Tolerance

Friends,

I give considerable thought about the nature and origins of divisiveness in our culture and how it might be addressed. So I’ve been thinking recently about the concept of tolerance. As we enter into the final three months of what will likely be a contentious campaign season, I want to offer these thoughts.


Tolerance is a tricky topic. At a personal level no one wants to be particularly “tolerated,” or only reluctantly and partially accepted. Yet it is an extremely important word when trying to limit antagonisms and encouraging ways to nonviolently get along without seriously harming relationships. The dictionary definition of tolerate is “to allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.” Tolerance, then, is "the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with,” and that’s the meaning I want to explore this evening. 

If we are to overcome the scourge of visceral and angry divisiveness that has infected so much of our personal and communal lives, especially during these past several years, we need to at least try to develop a capacity to distinguish between our competing individual ideas, opinions, or lifestyles that are mostly just different from those that are really antagonistic. If we can simply agree that our perspectives are just different, and we can at least tolerate the differences - even if quite reluctantly or sadly - we can usually go ahead and successfully live and work together to find some common ground. 

But when our different opinions represent such an extreme, and we feel we can no longer tolerate/accept the breadth of the difference they represent, we shift from tolerance to intolerance and go quickly into antagonistic dismissal of disagreeable ideas that then lead us to eventually dismiss the other person as a person as well. The “other side” then becomes an object of derision that all too easily slides into a willingness to do them harm. And thus one of the principle roots of violence. Demagogues can thus exploit this negative passion to further their own agenda.

Historically religion has been the basis for much of these antagonistic attitudes. A religious group may conclude that "My definition of god, my rite, my ritual, my symbol is not only superior to yours, it is the only acceptable version of religious faith and practice, and any other form is a threat." The fact that religion has been the major source of intolerance and violence over the millennia is more than ironic, it is actually tragic, because most religions also claim to stand for the ultimate importance of peace and love .

And as religious tribal identity has now shifted more toward political tribal identity, and religion and politics have been toxically combined, our most extreme antagonisms have coalesced around political positioning. Instead of focusing on how to find common ground and tolerating each other sufficiently that we can work together, it has been more and more acceptable to demonize anyone who is identified with a particular branded position on the “other side.” And this has been true of both the more liberal and conservative camps. I personally confess to being tempted by such thoughts, and I suspect this is true at some level  throughout the political spectrum. But we pay such a high price of misspent emotional energy, lost productivity, and quality of family, communal and national life for this high level of antagonism. And tragically we can’t seem to figure out how to back off our extreme levels of antagonistic intolerance. But we need to keep trying. (See below.)*

The solution is as simple as it is difficult. The simple part is we just need to be able to acknowledge our differences, to listen with curiosity to competing points of view, to let someone understand that we have heard the emotional basis of their opinions in addition to their understanding of the facts, and then to be prepared to explain as clearly, sincerely and respectfully as we can our own position. This kind of conversation is likely more tenable, of course, only if the parties truly are curious about other points of view and truly want to maintain some level of relationship with their counterpart. When we approached random people at our Civility First booth at the county fair a number of years back, I was always surprised by how actually easy it was to engage people who were inclined toward a more conservative political orientation when I was able to use this approach, even in a short conversation. 

The difficult part is our egos. Rather than seeking common ground and working our way forward, we want to emphasize the importance of winning the argument and proving ourselves more correct and thus superior to the other person. Assuming there is some mutual value in maintaining a civil relationship, and we want to be able to continue a difficult conversation and be able to work together, perhaps we can begin to learn to deflate the antagonism. Perhaps, for example, we can learn to say to another person humbly, sincerely, but firmly, that they have gone beyond just stating their opinion: "What you are saying is really deeply offensive to me. You have made light of, or offended, something precious or emotional to me, whether it is an idea or my feelings of fear and vulnerability. Ideally we would invite the other person to share how my position is also offensive to them. If we were to able to express openly our differing passions maybe we could begin our conversation anew with more openness to exploring, seeking, and finding some of that precious common ground between us.

All this assumes, of course, the willingness and ability to initiate and engage in conversation with someone we know holds differing opinions from ours. It is understandable, but unfortunate, that it is easier to avoid people with whom we hold differing positions than respectfully engage them. In any case, it would be helpful to at least tolerate, and, if possible, clarify our differing positions rather than allowing them to become antagonistic. Let’s learn to do this ourselves and model it for others, especially our children.

Peace,
Tom

*I once mediated a heated argument between two guys, one who passionately felt unchecked global warming was going to mean there was no future for his  children. The other man was equally convinced a future without reliance on petrochemicals was unrealistic, dishonest, and harmful to his sense of well-being, and he wanted his children to be able to live a full life. I asked the two men if I could try to say back to them what was most important to them, and when I did that reasonably successfully they quieted. I asked them to think about how they might envision some common ground so that both of their critical needs could be met. Could they imagine working together for a mutually acceptable, if only partial, way forward rather than continue in a harmful stalemate? I can only hope they may have tried. And after the whole encounter was over their wives thanked me! I think they represent a common wish that we all could respectfully seek common ground.