What tolerance really is, and how to convince people of the need to respect each other so that no one gets hurt.
Tolerance has many definitions. I like what the UN gives me the most:
I like this interpretation because it reveals tolerance through respect for human rights. And nevertheless, this definition, like any other, is flawed - for three reasons.
First, until now, no one has a clear vision of what tolerance is - a moral virtue or the basis for lawmaking. How exactly do you need to translate tolerance into life: educating or forcing? I am a supporter of the first approach.
Secondly, the very idea of tolerance implies a negative attitude, which a person by a willful effort pacifies and replaces with a positive one. This can be felt in those definitions of tolerance in which the word "tolerance" appears. And if a person suffers something, then it is unpleasant for him.
Tolerance is often defined as a kind of ideal relationship between people, although in fact it describes the method of achieving the ideal. When humanity eliminates all prejudices and each person sincerely respects the other, it will no longer be a tolerant society, because no one will step over their present self anymore.
Thirdly, tolerance, especially when politicians talk about it, has, like any value system, some opponents whose behavior is unacceptable a priori, and who are unworthy of a tolerant attitude. No definition can describe the boundaries of the “enemies of tolerance”. But these facets are easily drawn by opinion leaders in accordance with their personal interests.
However, the main problem of tolerance lies in the relationship of this concept with freedom. Respect - and tolerance is the path to true respect - cannot be forcibly instilled. The normative-formalist approach not only distorts the essence of tolerance, but also severely limits a person. What kind of respect can one think of who has been forcibly gagged? And tolerance in the hands of politicians, in fact, does just that.
Double standards: the status of tolerance in Russia
There are many concepts in Russian culture that are distorted by the silly words of authoritative people. If we are talking about politics, the simplest example is the words "liberalism" and "democracy", which have recently become almost abusive. The same is the fate of the concept of "tolerance". When I was in high school, 12 years ago, we were taught tolerance, and today, if I'm not mistaken, schools teach the same thing. Although none of the teachers could explain the exact meaning of this term, we were brought up with ethnic, religious and gender tolerance. For our secondary school on the outskirts of Moscow, this was doubly important: the school was multinational, there were no more than two-thirds of Russians in it.
Therefore, the creation of a good environment was in the interests of teachers, and this gave them a B for greater motivation. And they succeeded in instilling mutual respect in us: there have never been ethnic conflicts in our school. Yes, and I learned this upbringing and lived with the attitude that tolerance is good, without even thinking about what such a term really means: only after understanding the topic, I realized that everything is not so simple.
The concept, which was spoken of at school as the most important rule of human society, today is suddenly equated with illness - but nothing has changed in the country, the same people are in power, the same teachers in educational institutions, the same TV presenters. It's not far to draw a parallel: if society is the immune system, then it turns out that the aggressive antigen is other nationalities that we were taught to respect at school.
The Russian interpretation of tolerance is flawed due to chauvinism, which remains a part of our culture. We simply have a lack of tolerance. Stereotypes and prejudices are transmitted from generation to generation, and this self-reproducing cycle must be interrupted. And I mean not only ethnic and religious issues, because there is, for example, class tolerance. In Russia, there is a strong stereotype that any rich person is a swindler. At the same time, we do not like "rogues" either. And the phrase “tolerance for LGBT people in Russia” sounds like “nuclear icebreaker in ancient Phenicia”. But if in our country there is too little tolerance, in the West there is too much of it.
Safe space, trigger warning and microaggression
The boundaries of tolerance have been argued in America for over 30 years. Apologists for political correctness (political correctness is language tolerance, the ability to speak and write respectfully) believe that the state should censor information that may seem offensive to someone. Therefore, it needs to be transformed in such a way that nothing could psychologically hurt or offend a person.
Their opponents argue that freedom is a rather tough, but beautiful thing, which is also a fundamental value for Western culture. And to give up the truth and rights in order not to be offended is very stupid. Nevertheless, it is the first position that has dominated in recent years.
