Gregory K. Moffatt, Ph.D.
In my last column I addressed how the
overuse of the terms such as racism and sexism have rendered them
practically meaningless. The pursuit of tolerance supposedly is
the method for ending various "isms," but like these
other terms, it has been overused and misused to the point that
I don't think most people even know what it means.
Whether it is racial, religious, or sexual, an ethnocentric view
of reality has been our historical tradition. For example, while
on a trip to Mexico, a very loving and thoughtful friend of mine
asked me sincerely, "Why don't they have normal names here?"
"They eat weird stuff down here," he also noted.
He had lived all of his 70 years in the south and this trip to
Mexico was not only his first trip out of the country, but his
first trip out of Georgia. His ethnocentric background made it
nearly impossible for him to perceive names like Juan or Rosita
or foods like champiquesos as normal and yet names like Billy
Bob and foods like grits as quite reasonable.
I think our country, for the most part, has moved beyond this
level of intolerance, but where we miss the boat is defining what
tolerance really means. The call for tolerance often comes from
people who are intolerant. In their minds, tolerance means, "Think
like me. If you don't, you are intolerant, and I can't tolerate
that." Ironic, eh?
Tolerance doesn't mean my friend has to name his children Juan
or Rosita, and it doesn't mean he has to enjoy cheese tortillas
with mushrooms, but it does mean he should work at seeing those
things as equally valid as his own preferences.
There are three terms/ideas that get used interchangeably and
create confusion in defining tolerance - pluralism, relativism,
and tolerance.
Pluralism calls attention to the fact of multiple realities. What
is "real" for you may not be "real" for me.
As a mental health worker, I have seen many people over my career
who suffered from delusions. Their sensory delusions - hearing
voices, for example - convinced them that they heard voices that
were not there.
Yet these voices were very real to them. Pluralism doesn't mean
all realities are equal, nor does it mean that all realities actually
exist. It simply acknowledges that people perceive reality differently.
I hate chocolate. Most people love it. Both realities exist. My
reality is functionally just as "real" as yours if you
like chocolate. In the same way, the voices in my delusional patients'
heads are functionally as real for them as the voices I hear from
those around me.
Relativism, on the other hand, argues that all realities are equal.
This is ridiculous. My delusional patients heard voices because
of neural dysfunction, not because those voices actually existed.
It would be absurd to pretend they "really" existed,
but I could easily recognize that my patients perceived them as
real (pluralism).
Consequently, tolerance acknowledges that there are multiple realities
(pluralism) and argues that they should be respected. For example,
I would never make fun of my delusional patients because they
heard voices. The compassion I felt for them was as deep as it
was for any other patient.
But unlike relativism, tolerance doesn't require one to believe
that all realities are equal (relativism). This is the rhetorical
point where many arguments occur. One side is arguing that we
should respect varied realities, but the hearer perceives the
argument to be one of relativism.
While there certainly are people who are overtly bigoted regarding
race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc., I'm certain
that most of us, when face-to-face with another human being who
thinks differently than we do, are willing to acknowledge that
people have inherent value and are worthy of our love, concern
and help if needed, despite the fact that they think differently
than we do. But this doesn't mean we have to embrace their realities
any more than they must embrace ours. This is the true meaning
of tolerance.
We can easily co-exist with and respect each other if we are willing
to recognize these three separate issues. You can't make me love
chocolate, but I can easily respect your belief that chocolate
is the greatest food on earth - even though I don't believe it
to be so. I don't have to convert you, and you don't have to convert
me.