Mainz, Germany

Dear Landis,

You are welcome to try your hand at "moderating" discussions which arises from this question. In any case, it is definitely a question; and I expect that some people may disagree with my own approach or analysis. If you reacted to the question instead of the asking of it, then you might get discussion started.

I have certainly seen much doubt on the theme of the virtue of tolerance, over many years. The contrary position complains of the inadequacy of tolerance, and wants something more. It may be that there will be advocates of intolerance, since there is much of it around. Its time to debate the related issues again.

Personally, I oppose tolerance of intolerance.

H.G. Callaway

Mainz, Germany

Dear all,

Here's a brief, first quotation:

Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.

(Attributed to Thomas Mann)

I think this will be generally accepted. Its equivalent, or broader than, rejecting "tolerance of intolerance." Notice a corollary: to justify intolerance or aggression, it is only needed to create the image of an opponent as a moral monster. Its not, perhaps, that the fellow actually practices something generally accepted to be evil, but if all politics is equivalent to advertising campaigns, then running down the opposition will seem acceptable? The end, of marginally diminishing the competition, justifies the means of painting in overly broad and dramatic strokes?

Intolerance, and the excesses of competitiveness is here seen to arise directly from the "expediency" of making the means "holy" by directing attention to some admirable end. But the ends which are actually reached by such doubtful means would seem to be diminished by the means employed. It is only the actual means employed which have any effects in the world. The actual effects of expedient excesses of competition will be polarization.Right?

H.G. Callaway   

Mainz, Germany

Dear all,

Here's another of the quotations from the sources noted above:

Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.

(Attributed to Bertrand Russell)

What we are seeing in contemporary politics and political polarization is the phenomenon of "collective fear" remarked on in this quotation, which "tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd."

This takes many forms, though the various forms seem to be rooted in intolerance. Those who organize intolerance seem to want exactly this social "ferocity," or I sometime think of it as "collective vehemence." The most dangers sort is old-fashioned nationalism, and its appeal is not far to seek. It is the one large-scale form of collective ferocity which is open to just about anyone, educated or uneducated, advantaged in society of disadvantaged. Just now, nationalism seems particularly dangerous to the European project; and we have seen its working, too, in the border war in eastern Ukraine.

Another form of collective ferocity is evident in jihadist attacks and on-going wars and conflicts. 

If collective ferocity and exclusion of those who disagree --with the noble ideals of equality, say, is quite o.k., and that degree of intolerance is acceptable, then the lesson will also be taken by many others less able to articulate their goals and "good" objectives to the wider and learned world. It will be taken up by those who only know how to combine and lash out.

In consequence, it is the first obligation of intelligent advocacy to keep the regime of tolerance in place --to accept or even encourage the free expression of those with whom we disagree. Those engaged in intelligent advocacy must be the first defenders of the freedom of speech.

H.G. Callaway

Dear HG

Presumably the capacity for human tolerance has survival value otherwise, despite your observations (with which I am inclined to agree), we would not be capable of the levels of tolerance that are still in place and, given mankind's access to means of total destruction, we would not be having this discussion. Species survival is good, so yes, tolerance is a societal virtue. 

There have to be limits to tolerance however, but at the same time the response has to be proportionate. I don't know whether it is correct to project from an individual to a societal/political view, but my tolerance for someone waving their fists in the air becomes severely attenuated within an inch of the end of my nose. But what do I do? Start waving my fists in the air? Walking away is an option, but not necessarily the right one. Kennedy's response to the Cuban missile crisis comes to mind.

Maybe there is something to the idea of institutional suppression of extremist views contributing to subsequent inability to deal with them rationally, leading to disproportionate responses. What is particularly disturbing is that the views need not necessarily be outrageously extreme.

Someone was shot in the UK last week, apparently for advocating that the UK stay in the common market. 

This is an excellent discussion to open up, and I agree that human tolerance has survival value and indeed I'd go further and say that it has helped the development of our intellectual skills.

One of the keys to problem-solving and creativity is the ability to be able to shift from one way of looking at things to a fresh one - to unlock ourselves from one view and somehow float, and then take a different line of approach.

I find that some things that annoy me can actually over time be a stimulus - not to agree with them or to directly disagree, but to move to a broader perspective where I can see how to tackle them in a more constructive way.

The TRIZ approach to innovation involves following a line of approach even though it leads to something that doesn't work - and by focusing on that, finding that it's possible to come up with a fresh solution. Possibly it's a bit like Zen, whereby the interaction of opposites and paradoxes helps us to break free of our existing perspectives and be more open to fresh ones.

Professor Richard Florida argues that the key to economic development in the 21st century is no longer natural resources, but rather the presence or absence of key people who he calls the creative class. And what attracts them to a region, he says, are the three T's. The first two are Talent (proximity of other people like them or with the skills for practical collaboration) and Technology (the necessary practical support). The third T is Tolerance - they like a place with no pressures or tensions.

Intolerance leads to emotions and a narrowing of perspectives. Tolerance creates a climate where we can relax and explore ideas, and where contradictions can stimulate rather than confront.

And just to add, I also agree with the comment about the possibility that institutional suppression of extremist views can contribute to subsequent inability to deal with them rationally. Given that extremist views are based on a distortion of logic, one key part of the process of tackling them has to be to pinpoint the places in the argument where the logic is false, and by that diagnosis enable others, currently undecided, to better see.

Mutual tolerance, respect and listening to others' views is a critical aspect of social and political interaction and communication across all genders, ethnic and religious groups. My experience living and working in diverse parts of the world  has shown that a lack of these virtues and practices will result in xenophobia leaving those around us and ourselves poorer for these experiences.     

Mainz, Germany

Dear all,

Here's a quotation on "intolerance":

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society... then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them... We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

(attributed to Karl Popper)

This is a rather fuller expression of the social-liberal conception of tolerance in its relation to intolerance. It strikes as akin to the idea that "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." One version of this latter idea comes from the American Abolitionist and liberal activist Wendell Phillips.

Speaking to members of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, January 28, 1852, Phillips said:

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few. The manna of popular liberty must be gathered each day or it is rotten. The living sap of today outgrows the dead rind of yesterday. The hand entrusted with power becomes, either form human depravity or esprit de corps, the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continued oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot; only by unintermitted agitation can a people be sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.

---End quotation

Phillips, who was an immensely famous public speaker of those times, was no doubt also concerned about the wide-spread intolerance of abolitionism among his contemporaries.

That intolerance should now be enlisted in the advocacy of equality strikes me as simply a paradox and an ironic illusion. Once intolerance is accepted as a normal tool in winning battles and eliminating competitive speakers and ideas, it will eventually fall into the hands of people with other objectives--who can enlist broader and less enlightened support by means of it. The excessive means carry the seeds of overall loss and decline. Intolerance is not a means of reform, it is more like a means of conquest. It polarizes society and invites excessive means in reply. The prominence of Intolerance is a mark of decline in the democratic ethos. 

Are we to debate our outstanding differences and then have a free and open vote? Or, is the idea to first stack the deck of public access against any viable opposition? The first method is democratic, and second authoritarian. Democratic society and democratic values will not prosper in an atmosphere of intolerance.

H.G. Callaway

Mainz, Germany

Dear van Leunen,

What you say is very abstract, but interesting. I found nothing to dispute in it. But I wonder if people would not tend to disagree on applications. I think I'd tend to go in the opposite direction, "bottom up," looking to the various distinct and accepted "modules" and their plausible developments. Its the empiricist way. 

H.G. Callaway

Mainz, Germany

Dear Geurdes,

You make some interesting comments, and I'm surprised that no one has yet replied to them.

You wrote:

Tolerance doesn't imply political correctness.... It hasn't got a thing to do with suppressing mutual criticism.

---End quotation

Right. Its just the opposite. Enforced doctrines of political correctness are forms of intolerance--as with many campus "speech codes," which restrict freedom of speech. This is definitely a constitutional problem in public universities in the U.S.

More generally, you comment on the relationship of social and economic systems. You wrote:

Once broken by forces of correct behavior or laziness & turning blind eyes to the evil that can be bestowed upon one's own ways, tolerance turns into its mirror image. It isn't reparairable. Tolerance is an active ongoing process seeking for mutuality without loosening one's own ways but respecting the other's because of the economic-like relationship.

---End quotations

But it strikes me that your presuppose static systems of relationships here in some fashion. One way to "repair" tolerance can be simply stated. Everyone decides to drop relationships to the intolerant and renew, invigorate or start relationships with people more tolerant. Impractical, you say? Well, yes, of course, but it can be done a little at a time, by each person even if not all at once by everyone. Static systems of relations will always resist this sort of thing, of course, and typically people accepting of static systems are also accepting of greater intolerance --it tends to build a hierarchy. 

Rather than saying "an economic-like relation," though, I'd say there is a continual task of building new social worlds. Economic relationships sometimes exemplify similar patterns, but not typically in corporatist structures. It is more similar to patterns in small enterprise that people are continually making new associates and often dropping old ones. This will go its merry way, until and unless the rules are changed to facilitate grand consolidations on the part of great institutions.

Common interests are a natural way to open new relationships or renew older and desirable ones.

