1.   Walzer notes that not every society is a tolerant one (including past periods in US history). Even though such societies hope to stamp out difference, what can the unintended result be?

2.   Usually one thinks that toleration can be extended to groups or individuals but not to both. Why? Walzer disagrees with this assessment. What is his take?

3.   The first modernist project was democratic inclusiveness. The second was ‘self-determination’. What are these? Which does Walzer think is the most important?

4.   What does Walzer mean by postmodern toleration? Why does it involve tolerating not only others but ourselves? (What could Walzer mean by claiming that we must practice tolerance with "our own hyphenated or divided selves"?)

5.   Pay special attention to Walzer’s discussion of the ‘first generation’ (p. 88). Later on, he uses this as a metaphor for his preferred model of toleration.

6.   What would life be like in the ‘postmodern generation’? What is attractive about this model?

7.   What is Kristeva’s analysis of the postmodern condition? Is her appeal to ‘strangeness’ and a ‘polyvalent society’ appealing? Why or why not?

8.   Walzer attacks Kristeva using a strategy not unlike Taylor’s attack on multiculturalists. Why does he think that the postmodern ideal is ultimately dependent upon the existence of the groups Kristeva wishes to transcend? Is his criticism successful?

9.   Even though America has always been multicultural, this has only recently been articulated. Why?

10.   In response to multicultural demands, some –"liberal and neoconservative intellectuals, academics, and journalists" – have demanded a return to a ‘high culture’. Why does Walzer dismiss this? Would a conservative be able to defend this claim?

11.   Walzer has a curious argument concerning the prospects of the poor. Even though he feels that they are in the grip of "tinhorn charismatics", "racial mythology" and "fierce and puritanical" versions of political correctness, he finds this a promising sign. Why?

12.   In the remainder of the epilogue, Walzer discusses the weakness that untrammeled individualism entails. Why does he think that, "personal freedom is not an unalloyed delight"? [Note that his discussion of group survival is made in the context of individual empowerment.]

13.   Why are voluntary groups in peril in contemporary America?

14.   What is meant by disassociation? Why is it so dangerous? Why does Walzer urge the opposite?

15.   Walzer lists several government initiatives to overcome disassociation. What are they? Would they be effective?

16.   Why does Walzer believe that a well-educated, postmodern, critical upbringing is not the most conducive to tolerance?

1.   "This is an important point: toleration brings an end to persecution and fearfulness, but it is not a formula for social harmony. The newly tolerated groups, insofar as they are really different, will often also be antagonistic, and they will seek political advantage." (p. 98)

a)  If one tolerates ethnic, linguistic and cultural difference, won’t this serve to destabilize the overall society? If so, how can Walzer endorse toleration when he knows that it will upset social harmony? Assess.

b)  One could argue that Rawls would not tolerate groups that behave antagonistically and jockey for political advantage. How would Rawls respond to Walzer’s endorsement here? (In contrast to this initial assumption, you may argue that Rawls would tolerate such groups. Be careful to support your claims.)

2.   "From their prospective [supporter’s of groups], the real alternative to multicultural toleration is not a strong and substantive Americanism (as if America were an old-world nation-state), but an empty or randomly filled individualism, a great drift of human flotsam and jetsam away from every creative center." (p. 102) This is a challenge to both conservatives and postmodernists. Take up the debate.