As our world becomes more connected, the expansion of freedom and self-rule becomes more and more dependent on the concept of tolerance. Increased contact between varying cultures requires an increase in the ability to respect, if not accept, or even embrace, the differences between each other. Indeed, for freedom to flourish, tolerance is a vital necessity. Tolerance is what allows us to engage with each other despite our differences. Tolerance is what allows our societies to progress. Tolerance opens doors to new concepts in art and science and literature. But when we talk about an ideal is ephemeral as tolerance, what exactly are we talking about?
In today’s social and political atmosphere, the word tolerance has achieved fad status, becoming an element of Political Correctness, losing all real meaning as it has morphed into an acceptance of all things good or bad, it is used to excuse behavior that previously may have been considered unacceptable, or, at the other extreme, to condemn without pause any idea or action with the potential to offend but not necessarily harm. Our social shift away from personal accountability, social responsibility, and our trend towards ever-restrictive social and legal policies stem, in part, from our misapplication of the concept of tolerance. Simply speaking, tolerance is the respect we hold for the freedom of others to be as they see fit, regardless of our own personal choices or feelings, so long as that freedom does not impinge on those of others. Tolerance has nothing to do with liking other people, nor is it about agreeing with another’s point of view. Tolerance doesn’t require you to be friends and join hands and sing songs together. The key to tolerance is respect.
What many people fail to grasp is that tolerance is a circular concept, one that must exist as a whole or not at all. What I mean by this is that in order for a diverse society, or various societies, to interact peacefully, it is necessary for the different parts to each accept one another. Whether defined along racial lines, religious doctrines, sexual preferences, or other less obvious classifications, once one group loses their tolerance towards another, the stage is set for distrustfulness, rivalry, and sometimes violence. And when the circle is broken and respect becomes scarce, freedom and self-rule are in jeopardy.
Individual tolerance capabilities are often a mimicked behavior. From our ability to withstand annoying personality characteristics of friends and family to larger forms of tolerance like racial coexistence and religious harmony, our ability to tolerate different ideas and actions frequently mirror those of our parents and communities. That is not to say that we don’t come to develop our own tolerances as we age, but the patterns are imprinted on us early. It is in our childhood years that most of our prejudices are born and nurtured, and as we age, we shape our experiences with different people around our intolerances instead of letting our experiences shape our views. It may be an unconscious conditioning reflex, but it is one we can learn to overcome. Still most people, on an individual level, tend to develop fairly tolerant demeanors towards differences in people, as is necessary unless one enjoys a strife-filled existence. For despite our internal dislikes, we are also taught that tolerance and peaceful coexistence sometimes requires us to suppress our own desires for the sake of getting along. And if we find ourselves in an intolerable situation, we are taught that it is better to leave than to provoke a conflict. It could be said that one’s level of tolerance is an indicator of one’s maturity.
Social tolerance, while also indicative of a society’s maturity, is a somewhat different animal. Unlike individual tolerance abilities, social tolerance is sometimes referred to as mob mentality because of its tendency to amplify the suppressed dislikes of individuals and transform them into legislation. Social tolerance is a reflection not so much of the combined tolerances of its individual parts, but of the focused intolerances of many different groups. The fewer of these group prejudices there are, the more cohesive a society becomes. Social tolerance also plays a large role in creating personal responsibility by developing behavioral expectations that are reinforced by the community through their laws and interactions with each other.
But having a great capacity for tolerance does not mean that all behaviors are acceptable, or that all ideas should be tolerated. Indeed, much like morality and the law, the parameters for tolerable behavior are necessarily wide, since individual beliefs vary so greatly, but they must still contain defined boundaries of propriety. The question then becomes, “Who gets to decide what is or is not tolerable?”
In reality, the choices are not that difficult to make if we focus on what is intolerable. An intolerable act would necessarily be one that causes harm and/or destruction to a person or their property; acts like murder or rape or theft or vandalism. Indeed, we have already expressed our intolerance to these kinds of acts through legislation. Intolerant ideas already include racism or bigotry, despotism, and megalomania, to name a few. And character traits like laziness and deceitfulness, and hypocrisy are often among those viewed with little tolerance, since they foretell a kind of intolerance of their own. We have no duty to respect or tolerate irrational hatred, true criminality (the kind that harms others), slavery or subjugation, people who take but never contribute, or any other idea or action that interferes with another’s right to freedom or social peace. At the same time, we must recognize that race, religion, sexual preference, and other more petty prejudices are not valid expressions of intolerance in and of themselves.
