Towards a geography of tolerance: Post-politics and political forms of toleration Nick Gill * , Phil Johnstone, Andrew Williams Geography, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4RJ, England, United Kingdom Keywords: Post-politics Politics Democracy Liberalism Tolerance abstract This paper argues for a closer inspection of how tolerance and politics interact. Within geography and beyond there is rising concern about post-political situations, whereby potential disagreements are foreclosed and situated beyond the remit of political debate. This is conceptualised as a process of de-politicisation that operates ‘much more effectively’ than alternative ways in which politics can be and has been disavowed (  Zi zek, 1999: 198). While  Zi zek associates liberal tolerance with the post-political condition, however, theories of tolerance are at odds over whether it represents an everyday enact- ment of the political. Although some authors have indeed associated tolerance with a depoliticising tendency (Brown, 2006), others insist that certain types of tolerance are capable of nurturing simulta- neous recognition and disagreement, which directly contradicts the conditions of post-politics (Forst, 2003). We therefore ask, contra  Zi zek, whether certain forms of tolerance can be an antidote to the post-political practice of foreclosing politics, and offer a set of considerations pertinent to the geographical analysis of this issue. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction The political landscape is changing rapidly. A new political generation raised during the 2000s has witnessed two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, multiple scandals involving the political elite, and unprecedented public funds utilised to bail out the most privileged economic classes during the financial crisis, often with little regard for political opposition. At the same time, high levels of voter apathy among young people indicate that many are increas- ingly turning their backs on traditional political parties. These developments would seem to confirm recent theo- risations of the post-political (Swyngedouw, 2011;  Zi zek, 1999). Here, debate between substantially differing ideological visions of the world is replaced by an apparently objective management of various issues wherein the parameters of political debate are carefully patrolled. We might witness disputes over how to most effectively control borders, for example, but without ever opening the debate to whether any border controls at all are desirable. Or we might see right- and left-wing political parties disagree about the most suitable level of defence spending without considering the possibility of no military expenditure whatsoever. The concern of various scholars of politics is that this sort of meta-consensus around the limits of disagreement itself is become more common (Rancière, 2004a;  Zi zek, 1999). Recent events however, demonstrate that post-politics is far from complete. Various occupations, for example, from Wall Street to the steps of St. Paul’s cathedral in London, offer examples of ‘spaces of hope’ (Harvey, 2000). Such protests are examples of a politics which refuses to be designated by the consensual language of party-political bickering, and instead operates at a ‘distance from the state’ (Abensour, 2011 (1997); Badiou, 2005a; Critchley, 2007). Elsewhere, more worrying signs of fundamental political disagreements are discernible, such as the rise of far-right organisations, which have capitalised on the current political malaise in various European countries to appeal to disgruntled voters. Often these groups have been one of only a few political forces who have vocalised a challenge to taken-for-granted processes of globalisation (Mouffe, 2000). What such protests and flashpoints illustrate is the inability of genuine political alternatives to be completely foreclosed (Rancière, 2004a; Swyngedouw, 2011). Post-politics is thus a partial process, unevenly distributed. We might therefore productively talk of a post-politicisation e that may or may not be underway but is by no means completed e in particular political environments and among particular social groups. This move brings the consideration of politics back from the realms of high ontological theory to a more worldly, grounded view of political deliberation. According to this view, contestation is an ordinary process. Worrying too much about * Corresponding author. Geography, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Room B302, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter, England, United Kingdom. Tel.: þ44 0 1392 723333; fax: þ44 0 1326 371859. E-mail addresses: N.M.Gill@exeter.ac.uk (N. Gill), pcjj201@exeter.ac.uk (P. Johnstone), A.Williams@exeter.ac.uk (A. Williams). Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Political Geography journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/polgeo 0962-6298/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2012.10.008 Political Geography 31 (2012) 509e518