What is toleration?
Toleration is allowing something controversial. You'll read about the definition of tolerance and toleration here.
The definition of toleration can be made complicated. That will follow soon. For now, stick to the following definition:
Toleration is allowing something controversial.
That definition contains three characteristic elements:
To allow.
Allowing something.
That something is controversial.
The tolerated
The something, that which is allowed, can be opinions, behaviour or people.
When it's religious beliefs, you speak of religious toleration.
When it comes to non-religious views, we are talking about freedom of conscience.
Political toleration is about attitudes and behaviour together. You have a political opinion, you propagate it, and you want to realise it (together with others) by doing something. Political toleration concerns different political attitudes and behaviour.
Behavioural toleration is about allowing controversial behaviour.
Whether sexual toleration only relates to behaviour is up for debate. In many cases you can also argue that sexual behaviour is so intertwined with the person that you cannot separate the behaviour from the person.
In the latter case, you are mainly talking about social toleration: to allow or tolerate people, regardless of their behaviour. It can be about people or groups of people you don't like, or (groups of) people you don't have a problem with, but others do.
Controversial
There is a negative judgment associated with the tolerated. Those negative judgments are very intense: disgust, deep indignation, rage. But a very light judgment is also possible: an indefinable feeling of dissatisfaction, the feeling that something is not right, slight suspicion. And everything in between of course.
If you don't have that negative opinion yourself, but many others do, then we are talking about open-mindedness. That too is toleration. But usually you also have the negative judgment yourself. Think of opinions you don't share, religions you don't follow, or behaviour you disapprove of.
Toleration is close to indifference. By definition, indifference means that you have no negative judgment, but no positive judgment either. It leaves you cold. Still, it can be about toleration. You may not have a negative opinion yourself, but others do. Or you do have a negative opinion, but you don't think it's worth speaking out against it.
The distinction between open-mindedness and indifference is subtle. Open-mindedness, I think, is a choice of positivity: you want to be tolerant, not narrow-minded. You prefer to refrain from judging, out of open-mindedness or modesty. Indifference is the other side of the same coin: you are not involved, you remain aloof. There is something of disappointment in the air.
To allow it
Despite a negative judgment, you consciously, knowingly or intentionally decide to give space to the tolerated. Toleration requires that you be able to resist, and that you intentionally do not.
That can be power, but it doesn't have to be. Being able to stand up, being able to speak out is enough. Success need not be guaranteed. Expressing your disapproval is already an act of defiance. It often happens that something is publicly disapproved of and yet it is consciously allowed. Consider, for example, the statement falsely attributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
But if you are completely powerless, unable to raise yourself up or protest, you can no longer speak of toleration. Then it is rather patience or resignation.
Pragmatic toleration
There can be all kinds of motives to tolerate. These motives form a common thread in this Toleration Campaign. In short, they can be epistemological, dialectical, or ethical (we'll get to that later). But often those principled motives are intertwined with pragmatism.
Pragmatic toleration means you are more likely to achieve your goals by tolerating. The benefits of toleration outweigh the costs. It makes no sense to put salt on all the snails. It is transient. You don't want to upset the other person. Resistance is pointless. Aloofness provides a tactical or strategic advantage. Live and let live.
Tolerance or toleration?
Specifically in English, there are two words that roughly cover the same meaning: toleration and tolerance. They can be used interchangeably, and many people do. However, they are not exactly the same.
Tolerance is a generic noun, with applications in science, medicine, and mechanics, in addition to its referral to the allowing of others’ controversial opinions, behaviour or existence. Toleration exclusively refers to the latter. That’s why I generally use the term toleration, although some might consider the word a bit archaic. Interestingly, nobody uses the word intoleration for the opposite, so I’ll stick to the noun intolerance as the opposite of toleration.
Some tend to use the word tolerance with positive connotations, as the politically correct toleration, whereas toleration stands for thornier issues. I don’t see the point in this. Firstly, because it isn’t easy to objectively define the politically correct. Secondly, I’m not in favour of politicising language. In order to be able to keep communicating with each other, we need neutral territory. We need language as a neutral vessel. And lastly, because it would be hard to find the right word for allowing politically incorrect phenomenons, such as fascism. Would tolerance for racism still be semantically correct?