The USA actively censors books and films, replaces offensive words with euphemisms. For example, the recent book The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was published, in which the same word with the letter N was replaced by the word “slave”. It's funny that ethnicity, in which, apart from an offensive name, there is nothing wrong, has been replaced by an unequivocally negative social status.
Supporters of political correctness often ignore the meaning of the text and see it as only triggers. Often, works are banned in America at the school and community levels. In fairness, it should be noted that usually the motives for banning a book are an abundance of eroticism and violence, or the promotion of homosexuality.
Political correctness affects American education worst of all. Some American schools are now pursuing a policy of completely eliminating any mention of gender topics. In fact, this leads, for example, to the cancellation of the traditional ball of fathers and daughters (after all, such an event broadcasts traditional gender roles). And in order not to offend the feelings of children of other religions, some schools are renaming Halloween as "Day of Black and Orange Spirits."
Among American students, under the influence of the values of political correctness, the so-called "culture of victimization" has developed. It is expressed, first of all, in a panic fear of being offended, hurt, humiliated and in the desire to avoid such factors to the detriment of everything else. The culture of victimization is based on three pillars. The first is safe space, that is, a territory free from hate speeches and any manifestations of intolerance.
One picture of the culture of victimization in the United States.
Another pillar is trigger warning. This is a practice of warning about any information that might offend someone.
The third and most limiting pillar of victimization culture is microaggression. It means any action that may contain latent aggression. You can call almost anything you want to call microaggression if you want to. So, in accordance with the speech codes of some universities, ask a person of Asian, African, Latin American appearance "Where were you born?" means to express aggression, since the question casts doubt on the possibility of the birth of a person with a different appearance in the United States.
All these progressive values have been imposed by students on their universities. Today, many universities in America declare the campus a safe space, introduce microaggression provisions into the charters, force teachers to warn about bad words in their lectures, and students who do not want to be triggered can leave the classroom when they hear a warning.
In 2015, a terrible scandal erupted at Yale, after which several teachers resigned. The university first sent out detailed guidelines for students on how to make a non-offending Halloween costume. One married couple of teachers did not like this, and they wrote a letter sent via the same mailing list to the dean and students. In it, they wondered why it was impossible to be a little offensive on Halloween and why all this infantilization of students, to which such an approach could lead, is needed.
This letter blew up Yale. Students staged protests, wrote angry open letters and demanded the dismissal of the rebellious pair of teachers.
This may seem ridiculous to some, but I think it's pretty scary. American youth are willing to trade their freedom for dubious "psychological security." And this is the lowest price, because “psychological security” only makes a person weaker and more defenseless. Political correctness seems to cover us with an opaque dome, which seems to protect us from all problems. But in reality, this is not protection from racists, sexists and homophobes, but isolation from real life. The real world is filled with cruelty, evil people, and the truth itself is often cruel, which, however, does not detract from its value.
What can you do about all this?
Examples from both Russia and the United States show us that tolerance creates as many problems as it solves. Any concept that is difficult to give a single definition should try to be excluded from public practice. You can't build castles in the air from the word "apple", no matter how hard you try. But the word "liberalism", or, for example, "nation", as well as "tolerance" and "political correctness", can be played around, distorting the meaning beyond recognition thousands of times.
Perhaps it is worth rejecting the term "tolerance" altogether, without abandoning the attitudes behind it, and breaking it down into narrower and more precise formulations. For example: human rights, respect for human rights, respect for a person's personal choice, mutually beneficial respectful communication, the naturalness of racial and gender differences, and so on. So that no manipulator can no longer brainwash us by deliberately mixing completely different concepts.
It would also be nice to legislate which state policy in this area is permissible and which is not. Censorship is unacceptable, as are any other prohibitive methods in the name of tolerance. In America, they suggested punishing people who, by their activities, try to restrict freedom of speech in universities, and I think this is a quite sensible idea. Only if this postulate is observed will higher education, like any other, function effectively.
On the other hand, one cannot refuse to educate those values that are usually combined into the concept of "tolerance": it is simply that prohibitions and coercions must be replaced with rational explanations, focusing on one's own example. Pupils and students should learn to respect each other, but only consciously, and not by "order."
