Tolerance, The New Intolerance

I just read a little on the subject of tolerance and was immediately reminded of the recent way for identifying new trends by calling the new something a “new” version of the old trend. For example, “red is the new mauve” if red is now the chic color and it used to be mauve. It starts sounding really dumb when it’s something like “black, the new white.” If black is the new white, then where are the contrasts?

But what I read said more clearly what I had been thinking for some time. Tolerance is now seen as a form of bigotry because it presumes that your underlying values are contrary to those that you are willing to tolerate. In other words, if you can’t simply agree with them, then you are a bigot even if you can live with them.

I see this as a natural progression of the unbridled postmodern thought that everything is OK. Now a true student of philosophy would tell you that is not true postmodern thought. But there are plenty of people looking for a way to be accepted as “OK” and when the current culture and philosophy seems to be that there are no absolute truths, then I ought to be OK. Some have gone so far as to suggest that true tolerance is to be neutral on a subject.

The problem is that if anyone admits to what they actually believe, even if they are still quite willing to let you go on with your belief, they are immediately labeled as intolerant. This is contrary to the very definition of tolerance. Merriam-Webster defines tolerance as “sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own” or “the act of allowing something.”

While holding out that others should be tolerant is not necessarily contrary to tolerance, it can quickly become that way. If I claim to be tolerant, but cannot tolerate those who are not tolerant, isn’t that proof that I do not know tolerance? Of all the people to tolerate, it would seem that tolerating those who are not themselves tolerant is the real proof of your tolerance.

If I claim to be a tolerant person I should welcome it when someone shows me where I fail in my goal of tolerance. But the fact that I am tolerant, or at least try to be, means that I actually hold a differing view. Does that view refute may claim of tolerance? No. It is the fact of that difference that causes there to be either tolerance or intolerance. If I do not require others to hold to my views, then I am tolerant.

When anyone claims that tolerance is just intolerance or bigotry, they are either saying that they simply have no thoughts on any subject — which is patently absurd — or they are admitting that in some area they are equally intolerant. To say that tolerance is actually intolerance is to change the core definitions in the middle of the argument. If there is no disagreement then there is no cause for tolerance.

Since no two persons are going to agree on all things, there is always the need for tolerance. Therefore, to say that tolerance on a person’s part is actually intolerance is to require that everyone either have no opinions, or to hold your opinions on those things on which they do have opinions. The former is impossible and the latter is absolutely contrary to the very tenets of the postmodern notion of no absolute truth. If everyone must agree, then it can be safely claimed as an absolute. But to hold no opinion is to have no rudder and instead be taken where you do not chose to go.

Assuming that tolerance is a true state of mind, my own claim of tolerance may be undermined by other statements or actions that show my lack of tolerance. I may be willing to shake the hand of someone with whom I disagree and look genuine, but then speak ill of him behind his back. This is not tolerance, but hypocrisy. But I need not fully hide my disagreement to be tolerant.

If I work with someone with whom I truly do not agree on some issue that I consider important, the test of my tolerance is not in whether I drop even the thought that they are wrong, but that I can treat them with the same dignity and respect in all aspects of our relationship as I do someone with whom I fully agree. I do not need to invite them to my house for dinner, or state that I now agree with them or think the issue is totally unimportant.

Speaking of a workplace relationship is somewhat easy because it typically has a limit. But our relationship with virtually everyone has some limit. That limit may be much smaller in the case of a spouse, but it is still there.

I hope that I can be truly tolerant of those with whom I disagree. And I hope that you can accept that we may not agree. I may try to sway you to my way of thinking while you try to sway me to yours. Neither may succeed. Can you tolerate my disagreement? I will surely try to do the same for you. But if you insist that I must drop my disagreement to be truly tolerant, then you do not understand the term. I will try to tolerate such ignorance, but I may not be totally silent on the subject.