Toleration therefore gives us only the dictum attributed to Voltaire, that I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Relativism, by contrast, chips away at our right to disapprove of what anybody says. Its central message is that there is no asymmetries of reason and knowledge, objectivity and truth. Relativism thus goes beyond counselling that we must try to understand those whose opinions are different. It is not only that we must try to understand them, but also that we must accept a complete symmetry of standing.” – Simon Blackburn, Truth: A Guide (2005)
Toleration and relativism run together in the public mind. It is assumed that when you say to someone ‘I disagree’ you are also saying ‘You need to stop what you are saying’, ‘This conversation is over’ and suppression and force will soon follow. It is assumed that when you say, ‘You are wrong’, you are also saying, ‘I do not respect you’. I like these remarks from Blackburn as he helpfully clarifies that toleration and relativism, or conversely, intolerance and some belief in objectivity or realism, need not always go conceptually hand-in-hand.
Tolerance is the act of treating another as a fellow human being, despite differences in belief, faith or opinion you may hold. Relativism is the view that there are no differences. Framed like this, it seems like practising tolerance and realism is the harder option – genuinely valuing and caring for another with whom you hold serious disagreements. Relativism emerges as the much easier — and I think much soggier — option of saying that you can all get along because there are no disagreements, and if there are they are illusory since neither party has any way of being closer to the truth of things.
Blackburn is right to point out that you have to think someone is wrong before you will tolerate them – otherwise you are not tolerating them, you are just getting along normally. When an act of genuine toleration like this occurs it is a much more significant human moment. It also occurs to me that toleration-as-relativism is more of a conversation stopper then toleration-as-realism since the first throws up its hands in defeat, giving up on the project of either parties in any way being correct, reasonable, true, good or right, whereas the second affirms that each will continue to view the other as a person worthy of dignity as the conversation continues and they debate and attempt to arrive at consensus.
Christianity is often painted as being fundamentally intolerant in orientation, since it makes it its business to disagree with other religions about God, and to disagree with large portions of society about morality. These remarks from Blackburn show that there are no grounds to correlate disagreement and toleration. It reminds Christianity to disagree in a way which is tolerant, and it ought to lead non-Christians to question whether the popular tendency to label Christianity intolerant and race towards relativism is a wise one.
I’ve always thought of ‘relativism’ as a bit of a straw man. I don’t really know of any philosopher, or any other person, who believes it. (I could be wrong here? Are there any?)
Relativism is often a charge that is thrown at philosophers who question the notion that there is a final, universal truth to be discovered, or who question that it is philosophy’s role to discover such truths. But i don’t think that someone who maintains a skepticism about the notion of an ‘ultimate truth’ cannot hold that some beliefs seem more compelling, more consistent, more human – and fight for these beliefs in a global context.
As for toleration… it is a concept that I am not particularly comfortable with. This is precisely because people so often claim that they will ‘tolerate’ others when they actually have very little human respect for them. Eg. The statements ‘I will tolerate Muslims’, ‘I will tolerate gays’, ‘I will tolerate blacks’ all suggest to me that the individual has made little effort to actually understand the other party, recognise who they are, and accept that they are equal.
A related point is that “treating another as a fellow human being, despite differences in belief, faith or opinion you may hold” is never a neutral act. To treat another as a ‘fellow human being’ involves treating them according to YOUR conception of a ‘human being’. The difficulty with global debate is that, before we can all tolerate each other as ‘human beings’, we must first settle on a common understanding of the nature of human beings and human aspirations. Only then can we all ‘tolerate’ each other ‘as human beings’ and go on to discuss our disagreements. I think this is what the explosion in debates about Human Rights is all about – trying to establish a shared notion of humanity that can serve as a launching pad for more specific, tolerant global debates.
what do u think?
on my first point… maybe rorty embraces ‘relativism’ ? I don’t know, I’ve never read any Rorty.
