Tolerance is the radical answer
Americans are stuck in a holding pattern until we start talking to each other again
The right seems to believe no one can change. The left seems to believe that everyone has to change. What if we met in the uncomfortable middle?
Tolerance is radical
Recently I published thoughts on how we could move from an Us vs Them mentality. I had started noticing the growing struggle by queer writers to make sense of the sudden erosion of support for their basic rights. And I realized that my problem is that, as someone who tries to stay away from looking at ideas through a moderate vs radical lens, I found aspects to agree with on all sides of the debate. And that led me to realize that my own personal red line is, in fact, radical:
I believe that each and every human being has a fundamental right to be their own best self, no matter how it might cause discomfort or disagreement. In other words, I believe in radical tolerance.
It’s clear to me that tolerance is the only way a pluralistic society can function. Though I find the expressions of many humans on this planet deeply repugnant, I believe that as long as they are not directly limiting the rights of another person, their self-expression has to be tolerated. I believe that tolerating the self-expression of others often leads to healthier outcomes than trying to force conformity. Although I’ve held this view for a long time, the intolerance being expressed from all sides in US culture has strengthened my resolve that radical tolerance is the only way forward.
The only limit on radical tolerance is a firm one: intolerance cannot be tolerated. And this is why this deeply radical idea doesn’t appeal to political radicals. We’ve seen attempts to limit people’s speech and self-expression on both left and right. The further you go into any radical ideology, the more intolerance is justified as a necessary tool and the more fragmented a pluralistic society becomes.
Tolerance isn’t embrace
Theoretical, puristic thinkers tend to misunderstand the idea of tolerance as “acceptance.” But tolerance isn’t anything like acceptance and it certainly isn’t embrace:
Tolerance requires us to allow people with repugnant ideas to speak, but we don’t have to elevate them to leadership positions in our social circles or political parties. Marginalization of those with repugnant views has been a handy tool in all human societies.
Tolerance requires people in physical communities to tolerate others who don’t look and talk like them, but it doesn’t require them to change their opinions about those people. In fact, the tolerance of people with different political views within a single society helps moderate the most repugnant views.
Tolerance is difficult but effective: when you tolerate people you don’t have to like them, you don’t have to socialize with them, you don’t have to have them on your podcast or vote for them, but you do have to admit their right to exist in a way that may offend you. And when a majority of society practices tolerance, we can move forward with shared goals while also defining our individual selves without fear.
"Not-MAGA" needs a new political lens
I have been pondering the forces of radicalism and moderation in our society and politics, watching different factions go at each other with accusations of going too far in either direction.
Tolerance passes my spectrum and practical tests
Tolerance requires us always to view other people’s ideas as valid of expression, so we are able to debate ideas within the spectrum of options rather than through a purity lens. And tolerance allows us to ask the question, “Will it work?” without having to appeal to our theoretical biases.
The fact is that Americans have never preferred “moderate” to “radical” solutions. What has worked in the past was our willingness to join together to figure out the best imperfect way forward. Sometimes we take huge leaps; other times we just agree to get rid of a little bit of copper.
Radical tolerance must not tolerate intolerance
Here’s where I see both left and right going wrong in our current political debates. The right has started framing “acceptance of people and ideas that advocate intolerance” as a part of tolerance. Obviously, this is a self-canceling policy. If a university agrees to offer tenure to a conservative who, for example, advocates the idea that women are intellectually inferior, then women at that university are de facto no longer tolerated.1 Because the validity of their voices in the debate has been canceled before they even speak, the presence of an authority figure who advocates intolerance negates tolerance.
The corollary on the left would be to offer tenure to a female professor who advocates the idea that men by their nature try to dominate and demean. By advocating this intolerant view, the professor is unable to welcome men into fair debate. If professors shut down the speech of male students, then in fact the professor has created an atmosphere of intolerance. Shutting down the speech of some people based on “sins of birth” also negates tolerance.2
Radical tolerance must tolerate imperfection and evolution
This is perhaps the hardest part of radical tolerance: we need to accept that people change, and especially in an atmosphere of radical tolerance, we have to give them the grace to be imperfect. I believe that most of us, in our private lives, accept the imperfections of the people around us. I would guess most people are probably somewhere near me on the scale of personal tolerance: When a neighbor says something that makes me cringe, I don’t forget it, and perhaps I’m not going to ask them over for tea, but I don’t punish or reject them. When an elderly relative messes up someone’s pronouns or voices an outdated view, I give them the grace that we should all give the elderly—maybe offering a gentle reminder.
