Toleration

{{Short description|Allowing or permitting a thing, person, or idea of which one disapproves}}

{{redirect|Tolerate|other uses|Tolerance (disambiguation){{!}}Tolerance}}

Toleration is when one allows or permits an action, idea, object, or person that they dislike or disagree with. Political scientist Andrew R. Murphy explains that "We can improve our understanding by defining 'toleration' as a set of social or political practices and 'tolerance' as a set of attitudes."{{Cite journal |last=Murphy |first=Andrew R. |year=1997 |title=Tolerance, Toleration, and the Liberal Tradition |journal=Polity |publisher=The University of Chicago Press Journals |volume=29 |issue=4 |pages=593–623 |doi=10.2307/3235269 |jstor=3235269 |s2cid=155764374}} Random House Dictionary defines tolerance as "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, beliefs, practices, racial or ethnic origins, etc., differ from one's own".{{Cite web |title=Definition of tolerance|url=https://www.dictionary.com/browse/tolerance |access-date=2 January 2023 |website=dictionary.com |language=en}} The Merriam-Webster Dictionary associates toleration both with "putting up with" something undesirable, and with neglect or failure to prevent or alleviate it.Merriam-Webster Dictionary, [https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/tolerate tolerate verb], accessed 13 February 2024

Both these concepts contain the idea of alterity: the state of otherness.{{Cite journal |last=van Doorn |first=Marjoka |year= 2014 |title=The nature of tolerance and the social circumstances in which it emerges |volume=62 |number=6|pages=905–927 |journal=Current Sociology|doi=10.1177/0011392114537281 }} Additional choices of how to respond to the "other", beyond toleration, exist. Therefore, in some instances, toleration has been seen as "a flawed virtue" because it concerns acceptance of things that were better overcome.{{r|van Doorn}} Toleration cannot, therefore, be defined as a universal good, and many of its applications and uses remain contested.{{r|van Doorn|page=2}}

Religious toleration may signify "no more than forbearance and the permission given by the adherents of a dominant religion for other religions to exist, even though the latter are looked on with disapproval as inferior, mistaken, or harmful".{{Cite book |last=Zagorin |first=Perez |title=How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West |year=2003 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-0-691-09270-6 |location=Princeton, N.J. |oclc=50982270}} Historically, most incidents and writings pertaining to religious toleration involve the status of minority and dissenting viewpoints in relation to a dominant state religion;{{Cite magazine |last=Vahland |first=Joachim |year=2017 |title=Tolerance discourses |magazine=Zeno |issue=37 |pages=7–25}} however, religion is also sociological, and the practice of toleration has always had a political aspect as well.{{Cite book |title=Tolerance and Intolerance: Social Conflict in the Age of the Crusades |publisher=Syracuse University Press |year=2001 |isbn=978-0-8156-2869-9 |editor-last=Gervers |editor-first=Peter |editor-last2=Gervers |editor-first2=Michael |editor-last3=Powell |editor-first3=James M.}}{{rp|xiii}}

Toleration assumes a conflict over something important that cannot be resolved through normal negotiation without resorting to war or violence.{{citation needed|reason=can't I be tolerant of e.g. my bunkmate's snoring or my co-worker's bad jokes?|date=August 2023}} As political lecturer Catriona McKinnon explains, when it comes to questions like what is "the best way to live, the right things to think, the ideal political society, or the true road to salvation, no amount of negotiation and bargaining will bring them to an agreement without at least one party relinquishing the commitments that created the conflict in the first place. Such conflicts provide the circumstances of toleration... [and] are endemic in society."{{Cite book |last=McKinnon |first=Catriona |title=Toleration: A Critical Introduction |publisher=Routledge |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-415-32289-8 |location=New York}}{{rp|6}} "The urgency and relevance of this issue is only too obvious: without tolerance, communities that value diversity,{{Cite web |title=Diversity As A Core Value – What Does It Mean To Value Diversity? |url=https://www.emexmag.com/diversity-as-a-core-value/ |access-date=10 June 2016 |website=emexmag.com}} equality, and peace could not persist."{{cite book|last=Vogt|first=W.P.|year=1997|title=Tolerance & Education: Learning to Live with Diversity and Difference|location=Thousand Oaks, Calif.|publisher=Sage Publications, Inc.}}{{r|van Doorn|page=1}}

An examination of the history of toleration includes its practice across various cultures. Toleration has evolved into a guiding principle, finding contemporary relevance in politics, society, religion, and ethnicity. It also applies to minority groups, including LGBT individuals. It is closely linked to concepts like human rights.

