I have a, perhaps unnatural or irrational, aversion to the idea of tolerance. I think it might be semantic or sociolinguistic in its origin, but I remember expressing during my stay in the US last year that I hate the word tolerance. The admission came during the home-stay period of our visit to the States as youth ambassadors — shortly after the conclusion of the Democratic Party primary — in a discussion with my East Coast liberal (if she would permit me to use that term) host mother in the college town of Ames, IA.
The very idea of tolerance, to me, implies recognising the existence of diversity, but not necessarily accepting that diversity as an alternative, and much less a legitimate alternative. Now, the reason I believe my aversion is rooted in personal experience, semantics and sociolinguistics is because in Afrikaans the word for tolerance is translated to endurance. Thus, the idea of tolerance has always conjured up images of someone having to endure some burden and having to live with something externally imposed and foreign.
Sure, one definition of tolerance does, after all, hold that it is the “act or capacity of enduring”. It’s the kind of “tolerance” that says, unashamedly, “I don’t mind black / white / gay / lesbian / Muslim / Christian / Zimbabwean / Capetonian people, as long as they stay out of my way”. In other words “the other” is a necessarily evil, something that cannot be wished away, the presence of which we can (and constitutionally should) endure from a distance.
It is this kind of “tolerance” that perpetuates segregation, misconceptions, stereotypes, fears, and worse yet, paranoia. We don’t speak to one another because God forbid I do more than endure your existence. I don’t have to understand you, and you don’t have to understand me, we’re different, that’s just the way it is. It makes me wonder whether this is in any way different from the kind of separate development propagated by the architects of apartheid.
I don’t know, it is obviously a conundrum, something perhaps innately human: “soort soek soort” or birds of a feather … ? I do not, personally, think that segregation along demographic lines is at all innately human or instinctive. I think it’s socialised — instilled through language, culture, religious beliefs and other means of imparting memes. Which, at least to me, means that if they are acquired, they can be unlearned. The intricacies of this nature versus nurture debate, however, is perhaps best suited for another occasion.
At least it is less puzzling than those individuals who, when confronted with an alternative, feel the need or are arrogant enough to believe that their approval is required to validate the existence of this alternative. Commonly expressed as “while I accept that you are Jewish / Muslim / gay / a polygamist, I don’t approve of it”.
Anyway, I digress … the definition that I would like to associate with, altogether lacking in our daily interaction with one another, and apparently missing in practice, is the idea that tolerance encompasses
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward, and toward those whose, opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, that differ from one’s own; interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, foreign to one’s own; an undogmatic viewpoint.
Ah, there it is! Interest! Not embracing, or adopting, or advocating, or enduring, but taking an interest in, or perhaps maybe a little more blasphemous to some, being concerned for “the other”. The very notion that we endeavour to learn about, understand, communicate, and even accept and appreciate, diversity.
Alas, instead we’re stuck with the bleeding heart liberal individualist isolationism of indifference and right-wing schismatic and secessionist tendencies justified at the hand of minority rights and tolerance. Tolerance is endurance, indifference and has alternatively become the new constitutionally sanctioned apartheid: separate but equal development is what they called it, right?
In 2005 I was opposed to the workshops on Racial Tolerance in KZN because they implied what you talk about here. I used an example of a smoker. If he gets on a taxi and lights a cigarete, he is doing something wrong, if we as passengers let him do it, WE ARE PRACTICING TOLERANCE. I believe we tolerate something wrong and we are suppose to accept each other RACIAL ACCEPTANCE is what we need. I used to think racial appreciation until I saw black people over appreciating being white to the point of changing their hair, accents and skin colour….
I’ve always thought of tolerance as the acceptance and understanding of the differences of others, without judgment and without complaint. After all, it is those differences that make people interesting.
So, for me, the word is a good one.
If you claim to actually LIKE everything which is different, you’re a fool or a bare-faced liar.
The good, honest man will appreciate and enjoy what he likes, tolerate as much of what he doesn’t like as his conscience allows and then not have a bar of the rest.
