About "tolerance" and tolerance

One just has to walk out of the door and open their eyes to realize that life is full of chaos: the world has so many different elements and they can interact in so many ways that, very often, our only option to exist in a somewhat predictable world is to hope that these unpredictable combinations will not affect us. On the other hand, some random events can be truly valuable, so keeping an eye out for this sort opportunities is also a good policy. That is why I jumped to the occasion when a friend of mine texted me "we have to discuss wokeness" following the publication of my previous post.

Admittedly, my friend Virginia is more than a decade younger than me, and her life history is also different, but she has the same kind of engineering mind that is ready to consider any idea, regardless of its lineage, and give it a fair chance of showing its value. In Jonathan Haidt's scale, she would score as a true liberal, giving very limited value to the principles of authority, tradition or sanctity. Our differences mean that we occasionally disagree but, being a committed conversationalist as she is, we often end up discussing why we have different points of view and how they might be right for each of us in our own way. Our conversations develop with a certain effervescence that allows them to go on and on, jumping seamlessly from one topic to another, and I am not bothered to admit that I sometimes go home with a fair amount of wounds from all the mental fencing. But hey, if a conversation does not lead you to rethink you beliefs what is the point?

Photo: Dries Buytaert

In this occasion her point was that, in her experience, tolerance was frequently linked to some level of detachment: once a person is identified as different, even if they are ultimately considered as "safe" and therefore deserving of tolerance, the identification as different persists and future interactions with them are less likely to happen. This argument caught me a bit off-guard because I had been thinking all along just about occasional and superficial interactions: if the person behind the counter at the gas station or someone you cross on the street looks "strange", the chances for interaction are not going to be so many that we would need to raise our shields (or not for long anyway).

As Virginia correctly pointed out, the situation is different when the need for tolerance is an intrinsic and repeated fact of your everyday life. Both our work environments are similar, cooperating on a regular basis with colleagues from different countries, but the neighbourhood where she lives is like a rainbow of diversity, with people of every skin colour, linguistic origin and religious belief. And in this Babel she has experienced the situation of being identified as different herself, "tolerated" and, subsequently, shoved to the side to make room for better fits. The paradox is that, in a sufficiently large group, tolerance is only necessary to a certain extent, because essentially every one has a good chance of finding others similar enough to them, and therefore are not force to tolerate substantial differences in their clique. It is only natural that we prefer to spend time with our peers, but politely passing on the company of those who are different form us is just pretended tolerance, not true one.

This somewhat understandable situation of limited tolerance can quickly become toxic when it gets mixed with a strong push for an ideology which is overtly contrary to it. While the modern developments in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion have provided valuable insights about the opportunities missed by having human groups that are too homogeneous, it is important to keep in mind that we are still human beings, and in fact with groups of them, each one with their own history, beliefs, motivations and current circumstances. This means that, while the ideas in the DEI manual are well-intentioned and potentially useful, trying to apply them without in a literal way is a recipe for disaster. It is essential to filter them and tweak them to ensure they can work in the environment they are to be applied. If you push diversity in a team too far, it might end up absolutely crippled when the cultural and communication barriers become so high that the members of the team simply cannot work together.

The cherry on the cake to turn a toxic situation into an explosive one comes by throwing in the mix Martin Seligman's Positive Psychology, a combination that is sadly common in many liberal environments. It is already hard enough to overcome the human limitations to work with people that are perceived as different, even if they might have new ideas to contribute, but if you have to do this while avoiding any mention of friction or discomfort, the problem quickly runs out of possible solutions. I agree that it is important to focus the communication on the truth rather than on judgement, but sugar coating reality only makes communication harder. Expressions like "I do not agree with you" are much more constructive than "You are wrong" even if they seem to be equivalent: our difference in opinion is a fact, whereas your wrongness is, at best, a (my) working hypothesis. But even a working hypothesis contributes more to a possible agreement than the non-committal "You have such an interesting point of view": the speaker believes they have shown their disagreement, the listener believes that their idea has been well-received and in the end nobody understands why they are not moving towards a common understanding.

Being human comes with a lot of wonderful perks, but it also caries an unavoidable amount of shadows. Trying to overcome our nature and become better versions of ourselves, both as individuals and as society, is absolutely commendable, but it requires two elements which are not always present: the humility to recognize our own shortcomings, and the honesty to admit when a proposed solution is not working. And hiding our intolerance behind a veil of forced positivity just does not help anyone, it only lets the problem fester until the situation becomes untenable and rips at the seams. The path to self improvement can be hard and long, so if we are not ready to put in the effort, it is better to be open about it than keeping everybody working on a hopeless endeavor. Have a nice weekend.