Book Review: Teresa M Bejan, Mere Civility: Disagreement and the Limits of Toleration
| Author | Dan Poprdan |
| Published date | 01 November 2017 |
| Date | 01 November 2017 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1478929917716896 |
| Subject Matter | Book ReviewsPolitical Theory |
612 Political Studies Review 15(4)
the legacy of a great thinker and shows the sig-
nificance, relevance and value of his work.
Stamatoula Panagakou
(University of Cyprus)
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1478929917718673
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
Mere Civility: Disagreement and the Limits
of Toleration by Teresa M Bejan. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 2017. 272pp.,
£29.95 (h/b), ISBN 9780674545496
Modern civilisation is facing a crisis of civil-
ity. This is the initial premise of Teresa Bejan’s
Mere Civility, and her answer will be of inter-
est to scholars who routinely address similar
issues. The crisis of civility is seen in a rise in
argument, polarisation and mutual hatred that
Bejan argues may eventually pose a risk to the
continuing stability of tolerant multicultural
societies (p. 8). Simple calls for ‘more civility’
quickly run into problems, in that what is
meant by ‘civility’ is unclear and, worse, the
concept is often associated with status quo
thinking and the exclusion of minority groups
(p. 10).
Instead of engaging with the contemporary
debates about civility and its purpose, Bejan
appeals to historical writings on the concept.
She argues that many of the issues modern
societies face are not new concerns. Indeed,
seventeenth-century thinkers Roger Williams,
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have already
proposed possible answers that Bejan intends
to examine (p. 19).
First, Bejan examines Williams’ idea of a
‘mere civility’ that places minimal burdens on
speech and expression and concerns itself pri-
marily with preventing direct persecutions
(pp. 58–61); second, Hobbes’ argument in
favour of a ‘civil silence’ whereby citizens are
prohibited from public disagreement and norms
of behaviour are imposed by the sovereign
(pp. 98–106); and finally, Locke’s solution of a
‘civil charity’ that is less concerned with pre-
venting disagr eeable speech than with promot-
ing bonds of mutual understanding between
citizens (pp. 129–138).
Bejan finally takes the position that only
Williams’ conception of civility stands a
practical chance of success in the modern era.
The ideas of Hobbes and Locke place expec-
tations that are too heavy on the citizens of
diverse societies (pp. 153–157), while
Williams’ ‘mere civility’ requires only that we
not translate disagreement into persecution
(pp. 160–164).
Mere Civility’s arguments are compelling,
in that Bejan successfully draws parallels
between the uncivil ferment of the seventeenth
century and the tumult of diverse contemporary
societies and then attempts to solve modern
problems with historical solutions. There is an
occasional sense of disconnection from the
overall point when a reader is deep into an
examination of how Hobbes’ or Locke’s politi-
cal thought evolved, but this is entirely cor-
rected in the final two chapters. In spite of the
complex and theoretical nature of the underly-
ing concepts, Bejan’s writing is as clear and
concise as possible. Overall, Mere Civility is a
well-written and novel attempt at addressing
serious issues surrounding difference in diverse
societies.
Dan Poprdan
(University of Leeds)
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1478929917716896
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
What is Populism? by Jan-Werner Müller.
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press,
2016. 119pp., £13.00 (h/b), ISBN 9780812248982
What Is Populism? is a timely book on a burning
issue that brings soothing clarity into both the
scholarly debate about a contested and notori-
ously vague concept and its polemical use in
political rhetoric. Jan-Werner Müller combines
in an elegant way relevant literature on populism
from political theory, empirical social science
and history and interweaves it with his own ideas
and insights for an audience of both theorists and
empiricists at all scholarly levels.
Müller starts by disqualifying a series of
common ideas about the definition of pop-
ulism. He shows that it is not adequate to iden-
tify the term with specific political programmes,
with an essential critique of the establishment
or with the style of political quarrels. His dis-
cussion of these widespread misconceptions
To continue reading
Request your trial