The Paradox of Tolerance
Tolerating intolerance—or not
What to make of intolerance and its manifestations today, including cancel culture? There’s been the veritable flood of writing and speech, together with the usual commensurate hand-wringing, over the last few years that suggests things are worse than ever all around. But I’m not sure about that. Dig through history, of this country, the world. Humankind has struggled with tolerance and intolerance since the invention of the words ought and ought not. Yes, there’s been ebb and flow, waxing and waning, pendulum swinging back or forth, and so on, but we must acknowledge what’s long been settled: Plus ca change . . .
Tolerance as a virtue has for perhaps thousands of years proceeded from religious dogma (and the self-interest of religion). Christianity in its earliest days emphasized the turning of the cheek. And it went further on toleration by urging its followers to “live in harmony with one another” and also “bear, accept, help, honor, care for, serve, build up, forgive, be kind, patient, devoted, and compassionate to one another.”1
I think of myself as a reasonably tolerant person, and my view of tolerance is largely informed by what I grew up with, including the teachings of my parents, other elders, the church, other traditional institutions. But I have struggled from time to time with what is surely a common challenge: tolerating intolerance. Or not tolerating it. Does being tolerant mean putting up with anything, including intolerance?
The quandary goes back to Plato and his thinking that a philosopher-king, in the capacity of “benevolent despot,” could check intolerance in society, relieving the people of having to put their sense of tolerance on the line. But of course this doesn’t sit well in a democracy, which, at least in theory, excludes despots from pubic governance.
Not so far back is the philosopher Karl Popper and his towering defense of liberal democracy, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), in which he takes on the paradox of tolerance. Simply put, open-ended tolerance brings about the end of tolerance. And that makes sense. In my eventual refusing to tolerate your intolerance, I become intolerant. The paradox is pretty straightforward, and one we simply live with, as we do all paradoxes.
Popper thought that if reasonable people can sufficiently refute intolerance with “rational argument,” then nothing else is required. We usually tolerate all kinds of things, or ignore them, at least up to a point. We might actually engage in refutation. With success here, nothing else need happen. However, Popper stated that lacking success, society—presumably that portion comprising the erstwhile tolerant people—had a right to suppress the intolerant, if necessary “even by force.” He argued that
it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.2
Strong words, but in this country we proceed with caution, circumspection, and Constitutional awareness. A majority may not like what a group of people say—even if they preach intolerance—but that group typically has substantial protection under the law. And meeting them on “a level of rational argument”? If only we all agreed on the words rational and rational argument! There is no universal assent on what those terms mean.
The permutations of the paradox rattle around in my mind: there’s tolerating the tolerant, not tolerating the tolerant, tolerating the intolerant, and not tolerating the intolerant. And does it depend how these other people are related to you? Is it holiday dinner at your house? Is it impossible to get the seating arrangement set so there will be some semblance of peace?
When it comes tolerating—[L., tolerare “to endure, sustain, support, suffer, literally ‘to bear’”]3—we seem to have good, reliable intuition, paradox or no. On a personal level, ignoring the noise goes a long way in not having to think about the paradox. We’re also fully aware of laws that speak to intolerant speech—even as we're aware that the First Amendment doesn’t allow just any speech whatsoever.
Also, there’s that beast cancel culture, which is (often regrettably) effective at dealing with the intolerant even if the intolerant aren’t allowed a chance to defend or so much as explain themselves.
While the paradox of tolerance is not something that troubles me regularly, the question that has been with us throughout Constitutional times remains: exactly what speech and writing should be tolerated and free from constraining laws and intolerant actions of others?
Thanks to R.J. Long for her manifest, yes, tolerance and always reliable editing skill.
These urgings are from Pauline letters, Romans, Colossians, Galatians, etc.
As quoted at Wikipedia on The Open Society and Its Enemies
My favorite etymology source is https://www.etymonline.com/