The Myth of Tolerance

OK, maybe I overstated things a bit with this opening. But then again, maybe not.

How does tolerance that isn’t tolerance show up in today’s society?

Everyone knows that people see the world differently from others, leading to different beliefs and practices. Natural though such differences are, the outcome of their intersection is often unpleasant at best, and horrifying at worst as each party seeks to prevail over the other---the classic zero-sum game.

Reflecting the “I-win, you-lose” philosophy, some people engage in hostile encounters with those they disagree with or dislike. Additionally, and adding a distinctly unhelpful component to the animosity, they associate with others who feel as they do. The group then self-righteously congratulates itself on its wisdom and moral uprightness, further cementing the separation from those “others,” and giving yet more impetus to the hostility. The political differences between left and right are a classic example of both the zero-sum-game mentality and the animosity.

OK, so what about the myth of tolerance?

I know lots of folks who believe that they are tolerant, but they have a peculiar meaning for the word and its attendant behavior. Individuals, groups, and issues they like or agree with are accorded tolerance. The views they disagree with, or the people who they dislike, are actively and often hostilely attacked, and are accorded no tolerance. The silliness, and more to the point danger, of this view is easily demonstrated. Imagine a man on the right who is a hunter saying he is tolerant of the NRA. Or, imagine a person on the left who says he is tolerant of gay marriage.

When confronted with the challenges to their positions, folks assert that those people they are castigating, often with rude ad hominem characterizations and comments, are wrong or, worse yet, evil, and thus deserving of punishment. That means they can claim moral superiority (“I am tolerant”) while acting intolerantly. The principle of tolerance is thus not a principle at all, but simply a cloak covering one’s prejudicial nakedness. The problem, of course, is that the cloak is transparent, a fact of which these folks are blissfully ignorant.

So, we have tolerance of concept bound up with intolerance of behavior, a position held only with outright denial of the hypocrisy and considerable cognitive dissonance. It is my sense that the latter is clearly visible in such “tolerant intolerants” when their rage surfaces, which it nearly always does. A person cannot live “lunch free” in cognitive dissonance, and rage is often the outcome of the attempted repression. The dissonance is getting to them, but the denial obstructs a healthy resolution. Naturally, that rage must be directed outward.

More usefully, and certainly more humanely, tolerance means being able to accept, if not like or admire, the views, behavior or life-style of another person or group. We may actually disagree heartily with them. But we accord them the respect of real tolerance, not the pretend variety, in our discussions and any time we are talking about them. The most important point for us to keep in mind is that I may have a level of intolerance (it is a continuum for all but lunatic extremists) for an idea or a life-style, and yet treat the person with that idea or life-style with the greatest respect. When we conflate the person with the idea---your belief is evil and thus so are you!!---we do huge personal and societal damage. When we can separate those, we have a chance at real tolerance, conversation and respect.

Tolerance as I am using it does not come easily. It requires discipline and practice, often for a very long time because our disrespectful behavior patterns are ingrained after so many years of facilitation. Naturally, those folks mentioned above who falsely see themselves as paragons of virtue see no need for change. They will continue in their destructive ways, both for themselves and for society. But others want sincerely to be consistent and respectful, and to embody tolerance in the most humane way. Practice is difficult and nearly endless. It must be done in every situation in which we start to see another person or group in a negative light. The most helpful way to deal with this thought is to accept its existence---trying to deny its presence is self-defeating. After acknowledging, we can channel our thoughts to a more positive view of the person or group. The key is that this simple exercise must be done hundreds, but more likely thousands, of times in order to begin changing our views and adverse habits. It also helps if we dissociate ourselves from those with negativity, the “tolerant intolerants.”

After a while, tolerance and respect become natural and second nature, just as the opposite was true earlier. We then move more closely into compassion for others, no matter what our levels of disagreement. They know they can trust us not to harm them, as though, regardless of differences, we hold their well-being with great care in the palm of our hand.

Is tolerance a myth?