A peaceful society must find a balance between that which it will tolerate and that which it will not. For the success of any free community, whether it is a village or a nation, depends on its tolerances. Too little tolerance of different ideas and actions will result in an autonomous culture, neither progressing our maturing, nor learning about the rest of humanity, while too much will result in a fractured and immobile legislative process. Too much tolerance of abhorrent behavior leads to chaos, fear, and restrictions, while increased intolerance of terrible acts could provide a helpful attitude shift that may eventually lead to fewer occurrences.
American culture is in a strange place in the evolution of its tolerance capabilities. We promote an ideal of freedom, which demands a high level of social tolerance for diverse races, religions, and so on. Yet we enact legislation that aims to discriminate against certain elements of society. We promote the rule of law as acceptable social behavior. Yet we turn a blind eye to those who openly flaunt our laws in our own land and give a wink and a nod to the governments around the world who use corruption to control their citizens. We export the ideals of democracy, freedom, and self-determination around the world. Yet we openly assist regimes that resist all of these ideals. We pretend to respect all religions. Yet we entertain delusions of superiority over anyone whose god concepts differ from our own, until we convince ourselves that our friends and neighbors may actually be our spiritual (and to some people, mortal) enemies. We rally around the streets decrying the violence in the world. Yet we consistently make excuses for the criminal behavior among us. I could go on but you begin to see the pattern.
True tolerance is essential for the progression of society. Tolerance for that which shows the most creative, most ingenious, most inspirational, and most reasonable aspects of humanity should be nurtured and shared, to further to abilities of humanity, to allow us to succeed together as a species. Intolerance for the most vile, most selfish, least productive,
and least defensible actions and ideas should also be espoused, to help end these barriers to cooperation and prosperity. One requires the will, education, and dedication of the individual. The other requires the will, strength, and consistency of society. In both cases, the ultimate choice belongs to each and every one of us. Through our actions and our words, through our tolerance, we can make the world a better place by standing together for freedom and against irrational intolerance
This entry was posted on Monday, June 13th, 2005 at 7:59 am and is filed under Government, Life, Politics, Reform, Social Programs.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 13th, 2005 at 10:30 pm
Come visit The Big Red Blog: A Political Road Sign Transcending State and Party Lines. zbrown.blogspot.com
June 14th, 2005 at 12:10 am
I like your thinking on the concept of tolerance, Ken. However,there is a big difference between being a society (or a collection of individuals forming an amalgamated whole) and being a member of a high quality community. The former simply strives for tolerance. The latter, works to move beyond tolerance and toward celebration of difference – of course, moderated with the necessary intolerance of illegal behaviors as you have mentioned.
If we simply settle for the goal of tolerance, we set the bar too low. Setting the bar higher allows those within a community to strive for excellence.
If the bar is set for genuine tolerence and that is not met, then what do we have? If the bar is elevated to include embracing and celebration of differences, and we don’t reach that, at a minimum we should have some form of tolerance, no?
June 14th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
Good post, Ken; and good comment, Windspike.
I think we’re actually making some good progress as a nation, toward being more tolerant. On the other hand, the same principals apply on a global basis. I’d like to see more inroads there. We don’t seem to be getting along all that nicely with much of the rest of the world these days, and that is alarming.
June 14th, 2005 at 6:21 pm
Ken,
Sexual preference would be fine and dandy if there were no consequences to the actions. But that is not the case. There are many consequences to sexual “preference” when it is out of the bounds of God’s laws, such as homosexuality, incest, pedophiia, rape, etc.
Should we “tolerate” what is destructive to society as a whole if we are to survive as a people?
You said; “The key to tolerance is respect.” Are you saying that to you should respect others and tolerate their behavior no matter what? Should we have tolerated and shown more respect for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong IL or the Mullahs in Iran? Why didn’t we respect or tolerate Hitler?
