The word “tolerance” means tolerance of other people’s opinions, lifestyles, customs and behavior. Tolerance is the cornerstone of modern Western civilization, where a real cult of respect and protection of all kinds of minorities has been created. They even make up jokes about unbridled tolerance: like the fact that the President of America will one day be a black pregnant lesbian orphan, preferably a disabled person...
The problem of tolerance also faces Russian society, which over the past two decades has become unusually diverse. Today it is divided in every possible way: into “natives” and “newcomers”, into rich and poor, into corrupt officials and law-abiding, into “Orthodox banner bearers” and militant atheists, into the sexual majority and gays and lesbians... In this seething cauldron, the degree of contempt of some for to others. But is it possible to lower the high social temperature with calls for tolerance? After all, each side is sure that it is they who are being deprived of their rightful “place in the sun.” It sparkles everywhere and for any reason: one sent his daughter to lessons in a hijab, another celebrated his wedding by shooting in the street, a third chose a temple as the site of a protest, and a fourth is itching to organize a gay pride parade in his hometown...
Article on the topic Groom from a Dagestan wedding: “The scandal surrounding the “shooting” is being fanned by the enemies of Russia”
Even such a seemingly defenseless social group as the disabled becomes the target of attacks. The well-known secular columnist Bozena Rynska (the one who a year ago was going to gouge out the eyes of riot policemen with an awl) recently posted the following text on the Internet: “In my old apartment, they equipped a traffic light with a beeper... Try living in a one-room apartment, when there is constant ultrasonic chirping in your ear... And from what is it that for the sake of one or two blind people who may someday cross the road here, the lives of dozens of healthy people should be regularly poisoned?” She is also annoyed by the designated seats for disabled people in transport: “I think if there are seats for the weakest, then make premium seats for the strongest! Let there be two places for the disabled and two for the winners of the competition of life. That’s what we’ll write: places for the most beautiful, the most successful and the richest!” And as the crowning achievement of this “philosophy of the strong” is this discussion on the topic of social protection: “For example, in England there is a 55% tax, the dream of cattle has come true: every working person unwittingly supports the family of some colored slacker. But they have nothing to do, they multiply with terrible force, these, as a rule, fat sows scribble like a machine gun... Why not multiply when they give an allowance for each maggot? And they are owed everything for the fact that England once had colonies..."
It is clear that only a lazy person did not call the journalist a fool; they wished, for example, for her to immediately break her spine and find herself in the shoes of a disabled person... But all this once again proves that there is no sign of tolerance in society. Or maybe we don’t need it? To what extent should we tolerate and forgive someone? AiF asked experts about this.
YES!
Konstantin Borovoy, entrepreneur, politician, former editor-in-chief of America Illustrated magazine:
- I welcome only one type of intolerance - intolerance towards lawlessness. But here it is flourishing - starting with the Khodorkovsky case and ending with the Pussy Riot case. Lack of tolerance - at every step; dissent and otherness became the object of persecution. Take, for example, representatives of sexual minorities: in Russia, homophobes clearly dominate. They say that the very existence of gays and lesbians contradicts ancient Russian tradition.
Article on the topic
Konstantin Kudryashov: Pussy Riot – feminism or Bobchinsky syndrome? But if a tradition contradicts the Constitution and laws, which spell out guarantees of respect for the rights of minorities, then this is an illegal tradition. These laws are not some kind of evil coming from the West, we ourselves adopted them and must fulfill them. We must punish those who sow discord based on gender, race, nationality, religion...
In America there was a tradition of killing Indians and lynching blacks. But then the Americans learned tolerance, passed the law and put an end to the bad tradition. Likewise, our state must put an end to the tradition of disrespect for any minorities, disrespect for its own laws.
State as tolerance
“Centuries passed, and again the “civilized West” penetrated Russia, plunged it into turmoil for several decades, instilling debauchery, tolerance, demonocracy and other sodomite “values”.” Such an appeal in connection with National Unity Day was published by the public organization “Moscow Suvorovites”.
The statement is quite common for citizens who consider themselves to be part of the “patriotic public.” From the same series of street graffiti in Russian cities, where the word “tolerance” is victoriously struck by the arrow of intolerance. And also - two years ago, the proposal of the authors of the project “Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy” “to include in the document being developed a thesis about the rejection of the principles of multiculturalism and tolerance.”
Such a frontal and united rejection of tolerance, slowly but surely maturing in the depths of our society for years, if not decades, not only causes alarm due to the thoughtlessness of its consequences, but is also simply surprising.
It is surprising, first of all, by the harmful substitution of concepts. In a distorted but widespread interpretation, tolerance is understood as the obligation to accept and share something (behavior, lifestyle, values, etc.) that one considers unacceptable for oneself.
