A few weeks ago, Cyril Hédoin responded insightfully and constructively (here) to an essay I recently published in Liberal Currents. Subsequently, he did a follow up piece in which he assimilated my stance on what I call the ‘platonic skepticism’ of liberals about the rule of opinion in public life into a larger framework about different kinds of skepticism exhibited by liberals. I have never met Hédoin, who is
“skepticism about the ability of truth to dominate mere opinion in a democratic context”
Even for people who are confident about this in general, religious belief stands out as an exception. Logic suggests that the number of true religions is either 0 or 1, but lots of different religious beliefs persist indefinitely.
The starting point for liberalism was a set of societies in which the vast majority of people were Christians, with fierce, often deadly, disagreements among themselves.
So, there needs to be some way of fencing off religion as a special category. Laicite is one solution, and seemed to work well enough in the context of a gradual shift from a Christian majority to a combination of unbelief and indifference.
But things get much more difficult when religion-based political ideologies like Islamism and US-style Christianism come into the picture.
Thank you very much Eric for taking the time to discuss my piece. There is a lot to discuss I think but I can start with 2 or 3 short remarks before taking the time to propose a more complete discussion:
- I essentially agree with your reading of Houellebecq. What I was rather pointing at was the way the book has been received and commented in the French press and general public. Most commentators where discussing the background of the novel. This is revealing, I think, of the collective imagination that is still prevailing in France at least and which is behind the support of radical secularism.
- it should be noted however that actually this support is less important than it has been. Folks on the left are very critical of the treatment of Muslims in the name of laïcité. And many people on the right are not interested in laïcité but rather use it because they reject Islam.
- you're absolutely right on "ethnic statistics". The fact that they are forbidden makes really difficult to study the impact of radical secularism. On the other hand, allowing them runs the risk of objectifying prejudices. And of course, they can be used with bad intentions in mind. This is clearly a tricky issue.
- I agree overall with you about the fact that liberalism should be ready to deal with unreasonable views, at least in principle. Public reason liberalism fails in this perspective... but on the other hand the open society cannot mean that "anything goes". This is the eternal struggle of liberalism and I don't think there is any clear solution. What is sure is that French radical secularism is not one, as we agree that this is a definitely illiberal doctrine.
“skepticism about the ability of truth to dominate mere opinion in a democratic context”
Even for people who are confident about this in general, religious belief stands out as an exception. Logic suggests that the number of true religions is either 0 or 1, but lots of different religious beliefs persist indefinitely.
The starting point for liberalism was a set of societies in which the vast majority of people were Christians, with fierce, often deadly, disagreements among themselves.
So, there needs to be some way of fencing off religion as a special category. Laicite is one solution, and seemed to work well enough in the context of a gradual shift from a Christian majority to a combination of unbelief and indifference.
But things get much more difficult when religion-based political ideologies like Islamism and US-style Christianism come into the picture.
I don’t have a good answer.
Thank you very much Eric for taking the time to discuss my piece. There is a lot to discuss I think but I can start with 2 or 3 short remarks before taking the time to propose a more complete discussion:
- I essentially agree with your reading of Houellebecq. What I was rather pointing at was the way the book has been received and commented in the French press and general public. Most commentators where discussing the background of the novel. This is revealing, I think, of the collective imagination that is still prevailing in France at least and which is behind the support of radical secularism.
- it should be noted however that actually this support is less important than it has been. Folks on the left are very critical of the treatment of Muslims in the name of laïcité. And many people on the right are not interested in laïcité but rather use it because they reject Islam.
- you're absolutely right on "ethnic statistics". The fact that they are forbidden makes really difficult to study the impact of radical secularism. On the other hand, allowing them runs the risk of objectifying prejudices. And of course, they can be used with bad intentions in mind. This is clearly a tricky issue.
- I agree overall with you about the fact that liberalism should be ready to deal with unreasonable views, at least in principle. Public reason liberalism fails in this perspective... but on the other hand the open society cannot mean that "anything goes". This is the eternal struggle of liberalism and I don't think there is any clear solution. What is sure is that French radical secularism is not one, as we agree that this is a definitely illiberal doctrine.