As a writer, I am constantly reaching toward understanding other people, if only because creating convincing fictional characters depends on it.
I have to imagine what it would be like in their place, even if their perspectives, lifestyles, and backgrounds are not my own. But it is hard. The illusion that I am the center of everything is powerfully convincing; everything I experience comes through, well, me.
In the same way, the illusion of an earth-centered universe was convincing until some people decided to let the evidence speak for itself, even if it went against the “obvious.” They put aside the urge to view the universe in terms of its relationship to themselves; maybe the stars were not made to shine for them; maybe the stars had an existence apart from humans.
This attitude was objectivity, which applies not only to stars, but to people. To understand others, I have to be able to realize that they have an existence outside of their relationship to me. That others are real, that they have dreams and concerns just as I do, and that like me they suffer is easy to know, yet hard to realize. Maybe that is why objectivity is far too rare.
Often, irrational cruelty results from an unwillingness or inability to see reality as it is, and to see people as they truly are. Some religious dogma encourages the devout to see outsiders as wicked, leading followers to conclude that any abuse of them must be pleasing to God.
The offenders lack empathy for their targets and view them as objects to get rid of rather than people. This attitude of contempt comes through in words that are chosen to describe them: “infidels,” “queers,” “psychos,” “sluts,” or any number of racial or ethnic epithets.
The suggested cure for this contempt is tolerance. Tolerance is not a bad thing as long as it encourages empathy and understanding. Instead, it has come to mean political correctness. Tolerance is about choosing non-offensive language and being super-careful around minorities so as not to “set them off.”
It also means respecting all religious belief systems equally even if they contradict each other or include \”intolerance\” of nonparticipants as a core part of their dogma. Tolerance means showing \”maturity\” with a kind of polite and uncritical agreeability.
This kind of \”tolerance\” is based on fear. It requires no understanding, compassion, or empathy, only an obedience to social norms. And maybe that is why it has failed.
It makes no effort to see the world as it really is; it only asks for going along with the current speech etiquette. In addition, the push for “tolerance” creates resentment in those who dislike being told what to think and say; meanwhile their true feelings go underground and fester.
I see this when I return to my home town in South Carolina where racist or homophobic comments are exchanged like secret handshakes; many feel persecuted by the demand for tolerance prescribed by the “liberal media” and feel relieved when they meet like-minded people.
That is one reason why socially prescribed “sensitivity” that bans the use of certain words is no match for irrational cruelty. More is needed. A respect for truth is needed.
But in politics and religion, team loyalty trumps truth-seeking. Most any reality distortion is acceptable as long as it hurts the other side. Too often, reality distortions are met with more reality distortions.
Sweeping labels are applied, where terrible attributes are used to describe every member of an opposing group. Fundamentalist Christians accuse non-believers of monstrous immorality. Some nonbelievers dismiss believers as being dumb.
Meanwhile, tolerance is preached and goes largely unheeded. The tolerance solution seems more concerned about the impoliteness of slanderous remarks than whether or not they are true.
But if tolerance is not the answer, what is? What about objectivity? If people made a real effort to see the world as it is and people as they are, perhaps there would be no need for tolerance.
Granted, in most any group, cruel, dishonest, stupid, or manipulative people exist. Someone who is looking to validate their opinion that members of a group are all “bad” can always find someone who seems to confirm it. But does it require a giant intellectual feat to understand why labeling an entire group based on the behavior of one person is faulty thinking?
The need to compartmentalize people in columns of good or bad blinds people to the complex realities that exist beneath the neat labels.
Any effort to solve problems has to begin with a respect for truth and a means of discovering it that is independent of the fears, needs, or desires of the observer.
Tolerance as it is normally practiced is a socially prescribed attitude that exists only on the surface. For it to exist, no real knowledge or understanding is needed.
Tolerance is unambitious. It is not always honest. And it is not enough. Religious violence is rampant. Racism has never gone away. The U.S. government is driven more by team loyalty than an interest in discovering reality. Even on an interpersonal level, empathy and compassion are reserved for team members or family while strangers are viewed as less than human.
Put into action, this attitude creates pointless suffering, while the tolerance \”cure\” leads to confusion. Moving toward reason lies in a willingness to reach beyond tolerance in search of the truth.