Sune Lægaard | Roskilde University (original) (raw)

Papers by Sune Lægaard

in The Resilience of Multiculturalism: Ideas, Politics, Practice, 2024

Tariq Modood’s contributions to debates about multiculturalism combines normative argument with a... more Tariq Modood’s contributions to debates about multiculturalism combines normative argument with attention to context. Modood has articulated this contextual approach in terms of two concepts. One is iteration, i.e., that normative principles should be devised, revised and refined through the exploration and evaluation of multiple contexts. The other is intimation, which Modood presents as a possibility that contextualists can select the interpretation of local norms that best fits with the iterated principles. The paper examines how Modood practices iterative contextualism with respect to his writings on the Danish cartoons of Muhammad.

Encyclopedia of Diversity, 2024

The Danish Cartoon Controversy refers to the publication in 2005 of twelve cartoons under the hea... more The Danish Cartoon Controversy refers to the publication in 2005 of twelve cartoons under the heading “the face of Mohammad” and the reactions to these cartoons, including international boycotts against Denmark from Muslim countries, republication of the cartoons, and the debates that these events sparked. The present entry focuses on the second-order diversity of framings of the cartoon controversy and on which kinds of diversities each framing sees as central to the controversy.

Public Ethics for Real People: Toleration, Equal Respect, and Democratic Distortions, 2025

Chapter on Anna Elisabetta Galeotti's theory of "toleration as recognition" as applied to multicu... more Chapter on Anna Elisabetta Galeotti's theory of "toleration as recognition" as applied to multicultural issues such as the Danish cartoons of Mohammed and public Quran burnings.

Human Rights Review, 2023

The right to religious liberty as for instance set out in the European Convention of Human Rights... more The right to religious liberty as for instance set out in the European Convention of Human Rights protects acts of religious observance. Such protection can clash with other considerations, including laws aimed at protecting other state interests. Religious freedom therefore requires an account of when the right should lead to exemptions from other laws and when the right can legitimately be limited. Alan Patten has proposed a Fair Opportunity view of the normative logic of religious liberty. But Patten's view faces several problems. The normative work in his view is mainly done by added accounts of reasonable claims and of justifiability. So, the Fair Opportunity view in itself does not provide a normative criterion. Defenses of the Fair Opportunity view must therefore turn on the theoretical preferability of its structural features. But the Fair Opportunity view has the wrong form to capture the right to freedom of religion. The form of the right to freedom of religion is due to how its point is to address how states limit the liberty of citizens. Given a practice dependent approach, which assigns importance to the point and purpose of the right to freedom of religion, Patten's theory is thus problematic.

The relation between social science and political theory has traditionally been understood based ... more The relation between social science and political theory has traditionally been understood based on a classic fact/value distinction according to which the role of social science is to describe and explain and the role of political theory is to articulate and examine arguments for normative conclusions. Political theory should take account of relevant social science. But the contribution of social science to political theory has traditionally been understood as being purely descriptive. The question is whether social science is also relevant for the normative aspects of political theory and, if so, how. The paper examines two recent developments that both address this issue. One is Jonathan Floyd's proposal for 'normative behaviorism', according to which the normative claims of political theory should be grounded on descriptive claims from social science. The other is Tariq Modood's description of his own work as a form of 'normative sociology', which includes constructive normative reasoning as part of sociological investigations. Normative behaviorism seeks to base normative claims on descriptive social science, whereas Modood wants to include normative reasoning in sociology. But both approaches nevertheless question the classic division of normative and descriptive. Floyd challenges this distinction by arguing that normative claims about how we should live cannot be based on what he calls 'mentalism', i.e., the thoughts we have, but should rather be based on observations about how people actually behave. Modood argues that the standard division of labor between sociologists and political theorists should be rethought so that sociologists should acknowledge their normative commitments and argue explicitly for them. Floyd's position may seem to be about a fundamental issue, and thus more radical, whereas Modood's position can in principle be sustained without revising the classic division of descriptive and normative claims. 2 The two approaches see different kinds of social science facts as relevant. Floyd argues that behavioral patterns involving insurrection and crime are especially relevant as grounds for normative principles, whereas Modood argues that discussions of principles of multicultural equality should pay special attention to the expressed views of members of the minorities in question. The paper considers the merits and problems facing each of these proposals-and how each approach casts critical light on the challenges facing the other. The paper focuses on how normative behaviorism and normative sociology see the relation between descriptive social science and normative political theory and how normative behaviorism and normative sociology relates to each other as views about this relation. More specifically, the paper examines what the two views imply for how to ground normative statements in political theory. Both Floyd and Modood have resisted criticisms that their approaches involve naturalistic fallacies by noting how behavior already can be seen as expressions of normative preferences, in Floyd's case, or how practices already strongly associated with networks of norms, in Modood's case. So one way of understanding both normative behaviorism and normative sociology is that they do not move from 'is' to 'ought' but offer specific ways of systematizing the normative content of specific social phenomena.

Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2022

Clayton Chin and Geoffrey Brahm Levey’s article on “Recognition as acknowledgement” offers a time... more Clayton Chin and Geoffrey Brahm Levey’s article on “Recognition as acknowledgement” offers a timely reconsideration of the theoretical category of recognition. They propose to understand multicultural recognition as acknowledgment. Their proposal offers both an alternative view regarding the object of recognition and the stance the agent of recognition is supposed to take to this object. Whereas classic recognition theory understood recognition as directed at cultures or cultural identities, towards which the state was supposed to take a positive evaluative stance, Chin and Levey follow Tariq Modood in focusing recognition on negative differences experienced by minorities. Chin and Levey furthermore understand acknowledgment as linked to symbolic inclusion of minorities as equal members. I argue that the focus on negative difference sits uneasily with the continued framing of recognition in terms of identities and that recognition as acknowledgment can be understood as a political turn in recognition theory.

Notizie di Politeia, 2022

Civility is an important theoretical category, both for political theory generally and in order t... more Civility is an important theoretical category, both for political theory generally and in order to understand and discuss the many issues raised by the Covid-19 crisis, as well exemplified by Matteo Bonotti and Steven Zech's book Recovering Civility during CoViD-19. Bonotti and Zech's examples of issues during Covid-19 related to civility as politeness do, however, indicate more general problem relating to civility, which might amount to a paradox of civility. Furthermore, their discussion of justificatory civility indicates that there may be further aspects of relevance than the usual distinctions between public and non-public reasons from the public reason literature.

Danish Yearbook of Philosophy, 2022

This paper sketches some developments in the discussion of liberal nationalism since the early 19... more This paper sketches some developments in the discussion of liberal nationalism since the early 1990s and proposes a generic understanding of nationalism according to which its main feature is the act of sorting people into members and non-members of the nation with a view to regulating access to political goods linked to the state. One discussion of liberal nationalism that has recently received renewed attention is the relation between nationalism and multiculturalism. Liberal nationalism sees nationalism as a response to increased diversity and involves normative demands on nationalism for accommodating this diversity. In light of the proposed generic understanding of nationalism, the question arises whether such a liberal nationalism is coherent. This question requires us to distinguish between a substantive and a performative perspective on nationalism, raising the possibility that liberal nationalism can be substantively coherent but performatively incoherent.

Handbook of Equality of Opportunity, Feb 19, 2022

Equality of opportunity is a popular ideal, both for assessing access to specific goods, such as ... more Equality of opportunity is a popular ideal, both for assessing access to specific goods, such as jobs, education and health, and as a more general principle of distributive justice. This chapter provides an overview of existing discussions of equality of opportunity in relation to religion. Many of these discussions have proceeded under the heading of multiculturalism, where minority religious practices have often been the focus of debate, e.g. in discussion of religious exemptions from generally applicable laws. The focus is on conceptions of equality of opportunity involved in such debates and on possible ways in which religion might raise issues relevant for the understanding of equality of opportunity as a general principle. Distinctions are made between different ways in which religion and equality of opportunity might relate to one another. Religion and equality of opportunity can be viewed as possible obstacles to each other. The chapter provides examples of this but focuses on other types of relations where considerations concerning the status of religion contribute to the understanding of what equality of opportunity requires as an ideal. Religion is then viewed as a distinct class of opportunities, which people should have equal access to, or as a factor affecting what equal access means, e.g. because access to some types of opportunities carries special weight. The most prominent positions regarding these debates are presented and linked to debates about the theoretical status of religion in liberal political philosophy.

