Abstract

Active pluralism, an idea advanced by Steve Stevaert, former leader of the Flemish Socialist political party, has been commonly accepted among most progressive citizens. It is now a political, social and pedagogical ‘hot’ topic. Anyone wishing to be perceived as ‘open’ pleads earnestly for interreligious dialogue. Instead of passive tolerance, which too often leads to indifference, the other should now be entitled to our active concern. What is more, it benefits society as a whole. Congenial as this is, the plea for active pluralism remains rather vague. This vagueness has the advantage that everyone can embrace active pluralism and be a winner. However, if active pluralism is to be more than just the latest novelty it will require conceptual clarity. Only then can it be assessed on whether it succeeds in offering a better alternative to passive pluralism. In this article I reflect on the Flemish discussion on active pluralism and intend to articulate the philosophical, anthropological and hermeneutical presuppositions underlying the concept. To do so, I take as my starting point the recent publication by the philosopher Guido Vanheeswijck, Tolerantie en actief pluralisme. De afgewezen erfenis van Erasmus, More en Gillis.