6 Comments »

“I have learned that the more adamant a person is about cultural tolerance, the more likely it is that they fear cultural difference.”

This reminds me of a discussion I had not long ago, where a liberal Episcopalian at YDS was asking some of us with a more conservative view if we felt safe to participate in communal discussions. The answer was often no, but the point is just that it was stemmed from a discussion he had previously been a part of where one such liberal started a discussion with “I just want to make sure we all agree this is a safe space.” And that got this guy thinking, who agreed in the first place with the outspoken beginner of the conversation, whether it’s really safe for all, or just those who want tolerance of themselves, and so lock themselves up from being told that what they think could ever be wrong, in the name of ‘tolerance’. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of tolerance–only the liberal view is tolerated in those situations. In that particular discussion, anyone who opposed them wouldn’t be out to get them–they’d only be out to discuss the issues. Unfortunately, they aren’t tolerated to do so.

That’s a really interesting point, Ryan, about in “safe spaces” only liberal views are tolerated. I hadn’t thought of it that way, that’s really thought-provoking. I have a slightly different experience, which also directed me towards Mia’s sentence that you bracketed above (at first, that sentence seemed counter-intuitive, I had to read it several times to really understand).

During my last two years in college, Brent House put on a sort of discussion forum about God and sexuality, and participants included people of faith with views that ranged from extremely liberal (sexually active homosexuals) to moderately conservative (committed to abstain from premarital sex, against the legalization of abortion, though I don’t know what their beliefs were about homosexuality). The whole idea of the discussion was to see if we could create a forum where everyone, both liberals and conservatives, could discuss their beliefs and explore the relationship between faith, God, the Church as an institution, the bible, and sex. In other words, to create a “safe space” where liberals and conservatives could verbalize/learn about each others’ beliefs without it degenerating into mud-slinging “I’m right, you’re full of it.” In the end, even when one’s beliefs fervently condemn another person’s, that sort of “tolerant dialogue” was a really important step towards not demonizing one’s fellow Christian. Learning to see “the other side” as a toughtful expression of faith (misguided, but not evil or stupid), as opposed to a cardboard cutout.

So, I guess all this to say that I agree, “tolerance” shouldn’t mean tolerance only for the all-inclusive but not for those with more stringent beliefs. That’s absurd. One the other hand, I wish our society was better at creating more “tolerant dialogue”, and by that I mean learning about each other even while retaining one’s beliefs. Too often, it has become so easy for a secular person to condemn a person of faith out of hand, for democrat to condemn a republican, or for a conservative Christian to condemn a liberal Christian (and clearly vice versa to all of the above). At least in the case of Christians, we are all on a sincere journey to better understand and strive to follow God’s will. I wish our society could do a better job at facilitating conversation among fellow pilgrims. Even those traveling on different roads.

So, here’s my question: is vision consistent with or dissimilar from the “tolerance” that you’re describing? I have the sense that “tolerance” is a very loaded term, to some positive and to some negative. I would love to hear more from your perspective. This is so very very important, especially in our era of history when faith plays such a huge role in public discourse.

On a related subject, actually, I’ve just read Hume’s Dialogs Concerning Natural Religion for class; we spent most of the last class session talking about why people have arguments about things they can’t win. In the case of religion, and often in the case of politics and morality, well, I have my feelings and you have yours and very rarely are you going to convince me I’m wrong or am I going to convince you that you’re wrong, no matter how much we talk about it. The reason Ted Cohen gave for this is that we don’t ascribe to any religion or moral position (or lack thereof) out of rationality. Personally, I’m not an atheist because someone put forth a really good argument for why God doesn’t exist and I was convinced, I’m an atheist because I feel, at the core of my being, that what we are living is a miraculous accident. Of course, many other people also feel, at the core of their being, something that is entirely different. But since none of our opinions are actually based in “reason” as such, well, we can’t get anywhere (in the traditional sense of reaching consensus) by reasonable discourse.

Which makes it obvious, to me at least, why people often don’t have actually tolerant discussions. It’s incredibly frustrating to talk something out, something that you care about and think is really, one hundred and ten percent, true, and not convince your interlocutor. It would be like talking to an avid proponent of Ptolmey and trying to convince them that the Earth revolved around the Sun and not getting anywhere.