H.G. Callaway

I think mutual tolerance is a great virtue. Especially as most polities today are quite pluralist. My students come from all over the world

 Dear Hans 

"It prohibits the progression of physics in the direction of its foundations". I have difficulty understanding this. There seems to be something oxymoronic about it. If I am moving towards my foundations, surely I am retrogressing? Progress, on my view, should move from foundations to something new and better. Or are you talking of a process of discovery wrt the foundations of reality.

I confess that I had difficulty following your line of reasoning, particularly with reference to the physics of reality, and had to withdraw when the air became too thin! 

However, despite my lack of understanding of your approach, you seem to be advocating a normative approach to the issue of social intolerance - is that correct?

And HG -are you advocating an empirical approach? 

I can see problems with both approaches.

In recent years we have seen explosions of social intolerance - homophobia - xenophobia - religious hatred - racism. To what extent have the origins of these been rational? And if  irrational - how can they be remediated/prevented?

Why are we ever tolerant of those who hold views opposed to our own? Is it because we believe by future interaction will convert them to our views? Is it because the issue is really not that important and we admire them in so many other ways that we tolerate their views? Or is it fear of confrontation? Or a taboo issue that should not be openly debated? Passive acquiescence?

When speaking about tolerance/intolerance we should not try to pretend that there is a privileged/objective viewpoint on this question.  What is tolerable/intolerable defines a cultural viewpoint; what is tolerable is acceptable by a specific cultural viewpoint and what is intolerable is not acceptable by a specific cultural viewpoint.  Each cultural viewpoint tolerate certain things and do not tolerate other things and is neutral about others.  Toleration has not a sharp boundary either.  And cultures have also different critera of toleration for the private and the public sphere.  Usually more toleration is afforded for the private sphere and there is more restrictions in the public sphere.  there is also another toleration for the sphere of discourse.  Each culture allow to discuss certain things and not other things that are taboo.  

For large societies open to immigration where there are sub-cultural groups, the zone of toleration of the different cultural viewpoint do not coincided and even can come in opposition in some areas considered as very important both for the dominant culture and the sub-culture.  It is in the resolution of such cases that the dominant culture can be judged as tolerant or intolerant.  Usually the compromized are made for the private spheres and are much less frequent for the public sphere.

The expression:  ''We should not tolerate intolerance'' is an affirmation from member of the dominant culture that the sphere of toleration of the dominant culture has to be respected by the sub-culture even though it corresponds to their sphere of intoleration.  The expression ''rejection of intolerance'' sound innocent but it is not because it may end up in reality as a negation of tolerance under the banner of fighting for tolerance.  Very often in human affair, the official banner of a movement is at the exact opposite of the what the movement is doing.  How many ''liberation movements'' have actually end up as ''enslavement movements''.  ''rejection of intolerance'' is too broad blanket statement.

Mainz, Germany

Dear Rout,

You ask some good questions. Let me try to answer those you directed my way.

Free and open discussion is a means of mutual education. We get to see something of the world as others see it. Its an empirical approach to allow, simply, that everyone starts where they are, with the actual attitudes and beliefs or opinions that they have. We are never going to convert everyone to our own views of things, and there will always be diversity, variety and some level of discord. We should be tolerant of views opposed to our own, because hearing them out provides the basis for mutual engagement on the basis of reasoned evaluation. That is itself a social good--that we maintain the prominence and value of this form of human relations.

This is not to say that we have to tolerate intolerance. Personally, if I encounter xenophobia, fear of homosexuals, racism, etc., I certainly make a note of it, and it is worth trying to understand these phenomena--as they manifest in everyday life. We are still dealing with human beings. That said, however, the conversation will not likely last very long or develop in interesting ways. It may be important to try to say why the conversation is not developing. It may be that someone else will make a greater impression, and it may well be that I would better spend my time elsewhere. Our rejection of intolerance should be firm, but not a prohibition or suppression of expression.

Part of what is involved in maintaining the civil character of ordinary human relations.

H.G. Callaway

Mainz, Germany

Dear Brassard,

I must say that I do not follow you arguments! Might you explain a bit further?

You wrote:

When speaking about tolerance/intolerance we should not try to pretend that there is a privileged/objective viewpoint on this question.

---End quotation

This was your first statement, and it seems to be a simple rejection of the question.

Is there no "better and worse" regarding tolerance and the rejection of intolerance? That seems absurd. Why would you bother to comment here?

You continue:

What is tolerable/intolerable defines a cultural viewpoint; what is tolerable is acceptable by a specific cultural viewpoint and what is intolerable is not acceptable by a specific cultural viewpoint. Each cultural viewpoint tolerate certain things and do not tolerate other things and is neutral about others.

---End quotation

This is more or less a colossal triviality. If there were no differences regarding human attitudes toward tolerance and intolerance, it would make little sense to discuss the matter. But the participants seem to believe that it is worthy of discussion. That implies that the attitude people may start out with is not itself the answer sought.

Later you say,

The expression: ''We should not tolerate intolerance'' is an affirmation from member of the dominant culture that the sphere of toleration of the dominant culture has to be respected by the sub-culture even though it corresponds to their sphere of intoleration.

---End quotation

This again is simply a rejection of the question is favor of polarization of attitudes toward it. I'm afraid, dear Brassard. that you are going in convoluted circles to resist answering or discussing the question. Who gets to define "dominant culture" and "sub-culture"?

I can imagine that you are about to declare your own intolerance that of the "sub-culture" and thereby implicitly grant it a privilege? "Our intolerance is quite o.k., because we are victims--so we have no responsibility to resist the decline of civility into pernicious polarization"?

That's simply a partisan advocacy of intolerance and polarization. But perhaps you'll manage to avoid that conclusion?

H.G. Callaway

Mainz, Germany

Dear all,

Here is a further interesting quotation on our topic:

Hatred is corrosive of a person's wisdom and conscience; the mentality of enmity can poison a nation's spirit, instigate brutal life and death struggles, destroy a society's tolerance and humanity, and block a nation's progress to freedom and democracy.

(Attributed to Liu Xiaob)

Liu Xiaob is a Chinese dissident, currently sitting in jail, long term, for advocating the end of one-party rule in China.

The concern here that "hatred" and "enmity" not be allowed to "poison a nation's spirit" and "destroy a nation's tolerance and humanity" is upper most in this quotation. The author also sees, as well, that what arises from "hatred" and "enmity," including the loss of tolerance, may "block a nation's progress to freedom and democracy." 

But not only can it block progress toward freedom and democracy, the loss of tolerance is itself a clear sign of a decline of the democratic ethos. To foment enmity against outsiders is perhaps the easiest, but also the least intelligent means of organizing a group. Embracing tolerance, we rise above this lower level of civilization and culture. 

H.G. Callaway

H.G. Callaway,

You did not understood what I said so I will make a second attempt and at the same time revise my position.  

What is tolerable and what is not tolerable is necessary cultural.  So every cultures have different requests and are all equivalent in tolerating what do not violate the requests and of not tolerating what do violate the requests. There are all tolerants ,and all intolerant.  

  The question of tolerance of  a culture has more to do with how numerous the requests it make on its members. The more its demand are numerous and prescriptive for its members and the less tolerant it is.   In the case of a country with a dominant culture and with different cultural minority groups, there is also a second aspect to the tolerance of dominant culture, which has to do with its tolerance with of the sub-culture practices.  

  The more the dominant culture is prescriptive in the details of how you live your life for its members , including what is demanded by the members of the minorities, and the less living the culture of the minorities will be possible and will necessarily lead to the dissolution/persecution of these minorities cultural groups.  But the less prescriptive  will be the dominant culture be, the less requirements it makes on the members of society, and the less these requirements will conflict with the sub-cultural practices.  

Canada is an example of a liberal tolerant society.    There are many minorities groups for which it is primordial that the marriages be done within the group.  This requirement by these groups to their members, as long that no violence is used, is accepted within canadian society and although the dominant culture do not make such requirements from its members, it does prevent sub-cultural group to make such request for their members. So we have a case of ''tolerance by dominant culture of the society of the cultural-intolerance of the sub-culture towards inter-marriage''.  It is there is a lot of tolerance of the dominant culture for sub-culture intolerance that Canada is a liberal society.   Saudi-Arabia is an example of a dominant culture that is very prescriptive and so intolerant with many other cultural practices. 

Mutual tolerance is key, but that's not the problem. The problem is when one culture is not capable of tolerating the practices of another. Not capable by custom, not capable by their laws.

That's when the discussion goes beyond mere feel-good banalities. For instance, the practice of human sacrifice (to please the gods or anyone else) cannot be tolerated, in most countries. That's pretty clear. There's a practically infinite spectrum of other such practices, which cannot be universally tolerated.

To be capable of living together, though, tolerance is certainly key.

Is mutual tolerance a needed social and political virtue?

Think mutual tolerance is crucial virtue & most of the people in social or political arenas understand the logic of mutual tolerance - just like some of the words of wisdom shared by other scholars or even stated in the scripture e.g Matthew 7:12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets".

But think sometimes the issue here is who is the first willing party to demonstrate tolerance towards others?  And do others willing to reciprocate with tolerant act in view of the first willing party has done so?

