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.