But i do know that the continental philosophers who have been charged with relativism of late – such as Derrida and Foucault – repeatedly deny that they are ‘relativists’ and challenge their opponent’s background assumptions about the realist/relativist dichotomy.
They point out that there are more options than a) maintaining that there is a final, universal truth to be discovered and b) accepting that everyone is equally right/wrong and debate is futile.
If a philospher is not interested in finding the ‘ultimate truth’, this does not mean that he must reject all notions of truth, rationality and fact. It just means that these notions have to be reinterpreted in a more sophisticated, and less absolute way. Rationality is partly contextual, truth is transitory, facts are conditional etc.
Hey Lucy,
You should read some Rorty – he is cool! He had a red hot go at being a voice between continental and analytic philosphy, and is essesially a critic of the analytic tradition. I agree with what you said about relativism in philosophy. I can’t think of any philosophers who pick up that badge and wear it with pride without qualifying exactly how they are relativist, including Rorty. In this post, I more had in my sights the way philosophical concepts are used in politics and public culture and shape popular conceptions – opinion sections, media, public intellectuals. In that arena relativism carries some weight and I really do think people conflate the two.
I do agree with your point about objectivity and rights discourse, although i’m inclined to be a bit more optimistic about the whole project. I agree that they way i used ‘human’ was loaded, but I think the idea of arriving at a conception of a person that works for us is not beyond our grasp.
But I think you are too quick to dismiss tolerance as a valuable thing. In liberal discourse, tolerance is a cheif political virtue that liberalism aspires to foster. Locke, Hume, Kant, Mill, Berlin and Rawls think tolerance strengthens political community, rather than leading to suspicion and alienation, and I agree. I do agree that the platitude, ‘I tolerate blacks’ or ‘I tolerate gays’ sounds pretty awful and cold, and sounds like a thin veneer convering something more sinister. But I don’t think this is all tolerance can be. It could really bring people together and foster debate don’t you think?
certainly, i didn’t mean to suggest that tolerance couldn’t be a positive and fruitful idea. i just meant that, according to my casual observations, its usage in current public discourse is often not very nice, and that makes me cautious!
“I think the idea of arriving at a conception of a person that works for us is not beyond our grasp” – my too! I just think that any such conception would be socio-historicially limited and must always be open to re-appraisal (which I am sure you agree with). obviously I portrayed myself as too much of a pessimist
and i’ll definately endeavour to read some rorty
can u suggest any rorty in particular?
Interesting read. One crucial factor is that tolerate is a transitive verb. You can’t just be “tolerant”. The verb requires definition with an object. Some people are intolerant of Christianity’s intolerance, for example.
In Revelation 2-3, we see just how tolerant Jesus is, in both directions. Tolerance involves a judgment, which is why Jesus spits out those who are lukewarm fencesitters. They are “intransitively tolerant.”
Lucy – Glad to hear you’ll read some Rorty. A good place to start are his collections of essays. He has four books, all called Richard Rorty – Philosophical Papers ____________ (and then some abstract subheading). In those you can find a some interesting articles critiquing the current analytic tradition, and articles on figures like Derrida, Foucault and Heidegger. His major work of political philosophy is called ‘Contingency, Irony, Solidarity’.
Mike – Your point about the transitive verb is helpful, tolerance certainly always has an object. But I don’t follow you point about the letters to the churches from Revelation. How do you think that passage gives an example of tolerance?
great, I’m excited to read some! I just read the blurb of ‘Contingency, Irony, Solidarity’ on amazon and it sounds like a v. important work.
Cool – you’ll have to tell me what you think of it. I picked a copy up form myself about a month ago but have not read it yet, I plan to read it soon.
Seems to me that normal people (ie, not your type!) are only relativistic with things they don’t really care about it – like religion. But for things they do care about, I reckon they tend much more to tolerance (if they care about the person) or intolerance (if they don’t).
Hey Mike T – I feel like there is a thinly veiled insult in your comment! I agree with how you describe peoples ease at shifting between relativism(s) depending on what they have invested in the situation. Any suggestions of why that might be?