A few weeks ago I wrote Definitions Matter Part 1 about the term non-judgmentalism. This week I have turned my sights to a classical liberal principle, tolerance.
If I had a nickel for every time I was accused of lacking tolerance I would retire early. This word has grown over the years and mutated into something it was never meant to be. Tolerance was first used to describe the ability to endure pain and physical hardship. But it was quickly acknowledged that physical pain is not the only thing humans have to endure. We also have to endure the pain of people disagreeing with us, and this can sometimes be far more difficult.
Tolerance v. Violence
As history has shown, violence is usually only a step or two away from disagreement. Tolerance tried to show that this does not have to be the case. We can disagree and still abstain from violence. This has the effect of allowing people to disagree without fear of violent reprisal. It stood as an encourager of debate and discussion. This type of tolerance is a very difficult skill to learn and it requires the use of many virtues. Naturally, not everyone is willing to do this, so violence still surrounds us.
I can’t quite put a date on it, but at some stage in the mid twentieth century, tolerance begin to change. Unhappy with the lack of progress it was making in preventing violence, it decided that the problem was the initial disagreement. With no disagreement, there would be no need to learn a difficult skill in order to prevent said violence. Thus, tolerance was upgraded from a skill to a virtue.
Tolerance as a virtue
It’s old position which had the effect of encouraging debate, was now replaced with a new position which had the effect of shutting down debate. John F Kennedy once said that tolerance does not imply a lack of commitment to one’s beliefs. I definitely believe him in this. But Tolerance is not about your own beliefs. It is about how you react to opposing beliefs.
I have come to notice that the most self-professed tolerant people are the ones who are extremely committed to their own beliefs, so much so that they will not even let their own beliefs be subject to opposing views. It should come as no surprise that the loudest people calling for tolerance are also the loudest people calling for freedom of speech to be reined in.
The sad state of tolerance
Tolerance is not the same as agreement or acceptance. And it cannot be carried out through humiliation of other people. It specifically requires respectful disagreement. How respectful can tolerance be if it is now used as character assassination? How capable of disagreeing can tolerance be if it is now used to shut down debate? The Western world needs to revive the old definition of tolerance. It needs to retake its’ place as a skill that encourages different opinions.