In the Encyclopedia (1751–65), the Chevalier de Jaucourt observed that while “natural equality” is the moral foundation of liberty, “absolute equality” in society is a “chimera” of fanatic minds. In the social state, he explained, distinctions and subordinations are necessary, including those attached to “differences of condition.” Later, as the old order yielded to democracy, Tocqueville discerned an inexorable tendency toward the leveling of those very differences. Would it end, he wondered, in a new Caesaristic despotism in which an atomized populace, deprived of the protection of intermediate powers, is enslaved by an all-powerful ruler? In modern societies considered free, the march toward equality of conditions has stopped well short of this dead end. But how does the modern conception of equality square with ways of living that challenge prevailing social norms? That is the subject of this inquiry, which, somewhat ironically, aims to restate from a leftist perspective the case put by the Chevalier de Jaucourt for accepting some such differences.

Davina Cooper describes her perspective as “progressive,” “radical democratic,” and “left,” distinguishing it from the views of liberals like Ronald Dworkin and “liberal multiculturalists” like Will Kymlicka. In other words, she starts with sympathy for efforts to diminish remaining social inequalities, especially those involving race, gender, sexual orientation, age, and disability—social relations “which have joined, and in some cases superseded, the left's preoccupation with class” (p. 3). But her main concern here is to investigate the ways in which diversity, or respect for different ways of living, requires something other than sameness of treatment or recognition of group rights. She sees “diversity politics” as an effort to reverse “the monolithic tendencies” found not only in liberalism but even in Marxism and feminism (p. 40), and she supports “the struggle to protect and enhance counternormative ways of being and living” (p. 9) because they express individual freedom and because cultural diversity is to be valued in its own right.

Although Cooper's effort to address this issue is highly theoretical, it refers to field research she has conducted in Britain and that has otherwise been reported. Among the examples of nonconformity cited are those of Orthodox Jews, homosexuals, the transgendered, women peace campers, a progressive school, and “LET” (“local exchange trading systems”). She also mentions claims for the rights of smokers, the homeless, head-scarf wearers, hunters, loiterers, and those accused of being nuisances, and, in passing, gated communities, sex workers, truants, and protest groups. Her stated intention is to use such examples as “a prism through which to explore the space of diversity politics” (p. 35).

Cooper does not so much set out to answer the question of what diversity requires as to explore its implications and ambiguities. The trouble is that in every particular case, the complexities defy formulaic solution and reveal “discrepant interpretations” of freedom (p. 26). A case in point is the desire of Orthodox Jews to string a thin, high wire around a neighborhood or city so as to create an “eruv”—a symbolic space allowing them to carry on activities beyond the home on the Sabbath. To allow it would show respect for privacy and group differentiation; to deny it could be seen as expressing intolerance and reinforcing historical Christian dominance over Judaism. But would it cause harm by attracting so many believers as to make other residents uncomfortable living in a religious enclave to which they do not belong? Would nonbelievers and secular people see it as an aggressive form of territorial self-expression aimed at them? Might it reduce property values? Would it revive memories of concentration camps among Jewish immigrants and attract anti-Semitic vandalism? Such difficulties lead Cooper to wonder how benefits and harm should be understood. After examining the issues, she concludes that “diversity politics” provides “a set of premises and perspectives” favorable to the erection of an eruv (p. 35).

To this reader, it remains unclear why Cooper comes to this conclusion and why, more broadly, she supposes that her perspective offers better guidance than the liberal viewpoint that individuals should be allowed to pursue, independently and in association, whatever ways of life they choose for themselves, so long as these do not interfere with the liberty of others. For her, everything depends on whether the way of life enhances values she considers progressive or at least not threatening to social equality. Presumably, the demands for acceptance by communities committed to “practices of domination” (p. 193) would be disallowed. But where should the line be drawn and by whom? Should gated communities be forbidden because they discriminate against the poor? Should churches be banned if they bar women from the priesthood and are governed undemocratically? Must public schools in France allow Muslim girls to wear head scarves and refuse to take part in athletics—or do these practices reinforce the subordination of women? Nothing in her exposition provides a clear answer.

This substantive failing is only exacerbated by the style of exposition, which may be congenial to poststructuralists, radical feminists, and deconstructionists but will often strike others as opaque and convoluted. The substitution of “discourse” for theory, and the use of “privilege” and “disadvantage” as verbs, are now fairly common if lamentable practices. So, to a lesser extent, is the use of topographical terminology, such as “space,” “pathways,” “terrain,” and “mapping,” but here these terms are used so freely that they sometimes lose specificity. At one place, the reader is informed that “a valorised and protected discursive space has been crafted around the experience of minority status” (p. 6); at another, that while “national spaces” appear more culturally diverse and heterogeneous with respect to gender, “these trends do not negate the countervailing drive for spaces to become more ordered, efficient and mono-functional” (p. 97). If that is not confusing enough, what is to be made of such expressions (and this is only a small sample) as “overestimating or decontextualizing the interpretive power of the utteree” (p. 34), “a co-constitutive dyad” (p. 99), or “the dilemmatic environment” (p. 197)? He may have been wrong, but the Chevalier de Jaucourt was a lot clearer.