But our public sphere has become increasingly intolerant, to the point where it is leaching back into our personal relationships. Karin Tamerius of Smart Politics writes about a proven method to open up people’s political perspectives. She argues that many of the methods of persuasion that our political sphere encourages don’t work. Calling people who don’t share your worldview fundamentally bad, insisting that they sign onto supporting your life choices past tolerance, and telling them they are stupid for not sharing your particular concerns simply doesn’t work.
Why is tolerance so hard?
I find radical tolerance incredibly hard. People in my life, people I care about, are directly hurt by the policies put into place by leaders I perceive to be bigots trying to impose authoritarianism over democracy. But I have to remind myself that my people aren’t directly hurt by most of the people who vote for these politicians. And most of the people who vote for these politicians don’t see themselves as hurting anyone. It’s hard to remember that I can see the actions of a leader as absolutely wrong without seeing their followers as fundamentally bad.
But there are other reasons I find radical tolerance difficult:
I find radical tolerance hard because I have trouble tolerating people who have not done their homework. When I hear people make clearly wrong statements (like the Trump voter on the radio just now who said that grocery prices were coming down, for sure!), I want to lecture them, but I know that won’t help. When I read false statements online, I want to flame at them, but I know that won’t help.
I find radical tolerance hard because I have trouble tolerating people who don’t see the good in others. My transgender friends and family members are just people, like anyone else, and don’t deserve to be demonized for political gain. My Jewish friends and family members who believe Israel has a right to exist are just people, not evil overlords trying to subjugate others. My immigrant friends are just people who are here because they want to contribute to American society and make this place a home.
I find radical tolerance hard because, frankly, I know I’m right! What’s up with other people having opinions drawn from their own experiences that I don’t share? Of course I’m joking here, but this gets to the fundamental aspect of radical tolerance that is so hard: there isn’t one correct way to see the world. Although I believe there are objective truths, and I believe that anyone who is well-educated is better equipped to understand and uncover truths than people who are ill-educated, I also accept that the human sphere must accommodate billions of individual worldviews.
Bring back the low bar of tolerance
Tolerance is almost extinct in our public sphere. If you look at the last presidential election, both candidates refused to embrace those on the other side. It was more obvious, of course, in the way Republicans demonized actual human beings in our communities, but the Democrats really didn’t do much better, acting as if people who voted “red” had turned themselves into untouchables. Tolerance was nowhere to be found.
That intolerance has led to fractures in our private spheres. Families are literally uprooting themselves from their homes in order to seek out communities where they won’t have to tolerate others. Local laws are being enacted that target people so that they have to move. Families have ceased speaking to each other. Workers are gravitating to jobs with like-minded people.
The only way out of this is for all of us to take a step back and hit reset. To practice radical tolerance, we have to accept that each person has a unique life experience and that each unique life experience is valid. We have to understand that when we tolerate people, we will be better able to work together as a society. We do not have to strive for complete understanding or universal love, but rather strive to try for basic acceptance of differences. If we can’t accept that our only future is one that we share, there is no path to that future.
The Babblery can use your support. Please comment on, like, and share this post. Recommend our publication to your friends. Become a paid subscriber. Buy us a coffee. Buy Wally and Tabitha some cat food. Listen to KSQD. Be awesome and carry on.
If you enjoy podcasts, please subscribe to the Babblery on your favorite podcast platform, including Spotify, Amazon, TuneIn, Apple Podcasts, and YouTube.
The marginalization of Lawrence Summers has finally happened because of the Epstein files, but in my view, he should have been pushed out long ago. How could any woman expect fair treatment in his courses, given his publicly stated views? https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jan/18/educationsgendergap.genderissues
The idea that feminists believe in male “original sin” is rampant on the right, but I haven’t personally seen it. Even the most “radical” feminists tend to focus on male behavior and the patriarchal societal structure.
Well said. One of the things that makes tolerance hard for me is that people change over time. Their views change as their experience changes. It gives the feeling I didn't know the person at all. I have to stop and recognize where the changes in views originated and what expertise or access to information the person has that I don't. This goes back to the idea that we will all always believe we are right unless we listen and think to learn ways we might be wrong.