The question that Ted Cohen then asked is, well, if it’s just going to make us frustrated at other people that we can’t convince them, why do we have these discussions? The obvious answer is that the real meaning of such debates isn’t to reach consensus, but rather to clarify each position? I like Nina’s comment that it’s often just about understanding, and having compassion for, people with different opinions. Observing their humanity and their similarities; finding little things that we can agree on that somehow ameliorate the clash in the other issues. Just like I can agree with someone who is pro-life that abortion is an awful thing to go through, that it’s as close as it gets to taking a human life if it isn’t actually taking a human life, but when it comes down to it I still go my way and they still go theirs. It makes me more understanding when I meet new people who proclaim their pro-life stance, perhaps, but in the meantime I just get frustrated. Because that final decision will always be present and will always be incomprehensible to me. Obviously, tolerance is easy if everyone agrees with you - it only becomes meaningful when you have disagreements and can be polite about them. But here’s another interesting question; would it not be an easier tolerance to just stay away from those subjects? Not have the conversations that you know will not end in consensus? Or, conversely, if everyone knows going in to the discussion that no consensus will be reached, why do we get upset when consensus isn’t reached?

Elizabeth–

Regarding the easier tolerance you mention at the end:
I have to say that staying away from those subjects is no tolerance at all–what are you tolerating? Certainly not those subjects or alternative views on those subjects. All I think that does is lead to both alienation on the part of those who feel they can’t talk about things that matter to them (particularly if they’re in the minority–other people won’t get to know or even guess who that person is in some sense), and to misunderstandings which create more strife in the case that it’s ever brought up. Unless you mean to somehow totally eradicate discussion on it, which is not possible, unless we just decide that somehow things like religion or abortion are just to either continue or not in their current or in different forms and people have to guess. Barring that possibility, it seems to promote alienation and restrict the possibility of understanding, which reduces tolerance, even if the discussions are difficult to have some times.

I agree with Mia’s initial statement that Ryan quoted. Many times the people who worry the most are trying to cover up their own weaknesses and fears. I’m not sure I agree with Ryan’s position on “safe spaces”: “It is, in fact, the exact opposite of tolerance–only the liberal view is tolerated in those situations.” I have been the butt of situations where I have been all but preached at and bullied into agreeing with certain beliefs which were anything but “all-encompassing” or “liberal.”

I also think It’s silly to say that everything must always be discussed openly or directly. I will say right now that for each of you here, Mia, Ryan, Nina, Elizabeth, there are topics of conversation I will not touch. This does not mean that I am not being tolerant, but perhaps because I have made one of you very uncomfortable in a way that destroyed conversation in the past, for instance (a very specific instance, but not worth specifying). Or perhaps because after having been in a relationship it would be rather awkward. On the other hand, there are things that I would probably share with each of you that I wouldn’t with very many other people at all. Despite my current push to be a more accessible person, I still believe that privacy, and tact in conversation are important things to have.

I think it is important to walk a line between “tolerance” and “sensitivity” is what I’m trying to say. I might go so far, even, to say tolerance is simply a heuristic to achieve sensitivity. I can fully tolerate all of my own beliefs, and will always find trouble in accepting things that are contrary to those beliefs. Now I also believe that it is our job as young, educated friends to be able to listen to each other and try to find some sort of common ground, like Elizabeth was saying.

Alex–

I wouldn’t claim that conservative, or religious points of view can’t or won’t be forced at people. All I mean is that too often we see a discussion open up with someone saying ‘you have to accept me, and I will mean by that that you must agree with me, and cannot find what I’m doing objectionable,’ which is only a safe space for that person. People can object without being unaccepting, but that is written off as impossible from the get-go in the conversations I’m talking about. I don’t mean that it doesn’t happen in all manner of other ways, too. But we can’t pretend that a discussion where the options are 1-agree with everyone, or 2-keep quiet, is a ’safe space’ for all.

I also wouldn’t say that tact shouldn’t be used, or that everyone should talk about everything with everyone else. There are of course things that are barred in interpersonal situations. Even if you’re in the most combattive position around, you still need to ‘pick your battles’. I just mean that keeping quiet for fear of being attacked for one’s own objection or differing thought is not a situation of being tolerated. Outside of this, people can agree to disagree all they want, or just not talk about things with certain people becuase they know it won’t go well.

Your comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (Required, not published )

Website

HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>