Search results

"In this book, readers will learn what tolerance is, how and why to show it, how to use mindfulness to better practice tolerance, and how to encourage it in others. Social and emotional learning (SEL) concepts support growth mindset throughout, while Grow with Goals and Mindfulness Exercise activities further reinforce the content. Vibrant, full-color photos and carefully leveled text engage young readers as they learn more about showing tolerance. Also includes sidebars, a table of contents, glossary, index, and tips for educators and caregivers"--

ARGUMENTS FOR TOLERANCE, AND CRITICISMS OF IT, REGULARLY PRODUCE PARADOXES AND OTHER KINDS OF CONCEPTUAL DIFFICULTY. SEEK TO SHOW THAT THESE PARADOXES ARE UNNECESSARY, AND THAT THEY ARISE FROM MISCONCEPTIONS OF WHAT A THEORY OF TOLERANCE IS REQUIRED TO JUSTIFY. IMAGINED AS A "VIRTUE," TOLERANCE IS SIMPLY CONFUSED WITH OTHER CONCEPTS; UNDERSTOOD IN THE FRAMEWORK OF A THEORY OF "RIGHTS," THE ELEMENT OF CHOICE ESSENTIAL TO THE CONCEPT IS WHOLLY NEGLECTED; EXPLAINING THE CONCEPT IN TERMS OF SOME THEORY OF FALLIBILISM LEADS TO A CONFUSION OF PRAGMATIC WITH CONGNITIVE STANDARDS. MOREOVER, SUCH MISTAKEN APPROACHES OFTEN ARISE FROM AN EQUATION OF TOLERANCE WITH LIBERALISM OR PLURALISM: THE AUTHORS MAINTAIN, HOWEVER, THAT JUSTIFICATIONS OF TOLERANCE DO NOT REST ON A COMMITMENT TO ANY POLITICAL THEORY OR IDEOLOGY, BUT IMPLY ONLY A RECOGNITION OF THE POLITICAL SITUATION ITSELF.

THIS ARTICLE RAISES THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TOLERANCE CAN BE SEEN TO FIT MORE INTO ONE TRADITION OF THOUGHT THAN ANOTHER. THE AUTHOR'S SUMMARY VIEW OF THE MATTER IS THAT ONE IS WELL-PLACED TO LOCATE TOLERANCE WITHIN ANY TRADITION, AT LEAST WHERE THERE IS EXPRESS OR IMPLICIT EVIDENCE OF SOME FORM OF CONTENTION FOR IT. INASMUCH AS TOLERANCE IS NOT A UNIVERSAL VALUE (IN THE SENSE EARLIER STIPULATED), AND INASMUCH AS THE POTENTIAL OBJECTS OF TOLERANCE WITHIN DIFFERENT TRADITIONS NECESSARILY DIFFER, THEN IT WOULD APPEAR IN PRINCIPLE TO BE PERFECTLY POSSIBLE TO INCORPORATE SOME (NOT ANY) LEGITIMATE AND COHERENT PLEA FOR TOLERANCE WITHIN EVERY TRADITION WITHOUT DOING THE LEAST VIOLENCE EITHER TO THE TRADITION OR TO THE TOLERANCE.

Discusses the considerable fluctuations in measured tolerance that have occurred over the last half century, and concludes with some comments about the degree to which the public can be said to be whimsical in its approach to the issue of civil liberties. Although the public seems able to react to news events in a predictable manner, it may be most useful to conclude that no meaningfully measurable attitude on tolerance exists. (PFB)

Some researchers have claimed that there has been a substantial increase in political tolerance among the US public since the 1950s, while others assert that this increase is illusory -- though more tolerant of leftists, the public has simply found other targets on which to vent its intolerance. Data from Samuel A. Stouffer's 1954 survey on civil liberties (Communism, Conformity, & Civil Liberties, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1955) are reanalyzed after recalculating some of its measures to simulate the least-liked group question used in a study conducted twenty years later that arrived at different conclusions (Sullivan, John L., Piereson, James, & Marcus, George E., "An Alternative Conceptualization of Political Tolerance: Illusory Increases, 1950's-1970's," American Political Science Review, 1982, 73, 781-794). In addition, extensive trend data from polls conducted between 1940 & 1985 are analyzed. It is concluded that this shift does primarily reflect greater tolerance of leftists, although tolerance has fluctuated greatly over this period, largely due to changes in perceptions regarding threats from putatively subversive groups, especially domestic communists. However, the public's grasp of & concern about civil liberties seems so minimal that it can be argued that it really has no tangibly measurable attitude on the subject one way or the other. In A Note on "Trends in Political Tolerance", John L. Sullivan & George E. Marcus explain why they used the content-controlled measurement strategy in their initial study, defend their conceptualizations of tolerance & threat, & show why it is difficult to adequately compare their results with those of other researchers. It is concluded that Mueller is persuasive in arguing that attitudes toward communists have changed over time, but less so regarding changes in the level & structure of overall political tolerance. 6 Tables, 56 References. K. Hyatt