Book Report: “Confident Pluralism” by John Inazu

Surviving and Thriving through Deep Difference

At the height of the LA riots in 1992, Rodney King pleaded with his city: “Can’t we all just get along?”

It’s an important question. Can we? I mean, really? In the midst of the truly profound religious, political, ethnic, sexual, and philosophical differences that we have here in America, is it even possible for us to get along enough to thrive as a nation?

Not everybody thinks so. History suggests “getting along” is a pipe dream, and social psychologists note that our brains do not seem especially well-wired for meaningful community with opponents.

But professor John Inazu does think it’s possible, and even critical for the future of our democracy. 

And he also has a game plan.

One in Our “Many-Ness”

Inazu is a professor of law and religion at Washington University, and the author of “Confident Pluralism: Surviving and Thriving through Deep Difference” (The University of Chicago Press 2016). I heard him speak at a recent church unity conference and wanted to read his book.

“Confident Pluralism” is Inazu’s term, and it basically refers to a social state in which we as free Americans can live and think as we want while also respecting and defending other peoples’ freedom to do the same—even as we are deeply offended by their choices. This is “Confident Pluralism.” It tries to respect the importance of personal freedom (confidence) and difference (pluralism). The goal is something more than tolerance and civic peace, but a healthier nation in which we learn from one another and grow stronger as individuals through our interactions. Indeed, the idea of America requires both conviction and co-existence:

“Confidence without pluralism misses the reality of politics. It suppresses difference, sometimes violently. Pluralism without confidence misses the reality of people. It ignores or trivializes our stark differences for the sake of feigned agreement and false unity. Confident pluralism allows genuine difference to coexist without suppressing or minimizing our firmly held convictions. We can embrace pluralism precisely because we are confident in our own beliefs, and in the groups and institutions that sustain them.”

We all know this sort of social balance is increasingly difficult in a country where differences are stoked by a media that is desperate for eyeballs, and where government is being controlled by radicals on both sides trying to enforce their version of secular or religious orthodoxy. Dr. Inazu is realistic enough to acknowledge the impediments that exist and hopes for what he calls a “modest unity.” At the same time, he sees no better alternative than trying to make things work.

The author thus addresses two essential aspects of what Confident Pluralism will require: constitutional and legal protections that honor differences, and civic values that allow us to get along reasonably well. Unfortunately, we are taking big steps backwards in both regards.

It Takes Two: Government Protections and Civic Practices

Part 1 addresses the question of legal protections. These are requirements for Confident Pluralism to have a chance, and they include “The Voluntary Groups Requirement,” “The Public Forum Requirement,” and “The Public Funding Requirement.” To summarize, the government should require of itself a very high bar before preventing any group from organizing, expressing themselves, or denying them funding or tax-exempt status as other organizations would normally receive. This sounds obvious in a democracy such as ours, but it’s not. Over the years our government-of-the-people has chosen to meddle in groups that contradicted their orthodoxy—whether it be the feminist publication “Big Mama Rag” that had quite a time-of-it getting its tax-exempt status, or Bob Jones University, which had its rescinded due to a ban on inter-racial dating. Both organizations are anathema to somebody, but (in Inazu’s mind) neither deserve to be treated any differently from other offensive organizations.

Part 2 of his book is dedicated to the civic values that give us a chance to get along in a pluralistic society. Confident Pluralism only has a shot if enough of us are practicing tolerance, patience, and humility—even as we live out our beliefs with conviction. We must avoid “the hurtful insult” and “conversation stopper,” which throw around the word “bigot” to demonize an opponent. And we must stop adding “-phobia” to the end of something we can’t stand, as a way to stigmatize our enemies. Additionally, while we are also entitled to act collectively—in boycotts and strikes, for example—we must respect other peoples’ right to not act in concert with us, and we must be fair-minded in our social causes. Boycotting Mozilla until they canned the CEO for giving money to a disagreeable political cause was certainly everybody’s right, but was it wise, especially in the social pressure to conform to the new orthodoxy it created?