But tolerance, of course, is not a value in itself, but a model of human relations that allows some people to tolerate others. Simply put, not killing those whose behavior we do not like is considered unacceptable and abnormal. Tolerance necessarily includes an element of condemnation. Otherwise, it is a question of approval or indifference. This is the paradox of tolerance - allowing what is considered unacceptable. And, what is important, to be able to act intolerantly with the “violator.” Otherwise, you will have to call a person who simply chickened out and did not dare to besiege, for example, a hooligan in the subway, as tolerant. That is, in social terms, tolerance is always behavior towards minorities, towards those who can be “crushed” if desired.
The main historical subject of the spread of the practice of tolerance is the state as such. The denial of tolerance is, ultimately, the denial of the state itself. Because any government system - both modern and past - is an institution for establishing tolerance or, to use the fundamental idea of Thomas Hobbes, it is a regime of power that ends the war of all against all.
Different states establish this regime in different ways. It can be said that even the bloody extermination or expulsion of those who are intolerant is, in a certain sense, also an attempt to stabilize the regime of tolerance. But you can’t destroy or drive out everyone you don’t like. Because intolerable differences can constantly arise for any reason - this is a very convincing axiom of the political theory of Carl Schmitt.
The state determines the framework of tolerance. We agree to tolerate what we consider intolerable for a reason. In return, those we can't stand agree to abide by a certain set of conditions. Remove this frame, and there will always be a reason for the stronger to deal with someone he doesn’t like - because of wealth, because of the color of his skin, because of the shape of his nose. Tolerance, finally, is also an important element of self-identification, an understanding of what we accept and what we do not. Remove meaningful tolerance from society, and you will no longer be able to discern what is acceptable and what is not.
Empire is the prevailing regime of state tolerance in the past. It covers very large areas with an extraordinary diversity of religions and tribes. The political center of the empire eventually becomes educated and cosmopolitan. He demands one thing from his subjects of different tribes - to pay taxes. And in return, the metropolis ensures peace between these communities, in whose internal affairs it does not interfere much. Even behavior within communities is allowed that is considered barbaric to the educated ruling cosmopolitans and directly causes rejection. For example, the British in India for a long time could not completely ban the ritual of “sati” - the burning of a widow on the funeral pyre of her late husband. In other words, an empire is not just something big, expansionist and militaristic. This is, first of all, a special regime of relations with its constituent communities (which, by the way, can sometimes be punished).
A relatively recent European political invention is the so-called nation state. The fruit of religious wars, which ultimately destroyed the imperial space of the Old World.
The nation-state is separate from religion, but is more homogeneous in a number of ways, including language and ethnicity. And the nation itself in this case no longer consists of communities or classes, the status of which is regulated by the state, but of individual citizens, each of whom, among other things, acts as a subject of law. In other words, what in the empire was an internal matter of the community, in the national state becomes a matter of the private, or private, life of the individual - be it the choice of religion or sexual orientation.
The case of multiculturalism is interesting in this context. This policy began to be widely used recently - when the inhabitants of the former colonies flocked en masse to the former metropolises. As a result, closed ethnic enclaves began to emerge within nation states. Even if informally, in the shell of culture, a quasi-imperial structure has formed, seriously limiting the ability of an individual to go beyond the boundaries of the community. Which, in fact, meant a threat to both the homogeneity of the national state and the principle of the inviolability of individual rights and freedoms. Many European leaders eventually recognized the policy of multiculturalism as a failure. But this in no way means they abandon the principle of tolerance.
Russia found itself between the two mentioned poles. For example, the story of Crimea is quite imperial in essence. By preventing war (it doesn’t matter here - real or imaginary), the empire simply extends its power to territory where a clash between groups intolerant of each other is possible.
But there are also distinct features of a nation state. For example, a high degree of homogeneity in some important cultural areas. Thus, the Russian language is much more homogeneous in terms of pronunciation on the territory of Russia than the German language on the territory of Germany. Hence the whole severity of the problem of the nation - no matter how you approach it from the usual angle, the country does not fit into ready-made templates.
But in general, we can understand our internal dilemma - either communities become the “units” of the state system (for example, “estates” or “ethnic estates”). Either the state will deal with individuals, with the inevitable erosion of these same communities in this case.
But whatever vector is chosen, it is completely incomprehensible how people who call themselves patriots can declare their rejection of the idea of tolerance. After all, this means, in essence, the denial of the very institution of the state and returning us to a situation of war of all against all.
NO!
Viktor Anpilov, leader of the Labor Russia movement:
— Representatives of sexual minorities are always trying to attract attention to themselves. Nobody stops them from being themselves, but this is not enough for them - they want the whole society to recognize the abnormal as the norm. They call on us, the majority, to be tolerant! But both in society and in nature there has always been a denial of any deviations from the norm.