Human Rights Review, 2021

During the Danish cartoons controversy in 2005-2006, a group of ambassadors to Denmark representi... more During the Danish cartoons controversy in 2005-2006, a group of ambassadors to Denmark representing eleven predominantly Muslim countries requested a meeting with the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, to protest against the cartoons. Rasmussen interpreted their viewpoint as one of demanding limits to freedom of speech and he ignored their request for a meeting. Drawing on this case study, the article argues that it is an appropriate, and potentially effective, moral criticism of anyone who is in a position of political power-taking into account reasonable constraints of feasibility and practicality-that they have refused to receive information, ideas, or opinions from individuals, or their representatives, with dissenting viewpoints. The article also articulates one possible theoretical ground for such a moral criticism: that they could be violating a fundamental (cosmopolitan) moral right of people to submit information, ideas, or opinions to those who wield power over them and to be meaningfully heard-a right which can span state borders.

Ethnicities, 2021

Many theorists of multiculturalism have proposed contextualism as an approach particularly suited... more Many theorists of multiculturalism have proposed contextualism as an approach particularly suited for theorizing multiculturalism. The so-called Bristol School of Multiculturalism (BSM) is characterized by a 'bottom up' and claims-based approach eschewing appeal to abstract political principles. Tariq Modood has articulated this contextualist approach as a version of Michael Oakeshott's idea of politics as 'the pursuit of intimations'. The question is how such an approach fares when applied to the specific political and social context characteristic of, especially European, political reality of the last 10-15 years. Political opposition to multiculturalism at ideological and rhetorical levels has characterized this context. At the legal level, many of the laws and rules in place actually protecting minority groups have furthermore not had the form of group rights or policies of recognition proposed by multiculturalist theories. The question therefore arises whether a contextualist approach that takes its point of departure in the facts of such a context can deliver a justification of a recognizable multiculturalist political theory. This is a version of the general problem of critical distance facing contextualism. Modood's version of the approach appeals to the internal diversity of traditions to answer this problem. However, this leads to additional questions about the nature of the theory and the way in which it is action-guiding. Consideration of these questions qualifies the understanding of in which sense the BSM approach is contextual.

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 2020

Toleration is a classic category of Western political theory. Liberalism can be said to have evol... more Toleration is a classic category of Western political theory. Liberalism can be said to have evolved as a generalization of debates on religious toleration from the 17th century onward. Many debates in political theory about matters of current concern, ranging from debates about free speech and hate-speech legislation, over attitudes to practices of minority groups, to the legitimate extent of state interference in particular areas of social life, are framed as debates on toleration. Finally, some of the most prominent theories within political philosophy view toleration as a central concept, for example, Rawls's political liberalism. This continuous presence of the notion of toleration within political philosophy has resulted in a standard definition of toleration and a set of standard debates about toleration. Toleration is standardly understood as requiring disapproval or dislike, the power to interfere, and to consist in the abstention from this interference. This has given rise to debates about which kinds of disapproval or dislike are required, whether the condition of power is in itself problematic, and whether noninterference only counts as toleration if motivated by certain kinds of reasons. Nevertheless, this standard concept of toleration curiously fails to capture some of the prominent debates that are often framed in terms of toleration. It is for instance not at all clear whether and how the standard concept applies to states and to individuals regulated by state laws. It is also often unclear whether toleration as defined is a normative ideal or merely a descriptive concept and what the point

Contemporary Political Theory, 2020

A Critical Exchange in the journal, Contemporary Political Theory on two new books: Bhikhu Parek... more A Critical Exchange in the journal, Contemporary Political Theory on two new books:
Bhikhu Parekh’s Ethnocentric Political Theory: The Pursuit of Flawed Universals,
Tariq Modood’s Essays on Secularism and Multiculturalism.
Contributions from Joe Carens, Gurpreet Mahajan, Rainer Baubock and Sune Laegaard.