Enjoy the rump steak on your plate, put up with the beans and carrots and leave the brussel sprouts entirely uneaten.
Nothing wrong with that.
The concepts of endurance and tolerance, although related, are not synonymous. Endurance implies lack of choice. We ‘endure’ what we cannot avoid or change. Tolerance implies choice: I recognise differentness without discriminating against it and expect the same in return.
Endurance ensues when resistance is either impossible or futile. Tolerance is the value without which democracy cannot exist.
Democracy is a legal/political system of self-governance based on the principle that humans are personally and collectively entitled to self-determination–as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others to the same liberties.
Consequently, the first principle of democracy is freedom of thought and expression and association–which includes the freedom NOT to associate. We cannot compel ourselves to like each other; we can compel ourselves to accept the right of everyone (especially those we dislike for whatever reason!—to be different in race, in culture, in beliefs, in personal preferences, in philosophy. The only obligation we are required to accept in order to live in a democracy is tolerance of everyone’s else’s rights as equal to our own.
Human affinities are based on many things. ‘Best friends’ may be so utterly different from each other that they are a mystery to everyone else. There is an ‘affinity’ between people that defies definition. Would I like to see everyone take an interest in other cultures/races? Of course. But I cannot force others to do so. No one can.
Thank you very much for the feedback and lengthy comments, I really appreciate it.
I would just like to add that I am not advocating a love all and like all approach. For me, personally, it is more about liking diversity as something virtuous in itself, without having to adopt it, advocate for it, or embracing it. Rather, just taking an interest in your fellow human, attempting to understand that which is foreign without having to indulge it.
I don’t know whether that makes sense or not, but it is something that I have always endeavoured to do: to learn as much about as many different things as possible and then being able to make an informed decision and have an informed opinion.
If there is a word that describes peoples’ mind-sets today, it is the word tolerance. The thought behind tolerance is that right and wrong varies from situation to situation, in other words it’s all relative. What’s wrong for me may be right for you and vice versa. Tolerance teaches that all views are equally valid and there are no absolutes. The only absolute is that there are no absolutes. We tolerate everything except intolerance. As a result, we are killing truth and values have no value.
If there is a word that describes peoples’ mind-sets today, it is the word tolerance. The thought behind tolerance is that right and wrong varies from situation to situation, in other words it’s all relative. What’s wrong for me may be right for you and vice versa. Tolerance teaches that all views are equally valid and there are no absolutes. The only absolute is that there are no absolutes. We tolerate everything except intolerance. As a result, we are killing truth and values have no value. Peter Joffe
There is another aspect to “tolerance” that I dislike, especially when it manifests in moral relativism. The idea that some people should be allowed actions because it forms part of their culture, regardless of whether the actions are abhorrent is patronizing. It is based on the assumed moral/mental/cultural superiority of a certain group – to such an extent that they “excuse” the morally repugnant of others.
“Excuse their actions because they don’t know any better.”
Excusing people and cultures of their actions only because we don’t hold them up to the same standards as we would one of our own may seem enlightened, but in truth it is backward.
@ Peter Joffe and feanor…you got it RIGHT!
There is no need to prostrate ourselves to the great god “diversity”. We all discriminate hundreds of times every day, each time we make a decision. Discrimination based solely on skin color is a poor use of discrimination. Discrimination based on good character verses bad character is how we should deal with each other. There are plenty of people out there I will not tolerate…pediphiles for instance.
Not always backward, feanor, I tolerate my neighbours slaughtering an ox and two goats next door for a party, because I don’t believe that my culture is the only right one; not because I feel superior or patronising. Because it’s not something I particularly want to watch, I excuse myself from their kind invitation to their party. This is their life.
But I cannot tolerate fraud and corruption with public money and I really don’t understand why my taxes are subsidising the Zulu king. He’s never done anything for me or mine. In other words: both of these actions impinge on my life. F&C have been around in the Zulu culture for years; that doesn’t make me the slightest bit tolerant of them.
So: if our president wants 20 wives, he’s welcome, as long as he doesn’t steal public money to support them and his children. Watch this space! Several are around school-going age…I wonder whether his salary will run to private schools for them all?