Yes it is

If we are talking about mutual tolerance, then yes of course it is desirable but how can it be achieved? In a Utopian Republic (controlled by philosophers of course!), with everyone educated to the same degree, there is always going to be the first statement that might be confronted. Then the second source of a contrary statement. What happens next? In this rational society, every first view would begin with (stated or the assumption of) "I appreciate that my next statement may be disagreeable to some, and I will tolerate contrary views and respect the rights of those who hold them...." and every second statement with "I tolerate and respect your view but I hold that....". Of course, in such a society tolerance of intolerance would never arise. In the "real" (at risk of unleashing a torrent of metaphysical views!) world such a stance would preclude the mutuality, although "intolerance of intolerance" hits the mutuality, but how would one make a case for desirability? 

Short of identifiable total (psychotic) irrationality, how can my intolerance of your intolerance be considered the right sort of intolerance?

Mainz, Germany

Dear Fung,

I like your contribution, and I think that the "golden rule" in indeed a model of tolerance. Others, I notice, seem to be concerned with differing concepts of tolerance (very abstract, I note and with no illustrations).  One might, then, answer, in terms of the concept one accepts, of course--and worry about what others think later. Noting that there are various conceptions of tolerance is not an answer to the present question. Instead it is one reason the question is worth discussion. Those who stop at the mere fact of difference simply fail to engage the distinctively moral character of the present question.

You wrote, Fung:

Think mutual tolerance is crucial virtue & most of the people in social or political arenas understand the logic of mutual tolerance - just like some of the words of wisdom shared by other scholars or even stated in the scripture e.g Matthew 7:12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets".

---End quotation

This teaching, by the way, is present in just about every religious tradition of which I am aware--or in many at the least. Most do indeed understand the logic of mutual tolerance. The point is suggestive of the expectations of those who resist this logic.

What to do, though, if others don't practice tolerance? Well, one answer is given by another teaching of Jesus, namely "Turn the other cheek." While I would not recommend this in every situation of the lack of mutuality in reply, its a quite useful practice in some circumstances. I recall just recently meeting up with an old acquaintance at an Orchestra concert in Philadelphia and stepping over to say, "We ought to stop feuding."  The suggestion was completely ignored (or perhaps rejected with expressions of contempt?)  as far as I can tell.

On the other hand, I would re-emphasize here the need to pull away and distance ourselves from systems of rigid relationships practicing intolerance of outsiders. Let them cook in their own juices, and we should get on to something more interesting in life. There are many more fish in the sea. It often makes sense to seek out positive relationships instead of fighting through old and troubled ones. This is true independent of the purposes of the relationship.

H.G. Callaway

Mainz, Germany

Dear Laird,

RE: conflicts in the democratic state:

You may be interested to know that my Philadelphia Congressman was convicted of fraud yesterday in Federal court. He can appeal, of course, and the sentencing won't be until October. But he could serve up to 30 years in prison. His son is already in prison for 5 years, and several associates of the (sitting) Congressman have pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the federal prosecutors' case against the Congressman. This was a triumph for the federal district attorney for Eastern Pennsylvania --an Obama appointee, by the way.

Clearing out the corruption in Philadelphia politics has a very high value, in my perspective, since it tends to hold the entire area back in many ways. Although the Congressman was defeated in the recent Democratic primary election (he was already under federal indictment), one of the most amazing aspects of the case is that it took so long to bring the fellow to justice. The local party could apparently see no evil, though several judges and state legislators were also recently convicted and the State Attorney General is also presently under state indictment.

What has been "bubbling up to the top" in recent years is apparently ever more corruption among the local politicians. These people have ingloriously ended their sometimes very promising political careers, though we couldn't call it political suicide, since they apparently thought they could just continue getting away with it --given the trading of insider support. "Open hostility," or opposition at least would likely have been much better than the silent acquiescence that actually prevailed. But the city has been dominated by a single political party for 65 years.

In that context you can imagine, perhaps, what is involved in resisting insider corruption?

H.G. Callaway

Mainz, Germany

Dear Manfredi,

You say some very positive things about tolerance, but you seem to be puzzled by differences regarding tolerance. You wrote:

Mutual tolerance is key, but that's not the problem. The problem is when one culture is not capable of tolerating the practices of another. Not capable by custom, not capable by their laws.

---End quote

One reason that some cultures are incapable of tolerating the practices of another is simply that those practices are themselves intolerant. But I don't see a great problem in this so long as the two are not in significant contact and there is no attempt to impose less tolerant practices upon the more tolerant.

The fact that different people and different cultures have differing conceptions of tolerance, is essentially neither here nor there. Suppose A believes that it quite o.k. to be intolerant and exclusionary toward B, so long as A has the power to get away with it, a power long cultivated and practiced. There is still a question of whether the behavior is intolerant and whether we would be better off without it. Though people disagree about the value of tolerance, this does not show that the our question cannot be answered or that there is no "better and worse" of our positions regarding it. What I describe here amounts to a kind of exploitation, and the law may speak to it.

The matter is not fundamentally altered morally if we consider differing sub-cultures or societies, some tolerant others not. The basics are that people disagree about the value of tolerance. For example, they want to shut up their critics, exclude them from consideration or they persist in ethnic chauvinism, say. Consider, again, the Chinese dissident imprisoned for advocating and end of one-party rule in China. 

In such cases, generally, there may or may not be access to any common, enforceable law regarding the conflicts, but that does not prevent us from making moral judgments. It is quite another matter, I think to go around the world trying to impose foreign judgements on other nations and peoples. That has little appeal to me. But that some intolerant practice belongs to a "culture," certainly would not seem to suffice to put it above judgment. In spite of that, I will also reiterate here that the best case can be made by concentrating more on what is local and familiar. That's what we know best in ordinary situations. 

I think that any society built up by immigration and integration of differences must place a high value on tolerance and free expression, since these are important means of integration.

H.G. Callaway

Yes, and to insert tolerance into social & political virtues, all we need to make Balanced & Wised-Tolerance into Trading-Virtues, as at the end most of the virtues and wishes circle around it. Even some study can testify the claim that the societies and setup with Balanced & Wised-Tolerance in to trading ethics are more peaceful, cooperative and progressive with understanding of win/win condition.

Regards,

H.G, I'd like to address this from you, briefly:

"One reason that some cultures are incapable of tolerating the practices of another is simply that those practices are themselves intolerant."

Yes, that's one aspect, but it may go further. Some practices of one culture are simply not lawful in other cultures. I used the practice of human sacrifice to the gods, as an egregious example. Hopefully most of us can agree, this is simply not tolerable. There is a huge number of less egregious, but still hard to tolerate, customs and practices, that just won't translate across cultures. And no amount of political correctness can let them slide.

And,

"But I don't see a great problem in this so long as the two are not in significant contact ..."

Agreed, but all you're saying is that mutual tolerance may be impossible, and the only answer is to keep the cultures separated. Sure. Do we all agree on this? It seems to me that people go to the greatest lengths to pretend this is not the case.

It's very easy to dismiss the problem, when physical or mental violence isn't involved. Such as, tolerance of different points of view in the academic environment. Seems downright innocuous, these days. It becomes more difficult to ignore the problem when people are made to suffer, however.

I think tolerance, mutual tolerance, is mandatory if cultures are to coexist peacefully. My only point is that such mutual tolerance is not always possible. Frequently, one or the other culture simply has to change, if coexistence is necessary. As in my egregious example, in the interest of coexistence, we do not need to tolerate human sacrifice, no matter how much political correctness would wish that we could. The only answer, for peaceful coexistence, is that the practice of human sacrifice be abolished.

It's easy to come up with a host of similar, if not so egregious, examples. Even relatively benign practices, such as that of enforced arranged marriage.

Yes it is. 

Mainz, Germany

Dear Manfredi,

That's a good answer, well argued, in my impression. I mostly agree. 

Only so much can be accomplished, at any given time, or within the time provided by pressing affairs, by rational means; and much the same goes for political means and methods. In my view, people are especially prone to over-estimate the effectiveness of political means, including diplomatic extensions. That there is so much nonsense in politics is more or less a demonstration of its limits.

That does not prevent moral judgment, however; and there are many practices which are unacceptable --universally-- as you say. Integration is a slow, human processes in human relations. In the first place, it makes sense to judge from within our on-going social and moral traditions, because we have to engage the array of pre-existing values to gain support for any needed reform of values.

Pluralism is a good thing, a richness productive of new insights and innovation; but it is not an absolute good in the sense that more is always better in every circumstances. We do not want to replicate the discords of the world at large into each society.

H.G. Callaway

It sure is

Mainz, Germany

Dear all,

Here is a short video (about 5 Min.) from the FIRE organization, which defends freedom of speech, religion, etc. on campus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5F3_sG9fq8

The question here concerns tolerance of the lack of "political correctness." Its essentially a short talk by an American philosopher who, by her work, offended some ruling orthodoxies of feminism --simply by advocating for boys.

It is also a spirited appeal for lively debate on social and moral issues in the classroom. I think that one can derive from this piece an appreciation of how deeply "political correctness" has become entrenched and something of its character. 

The idea seems to be that instead of making moral judgments, we should all simply adapt to the existing social environment to minimize any stress or overt conflicts. From this perspective, raising any difficult or controversial questions, issues or positions (lacking overt support of the most vociferous political actors concerned) is always something to be avoided.

