Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T23:36:40.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lockean Switching: Imagination and the Production of Principles of Toleration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2009

Susan P. Liebell
Susan P. Liebell
Affiliation:
Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia. E-mail: sliebell@sju.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

John Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration introduces an early form of John Rawls's “original position” in order to shift the rhetorical ground in seventeenth-century England in favor of religious toleration. His method, which I call “Lockean switching,” seeks to induce readers to switch perspectives on the question of coercion of religious belief. This method yields three insights. First, although liberals typically assume that group identification stimulates passions beyond our ability to reason, Lockean switching reveals that the emotive qualities of group interest can actually help reinforce our commitment to and understanding of liberal principles. Locke thus insists that imagination and emotional response can encourage reason and increase impartiality. Locke's carefully crafted scenarios force readers to consider hard political questions, something underscored by comparing Locke's rhetorical strategies with those of two other important liberals, Montesquieu and Rawls. Second, Locke's invocation of remote “outsiders” such as Jews and pagans humanizes the hated minorities of his time and place. But it also risks reifying the majority group and inflaming prejudice. Finally, Lockean switching reminds us that liberals must be alert to the dangers of pushing readers to accept principles that are reasonable but impossible to implement. By exploring Locke's method of shifting perspectives, and connecting it to a broader liberal tradition of “switching,” I argue that contemporary liberals can use imagination and group identification to help reinforce the commitment of individuals and groups to liberal principles with which they might not otherwise identify. I conclude by illustrating this with regard to controversies surrounding the toleration of gays, lesbians and transgendered individuals in the US.

Type
Research Article
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 823 - 836
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ashcraft, Richard. 1986. Revolutionary Politics & Locke's Two Treatises of Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, Bruce G. 1996. City of Capital: Politics and Markets in the English Financial Revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cranston, Maurice. 1987. John Locke and the Case for Toleration. In On Toleration, ed. Mendus, Susan and Edwards, David. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, John. 1969. The Political Thought of John Locke: An Historical Account of the Argument of the Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskridge, William N. Jr. 2001. Equality Practice: Civil Unions and the Future of Gay Rights. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Freeman, Samuel. 2003. The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Marilyn. 1989. The Impracticality of Impartiality. Journal of Philosophy 86 (11): 645–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glassman, Bernard. 1975. Anti-Semitic Stereotypes without Jews: Images of the Jews in England 1290–1700. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, John, and Laslett, Peter. 1971. The Library of John Locke. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hyamson, Albert M. 1908. A History of the Jews in England. London: Jewish Historical Society of England.Google Scholar
Katz, David S. 1982. Philo-Semitism and the Readmission of the Jews to England: 1603–1655. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Katz, David S. 1994. The Jews in the History of England: 1485–1850. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Latham, Robert, and Matthews, William, eds. 1970–1983. The diary of Samuel Pepys, 1660–1669, vols. 1-11. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1976–1989. Correspondence of John Locke, 8 vols., ed. de Beer, E.S.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1983 [1689]. A Letter Concerning Toleration, ed. Tully, James H.. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 1997. The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matar, Nabil. 1991. John Locke and the “Turbanned Nations.” Journal of Islamic Studies 2:67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matar, Nabil. 1993. John Locke and the Jews. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 44: 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matar, Nabil. 1998. Islam in Britain, 1558–1685. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matar, Nabil. 1999. Turks, Moors, and Englishmen in the Age of Discovery. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Matar, Nabil. 2001. English accounts of captivity in North Africa and the Middle East: 1557–1625. Renaissance Quarterly 54 (2): 553–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat, de, Baron. 1989. Translated by Anne M. Cohler, Basia C. Miller, and Harold Stone. Spirit of the Laws. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Okin, Susan Moller. 1989. Reason and feeling in thinking about justice. Ethics 99 (2): 229–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1984. Fortune Is a Woman: Gender and Politics in the Thought of Niccolò Machiavelli. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1950. Unpopular Essays. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Scarry, Elaine. 1996. The Difficulty of Imagining Other People. In For Love of Country, Martha Nussbaum (with respondents), ed. Cohen, Joshua. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Schivelbush, Wolfgang. 1992. Tastes of Paradise: A Social History of Spices, Stimulants, and Intoxicants, trans. David Jacobson. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Shapiro, James. 1996. Shakespeare and the Jews. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Tully, James. 1993. An Approach to Political Philosophy: Locke in Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitkus, Daniel. 2003. Turning Turk: English Theater and the Multicultural Mediterranean, 1570–1630. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 1991. Locke: Toleration and the Rationality of Persecution. In John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration in Focus, eds. Horton, John and Mendus, Susan. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Walzer, Michael. 1999. On Toleration. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar