Why Ethics: Signs of Responsibilities by Robert Gibbs (review)

142 LETTERS IN CANADA 2000 right to propagate religious beliefs, but no right to undertake to convert others. Not only do the editors fail to consider the applicability of the Indian model to the North American Aboriginal context, they do not even bother to distil the material elements of the chapters. Another example of this editorial laxity can be seen when one compares the interesting chapters on the Hutterites and India, respectively. Esau suggests that in cases of schism, such as the one witnessed within the Lakeside Hutterite group, courts may do well to avoid the >theological morass= of trying to establish which group is closer to church orthodoxy. This suggestion runs contrary to what Baird tells us is the current practice in India, where the Supreme Court involves itself closely in interpreting religious doctrine. The court in India has distinguished between a religious group=s religious and secular affairs, upheld the right of the state to regulate and oversee the daily activities of temples, and eliminated the hereditary appointment of temple priests. Here, the two chapters present contrasting images of court involvement with church matters; but the editors include no chapter flagging the difference for readers, much less consider whether the involvement of courts in deciphering doctrine is judicious or morally acceptable. Religious Conscience, the State, and the Law opens with the question, >What are we to do if the dictates of our religious conscience bring us into conflict with the state and its laws?= No answer to that question is offered in the book, unfortunately, despite the efforts of the contributors to move in that direction. The editors organized the chapters oddly, allowed authors to cover the same ground more than once, made no effort to identify or synthesize common themes, issues, or directions for further work, and lazed on the normative question that they apparently set out to address. Scholars interested in the political or historical dimensions of liberty of conscience will do well to acquire this book. But they will first have to smash the editors= frame in order properly to benefit from the value of the individual contributions. (LUCAS A. SWAINE) Robert Gibbs. Why Ethics: Signs of Responsibilities Princeton University Press. xvi, 400. US $55.00, US $19.95 Robert Gibbs makes a major contribution to ethical theory in this profound, engaging, and passionate book. He does this through examining the pragmatic dimension of semiotics, that is, by studying signs as a guide to the ways that a person is responsible to and for others. For Gibbs, ethics insists first of all on the asymmetrical relations between persons; that I am responsible to the other beyond any calculations of mutuality or reciprocity. The chapters of the book chronicle four dimensions of semiotic practices, beginning with >Why Listen?= and ending with >Why Remember?= The first part looks at the responsibilities of the self to the unique other in the HUMANITIES 143 activities of listening, speaking, writing, reading, and commenting. The second part features the social responsibilities that arise when the obsession with the other must widen to the concern for justice, and thus of reasoning, mediating, judging, and making law. The third part looks at verification, theorizing, and translation. The concluding fourth part probes our responsibilities for the past, through the practices of repentance, confession, forgiveness, and remembrance. The book explores issues and practices through commentary on specific texts from an impressive array of relevant thinkers. The guiding figure is the tremendously influential French-Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas. The author gives concreteness to Levinas=s theory, as well as suggesting where one might turn to supplement areas that Levinas did not pursue in depth. Gibbs continues in his very important effort to demonstrate the relevance of the German-Jewish philosopher Franz Rosenzweig to contemporary philosophical discussions, especially concerning social theory. He >translates= Rosenzweig=s treatment of Judaism and Christianity into a theory about two types of responsible communities where those on the outside are not forgotten. The book turns to Derrida in treating the ethics of writing and reading, Habermas in relation to justice and mediation, and Walter Benjamin to uncover the responsibilities that each of us has to the past. In terms of the latter...