I firmly believe that this stands in conflict with the most substantial and valuable traditions of American constitutionalism and academic freedom. The tendency is for the universities to simply become further actors, and controllers of faculty and students, in overall patterns of political maneuvering in society, as enforced by administration, with no independent voice or standing to criticize, examine or propose alternatives to the on-going political developments. What's permitted? To answer this question consult the local ruling political orthodoxy.

The left seems, often enough, to like this because they see it as advancing their own social goals of equality (though the growing inequalities in American society cast considerable doubt on this claim); and the authoritarian right seems to like it because it allows a very considerable administrative power over faculty and students. There are many horror stories of the victimization of people in the universities on grounds, as we might put it, of "suspicion of political incorrectness."

Non-Americans reading of this might consider asking themselves what kind of country they might like the U.S. to be. There is evidence that political correctness is simply an elitist doctrine, and there is danger of reaction.

H.G. Callaway

Good stuff here.  I think it comes down to a bastardization of our understanding of toleration, often in ways that fit the hyper-PC model, often in ways that are really just about the idiotic relativism common in our culture (which, in my view, is actually incompatible with toleration properly understood.  If you don't know Frank Ferudi's book *On Tolerance,* you might want to look at it.  Quite an interesting sociological take on the situation you outline.  I'll also give a plug for my book, *Toleration*, in which I try to argue for a more classical understanding of toleration.   

H.G. Callaway,

I watch the video of Christina Hoff .  I did not object to the message.  Then I google Christina Hoff  and learn that she works for a the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research that defend very specific visions and she is on the payroll.  If a car critics was on the payroll of Ford, I would like to know it.  Anyway, I agree with most of what she said.  I find it funny that ::  ''AEI takes no institutional positions on policy issues (whether or not they are currently before legislative, executive, or judicial bodies) or on any other issues." and that she advocate for the youth to do just that what she is not supposed to do in her job.

Mainz, Germany

Dear all,

Regarding "political correctness," I think we have to wonder about its sources of support, too. Its a bit like a strategy of "divide and conqueror," given the imperatives of identity politics. By overplaying and exaggerating the values and mores of specific demographic groups, the effect is to keep them divided from each other and incapable of resisting the homogenizing effects of globalization, corporatism, big-money elitism, etc. In particular, the "politically correct" emphasis on equality of specific demographic groups manages quite nicely to coexist with continual growth of economic inequalities over decades. At the worst, while the middle class falls to pieces, the nation and the media are consumed with the appropriate labeling of public toilets.

In a healthy democratic ethos, one does not denigrate and attempt to isolate the perceived opposition. Doing so creates vast reservoirs of resentment and alienation and effectively inhibits development and articulation of the particular interests involved. Whatever we may come to think of people in opposition, the need is to first answer their arguments or critique their policy proposals. The cult of political correctness instead seeks to exclude and silence. In this way it is anti-democratic.

Some of the examples collected by FIRE involve horrendous political arrogance directed against ordinary students and faculty in the course of their work. Why do these people so firmly believe they will get away with the arrogance? Whence the powerful support for "pc"?

H.G. Callaway

Mainz, Germany

Dear all,

Here is another short video from "FIRE" concerned with freedom of speech and "political correctness." Essentially, Juan Williams, formerly a reporter for National Public Radio tells the story of his being fired for remarks he made in a broadcast discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv9krsKyfSY

Again, the point here is not whether you or I agree with William's remarks or whether you or I would have said the same or refrained or disagreed. The question is whether society should be tolerant enough to allow differences of opinion to be openly expressed. Williams has written extensively on the American Civil Rights movement, and he emphasizes in this short piece (about 8 Min.) that he thinks it depended on freedom of speech --directed in criticism of the old laws favoring racial segregation. At the time, of course, criticism of segregation was very unpopular in much of the country. 

Williams was fired more than a decade back, as I recall.

Comments invited.

H.G. Callaway

Mainz, Germany

Dear all,

Here is a pair of quotations worthy of consideration in relation to our topic:

The first is attributed to a contemporary British journalist and feminist, who writes a column for The Times and has published several books:

I want a Zero Tolerance policy on All The Patriarchal Bullshit.

Caitlin Moran

The second is attributed to President Kennedy:

Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others.

John F. Kennedy

What do you make of the quotations? How do you understand them? How, in particular, are we to best understand the concept of "patriarchal bullshit"? Should we have "zero tolerance" for advocates of male dominance or does this mean merely zero tolerance for practices of male dominance? Is there any way to reconcile these two quotations?

H.G. Callaway

Dear Callaway,

I think the Kennedy-quote expresses a core truth, and the correct value of liberalism. The issue with tolerance, analogous to the issues with liberty criterions on just institutions, is when one takes commitment to "objective" or "universal" tolerance to entail acceptance of anything. Tolerance has to do with social relations, and it prohibits persecution of others. But it is not directed, so to speak, so it is perhaps best seen as a prohibition. To advocate tolerance is to oppose intolerance, so it is not the same as advocating adherence to blind acceptance of anything, but adherence to strong opposition against anything intolerant.

Of course there is an issue in the fact that intolerant people will find such tolerance to express intolerant views. One only has to read a little Marx or Lenin to see how very intolerant people, with very exclusive social projects in mind, find really abusive and intolerant political frameworks to be ideally tolerant.

Liberalism a la Rawl's must be seen as imparting substantial constraints on the content of the practices and behaviors that fall under the private sphere of citizens. If one believes that liberty rights are analogous to some sort of universal tolerance that prohibits opposition to anything, then one will run into a host of paradoxes.

Since tolerance, and the opposition to intolerance, entails "intolerance" towards intolerant ideologies and behaviors, and since any bet on who is on the tolerant side of the equation is fallible, I think an open - and tolerant - public discourse is essential. But this presupposes already some measure of tolerance. So tolerance is probably very much needed for social and political virtue, but it must be excersised within a cautious, respectful environment, and within a system that counter acts sudden and extreme measures. These possibilites are all, I think, part of a cultural bundle, more or less represented in any society, but also very incompatible with certain subcultural ways of conduct, also more or less widely represented in any society. For instance, advocating tolerance in a substantial way in Taliban controlled territories would not be wise, simply because tolerance is one slice in a "justice cosmology".

This is all written very quickly and on top of my head, so I don't mean to express any serious, clear position. But I am ready to commit to the broad outlines and the spirit of it. 

PS. I think people might get angry about the Marx-remark. I am talking about his remarks on freedom of speech. Marx, Lenin and Moussolini agrees on the extend of that right, and this part of their ideologies is what I call intolerant (Lenin goes further on other fronts of course). In their view, there is perfect freedom of speech and conscience under the rule of the proletariate, but to a dissident that is of little comfort!

Fun fact: The fascists where proud of their intolerance, while the leninists and stalinists where proud of their tolerance. I urge you to find any substantial disagreements between the fascist and communist views on rights of the subjects of the nation (or "party") - you will find little. This shows why we must select whole packages, and not just particular virtues. As Kant roughly put it in relation to ethics, many virtues serve to worsen a criminal's moral quality when it is present amongst vices!

H.G. Callaway,

''I want a Zero Tolerance policy on All The Patriarchal Bullshit.''

I interpret as:

''We should not accept and we should fight against All the Patriarchal Bullshit''.

Feminists are egalitarian and so are about countering patriarchal ideologies and practices.

''Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others.''

I agree with both sentences but I do not find them insightfull.  They are sentences : I belief what I belief.  I am aginst being bad. etc.

Mainz, Germany

Dear Brassard,

I hope you are right on your interpretation of "zero tolerance policy on All Patriarchal Bullshit." That would nicely reconcile the two quotations.

"Zero tolerance" is taken over from crime fighting terminology, in some degree, I believe. Wikipedia, says, e.g.,

Zero tolerance policing can be defined as a strict non-discretionary law enforcement approach that is thought to be tough on crime. Under this approach, the police enforce every facet of the law.

---End quotation

So, I take it that your paraphrase by "not accept and fight against" matches this pretty closely, though the strictness involved in the crime fighting, and "being tough on crime" may seem a bit more strict and puritanical. Are we to "fight against" "every facet" of  male dominance practices?

If we oppose a particular practice, then we may criticize it and refuse to engage in it, for instance. "Bullshit" is usually something verbal, something thought obviously false or intended to fool or deceive or manipulate others. So, "zero tolerance" might amount to criticizing or rejecting what may be said in favor of practices of male domination. But might it also include exclusion and/or defamation of the advocates or of those questioning the feminist beliefs?

Again, if we agree with the "zero tolerance" idea, for which you seem to plead, would our "fighting against" related practices involve interfering with them  when they are practiced by others?  Would we need to try to disrupt patriarchal practices when we encounter them?

It would be helpful if you would take a position on these questions, since exclusion, defamation and interfering in others' social practices might all be regarded as matters of intolerance. It seems that you place a mild, tolerant interpretation on the statement, but the actual language,''I want a Zero Tolerance policy on All The Patriarchal Bullshit'' seems inflammatory. If the intention were to advocate against male dominant practices, within the bounds of tolerance, wouldn't another choice of words have been more suitable?

Thanks for your thoughts.

