What is Tolerance?

We all agree that tolerance is a a 'good thing' in a liberal, open society but I think there is often confusion about its basic meaning. The word is frequently co-opted by different interest groups and bent to mean just whatever is compatible with that group’s own position. They expand or contract the meaning to reinforce the group’s own agenda. It’s an argumentative move known to philosophers as ‘Humpty-Dumptyism’ (based on Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass who believed that he could make words mean whatever he wanted).

1. Clarifying what tolerance is not

I think it would therefore be helpful if we could start by making clear what tolerance is not. I suggest:

1. tolerance is not the same as indifference;

2. tolerance is not just civility and good manners.

3. tolerance does not entail promoting multiculuralism as a value rather than simply a fact

4. tolerance does to entail moral relativism;

5. tolerance does not involve an insoluble paradox;

2. We only tolerate objectionable things

The first thing we need to get straight is that when we tolerate a behaviour, a practice, a belief, an attitude or an institution we are asserting that the thing we tolerate is objectionable in some way. We are in effect saying that we dislike it and, all things being equal, we should prefer that it just disappeared from our lives. It would be absurd to say that we positively like something, generally approve of it or just don’t care about it, but are tolerating it all the same. If we tolerate something then we just don’t like it. That’s not the same as saying we think it’s bad or evil. We may think that too, but whether it's morally bad or not, the fact is that we dislike it.

3. Tolerance is good for the community

A tolerant person, when confronted with something that they find objectionable, believes that tolerating it results in a better outcome for the community as a whole than if we were to suppress the offending object. We all have to rub along together in society and if we all cut each other a little slack from time-to-time and put up with things we don't like, life will go better for all of us.

4. Tolerance must be voluntary

Authentic toleration must be voluntary. If it is enforced then we are simply suffering or enduring. On the other hand, if we were merely indifferent to the object, having no strong feelings one way or the other, then we could not be said to tolerate it at all. We simply don’t care about it.

5. Indifference is sometimes 'a good thing'

Tolerance is normally thought of as a virtuous quality. However, it may be that in some cases the cultivation of an attitude of benevolent indifference is the best policy. For instance, consider someone who has a deeply felt antagonism towards members of other races, believing all but the northern white races to be degenerate and inferior. It is possible that with a bit of effort our racist could develop a tolerant practice in the sense that he scrupulously treats everyone, regardless of race, in a fair and non-discriminatory way as required by the law despite his distaste. But would we praise such a person for their ‘tolerance’? Perhaps we might—at least in a public context—such as their work. If we knew, from private conversations outside of work, that this person secretly harboured prejudices that they were successfully suppressing in their work life, we might consider that they were performing their role adequately. It could be argued that they are exercising a form of tolerance. We certainly would not be in a position, as their manager, to discipline them for racism.

Of course, you might object that it’s unlikely a person who harboured such deep-seated prejudices would find it possible, in practice, to treat people in their hate-group impartially. Their fundamental beliefs and feelings are bound to leak-out at some point. I suppose it would be a matter of how deep and pervasive the prejudice was and how much emotion was bound up with it. However, it cannot be cogently argued that adding a layer of tolerance to negate their original intolerance is an authentic solution to the problem, even if it were successful. The original hatred is a vice and overlaying it with an ‘apparent virtue’ cannot transmute the original vice. The best attitude, surely, is that we should become indifferent to race rather than be either tolerant or intolerant of it.

6. Tolerance has nothing to do with relativism

Some people think that to be tolerant you have to adopt an attitude of moral relativism, believing there are no universal moral truths or principles. The relativist believes that the truth of a moral judgement is relative to the framework within which it is made (normally a culture or subculture—or sometimes the viewpoint of just one individual). As the relativist denies a privileged position to any moral belief, including his own, this should, on the face of it, guarantee that everyone tolerates everyone else.

Unfortunately, relativism is logically self-defeating when examined closely. Tolerance itself is a substantive moral prescription: one that the relativist believes everyone ought to adopt. But if relativism is correct then the prescription can only apply to his/her own perspective (or culture). If someone from another culture does not believe in tolerance then the relativist is bereft of argument: there is nothing s/he can say. The relativist is like someone in a tree sawing off the branch he is sitting on! In the end, all the relativist can do is adopt an attitude of moral indifference or resort to force. An appeal to the other person’s tolerance is logically impossible as any reasons s/he gives to the other will be relevant only to the speaker’s own personal or cultural, perspective.

