadlineorubmissionsf1989 rticlesorhe 991 rizesDecember,1990.Four opies farticlesnFrenchrEnglishhould e sent oProf. ohnChristianaursen, ellyPrizeAdministrator,epartmentfPolitical cience,Union ollege, chenectady,Y 12308,USA.Four opies f rticlesnGermanshould esent oProf. r.Martyn.Thompson,eminarurnglischehilologie,Universitatilbingen,400Tabingen,WestGermany.

Documents

Difference, Diversity, And the Limits of Toleration : McClure