H.G. Callaway

Mainz, Germany

Dear Laird,

Of course slavery did involve a great deal of intolerance. Do you think that anyone contributing to this thread doubts this or wants to deny it? No remark without remarkability.

So if you wish to challenge someone or some idea above, on the basis of the example of Sally Hemings, I would suggest you might want to direct your remarks accordingly instead of asking about the tolerance exercised by Sally Hemings.

Perhaps you'd just like to argue for intolerance of the intolerance of slavery?

H.G. Callaway

I agree that the expression ''zero-tolerance''  is taken over from crime fighting terminology and is not very liberal.  Caitlin Moran wrote a book  ''How to Be a Woman'' of which it is said:

''She wants women to stop seeing feminists as radical man-haters and to start seeing them as advocates for true equality.,''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Be_a_Woman

which seems to indicate that she is within the mainstream egalitarian  feminist and this confort me in my interpretation.  Still today, the ideal of feminism, egalitarian and caring societies is an ideal that has to be fight for and being a feminist (I am one) also mean to be an activist and the expression  "fight against"  or ''fight for'' are necessary to convey a commitment and conviction but it is always used for in the domain of ideas, and enacting social changes through peacefull methods.  

''Are we to "fight against" "every facet" of male dominance practices?''

Yes.  Femisnist is not a reversal of male dominance by a female dominance or a equal number of male and women dominance.  Feminist is for more equalitarian/matriarchal society.  I do not see the benefit of iron ladies such as Margaret Tatcher.  This is not a great victory of feminism.  

''But might it also include exclusion and/or defamation of the advocates or of those questioning the feminist beliefs?''

We have to fight honorably which mean mostly concentrate on a battle of ideas and defend our convictions with arguments and counter the arguments of those opposing them.   

For example, I like the position of Noam Chomsky who defended the right of speech of those denying the holocaust.  Freedom of speech means nothing if we deny it to those holding totally unaceptable position.  The only acceptable limit to the right of speech are call for violence .  The realm of speech is where the battle should be fought and so to avoid actual battle of bodies.

Mainz, Germany

Dear Brassard,

Thanks for your further thoughts and elaborations. I mostly agree with what you have to say. Women fully deserve every opportunity open to anyone else.

Equality before the law is the ideal and equality in hiring and promotions.

That being said, It seems clear to me that it is men of color who have the hardest time in my country.

H.G. Callaway

All fine and good, Louis and HG, until you get to the sticky questions.

The fundamental problem being that the "liberal" culture we have all been describing and professing, the culture of tolerance, and mutual tolerance, is what is intolerable to some other cultures. So all this talk, to some, comes away sounding like imperialism. "You are imposing your distasteful culture on us," is the complaint.

Our response? There is no direct response. Instead, we try to deflect the criticism. In the familiar self-denigrating attitude the West often uses in these circumstances, we decry the triviality of Hollywood, our kitsch tastes, our self-indulgent lifestyles, we are sure to mention western intolerant political parties and attitudes, homophobia, male chauvinism, all to assuage our guilt perhaps?

But now think about it. If everything were precisely as the liberal idealists wanted, would this not be seen as more of an imperialist threat to conservative societies? Reciting our meae culpae does nothing to deny that we are indeed trying to impose our values. In fact, it reinforces the point.

This gets back to the original question. We are essentially saying, either you believe as we do, or you can't play in this game.

To be absolutely clear: I am not opposing these liberal ideals. I'm only saying that we need to be intellectually honest, and own the ideals and their ramifications, including semblance of imperialism they create, eh?

Mainz, Germany

Dear Manfredi,

It belongs to the concept of tolerance, as I see it, that one should not "impose" one's culture on others. As I understand this, imperialism is antithetical to tolerance.

Intolerance of intolerance cannot be separated from a regime of tolerance. But that is far from saying that one may go around imposing a regime of tolerance where it is not wanted.

I think that resolves your quandary. No need for a liberal guilt trip.

Where "conservative societies" seek to impose their regime of intolerance upon us, then this must, of course, be resisted. But otherwise, I'd say, leave them in peace.

Now, of course, we need to know what counts as "imposing." To this point, I have simply taken over your use of the word. Would you care to make your usage more explicit? My view is, of course, that a free and open discussion imposes nothing on anyone. I can imagine social configurations which reject free and open discussion, of course.

H.G. Callaway

And so, the quandary remains, HG. Conservative societies see this regime of "tolerance" imposed on them, and they resist it. They don't see it as "tolerance," as much as they see it as sinful self indulgence, being imposed on them, surrounding them. We are telling them, in so many words, if you come among us, you will be surrounded with sinful self-indulgence.

Of course WE need to resist their ideas.

So the discussion, at our end, devolves into one of demonstrating how we accept, even "respect," any and all other ideologies, which only fans the flames from the opposite corner.

Playing the self-deprecation act doesn't help. That's only for our own consumption, to assure ourselves that we don't have swelled heads..

One most separate culture from those frameworks that govern expression of culture. Where a conflict exists at the level of foundational frameworks, there is no reconciliation. And so a framework meant to underwrite the virtues of tolerance is in direct opposition to such competing frameworks. The boundraries are Blurry, hence the need for reasoned, sensible debate and resistance against overly hasty solutions - one may end up prompting intolerance in the name of tolerance, either by denying people a right to cultural expression on the basis of prejudice and not on basis of adherence to the principles of an open society, or by allowing cultural expressions that function as frameworks around intolerant subcultures or society at any degree. There are no easy solutions, but insisting on opposition to intolerance in the name of tolerance is the only way of making sense of Democracy in a way that Secures its virtues.

 Dear Louis:

I was reading your interesting comments on Canada (as a tolerant society) and Saudi Arabia (with reference to intermarriages).  I have lived in several provinces in Canada for a number of years. When we talk about Canada we have in mind the "Canadian mosaic". It is not my intent to change the subject of the current thread. However, as you have brought up the issue of marriage customs among some ethnic minorities in Canada I would like add the following. The U.S. has historically supported the purity of the races. Interracial marriage was illegal in the U.S for decides, and individuals married interracially could be locked up in many states in the United States. In a 1958 Gallop poll, only 4% of Americans supported interracial marriage. Then there was the case of Richard Loving and his wife, Mildred, in Virginia in 1967 (and the consequent legalization of interracial marriages in many states in the U.S.). Interestingly, intermarriage in the U.S. seems to be very high among Asian Americans and native Americans (50% or more according to some estimates). On the other hand, intermarriage seems to be very low (2-3% according to some estimates) among black Americans, perhaps owing to the continued condemnation of black and white intermixing. By the way, the National Public Radio (NPR) has produced certain segments on the issue of  intermarriages, including one on " mocha moms".

Albert,

Many cultural traditions have built-in methods to exist within other traditions without being assimilated and ensured their perrenity.  These cultural traditions cannot be liberal , they are orthodox internally but best thrive when the larger society is liberal.  ''We nee to resist their ideas''.  Not at all, they prefer us to be liberal and do not intend to make the larger society more orthodox.  They immune their members to liberality but encourage the larger society to be tolerant, liberal, and minimaly demanding.

You cannot generalize this, Louis. In some cases, such as the Amish communities, perhaps so. We see some devastating diseases caused by the inbreeding, but yes, they do not mind to be left alone by the larger "liberal" society. In fact, they have a sort of "coming out" tradition, at 16, where they decide whether or not to remain in their community, or to leave and join the wider society.

In other cases, not so. They don't appreciate the temptations on their membership. As we have seen in the news time and time again.

So there is no simple solution. Of course, from our point of view, we need to push for tolerance at all cost. But we also have to understand that to some people, this will come across as imposing our values on them. We have to accept that, instead of just congratulating ourselves on our tolerant ideals (and simultaneously flagellating ourselves using examples of shameful intolerant acts by some among us).

Mainz, Germany

Dear Manfredi,

It strikes me that in your reply, you simply fail to give any definition of what it means to "impose" tolerance on another society. In particular, you do not respond to my statement that a free and open discussion imposes nothing on anyone. Your stated position of your "quandary" openly depends on your not giving any definition of what it means to "impose" tolerance.

Here is what we get from Webster's dictionary:

Simple Definition of "impose"

1: to cause (something, such as a tax, fine, rule, or punishment) to affect someone or something by using your authority

2: to establish or create (something unwanted) in a forceful or harmful way

3: to force someone to accept (something or yourself)

None of this suggests to me that a free and open discussion can be plausibly viewed as an imposition.

One frequent usage of "to impose" is when one politely says, "I hope I am not imposing..." --on your time, your patience, etc., and this is a matter of seeking permission to proceed and of politeness. It is worth noticing, then, that free and open discussion is not generally thought of in terms of politeness or permissions.

Instead, in a free and open discussion, if you think that a given position or view is wrong or harmful, then you are entitled to say so. Mr. Putin, for example may feel or say that we are mixing in Russia's internal affairs by criticizing or discussing Russian foreign policy, but I would not call this an imposition. The outcome of a free and open discussion does not depend on any exertion of authority. Quite the contrary, the aim is to evaluate positions on their merits.

