On the Conceptual Insufficiency of Toleration and the Quest for a Superseding Concept

Public Reason 10 (2) - Public Reason 11 (1): 61-76 © 2019 by Public Reason On the Conceptual Insufficiency of Toleration and the Quest for a Superseding Concept Nikolai Klix Tampere University Abstract: The concept of toleration occupies an important position in contemporary societal debates. I will analyse the concept by considering the apparent inconsistency between what I regard as the genuine meaning of the concept of toleration and the prevalent common perception of toleration. One essential factor in the concept of toleration is the negative evaluation of the subject matter. However, this decisive feature appears to have become obsolete in the prevalent common perception of toleration. I will examine the normative implications of the imprecise usage of ´toleration´/´tolerance´ caused by the vague perception of the concept. Furthermore, I argue there to be a significant, yet underemphasised linguistic power inherent to ´toleration´/´tolerance´, which is influential in how it perpetuates negative attitudes towards various minorities and maintains thereby unjust societal relations. Since ´toleration´/´tolerance´ appears insufficient to address the changed social reality in which attitudes towards minorities have remarkably progressed, I will adopt the approach of conceptual engineering to outline a concept capable of replacing ´toleration´/´tolerance´. I suggest that a new concept to supersede toleration should carry the ethos of respect, yet have the conceptual scope and precision of tolerance/toleration, to be intuitively appealing to replace it. I propose to replace ´toleration´ with ´respectation´ and ´tolerance´ with ´respectance´. Key words: toleration, tolerance, respect, linguistic power, conceptual engineering, political philosophy of language. SECTION 1 – ON THE SOCIETAL STANDING OF THE CONCEPT OF TOLERATION On a general note, different conceptions of words and concepts are pivotal in the way they have normative implications on our thinking. In the sphere of charged concepts in morally and politically relevant discourses, I consider the concept of toleration as particularly significant, since different conceptions of toleration are consequential in societal terms. Issues around toleration are substantive in the 21st century. Due, for instance, to growth in immigration numbers, many contemporary Western societies HAVE diversified significantly in recent decades. Moreover, the gained acceptance of various minority groups seems to motivate the usage of the concept of toleration all the more, since there appear to be good grounds to argue that these societies have become more tolerant.1 Nevertheless, the reputation of toleration/tolerance as a contemporary common virtue that is celebrated among liberals is inconsistent with the original meaning of the word which is rooted in a negative evaluation of the subject matter.2 Despite this obvious 1] Although the expression “more tolerant” seems perfectly plausible in common language, I find it ultimately unclear. 2] I want to emphasise that since ´toleration´ is the established notion to be utilised in liberal discourses regarding minorities, it appears understandable that ´toleration´ or ´tolerance´, is the term still On the Conceptual Insufficiency of Toleration and the Quest for a Superseding Concept 62 discrepancy, ´toleration´/´tolerance´ has become a code word that sets the paradigm for political discourse particularly in contemporary liberal debates on minority issues.3 One notable outcome from the benevolently used, yet imprecisely perceived concept of toleration, is that ´toleration´/´tolerance´ has become overused. Moreover, it appears to be the only recognised, if not the best conceivable concept to indicate an affirmative attitude or acceptance of minorities. When elaborating on tolerance and the societal standing of the concept, the topic of intolerance looms unavoidably as a concern to be acknowledged. Therefore, it appears understandable that toleration/tolerance is considered a safeguard to protect from intolerance. I argue, nevertheless, that in many Western societies the current social reality has developed remarkably further so that the general attitude towards many minorities has evolved beyond mere tolerance. I find the following sentence, foregrounded on the website of the US-based educational project Teaching Tolerance, revealing. “Tolerance is surely an imperfect term, yet the English language offers no single word that embraces the broad range of skills we need to live together peacefully.” (Teaching Tolerance, 2019) The circumstance that the English language is lacking a word for such essential competences in the 21st century, calls for an engagement in conceptual engineering to search for a suitable word.4 Towards the end of this paper, I will outline a concept which is also not perfect, but could perhaps more adequately fulfil the conceptual task of ´toleration´/´tolerance´. SECTION 2 – ON THE SHIFTED PERCEPTION OF THE CONCEPT OF TOLERATION I will begin my exploration of the shifted perception of toleration with a definition of the concept. A concise formal definition of the concept goes as follows: resorted to in references to various minority groups. 