7. Tolerance is not as paradoxical as it first seems

The so-called ‘paradox of tolerance’ arises from the fact that one of the things a tolerant person finds objectionable is intolerance itself. Therefore, it seems that to be consistent, a tolerant person should tolerate intolerance! But if the intolerant are successful in gaining political power through our championing of their civil freedoms (because the rest of us are so tolerant!) then we could end up with an intolerant society. Tolerance therefore appears to be self defeating! However, this apparent contradiction is easily resolved by realising that tolerance is not just a passive feeling or attitude but a substantive moral principle that we expect everyone in an open, liberal society to sign up to: a kind of minimum qualification for joining the club. Tolerance requires reciprocity and so it is quite consistent to coerce those who want to opt out and deny the moral norm, as failure to do so would undermine that very norm.

8. Tolerance and civility are not the same thing

In polite society the notion of tolerance has nowadays become somewhat confused with civility and good manners. While these are good in themselves they are not values that are necessarily entailed by tolerance. For instance if we look back to the early years of Quakerism, a paradigm of a tolerant organisation surely! we find that the founder George Fox was not above going into an Anglican church, arguing with the priest while he was preaching, and declaring the congregation damned to hell! GF's conception of tolerance was somewhat less prissy than ours! It meant that you did not persecute or use violent coercion against those with whom you disagreed. But it did not prevent outspoken criticism and it did not require that you were polite to your opponents and avoid offending them. I think that in these days of 'Wokism', when we often tip-toe around cultural and religious differences, we might have something to learn from old Mr Fox!

An open and tolerant society cannot, and should not, insulate you from having your beliefs and sensibilities questioned and criticised. It should not defend you from being hurt, insulted or offended. It should simply defend your right to enter into critical discussion with others and not to suffer violence, coercion or disadvantage should you do so. However, the quite independent value of civility should come into play when dealing with other people’s sensibilities and we should not cause hurt and offence for no good reason, but good manners and respect should not be confused with tolerance.

An example: The Danish cartoons

The 2005 Danish cartoons incident is a good case of something that was puerile, rude and uncivil but not intolerant. Personally I don’t think the cartoons should have been published because they gratuitously offended a poor, marginalised group. However, while I think they should not have been published, as it is simply unkind to upset people in this way for no good reason, I don't think it would have been right to suppress them either. No one has the right to have their sensibilities protected. Rights are one thing but doing the right thing is something else.

9. Tolerance is not the same as appreciating

Another conception of tolerance that I believe gets it badly wrong is that exemplified by UNESCO (as quoted on the US website tolerance.org):

“Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world’s cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. Tolerance is harmony in difference.

We view tolerance as a way of thinking and feeling—but most importantly, of acting—that gives us peace in our individuality, respect for those unlike us, the wisdom to discern humane values and the courage to act upon them.”

No one can fault this sentiment but what is being described here is a full-bodied respect and celebration of difference, not tolerance. It involves a positive evaluation of other peoples and cultures. However, if, as I argue above, tolerance is simply putting-up with something I experience as disagreeable for a higher end than simply my own comfort, then this is most certainly an inaccurate definition. To redefine words in this way only causes muddle and confusion.

What UNESCO are doing is offering a ‘stipulative definition’. They are redefining tolerance in a way that offers a higher, more inclusive and more positive conception. They are more interested in recommending good practice than in an accurate use of words. I am sure the motive is worthy, but this kind of move often causes arguments to get locked into a stalemate as protagonists end up arguing over definitions rather than substantive issues.

The philosopher Wittgenstein once said that if you want to know what a word means look at how it is used in everyday speech. When I talk about tolerance I am talking about it in the everyday sense. When UNESCO use it they want to extend the use to express, recommend and cultivate an ideal. These are two different definitions for two different purposes and to get into an argument about which one is right is to back yourself into a cul-de-sac. It’s better just to point out what the ‘stipulater’ is doing and to show that it is not very helpful or illuminating. It would be better for them to argue that in dealing with other cultures mere tolerance is not enough: what we need is to positively value other cultures.

