Tolerance is a key concept in contemporary political theory & practice. Clearly, it is linked to such difficult classical questions as rights, freedom, state neutrality, the role of autonomy in liberalism, the limits of toleration, etc. However, nowadays, the concept of tolerance also cuts across several important political issues: multiculturalism, pluralism, the "rights" of cultures, interculturalism, reflexivity & dialogue as foundations of democracy, etc. This paper analyses the concept & explores its theoretical difficulties. 28 References. Adapted from the source document.
In: European political science: EPS ; serving the political science community ; a journal of the European Consortium for Political Research, Band 4, Heft 3
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.
In: Peace and conflict: journal of peace psychology ; the journal of the Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, and Violence, Peace Psychology Division of the American Psychological Association, Band 7, Heft 2, S. 131-142
Tolerance & solidarity are recognized as key elements in the United Nations Culture of Peace Declaration. The contributions of psychology to our understanding of the causes of intolerance & the promotion of both tolerance & solidarity are discussed by drawing on insights from the Costa Rica symposium & connecting more widely with the scholarly literature in social & peace psychology. Guided by theory & research, we examine the sources of intolerance & exclusion, emphasizing not only small group processes but structural, societal-level changes. We cite provocative evidence indicating that democratization & globalization leave in their wake new divisions & intolerance. While noting the value of intergroup contact in the context of interdependent goals, we underscore the limits of traditional social psychological approaches when addressing complex social phenomena. We emphasize the critical role peace psychologists can play in exposing ideologies of oppression, & promoting social designs & practices that support tolerance & solidarity, at micro & macro levels, within the context of a collaborative, multidisciplinary framework. 52 References. Adapted from the source document.
The philosophical tradition of liberal political thought has come to see tolerance as a crucial element of a liberal political order. However, while much has been made of the value of toleration, little work has been done on individual-level motivations for tolerant behavior. In this article, we seek to develop an account of the rational motivations for toleration and of where the limits of toleration lie. We first present a very simple model of rational motivations for toleration. Key to this model is an application of David Ricardo's model of trade to thinking about toleration. This model supports the claim that we always have reasons to be as tolerant as possible. We then explore why we do not always see tolerant attitudes in the actual world, and point to some potential preconditions for toleration that the initial model does not capture. Subsequently, we examine a more detailed model that allows us to investigate more carefully the conditions under which tolerant behavior can be rewarded. We conclude by arguing that a consideration of self-interested motivations for toleration is essential to the success of a robust theory of toleration for a diverse society, but that even this approach has its limitations. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Ltd., copyright holder.]
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.