Since ancient times, in Russia it was believed that evil should be punished. If you show tolerance towards it, then evil becomes omnipotent. One cannot, for example, be tolerant of the merciless exploitation of man by man. How can you forgive killers of young children? Forgive those who humiliate the weak? By doing this, we ourselves turn into beasts. One cannot forgive lordly arrogance and disrespect for ordinary people. But look how contemptuously our so-called elite looks at its people. For her, he is cattle, scum, slaves. This elite is in a kind of camel-like self-confidence that no one except them can master the heights of culture, no one deserves a better life. They say that the simple and poor should live in their shacks and keep a low profile. Let the homeless stink in the subway - the police will deal with them, we won’t dirty our hands... But true tolerance lies precisely in not tolerating such an arrogant attitude - essentially, Nazism in a velvet shell. Tolerance is a constant thirst for justice.
Relationships - How to become more tolerant of people
Today, more than ever, the issue of tolerance is the most pressing issue in society. The world community demands from us loyalty and understanding towards all people around us, with the possible exception of criminals and pedophiles. In the opinion of those concerned, neither racial, nor material, nor national, nor intellectual, nor other differences should influence interpersonal relationships and the perception of one person by another. However, this is quite difficult, because by and large it is recommended to turn a blind eye to other people’s obvious shortcomings and focus your own attention only on the merits of others, which are often incredibly difficult to see with the naked eye. And yet the question “how to become more tolerant of people?” impossible to ignore. It should be answered, and the result obtained should be applied in practice - then there will be fewer conflicts and your own irritation will decrease.
Developing tolerance towards other people is, in fact, nothing more than meticulous and intense work on oneself. We are not able to change the world and those who inhabit it, therefore it is necessary to do this with our own character and partially worldview. The following tips will provide significant help in becoming more tolerant of neighbors, friends, loved ones, relatives, colleagues and just passers-by:
1. Find out the reasons for your intolerance towards people.
As a rule, we are driven by an irresistible desire to evaluate others from the point of view of our own, sometimes very exaggerated standards. Those who do not correspond to the latter cause our irritation, anger, ridicule and even disgust. The second common reason for pathological intolerance towards people is a sense of self-superiority. It blocks the path to perceiving others as they are.
2. Take a closer look at the people who irritate you and try to understand why they look and act the way they do. To do this, try to look at the situation through their eyes and think about what you yourself would do in the place of the objects of your criticism. Having realized the motives for the actions of others, take the second step towards developing tolerance in yourself: learn to be more lenient towards people, learn to empathize and sympathize, and not to judge.
New in blogs
Intolerance in any form becomes dangerous and unacceptable in the face of the growing power of modern means of destruction. The danger of intolerance has increased not because it has become significantly more widespread, but because its representatives have received more destructive tools to implement their aggressive attitudes.
Intolerant social groups, taking advantage of the spread of “political correctness”, went on an aggressive offensive. This is expressed, for example, in the strengthening of fundamentalism, in the Arab riots in France, in the aggressive and insolent behavior of intolerant minorities (or “majorities”) in many countries, etc. This is also expressed in moral asymmetry, when, for example, Chechens can destroy the Russian population in Chechnya, Arabs can demand the destruction of Israel (and, accordingly, blow up obviously peaceful citizens), Albanians can kill Serbs, and the extremely limited forceful response to this is subject to harsh criticism.
In the relationship between tolerant and intolerant societies (or tolerant and intolerant cultures), there is always the possibility of violent destruction of the tolerant society by the intolerant. The opposite almost never happens - because a tolerant society, by definition, does not forcibly destroy foreign cultures (this should not be confused with the natural withering away of traditional culture associated with the voluntary transition of its bearers to Modernity). For example, even politically incorrect Israel does not destroy Palestine, although technically it could easily do so. It is therefore necessary to recognize the real danger posed by intolerant societies and intolerant cultures. The destruction of the Russian population in Chechnya, the Serbian population in Kosovo, or the ardent desire of fundamentalists to exterminate all other societies prove that such a danger is very real.
Tolerance gives only one advantage - it allows you to create a more complex and more developed society, allows you to develop sustainably. Such a society has greater power and, in a classic military conflict, wins over an intolerant society. Therefore, intolerant societies now use tactics not of open military aggression, but of demographic penetration.
How to combine humanism and the need to protect Modern society from aggressive obscurantism, fundamentalism and traditionalism? To do this, in Modern society it is necessary to preserve the only type of intolerance: intolerance of intolerance.
Intolerance to intolerance is manifested, for example, in the prohibition of calls for the destruction or discrimination of people based on race, nationality, social status, beliefs, etc.
Intolerance of intolerance means that the right to freedom is placed above the right to follow tradition. In other words, if a tradition forcibly restricts freedom, if a person is punished for departing from the tradition, then such a tradition should be outlawed.