Well... you could argue that we should value and appreciate all cultures, but that seems to me to beg the question. You cannot say that all cultures are, a priori, as good as all others. Certainly some things that cultural diversity gives us are to be celebrated. Anyone who lived through the 50’s and 60’s in Britain can remember the sheer awfulness of food in that era. British food was terrible: poor variety and everything overcooked! The importation of a variety of ethnic cuisines into the UK since the late 1960’s has certainly enriched our culture. But there are many ‘diverse’ cultural practices that we should want to reject surely—forced marriages and female circumcision for instance.

A bland and blanket celebration of diversity is a piece of intellectual and moral laziness at best, and shoulder-shrugging moral indifference at worst.

10. Dogmatism and Tolerance

Biologist and professional atheist Richard Dawkins is sometimes described as being very dogmatic and intolerant in the way he expresses his atheism. It is true that his style of presentation may appear dogmatic—even contemptuous of religion occasionally, however, while he may be bellicose and bombastic in his writing and speaking, he is not at all dogmatic in his methodology. He is a scientist and as such genuinely opens up all his beliefs to revision on the grounds of evidence and argument. We might want to criticise him for his emotional style—perhaps on the grounds that he generates more heat than light at times—but that does not alter the fact that he is still someone who is open to having his views falsified.

Now, compare Dawkins’ science with the many New Age ‘snake-oil’ nostrums that are today peddled in the name of spirituality—crystal therapy, for instance. A peddler of crystal therapy will talk in a smooth and soothing manner suggesting that these ideas are open for you to explore and to make up your own mind. No pressure. Just keep an open mind. The emotional style is indeed non-dogmatic but just look at the content of the system he is peddling.

Crystal Therapy has no history of development. By contrast, all authentic systems of knowledge, be they arts, crafts or sciences, progress by a process of trial-and-error over time. In conventional medicine for example, it is possible to look back over history and see how past practices in medicine have been tested and found to be in error and so have been replaced with better practices that work. With New Age ‘snake-oil’ systems, by contrast, there is no history of development—just a line of gurus who hand down the pure, undefiled teaching (dogma) to their disciples. The aim is to keep the theory unchanged and undefiled. Isn’t that precisely what a dogmatic system is: a body of knowledge that never changes and is insulated from critical examination? If the therapy does not work then the therapist simply claims that it was applied incorrectly or that there are too many other variables present. He can always excuse his failures and they are never allowed to become critical tests for his theory and practice.

In conventional medicine, on the other hand, there are legal requirements that drugs must be tested using strict double-blind and statistical methods. Notice also, that while in conventional medicine you can do real harm to a patient if you do not apply the therapy correctly with ‘snake- oil’ it’s different. Either you get a therapeutic result or nothing happens. This, again, means that the theory can never be falsified as failures can be explained away all too easily.

We must therefore make a clear distinction between style of presentation on the one hand and substantive content on the other. Someone who presents themselves in an apparently tolerant manner can still be very dogmatic in their substantive beliefs because they are not open to their beliefs being changed.

11. Summing up

In conclusion I want to say that tolerance, civility, celebration of diversity and indifference are all important goods but I want to deny that they are all reducible to tolerance as such.

• I TOLERATE the mentally ill person in my town who goes around shouting at the voices that talk to her. I’d rather she stopped doing it—but I believe that the discomfort she causes us is minimal compared with the benefit she gets from being able to freely move around the town without being suppressed or persecuted. I also value living in a community that exercises flexibility with give-and-take between its members. This is surely the very essence of care and respect in a society.

• I CELEBRATE the diversity of cuisines, music and fashion in Britain nowadays. Remember how bad the food was in the 1950’s? I now have a choice of different styles and they are all good.

• I am INDIFFERENT to the game of golf. For me golf is the waste of a good walk and I am quite unable to appreciate its attraction. I am glad that people have a sport they enjoy and I am pleased that lots of people are pursuing a variety of activities they like. But as the pursuit of their sport does not affect me, and is in no way harmful to themselves or others, I would describe my position as indifferent.

• Finally, I believe we should all be INTOLERANT of racism and sexism and all those who fail to tolerate harmless diversity simply because it is different and makes them feel uncomfortable.

You are free to disagree and argue with what I have said here---I'll tolerate your disagreement!