"Toleration should really be only a temporary attitude; it must lead to recognition. To tolerate means to offend." --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Finally, a Great Mind who shares my opinion about tolerance! Time for a serious rant now, so fingers in your ears if you don't like roaring.
I really, really, really (and did I say really?) hate the word Tolerance as it is currently used. I am using the word hate here about Tolerance. (Yes, imagine a small woman in glasses doing Jack Nicholson and you'll get the picture.) The short version is, I think it's a cheap substitute for love, a cop-out to avoid striking the balance between justice and mercy, and a milk-and-water version of the milk of human kindness.
The long version really wouldn't fit in a weblog entry. I've looked Tolerance (and Toleration) up in the OED, and the root of the word, no matter how you slice it, is "to put up with," "to bear an unpleasant burden," "to build up an immunity to." Now, I don't know about you, but I feel offended when people present me with the attitude: "I disapprove of what you do and who you think you are, but I'm going to put up with you because I believe in tolerance." How smug for one thing. How divisive for another. Tolerance assumes that no reconciliation can ever be made between human beings who have different opinions, worldviews, lifestyles, or other choices of behavior, and that therefore we can only indulge a self-conscious sense of loving our fellow humans if we want to get along with these different people. It's just another way of holding them at arm's length, only we can applaud ourselves for doing it.
You know what? I'm friends with people who disapprove as much of my orthodox Christian beliefs as I disapprove of their lifestyles. And never for a moment have I had to merely "tolerate" these friends. (gasp) I actually like them! I honor their humanity, I appreciate their wit, I root for them in their ups and downs. No, no, don't thank me. It's just that special thing I do. Rubbish! It's the rare human that's not even a little bit valuable and lovable and worth expecting the best of, and if I do value and love and expect the best of people I meet, it's not like I deserve a Tolerance Medal or anything. Tolerance is putting a useless rubber stamp on stuff we're supposed to do anyway.
Two arguments against all this. One is, that if it weren't for tolerance, we would be overrun by the sheer mass pressure of normative and conservative culture, and suffocate under it. My opinion is that for one thing, I'm a bit skeptical about the "sheer mass pressure" of anything, and for another, there's nothing tolerance can do that love can't do better.
The other is, that tolerance as we understand it now comprehends all these things like love and justice and mercy and the milk of human kindness. So why are we using a negative word to comprehend all those positive things? Why say, "Oh, but it doesn't just mean 'putting up with' anymore, it means 'positively valuing people'" or something like that, not to put stupid words in the mouths of the intelligent people I've talked to about this. Just because a concept is several millennia old doesn't mean it isn't still better than these new ones we're coming up with.
Now, don't get me wrong. Love is not safe stuff. As Lewis has it, "Anger is the fluid love bleeds when you cut it," and that fluid burns. Tolerance by comparison is pretty safe. But I'm looking at this spooky picture of bin Laden on my AOL welcome page, and thinking that since the world's not safe anyway, I might as well love and be loved and take the risk that anger will happen.
So that, my friends, is the Reader's Digest version of my big rant on Tolerance, once and for all. If you can believe it. By the way, I have some beachfront property in Arizona I'd love to sell you, too.
Finally, a Great Mind who shares my opinion about tolerance! Time for a serious rant now, so fingers in your ears if you don't like roaring.
I really, really, really (and did I say really?) hate the word Tolerance as it is currently used. I am using the word hate here about Tolerance. (Yes, imagine a small woman in glasses doing Jack Nicholson and you'll get the picture.) The short version is, I think it's a cheap substitute for love, a cop-out to avoid striking the balance between justice and mercy, and a milk-and-water version of the milk of human kindness.
The long version really wouldn't fit in a weblog entry. I've looked Tolerance (and Toleration) up in the OED, and the root of the word, no matter how you slice it, is "to put up with," "to bear an unpleasant burden," "to build up an immunity to." Now, I don't know about you, but I feel offended when people present me with the attitude: "I disapprove of what you do and who you think you are, but I'm going to put up with you because I believe in tolerance." How smug for one thing. How divisive for another. Tolerance assumes that no reconciliation can ever be made between human beings who have different opinions, worldviews, lifestyles, or other choices of behavior, and that therefore we can only indulge a self-conscious sense of loving our fellow humans if we want to get along with these different people. It's just another way of holding them at arm's length, only we can applaud ourselves for doing it.
You know what? I'm friends with people who disapprove as much of my orthodox Christian beliefs as I disapprove of their lifestyles. And never for a moment have I had to merely "tolerate" these friends. (gasp) I actually like them! I honor their humanity, I appreciate their wit, I root for them in their ups and downs. No, no, don't thank me. It's just that special thing I do. Rubbish! It's the rare human that's not even a little bit valuable and lovable and worth expecting the best of, and if I do value and love and expect the best of people I meet, it's not like I deserve a Tolerance Medal or anything. Tolerance is putting a useless rubber stamp on stuff we're supposed to do anyway.
Two arguments against all this. One is, that if it weren't for tolerance, we would be overrun by the sheer mass pressure of normative and conservative culture, and suffocate under it. My opinion is that for one thing, I'm a bit skeptical about the "sheer mass pressure" of anything, and for another, there's nothing tolerance can do that love can't do better.
The other is, that tolerance as we understand it now comprehends all these things like love and justice and mercy and the milk of human kindness. So why are we using a negative word to comprehend all those positive things? Why say, "Oh, but it doesn't just mean 'putting up with' anymore, it means 'positively valuing people'" or something like that, not to put stupid words in the mouths of the intelligent people I've talked to about this. Just because a concept is several millennia old doesn't mean it isn't still better than these new ones we're coming up with.
Now, don't get me wrong. Love is not safe stuff. As Lewis has it, "Anger is the fluid love bleeds when you cut it," and that fluid burns. Tolerance by comparison is pretty safe. But I'm looking at this spooky picture of bin Laden on my AOL welcome page, and thinking that since the world's not safe anyway, I might as well love and be loved and take the risk that anger will happen.
So that, my friends, is the Reader's Digest version of my big rant on Tolerance, once and for all. If you can believe it. By the way, I have some beachfront property in Arizona I'd love to sell you, too.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home