3] I consider a possibly perceived difference between toleration and tolerance, as merely technical without any conceptual difference between the two terms. The similarity of toleration and tolerance becomes manifest also by the circumstance that they are being used interchangeably. In this paper, I will mainly utilise the compound form: ´toleration´/´tolerance´, to cover the whole range of the concept with both TERMS. Nevertheless, there are some authors, who conceptually differentiate between toleration and tolerance. Notable examples are Balint (2017, 26), who argues that while in specific acts of tolerance an objection is required, in the general practice of toleration it is not; and Zucca (2012, 5), who in contrast considers toleration to be a moralising attitude, whereas he regards tolerance as a natural disposition to cope with diversity. However, I consider such a differentiation between toleration and tolerance arbitrary, since both toleration and tolerance share the word stem toler- (from the Latin verb tolerō – to bear, endure, tolerate – see also n. 7 below). 4] Conceptual engineering or conceptual ethics is an emerging field in recent contemporary philosophy. It is a practice of assessing the scope of concepts, analysing if a certain concept is adequate to indicate a particular meaning, and whether this concept can be extended and improved. A good introductory account on conceptual engineering is given by: Cappelen 2018. Fixing Language – An Essay on Conceptual Engineering, and Burgess, Cappelen & Plunkett, (forthcoming). Nikolai Klix 63 (Condition 1): X has a negative evaluation of Y (Condition 2): X has the potential to interfere with Y (Condition 3): X refrains from interfering with Y This definition constitutes, what is being called the ´standard notion´ of toleration.5 The dynamics of the three conditions involved in the standard notion, interplay in such a way that the acceptance component, which is the result of Condition 3 does not cancel out, but overrides the objection component, which is the result of Condition 1. This constellation leads to toleration of the subject matter in question. (Forst 2013, 20) Even if the function of ´toleration´ as a socio-political linguistic operator to indicate a certain disposition, has remained the same in common discourses, the common perception of toleration appears to have somewhat shifted. Concerning the hypothesised shift in the common perception, the crucial point is that the first condition: X has a negative evaluation of Y, is not considered as being essential to the concept of toleration anymore. I hypothesise that, in liberal discourses, two overlapping and mutually reinforcing tendencies in the usage of the term ´toleration´/´tolerance´ have occurred, which cause the gradual change in the common perception of toleration. First, when ´toleration´/´tolerance´ is utilised in common usage, i), the negative evaluation of the subject matter has often gradually weakened or may have even disappeared. Moreover, there seems to be ii) a decreased awareness about the negative evaluation of the subject matter being present in the concept. I hypothesise that the development in which many minorities have become accepted and gained recognition in Western societies in recent decades, has facilitated the described shift in the perception of the concept. As a result, the prevalent common perception of toleration seems to have departed from the original conception of the concept to such an extent that now it does not necessarily involve a negative evaluation of the subject matter, for instance, a particular minority. In a certain sense, the general attitude customarily referred to with ´toleration´/´tolerance´ seems to have evolved beyond the linguistic term that ought to describe that attitude. However, if one still acknowledges the standard notion of toleration which is bound to a negative evaluation of the subject matter, then there seems to emerge an inconsistency between the evolved i) general disposition or common public attitude, in which the negative evaluation of the subject matter may, or may not have become omitted, and the ii) label: ´toleration´/´tolerance´ given for that disposition. Since the concept of toleration is so consequential and important in contemporary societal discourses, it becomes crucial whether the concept in its various instantiations is perceived to involve a negative evaluation of its respective 5] For instance, Galeotti (2015, 94) refers to the ‘standard notion’. On the Conceptual Insufficiency of Toleration and the Quest for a Superseding Concept 64 subject matter. Therefore, I argue it to be critical that the evaluation of the subject matter (negative or non-negative) can be construed correctly according to the intention of who is utilising ´toleration´/´tolerance´. In the next section, I will elaborate on what I consider the genuine meaning