H.G. Callaway

Mainz, Germany

Dear Manfredi,

On the separate issue of the tolerance of a conservative sub-cultural group for an encompassing "liberal" regime of tolerance, I think you are right to say that it differs from case to case. It is not always a matter of an insulated sub-cultural group which is generally tolerant (or intolerant) of an encompassing regime of liberal tolerance. Moreover, the attitude of the conservative sub-group may change from time to time.

I think you can see the point by considering the phenomenon of cultural hyper-sensitivity--in the universities or elsewhere. Often enough, this is a means of seeking power in the general society and discouraging any external criticism. Given a mutually supporting, and uncritical array of such groups, you have the potential to suppress free and open discussion of general problems and issues. In effect, the rise of "multiculturalism" in multi-ethnic societies represented a departure from traditional liberal-social scruples regarding freedom of speech and academic freedom.

H.G. Callaway

Mainz, Germany

Dear all,

Here's a short video (8 Min.) of Steven Pinker, speaking on behalf of the FIRE organization, in criticism of political correctness on campus and in favor of the freedom of speech --as needed, especially, for the freedom of inquiry and for higher education:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0W9sSqeJnA

Pinker makes the important point, among others, that entire societies can go seriously wrong, and that this likely involves the suppression or punishment of dissent. There is no other plausible way to understand how entire societies can go so seriously wrong --as is illustrated by history, e.g., the great witch hunts, and the establishment of totalitarian tyrannies and their regimes of persecution.

H.G. Callaway

Dear all,

Tolerance is a capacity of a system to have elasticity behavior during pressure in which a system continues to function regardless of small mistakes or errors that occurred and definitely this is a virtue that is helpful for individuals or society to be used in all transactions we make,  social, political or otherwise. Fault tolerance is a virtue , a capacity while intolerance is a weakness, sensitivity and a vice. 

H.G. Callaway

''and that this likely involves the suppression or punishment of dissent. There is no other plausible way to understand how entire societies can go so seriously wrong.''

This is overly optimistic.  History teach that there are not one but a very large number of ways entire societies can go so seriously wrong.   

Mainz, Germany

Dear Lakew,

A very nice short answer to our question. Very helpful.

@Brassard. It is enough to demonstrate the point at issue from Pinker, if the suppression of dissent is one effective way for a society to go totally wrong--as, say, in Nazis and Stalinist persecution for political purposes So much for "relativism" concerning tolerance.

H.G. Callaway

Hi HG, so I'll respond to your question about what I mean by "imposing tolerance on another society." It's simple, really. Conservative societies around the world, today, have no interest in allowing "tolerance" in their midst. They view this as corruption of their culture. They want nothing of it.

So that's why, to me, reading about the wonders of our tolerant culture sounds like something that rather dramatically misses the point. Even if we instantly self-deprecate, as we do even in this thread, in an apparent show of humility, we have not changed the impasse one iota. The self-deprecation serves no purpose, other than to make us feel more virtuous.

Let me give you an example. Let's say there's some lunatic who goes on a rampage at some abortion clinic (or gay pride parade, or gay bar, or gambling casino, or burlesque show, or or or). Not like such events are unheard of, right? We would all look at one another in horror, wax eloquent about how deranged this individual is, and assure ourselves that if we could just be tolerant, such atrocities would never occur.

What do you think someone from one of today's more conservative cultures would think? Would they agree that more tolerance is the answer against that atrocity? Is this what they would preach in their places of worship? Not likely. They would more likely conclude that God's will was done.

You can apply that same scenario to many other aspects of daily life. How about if you don't approve of what your daughter wears, or who she decides to go out with? To address such daughter issues, what we would find unacceptable in our society, is considered correct and even essential, in conservative societies. To impose our attitudes on them would be an imposition. To allow their solutions among ourselves would also be an imposition, if not outright illegal.

So, it only seems fair that we not oversimplify this conundrum. In many of today's non-trivial examples of this problem, to allow the cultures to coexist peacefully, one or the other simply has to change. No amount of talk can deny this.

Let me try this really short answer: Mutual tolerance is not always an option. For peaceful coexistence, SOMETIMES you need cultural evolution.

Mainz, Germany

Dear Manfredi,

I don't really find much to disagree with in your latest note. I wonder, though, if you caught the arguments in the Pinker video. 

I would say it is a mistake to project what is appropriate in relatively intimate relationships, as with parents to daughter, into general social and political relationships. Of course, it is true that some people do similar things more or less consistently or constantly, but it is nonetheless a mistake.

We either defend tolerance or we don't, and there is no middle way. But this is not to excuse overly indulgent parents.

As I say, if some in "conservative" societies are opposed to tolerance, so much the worse for them. What they say or do does not change the meaning of tolerance into something that can be "imposed." An appreciation of the meaning of tolerance, may though, appropriately limit the opportunities for peaceful interaction.

H.G. Callaway

HG, it seems we agree in general. I'm just looking at the "corner cases," because they are the ones that remove us from the obvious, or even the banal.

We would not permit parents, or an "approved proxy" for the parents, to flog their daughters, in private or in public, for doing something the parents disapprove of. There's really no wiggle room there. Simultaneously, other societies do permit this, and will not be receptive to us imposing our permissive attitudes on them. So, mutual tolerance is not an option, if a subculture thinks it can continue those practices within a greater permissive culture, or vice versa.

This is not some concocted special example that never occurs in reality. This is real.

Mainz, Germany

Dear all,

Here is another quotation on tolerance, this one attributed to Albert Einstein:

"Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population." Albert Einstein

This strikes me as true, and it seems to war with the prevalence of "top-down" forms of organizations, deference and related social-political forms of orientation to authority.  Almost everyone will allow some top-down, authority dominated forms of organization. If the army is under fire, you would not likely want to hold a debate and then take a vote on what to do. Again, large corporations and government bureaucracy are typically organized top down; and we likely wouldn't want people deciding what laws to enforce based simply on their own preferences. That would be inconsistent with the rule of law. Yet we also wouldn't want everyone organized in a similar way.

The prevalence of top-down organization and strict orientation to authority may form a model so strong that it discourages independent judgment in the population at large and encourage the contrasting attitude that no one should speak out without permission or at least significant and sufficient support and backing. That in turn discourages the general prevalence of tolerance in the population.

If we want government by the "consent of the governed," which I suppose we do, then tolerance of open discussion and debate in the general population is much needed. If everyone stands around, instead, waiting to see "which way the wind is blowing," then this likely eventuates in "speech by consent of the governing" --or whoever happens to be in a position to exercise the most power.

H.G. Callaway

Tolerance with persons, but it should not have tolerance with the bad practices which affect to other persons.

Mainz, Germany

Dear Espejo,

Thanks for your comment. Its difficult to disagree with what you say, though I think you might need to be a bit more explicit in order to touch on the Einstein quotation above and the related theme. Do we need a "spirit of tolerance in the entire population" so that each person can "express views without penalty"? 

Again, people have been known to differ on what counts as "bad practices which affect other persons." Consider people who have broken no law. Does tolerance and freedom of speech not extend to them? This may begin to suggest exclusion and silencing of those under "suspicion of political incorrectness." But in the usual case, it is only people who are at least somewhat controversial who stand in any danger of exclusion and suppression at all. So allowing for their proscription would seem to give the game away--endorsing intolerance.

It strikes me that you do not really say whether you agree or disagree with the "Einstein" quotation on tolerance.

H.G. Callaway

Mainz, Germany

Dear van Leuen,

The idea that "tolerance can go too far" has already been established in this discussion thread, I believe; namely, it may go "too far" in the direction of tolerance of intolerance. This is destructive of the regime of tolerance.

Whether the Bexit vote amounted to an excess of tolerance (of politicians) on the part of the British people, as you have it, seems a very different sort of question. It may be argued, of course, that the decision will have negative effects in GB and elsewhere, but that does not itself show that the vote is best understood as an excess of tolerance. It might, on the contrary, be plausibly viewed as an excess of intolerance for the E.U., for globalization and for immigration.  Still, the decision has generally been accepted as a valid referendum.

On the other hand, I am not aware that the vote depended on any particular views being silenced, excluded or proscribed. I have heard it said that some of the discourse of the Brexit advocates was objectionable or sub-standard. It might be argued that excesses of polemics and one-sided agitation are intolerant of opponents.  If so, then this is a more general point concerning the needed democratic character of political discourse. I'm sympathetic to related criticism of underhanded and pernicious forms of discourse. In general, I'd say, the first thing is to refute them; and secondly one might identify the negative character. 

I won't enter here into your criticism of Einstein. It seems too far off-topic. But that academics is a home to much intolerance, functioning to protect insiders against competition, I do not doubt. I'd go as far as to say that the universities have become a chief center of what I called, above, "post-modernist" rejection of liberal tolerance. 

Thanks for your comments.

H.G. Callaway

Mainz, Germany

Dear all,

Here is another quotation on tolerance, this one attributed to Albert Einstein:

"Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population." Albert Einstein

This strikes me as true, and it seems to war with the prevalence of "top-down" forms of organizations, deference and related social-political forms of orientation to authority.  Almost everyone will allow some top-down, authority dominated forms of organization. If the army is under fire, you would not likely want to hold a debate and then take a vote on what to do. Again, large corporations and government bureaucracy are typically organized top down; and we likely wouldn't want people deciding what laws to enforce based simply on their own preferences. That would be inconsistent with the rule of law. Yet we also wouldn't want everyone organized in a similar way.

