In objective areas like science and technology, the physical word “tolerance” is utilitarian and determinative. The “tolerance” of matter, solid or liquid, is entirely objective and unequivocal. Subjectively, the noun itself, or its adjectival form, is ubiquitously employed in a beneficial context, as in religious tolerance, tolerance in point of view, tolerance of pets, noise, or pain.
However, it is our view that the word “tolerance,” in the context of human interaction and relationships, albeit intended as a positive declaration, is, intrinsically, at its best, equivocal and, at its worst, arrogantly hubristic.
The ubiquitous word, in addition to its utilitarian and scientific utility, can also imply a laudable understanding and friendly accord with others, but, at the same time, subtly imply the connotation of permissiveness or indulgence. In the latter context, it necessarily implies the forbearance of a negative response by a higher, or superior, class of individuals, toward the practices of persons perceived as diverse and inferior. The latter context, permissibly translates to the generous withheld criticism or sanction of a divergent class of individuals by a morally indulgent and accepting society deemed more mainstream, or superior. In this sense, it is undemocratically and arrogantly judicious in its humanistically presumed, authoritative generosity. Such thematic “tolerance” is an arrogant self-delusion of “social permissiveness.” Proclaimed “tolerance,” in such an arrogant context, is an undeniable symptom of toxic bigotry; although obviously preferable to physical acts of overt intolerance or empirically expressed hatred.
Principled morality would recognize that the signature differences between people of diverse racial, ethnic, and national backgrounds are equal in worth and significance, rendering the ubiquitous need for “tolerance” of societal nuance an inapplicable attribute.
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 