Using a Respectful Tolerance Strategy to Allow Groups to Coexist with One Another despite Deep Differences

6. Civic Knowledge and Skills

As we have explained in many places, a large part of our hyper-polarized conflict is caused by our penchant for blaming all our problems on people who are different from ourselves ("the others") and thinking that they are evil and out to get us and need to be fiercely fought, so that our "righteous" ideas and policies will prevail. Of course, "they" think the same thing, setting us up for a never-ending struggle that keeps everyone angry, fearful, and completely unable to solve pressing social, political, economic, or environmental problems that hurt us all.

In Newsletter 385, we introduced the notion of "The Great Reframing," which calls upon us to realize that our hyper-polarization, broken civic processes and inability to solve problems is not caused by "the other," but, rather, by the destructive ways we engage with each other about all those other things. This is not meant to say that bad-faith actors do not spew fear, hatred, and cause a great deal of damage. But the way we think about and treat the generalized "other" (sometimes the supporters of bad-faith actors) is what makes it possible for those actors to continue to wreak havoc on our political system. When we assume "the other is to blame," and we humiliate them, try to delegitimize, disempower, and disenfranchise them, we just fan the flames of fear and hatred and encourage them to do the same to us. This reciprocal dynamic constitutes the real problem that is driving us further and further apart, and is preventing us from making any progress on the issues we care most about (things like the economy, immigration, climate, etc.)

The solution seems pretty obvious to us: tolerance (at least), if not actual respect for "the other." This does not include bad-faith actors who are trying to sow hatred and fear and use a divide-and-conquer strategy to overpower us all. But most of our opponents, most people we usually think of as "the other," are not bad-faith actors. They are either people who have been ensnared by the bad-faith actors' lofty rhetoric and hollow promises, or they are good-willed people who simply have a different set of values than we do.

We will deal with bad-faith actors and respect in other sections, but here we will talk about "tolerance," which we define as did Sarah Peterson in her BI essay on the topic:

Tolerance is the appreciation of diversity and the ability to live and let others live. It is the ability to exercise a fair and objective attitude towards those whose opinions, practices, religion, nationality, and so on differ from one's own. [The American Heritage Dictionary (New York: Dell Publishing, 1994] As William Ury notes, "tolerance is not just agreeing with one another or remaining indifferent in the face of injustice, but rather showing respect for the essential humanity in every person." (William Ury. Getting to Peace. Page 127)

Sarah continues her essay on tolerance by saying

Intolerance is the failure to appreciate and respect the practices, opinions and beliefs of another group. For instance, there is a high degree of intolerance between Israeli Jews and Palestinians who are at odds over issues of identity, security, self-determination, statehood, the right of return for refugees, the status of Jerusalem and many other issues. The result is continuing intergroup conflict and violence.

That was written in 2003. The results of intolerance are still evident in that case. What Sarah didn't talk about in 2003 was intolerance between the Right and the Left in the United States, which probably existed at that time, but has become much, MUCH more evident, prevalent, and destructive than it was back then. As Heidi wrote in her 2019 update to Sarah's 2003 article,

Neither side [the U.S. Left and Right] is willing to accept the legitimacy of the values, beliefs, or actions of the other side, and they are not willing to tolerate those values, beliefs or actions whatsoever. That means, in essence, that they will not tolerate the people who hold those views, and are doing everything they can to disempower, delegitimize, and in some cases, dehumanize the other side.

Further, while intolerance is not new, efforts to spread and strengthen it have been greatly enhanced with the current day traditional media and social media environments: the proliferation of cable channels that allow narrowcasting to particular audiences, and Facebook and Twitter (among many others) that serve people only information that corresponds to (or even strengthens) their already biased views. The availability of such information channels both helps spread intolerance; it also makes the effects of that intolerance more harmful.

So what is to be done to counter intolerance? First, we need to try to reduce or eliminate it in our own attitudes and behavior. As we explain in the "Current Implications" section of Sarah's article (now not so "current" but still entirely accurate and relevant), we should tolerate people who hold different beliefs, as long as those beliefs or resulting actions do not affect anyone else (following a different religion, for example). However, we said,

if one is considering the beliefs or actions of another that do affect other people — particularly actions that affect large numbers of people, then that is a different situation. We do not tolerate policies that allow the widespread dissemination of fake news and allow foreign [or domestic] governments to manipulate our minds such that they can manipulate our elections. That, in our minds, is intolerable. So too are actions that destroy the rule of law in this country; [and] actions that threaten our democratic system.

But that doesn't mean that we should respond to intolerance in kind. Rather, we would argue, one should respond to intolerance with respectful dissent — explaining why the intolerance is unfairly stereotyping an entire group of people; explaining why such stereotyping is both untrue and harmful; why a particular action is unacceptable because it threatens the integrity of our democratic system, explaining alternative ways of getting one's needs met.

This can be done without attacking the people who are guilty of intolerance with direct personal attacks — calling them "haters," or shaming them for having voted in a particular way. That just hardens the other sides' intolerance.

Still, reason-based arguments probably won't be accepted right away. Much neuroscience research explains that emotions trump facts and that people won't change their minds when presented with alternative facts — they will just reject those facts. But if people are presented with facts in the form of respectful discussion instead of personal attacks, that is both a factual and an emotional approach that can help de-escalate tensions and eventually allow for the development of tolerance. Personal attacks on the intolerant will not do that. So, when Sarah asked whether one should tolerate intolerance, I would say, "no, one should not." But that doesn't mean that you have to treat the intolerant person disrespectfully or "intolerantly." Rather, model good, respectful behavior. Model the behavior you would like them to adopt. And use that to try to fight the intolerance, rather than simply "tolerating it."

The resources below explore these concepts more.