Tolerance
 |
- This page is about "tolerance" as a social concept. For other uses, see tolerance (disambiguation).
Tolerance is a recent political term used within debates in areas of social, cultural and religious context, as an emphatic antithesis to discrimination, as such may advocate persecution. Its usage came about as a more widely acceptable alternative to "acceptance," the usage of which had been widely derided, as certain cases would not be considered by common society as acceptable. The term is often used in reference to foreign religious belief, as well as to more particular categories, such as discrimination against unusual sexual and social orientation.
The term "tolerance" itself, like "toleration," is controversial and disliked by some due to its implication that the "tolerated" custom or behavior is in fact an aberration. Tolerance implies both the ability to punish and the conscious decision not to, but makes no statement to higher principle. Supporters of the term "tolerance" claim it to be more applicable than "acceptance" and "respect." Detractors of the term suggest that the term is promoted as if it were a principle —one which falters when compared to more elevated concepts such as respect and civility.
Rationalization
In the wider sociological sense, "tolerance" carries with it the understanding that "intolerance" and conformity breeds violence and social instability. "Tolerance" has thus become the social term of choice to define the practical rationale of permitting uncommon social practice and diversity. One only tolerates people who are disliked for their differences. While people deemed undesirable may be disapproved of, "tolerance" would require that the party or group in question be left undisturbed, physically or otherwise, and that criticism directed toward them be free of inflammatory or inciteful efforts.
Authoritarian systems practice intolerance, the opposite of tolerance.
Politics and religion
Historically, political and religious tolerance have been the most important aspects of tolerance, since differences of political and religious ideology have led to innumerable wars, purges and other atrocities. The philosophers and writers of the enlightenment, especially Voltaire and Lessing, promoted religious tolerance, and their influence is strongly felt in Western society (see pluralism). Unfortunately, they failed to treat with sufficient rigor the equally important issue of political tolerance. While a lack religious tolerance causes problems in many regions of the world today, differences of political ideology caused hundreds of millions of deaths in the twentieth century alone. A desideratum of contemporary scholarship, therefore, is to develop a more expansive critical theory of political toleration. Some feel this is particularly urgent in the West, where the influence of religion in public policy making continues to decline, especially in Europe but also in North America.
It is a common charge among critics that tolerance is only a "modern virtue" or a "secular virtue." A related issue is the defense of historical figures accused of intolerant acts (i.e. anti-Semitism or witch-burning). Such criticisms are at least partially answered by the many examples of prominently "tolerant" individuals and societies throughout world history, such as the multi-religious society of Al Andalus (Spain) under the rule of the Umayyads and Almoravids, the early Ottoman Empire, Abraham Lincoln (insofar as he consciously changed the purpose of the American Civil War from mere reunification of the nation to one of granting equal citizenship to all Americans) and, at least early in her reign, Queen Elizabeth I of England.
Tolerating the intolerant
However, the unattributed quote "there's only one thing I can't tolerate - and that's intolerance" illustrates that there are limits to tolerance.
In particular, should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance? What if by tolerating action "A", society destroys itself? Tolerance of "A" could be used to introduce a new thought system leading to intolerance of vital institution "B". It is difficult to strike a balance and different societies do not always agree on the details, indeed different groups within a single society also often fail to agree. The current suppression of Nazism in Germany is considered intolerant by some countries, for instance, while in Germany itself it is Nazism which is considered intolerably intolerant. Issues that are controversial in various countries include the separation of church and state, homosexuality, the consumption of tobacco, alcoholic beverages and other drugs, reading disapproved political tracts, and deviant sexual acts as well as the correct reaction to disorderly conduct and misdemeanours (for example, see zero tolerance policy).
Philosopher John Rawls devotes a section of his influential and controversial book A Theory of Justice to the problem of whether a just society should or should not tolerate the intolerant, and to the related problem of whether or not, in any society, the intolerant have any right to complain when they are not tolerated.
Rawls concludes that a just society must be tolerant, therefore the intolerant must be tolerated for otherwise the society would then be intolerant and so unjust. However Rawls qualifies this by insisting that society and its social institutions have a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance. Hence, the intolerant must be tolerated but only insofar as they do not endanger the tolerant society and its institutions.
Similarly, continues Rawls, while the intolerant might forfeit the right to complain when they are not tolerated, other members of society have a right, perhaps even a duty, to complain on their behalf, again as long as society itself is not endangered by these intolerant members. The ACLU is a good example of a social institution that protects the intolerant, as it frequently defends the right to free speech of such intolerant organizations as the Ku Klux Klan.
Tolerance as a virtue
As an Aristotelian virtue, tolerance is a middleground between softheadedness on the one hand (overtolerance) and narrow mindedness on the other (undertolerance).
See also
- Allophilia
- Autism rights movement
- Diversity
- Fat acceptance movement
- Freedom of religion
- Grey area
- Heresy
- Inquisition
- Neurodiversity
- Penal law
- Prejudice
- Religious pluralism
External links
- Governors Island-Lifeblood of American Liberty. "The dynamic precept of tolerance distinguishes the specifically American notion of freedom from the “generic” or “static". A two-way street, tolerance demands reciprocal respect rather than unilateral accommodation. As America’s ultimate virtue, together with liberty it serves to define the juridical and cultural construct to which American freedom refers."
- Canadian Webzine. Publishes articles in English and French. Independent and neutral with regard to all political and religious orientations, Tolerance.ca® aims to promote awareness of the major democratic principles on which tolerance is based.
- Declaration of Principles on Tolerance. Available in English, French and Spanish. Proclaimed and signed by the Member States of UNESCO on 16 November 1995. This text defines tolerance and aims to explain its various dimensions using human rights as a framework.
- A story from the Talmud teaching tolerance.