Several threads have got caught up in issues of tolerance lately.

A friend of mine grew up in a very multicultural area of Darwin — itself a very multicultural city. What she learned there was tolerance. She didn't learn to embrace other cultures, or mimic them, she learned to accept their existence and to live and let live and deal with the stuff she thought was weird.

I think there's something instructive in that. Tolerance is not mindless aping of all things exotic and other. It is not the same as cultural relativism (although cultural relativists are necessarily tolerant). In other words, it doesn't necessarily insist all cultural practices are equal. It simply accepts. It is living and letting live.

The big question is whether tolerance means tolerating intolerance.

Wikipedia has a good discussion on this. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance) The philosopher John Rawls advocated tolerating the intolerant, "but only insofar as they do not endanger the tolerant society and its institutions."

In other words, it's all ok unless it's against the law. In some cases, that's tricky. Female genital mutilation, for example, was not against the law in Australia until the 90s. Now, most Australian states have outlawed it. Tolerance, therefore, has limits. It involves an ongoing discussion about what we are prepared to tolerate.

It also involves argument, and a dogged insistence on telling the truth. We must try to pinpoint and deal with our own prejudices, because we all have them, lurking somewhere.

Wikipedia also points out that tolerance was a product of the Protestant Reformation, and sat in opposition to religious persecution. But it is also inextricably linked to Western secular multicultural democracies. Like a few people here, I have lived in a monocultural society. (In Asia.) While I loved it, the unthinking racism and inability to accept "weird" cultural practices (like putting milk on a grain for breakfast!) was tiring after a while. Teaching our kids tolerance teaches them to be at home in the whole world.

My OED tells me the word comes from the Latin "tolerare" — to bear, to endure.

Thoughts?

Before I sit and think deeply about this there are two knee-jerk reactions I want to discuss first.

The first concerns (predictably) the Wikipedia statement that "tolerance was a product of the Protestant Reformation". I would have thought, surely, that The Enlightenment was the movement which spawned tolerance?

But then the statement itself, out of context, is a little misleading i.e. does it mean that everyone was so sick of the torture and destruction and fighting and family-splitting that the Protestant Reformation brought about that, eventually they began to think tolerance would be a good idea? Or does it, against all the evidence, attempt to portray the Protestant Reformation as a time of peace and light and tolerance?

Also, I am a little puzzled by what seemed to be a linking with intolerance and monoculturalism: "(In Asia.) While I loved it, the unthinking racism and inability to accept "weird" cultural practices (like putting milk on a grain for breakfast!) was tiring after a while."

I have never considered these kinds of things to be linked to intolerance - simply to different manners and customs. While it is not the custom of the West to giggle, express astonishment or stare, Asians are much less inhibited. They will giggle equally at someone walking into a lamp post as at someone putting milk on cereal. "Racism"? Surely not. If something intrigues then it is worthy of comment, no matter the race or creed of the participant.

I found it hard to accept people pointing and staring at first because in the West they merely talk behind ones back. I used to wonder if I had a piece of lettuce stuck between my teeth or had unknowingly tucked the back of my dress in my knickers. So I dyed my hair fluorescent pink to rid myself of my Western inhibitions. Now, sure they are staring and commenting about my hair, I no longer feel uncomfortable with the different social mores of my host country.

Dear Vanilla,

All of my life I've had to put up with being 'labelled.'

'And where are you from dear?'

'Do you need an interpreter?' (I was born in Australia - but have an
'exotic' surname). My husband was asked that once in a public hospital (the surname's his) very loudly by an elderly nurse. (Hubbie's hearing is fine). 'Do you need an interpreter?'

To which he replied ,"Why? doesn't the doctor speak English?"

You learn tolerance in order to survive. You have to. But I'm only human and there have been moments when I've almost 'lost it.'

One happened at my son's 'exclusive' private school (for which we were paying a fortune) at a 'Parent-Teacher' night. The school principal - an elderly Irish Priest came up to my husband and me and
in front of the other parents said," What a pleasure to meet you
Mr and Mrs .... I must say you're not your typical migrants!'

I was tempted to reply, "That's funny Father ... We think you're the typical Irish priest!" But, I didn't. I just stood there stunned.

Anyway, 'Tolerance' - to me is freedom from bigotry.
A fair and objective attitude towards those whose opinion, practices, race, religion, nationality, et cetera differ from one's own.

Putting it all into practice - now that's the real test.

Endure - we all must.

Vanilla

You raise some interesting points, and I think the distinction is important between ideologies that insists all cultures, religions, lifestyles etc are equally valid, and a “live and let live” approach that puts up with things we disagree with, disapprove of, or find weird or off-putting.

There’s more to it than “it’s ok if its not against the law”, however. Some laws are unjust or anachronistic. Other behaviour, as you point out, is not “ok” even if it’s not prohibited. And Rawls’ insistence on protecting institutions of society is ready ammunition for those who argue for preserving conventional power relations and behaviours even when they’re harmful.

The limits of tolerance change over time, and we’ll probably disagree about what they are.

Your agenda:

- tell the truth
- examine your prejudices
- live and let live
- keep the discussion open

is a great start for working out where the boundaries are

Oh Romany,

I guess I mean that I found it interesting that people I met in South East Asia felt no stigma about expressing national hatreds. Many Khmer people I met, for example, told me they hated the Vietnamese. All of them. When I was there, there was a spate of poisonings against ethnic Vietnamese, some of whom had lived in Cambodia for generations. Cambodians have good historical reason to resent the Vietnamese, but what I found interesting was the lack of stigma in being very upfront about it.

Similarly, in Vietnam (which gets a lot of US tourists), people are very upfront about their fear and mistrust of African Americans. I dated a Cameroonian man while in Vietnam, and several people offered to help me "escape".

Of course, a hell of a lot of racist people live in multicultural nations. I just thought there were some interesting differences, and some of those differences seem to be a direct response to cultural attitudes to talking about difference.

A good Vietnamese girlfriend of mine married an American and moved to San Francisco. What amazed her was less American customs, but the diversity of customs. Before she went, I remember her lamenting that she wouldn't be able to wear her ao dai, which is the very beautiful traditional Vietnamese suit, while her husband and I attempted to convince her she could not only wear one, but she could also expect to see Indian Sikhs in turbans and various other people in other modes of traditional dress, as well as jeans and t-shirts and other "American" clothing.

Racism is an emotive word and I shouldn't have used it. I meant that I've noticed that tolerance can depend on exposure. And that while there are of course differences between this custom and that custom, there is also a difference between one custom and a plurality of customs.

Yes.. in my view.. all good_points. In fact it makes me wonder why there is so much polarization on such issues when it comes to interacting with 'me' on such things. I guess it's because of prejudices about what it means to be 'Christian' :)

I can't find anything in Vanilla's opening post to disagree with, and I heartily endorse that key sentence:

<<The big question is whether tolerance means tolerating intolerance.>>

"but only insofar as they do not endanger the tolerant society and its institutions."

*BINGO*... and that is exactly where I'm always coming from. (believe it or not)

If we have religion "A" which is self declared to be primarily a matter of the heart.. and religion "B" which is primarily a matter of 'State'... and religion "A" happens to be the predominant (but not 'dominant' in the political sense) one, then it is highly likely that "B" will seek to re-structure things such that their version of it all becomes more the norm. It's simple.. you feel most comfortable when the structures of society reflect your own beliefs.

Racism and Intolerance in Malaysia is endemic. Ask a Chinese what he/she thinks of the Malays and vice versa, but assure them first you are not recording or are from the special branch so you get an honest answer.
Challenge the racist 'ethnic supremacy' enshrined in the constitution of ethnic Malays to a Malay, and you will find a very angry person in front of you.

The Chinese "tolerate" this because it would be a blood bath (literally) to challenge it. That's not 'tolerance' thats 'subjugation'.

Indonesia has just declared to all 'Ahmadiya' Muslims that they can no longer practice their faith.
http://www.thepersecution.org/world/indonesia/06/03/jp20.html

I believe that is the inevitable outcome of a religion which sees itself as the rightful political system as well as spiritual.

Fortunately for us in Australia, the Biblical understanding of 'The Church' is not a "political" structure in the sense of a 'State'.
Yes, there are local Church squabbles and a bit of 'politiking' goes on, but that should not effect those outside the fold.

Boaz: "it makes me wonder why there is so much polarization on such issues when it comes to interacting with 'me' on such things."

Well, in the interests of honesty, I'd point out that the answer is right in front of you. It's because you pay lip service to tolerance, then spend the rest of the post attempting to justify your lack of tolerance. You perform variations on this theme in most threads you contribute to.

That's why.

Romany: Also, you make a good point about the Enlightenment and the Reformation. I have nothing to suggest re Wikipedia, but I take the point.

HUMAN RIGHTS and FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION...

http://www.article19.org/pdfs/press/petition-hrc.pdf

the link in the 'Religious sensibilities' thread to a UN committee contains the following about an amendment proposed by none other than.. yep, you guessed it, "Religion B" and is an attempt to 'Sharia-ize' Western societies such that they cannot speak about Religion B's prophet or practices in any negative way.

<<The amendment only focuses on restrictions to freedom of expression,
rather than on the idea of an appropriate balance between the positive protection for the
right to freedom of expression and the need to limit incitement to racial and religious
hatred. This lack of balance is reflected, for example, in the opening language, as well as
in the reference only to Article 19(3), which is about restrictions on freedom of expression, rather than to Article 19 as a whole.>>

The sneakiness of this is mind boggling. They are trying to influence a UN committee specifically to outlaw speech or expression they feel is 'unnacceptable' for their own religion. The sentiments expressed above are from organizations IN Religion B countries.

This is exactly what I was moaning about in the last post...where a religion sees itself as a 'State'.... this is the result.

