Up@dawn 2.0

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

14-4 Tolerance is no virtue

Dr. Oliver tells us that Wendy Brown's view on tolerance is unusual, but I think it immediately resonated with our group.  We generally agreed that tolerance is one of those things that is venerated in our society but in kind of an ignorant way.  Ms. Brown points out that concepts like "freedom" are generally known to be conditional, as in we hold individual freedom to be fantastic but not absolutely.  I am free to sing in my shower but not to shout in someone's ear while they are sitting on a park bench.  However the idea of "tolerance" has been held up as something that we supposedly value in all situations.  This idea is logically impossible, as the very concept of tolerance implies "up to a point".  Also a good point in the essay is that "tolerance" has actually been used as a hatemongering tool, by claiming that we must detest societies or cultures that we (the tolerant ones) deem as "intolerant".  Of course, by refusing to tolerate these cultures, we are in fact being intolerant ourselves!  But nevermind that, focus on the WMD!  WMD!!!!
   Stephany brought up the point that tolerance as we use it is often a way to avoid a situation or person that you don't really want to deal with.  By considering toleration as an acceptable response, we neglect the further (and in our view more desirable) responses such as acceptance and respect.
  Monique talked about a TV show where people are put in uncomfortable situations to see their response, and a particular episode where actors portrayed public affection between two men, and another actor loudly complained about the display, in an effort to see what the unsuspecting public would do in reaction to this un-PC behavior.  The complaint was basically that he doesn't agree with the "gay lifestyle" but he "tolerates" it.  While this case is fictional, the complaint is not uncommon in America.  People who say this obviously means they isn't going to assault anyone over it, but he clearly they have no respect for gay people, simply because of their sexuality.  This is a case of tolerance being used to avoid taking responsibility for the position of intolerance!
  Basically I think we all agree with Brown's point about conditional tolerance.  Tolerance implies that something is undesirable but allowed anyway.  To use such a concept in regards to a person's culture, religion, or personality is not what I would call enlightened.  Tolerance is not something to be held on high and claimed as an absolute virtue.   It's actually more like a stepping-stone on the path to acceptance and mutual respect.  Merely "tolerating" someone is actually doing them a disservice.
EDIT:  Here's something that just occurred to me:  Is tolerance literally a stepping-stone?  Thinking historically, and using the example Brown gives of tolerance in America towards African-Americans, she talks about the North's "tolerance" was preferable to the South's treatment at the time, but not something to be proud of.  Now 150 years later, African-Americans are certainly more than "tolerated" in America (well admittedly in most parts of America). African-American people, culture, art, and history are fully accepted and respected as American.  So perhaps when you are dealing with something as stubbornly entrenched as social attitudes and biases, tolerance could literally be a transitional phase between persecution and acceptance?

3 comments:

  1. Oops forgot to post some questions here. So here we go:
    Factual Question: Wendy Brown believes that tolerance is an important part of equality.
    Answer: False. Ms. Brown's view of tolerance is that it implies an inequality that is put up with rather than dealt with.

    Discussion Question: Could we, as a society, tolerate zombies? Would they be second-class citizens? Would we classify them as "sub-human" and treat them just as animals? Certainly they are still people of some sort, but the element of danger seems to require some special handling.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I defiantly agree with Wendy Brown believe of tolerance, i also think that tolerance implies an inequality that is put up with than dealt with. For it is hard to answer the discussion question because i do not believe zombies actually exist. haha

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow, bravo Matt for throwing zombies in here! I am definitely gonna run with that topic just because we are pretty worn out on discussing tolerance, equal right, etc.
    Mekael, while I respect your belief that zombies don't exist, I would like to point out that the term zombie comes for voodoo practice. It is societal construct in the cultures where voodoo is practiced that if a member of the society is found to be corrupt or a danger, a voodoo priest would put a powder on this person that would lower their breathing, heart rate, and metabolism to the point of the person being able to pass for dead. The person is not dead however, but is not fully conscious, and in stories they are sent to work on farms or other places where work is needed. For the behavior, their free will is taken away essentially and the people of that culture view this fate as worse than death. The powder is a closely guarded secret of their culture as well. So in this sense, zombies do exist, but in the George A. Romero type, well I personally don't believe the dead will rise. I do, however, believe in the possibility of a virus developing in nature or in a lab, that could attack the prefrontal cortex of the human brain and take away reasoning. Without that, we are left to our basic instincts. I urge you to read the book "Feed" by Mira Grant for anyone who is interested in how such a thing could occur.
    And that would also be my answer to the discussion question. Because in the book, the "zombies" are treated as less than human. They are simply viewed as something to be exterminated because of the threat, or possibly used as research material if it can be managed. They government fears that if the people still view zombies as people, there would be more people hesitating before pulling the trigger and what little of the population would be extinguished very quickly. And I would have to agree in this point, because the threat would be greater than my sense of tolerance. Making people live in fear is not a future I would wish for anyone and I feel that if "tolerating" something induces rational fear, then it's not really toleration.
    Now, a good response to this would be to discuss what would constitute as a "rational" fear..

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.