Etymology

Originally from the Latin {{lang|la|tolerans}} (present participle of {{lang|la|tolerare}}; "to bear, endure, tolerate"), the word {{lang|frm|tolerance}} was first used in Middle French in the 14th century and in Early Modern English in the early 15th century.{{Cite web |title=tolerance (n.) |url=https://www.etymonline.com/word/tolerance#etymonline_v_15343 |access-date=19 November 2018 |website=Online Etymology Dictionary}} Toleration was first used in English in the 1510s to mean "permission granted by authority, licence" from the French {{lang|fr|tolération}} (originally from the Latin past participle stem of {{lang|la|tolerare}}, {{lang|la|tolerationem}}), moving towards the meaning of "forbearance, sufferance" in the 1580s.{{Cite web |title=toleration (n.) |work=Online Etymology Dictionary |url=https://www.etymonline.com/word/toleration#etymonline_v_15344 |access-date=19 November 2018}} The notion of religious toleration stems from Sebastian Castellio, as well as the Toleration Act 1688.

France

File:Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789.jpg]]

{{quote box|quote=For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise. It is, therefore, that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my judgment and to pay more respect to the judgment of others.|source=Benjamin Franklin|width=20em}}

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), adopted by the National Constituent Assembly during the French Revolution, states in Article 10: "No-one shall be interfered with for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their practice does not disturb public order as established by the law." ("{{lang|fr|Nul ne doit être inquiété pour ses opinions, mêmes religieuses, pourvu que leur manifestation ne trouble pas l'ordre public établi par la loi.}}"){{Cite web |title=Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen de 1789 |url=https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/le-bloc-de-constitutionnalite/declaration-des-droits-de-l-homme-et-du-citoyen-de-1789 |language=fr-FR}}

In the 19th century

=John Stuart Mill=

In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill states that opinions ought never to be suppressed, stating, "Such prejudice, or oversight, when it [i.e. false belief] occurs, is altogether an evil; but it is one from which we cannot hope to be always exempt, and must be regarded as the price paid for an inestimable good."{{cite book|last=Mill|first=John Stuart|title=On Liberty|location=London|publisher=John W. Parker and Son|year=1859|url=https://archive.org/details/onlibertyxero00milluoft}}{{rp|[https://archive.org/details/onlibertyxero00milluoft/page/93/mode/1up 93]}} He claims that there are three sorts of beliefs that can be had—wholly false, partly true, and wholly true—all of which, according to Mill, benefit the common good:

{{blockquote|First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion is an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion is not only true but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. Not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.{{r|Mill|page=[https://archive.org/details/onlibertyxero00milluoft/page/95/mode/1up 95]}} }}

=Ernest Renan=

File:Ernest Renan 1876-84.jpg

In his 1882 essay "What is a Nation?", French historian and philosopher Ernest Renan proposed a definition of nationhood based on "a spiritual principle" involving shared memories rather than a common religious, racial, or linguistic heritage. Thus members of any religious group could participate fully in the nation's life. "You can be French, English, German, yet Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or practicing no religion."{{Cite web |last=Renan |first=Ernest |date=11 March 1882 |title='What is a nation?' Conference at the Sorbonne |url=http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Qu%E2%80%99est-ce_qu%E2%80%99une_nation_%3F |access-date=13 January 2011}}

In the 20th century

In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.{{Cite web |year=1948 |title=The Universal Declaration of Human Rights |url=https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights |access-date=1 June 2007 |publisher=United Nations}}

Though not formally legally binding, the Declaration has been adopted in or has influenced many national constitutions since 1948. It also serves as the foundation for a growing number of international treaties and national laws and international, regional, national, and sub-national institutions protecting and promoting human rights, including the freedom of religion.

