Interpretations of the passage from the ethical to the political domains in Levinas move between the two perspectives sketched in the previous chapter. The interpretations of the universalization of ethics range from a demand for de facto justice to a highly individualized aesthetic expression, which ultimately has little to do with politics. The first position is exemplified by Simon Critchley who proposes a formal theory of political activity inspired by Levinas' ethics.¹ The second position is that of Gillian Rose, who perceives in Levinas' political writings the incompatibility of his formal ethics and a pragmatic secular politics.² Neither commentator addresses prophecy at length as the generalization of ethical responsibility. However, they draw very different conclusions about the political implications of ethical enactment in Levinas. At the heart of their disagreement stands a specific understanding of ethical witness, or prophetism, in its relation to society and politics.