Kritik in der Krise

In times of crises, critical thinking needs to be maintained and fostered. This volume on critical political theory in the coronavirus pandemic brings together 13 contributions that offer a variety of perspectives on the interrelationship between critique and crisis. What are the consequences of the current crisis for critical political thinking—and what contribution can critical theory offer to our understanding of current challenges? With contributions by Clara Arnold, Simon Duncker, Oliver Flügel-Martinsen, Lea Jonas, Kristoffer Klement, Jamila Maldous, Noah Marschner, Samia Mohammed, Malte Pasler, Demokrat Ramadani, Gerrit Tiefenthal, Andreas Vasilache and Nele Weiher.

7. Toleration

This chapter explores toleration, which enables the peaceful coexistence of conflicting views and ways of life within the same society. It originally emerged as the political solution to the religious wars that devastated Europe after the Reformation. Toleration as the suspension of political interference in the religious creeds of people was affirmed as the only way to stop the killings for the sake of eternal salvation. At its origin, toleration was patterned on a model of civil coexistence that implied a divide between political affairs and private matters. The contemporary debate on toleration consists of three approaches: moral, liberal, and critical. The moral analysis of toleration is mainly concerned with the definition and justification of toleration as a social and moral virtue; the liberal analysis is focused on toleration as a political principle; and critical political theory proposes toleration as recognition.

“We must agree on our vision”

From 1999–2008, New Zealand’s Labour-led coalition Government fashioned a specific discourse of globalisation and the nation. Within a representation of globalisation as a realm of hostile competition, New Zealanders were increasingly addressed as contributors to an urgently necessary and meaningfully shared national response. While there was nothing particularly unusual about this discourse, the history and structure of New Zealand society meant that its political and ethical implications could be seen particularly clearly in this setting. This article analyses three key features of the government’s discourse — its future-focussed orientation, its heavy use of imperative terms and its careful use of the first person plural — and shows how they led logically to a reductive address and positioning of individuals and sub-state groups. Drawing on elements of CDA and critical political theory, it explores how the discursive construction of a shared (national) purpose served an anti-political function by marginalising divergent perspectives, including the historically-based claims of the indigenous Maori.