That the Syrian regime has been able to shield itself from a more substantive political transition process due to its ability to present itself as the protector of religious and ethnic minorities and because of the absence of a unified opposition are claims oft repeated to explain why progress in Syria seems so elusive. The former posits the Syrian people as insufficiently critical consumers of state propaganda and the latter suggests the lack of an alternative vision to the existing political system. My analysis centers on the political thought of sociologist and former Syrian National Council leader Burhan Ghalioun’s 1979 work, al-Mas’ala al-tai’ifiyya wa muskila al-aqalliyyat (The Question of Sectarianism and the Problem of Minorities), first penned in the midst of Syria’s Islamist uprising (1976-1982) and expanded, updated, and republished multiple times since the 2011 uprising. This text both forms a critique of the Syrian regime and articulates alternative notions of state, society, and citizenship. However, thought without reception counts for little in any political analysis. I attempt to bridge that gap by incorporating analysis of the context and reception of Ghalioun’s work. Audience reception, in this study, incorporates Syrian opposition documents and statements over the period studied. Thus, this reading of Ghalioun’s text engages and rethinks reception theory--that is, a reading of the work against an existing horizon of expectations—as a tool of socio-political analysis in order to contextualize Ghalioun’s political thought, to render a more nuanced and complex understanding of its relevancy, and to uncover historical changes affecting the reading public. To some extent Ghalioun’s analysis reflects the concern of many social scientists to not overstate the impact of sectarian identity or render it atavistic, but to instead draw attention to how issues related to persistent authoritarianism, social and economic inequalities, and foreign relations are integral to both understanding and dismantling this modern reality. However, Ghalioun’s distinction between political sectarianism (which he understands as a malign effect of elite competition for power) and social sectarianism (which he sees as a potential basis for a vibrant pluralism) further envisions a pluralist, civil and democratic alternative for Syria in which all of its citizens are equal. The aim of this analysis is not to predict the outcome of Syria’s conflict but to uncover an existent narrative of alternative possibilities and to gauge its course, development and reception amid a shifting terrain of opposition.