There is nothing inhumane or extremist in such a policy towards intolerance. A similar idea is formulated, for example, in the UN Human Development Report for 2004:
The concept of cultural freedom presupposes an expansion of the possibilities of choice for the individual, and not at all the self-directed conservation of values, orders and customs, and does not mean blind adherence to tradition as such.
Culture is not a fixed set of values and customs. It is in a constant process of renewal as people question, adapt and redefine their values and practices in response to changing reality and new ideas.
It is often argued that multiculturalism is a policy aimed at preserving cultures and practices that often violate human rights, and that movements for cultural recognition are not democratically governed.
However, neither cultural freedom nor respect for diversity should be confused with the protection of traditions. Cultural freedom is the ability of people to choose how to live and who to be, given real opportunities to choose between different options. “Culture”, “tradition” and “authenticity” are not identical to the concept of “cultural freedom”.
They cannot provide a valid reason for actions that deny individuals equal opportunity and violate their human rights, such as denying women the same right to education as men.
Interest groups led by self-proclaimed leaders may not reflect the totality of views of a given social group. Often, groups are led by people who, under the guise of “tradition,” are interested in preserving the existing situation and act as guardians of traditionalism in order to “freeze” their cultures.
Often intolerance is camouflaged by the reasoning that “we just want to follow our tradition/religion and that is our right.” This is indeed a human right, but only as long as such adherence is voluntary. The logic “we have the right to live in accordance with our traditions” can only work as long as every person has the opportunity to painlessly abandon these traditions.
If a member of a traditional group has spiritually become a Modern person and is persecuted for this, then Modern society must strictly protect him. This is ours, Modern man - and traditional society has no rights to him, regardless of his religious or ethnic affiliation. If a person who has felt himself Modern begins to feel intolerable pressure or, even more so, aggression from his environment or relatives, then there can be no compromises. The law must provide for adequate measures, including a ban on relevant traditions and the arrest or expulsion from the country of those who try to forcibly impose them.
Therefore, Modern society is in irreconcilable contradiction, for example, with Islamic Sharia, which provides for violence against “violators” of tradition. The principle of punishment for departure from tradition is the imposition of tradition on others. If a person does not want to carry out a tradition, then he no longer belongs to the traditional group. And the forced imposition of traditions in Modern society is prohibited.
There are many examples that simply “following our traditions/religion” puts other people’s lives in danger. In such sacred books as the Bible and the Koran, in addition to humanistic principles, there are also many aggressive calls - even calls to kill non-believers in the Koran. And fundamentalists skillfully use this - just remember Islamic terrorism or the Christian “Army of the Lord,” which became famous for bloody crimes in Africa with tens of thousands of victims. Therefore, the phrases “we are just following our traditions” or “we just want to practice our religion” can mean anything, including “we are going to kill you.” For example, if a person openly declares his intention to comply with Sharia law, this means that he wants to forcibly impose his morality on other people. Sharia provides, in particular, with severe punishments (i.e., violence - up to the death penalty) for actions that are not a crime under the Criminal Code.
It should also be remembered that intolerant religious groups, as a rule, do not isolate themselves. They seek to forcibly extend their rules not only to their members, but also to everyone else. For example, an authoritative Muslim theologian, founder of the influential Pakistani party Jamaat-e-Islami, Abul Ala Maududi, believes that where Muslims appear, non-Muslims should be given a year to convert to Islam, after which non-Muslims are subject to destruction or eviction.
Concessions to religious extremists are also being made in Russia. For example, in 2003 Ruslan Aushev has banned the sale of alcoholic beverages in Ingushetia during the holy month of Ramadan. Religious subjects are being introduced in schools.
The goal of religious fundamentalists is first to increase the “degree of intolerance” among “their” population, and then - violence against the “other faith” population, as happens, for example, in relation to Christians in Nigeria and Sudan.
This happens because medieval-type cultures do not have any advantages and only block the development of society. People who have a choice, sooner or later come to the attractive Modern culture, within the framework of which only development is possible. Therefore, the only chance for traditional cultures is violence, otherwise they will face natural extinction. The level of violence has been rising in recent years even from Hindu fundamentalists, despite the generally tolerant tenets of Hindu culture.
Currently, the greatest danger of growing intolerance comes precisely from religious fundamentalism. There are several reasons why this happens.
Religious fundamentalism is a return to the origins of religion. Fundamentalism also involves following all the guidelines contained in the holy books, without any exceptions. The problem is that the major religions were created hundreds or even thousands of years ago, when the concepts of tolerance and humanism were completely different.
Currently, the majority of even religious people do not literally follow the guidelines laid down in the holy books. After all, these books contain many cruel pages and outdated instructions. And fundamentalism is dangerous precisely because it tries to impose the absurd and cruel customs of antiquity on today’s society.
