Thoughts on Tolerance

Reading From The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper

Less well known than other paradoxes is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

In 1930, Karl Popper needed to write a book. It was, for him, literally publish or perish. From where he was sitting, as a person of Jewish ancestry in Austria, he needed a job in a country where Nazis were not taking over. In order to get an academic posting, he needed a book. So while he taught high school math and physics during the day, he spent his evenings working on the manuscript that would eventually be published as The Logic of Scientific Discovery in 1934. Philosopher AC Ewing invited Popper to visit Cambridge in 1935 and 1936. And in 1937, Popper received an offer to lecture at the University of New Zealand. 

It was in New Zealand that he wrote The Open Society and Its Enemies, from which I read his description of the paradox of tolerance. The Open Society was published in 1945. It examines Western philosophy through the lens of Plato in the first volume and Marx in the second, and it is only in the endnotes that we find Popper’s thoughts on the paradoxes of freedom, tolerance, and democracy.

The paradox of tolerance: If we tolerate intolerance, we will no longer have a tolerant society. If the intolerant are able to dictate the terms of the conversation, we lose space for multiple viewpoints, for pluralism, for discourse, for freedom. Tolerating differences creates space for freedom. And Popper says that we have to claim the right to shut down intolerance when it destroys tolerance. We don’t have to always do it–sometimes the expression of intolerant ideas is unpleasant but not actually dangerous–but we must never let go of the right to do so.

I would add that sometimes it’s hard to know where that line is between unpleasant and dangerous, especially in one-on-one interactions, so I would encourage you to think big. What does that intolerant idea do to the society, not just what does that idea do to you individually. It’s easier to build for tolerance and diversity when we’re thinking of the whole group. I might think, that doesn’t hurt me, but it hurts my friend, my neighbor, my colleague, my dentist, my person on the street whose name I don’t know but I know their face, my chattiest cashier at the grocery store. It’s up to all of us to protect the society for all of us, all of those people we know and don’t know, with whom we agree and disagree. 

And there’s a lot to disagree about right now. Whether you’re actively disagreeing in conversation with people, it’s very clear that as a country we don’t all agree about everything. I’ve heard a lot of concern about what might happen in the next presidential administration. Don’t worry–I’m not going to try to talk you out of your fears. I’m going to do what I usually do, which is to invite you to take a breath with me [breath] and then I’m going to give you homework.

In 2017, when as a country we were in a place that felt both similar and different, Timothy Snyder published a pocket-sized breath of realism. The book is called On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. Each of the lessons is a short chapter with a rule for resisting tyranny and stories from twentieth century European history and the rise and fall of dictatorships. I won’t read you the whole book–you can read it yourself in an evening–but I want to highlight two chapters that feel especially important right now as we prepare for the incoming administration, which has promised to erode the foundations of tolerance in our society.

  • Chapter One:Do not obey in advance. Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.”

Do not comply preemptively to make yourself less of a target. Do not choose your course of action based on what could be the worst case scenario. When people do this, we make it easier for tyrants and would-be dictators to strip away our rights, to splinter the collective into small groups that are easily attacked. Do not obey in advance.

  • Chapter Eight:Stand out. Someone has to. It is easy to follow along. It can feel strange to do or say something different. But without that unease, there is no freedom. Remember Rosa Parks. The moment you set an example, the spell of the status quo is broken, and others will follow.”

It is being different that creates space for difference. Sometimes I think our congregation can argue a giant back up a beanstalk. We’ve got a lot to say, to one another, to our own consciences, and to the world around us, so let’s stand out. What do we want to stand out for?

After the election, anticipating the increased threat to trans people, reproductive healthcare, and personal autonomy, our congregation displayed a “new classic” wayside pulpit sign. It read, “Trans people are divine. Abortion is a blessing. All bodies are sacred.” If you also love this message, I’ll let you know where you can get the t-shirt. 

About a month into having this sign up, I received an email from one of our members (who knows I’m telling this story). One of their acquaintances, knowing that they belong to our congregation, expressed discomfort with the wording and worried that such a sign might attract violence to our meetinghouse. I told them that I’m happy to talk with their acquaintance, but we didn’t change the sign until it was time to change the sign anyway. We had already decided to stand out and not to comply with those whose values run counter to our own. And it felt more important for us to express our values in that moment than for us to comply with unknown threats.

Our covenant reminds us that LOVE is the spirit of this community, that when we’re living into the deepest promise of our congregation, love is what we do, who we are, and our guiding light. When faced with intolerance, when faced with authoritarianism, when in doubt, what does love tell us to do? Sometimes love leads us to say yes to more than we dreamed possible, and sometimes it leads us to say no, out of deep love for our neighbors and for all that we dream our world can be.

And then we come back to the pigeon (from Don’t Let the Pigeon Drive the Bus). We have examined this text before. Like other sacred texts, the gospel of Luke, or the Heart Sutra, or your favorite novel, it bears the weight of repeated study. We bring ourselves to it and find wisdom in its reflection. The same old text, but it finds us changed and has new things to offer.

In the past, I have found resonance in the bus driver, who has to trust others to do the right thing, and the pigeon, who wants something really badly, but right now I find myself in the book’s audience who must say no.

In light of not obeying in advance, of standing out, of resisting tyranny whenever love calls us to do so, it feels really important to keep NO in our vocabulary these days. Many of us find that our “yes” comes much more easily than our “no”, that we have decades of training in being agreeable, going along to get along. But each yes is the flipside of a no. Sometimes we say no to oppression to say yes to life, say no to falsehood so we can say yes to truth, say no to injustice to say yes to love. We practiced our NO with the pigeon, but I’d also invite you to try on these responses.

That’s not okay.

I don’t know if that’s true.

Help me understand.

We have an incoming president who is a notorious liar, a manipulator in a crowd of manipulators. We have laws all over this country that are keeping our people from accessing healthcare, that are persecuting people for being themselves. We have billionaires getting richer while the rest of us find it harder and harder to survive. It’s okay to be alarmed. I’m alarmed too.

Say no, interrupt, find your way to dissent. 

Because allowing intolerance to flourish is the end of tolerance.

Because we won’t obey in advance.

Because we’re willing to stand out.

Because we are led by love.

May it be so.


Photo by Aiden Craver on Unsplash

Leave a Reply