For those who feel that 'raising awareness' of such things is a 'scare campaign' and 'hysteria'.. I can only say that if it passes, the law will change here, by virtue of our UN convention signatory status, and you won't even realize it.

2night at 8.00pm at Caulfield campus of Monash Uni, Dr Daniel Pipes will be speaking. Last time he came (2005) he was harrassed and heckled by 'Religion B' followers and swore never to speak publically here again.
He will be speaking at an "Anti Semitism" seminar with other speakers.
If only I didn't have a prior committment :(

Looking around and seing what is around you then understanding it as people who have fears do not understand.David H.

Humans are adept at arriving at agreed or accepted standards or a set of values to ensure survival ie. to be able to interact harmoniously within the group. Any variance too far removed from this standard is usually not tolerated. Intolerance would appear to be biologically programmed.

Some societies are more tolerant because they expand this standard to include greater variations from the 'norm'. As communications and migration has increased so has tolerance but it takes time.

At which point those tolerance levels are challenged would probably be relative to the level of risk or threat to those standards at any one time in history. When a way of life or a set of values is threatened (real or perceived), this will dictate the level of tolerance displayed. The Cronulla riots was a good example of the boiling point in relation to cultural and religious tensions (a way of life) and was intrinsically a fear reaction.

A group's tolerance level might vary depending on factors like culture, religion and economic security.

Tolerance is an odd word that we tend to define as acceptance when (as Vanilla said) it really means to endure or in other words to 'put up with' which is quite different to acceptance. Or maybe it's not - I am not sure.

Vanilla - Ah-hah! Now I get you. Sorry I misinterpreted...but I was pretty sure I WAS misinterpreting which was why I wanted to sort that bit out (about the racist thing).

As for the Reformation vs. the Englightenment? And you not not knowing enough about it (which I doubt).Damn! I was dying to ride off into the sunset on one of my own particular hobby horses.

Dear Pelican.....that was a very VERY astute post! In terms of cultural/behavioral observation, you get a big tick :)

I regard your sentence:

<<When a way of life or a set of values is threatened (real or perceived), this will dictate the level of tolerance displayed.>>

to be about 15months pregnant with meaning.

How true.. how very true. As I see it, in that (what you said) the 'perceived' level and the 'real' levels are determined by a whole lot of factors.

-The Stirring/fanning of flames aspect.
-The apologist/dampening aspect.

Both extremes seem to have been at work during Cronulla, and after.
I only disagree though that Cronulla occurred out of 'fear'..I think outright 'ANGER/outrage' was a bigger factor. But..I don't have the time for a serious survey :)

It seems that certain events can act like triggers and tip the balance between "she'll be right mate, no drama, let em alone" and "They've gone tooooo FAR.. let's GETem"
The bashing of the lifeguards appears to have been that trigger.

Unfortunately, tolerance can also be an excuse for us to act as 'doormats' and be trampled underfoot of callous individuals.

Next weekend, I'll be meeting up with some former Air Force mates, and one of them, gave me such a hard time during our period together, that it scarred me for life. I'm kinda wondering if the very first thing he says to me will be a regurgitation of what went on 30 yrs ago.. or perhaps the first word he utters will be the same one he used to humiliate me day in day out then?
The simplest way then to solve it would have been a quick walk to the "carpark" so to speak. But now my values are different. I'd hope that after all this time, he'll be a bit more mature, but given he uses the same 'old' names in emails about others, my hopes are not high.

She didn't learn to embrace other cultures, or mimic them, she learned to accept their existence and to live and let live and deal with the stuff she thought was weird.
Vanilla,
My way of thinking too. I never have & never will think any other way & I will only express my objection when others' think they're exempt from thinking so but expect me to conform.
i.e. don't do as I do, do as I say.
If only we all had more fiends like that.

Great discussion. When I was a child living near an Australian country town, "Mixed Marriage" meant a Protestant marrying a Catholic and all sorts of difficulties were raised between the families even though they might have lived near each other for generations. Nowadays if you hear the the phrase it would be something complimentary involving a couple from diverse backgrounds. We've come a long way! Something that was once socially "intolerable" is now normal. Along with many other important factors I think post-war prosperity has been remarkably helpful in improving the moral tone. Prosperity enables people to travel and become generally informed therefore more "tolerant". Serious travel by ordinary young folk started in the 60's. ( I was on the Fairstar in 1964 having cashed in my super to buy a return ticket). I found myself learning so much about other people through having a job in another country. Later in the 60's there was a lot of noise by students but we "working holiday" types did not know much about it until many years later when we were informed by them that they had changed the world! I thought I had changed myself without their help!

Well I did have a big think about it and, after reading some of these responses it seems that perhaps I am being a little simplistic. But to me tolerance is not something you have. Its what results when you don't have something: judgementalism.

Foxy said tolerance is freedom from bigotry and yeah. From my reductionist point of view tolerance is simply the natural outcome of not judging others.