of the concept of toleration. SECTION 3 – ON THE GENUINE MEANING OF THE CONCEPT OF TOLERATION In this section, I will apply the approach of conceptual engineering to examine the conceptual scope of toleration, and the reasonable extension thereof. I will analyse the concept by seeking to dismantle it into its i) semantic content and ii) form, to explore the malleability and the plausible conceptual limits of toleration.6 I aim to examine, if the first condition of the standard notion of toleration: a negative evaluation of the subject matter, is ultimately essential to the concept itself. Let´s assume that when referring to a certain minority group, or a specific feature attributed to that group, that the agent using ´toleration´/´tolerance´ would hold a neutral or positive evaluation about the minority group or the attributed feature in question. If one construes the concept of toleration to be profoundly indeterminate and unbound to a particular evaluation, then it seems hypothetically plausible that the evaluation of the subject matter (in this example case, neutral or positive) would be considered as predicating the semantic content of toleration. I argue, nonetheless, that in the particular case of ´toleration´, the concept cannot exhaustively be disentangled into its semantic content and form, since the i) linguistic form of the concept shaped by the word stem toler*, is fundamentally constitutive also for the ii) semantic content of the concept. I consider the stem toler* in the word ´toleration´/´tolerance´ as decisive since it predicates the meaning of the concept in that it signifies enduring, forbearing and sustaining hardship.7 Therefore, despite the apparent shift in the prevalent common perception of toleration, I defend the position that the concept of toleration has a certain definite meaning that is constituted primarily by the form of the word, prefixed with toler*. Thus, it becomes intuitively evident in a linguistic sense that the concept of toleration is intrinsically marked by a negative evaluation of the subject matter, which is implicitly present in the concept and should not be overlooked. I argue that the meaning of the concept of toleration is bound to the roots of the expression that are given by its Latin origins, from which also the English word ´toleration´/´tolerance´ is derived. As the prefix tolerpostulates the meaning of the concept of toleration, the differing evaluations (negative, neutral, or positive) of the subject matter that may 6] By i) semantic content of the concept, I refer to the meaning the concept indicates. By ii) form of the concept, I refer to the shape of the concept, as it appears as a particular word. 7] The word stem toleris derived from the Latin verb tolerō: Oxford Latin Dictionary, 2012. Nikolai Klix 65 lay behind the application of the term ´toleration´/´tolerance´, become eventually subjugated to what I consider as a primordially essential part of the concept of toleration, namely the negative evaluation of the subject matter. As a conclusion of this section, I argue that the traditional conception or standard notion of toleration reflects the genuine meaning of the concept of toleration, whereas the prevalent common conception does not. Particularly since issues in which the concept of toleration is frequently utilised are often pivotal in societal discourses in contemporary Western societies, it makes the concept influential in the moral and political realm. Therefore, the utilisation of ´toleration´/´tolerance´ should be strictly reserved for instances in which there is a negative evaluation of the subject matter. Otherwise, there is the risk that the concept of toleration becomes perceived as vague and unclear. SECTION 4 – ON THE IMPLICATION OF THE OBJECTION COMPONENT IN ´TOLERATION´/´TOLERANCE´ In this section, I will inspect the significance of the objection component which results from the negative evaluation of the subject matter, for expressions containing ´toleration´/´tolerance´. I will analyse two different interpretations of how the meaning of the concept of toleration can be construed, by means of an example sentence. The first interpretation is based on the i) prevalent common perception of toleration in which the objection component is omitted. The second interpretation is based on the ii) traditional conception in which the objection component is assumed to hold. Thus, the decisive factor between the two interpretations regards whether or not the objection component is assumed. Think of the following plausible sentence: “Same-sex marriage laws in Western countries are legal manifestations of societal tolerance”. Let´s assume for the sake of a thought experiment that the agent utilising “tolerance” in the sentence, does not hold a negative but a neutral or positive evaluation of two persons of the same sex getting married.8 I hypothesise that two different basic interpretations, according to differing conceptions of the concept of toleration, may emerge about the sentence. According to i) the prevalent common perception of toleration which