TOLERANCE IS NOT A VIRTUE

         The subject of tolerance in a mature democratic republic such as the United States would appear to require little thought or discussion.  One would suppose that tolerance of others is a harmless notion that always signifies good character and is an enlightened, liberal goal, above reproach. 

          The history of tolerance in political theory and philosophical circles reveals that the concept of tolerance is in fact complicated and is often exercised without any compassion or even true acceptance. Since the time of the ancients there have been two opposing schools of thought. On the one hand are those who believe tolerance is a positive force that can be used to strengthen pluralistic democracies.  On the other is the belief that tolerance is nothing more than another tool of the majority to keep well meaning minorities in their place.

         In an attempt to better understand the racial, religious, gender and sexual conflicts which have flooded our discourse in recent times, I have reexamined the literature on tolerance, trying to develop my own understanding of this important topic.  Is tolerance to be embraced or disgraced as a social and political tool?  Does it resolve conflicts among competing interests or produce conflict?

          I have found that tolerance is indeed elusive and full of contradictions, many of which are beyond the scope of this essay.  I conclude that as the term is used in practice today, tolerance deserves our attention and is anything but a virtue.  On the bright side, understanding tolerance can provide a roadmap to help us through the difficult social, political and moral issues we face each day.

         To begin with, majorities cannot come to tolerate a racial group, a religion, a sexual orientation, gender roles or any other minority without first having an objection to the particular group the majority decides to tolerate. Most often, the gift of tolerance from the majority to the minority comes at a price and with rules.  This has been defined as permissive tolerance.  Minority religions will be tolerated but must live in ghettoes and pay special taxes.  African Americans will be tolerated as long as they live in red lined districts, accept impediments to voting and racial profiling.  Non heterosexuals will be tolerated under “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies or as long as they do not seek marriage status.  Women in the work place will be tolerated as long as they accept lower wages for equal work.  In this manner majorities throughout history, in both authoritarian and democratic societies, have used tolerance to dominate minorities.  In this context, tolerance is about power, not morality. 

         With permissive tolerance, as history has often proven, the majority may change its collective mind and have the objection reinstated.  In this case intolerance returns and the minority is again persecuted.  Permissive tolerance is often used to compel assimilation of the minority into the majority.  This is an obvious affront to the minority seeking to maintain its own views and identity.

         The process is a bit different for individuals as opposed to majorities who claim to be tolerant of others. When one says: “I was racist in the past but now I am tolerant of minorities who mind their own business”, or: “homosexuals are against the Bible, but now I tolerate them as long as they are not permitted to marry”, or “I tolerate women at work as long as they do not bid on the highest paying jobs”, this is hardly a virtue.  The minorities we attempt to shower with permissive tolerance want no such thing.  It is not enough to not be persecuted.  They want to be respected as fellow human beings.  They want to be considered as neighbors, friends and colleagues who are diverse but treated equally in every respect.

         I will consider two additional questions raised by the tolerance debate.  First, when is intolerance the appropriate course to take?  After all, notwithstanding our democratic freedoms and liberties, the majority is rightfully intolerant of incest, pedophilia, terrorists and anyone who would exercise the “assassins veto” by killing another individual who disagrees with them.  But where do we draw the line? When do we come down on the side of individual freedom and when do we seek to ban unacceptable views and behavior?

                  This leads directly to the second question.  Should we confront those who practice unacceptable intolerance like racism and homophobia by coaxing them back into tolerance through rationale discourse or should we attack their views with vigor to remove these views from the public mindset? Here lies one of the paradoxes: In order to preserve tolerance, must we be intolerant toward those who are intolerant?

         The conceptual framework developed by the esteemed political philosopher, Rainer Forst, offers a commonsense solution to some of these questions.  He believes that tolerance and justice are closely correlated. The majority or individual with an objection to a particular group or behavior must justify its objection by asking: “are my reasons for objecting sufficient to reject the group or practice as a law abiding citizen?… The objection cannot be based on religious or ethical views or some traditional belief that cannot be generally justified in a pluralist society.”  See: The Power of Tolerance, A Debate (2014)

         This approach also works when confronting unacceptable intolerance.  Appropriate, justifiable reasons can be presented to those who do not conform to the ethical or legal norm because of their subjective practices and beliefs.  In this way both rejection and acceptance of a behavior, belief or group must always be supported by justifiable legal/ethical norms.  There is still the problem of what is a “good justification.”  However it seems to me that it is better to have this objective debate requiring justification, rather than be limited by subjective intolerance and permissive tolerance, both of which often involve imbedded prejudices and misconceptions.

         By applying this simple test it is possible for each of us to make our own value judgments on whether to reject a behavior or group as outside the parameters of a modern democratic society, or whether the group or behavior deserves our respect.  Theoretically, it becomes possible for competing interests to live together in conflict. In weighing whether to be tolerant, rejection or respect become the only two choices.  We eliminate permissive tolerance which has been the cause of so much unbridled resentment in this country. 

         With permissive tolerance, majorities are resentful because the minorities who are tolerated do not accept the good faith concession and remain angry.  Minorities are resentful that society has failed to offer respect instead of superficial permission for their views.  When there is no justifiable reason for an objection to a minority view or behavior, it is time to provide unmitigated acceptance with no strings attached.

         I will finish with an observation that may not be obvious to all.  When one respectfully accepts another religion, racial minority, political ideology or the like, this does not mean that one is adopting that person or belief as one’s own.  Conflict between competing interests remains and the (civilized) debate continues on a level playing field.  After all, this healthy conflict is the basis for our pluralistic democracy.