Tolerance has many definitions. I like what the UN gives me the most:
I like this interpretation because it reveals tolerance through respect for human rights. And nevertheless, this definition, like any other, is flawed - for three reasons.
First, until now, no one has a clear vision of what tolerance is - a moral virtue or the basis for lawmaking. How exactly do you need to translate tolerance into life: educating or forcing? I am a supporter of the first approach.
Secondly, the very idea of tolerance implies a negative attitude, which a person by a willful effort pacifies and replaces with a positive one. This can be felt in those definitions of tolerance in which the word "tolerance" appears. And if a person suffers something, then it is unpleasant for him.
Tolerance is often defined as a kind of ideal relationship between people, although in fact it describes the method of achieving the ideal. When humanity eliminates all prejudices and each person sincerely respects the other, it will no longer be a tolerant society, because no one will step over their present self anymore.
Thirdly, tolerance, especially when politicians talk about it, has, like any value system, some opponents whose behavior is unacceptable a priori, and who are unworthy of a tolerant attitude. No definition can describe the boundaries of the “enemies of tolerance”. But these facets are easily drawn by opinion leaders in accordance with their personal interests.
However, the main problem of tolerance lies in the relationship of this concept with freedom. Respect - and tolerance is the path to true respect - cannot be forcibly instilled. The normative-formalist approach not only distorts the essence of tolerance, but also severely limits a person. What kind of respect can one think of who has been forcibly gagged? And tolerance in the hands of politicians, in fact, does just that.
Double standards: the status of tolerance in Russia
There are many concepts in Russian culture that are distorted by the silly words of authoritative people. If we are talking about politics, the simplest example is the words "liberalism" and "democracy", which have recently become almost abusive. The same is the fate of the concept of "tolerance". When I was in high school, 12 years ago, we were taught tolerance, and today, if I'm not mistaken, schools teach the same thing. Although none of the teachers could explain the exact meaning of this term, we were brought up with ethnic, religious and gender tolerance. For our secondary school on the outskirts of Moscow, this was doubly important: the school was multinational, there were no more than two-thirds of Russians in it.
Therefore, the creation of a good environment was in the interests of teachers, and this gave them a B for greater motivation. And they succeeded in instilling mutual respect in us: there have never been ethnic conflicts in our school. Yes, and I learned this upbringing and lived with the attitude that tolerance is good, without even thinking about what such a term really means: only after understanding the topic, I realized that everything is not so simple.
The concept, which was spoken of at school as the most important rule of human society, today is suddenly equated with illness - but nothing has changed in the country, the same people are in power, the same teachers in educational institutions, the same TV presenters. It's not far to draw a parallel: if society is the immune system, then it turns out that the aggressive antigen is other nationalities that we were taught to respect at school.
The Russian interpretation of tolerance is flawed due to chauvinism, which remains a part of our culture. We simply have a lack of tolerance. Stereotypes and prejudices are transmitted from generation to generation, and this self-reproducing cycle must be interrupted. And I mean not only ethnic and religious issues, because there is, for example, class tolerance. In Russia, there is a strong stereotype that any rich person is a swindler. At the same time, we do not like "rogues" either. And the phrase “tolerance for LGBT people in Russia” sounds like “nuclear icebreaker in ancient Phenicia”. But if in our country there is too little tolerance, in the West there is too much of it.
Safe space, trigger warning and microaggression
The boundaries of tolerance have been argued in America for over 30 years. Apologists for political correctness (political correctness is language tolerance, the ability to speak and write respectfully) believe that the state should censor information that may seem offensive to someone. Therefore, it needs to be transformed in such a way that nothing could psychologically hurt or offend a person.
Their opponents argue that freedom is a rather tough, but beautiful thing, which is also a fundamental value for Western culture. And to give up the truth and rights in order not to be offended is very stupid. Nevertheless, it is the first position that has dominated in recent years.
