|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Introduction: The Limits of Tolerance
| Article
# : |
11074 |
|
|
Section : |
MODERN THOUGHT
|
| Issue
Date : |
11 / 1993 |
1,508 Words |
| Author
: |
Editor
|
Most would agree that the practice of tolerance is a necessary precondition for effective democracy. Yet, everywhere we look, a growing morass that ranges from racial violence to political correctness is giving rise to invidious intolerance. Simultaneously, a do-as-you-like mind-set means that almost "anything goes" in the name of tolerance today.
The word tolerance is derived from the Sanskrit root tula signifying balance, in this case, between the extremes of openness and closedness. Tolerance so understood has long been considered a great virtue to be cultivated in human relations. It does not mean the abolition of standards--that one should not sternly turn down improper demands or mete adequate punishment to those who deserve it. Tolerance, as a positive force, clears the ground for constructive cooperation with fellow men in building up a better and nobler human society and in advancing the cause of civilization. It disarms opposition, thaws cold relations, turns apathy into warmth, and converts enmity into friendship.
From a purely self-interested point of view, the obvious and logical thing to do is to stop others from imposing their beliefs, or will, on oneself. But for democracy to work, we must be willing to permit our adversaries to express their views, devise contrary policy, and accommodate social and cultural differences. Without tolerance, our rivals will become enemies to be conquered or eliminated, and competition between groups will deteriorate into a kind of warfare, in which the protagonists will have nothing in common but their mutual antagonisms and their common struggle for spoils.
If conflict--sometimes called the lifeblood of democracy--is to be managed, everyone must be willing to compromise. This requires a continuing conversation with as many people as possible about what makes our society a collective enterprise: a community that includes many communities. It means settling for less than we would seek if everyone were like us and searching for more than our individual interests. Otherwise, we have no capacity to understand why many of our aspirations cannot be met in full, and why we must restrain ourselves to leave space for others.
Carried to extremes, tolerance would require that society accept every person on his own terms. Enforcing no common standards, the individual would be free to do anything he pleases or desires. Truth and falsehood, right and wrong, beauty and ugliness would become relative to individual perspective. What appears as ugly or brutal to one person is viewed by another
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
