is not a virtue, and it should not be promoted as such.
word tolerance is widely used. It is ascribed a positive meaning.
Politicians urge us to be tolerant towards minorities. Educators
teach us to be tolerant towards the other. The press is full
of references to the need to display tolerance when faced with
individuals or groups espousing a different view or holding
a different religious belief. Even the United Nations has decreed
"an international day for Tolerance."
word tolerance has become a well-established concept denoting
a virtue as widely entrenched as free-speech, equality under
the law, etc.
should be careful, though. The word tolerance means to bear,
or to bear with. If I tolerate something or someone, I basically
say that I am ready to bear with its or his/her presence or
The act of toleration entails an effort on my part to desist
from conveying my objection to the existence of a phenomenon,
which I find difficult to bear.
Tolerance denotes an unequal relationship. The subject tolerating
is inherently not equal to the object being tolerated. If I
tolerate you, I actually say that I am above you and am prepared,
albeit unwillingly, to bear with your presence or with your
practices or opinions; hardly an attitude that would justify
a government or any official authority promoting tolerance as
One cannot tolerate an equal being. True equality entails respect,
not toleration. To respect the other as a distinctive person
cannot denote a tolerant attitude towards him. This is the true
meaning of equality: diversity existing in a mutually-respectful
A tolerant attitude entails the bestowing of a favour, not the
granting of a right.
The aim of a free society should not be to delineate a framework
within which people tolerate each other's views, or tolerate
each other's different background. A free society is one where
an individual enjoys freedom under the law and respect within
Tolerance as an idea is alien to a free society. To be sure,
tolerance was first used as a political and legal concept in
the seventeenth century. It was employed, then and in subsequent
centuries, in reference, for instance, to the existence of religious
beliefs that were distinct from the established religion. The
word tolerance, in that context, entailed an attitudinal change
whereby a religion that had previously not been accepted was
either conceptually or legally elevated to the level of a tolerated
belief. The idea behind it was clear. The other religion would
be tolerated, its existence would be secure, but as a favour
bestowed by the established authority in the land, not as right
denoting equality and mutual respect.
Tolerance may have been an enlightening idea in the context
of the prevailing conditions in the early modern period. It
is certainly not in the twenty first century. Tolerance means
what it says: a superior authority tolerating the existence
and beliefs of a different, unequal entity. What we need is
to find a concept, which reflects the ideal of mutual respect.
Tolerance does not.
A little bit too abstract, evident
in the fact that all your arguments why tolerance isn't a democratic
attitude are also the arguments for why it is. At the same time
there is the implicit
suggestion that respect is a greater (actually, more vertical)
attitude, when in fact it should
be rationed far more than tolerance.
Does one actually respect the frothings of the Trumps, Bachmanns.
and Palins? To respect them is to disrespect one's own reasoning
abilities. On the other hand, they are tolerated because that
is what one of the principles of democracy says they should
be. Tolerance may not be at the top of emotional-sentimental-reasoning
scales, but in far too many cases it is all its object deserves.
Well, find the new concept, then dump tolerance. But not until
then, eh? Rejecting tolerance in the absense of a more accurate
protocol will amount to giving the fundamentalists free access
to the gasoline supply.
Words change their meaning. Tolerance doesn't mean what you
say it does in the way that it is generally used now, whatever
may have been the case in the past. You need to throw out the
debating school analytical approach.
I agree wholeheartedly with this article. It is not abstract
in the least. It is applied in concrete ways. In the arts, it
is responsible for ghettoizing people out of the mainstream.
You are put in a little corner, given a pittance to live on
but not enough to join the common discourse. Meanwhile, the
powers that be are patting themselves on the back for being
'tolerant.' This is a common practice in Quebec and in other
parts of the world.