What is Neutrality?

This paper reinvestigates the question of liberal neutrality. We contend that current liberal discussions have been dominated - if not hijacked - by one particular interpretation of what neutrality could imply, namely, exclusive neutrality, that aims to exclude religious and cultural expressions from the public sphere. We will argue that that it is only one among several relevant interpretations. To substantiate our claim, we will firstly elaborate upon inclusive neutrality by formulating two supplementary interpretations: proportional neutrality and compensatory neutrality. Secondly, we will argue that in most contexts inclusive proportional neutrality is more appropriate than exclusive neutrality. Our elaboration can help to acknowledge that some political disputes should not be seen in terms of the antithesis between liberal neutrality and illiberal alternatives but, instead, of a clash between various valid but incompatible interpretations of what liberal neutrality may imply.