I can’t respect anyone who spreads AIDS or other sexual diseases due to their promiscuity. I can tolerate them as a person, but they will not get my respect.
Doing what is right is always subject to scrutiny by results and hindsight. But not doing the right thing is usually devastating to some degree.
As for our own social ills, we do not make excuses for or “openly flaunt” laws. Many bad laws that come from activist judges making them from the bench due to their own feelings. This creates loopholes that are taken advantage of by lawyers, but they hopefully will bet fixed through legislation and elections after being exposed.
It is true that there is excess that leads to excuses being given for minor crimes. Judges too often let real criminals slip through the cracks, while many innocent people end up wrongly prosecuted.
I agree that we assist regimes we don’t like, but that is the tricky balance of diplomacy that works most of the time, but not always. Keeping and spreading freedom isn’t easy. If it were, all the other countries would be doing it, but many don’t because they don’t have the desire and instead want full control over the people.
Ken, I think your last paragraph was excellent, making the previous arguments and explainations in your post unnecessary.
June 14th, 2005 at 7:45 pm
Ottman,
“There are many consequences to sexual “preference” when it is out of the bounds of God’s laws, such as homosexuality…”
Well, not everyone believes in your god, so not everyone sees this as a sin. Within other religions, homosexuality is fine. Tolerate the aspects of other religions, and they shall tolerate you. ^^
” Are you saying that to you should respect others and tolerate their behavior no matter what?”
He obviously didn’t mean that, since there are sections throughout the article that clearly state “Too much tolerance of abhorrent behavior leads to chaos, fear, and restrictions” As both an individual and a society, we must chose what is to be tolerated and what isn’t or else the whole system is void.
Ken,
Amazing article! -round of applause-
June 14th, 2005 at 10:43 pm
Well to what I deal with day in and day out. It doesn’t matter that I’m a Christian too. It doesn’t matter that I don’t live the lifestyle. The only things that matters to intolerance is that I have a title. That title is “gay.” It’s like a horse with blinders on and carrot dangling in front. That’s all that’s seen. The word G-A-Y.
Let me also point out the lumping of homosexuality with the crimes of pedophilia, incest and rape. Let me clue you close minded people in. Homosexuality is consentual. Two adults are involved. NOT children, NOT unwilling victims, NOT family members. TWO ADULTS. Just like you straight folks. Should I lump heterosexual behavior in with pedophilia, rape and incest? If think I shouldn’t then let me ask why not? You it with homosexuality then why can’t I do the same?
Destructive to society? How? When? Why? What statistics? What studies? What scientific or socialogial evidence can you bring forth that proves these unfounded claims? That’s right. None. You have no proof. Just your own hysterics over something you don’t understand and because you don’t understand it you fear it. Typical human behavior.
I’m moving to Canada. I’m so sick of this shit.
June 15th, 2005 at 12:41 am
Great Article, glad I Rocketed into your blog!!
Unfortunately you’re right about tolerance. What’s more disturbing is how tolerance doesn’t seem to be enough for some groups.
Instead of allowing for disagreement, too many groups demand acceptance.
The new mantra seems to be, “If you don’t embrace this part of me, you reject all of me.”
That doesn’t leave much room for discussion, or even celebration. All it leaves is accusations of hate whether hate ever existed in the situation or not.
It’s just another excuse to hate.
June 15th, 2005 at 3:33 am
It’s funny that I read this today, because I was thinking about tolerance today. I work in a very small office and I am the only non-“Christian.” The quotes are because I believe in God but I don’t believe in religion. Today a coworker told me that the local Chamber of Commerce isn’t going to allow the word “Christmas” to be used in the name of a winter time COC event and she was very upset and was told by the COC that it was illegal for them to use the word. I emailed the chairman of the county board of supervisors on her behalf. Later in day our different views on abortion came up-now she isn’t speaking to me.
I accept her beliefs as hers and I went out of my way to help her when I felt her beliefs were being unnecessarily tread upon but, because I believe in abortion she couldn’t bear to talk to me.
I think this personal divide is very reflective of where our societal tolerance is right now. For example, I am finding it pretty hard to be tolerant of OTTMAN’s views right now. But, it really goes both ways. I think what he said is hateful, but he probably sees it as being a good Christian. Do we stop being tolerant because the person (or group of people) on the other side refuses to play nice? That is really the rub for me.