has omitted the objection component in the concept of toleration, the ´tolerance´ in the sentence is presumably construed as indicating a neutral or positive evaluation of same-sex marriage laws. According to ii) the traditional conception, on the other hand, the meaning of ´tolerance´ in the sentence is construed as indicating a negative evaluation of samesex marriage laws. 8] Thus, my example sentence is a more concrete explication of the constellation outlined in a more abstract form in section 3. On the Conceptual Insufficiency of Toleration and the Quest for a Superseding Concept 66 Thus, a presumable interpretation of the sentence, along the lines of the traditional conception of toleration could be as follows: “Same-sex marriage laws in Western countries, are a legal manifestation of the acceptance of samesex couples getting married, even if the possibility of same-sex couples getting married is generally unwanted in the society”.9 Although this interpretation of the sentence may appear overly literal, it is perfectly in line with the traditional conception of toleration. Since according to the traditional conception, the term ´toleration´/´tolerance as a conceptual tool is inclining the recipients of a sentence in which ´toleration´/´tolerance´ appears, to form a negative evaluation of the subject matter in question. I argue that the crucial condition about the two different interpretations of the sentence is that there is no decisive internal factor in the sentence which would incline towards one of the interpretations. All that matters, seems to be whether one holds the i) prevalent positively laden conception of toleration which has omitted the negative evaluation of the subject matter, or the ii) traditional conception of toleration. I find, however, that the concept of toleration is societally too significant, to be exposed to arbitrary variables, such as educational background or political views that lead to holding one of the two conceptions of toleration. One can probably comprehend that the circumstance regarding two different conceptions of “societal tolerance” in the example sentence, is unbearable particularly for the ones exposed to it, namely same-sex couples who want to get married. This calls to settle the incompatibility between the two conceptions of toleration. I argue that the traditional conception is ultimately more convincing since it is faithful to what the concept of toleration was originally used for, namely to indicate acceptance of a particular subject matter, despite a negative evaluation of it. Moreover, the traditional conception of toleration functions conceptually in simpler terms than the prevalent ambiguous conception, in that it does not involve any omitting of the basic premises of the concept. In this section, I have shown through an analysis of the example sentence that the mere appearance of ´toleration´/´tolerance´ in an expression, has the potential to restore the value evaluation of the subject matter in question as negative. There is always the possibility to construe a negative evaluation about the particular subject matter, referred to with ´toleration´/´tolerance´, irrespectively of the intentions of the agent utilising ´toleration´/´tolerance´ and regardless of whether the agent themselves may hold a neutral or positive evaluation of the subject matter. Thus, I argue that the concept of toleration as a linguistic tool is essentially independent from how the concept is used and perceived. 9] I consider the mentioned interpretation (“Same-sex marriage laws in Western countries are a legal manifestation of the acceptance of same-sex couples getting married, even if the possibility of same-sex couples getting married is generally unwanted in the society”) should not be ruled out, if only to retain the liberty to express one´s hesitation about same-sex couples’ getting married. Nikolai Klix 67 SECTION 5 – ON THE USAGE OF ´TOLERATION´/´TOLERANCE´ IN THE PREVALENT COMMON CONCEPTION Although I take a quite literal view about the meaning of the concept of toleration, I acknowledge that in the contemporary social reality, the common perception of ´toleration/tolerance´ is on the contrary rather indeterminate, as I showed in Section 2. Therefore, I consider it worthwhile to examine further the shifted prevalent conception of toleration and the implications of the usage of a shifted version of ´toleration/tolerance´. In the prevalent conception the features which I hypothesise to contribute to the popularity of the usage of ´toleration´/´tolerance´ are particularly noteworthy, and therefore I will focus on them. The trait in the prevalent conception of toleration which emphasises the acceptance, and downplays the objection component, seems to facilitate the usage of ´toleration/tolerance´. Thereby, the elevated reputation of the concept of toleration enables to draw the attention to one´s acceptance of e.g. a certain minority group while disguising, and yet maintaining one´s negative evaluation of that minority group. This feature in the usage of ´toleration´/´tolerance´ is an