Rethinking the Language of "Tolerance"

Tolerance - it's like me accepting you for who/what/when/where/why/how you are right?  We use this language to create a hopeful utopia of equality, righteousness, and justice.  We say it to one another and bear it as a badge of being a safe, comforting ally.  When we say tolerance, it's a good thing right?  At least that's what I've always been taught and have always thought.

For the past two weeks, I was lucky enough to hear two very different social justice activists speak on their viewpoints of social justice, privilege, race/racism, gender and sexuality, and all the overlapping and tangential gray areas that all these topics encompass.  I met Elijah Kuan Wong, spoken word artist, and Dennis Chin, "professional" activist.  On both occasions, the topic of the language of "tolerance" was brought up by the speakers.  They questioned the implications of using that word, especially in the social justice and activism arenas.

Elijah, the notably angrier and agressive speaker, completely scorns the idea of tolerance.  He absolutely hates it.  To him, people should never let others "tolerate" them.  To tolerate someone is inherently holding them to a standard that shouldn't be there in the first place, and gives the tolerator power over the tolerated.  Why should certain people be tolerated, and others not?  Where are these lines of tolerance drawn and why should they be assumed?

Dennis Chin, on the other hand, "loooooooooves tolerance."  But he also brought up a very interesting point: the differences between "tolerance" and "understanding."  While tolerating people is not a bad thing, he finds understanding people to be much more useful and potent.  To understand someone is to relate to them and much more accepting the many dimensions that a person is and can be, as opposed to tolerating someone one-dimensionally.

What they said really got me thinking and wondering.  Where did we get this notion of tolerance from?  I remember my teachers, friends, family, and influences telling me that tolerance is a good thing and intolerance is bad.  Hell, even at Wesleyan, everyone always makes snide comments at how Wesleyan's biggest intolerance is against intolerance.  There seems to be a general belief among tolerators, myself included, that it will bring about acceptance and equality, but is that a bad thing?  Here is my theory:

Everyone knows that when the Pilgrims came over to America, they were fleeing from religious persecution.  They sought on a perilous sea voyage to find a land where they could practice their religious freely and safely.  This spurred many other religious groups, similar and different ones, to come to American land so that they may start their own colonies and thus, religious pluralism was created.  The presence of this pluralism did require a sort of agreement on religious tolerance, especially since the basis of these colonies were built upon the important of religious freedoms.  Then these ideas were codified in the Bill of Rights under the First Amendment, the freedom of religion.  Is this where the culture and idea of tolerance equals equality comes?

If that is true, then we should evaluate the progress of equality as brought about by the tolerance and protections by the American Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Did the Constitution and Bill of Rights indeed immediately bring equality.  History will always tell us no and no, again and again, certainly not racial equality, gender and sexual orientation equality, class equality, and so many more.  Though there have been so many improvements and milestones, so many victories were hard-fought and hard-won, all to raise this standard of being tolerated and being equal.  The qualifications of being equal enough to earn the right.

To me, the language of tolerance is similar to the colorblind/race-blind language.  It's a term that means so little but has so many implications.  Just because someone doesn't believe in race doesn't mean racism doesn't exist. Just because someone is tolerant doesn't mean that person is fully understanding and accepting.  It's like a giant reassuring cloak that deludes us in believing that everything is alright and okay, but it hides all the problems underneath.  It hides the fact that people may be tolerant, but they may not believe in equal civil liberties or even equal public expression.  By tolerating someone, we set a standard that as long as they are below or at this line, it is fine.  It's implies a restrictive box that does not allow for change, and that is the space people need the most.  The power is in the hands of the tolerator because they allow others when the others shouldn't be "allowed."  They should just simply be.

Going back to what Dennis Chin, understanding does provide space for that growth.  The growth that enables everyone to be as multi-facetious as they are, need to be, and can be.  Understanding implies education and the willingness to learn more and to adapt.  So where does tolerance stand in the spheres of social justice and activism?

I think tolerance is not a bad thing.  It's definitely better than blatant oppression and persecution.  However, tolerance is by no means a standstill victory.  Maybe a small win, but not a victory.  There is still something to be said and done, and fights and arguments still to be had.