IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/polstu/v62y2014i1p53-69.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Romantic Liberalism: An Alternative Perspective on Liberal Disrespect in the Muhammad Cartoons Controversy

Author

Listed:
  • Gina Gustavsson

Abstract

type="main"> There is an increasing scholarly concern that liberalism comes into conflict with religious diversity. William Galston blames this tendency on ‘Enlightenment liberalism’, which places autonomous self-reflection at the heart of the liberal project. This article, however, proposes a culprit that is more prone to both disrespect and dogmatism: romantic liberalism, which idealises authentic self-expression. I develop this concept by revisiting the Danish cartoon controversy, allegedly a case of Enlightenment liberalism. This exercise reveals that Flemming Rose, the editor who commissioned the cartoons, invokes romantic rather than enlightened values in defence of the publication. In contrast to previous research, I show that Rose does not portray the disrespectfulness of the cartoons as a side-effect of trying to promote autonomy among Muslims. Rather, he argues in favour of artistic provocation as such, invoking a distinctly romantic understanding of freedom of speech, which in many ways runs counter to the ideal of autonomy.

Suggested Citation

  • Gina Gustavsson, 2014. "Romantic Liberalism: An Alternative Perspective on Liberal Disrespect in the Muhammad Cartoons Controversy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 62(1), pages 53-69, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:62:y:2014:i:1:p:53-69
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1467-9248.12022
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:62:y:2014:i:1:p:53-69. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0032-3217 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.