element which obviously charges the concept of toleration with significant power.10 I find Foucault´s well-known observation that the success of power is proportional to its ability to hide its own mechanisms, highlights an important aspect in the common usage of ´toleration/tolerance´. (1980, 86) Regarding the feature of hiding the mechanism of power in the prevalent usage of ´toleration/ tolerance´, there seems then to occur a disguising operation which functions; by i) bracketing the negative evaluation in the concept, or rendering it as merely implicit, and by ii) highlighting the acceptance of the subject matter in question: for instance, a certain minority. Considering the power component in the common usage of ´toleration/ tolerance´ seen from a Foucauldian perspective, I hypothesise the power component to function the better the objection of the subject matter is disguised. I hypothesise, furthermore, that the present distorted perception of toleration is not just an arbitrary collateral consequence of the imprecise usage of the concept but a significant, yet underemphasised reason behind the popularity of the usage of ´toleration´/´tolerance´ in liberal discourses. Perhaps the most significant feature in the prevalent conception of toleration is the ambivalence regarding the negative evaluation of the subject matter, since eventually the acceptance component overrides any possible objection component. Another important characteristic with the prevalent common conception of ´toleration´/´tolerance´ is the tendency to utilise ´toleration´/´tolerance´ in a general manner without any reference to a particular subject matter e.g. a certain 10] I will further explore the aspect of power in the concept of toleration, in Section 6. On the Conceptual Insufficiency of Toleration and the Quest for a Superseding Concept 68 minority group. I find the following definition given by the UNESCO about the “Meaning of tolerance”, a prime example of this “Tolerance is respect, acceptance, and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world’s cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human”. (UNESCO, 1995) The concept of tolerance is used here as a reification of universal goodwill towards diversity per se. The sentence is, moreover, an example of the shifted common perception of toleration, in which the objection component has completely disappeared since there is no negative evaluation about any subject matter to be found in the sentence. One could possibly argue that UNESCO´s definition of tolerance is a counterexample of a real transformation of the concept, examined in Section 2. In the claimed transformation, ´tolerance´ need not involve a negative evaluation anymore, if only it is reframed in context with concepts which are not based on a negative evaluation. However, I consider already the beginning of the sentence “Tolerance is respect…” contradictory, since ´tolerance´ is genuinely based on a negative, yet ´respect´ is genuinely based on a neutral or positive evaluation of the subject matter. Moreover, if the asserted “respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity [...] of being human”, would be sincere, there would be no need to describe this attitude as ´tolerance´. SECTION 6 – ON THE ELEMENT OF POWER IN THE CONCEPT OF TOLERATION In the philosophical literature on toleration, the prevalent usage of the concept is taken as a given mode of discourse in societal debates, and the insufficiencies related to the concept have not been properly addressed. Particularly the element of linguistic power inherent to the concept has been underemphasised. By linguistic power in the concept of toleration, I refer particularly to the i) negative evaluation of the respective subject matter which, I argue, is always latently present in the concept and cannot be neglected, and the ii) normative implications that derive from its usage.11 Given that the standard notion of toleration is assumed to hold, these implications involve the reinforcement and perpetuation of negative evaluations of, for instance, various minorities by referring to these minorities with ´toleration´/´tolerance´ in common public debates. Accordingly, I argue that adherence to ´toleration´/´tolerance´ risks the possibility of maintaining pernicious societal power relations. Nevertheless, a few authors, notably Emanuela Ceva and Wendy Brown, have indeed addressed the power dimension in the concept of toleration. I will elaborate on their respective accounts in the following. The ´standard notion´ of toleration acknowledges the power component in terms of Condition 2 (X has the potential 11] With being latently present, I refer to the condition that the negative evaluation of the subject matter is in some instances assumed, whereas in others it is omitted. Nikolai Klix 69 to interfere with Y). Ceva adds as a complementary note a further condition to it, which stipulates that the relation between the tolerating agent and the tolerated subject(s) is unequal. (2011, 6-7) She recognises the linguistic aspect of power in that the framing