The USA actively censors books and films, replaces offensive words with euphemisms. For example, the recent book The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was published, in which the same word with the letter N was replaced by the word “slave”. It's funny that ethnicity, in which, apart from an offensive name, there is nothing wrong, has been replaced by an unequivocally negative social status.
Supporters of political correctness often ignore the meaning of the text and see it as only triggers. Often, works are banned in America at the school and community levels. In fairness, it should be noted that usually the motives for banning a book are an abundance of eroticism and violence, or the promotion of homosexuality.
Political correctness affects American education worst of all. Some American schools are now pursuing a policy of completely eliminating any mention of gender topics. In fact, this leads, for example, to the cancellation of the traditional ball of fathers and daughters (after all, such an event broadcasts traditional gender roles). And in order not to offend the feelings of children of other religions, some schools are renaming Halloween as "Day of Black and Orange Spirits."
Among American students, under the influence of the values of political correctness, the so-called "culture of victimization" has developed. It is expressed, first of all, in a panic fear of being offended, hurt, humiliated and in the desire to avoid such factors to the detriment of everything else. The culture of victimization is based on three pillars. The first is safe space, that is, a territory free from hate speeches and any manifestations of intolerance.
One picture of the culture of victimization in the United States.
Another pillar is trigger warning. This is a practice of warning about any information that might offend someone.
The third and most limiting pillar of victimization culture is microaggression. It means any action that may contain latent aggression. You can call almost anything you want to call microaggression if you want to. So, in accordance with the speech codes of some universities, ask a person of Asian, African, Latin American appearance "Where were you born?" means to express aggression, since the question casts doubt on the possibility of the birth of a person with a different appearance in the United States.
All these progressive values have been imposed by students on their universities. Today, many universities in America declare the campus a safe space, introduce microaggression provisions into the charters, force teachers to warn about bad words in their lectures, and students who do not want to be triggered can leave the classroom when they hear a warning.
In 2015, a terrible scandal erupted at Yale, after which several teachers resigned. The university first sent out detailed guidelines for students on how to make a non-offending Halloween costume. One married couple of teachers did not like this, and they wrote a letter sent via the same mailing list to the dean and students. In it, they wondered why it was impossible to be a little offensive on Halloween and why all this infantilization of students, to which such an approach could lead, is needed.
This letter blew up Yale. Students staged protests, wrote angry open letters and demanded the dismissal of the rebellious pair of teachers.
This may seem ridiculous to some, but I think it's pretty scary. American youth are willing to trade their freedom for dubious "psychological security." And this is the lowest price, because “psychological security” only makes a person weaker and more defenseless. Political correctness seems to cover us with an opaque dome, which seems to protect us from all problems. But in reality, this is not protection from racists, sexists and homophobes, but isolation from real life. The real world is filled with cruelty, evil people, and the truth itself is often cruel, which, however, does not detract from its value.
What can you do about all this?
Examples from both Russia and the United States show us that tolerance creates as many problems as it solves. Any concept that is difficult to give a single definition should try to be excluded from public practice. You can't build castles in the air from the word "apple", no matter how hard you try. But the word "liberalism", or, for example, "nation", as well as "tolerance" and "political correctness", can be played around, distorting the meaning beyond recognition thousands of times.
Perhaps it is worth rejecting the term "tolerance" altogether, without abandoning the attitudes behind it, and breaking it down into narrower and more precise formulations. For example: human rights, respect for human rights, respect for a person's personal choice, mutually beneficial respectful communication, the naturalness of racial and gender differences, and so on. So that no manipulator can no longer brainwash us by deliberately mixing completely different concepts.
It would also be nice to legislate which state policy in this area is permissible and which is not. Censorship is unacceptable, as are any other prohibitive methods in the name of tolerance. In America, they suggested punishing people who, by their activities, try to restrict freedom of speech in universities, and I think this is a quite sensible idea. Only if this postulate is observed will higher education, like any other, function effectively.
On the other hand, one cannot refuse to educate those values that are usually combined into the concept of "tolerance": it is simply that prohibitions and coercions must be replaced with rational explanations, focusing on one's own example. Pupils and students should learn to respect each other, but only consciously, and not by "order."