Modern analyses and critiques

Contemporary commentators have highlighted situations in which toleration conflicts with widely held moral standards, national law, the principles of national identity, or other strongly held goals. Michael Walzer notes that the British in India tolerated the Hindu practice of suttee (ritual burning of a widow) until 1829. On the other hand, the United States declined to tolerate the Mormon practice of polygamy.{{Cite book |last=Walzer |first=Michael |url=https://archive.org/details/ontoleration00walz_0 | url-access=registration |title=On Toleration|series=The Castle lectures in ethics, politics, and economics |year=1997 |publisher=Yale University Press |isbn=0300070195 |location=New Haven |oclc=47008086}} The French head scarf controversy represents a conflict between religious practice and the French secular ideal.{{Cite magazine |last=Bowen |first=John |date=February–March 2004 |title=Muslims and Citizens |url=https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/john-r-bowen-muslims-and-citizens/ |magazine=The Boston Review |access-date=25 January 2011}} Toleration of or intolerance toward the Romani people in European countries is a continuing issue.{{Cite news |title=A long road |newspaper=The Economist |url=https://www.economist.com/international/2010/09/16/a-long-road|url-access=subscription|date=2010-09-18 |access-date=2 January 2023 |issn=0013-0613}} Pope Francis refers to the "admirable creativity and generosity" shown by people who put up with their lives in "a seemingly undesirable environment" and learn "to live their lives amid disorder and uncertainty".Pope Francis (2015), [https://www.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si_en.pdf Laudato si'], paragraph 148, accessed 13 February 2024

=Modern definition=

File:NYC Pride 2019 05.jpg is the world's largest LGBT event. Regional variation exists with respect to toleration in different parts of the world.]]

Historian Alexandra Walsham observes that the modern understanding of toleration may be very different from its historic meaning.{{Cite book |last=Walsham |first=Alexandra |title=Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England, 1500–1700 |year=2006 |publisher=Manchester University Press |isbn=978-0-7190-5239-2 |location=Manchester |page=233 |oclc=62533086}} Toleration in modern parlance has been analyzed as a component of a liberal or libertarian view of human rights. Hans Oberdiek writes, "As long as no one is harmed or no one's fundamental rights are violated, the state should keep hands off, tolerating what those controlling the state find disgusting, deplorable, or debased. For a long time, this has been the most prevalent defense of toleration by liberals... It is found, for example, in the writings of American philosophers John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Ronald Dworkin, Brian Barry, and a Canadian, Will Kymlicka, among others."{{Cite book |last=Oberdiek |first=Hans |title=Tolerance: Between Forbearance and Acceptance |year=2001 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Publishers |isbn=978-0-8476-8785-5 |location=Lanham, Md. |page=vi |oclc=45604024}}

Isaiah Berlin attributed to Herbert Butterfield the notion that "toleration{{nbsp}}... implies a certain disrespect. I tolerate your absurd beliefs and your foolish acts, though I know them to be absurd and foolish. Mill would, I think, have agreed."{{Cite book |last=Berlin |first=Isaiah |title=Four Essays on Liberty |date=1969 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-500272-0 |location=London |oclc=15227}}{{page needed|date=August 2023}} John Gray states that "When we tolerate a practice, a belief or a character trait, we let something be that we judge to be undesirable, false, or at least inferior; our toleration expresses the conviction that, despite its badness, the object of toleration should be left alone."{{Cite book |last=John |first=Gray |title=Enlightenment's Wake: Politics and Culture at the Close of the Modern Age |publisher=Routledge |year=2015 |isbn=978-1-138-17022-3 |oclc=941437450}} However, according to Gray, "new liberalism – the liberalism of Rawls, Dworkin, Ackerman and suchlike" – seems to imply that "it is wrong for government to discriminate in favour of, or against, any form of life animated by a definite conception of the good".Gray (1995), p. 20.