of, e.g. minority issues in terms of toleration, “legitimises” the idea that the issue at stake, is an object of a negative evaluation. (2011, 15) Brown, for her part, emphasises the strong rhetorical aspect of toleration in specific historical and cultural power discourses. (2006, 9) She argues, in a discernibly Foucauldian fashion, that attention should be paid to how the usage of toleration constitutes social, political, religious and cultural norms, and how it structures practices of permission and regulation. (2006, 13) Brown asserts that discourses of toleration and the usage of the concept of tolerance not only alleviate, for instance, racism, homophobia, and ethnic prejudices, but also maintain these attitudes. (2006, 10) Here, I consider the alleviating element as an improvement in contrast to discourses of intolerance. However, the usage of ´tolerance´ also maintains these negative attitudes, since it reinforces the unequal relation between the tolerating and tolerated subjects. I follow Brown´s argument that sentences of historical and cultural power discourses, in which the concept of tolerance appears, represent discourses of power. However, in contrast to Brown´s somewhat imprecise reference to “discourses of tolerance”, which renew and reinforce societal power relations, I would argue that the power component in ´toleration´/´tolerance´ originates primarily from the concept itself. The rationale to locate the crux of the power component in the word ´toleration´/´tolerance´, is that the negative evaluation about the respective subject matter is eventually postulated by the word stem toler* in the concept of toleration. Ceva brings up the pernicious implication of utilising ´toleration´/´tolerance´ by remarking that the concept of toleration presupposes a negative attitude that people in the social reality otherwise may, or may not have. (2011, 16) Thus, applying the concept of toleration may arguably restore and perpetuate negative attitudes, which would otherwise be already overcome. Brown notes regarding the structuring feature of utilising ´toleration´/´tolerance´ that discourses of toleration sustain an arrangement into subjects of tolerance who are inferior, deviant or marginal to those practising tolerance. (2006, 13) The people of the tolerated minority group receive by the expression of ´tolerance´ a negative evaluation which has detrimental impacts, particularly if members of the minority internalise the negative evaluation of themselves.12 The disguising of the negative evaluation of the subject matter, addressed in Section 5, comes close to Brown´s assertion that discourses related to tolerance have a strong tendency of depoliticisation. This depoliticisation functions by 12] On internalised racism, internalised oppression, and internalised dominance, see DiAngelo: What Does It Mean to Be White? Developing White Racial Literacy. On the Conceptual Insufficiency of Toleration and the Quest for a Superseding Concept 76 REFERENCES Balint, Peter. 2017. Respecting Toleration: Traditional Liberalism and Contemporary Diversity, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brown, Wendy. 2006. Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Burgess, Alexis, Herman Cappelen, and Plunkett David. Conceptual Engineering and Conceptual Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press (forthcoming). Cappelen, Herman. 2018. Fixing Language – An Essay on Conceptual Engineering, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ceva, Emanuela. 2011. A Matter of Respect – Conflicts over Mosques and the Treatment of Minorities URL = http://www.eui.eu/Documents/RSCAS/Research/ MWG/201011/05-11-Ceva.pdf (accessed 21.11.2019). Di Angelo, Robin. 2012. What Does It Mean to Be White? Developing White Racial Literacy. New York: Peter Lang. Forst, Rainer. 2013. Tolerance in Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foucault, Michel. 1980. The History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction. Translated by Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage. Galeotti, Anna Elisabetta. 2015. “The range of toleration: From toleration as recognition back to disrespectful tolerance”, Philosophy & Social Criticism, Vol 41, Issue 2: 93 – 110. McWilliams, David. 2018. “Why Ireland leads in tolerance towards immigrants.” The Irish Times, September 29, 2018. National Crime Prevention Council. 2017. “Strategy: Diversity and Tolerance Education in Schools” https://www.ncpc.org/resources/bullying/strategies/strategy-diversity-andtolerance-education-in-schools/# (accessed 21.11.2019). Oxford Latin Dictionary (2nd edition), 2012 Edited by P. G. W. Glare Oxford: Oxford University Press. Teaching Tolerance. 2019. “About” https://www.tolerance.org/ (accessed 21.11.2019). UNESCO. 1995. Declaration of Principles on Tolerance: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ ID=13175&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html (accessed 21.11.2019). Zucca, Lorenzo. 2012. A Secular Europe: Law and Religion in the European Constitutional Landscape, Oxford: Oxford University Press.