June 15th, 2005 at 5:54 am
(responses)
Zack- Thanks for the invitation. I’ll drop by.
Windspike- Your comments and suggestions are quite valid and perceptive. And while I allude to an attitude greater than mere tolerance, at our current state, achieving this is more than a baby step. But I agree with the idea that tolerance is but the first step towards better human relations. Great comment!
GTL- I think our national progress is more a piece of wood adrift in the waves that hit the shore. We make some progress towards firm ground, only to have a larger wave pull us back out. Sure, from a national perspective we have mostly moved beyond most of our racial intolerances, only to have them replaced by sexual intolerances or religious intolerances.
And you are right about our global applications of tolerance. We definitely need to work on that a bit. Good to hear from you again.
Ottman- Others have responded to your comments before I could, and have managed to grasp the tone that I will take.
First, what I or your neighbors prefer sexually is of absolutely no concern to you, or your god, especially if we don’t share the same god or expect you to participate. Your equivication of homosexuality to rape or pedophilia merely shows your own confusion, or worse, blatant bigotry. I hope for the former, for at least that could be more easily remedied. If the latter though, this essay is primarily directed at you.
I purposely included examples of activities or ideas that are intolerable under all circumstances, at least for anyone who values freedom and peaceful coexistence. If you insist on willfully disregarding or purposefully obfuscating the salient points of the essay, an honest conversation is not possible.
Further, in many cases, tolerance is the best we can hope for. You can’t force people to like each other, you can’t legislate emotion or feelings, but you can learn to subjugate your own distaste, or at least shrug off people you view as intolerable, except in cases where the freedoms of yourself or others are being violated, in shich case, legislation is acceptable and necessary.
I disagree with your assessment regarding my comments about making excuses for or flaunting laws. Isn’t the current modus operendi in our governing branches to excuse dishonest behavior, simply because “that’s what everyone does.” How else to explain the excesses of DeLay, as well as countless others from both sides of the aisle? What about our federal government’s inexcusable lack of enforcement of our border and immigration laws. Many bad laws find birth in the back offices of our politicians offices and meeting halls. Many bad laws are quid pro quo for political contributions. Why else did a law banning certain shapes of ice cubes get put on the books in California? “Activist judges” are unable to create actual law, only to rule on it. Perhaps if there were more honest law making there would be no need for judges to rectify ridiculous legislation in accordance with the various state or federal constitutions.
As for the foreign angle, I fully understand the concept of dealing with the lessor of two evils to eradicate the other, but I don’t accept the notion that we can’t expect them to work to better the lives of their citizens, and perhaps we should work more closely with those in less strategic locations or with less valuable resources, but who share our values of freedom. Sometimes the better friend isn’t the one who is also your foe.
I agree that keeping and spreading freesom isn’t easy, especially in areas with little historical reference to fall back on. But the lack thereof isn’t necessarily the will of the people, but the force of their dictators.
I am glad you took the final paragraph to heart, since judging from your opening comment, you really need to.
As always, thanks for an engaging dialogue.
Cattrin- Your response to Ottman was quite apt. Perhaps you could fill in for me when I need to take a vacation. I’m glad you enjoyed the essay. Feel free to look around at some previous ones if you make it back here again.
Big Gay Sam- I can only conclude that your comment is also a rebuttal to Ottman’s comment.
I don’t think you need to move to Canada yet though, as there are many who don’t share those same views.
You may be interested to read my own thoughts on homosexuality.
http://4commonsensenow.blogspot.com/2005/02/not-that-theres-anything-wrong-with.html
I think you’ll find that we agree on the issue. If you do head north, be sure to take a warm jacket, and drop by again for some Common Sense.
Parated2k- I’m glad you did too! You make a good point about people who achieve a sense of normalcy from the development of tolerance, and their desire for more and more. It becomes something of a victim mentality.
Those who embrace different beliefs and lifestyles must also show tolerance and respect for those who differ from them. Sometimes, it must be enough to simply be, to accept that about a person which you feel comfortable accepting while ignoring those aspects you disagree with. If we disagree about religion, lets make sure we only talk about weather or sports. Makes things much easier all around.
