Intolerance is mostly defined by the root word, which is tolerance. To be intolerant is to NOT be tolerant. Tolerance is one of three basic categories of the parables and lessons of Jesus Christ. “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her” is a common translation of the contents of John 8:7. This projects tolerance as a characteristic of self-examination. It is not saying that the behavior is correct according to the perceiver’s societal norms but it is saying that no one is perfect and we should address our own imperfections and foibles before we complain about those that we perceive within others.
“I am tolerant of all things except intolerance”. Tolerance is not a straight-forward topic because of the huge variance of viewpoints. For example, jokes which were once acceptable (and desired to still be acceptable by some people) can be considered a type of verbal violence. And, certainly, if a person is within a group where something is considered okay to think, say, or do then anyone who disagrees with that must be, themselves, in the wrong? Correct?
The perception of wrong and abstraction of something often encountered.
The aspect of perception is an important aspect of tolerance. If I believe that certain clothing is wrong but I am “tolerating” that anyway, it does not mean that that clothing IS wrong. It is my perception of something that, in itself, has very little (if any) attribute of good/bad right/wrong about it. It was a defining characteristic of the Puritans that their entire definition of right or wrong was based on their own opinions, and interpretations, of proper behavior within their own group. Alas, they had no qualms about using that intragroup specification as a criterion for OTHER groups.
A basic problem about discussing tolerance/intolerance is that there ARE very distinct, varied, viewpoints. I know which ones I consider to be “right” and you very likely know which viewpoints that YOU consider to be “right”. They may be the same, there may be some overlap, or they may be completely opposite viewpoints of each other. But the concept of tolerance, or intolerance, is still important BECAUSE there isn’t a single structure of viewpoints.
A matter of boundaries
One of the tricky aspects of intolerance is that of the extent of the perceived wrongness. It is not a fixed matter. The degree of boundaries indicates the amount of conflict between the observer and the person perceived to be wrong. It might be said that the amount of conflict is an indication of just “how tolerant”, a person interacting with the perceived wrong, is. In my arbitrary categories, the numbers increase as the perceived wrongness becomes “in your face” or difficult to ignore.
At the most self-contained, the perceived wrongness has no visible or other sensory indication (speech mannerisms, for example) that the person, or item, has any of the perceived wrongness within them. This is the basis of “don’t ask, don’t tell” types of rules and regulations where one group imposes their own definitions of wrongness upon another group but will “tolerate” the behavior as long as they are unaware, or can pretend they are unaware, of the perceived wrong behavior. Call this category one.
The next step up for boundaries may be visible, auditory, or via some other sensory perception. People can detect defining characteristics of the perceived wrongness without a need for investigation or inquiring. If the perceived wrongnesses are fully involuntary such as skin color or a limb missing, they could be considered category two-a. The perceived wrongness may be an external characteristic that is voluntary but noticeable everyday. Payot (long sidelocks) or dreadlocks or a tonsure on men or a yarmulke (skullcap) might exist as part of the person’s expressed identity. These signs, considered part of their identity, fall into category two-b. Shouting slogans or displaying signs are where the one group voluntarily demonstrates a behavior that others may perceive as wrong. This would be category two-c.
A pair of boundaries (or lack thereof) is broken when there is interaction between people. The items of this pair are similar in action but different in intention. Mutual, consensual behavior where both are in agreement about the behavior could be called category three. When a person, who has a perceived wrongness, forces their behavior upon others it can be considered category four.
These categories are primarily useful for purposes of discussion. As mentioned earlier, the categories are defined to increase in number as it becomes more difficult, for the person noticing, to ignore.
An inversion of standards
The most intolerant of people are forbidding of people who are in category one. There is no effect upon the perceiver. They may even be heartily approving of the person before discovering the aspect of perceived wrong within them. Knowledge of the existence of the perceived wrongness, alone, is sufficient for them to forbid. Note also that some groups, such as the Puritans, consider it a part of their existence to be fully intolerant of any deviation from what they consider wrong.
Categories two-a and two-b are not that different, from the point of evaluation, from category one. The only difference is there is no need, for the person who perceives wrongness, to investigate (or “discover”) the perceived wrongness. Category two-c may bring additional perceptions of wrong to the perceiver. The Pilgrims and Puritans were highly intolerant, coming in at the category two of perception. Note that, from Hawthorne’s “The Scarlet Letter” both Hester Prynne and the minister were considered good citizens until they left category one.
Category three is the last area (in my opinion) where tolerance may be pursued on the part of the perceiver. Nazis, KKK members, white supremacists, and such are at the category four as their actions are violent against others in many different ways. (This is part of their self-definition.)
Levels of reaction
Silence about perceived wrongness is the most tolerant. Criticism is less tolerant/more intolerant. Acting upon the perception is quite intolerant and may include enacting laws and penalties, or even active violence.
In parallel with the general group ethics of the Puritans, it is possible for a group to have intolerance as part of their identity. Their intolerance may be restricted only via legislation or physical restraint.
When should one become intolerant of tolerance?
As mentioned above, I don’t think that anyone should be tolerant of a category four situation. Being tolerant of such is becoming an accomplice and, by definition, category four situations are violating the rights, and sometimes liberties and lives, of others.
I can understand, but not agree with, the problems of being tolerant of categories two-c and three behaviors. It is difficult, or impossible, to ignore yet the behavior is not directly hurting anyone and not directly infringing on the rights of the perceiver or other people voluntarily participating. If a person wears a t-shirt indicating perceived unpleasantness or yelling slogans or insults over a megaphone, is this actually falling into category four? Even if not directly affecting others, it is a type of forced non-consensual behavior of one person, or group, upon another.
I remember the scene in “The Blues Brothers” where a group of Nazis is encountered by the Blues Brothers. AT THE TIME, they were only practicing behaviors in category three but, by their own self-definition, they were a category four group. The Blues Brothers ran them off the road into the water. Legally, they were in the wrong as the action was within category three. But, morally?
The biggest hurdle may be a fear of expansion of a behavior. If one is tolerant of category two-c or category three behaviors, is this encouraging escalation into “higher” categories? And, if you are in agreement with that behavior, then “obviously” you would consider the behavior to be accepted which is beyond toleration. But, if not in agreement, …
No real conclusion just thoughts
Tolerance and intolerance are reflections on the diverse viewpoints within society. What was once unacceptable might now be accepted, or something of which tolerance is encouraged. And it may also occur in the other direction. Behavior which was once tolerated, and even accepted by some, can become something that is no longer acceptable or tolerated by society.
Life is complex but, as long as people have varieties of behavior and thought, tolerance allows us to interact. That is the importance, and need, for tolerance.