John Rawls' "theory of 'political liberalism' conceives of toleration as a pragmatic response to the fact of diversity". Diverse groups learn to tolerate one another by developing "what Rawls calls 'overlapping consensus': individuals and groups with diverse metaphysical views or 'comprehensive schemes' will find reasons to agree about certain principles of justice that will include principles of toleration".{{Cite web |first=Andrew|last=Fiala|title=Toleration| website = Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |url=https://iep.utm.edu/tolerati/ |access-date=2 January 2023 |language=en-US}} Herbert Marcuse, in the 1965 book A Critique of Pure Tolerance, argued that "pure tolerance" that permits all can favor totalitarianism and tyranny of the majority, and insisted on "repressive tolerance" against them.{{citation needed|date=September 2023}}

=Tolerating the intolerant=

Several philosophers, such as Michael Walzer, Karl Popper,{{Cite book |last=Popper |first=Karl |title=The Open Society and Its Enemies |isbn=978-0-691-21206-7 |volume=1 |chapter=chapter 7, note 4 |oclc=1193010976}} and John Rawls,{{Cite book |last=Rawls |first=John |title=A Theory of Justice: Original Edition |year=1971 |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0-674-01772-6 |language=en|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=TdvHKizvuTAC&pg=PA216 216]}} have discussed the paradox of tolerating intolerance. Walzer asks "Should we tolerate the intolerant?" He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects.{{r|Walzer|pages=80–81}} Rawls argues that an intolerant sect should be tolerated in a tolerant society unless the sect directly threatens the security of other members of the society. He hypothetises that members of the intolerant sect in a tolerant society will, over time, acquire the tolerance of the wider society.

=Other criticisms and issues=

Toleration has been described as undermining itself via moral relativism: "either the claim self-referentially undermines itself or it provides us with no compelling reason to believe it. If we are skeptical about knowledge, then we have no way of knowing that toleration is good."

Ronald Dworkin argues that in exchange for toleration, minorities must bear with the criticisms and insults which are part of the freedom of speech in an otherwise tolerant society.{{Cite web |last=Dworkin |first=Ronald |date=14 February 2006 |title=Even bigots and Holocaust deniers must have their say |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/14/muhammadcartoons.comment |access-date=2 January 2023 |website=The Guardian |language=en}} Dworkin has also questioned whether the United States is a "tolerant secular" nation, or is re-characterizing itself as a "tolerant religious" nation, based on the increasing re-introduction of religious themes into conservative politics. Dworkin concludes that "the tolerant secular model is preferable, although he invited people to use the concept of personal responsibility to argue in favor of the tolerant religious model."{{Cite web |date=18 April 2008 |title=Dworkin Explores Secular, Religious Models for Society |url=http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2006_spr/dworkin.htm |url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120118151728/http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2006_spr/dworkin.htm|archive-date=2012-01-18|access-date=21 March 2011 |website=Virginia Law School News and Events}}

In The End of Faith, Sam Harris asserts that society should be unwilling to tolerate unjustified religious beliefs about morality, spirituality, politics, and the origin of humanity, especially beliefs that promote violence.

Sources

{{Free-content attribution

| title = Rethinking Education: Towards a global common good?

| publisher = UNESCO

| page numbers = 24

| source =

| documentURL = http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002325/232555e.pdf

| license statement URL = http://www.unesco.org/ulis/cgi-bin/ulis.pl?catno=232555&set=00581C72C5_2_460&gp=1&lin=1&ll=1

| license = CC-BY-SA IGO 3.0

}}

References

External links

[https://www.learningforjustice.org/professional-development/test-yourself-for-hidden-bias Test Yourself for Hidden Bias]
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p004y288 Toleration], BBC Radio 4 discussion with Justin Champion, David Wootton & Sarah Barber (In Our Time, 20 May 2004)

Category:Religion and politics

Category:Human rights by issue