Abstract
Treating disagreement as a fact of contemporary pluralism, Langerak persuasively argues that mutual toleration is both theoretically justified and pragmatically appropriate when conflicting claims arise. With an accessible style and cogent progression of ideas, L.’s book would be particularly well suited for an undergraduate classroom, although perhaps primarily at the introductory level, for L. seems to assume an audience without much prior exposure to political philosophy or theology. At the same time, lengthy discursive notes situate many of L.’s claims within more nuanced debates in both fields, providing additional resources for those inclined to pursue further research.
Some of L.’s best work is found in the first two chapters, where he discusses the emergence of competing truth claims and defends “perspective pluralism” (51) as a balanced response that allows one to maintain one’s own convictions as true (contra epistemic relativism), while simultaneously accepting that another person might reasonably, albeit wrongly, arrive at an opposing position. Throughout the work, L. demonstrates a genuine facility with a wide range of sources, and in these early sections in particular, he deserves commendation for adeptly offering concrete examples to clarify abstract ideas.
In the second half of the book, L. considers how the perspective pluralist should respond to opposing viewpoints. He presents six different options, ranging from simple toleration, to active cooperation, to coercive resistance. While this general framework is useful on a speculative level, it lacks sufficient practical guidance to help an individual adjudicate between the various responses in real life. In contrast, L.’s ten criteria for deciding when one can advocate for legislation using an overtly religious rationale—despite a prima facie duty to use exclusively public reasoning in pluralistic contexts—is much more serviceable. Overall, the volume is a worthy and timely contribution, arguably most laudable for its efforts to offer an alternative to the rash demonization and apathetic polarization that typically define contemporary political discourse in the United States.