One of the buzzwords of our day is “tolerance.” It’s a powerful word. It can be used to stop a discussion in its tracks. It is a word that can render someone persona-non-grata and is often used (in an ad hominem argument) to black list someone in a single swoop!
So what does this powerful word mean? Let’s start with a look at the definition. The Merriam Webster Dictionary says, 1: capacity to endure pain or hardship 2: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own 3: the allowable deviation from a standard; especially: the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece
For the purposes of this discussion, I am focusing on definition number 2., “sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own.” I believe this is the issue that holds so much controversy in our day and causes so much tension. Tolerance as an ideal is great. We should be willing and able to listen to others and show sympathy for their views. We should not malign or hurt others for holding differing ideas from ours. The issue that I have, with the idea of tolerance today, is the meaning of the word.
The dictionary definition of tolerance hasn’t changed, but on the streets, in the vernacular, its meaning has changed. The old definition of tolerance was in strict accordance with Voltaire when he said, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” In other words, we used to recognize that there had to be disagreement between two people for tolerance to take place. I can, for example, tell you “I tolerate soccer fans”. If you know anything about me you would say “you’re and idiot! You ARE a soccer fan!” If, on the other hand I told you “I tolerate baseball fans and even had a civil conversation about a 26 inning ball game with someone” you (knowing I do not like baseball) would say, “That’s very tolerant of you”. Why would I expect you to react that way? Because if I agree with you I cannot be said to be tolerant, I am merely on your side. I have to, by definition, disagree with you so I can be tolerant of your view.
With that said, the common use of the word has changed in every day use and in the media at large. A person is called intolerant if they take a firm stand on an issue claiming that someone else is, I hesitate to use the “W” word … WRONG! That is seen as down right nasty and intolerant! But you see it is actually the most tolerant of positions to take. A recent survey on college campuses found that when people were asked which is more tolerant, 1. a person who says all views are correct and equally valid, or 2. the person who takes a firm stand on an issue, yet is willing to allow for others to hold their views, students were most likely to respond that the first person was the most tolerant.
You see, the problem with this new definition is that it renders the word nonsensical and even useless. I would argue that without strong disagreement and a willingness to allow others to have their dissenting opinions, we are left with a weak and useless word, meaning nothing. In fact, I would say it’s quite a scary position to be in because people insisting on a tolerance that says, “To be tolerant you MUST agree with me or see my view as equally valid as all other views,” are left with this dilemma. If all ideas are equally as valid and equally right, then you have no way to judge as to whether Mother Theresa’s ideas or Hitler’s ideas were any different, and that, my friend, is a VERY scary place to be.
