Toleration and State Neutrality: The Case of Symbolic FGM
The Palgrave Handbook of Toleration, Page: 249-262
2021
- 2Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures2
- Readers2
Book Chapter Description
Traditional theories of toleration have to face the well-known problem of preemption of toleration. A liberal state should maximize individual liberties and be neutral with respect to diverse religions and theories of the good. In this scenario, the state cannot tolerate a certain practice because for toleration to obtain the state should object to a practice, while accepting it for some other reason. However, if the state is neutral, there should be no reason to object to a given practice, while allowing it. Hence, either the state allows a certain practice, without objecting to it, or such a practice should be banned. Then, toleration in a liberal state seems pre-empted by state neutrality and individual liberties. Within this traditional understanding of toleration, the case of symbolic genital cutting might represent a genuine case of toleration insofar as a liberal state might have reasons to accept it, while still having reasons of objection. The reasons for accepting this symbolic practice include the principle of harm reduction and the idea that a symbolic formulation of this practice might contribute to an evolution of the practice that does not harm women. However, the conditions for these reasons to apply are hard to obtain. Hence, the case for toleration in a liberal state, although possible in theory for symbolic genital cutting, might not easily be translated into practice.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85159012593&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42121-2_15; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-42121-2_15; https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-42121-2_15; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42121-2_15; https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-030-42121-2_15
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know