The prevalence of top-down organization and strict orientation to authority may form a model so strong that it discourages independent judgment in the population at large and encourages the contrasting attitude that no one should speak out without permission or at least significant and sufficient support and backing. That in turn discourages the general prevalence of tolerance in the population.

If we want government by the "consent of the governed," which I suppose we do, then tolerance of open discussion and debate in the general population is much needed. If everyone stands around, instead, waiting to see "which way the wind is blowing," then this likely eventuates in "speech by consent of the governing" --or whoever happens to be in a position to exercise the most power.

H.G. Callaway

Is mutual tolerance a needed social and political virtue? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_mutual_tolerance_a_needed_social_and_political_virtue/7 [accessed Jul 7, 2016].

I think that tolerance with tolerant people is assumible, but tolerance with intolerant people is other thing more problematic because it would be contradictory.

Mainz, Germany

Dear Espejo,

Yes, tolerance of intolerance undermines the regime of tolerance. The rule of political correctness in many universities illustrates the point. Where reasoned debate is discouraged or punished, more overt forms of conflict likely come to the fore. If the universities give up on open debate they open the door to more overt, less desirable forms of social and political conflict.

By the way, it seems clear that open discussion and democratic debate are not the only sources of the moral values of tolerance and forbearance. Generally, I expect that moral values have their primary locus and source in the family, the school and in religious organizations and sentiment. In spite of the imperfections of these sources, they cannot be replaced by generalized top-down administrative control. That course tends to war with the democratic control which civil society can exercise over political power.

H.G. Callaway

Mainz, Germany

Dear colleagues,

Your thoughtful and considered contribution to the following question will be much appreciated:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_political_correctness_Does_it_represent_an_imposed_orthodoxy

H.G. Callaway

Mainz, Germany

Dear Laguta,

Many thanks for the comedy sketch. I must admit, though, that I never properly mastered Bavarian, never having lived in that part of the country. My mastery of Frankish, however, has often been remarked. In any case, there are, in fact German words for "tolerance" employing Germanic roots. That the comedian did not turn to these, early in the monologue was a point which evoked a good deal of laughter. As the comedian put the point, also early on, "One has to be able to say 'No.'"

Well, in any case, we have the question of "tolerance" and of "moral credibility." Beyond that, you pose the related question of "kindness." "Kind" actually comes down to us from old English, and its original meaning was something like "nature." That's why we can also speak of "things of a kind." Kindness, in a sense is a matter of treating things in accordance with their kind--or one might say, their "like-kindedness." If someone is very kind to you, then they are treating you in accordance with your "kind." 

I don't believe for a moment that we have to check on the moral credibility of everyone who has something to say in favor of tolerance. More likely, we need to inspect the moral credentials of those expressing high degrees of intolerance. (This includes those inclined to send disguised armies across European borders to make a political statement.) I assure you, though. that moral credentials and the lack thereof are not assured by gossip or mere affinity. 

I agree with you, of course that "kindness involves understanding, benevolence or compassion." But this is sometimes poorly spent on those known to abuse power (or abuse intelligent discourse with irrelevancies). But tolerance does suggest, too the need of "forbearance," a word based, again, on old English, and perhaps closer to those words for tolerance in German based on Germantic roots. I think that NATO, by offering consultations with Russia, for example, is showing "forbearance."  This has a more negative connotation than "tolerance" but is otherwise similar in meaning. Should NATO be "tolerant" of the invasion of Ukraine and the annexation of the Crimean peninsula? This has been a very frightening turn of events throughout eastern Europe.

Excesses of tolerance or kindness without principle are self-defeating, since they encourage abuses.

H.G. Callaway

Mutual tolerance is a key virtue in both social and political interventions. Over the years this has been practiced by those  in peaceful coexistence between countries, ethnic groups and where peace accords have been signed between warring parties. In my experience and publications,  I have observed the importance of mutual tolerance between genders, ethic and religious groups as being critical to avoid aggression, violence and xenophobia. The current trends in xenophobia, as seen in the social and political environments, can be traced to a lack of tolerance and respect by many leaders and their followers.        

Philadelphia, PA

Dear van Leunen & readers,

I tend to agree with your point concerning intolerance extending beyond the overt political world. "Strong bastions have been constructed around established theories,"you say, and "These bastions cause a scientific establishment that inhibits scientific progression." However, I think it important not to become intolerant in response to such perceptions. Such a judgment should not be applied in a blanket fashion. There is much that is positive and valuable in contemporary science, "establishment"or not. 

But it does seem to me worth noting that people, including academics, will often seek out protection from competition by means of taking a place and acquiescing in large-scale and well-funded institutions. There is considerable need to protect "unconventional and unorthodox ideas." Let them be put to the test. 

Again, "revolutions"in science are one thing and social political revolutions quite another. I think revolutions in science perfectly compatible with mutual tolerance. It is only a matter of the value of established ideas vs. conceptual innovations. In social and political term, however, one has to do with deep values and convictions, which do not change easily. Matters of the heart are much more difficult to change than are more purely intellectual convictions. Many a political revolution has come to grief for the failure to recognize just this difference.

H.G. Callaway 

Dear Dr Callaway, I fully agree with your comments especially those in  your last sentence. Having lived through two political revolutions, one during the start and aftermath of the Spanish Civil War and now in South Africa, where the lack of "values and convictions" you refer to are the cause of xenophobia that thousands have suffered from and will continue to suffer with until we all recognise the similarities that exist between us, rather than playing with the differences that entrench our ethnic roots and religious beliefs. My publication attached refers to these scenarios.    

Article Convivencia: Winning the War Against Xenophobia in the Heart...

Tolerance with virtuous people is all right. But with nonvirtuous people it is necessary to take precautions.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Kausel,

I think you are certainly right that contemporary intolerance is well rooted in politics--and too much of politics has become toxic, because it aims to get around the influence of the opposition. As you put he matter, "our parties can't tolerate each other." I see this as a matter of practices heavily invested in control and manipulation as contrasted with the democratic principle of open debate and fair decisions based on the debate. It is as though each side is dogmatically assuming that they already have all the needed answers and it only remains to get around the opposition in order to implement the known truth. The hyperbole of the media reports often adds to the difficulties of mutual understanding and acceptance. Politics as manipulation has too often replaced politics as rational persuasion.

It seems to me that the virtue of mutual tolerance implies accepting a certain (higher) level of discomfort with the arguments one is initially inclined to dispute. This is involved in seriously hearing out those views with which one may disagree and replying in terms which reflect one's understanding of what has been said. The usual substitute for this is an advertising model of how to win elections. It is as though one were selling soap powder and the primary objective is then to keep one's own jingle in the public mind--drowned out the opposition (or worse: deprecating the opposition). Rejecting debate of issues and the fundamental role of the intellect, the underlying structure becomes then accommodation to whatever powers-may-be. The influence of amoral maneuvering increases. This is quite similar to what Mr. Trump calls "the art of the deal." It appears that the chickens have come home to roost. Our politics will continue to deteriorate until and unless open debate with the opposition is accepted and honored.

H.G.Callaway

C. Lewis, you will note, notwithstanding the reasons I assume you attribute to any exodus, that the last article you posted claims the main reason people leave is taxes. Not that they don't like our choice of candidates. Another reason they give, but far less than taxes, is all the wars the US gets embroiled in. These two main reasons would not point to anything Trump has championed.

I'm not saying that a Trump victory would NOT result in a few people "renouncing." I'm only saying that the article you posted does not support this thesis.

It is rather amazing to be coming up on this election. Who would ever have expected? But I'm quite sure that the high drama won't amount to much.

En principio estoy de acuerdo con el contenido de su introducción

Mi respuesta rápida y corta a su pregunta, es en sentido afirmativo "Si, la tolerancia mutua es una virtud social y política que se necesita"

La Tolerancia como virtud o valor, es indispensable en la formación moral y ética de los individuos que pretendan seguir perteneciendo a a una familia de origen y crear una nueva familia, dentro del contexto social y cultural al que pertenecen.

Desde el punto de vista de la Axiología (Teoría de los Valores), la Tolerancia es un principio que deriva del Valor Moral Respeto. Por ejemplo y para entrar en detalles del concepto, el siguiente texto es parte de una "Declaración de Principios Éticos del Educador en Medicina"

Valor Moral: Respeto

Reconocimiento del educando por el educador como sujeto de derechos y consideraciones. Es el valor que permite al educador reconocer, aceptar, apreciar y valorar las cualidades del prójimo y sus derechos, es decir, es el reconocimiento del valor propio y de los derechos de los educandos.

• Principio de reconocimiento a la alteridad: cada educador y educando en su condición de seres únicos e irrepetibles, son biológica y socioculturalmente diferentes a los demás.
• Principio de tolerancia: todo educador y educando merece el permiso (atención o respeto) de los otros para expresar sus ideas, creencias y costumbres, aún cuando sean diferentes a las propias, mientras reconozcan ese mismo merecimiento a los demás. Supone el respeto mutuo del educador hacia el educando, y en el mejor de los casos, del entendimiento educador-educando-comunidad, aun cuando no se compartan las mismas ideas y valores. Implica mostrar la capacidad de aceptar a los demás al comprender el valor de las distintas ideas y formas diversas de convivencia, incluso cuando sean distintas a las propias.