On the matter of reaching common ground with our opponents, one of the more interesting stories Inazu tells here is the unlikely political partnership and friendship of “Jerry” and “Larry”: Jerry Falwell, the televangelist, and Larry Flynt, the publisher of Hustler. The two were locked in a very public legal battle which went all the way to the Supreme Court, and which drew out the worst of both men. Then, in a joint television appearance, Jerry made an awkward attempt to reach out by giving Larry a hug during the interview. Larry recounts what happened:

“I’ll never admire him for his views or opinions. To this day, I’m not sure if his television embrace was meant to mend fences, to show himself to the public as a generous and forgiving preacher or merely to make me uneasy, but the ultimate result was one I never expected and was just as shocking a turn to me as was winning the famous Supreme Court case: We became friends.” 

It's this unlikely friendship that allowed the two to find common ground, and tour the country having debates which celebrated Americans’ right to disagree. And it’s this kind of friendship which may just yet give “Confident Pluralism” a chance, as more and more Americans give it a shot.

But Can It Work?

I liked “Confident Pluralism.” It is a necessary book in our pluralistic and increasingly fractured age. As a 21st century Christian-American pastor I will readily acknowledge that my religious kin have historically worked too hard to enforce their own version of orthodoxy on others, suppressing their right to disagree and live the lives they wished. With traditional, established Christianity on the decline I worry that our chickens are coming home to roost, and that secular Americans will return the favor and make it harder and harder to be confident in our Christianity in a pluralistic America. I don’t want to make the mistake Inazu warns about, in being unnecessarily alarmed about my religious freedoms being violated. (It’s not that bad—at least not yet.) But it’s not hard to see the portents.

At the same time, I have a question and a critique for the author. First of all, what is Dr. Inazu ultimately arguing for from a political perspective? His proposal is limited, in that whether or not Republicans or Democrats are in power we need to be able to retain the ability to interact with civility and protect everyone’s right to disagree without consequence or unequal treatment. But is that all he’s arguing for? I am no political theorist, and don’t know the professor’s politics, but it seems that Confident Pluralism is better achieved in a more libertarian political environment where everyone can (for the most part) live the lives they wish, as long as they’re not hurting anyone. Would he go that far? Should we?

And critique-wise, although I liked this book a lot, I couldn’t help but wondering if it has a chance at really helping improve our ability to “get along.” The people who will read “Confident Pluralism” are probably those already committed to it. What difference can one little book make?

I guess it depends on the book. Little books have made big waves, before. Besides which, Inazu is doing all he knows to do. Given our deepening social and political divisions, he is working with legal partners to ensure that our legal protections outlast this current cultural moment. He is challenging his students at Washington University and elsewhere to practice civility even as they stand strong on their convictions. He is fighting the fight with pen and pulpit. And it is a personal one. As Dr. Inazu describes, his Japanese American family was interned at a prison camp during World War II. He’s doing what he can to make that impossible the next time around.

Can he move the needle, though? Even given the erosion of civility we’ve seen in the past few years and the skepticism he admits to having, the professor is confident that with the right legal protections and civil practices, pluralism has a shot. I share his skepticism about our ability to get along. The answer to Rodney King’s question might just be “No.”

But despite my skepticism, I do want the answer to be “Yes.” 

Mr. Inazu’s confidence might be misplaced, but it is nonetheless contagious. And despite some of the uglier strands of my religion, I believe Christianity does have the resources and values that make Confident Pluralism even more possible—if practiced correctly. Indeed, our Founder (that’d be Jesus) modeled the sort of courage and mutual respect for others upon which the notion is based. (Although he did pay the ultimate price for it. Hence the skepticism that this can really work). Nonetheless, we can believe what we want and live as we wish while still fighting for others’ right to do the same. This might be a tall order to expect from many believers: fighting for the right of others to reject our understanding of God and His moral will. It’s an unsettling notion, even for me. At the same time, I suppose respecting others’ humanity and freedom is part of what it means to love others, as Jesus did.

So even as Confident Pluralism might be a pipe dream, that’s really beside the point. Jesus gave his life for the sake of loving and respecting others, despite our differences and disagreements.

Ultimately, we might just not be able to get along. But Jesus does expect us to try.

-MRH (6/26/2019)