Contextualism in political philosophy is a methodological approach according to which attention t... more Contextualism in political philosophy is a methodological approach according to which attention to context is crucial in normative political argument. Contextualism takes many forms, some not explicitly labelled as such, including doctrines of practice-dependence, Oakeshottian ideas of politics as the pursuit of intimations, as well as elements of realist political theory and critical theory approaches. Existing literature on contextualism roughly divides into two parts. One part consists of substantive work by theorists who espouse a contextualist approach but who often do not set out in much detail in which way their work is contextualist or what their contextualism consists in as a method. The other part consists of methodological discussions of contextualism, which are mainly critical and focus on problems in defining and defending contextualism. Therefore, while many political theorists agree on the need for attention to context, there is relatively little clarity concerning what contextualism as a method actually involves. The present paper seeks to contribute towards a more positive articulation of contextualism as a method in political philosophy and a clearer understanding of how facts about specific contexts can inform normative judgments about cases in the context in question. The paper proposes to do this by drawing on two well-known ideas from the philosophy of language and the philosophy of science, namely the idea of intensional contexts and the distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification. Criticisms of contextualism have revolved around the worry that contextualism involves a fallacy of inferring ought from is, might reify contingent facts, and might have a conservative bias. These types of worry assume that contextualism takes contextual facts as given in normative arguments. The paper suggests that such worries might be productively answered (if not entirely resolved) by attention to the nature of the facts in question. Contextual facts can be about the historical context of actions, or institutions, or the social understandings prevalent in a given situation. Contextual facts can thus be intensional contexts in the sense that they describe what people believe about their situation. Such beliefs can concern factual matters (e.g., how many immigrants there are in their country, what is legal or illegal, or what the effects of a given policy will be). However, the beliefs in question can also be normative (what is the point and purpose of an institution, what an action expresses, what is a legitimate procedure etc.). The worries concerning contextualism furthermore assume that contextual facts function as premises in normative arguments. Nevertheless, this is not the only or the most obvious way of understanding contextualism. Attention to context need not be something that constrains or directs normative conclusions; it can alternatively be a resource for qualifying possible arguments and refining concepts and categories. A possible way to understand this is by way of the distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification. Attention to context might be important for getting new ideas, developing concepts and articulating arguments, even if contextual facts do not function as premises justifying normative judgments.

Ethics and Global Politics, 2020

In many contexts, states have a duty to take special measures to protect minorities. Does this du... more In many contexts, states have a duty to take special measures to protect minorities. Does this duty include prioritizing minority over majority refugees? To answer this question, we first show that a vulnerability-focused notion of ‘minorities’ is preferable to a numerical one. Given the vulnerability-focused notion, there is a presumption in favour of prioritizing minority over majority refugees. However, this presumption is sometimes defeated. We identify five conditions under which this is the case. In fact, surprisingly, under special circumstances, states should prioritize certain majority over certain minority refugees.

Religion and Political Theory : Secularism, Accommodation and The New Challenges of Religious Diversity, 2019

Secularism is a complex notion involving, on the one hand, different normative concerns about the... more Secularism is a complex notion involving, on the one hand, different normative concerns about the relationship between politics and religion and, on the other, different policies for regulating this relationship. One liberal rationale for separating politics and religion is that this can be required for civic inclusion. According to such views, to the extent that a political affirmation of or support for religion fails to include all citizens as equals, politics and religion should be separated. The chapter considers what such a civic inclusion requirement might mean in practice, taking Cécile Laborde’s recent formulation of such a view as a point of departure. What civic inclusion means in practice depends on a specification of the principle of civic inclusion. The chapter discusses such a specification on the basis of Laborde’s application of her version of such a view to two prominent cases: The Lautsi case about mandatory crucifixes in Italian public schools and the Swiss ban on construction of minarets. These two cases highlight how a principle of civic inclusiveness can have both inclusive and exclusive valence in terms of what it requires. Furthermore, a principle of civic inclusiveness can apply at both the level of religious institutions or communities and at the level of individual citizens. The well-known cases about Muslim headscarves are a case in point at the individual level. A principle of civic inclusion can apparently have radically different implications in different cases. The question therefore is whether it indeed is the same principle across different cases and, if so, what then accounts for the differences in implications. The chapter argues that such a principle of civic inclusion should be based on more fundamental political principles, such as equality of opportunity or non-domination, that will then determine which inclusion or exclusion claims follow from it.

Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 2020

Peter Balint identifies three challenges to toleration, one of which is the multiculturalism chal... more Peter Balint identifies three challenges to toleration, one of which is the multiculturalism challenge. This is the charge that liberal toleration fails to accommodate minorities adequately, which requires positive recognition rather than negative toleration. I discuss his response to the multiculturalism challenge and its connection to a classical liberal view of toleration. This involves Balint's claim that liberal neutrality should be understood as reflective and 'difference-sensitive', which should be realised by the state being 'handsoff' in the sense of withdrawing support for privileged ways of life. I argue that Balint's classical liberal view that the state needs to be 'hands-off' is in need of specification and that it does not fit well with his claim that neutrality needs to be reflective and difference-sensitive.

Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 2020

Cécile Laborde’s Liberalism’s Religion proposes liberal principles to address political controver... more Cécile Laborde’s Liberalism’s Religion proposes liberal principles to address political controversies over religion. One is the public reason requirement that reasons for state policies should be accessible. Another is the civic inclusiveness requirement according to which symbolic religious establishment is wrong when it communicates that religious identity is a component of civic identity. A third is the claim that liberal states have meta-jurisdictional authority to settle the boundary between what counts as religion and what counts as non-religion. The article considers whether Laborde has managed to articulate these three principles in a way that is operationalisable and can serve to provide solutions to practical controversies over religion. It is argued that Laborde’s formulations leave important issues open, and some ways of settling these issues are considered.

Spaces of Tolerance: The Changing Geographies of Religious Freedom in Europe, 2019

Religion is the classical object of toleration. Liberalism developed as toleration and rights pro... more Religion is the classical object of toleration. Liberalism developed as toleration and rights protection of religious differences. More recently, religion-and more specifically, Islam and Muslims-has returned to the political agenda as part of processes of securitization, where religion has been framed as a threat requiring extraordinary political measures. The paper examines what securitization of religion implies for religious toleration. It argues that securitization affects the scope of toleration but also threatens to undermine the very meaning and function of toleration.

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 2019

Political theory is contextualist when factual claims about context are part of the justification... more Political theory is contextualist when factual claims about context are part of the justification of normative political judgments. There are different kinds of contextualism depending on whether context is relevant for the formulation and justification of political principles (methodological contextualism), whether principles themselves are contextually specific (theoretical contextualism), or whether context is only relevant for the application of principles. An important challenge to contextualism is the problem of critical distance: how can theories ensure a critical perspective if facts about the context to be evaluated are also part of the justification for the normative judgments? Tariq Modood and Simon Thompson have defended what they call iterative contextualism, which combines elements of all three kinds of contextualism in an attempt to avoid the problem of critical distance. The present paper discusses Modood and Thompson’s iterative contextualism and whether it manages to avoid the problem of critical distance.

in The Resilience of Multiculturalism: Ideas, Politics, Practice, 2024

Encyclopedia of Diversity, 2024

Public Ethics for Real People: Toleration, Equal Respect, and Democratic Distortions, 2025

Human Rights Review, 2023

Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2022

Notizie di Politeia, 2022

Danish Yearbook of Philosophy, 2022

Handbook of Equality of Opportunity, Feb 19, 2022

Human Rights Review, 2021

Ethnicities, 2021

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 2020

Contemporary Political Theory, 2020

Ethics and Global Politics, 2020

Religion and Political Theory : Secularism, Accommodation and The New Challenges of Religious Diversity, 2019

Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 2020

Spaces of Tolerance: The Changing Geographies of Religious Freedom in Europe, 2019

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 2019

ECPR general conference, 2023