Introduction
In this discussion, we will be taking a look at a concept which was first postulated by Karl Popper, a renowned scientific philosopher. This notion aimed to solve a challenging dilemma by providing a simple yet stellar solution. You must have guessed our topic of discussion by now, and it is none other than the famous “Paradox of Tolerance”.
Paradox of tolerance refers to a phenomenon where infinite tolerance will ultimately lead to the erosion of tolerance itself. This may sound counterintuitive but there is an underlying principle which proves that this skepticism is not unwarranted. The issue is the existence of extremist groups with problematic views who use progressive values as a pretense to propagate their hateful narratives.
To tackle this vexing problem, Karl Popper proposed a solution which some may say goes against conventional wisdom. It was to not tolerate an intolerant person, belief, or narrative being propagated in an open society. Let us take a closer look at the different examples and potential answers to your burning questions.
Components of Paradox of Tolerance
With the initial introduction to this concept, you may have doubts on its applicability in the real world. You are not alone as I had my reservations too. What ultimately put them to rest was learning about the components which make up this paradox.
Extension of Initial Tolerance
In a tolerant society, the first thing an individual does is to extend forbearance to everyone. This is not a cause of concern initially as it allows different viewpoints and perspectives to coexist in harmony. It gives us a way to understand others by knowing about their lived experiences and sharing our own with them.
Unfortunately, there is a small caveat which often goes unnoticed. It is the assumption that everyone has reached a consensus to play well with others. As many of you would have figured by now, this notion could not be any further from the truth.
Integration of Radical Views
A glaring problem now bears its fangs and it is the integration of fundamentalists with troubling views into a tolerant society. The question now becomes, “Who qualifies as the bad actors in a tolerant society?”. A probable answer would be anyone who favours the erosion of basic human values and civil liberties.
The tolerant society runs under many different assumptions. One such assumption is that bad actors are far and few in between hence they do not warrant a response to begin with. The result of this premise is the spillage of extremist, intolerant, insensitive, and hostile views into the mainstream.
Rapid Decline of Tolerance
When the intolerant bunch gains enough power in a civil society, the first thing they often do is to extinguish the foundational tenet of tolerance. The irony lies in the fact that it was the same principle which helped them reach positions of power in the first place. It is the consequential failure of a tolerant society wearing rose tinted glasses which gives us this result.
In the beginning, there are apparent signs which can be assessed to find out what’s wrong and overlooking them leads to the undermining of a tolerant society. It is well to remember that tolerance is a bilateral agreement where both parties are to abide by a set of mutually agreed upon rules. When one party chooses to break this agreement, you are free to call them out and not keep your end of the bargain either.
Examples and Illustrations
Let us observe a few key illustrations for the paradox of tolerance in the contemporary world. These examples would help us understand how it plays a pivotal role in our daily lives. A few key examples demonstrating the paradox of tolerance are as follows.
Rise in Fundamentalism
In the modern world, there is a rise in the fundamentalist view and it comes in many different shapes and sizes. It begins on a positive note listing out some of the good things from the past which will appeal to an audience. Slowly, it devolves into a preaching session where the dogmas are being justified and the scientific method of inquiry is being questioned (wrongly I might add).
The next step is the unfounded and baseless skepticism for modern day science and medicine. The fundamentalist will cite ancient sources for proving the legitimacy of their beliefs (in their mind) to the naysayers. Many folks would not believe baseless claims but there will be many takers for a tale which sounds reasonable on a surface level.
Lax Moderation Policies
Then comes the problem with free speech and how it is to be exercised. In a perfect world where humans live in a harmonious solidarity with each other, free speech is not problematic at all. Since we do not live in an utopia (I wish), the bad actors can take the fun away from free speech.
Free speech does come under the freedom of expression, but there’s a small catch. It is the existence of hate speech and anonymity on the Internet which makes it a problem. Sloppy moderation policies can turn social media and the Internet as a whole into an echochamber which is not good for anyone.
Rhetoric over Evidence
In the course of a dispute with a bad actor, you may have observed an interesting situation. They will often employ false rhetoric to justify their intolerant views. When you try to provide data and evidence to portray their argument as erroneous, their next step is to resort to name calling.
The crux of this issue lies in the insincere use of rhetoric to silence dissent. Oftentimes, such tactics are employed by inept speakers to keep their point forward in a disingenuous manner. This creates a positive perception in the minds of the people without caring about the substance of the message.
Solutions to the Paradox of Tolerance
This piece turned a little gloomy as we took a peak at the caveats of this paradox. Now it’s the time to turn it over and talk about the solutions we can utilize to overcoming this situation. There are several key ways which can help us navigate this complex multifaceted challenge.
Building Robust Frameworks
As we previously mentioned, tolerance is a social contract which is to be followed by everyone at all times in a tolerant society. When one chooses to disregard the social contract of tolerance and starts propagating their malicious views, they have broken this contract. In such a case, the members of a tolerant society can also choose to not honor the social contract.
It is easier said than done and to make the functioning smoother, a legal or regulatory framework needs to be built. This framework can act as the principle document protecting the rights and freedoms of individuals from bad faith actors. To make it possible, society needs to come together keeping their differences aside for building a safety net for everyone.
Promoting Knowledge Acquisition
Identifying troubling views is the first line of defense and to do this, the populace needs to be educated first. An educated population is better suited to arrive at a rational decision taking facts and data points into consideration. For achieving this goal, rationalism needs to be promoted as a means to impart critical thinking among the masses.
At a personal level, whenever we come across a lucrative proposition, we must thoroughly investigate it. Also, we should choose to ask questions and seek answers whenever it is a possibility. The acquisition of knowledge is one facet which has the potential to transform our lives for the better.
Only Entertaining Sincere Dialogue
When we come across a reasonable disagreement, there is no fault in indulging. The problem arises when the argument is made under a false pretense or a generalisation. It makes it less of a disagreement and more of an insincere attempt to turn it into a squabble.
The best way to tackle it is by not engaging in a bad faith argument from the outset. Engaging in a genuine dialogue requires a level of mutual respect, understanding and tolerance from both sides. A sincere discussion may even help you find a friend for life while an insincere one will do the exact opposite.
Conclusion
If you are still reading, I hope you found answers to the paradoxical nature of tolerance and the seemingly antithetical solution for it. Ever since I discovered this concept, there were a lot of different ideas in my mind to express this in a personalized format. In this article, the goal was to present this theory in a manner which is of relevance in your own life.
Keeping with this theme, I made an effort to display examples which dealt with modern day problems. We choose everyday to engage in discussion and make waves by understanding others, which in turn makes both our lives better. The only way this chain of mutual respect and trust is broken is if there is a bad actor on the opposite end and we should disengage if it happens.
You can drop your valuable opinions in the comments box and feel free to visit our contact page if you have any suggestions for us. We also published a related article on “Debating Skills” recently which you can opt to check out. Hoping to see you soon with another informative piece on the way.