Suchergebnisse

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.

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.

AbstractArguments for tolerance, and criticisms of it, regularly produce paradoxes and other kinds of conceptual difficulty. We 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 cognitive 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.

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)