“For the liberal humanist legacy to which Ditchkins is in indebted, love can really be understood only in personal terms. It is not an item in his political lexicon, and would sound merely embarrassing were it to turn up there. For the liberal tradition, what seems to many men and women to lie at the core of human existence has a peripheral place in the affairs of the world, however vital a role it may play in the private life. The concept of political love, one imagines would make little sense to Ditchkins. Yet something like this is the ethical basis for socialism. It is just that it is hard to see what this might mean in a civilization where love has been almost wholly reduced to the erotic, romantic, or domestic. Ditchkins writes as he does partly because a legacy which offers an alternative to the liberal heritage on this question is today in danger of sinking without trace.” LoveHumanismLiberationLiberation TheologyTerry EagletonDitchkinsPolitical Love Book:Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate Source: Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate