On Tolerance

Contemporary Political Theory, 2015

“The subject of tolerance is very important in our pluralistic world, requiring the necessity of transcending and overcoming intolerant outlooks, and by recognizing the right of diversity, a prerequisite for the flourishing of democracy and human rights in society. The quest for tolerance is tantamount to making the phenomenon of diversity a reality, so that a dialogue might take place between individuals and groups. “Contemporary studies have shown that the concept of tolerance had existed prior to our modern times. It was necessary for the rise of a peaceful coexistence within society. It had not always been observed because political authorities often imposed their outlooks on society. On occasion, they acknowledged the legality of pluralist groups, affording them minimal freedoms, in harmony with the values of the time.

Contemporary Political Theory, 2015

2008

This article focuses on the difficult issue of what exactly goes on when an individual tolerates something. It focuses on the problem of why an individual would ever choose to allow for some practice that he deems unacceptable while having the power to do something about it. After distinguishing between different attitudes (tolerant as well as intolerant), this article argues that individuals can have various reasons for deciding to tolerate what they deem wrong. As such, we defend a broad conception of tolerance, which goes against the grain of recent literature in which tolerance is generally understood as a virtue.

2019

Review Article The concept of tolerance, widely used today, contains many controversial aspects that question its use, although tolerance is a “good” required in the pluralistic and multicultural democratic societies. Through a brief survey on the authors who first introduced the concept in western culture, the main reasons that justify the opportunity to educate to tolerance today are explored.

2001

Although tolerance is widely regarded as a virtue of both individuals and groups that modern democratic and multiculturalist societies cannot do without, there is still much disagreement among political thinkers as to what tolerance demands, or what can be done to create and sustain a culture of tolerance. The philosophical literature on toleration contains three main strands. (1) An agreement that a tolerant society is more than a modus vivendi; (2) discussion of the proper object(s) of toleration; (3) debate about whether there is a ‘paradox’ of toleration and, if so, how it might be solved. This Introduction outlines how each of the subsequent papers addresses problems in the theory and practice of toleration, in the light of these three strands in the existing literature.

Religion in Public Sphere. Ars Disputandi Supplement Series 5. , 2011

In this article, I shall first examine the differing uses and meanings of the concept 'toleration', and how most of the uses fail to be instances of genuine toleration. Second, I will consider how it might be possible to understand tolerance (and intolerance) as a virtue. And last, I consider whether 'virtuous tolerance' could be a viable possibility in public life.

Current Sociology 0011392114537281, first published on June 12, 2014 as doi: 10.1177/0011392114537281

Tolerance entails acceptance of the very things one disagrees with, disapproves of or dislikes. Tolerance can be seen as 'a flawed virtue' because it concerns acceptance of the differences between others and ourselves that we would rather fight, ignore, or overcome. However 'flawed' a virtue it may be, tolerance may be the only thing that stands between peaceful coexistence and violent intergroup conflict. This makes tolerance a topic of great scientific as well as practical importance. While scholars have systematically studied political (in)tolerance and the closely related subject of prejudice for over half a century now, many conceptual and empirical puzzles remain unsolved. This may well reflect the complex nature of tolerance and the dilemmas which are intrinsic to the idea of toleration. In this article an examination of the paradoxical nature of tolerance is followed by a review of the academic literature and empirical findings on (political) tolerance and its primary sources. To conclude, future challenges for tolerance research are outlined. It is argued that tolerance research would benefit from a stronger interdisciplinary approach: an intergroup relations perspective on tolerance would enhance our understanding of the nature of tolerance and the social circumstances in which it emerges.

Studies in Political Economy, 2000

, Maclean's magazine ran a story on "one of Canada's most successful immigrants," British Columbia's lieutenant-governor, David See-Chai Lam. Mr. Lam, it is noted, has made considerable effort to increase understanding between Canadians and new arrivals by arguing that Canadians should celebrate rather than tolerate cultural diversity. He says "tolerance is a slightly negative word ...it's like saying, 'You smell, but I can hold my breath.' "2 Implicit in Mr. Lam's statement is a recognition that to "tolerate" and to be "tolerated" involves an unequal relationship. To tolerate, as Mirabeau and Thomas Paine put it, implies that the tolerator has the authority or the power to not tolerate) This paper provides an analysis of the social construction of the concept of "tolerance," and documents the use of the term in the Canadian media. We focus on the ways in which the news media does not only reflect group and individual relations, but also constructs these relations.' On the one level, "toleration" is celebrated as a core feature of the Canadian national identity which is a source of both national pride and international recognition. Toleration allows for an enactment of Canadian multiculturalism. At the same time, we argue that to "tolerate" is to entrench the opposition between a national "self," and groups or individuals constructed as "other" (between those who hold their breath, and those who smell!). To ensure continued "tolerance," the majority "self' is seen to take on the responsibility for setting limits (or bounds) to tolerance. Tolerance is bounded by values which are identified as positive national attributes-values such as economic stability, national cohesion, and the equality of women. Justifications are provided for adopting a minimalist approach to tolerance; this minimalist approach is seen to be necessary to protect the structures which make multiculturalism and tolerance