Suchergebnisse

Acknowledging the wide–ranging possibilities for diversity in commercial and retail environments, researchers and scholars have long asked the familiar questions of "public for whom" and "public for what," understanding how much social tolerance in public space is commonly and informally negotiated by its users. Private interests have long played a strong role in controlling behavior in publicly used commercial spaces, and one of the most visible forms of such control has been the appearance of posted signs and notices throughout America's marketplaces that exhort people to be nice and to act appropriately—to clean up after themselves, to give (or not give) donations or tips, to not solicit, or to refrain from loitering. Such civility proxies have the potential to circumvent the public, face–to–face responsibility for and engagement with civility, and may likewise subvert the mutual trust and presumption of equality that civility can promote. Tolerance of diversity in public, therefore, may be impeded when the policing of civility is usurped by entities that are not direct public space participants. This article proposes that when public civility is dictated by signs–as–proxies instead of by the general public, the public realm's civility negotiation process that promotes social tolerance can be undermined by private interests.

Modern democracy is based in dissent and diversity. The essential defining aspect of democracy is the existence of competitive and fair elections; an element which emphasizes diversity of opinion and serves to place one party (or group of parties) in power, while relegating the other(s) to dissent. The diversity inherent to democratic systems instills in a country's inhabitants an awareness of difference, which in turn propagates more tolerant individuals. In autocratic regimes, expression of diversity is restrained, being considered the basis of disorder and thereby detrimental to the state. In liberal democratic societies, freedom of expression and speech and a free media are widely accepted principles. Political parties and social groups in liberal democratic societies are therefore able to express varied and opposing opinions on societal concerns, and such opinions are broadcast to large swaths of the population. Exposure to such variety indicates to even the most inattentive of individuals that they reside in a diverse and heterogeneous society. For many individuals, exposure to diversity promotes tolerance of difference. While diversity tends to breed tolerance, there is a critical exception to this generality. Exposure to diversity only facilitates tolerance of difference when such exposure occurs under positive or neutral conditions. Those who are exposed to diversity under aversive conditions are instead pushed toward intolerance of difference. Our thesis in this article is thus one of pluralistic conditioning. In general, when individuals are exposed to diversity under positive or neutral conditions, they become more tolerant of diversity. However, when individuals are exposed to diversity under aversive conditions, they become less tolerant of difference. This thesis unites findings from multiple disciplines under a single theoretical framework. Adapted from the source document.

The noticeably high social and ethnic intolerance in Romania may have not only historical or cultural explanations, but also structural explanations. This research paper settles on social frustration as a predictor of various types of intolerance. Social frustration may be caused by perceived social inequities and inequalities, and by discontent with current standards of every day life. Whereas social frustration appears to be a predictor for the general social, ethnic and religious intolerance, and specific intolerance against ethnic Hungarians, it is not counterpoised by other positive factors, as education. It is up to the state institutions to balance inequities and inequalities, in order to reduce social frustration. A major difficulty, however, is that people do not trust state institutions, as they have proved largely incapable in fighting corruption, one major source of perceived inequity. Pervasive corruption undermines democratic legitimacy and economic growth, affects social trust, and fuels social frustration. In turn, social frustration, social distrust, and poor economic living standards feed authoritarian attitudes and undermine tolerance, in a continuous vicious cycle that is still very hard to break in Romania.

In the theoretical literature on tolerance a distinction is proposed between coexistence and respect tolerance. In three studies with four national samples of Dutch majority members, we demonstrate that these two forms of tolerance can be distinguished empirically in relation to different immigrant target groups. The findings of all studies further show that the more principled respect tolerance was negatively associated with prejudice towards immigrants, and positively associated with the acceptance of concrete minority practices, above and beyond prejudice. However, the positive association between respect tolerance and acceptance of practices was weaker for people who were more strongly concerned about the continuity of their national cultural identity. Overall, the more pragmatic coexistence tolerance was found to have no independent association with prejudicial feelings and with the acceptance of minority practices. The findings indicate that stimulating respect tolerance might be particularly helpful for improving intergroup relations in culturally diverse societies.

This work is a comparative study of social tolerance toward mental illness. The central concern is with the orientation of the Chicano toward these phenomena. The aim is to determine whether or not attitudes that Mexican Americans hold toward mental illness differ from those of other Americans. Survey research methods are used to conduct a comparative study of two ethnically distinct groups — Anglo and Mexican American. Attitudes toward mental illness are measured by a social distance scale. High to low tolerance toward the mentally ill is measured. The questions range from close personal to more distant association, such as whether or not one would mind having his or her children marry someone considered to be mentally ill, to whether or not one would mind working with such a person. We have found that sex, age and education are the primary variables associated with attitudes towards mental illness. Better educated Chicanos are clearly more tolerant of the mentally disabled than the little schooled. The gender of the res pondents also appears significant in determining the extent of their tolerance. Older Chicanas with less education are the least tolerant of the mentally ill, while younger women are more tolerant than the older. And the Chicano tends to be tolerant whatever his educational level. There is little difference in tolerance between Chicanos and Anglos.