Folks are likely to be less tolerant towards an “in your face” attitude than towards an “I’m just another person, albeit different from you” frame of mind.
All sides participating in a menage-a-intolerance must agree to disagree in a peaceful, non-hateful manner, while looking to the benefits each can offer the other.
Thanks for the comment.
Ashley- Perhaps there was some cosmic disturbance that led you to this post. Perhaps not. Either way, it’s nice to run across an article that touches us in the here and now. Your experience with the co-worker is a classic example of conditional tolerance. You more readily embrace the concept I wrote about while your co-worker is really jsut concerned with herself. Pity, but she obviously can’t see the hypocrisy of her own actions.
As for Ottman…we must be tolerant of his views, even while expressing our own dismay with them. But if those views are put to actual practice and begin to restrict the freedoms of law abiding, productive people, we must cease our tolerance and work to revoke those plans.
Tolerance also requires patience and forebearance. So, yes, we should try to be tolerant of someone who refuses to play nice, and we should try to help them to see the intolerance in their own actions first, but that doesn’t mean we have to continue to play with them if they never quite catch on. Even then, we must be careful not to demonize them, lest we begin the circle all over again.
Sometimes it really is better to just walk away. A little marginalization can go a long way.
Godd to hear from you again.
June 16th, 2005 at 8:21 pm
Lovely blog. I’m sure you will be the first be tolerant enough to allow the teahing of the Bible in public schools, along with the notion that heterosexual marriage is normal. Ta-ta.
June 16th, 2005 at 9:02 pm
Ken,
It is obvious that you run on emotions instead of sound logic and reason. And that’s OK. You’ll do much less harm to society that way as your words fall on deaf ears to your “own dismay.”
June 16th, 2005 at 9:58 pm
(responses)
Dennis K- While I am sure I detect the facetiousness in your tone, I actually have no problem with teaching religion in schools, provided that the courses focus on all predominant religoius beliefs and approach them from an educational point of view and not an absolutist stand point of endorsing one as the only true religion. I think most people would be better served with a greater understanding of the similarities and differences between the world’s religions if we could move past the public rhetoric.
But if you are just talking about the promotion of one religion over all others and indoctrinating that into public education, then yes, I would have a problem there, since that is not actually tolerance but rather exclusionary.
Also, since I am in a heterosexual marraige, I find that to be normal for me, as well as for many others. But it is not normal for people who are homosexual, so in that regard, their desires should be no less respected either. I would rather focus on the idea that committed relationships between two people should be considered the norm, regardless fo their sex.
Ta-Ta to you too.
Ottman-You are probably the first person to ever accuse me of operating from an emotional point of view, and I’ve been categorized by thousands in my life. Often I am accused of being over rational and logical. Which is also OK.
The only deaf ears around are those with closed minds, people who seem to be too wrapped up in their own little worlds to venture out and actually seek ideas different from their own, consider them for their merit or lack thereof, and move on. My positions are based on rationality, fairness, and Common Sense, not on hateful spite, pseudo-religious mythology, or other such banality.
As usual, thanks for dropping by.
June 17th, 2005 at 1:59 am
Great post!
I’m glad you dropped by my blog, giving me an opportunity to check yours out!
If all of your posts are as well thought out as this one, I’m sure I shall enjoy my stay!
Liam
June 18th, 2005 at 6:29 am
Hi Ken..
Thanks for stopping by my blog today.. It reminded me that I need to come by and read you more often. It’s truly exceptional writing…
My problem is that I write when I’m angry. For example, after I read what Ottman wrote there, my first impulse was to go off. I could go and collect a mountain of statistics, documented studies on sexuality, and wrap it all around a nice angry STFU rant.
I do that routinely on my blog.
I have to disagree with Gun-Toting liberal as well. Clearly, we are not making progress towards tolerance as a nation. Just last week, the Governer of the state I lived in suggested that there are other states that might be more accomodating to me, and perhaps I should leave.
That from the Governer of the state of Texas.
In years past, I really didn’t think much about the ignorance of people like Ottman. They simply were not a part of my life and could not affect me. Now they do. The 11 state consitutional ammendments passed last election, deprived many the right to marry the person of their choice. I am in the same boat. It infuriates me.