And really, A Muslim is just a Muslim, unless he starts setting bombs off in public places. Which leaves me wondering what to think of Israel…it’s such a fine line between defending one’s territory and attacking that of others.
Lobengula, I think you’re resorting to the absurd by comparing tolerance for cultural diversity with tolerance for paedophilia.
The diversity I refer to is not criminal, illegal or unconstitutional and can very easily be found referenced in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution, specifically Article 9.
I also have no issue with the slaughtering of cows, but I would prefer if it happened on a farm or other open space, not right next door. I also have cultural habits (like hunting) that some find offensive. It becomes a problem when fear or a desire to be politically correct causes us to not condemn certain actions. The various ways in which women are subjugated or the way homosexuals are treated. The fact that traditional healers are accorded respect, sometimes to the detriment of the patient.
In the same way that the right to freedom of speech does not extend to hate speech or incitement to violence, multiculturalism must be allowed insofar it does not cause harm to those inside or outside the culture.
@ Marius
I brought the argument ad absurdum to make the point. All of us make decisions on where to draw the line on what to “tolerate”.
For Muslims, homosexuality is intolerable but polygamy is not.
For Americans, polygamy is intolerable.
For Africans, polygamy is not only tolerable it is considered a worthy goal.
Take your pick!
Marius,
Afrikaans does not a have a good word for tolerance; it has “endurance”. It’s language crafters can still come up with a good one from Latin or Greek.
I really dont care what the other guy thinks as long as he affords me space to pursue my culture and things in peace.
In Apartheid South Africa it was not just separate development, it was about the use of using the “Mag” state power to suppress and oppress those people you dont agree with culturally, politically and otherwise.
In Europe the same thing happened. Hence Jews, Gypsies, gays have always been the object of racial oppression starting from progroms, purges, Inquisistion, to gas ovens and concentration camps by Hitler.
That is the real danger of a society that fosters intolerance. To me that is the bottom line. I can have 5 wives , but what is the difference with a guy who goes through 6 marriages in a life time and 50 concurrent serious sexual office romances in 25 years of working life? On a moral scale i see no difference!
For me my greatest fear of the Afrikaners, is how they rationalised State violence and used it effectively and used religion to put a moral cloth on everything. So tolerance means I cant go back to that. In the same way I cant support using violent state power to make Zulus and Sothos of all white people. It’s perverse and morally indefensible.
Spot on Marius!
It seems to me from the responses thatpeople are a little confused between tolerance and moral relativism.
Syd
I think Mandla’s right. Tolerance has some passivity but isn’t essentially a bad word.
Think of living in SA like driving. People have bad attitudes in driving as in life, but screaming after them and verbally abusing them or smacking them around usually isn’t what makes them stop driving like idiots. Usually there are only a few things – experience (a few near-misses and one begins to learn the expectations of other road users), occasionally a serious accident (although one might become paranoid and worse because of it) or maybe just being hauled off and sent for defensive driving lessons. Apply this to the people you know who have bad attitudes towards others and you’ll see some parallels.
Attacking someone for how crap they are generally leads to one of two outcomes. They either retreat completely or smack you back.
Tolerance gives people the space needed to improve themselves or be themselves without some know-it-alls’ interference. If some old granny pulls out in front of me on the freeway, it’s tolerance that prevents me from chasing after her and showing her the middle finger or just giving her a klap. But tolerance is also about accepting different vehicles and different driving styles, maybe giving them a bit more leg room (cyclists, buses, even taxis
) and not applying some ‘everyone must drive like me’ thing.
Siobhan described it well. Interest is one thing; interference quite another.
Reminds me of an Afrikaner friend…and I mean a real trekker…who actually claimed he was a racist when it came to anybody with dark skin.
But, and it’s a big but, when in the Namibian bush he and his wife came upon a dark-skinned couple in trouble with their vehicle he stopped and sorted the problem out for them and then followed them to civilization to ensure they would be OK.
I’ll take that kind of “intolerance”/”racism” any day! The rest is corral dust.