La Tolerancia se necesita y cabe en todos los ámbitos sociales, como ya lo mencioné antes, en la Familia, en la Escuela Elemental y en las Instituciones de Educación e Investigación Superior, pero sobre todo, en todas las Instituciones y Entidades Gubernamentales de todos los países, a fin de que sus habitantes lleven una vida ordenada y reglamentada, pero a la vez libre y pacífica.

Indispensable para todo ello, nuevamente la Tolerancia reconocida ya como valor o virtud ideal y loable a conseguir y seguir por todos los seres humanos, respetando ideología, religión, raza y nivel educativo y socio-económico, sin distinciones y mucho menos discriminación, aunque naturalmente en la vida real haya entre humanos como individuos y entre grupos sociales, diferentes grados, cualidades y matices que los identifique, pero que no los califique como superiores o inferiores, ya que en esencia todos somos iguales, todos somos seres humanos.

Finalmente y por el momento, sólo decir que la Falta de Tolerancia, es la causa principal de muchos problemas emocionales, de ruptura familiar, de conflictos laborales y mala calidad de vida; y lo peor, de accidentes mortales, bancarrotas familiares y empresariales, divorcios de parejas, crímenes y hasta de Guerras entre las Naciones.

Saludos

Dr. José Luis García Vigil

In principle I agree with the content of its introduction

My quick and short to your question, answer is in the affirmative "Yes, mutual tolerance is a virtue and social policy is needed"

Tolerance as a virtue or value, is indispensable in the moral and ethical education of individuals who intend to continue to belong to a family of origin and create a new family, within the social and cultural context to which they belong.

From the point of view of Axiología (Theory of Values), Tolerance is a principle derived from the Moral Value Respect. For example and to go into details of the concept, the following is part of a "Declaration of Ethical Principles in Medicine Educator"

Moral Value: Respect

Recognition of the student by the teacher as a subject of rights and considerations. It is the value that allows the educator to recognize, accept, appreciate and value the qualities of others and their rights, ie, it is the recognition of self-worth and rights of learners.

• Principle of recognition of otherness: every teacher and learner in his capacity as unique and unrepeatable beings are biologically and socially and culturally different from others.
• Tolerance principle: all teachers and learners deserves permission (attention or respect) of others to express their ideas, beliefs and customs, even if they are different from their own, while recognizing that same worthiness others. It implies mutual respect educator to the learner, and the best, understanding teacher-student-community, even though the same ideas and values are not shared. It involves displaying the ability to accept others to understand the value of different ideas and different ways of living together, even when they are different from their own.

(See attached publication)

Tolerance is needed and fits in all social areas, as I mentioned earlier, in the family, in the Elementary School and in the institutions of higher education and research, but above all, in all institutions and government entities of all countries, so that their inhabitants with a regulated and orderly life, but free and peaceful time.

Indispensable for all this, again Tolerance already recognized as a value or ideal and praiseworthy to achieve and followed by all human virtue, respecting ideology, religion, race and education level and socio-economic, without distinction, much less discrimination, but of course in real life there is between humans as individuals and social groups, to varying degrees, qualities and nuances that identifies them, but do not qualify as superior or inferior, because in essence we are all equal, we are all human beings.

Finally, for the moment, only say that the Lack of Tolerance, is the main cause of many emotional problems, family breakdown, labor disputes and poor quality of life; and worst, fatality, family and corporate bankruptcies, divorces of couples, crimes and even wars between nations.

regards

Dr. Jose Luis Garcia Vigil

C. Lewis, yes, I think we agree on all your points. I just found it interesting that, perhaps contrary to the belief of many, the reasons people renounce US citizenship are reasons that Hillary Clinton policies would exacerbate, not Trump policies (as much as we know what they might be). This would be according to the last article in your list, anyway. Taxes and wars.

Oddly perhaps, Trump's foreign policy statements sound more similar to Bernie Sanders' than to any other candidate's.

Always good to debunk the "common wisdom."

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

I see at least two problems in posing "respect" as a superior value from which the value of tolerance might be deduced. First of all, "respect" seems excessively vague. It may be very unclear what is required by respect in many circumstances. This is especially so where the demand for respect is combined with hypersensitivities. More could be said on this but the second problem seems to be more pressing.

It seems obvious that we may occasionally tolerate those for whom we have little respect. Tolerance grades off into forbearance. This is to suggest that there are occasions of social tension and stress where we do best to tolerate those for whom we have little or no respect. Tolerance or forbearance may in such cases keep the social peace though respect or mutual respect is lacking. In such cases, "respect" like "acceptance" may simply be too much to expect--so that tolerance is the more practical value and workable course.

Tolerance without deeper respect seems at least no contradiction in terms; and so it follows that tolerance may recommend itself even where respect is lacking. Lacking respect, we need not immediately launch on a vendetta! But I suspect that the demand for immediate respect tends to polarize. It makes sense to tolerate people, at times, though they are yet to earn our respect.

H.G. Callaway 

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Kausel,

I much appreciate your contributions to this thread, though we differ somewhat about Mr. Trump.

I have at times seen many reasons to resist the candidacy of Secretary Clinton, and I was more favorable to Senator Sanders. My slogan in the primary season was "No more Bushes, no more Clintons." Yet at this point, I see Secretary Clinton as the more reasonable and responsive candidate. (Some say she is more "reformable.")

Many people seem to be leaving the Republican party in light of the Trump candidacy, though he no doubt has his supporters. Frankly, he looks like something of a disaster from my perspective.

In any case, let's get back to the major theme here, svp.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Dr Callaway, it is not surprising that the topic of the US Election campaign is being discussed under your subject.

The process we are observing from afar, I live in South Africa, as we observe the current scenario evolving in US on many TV channels and social media, is really not a good example of "political virtues" from a country that should be setting standards to many developing. 

As commented on previously, this subject at research level is very different to that when addressing real live situations as is the case in US and in South Africa that face changes as political parties "play war games on the streets of towns and villages".

Today we have Municipal Elections across the whole country that will determine if we get new leaders to implement the changes needed so badly at all levels of society.   

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Cluett,

I don't think it is surprising that the U.S. elections--or other elections--should have come up here on this thread. But I do think it important that the discussion here chiefly address the opening question of the virtue of mutual tolerance.

Again, I am not at all surprised that the political practice in the U.S. shows evidence of decline in mutual tolerance. This is not unrelated to the politicization of the universities and the media. As I have said before, I think that open democratic discussion and fair decisions have been too often discounted in contrast to "winning is everything."or similar sentiments. In significant degree, this seems to me a predictable effect of the failure to build down the military establishment and reconstruct for civilian purposes after the trauma of the Cold War. If you keep around very large-scale, very well funded top-down institutions, even for "humanitarian purposes," then someone will inevitably attempt to use and replicate such structures to advance their own private and political agendas. Such top-down, command structures become a model of "success" in other endeavors. Obviously, there are many other factors involved. 

I am confident, though, that the American people will defend our democratic and republican institutions with their votes. Part of the purpose of the present thread of discussion is to help remind us of the kind of society we should aim for --and its typical public forms and practices. In a democratic society, you simply do not attempt to suppress discussion or treat contributions to the understanding of public problems as contrary sound-bites or political slogans to be supplanted.

Much of the bad practice I see as arising from political operatives, working behind the scenes or such as want to have that kind or role. I take it that it is important to emphasize that open discussion and free and fair political decisions belong to the essence of democracy as a way of life. No considerations of mere expediency can be allowed to over-rule the basics. One key to open discussion and fair decisions is broad mutual tolerance; and this is especially true in any multi-ethnic and multi-racial society.  Our factual difference must serve to emphasize the needed commonalities of the democratic ethos. The cure for the defects of democracy is more democracy.

Good luck with your elections.

H.G. Callaway

Dr Callaway many thanks for your comments, that I am totally aligned with. 

South Africa has been considered as The Crucible of Change in Africa by Dr Don Beck. Since Mandela and the ANC came to power we have struggled with change and after 26 years we are at the cusp where we will either go down the low road or hit the  high road. 

The current elections will indicate the path we are embarking on, politically, socially and financially. Will share the outcome when we get the results and get reactions from the electorate. 

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Laguta,

Thanks for your thoughts on the prior postings. I am going to stand by the thesis that excesses of tolerance or kindness without principle are often self-defeating and encourage abuses. That is part of the argument against tolerance of intolerance. 

The abuse to be feared in international relations is a gradual build-up of felt intimidation, fear and cowering submission. I don't see the matter as differing in principle whether we are concerned with individuals, groups or nations. Regarding international affairs, however, I am chiefly content to allow our elected and serving officials to make the needed decisions.

Sometimes, no doubt, the best response to aggressive behavior may be to "turn the other cheek." That is one way to seek a change in aggressive behavior; but where it is taken as a sign of submission and weakness it may not achieve the desired effect. In any case, it does tell you something about the attitudes involved. It can be experimental. Mutual tolerance works on the supposition that there will be a self-restraint from harming those who practice tolerance. That supposition was seriously violated by military actions in the eastern Ukraine.

H.G. Callaway