It gives the government the ability to enforce its own cultural and legal norms on others without public objection. This is the key argument that Brown makes throughout the body of the work. Tolerance protects the beliefs and ideas of others, yet at the same times distances them from the norms of the mainstream. Cultural differences are not rationalized, they are simply accepted as the way a society is. Minority cultures are to be respected, but not necessarily adopted by the mainstream. The separation of private and public life has been a tool to achieve tolerance. Those differences that make each culture unique are not allowed to enter into public life, but must remain an area that is private. Brown argues that to relegate culture and belief to the private realm is to rob it of its communal nature. One's culture becomes a matter of personal preference, not an idea that should be used to build a community of like-minded people.

Brown further argues that relegating culture and belief to the private realm creates a society that has no "culture" of its own. The society would operate based on rational market principles alone, leaving morality to the individual. Brown sees the dark side of tolerance that declares "difference" as "dangerous in its nonliberalism, (hence not tolerable) or as merely religious, ethnic, or cultural (hence not a candidate for a political claim)" (Brown, p.174).

Plato argues that a hierarchy is necessary in order to make society work as a whole. When an emphasis is placed on equality, it results in a democracy, which Plato claims is the road to destruction as people continually pursue their own self-interests (Plato, p. 41). Brown could not disagree with Plato more when she makes a broad comparison between women in America and women in the Middle East. The point that she was trying to make is that political equality is different than cultural equality. She wanted to point out that women in American are still culturally subjugates. However, the example that she gives seems as more of an emotional response, than a factual...

Plato and Brown view subjugation in a differently. Plato sees it as a positive aspect of society, whereas Brown sees it as a negative attribute. Brown claims that to be tolerant, one must be in a position of power (Brown, p. 178). She sees tolerance as one way street. This comment a broad generalization and does not account for cases that do not fit the norm.
Brown attacks the model of civilized vs. barbaric cultures, yet she does not offer solutions that might allow us to distinguish between certain types of freedom and culture. As a solution to the problem Brown offers only the following statement, "we can contest the depoliticizing, regulatory, and imperial aims of contemporary deployments of tolerance with alternative political speech and practices" (p. 205).

The first part of the book read like a dry political prose, steeped in political theory. However, midway through the book, Brown's style shifts to an impassioned style of writing. Brown's definition of Liberalism is an example of her passion. She paints a picture of society where our differences, held only in private drive us apart, rather than unify us. Differences would then no longer be used to allocate culture and society. Brown failed to recognize and address viewpoints that were different from her own. This weakened her argument considerably. It appears that Brown assumes that her audience will agree with her. She does not even address viewpoints, historical or contemporary that would invalidate her arguments. Brown makes her point by avoiding that which does not fit her mold.

References

Brown, W. Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.

Keohane, N. Communication & Tolerance: A Commentary on the Tinder & Wolff Papers

Polity, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Summer, 1974), pp. 480-487.

Plato. Republic. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Project Gutenberg, e-text no 1497. http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile-fk_files=38607&pageno=41