Sunday 30 October, 10.45am until 12.15pm, Upper Gulbenkian Gallery Keynote Controversies
Tolerance is a virtue, except when it isn’t. Critics of ‘the permissive society’ have long warned against the idea that anything goes, and even championed ‘zero tolerance’ policing. But many self-styled liberals are just as intolerant when it comes to ‘hate speech’ – for example the homophobic rants of the Westboro Baptist Church in the US, or misogynist rap lyrics – or the burqa, regarded as a symbol of women’s oppression. And the one thing many won’t tolerate is the intolerance of others. But do we confuse tolerance with respect and approval? Can we uphold the idea of tolerance while maintaining the right to criticise and judge rather than succumbing to moral relativism?
The tradition of tolerance – through John Locke, Voltaire, Kant and JS Mill – emphasised the importance of moral independence, not relativism. Locke tolerated what you thought because no one could ever establish tyranny in your heart. Mill also tolerated what you did – so long as it did not harm others. And crucially he valued the existence in society of views and opinions he found objectionable – their existence vital to the pursuit of truths which we should not assume we know. Tolerance, in this sense, was a response to a world made uncertain by the erosion of moral absolutes and conventional prejudices. As Voltaire wrote in his Essay on Tolerance: ‘Think for yourselves, and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so too’. Today, by contrast, the big issue is where the limits of tolerance should be. Defining the concept of harm to include subjective harm is one way of tightening those limits: society should not tolerate the emotional distress caused by offensive speech. Some even argue we should not tolerate acts which harm only ourselves: banning smoking; curbing binge drinking; warning against ‘junk’ foods. And, in the name of protecting tolerant societies from their enemies, the war on terror has justified intolerant measures – laws against incitement to terrorism or religious hatred – in many countries. Is this is a pragmatic limitation, without which tolerance would be just a naive ideal, or is it simply political censorship? What does tolerance mean today?
If we allow tolerance to mean being non-judgemental, do we risk becoming indulgent, indifferent even? Does the concept of ‘zero tolerance’ – often deployed in defence of those at risk of harm – mask an unwillingness to debate and argue? Should we approach the question of tolerance from the standpoint of my freedom to act, or your need for security? Can we afford to be tolerant of those who are themselves intolerant? Can we afford to tolerate other people making mistakes along the way to getting it right? Is tolerating the vulgar, the offensive, the shocking, not, in part, the price of liberty? Or are such concepts vain and dangerous in today’s very uncertain world?
Listen to session audio:
 | Christopher Caldwell senior editor, Weekly Standard; columnist, Financial Times; author, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: immigration, Islam and the West |
 | Professor Frank Furedi sociologist and social commentator; author, What's Happened to the University?, Power of Reading: from Socrates to Twitter, On Tolerance and Authority: a sociological history |
 | Professor Anna Elisabetta Galeotti chair of political philosophy, University of Piemonte Orienatale in Vercelli; author, Toleration as Recognition |
 | GM Tamás visiting professor, Central European University; author, Les Idoles de la Tribu |
| Chair: | |
|
Angus Kennedy
convenor, The Academy; author, Being Cultured: in defence of discrimination |
Frank Furedi talks to Brendan O’Neill about his new book On Tolerance and why he wants to halt and reverse the warping of the liberal outlook.
Brendan O'Neill, spiked, 23 September 2011
Dragged into the politicisation of identity, tolerance has become a form of 'polite etiquette', argues Frank Furedi in a new book
Madeleine Bunting, Guardian Comment is free, 5 September 2011
Outwardly, we live in an era that appears more open-minded, non-judgemental and tolerant than in any time in human history. The very term intolerant invokes moral condemnation. We are constantly reminded to understand the importance of respecting different cultures and diversities. In this pugnacious new book, Frank Furedi argues that despite the democratisation of public life and the expansion of freedom, society is dominated by a culture that not only tolerates but often encourages intolerance.
Frank Furedi, Continuum, 1 August 2011
Howard Flight and Lord Young have joined a long list of people who have realised that there are some things you can't say. So when and why is an utterance likely to get you in trouble?
Finlo Rohrer, BBC News Magazine, 29 November 2010
Tariq Ramadan, philosopher and Islamic scholar, invites the reader to join him on a journey to the deep ocean of religious, secular, and indigenous spiritual traditions to explore the most pressing contemporary issues. Along the way, Ramadan interrogates the concepts that frame current debates including: faith and reason, emotions and spirituality, tradition and modernity, freedom, equality, universality, and civilization.
Tariq Ramadan, Allen Lane, 1 August 2010
Taking us from English suburbs to Parisian housing estates, this provocative, unflinching and engrossing book tackles uncomfortable questions about immigration and Islam head-on, and asks: why can’t we face the truth?
Christopher Caldwell, Penguin, 29 April 2010
Postwar Europe was built on an intolerance of intolerance and a downplaying of national tradition—a mindset praised as anti-racism and ridiculed as political correctness. It has often made integrating newcomers hard
Christopher Caldwell, Prospect, 4 May 2009
Examines the most intractable problems which toleration encounters and argues that what is really at stake is not religious or moral disagreement but the unequal status of different social groups. Liberal theories of toleration fail to grasp this and consequently come up with normative solutions that are inadequate when confronted with controversial cases.
Anna Elisabetta Galeotti, Cambridge University Press, 17 February 2005
Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human.
UNESCO, 1995
The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.
Herbert Marcuse, Beacon Press, 1965
