Kevin Marshall's America
Some of the comments in reply to Monday’s post on the Capital Pride Parade & Festival raised an interesting question: what do we mean when we talk about “tolerance” in our society?
The issue many take with the use of the word is that it doesn’t encourage embracing a group of people, but rather simply acknowledging and allowing for their existence.
I, for one, am in agreement to a point. Unfortunately, I sometimes find myself at the whims of our country’s vernacular. “Tolerance” is a word that I try to avoid, but it’s used often enough around me that I still have the (slightly more than) occasional slip.
But is the meaning of the word really as passive as we think it is?
Dictionary.com provides the following definition:
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.
You may be like me: an old fart at heart who doesn’t trust that damn internet with all its wikis and whackies and tubes. But the fact that this appears as the very first definition of the word speaks volumes as to what it actually implies versus what we think it implies.
I’m part of a generation that had tolerance preached to them. It’s a word that has been used for years in an effort to educate and enlighten those who otherwise may harbor resentment towards those of different ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations, and so on. So for the vast majority of people – particularly those in my age bracket – the word does not invoke the passive tone that those of us who have been so critical of its use are led to believe. It’s not as if the word itself is used in a negative connotation or even construed as such by the opposition.
It’s also important to note as well that words can have a different meaning when used in a different context. Someone used the example of tolerating a root canal. But when “tolerance” is preached in regards to equal rights, it’s only used in that tense. Saying “I tolerate gay people” is much different than saying “I practice tolerance.”
It might be important to continue this discussion and raise the possibility of phasing out use of the word in education and advocacy. There are stronger alternatives such as “embrace” and “equality” that will ultimately serve us better as a society. Still, I don’t think we should become too engrossed and obsessed over the use of the word. Getting hung up on semantics is a trap we can’t afford to get caught in.
Share it!
9 Responses to What is “Tolerance?”
Leave a Reply
STALK ME
I think you’re missing the point.
Human beings NEED to categorize things in order to relate to them. It is how our mind works…we see something new and, rather than try and form an entirely new set of understandings, we try and liken it to something with which we are already familiar. Then, we relate to the new thing LIKE it is the thing we know. This is how stereotypes are born.
Now, stereotypes are not always accurate. Sometimes the new thing doesn’t behave as we think it will. Depending on varying circumstances, this has the potential to lead to SERIOUS frustration. And that is the fundamental beginnings of prejudice.
Tolerance is not a good word if one is truly dedicated to being open to all people, places and things and respecting all until they’ve proven themselves unworthy of respect. For those people, you’re point is great.
Personally, IMHO, those people are few and far between. For the rest of us, we are either acknowledging and struggling with our prejudices or giving in to them completely and embracing them. (I like to fancy myself as the former, though there are days when I am not so sure.) For THOSE people, tolerance, in it original context and base interpretation, is a worthy goal. If we can bring ourselves to tolerance, we’ll be doing good.
In short, I think you’re belief that the word is insufficient is too optimistic about the base nature of human beings.
-gen
“Tolerance” by definition, assumes a disagreement. If you like red and I like yellow, I may choose to tolerate your preference, without accepting it as correct or right.
Too many people scream about intolerance when what they really are saying is “if you disagree with me you are WRONG” and in so doing they are the intolerant one.
I have a prejudice against cats. I simply don’t care for them. When I visit my cat owning friends, I tolerate the cat. I have to in order to visit my friend. I don’t have to like it, pet it, cuddle with it or feed it, I have to accept it’s presence and do it no harm or injustice. In return, I expect my cat loving friend to not plop their little Tabby in my lap and to please tolerate my lack of fondness for their pet.
I really think we just need to respect each other’s differences, even if we don’t embrace them.
Based on that definition, it seems like tolerance is the very least we should offer.
We can embrace people regardless of whether or not we agree with their choices or lifestyle.
If we can’t (or won’t) embrace them, the very least we should do is “tolerate” them. Treat them fair and with respect, and not interfere with their rights.
Tolerance should be practiced simply because it’s born of respect and common courtesy. I think respect and fair treatment is all any reasonable person or group is really asking for.
Dan Savage, when he was last in Albany, had some things to say on the matter of tolerance. He used tolerance in the gist of “I absolutely positively disagree with your belief, but I am going to be polite and keep this to myself and not do something to make an ass of myself over my disagreement with you”. He recounted a time in which he and his family – two male partners and their son – went to a dinner in a notoriously homophobic area while en route elsewhere. He could see that the patrons and owners did not like their presence; he was prepared to be scorned or turned away.
Nothing happened. People bit their words. There were, as Savage said, tolerant.
We should encourage people to embrace other lifestyles, but if they can’t find it in their hearts to love, then I’m okay with them keeping their darned mouths shut in tolerance.
Since when was tolerance a bad thing? In America we have people of every background and people who are against homosexuality are going to be there.
We have to let them be that way. It’s America and people are entitled to their opinions so long as they tolerate everyone. If you try to jam your agenda down someones throat they are going to like you less and less.
Of course that sword swings both ways, people who are against gay/lesbian couples also need to back off and stop the hate.
If we could stop worrying about everyone absolutely 100% agreeing with what WE think is best, and started just tolerating or respecting other peoples ideas I think things, especially on this topic, would move forward.
Sentiment understood, I don’t like the word “tolerance” for this conversation. “Tolerate” is what I do when I don’t like something but have to deal with it. I think our goal should be “acceptance” of differences.
Maybe I’m just too optimistic.
#3 is short, sweet and to the point. I really can’t improve on that so I’ll just be trite and say live and let live.
And add (because I talk too much) that it’s not letting live when you deny gays the right to marry who they love and want to share their life with.
Our goal should totally be “acceptance”! But let’s at least get to toleration first (amongst the groups that don’t agree).