What does tolerance even mean?

gettyimagesbank

By Scott Shepherd

We live, it seems, in divided times. I suppose we always have, but in the past few years the social ruptures have become noticeably deeper and more severe. So partisan and so divided are we today that people living on the same street or in the same town experience vastly different realities. Former U.S. President Barack Obama has spoken on this several times, reflecting that if he watched Fox News, even he wouldn't vote for himself.

There are two questions that I've been pondering for a while: Are we really as divided as it seems? If we are, then who or what is to blame?

To start with the second question ― and leaving aside the easiest answer of "politicians" ― the most obvious scapegoat is social media. I can't speak from personal experience because I quit it all years ago, but the wise ones tell us that most of us live in our own online bubbles or echo-chambers of like-minded people constantly reinforcing our own opinions.

While this picture certainly seems accurate, I would add that the cause of much of today's division is the decline of the value we place in tolerance and diversity.

I've been mulling over one particular example for a while, mainly because of my own personal, albeit tentative, relation to the story. Following the surprise 2015 election of a Conservative majority government in the U.K., philosophy lecturer Dr. Rebecca Roache wrote a blog post explaining that she would "unfriend" anyone who voted for the Conservatives. She was and is a member of the faculty at Royal Holloway, University of London ― the very same august institution that awarded my own doctorate. In fact, I was busy studying away in those hallowed halls at the time, though our paths never crossed.

Roache seems to have such unwavering certainty, such overweening confidence in her own rightness (and righteousness), that she rejects the very notion that she might be wrong. Anyone who disagrees with her must be thoughtless, foolish and unreasonable. In fact, in the very post where Roache justifies shutting off those with different opinions, she ironically claims that it is they who reject reason and rational debate: "Far from viewing it as desirable to subject their political beliefs to reasoned evaluation and criticism, many conservatives view reason as a corrupting influence." Leaving aside the blinding hypocrisy of her post, I do wonder how confident her conservative students feel that they would be treated fairly in the class.

What really alarms me about this post, and the other examples like it, is how the idea of tolerance seems to have simply disappeared from modern political discourse ― or rather, the fact that the meaning of the word has warped into something very different. Tolerance used to mean, "I disagree with you but I accept that we disagree." Now it seems to mean, "I disagree with you and you must accept that I am right."

Indeed, the word, "diversity," has come to take a new meaning too: while a true understanding of diversity must include the notion of divergence in opinion, now the main criterion is physical difference ― as if it's what's on the outside is the most important aspect of a human.

Diversity now means no more than, "people who look different from me but think the same". Of course, physical differences are important and should be acknowledged, and the historical and present issue of racism must be addressed, not at least here in Korea. If, however, the only extent of difference that we can accept is that of skin color, then we're missing so many of the things that make us who we are: our hopes, dreams, beliefs, thoughts, and yes, the differences between us.

In many quarters, diversity of opinion is simply not accepted. While this situation is probably true on both sides of the debate, some research indicates that it may be a particular problem for the right, though of course this one study is hardly definitive. No matter where we are on the political spectrum, we will always have sincere and serious differences between us. No two people always agree all the time. This doesn't mean we should hate each other or shut each other out. To spurn and reject those who differ from us will do nothing to improve society. Rather, we will seal ourselves into ever smaller communities of like-minded people. Only the true believers of my ideology must be accepted: anyone who thinks wrongly must be expelled. Constant vigilance!

That's no way to live. People can ― must ― live together despite deeply-felt differences. It's not easy, of course not; and it only works if there is respect on all sides. Remember: "A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger."

Obviously, a few forced smiles and grudging handshakes (or rather elbow-bumps) will hardly fix all the world's problems. But we have to try to be more understanding of our differences, including on the big questions where we really feel strongly. That's where the test is. Simply standing up for something you already agree with is not tolerance. If the word means anything, it must apply in situations where we feel the other side of the argument is certainly wrong. Shouting, sneering, mocking may feel nice but it never changes a mind. The most it can do is bully someone into submission in a kind of petty tyranny.

I'm sure there's nuance missing from this. There certainly are cases where we can't just agree to disagree. What about Hitler and so on. But those situations are rare. Sometimes it feels like we are spiraling toward a world where every single disagreement becomes a win-or-lose fight to the death rather than a sincere conversation between people who are, as Dickens reminds us, "fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys."

So it goes. Of course, I've been working under the assumption that society really is becoming more divided, but to be honest, I'm not sure if that's even true. There has always been hatred and intolerance in this world. Just look at history. In any case, we have a responsibility not to continue spreading hatred and division. So I say hurrah for tolerance, three cheers for diversity ― real diversity. And although we may live in divided times, we can move forward into a brighter, a more accepting future, that is to say, a more tolerant one.

Dr. Scott Shepherd is a British-American academic. He has taught in universities in the U.K. and Korea, and is currently assistant professor of English at Chongshin University in Seoul. The views expressed in the article are the author's own and do not reflect the editorial direction of The Korea Times.