'If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.'
Karl Popper
Introduction:
Karl Popper extends to us the proposition that tolerance towards the intolerant can only end in the destruction of the tolerant, and tolerance with them. This proposition begs the question: Does tolerance breed intolerance? And indeed, can tolerance exist if the tolerant cannot tolerate the intolerant?
To give a comprehensive answer to all of our questions, we must first define what it means to be tolerant, and what it means to be intolerant. Tolerance can exist only when one is able to allow the “other” – this can apply to ideals, races, and anything outside of the “subject,” the person – to exist in peace. Intolerance, on the other hand, is the antithesis of tolerance, wherein one does not allow the “other” to exist, and seeks to eradicate or otherwise assimilate it into one’s own worldly structure.
Part 1: Does intolerance grow when tolerated?
Let us first analyse Popper’s proposition in light of these definitions. Popper describes intolerance as an “onslaught” upon tolerant society. This means that tolerance and intolerance are two dichotomous forces in Popper’s analysis. Yet, are these two forces mutually exclusive in their effect? Popper seems to disagree. Though tolerance is the antithesis of intolerance, Popper believes that intolerance, if tolerated, can thrive and overthrow the tolerant. This means that though these forces are antithetical, they act upon each other in a peculiar manner I shall call “semi-direct”: tolerance can breed intolerance, yet intolerance eradicates tolerance.
Yet I would beg to differ from Popper’s answer to this first question. I believe fighting intolerance with more intolerance is like fighting fire with fire: a pointless endeavor which only results in adding to the issue, and that the only way to eradicate intolerance is through employing tolerance. To analyse my proposition, we must first understand the sources of the antithetical notions we face.
Tolerance is best fostered in an environment of positive freedom wherein all have a right to their own ideas, all have a right to express these ideas, and, most importantly, all respect the ideas of everyone else. The reason for this is quite simple: When all discussions are had in an atmosphere of mutual respect, it is much easier to respect, and thusly tolerate, the ideals of others. On the other hand, intolerance finds a home in polarised environments wherein it is desired that all should have the same ideals, that all should express these same ideals, and that none respect the ideals of others, seeking to eradicate or assimilate all of the “other”. Now, the word “desired” is key for our understanding of intolerance. Intolerance desires to convert, to assimilate, and to exterminate all else, but this desire is also the very reason it comes into existence, meaning that intolerance needs a corresponding “pole” of further intolerance to perpetually struggle against. If nothing else wishes to exterminate and struggle against the intolerant, the intolerant lose their ferocity.
When we look at these underlying factors for tolerance and intolerance, I believe it is quite easy to understand my point. Tolerance does not breed intolerance, for it eliminates the very core of intolerance: the struggle against the “other” who are also intolerant of their views. When the tolerant tolerate the intolerant, intolerance softens into tolerance. The intolerant realize that their views are respected and taken into consideration instead of crushed and ridiculed, they also do not aim to crush and ridicule the views of others.
Part 2: Can tolerance exist if the tolerant cannot tolerate the intolerant?
This question deals with the definition of a tolerant society. For Popper, a tolerant society must be a society which has tolerant ideals, but not necessarily a society which tolerates all ideals. This must be so, for if not, how can Popper defend intolerance towards the intolerant?
I find this definition underlying Popper’s proposition plagued by an inner contradiction. How might we call a society tolerant if it cannot tolerate all ideals, but only some? This takes us back to my definition of true tolerance: tolerance is the ability to allow the “other” to exist in peace. This concept of the “other” cannot be exclusive to some favoured ideals or favoured races. For indeed, if that were so, we would slide into the definition of intolerance, the assimilation and extermination of the “other”. It is given, of course, that in Popper’s world, there is some toleration of other ideals but because not all ideals are tolerated – certainly, some are found intolerable – Popper’s world cannot be a tolerant world, but instead an intolerant one. It doesn’t matter how many ideals we tolerate if we are intolerant towards even one: once society has the power to pick what to tolerate and what not to, it can just as easily be intolerant towards everything as it can be intolerant towards one thing. Furthermore, returning back to the first part, whenever the tolerant become intolerant of some ideal, they are complicit in further intolerance emerging: intolerance begets intolerance, and once society supplies intolerance, it grows it rather than exterminate it. By forming a pole upon which the intolerant may ceaselessly struggle, the tolerant doom themselves into a polarized world wherein intolerance may thrive. Therefore, it must be established that tolerance has inclusiveness as its core: whenever it excludes, it becomes intolerance.
Conclusion:
In this paper, taking Karl Popper’s proposition as our moving point, we have sought an answer to whether tolerance makes intolerance fester, and found that tolerance is indeed the only way to stop intolerance from festering. We have asked whether tolerance can exist if even the tolerant are intolerant towards some ideal/s, and proposed that tolerance is not an exclusive but an inclusive concept wherein if even one ideal is found intolerable, tolerance ceases to exist.
Received an Honorary Mention for this essay at the Baltic Sea Philosophy Essay Event, Finland, October 2021.
Comments