They look at me as if I am less than human, simply for being gay. They judge as if they understand a concept that is clearly foreign to them. They make up bogus statistics to reinforce their contention that society has a right to regulate what two consenting adults do in their own home.
That was the essence of Lawrence vs. Texas last summer. That is why Scalia came unglued when the SC struck down sodomy laws.
It is not only the gay issue. It is the war issue, and fiscal issues, and just about every side of politics you can imagine.
I’ve steadily let go of my ability to calmly state an opinion and write 2000 words of thoughtful material for a blog post. In many respects, that bothers me because I realize that shrill is not persuasive.
But – in the long run, I don’t care. Perhaps sometime down the road I could write an analysis without coming unglued, but right now ranting works.
Truly, you have to be part of a group that is thought of as less than human to understand real rage. White hetrosexual America has no idea what it’s like.
June 20th, 2005 at 4:36 am
(responses)
Liam- I hope you enjoy your stay also. Thanks for dropping by.
Tom-Anger writing has its place and value in that it shows clearly the emotion behind the thought. Shrill can be persuasive in that it brings a problem to light, albeit in a big bright way.
As for me, it’s just not my way, at least when I write. But I enjoy your posts as well, so don’t change a thing.
June 21st, 2005 at 9:45 pm
Ken, I have been real busy lately so I printed your essay on Tolerance and have been carrying it about and reading when I had the chance. I had just about finished when I ran across “A Necessary Digression” your guest post over at “Bring It On.” Given the state of affairs around here, I printed that one, too! You blew me away!
If you were a Chef, yours would be the best house on Restuarant Row. I am in awe! You put into words so much of what I care about and with such flow and ease. Sometimes, I wind myself into emotional knots and have to stop to untangle myself when I write.
Tolerance has always been an important issue to me because of the religious discrimination that I experienced from a Christian teacher and the Christian kids in the neighborhood 46 years ago. I also grew up knowing several gay people quite well and have never understood the hate movement against them. Having been sexually abused by heterosexual pedophiles and raped when I was a young woman by a married, church-going guy, I would like to suggest that Ottman talk to some of us who have experienced the “sexual preferences of deviant heterosexuals.”
Respect is basic to tolerance and peace. American foreign policy is based on disrespect for the people of other cultures and for their religious beliefs. The members of our paternalistic, authoritarian government stride into other countries and tell them what to do followed by threats of what what happen if they don’t comply. There isn’t any real discussion because we treat people who are different or live in the third world as children. They are adults who deserve respect, should be listened to, and who have wisdom, insight, and solutions to many of the problems that we face today around the globe.
I am a volunteer art docent at a title one school. The children in the classes that I teach are racially and culturally mixed. They are too young, as yet, to have learned the hateful, hurtful practices associated with racial, and religious superiority. I love the diversity in this garden of children. They are blind as to who is African American, Christian, Arab, Hispanic, White, Muslim, Asian, Catholic, Jewish, rich or poor, and abled or disabled. I also know, that somewhere amongst my young artists, are one or two budding gays who already “feel” differently.
The children fight of course, but over normal kid things like, who copied or who took too long of a turn. Otherwise, I am constantly amazed at how considerate they are of one another. Their wonderful teachers paractice and teach tolerance. The children give me hope.
“Don’t Lay Your Trip On Anyone Else” is a saying that dates back to The 60’s. I have always practiced this even while raising my kids. We could use it again, today.
So, if you don’t agree with gay marriage don’t marry someone of the same sex. What an easy solution! If you feel you have to stop someone else’s marriage to a same-sex someone then You Are Laying Your Trip On Them…Your Trip involves You, not them. If you don’t like someone else’s religious beliefs so be it, but if you try to convert them…..You Are Laying Your Trip On Them. Simply step back, think, and ask them about their trip instead.
It always comes back to respect and tolerance which are the opposite of control and force.
June 23rd, 2005 at 4:43 am
(response)
KWW- Thanks for both your kind words and your thoughtful comments.
Indeed- Don’t Lay Your Trip On Anyone Else- that is the real focus of tolerance, isn’t it.
Glad to have you stop over anytime.