Can the idea of tolerance lead to social justice in a pluralistic society, or does the idea perpetuate the type of social hierarchy it purports to eradicate?
I recently attended a lecture entitled “Ethnic Panic: Europeans Confront the Muslim Headscarf." The speaker provided a comparative, historical account of England, France, and Germany’s treatment of and reaction to the headscarf worn by Muslim women.
It seems rather dubious to set up a comparison of more or less tolerant, with respect to ethnic difference. Moreover to suggest that we should put a feather in the cap of those great colonizers who have the graciousness to now ‘tolerate’ their former subjects, is at best insensitive.
According to the OED, to tolerate means 1. trans. To endure, sustain (pain or hardship). Webster’s concurs with this definition and adds the now common political explanation, 2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something.
Inherent in the notion of tolerance is an inequality of power that assumes the right of one group to allow or permit the behaviors of another. Tolerance as a paradigm for social justice or equality is doomed from the start.
It is, and continues to be offensive to propose that any human is to be merely tolerated. And what a gross misrepresentation of history to suggest that is it those oppressive colonizers, who captured nations by force, imposed their politics, culture and social systems on the ‘natives’ are now proudly in the business of tolerating!
Indeed, in many instances those ‘others’ were brought to Europe intentionally, for the purpose of exploiting a cheap labor force, particularly after World War II when European nations used their foreign subjects to rebuild their countries’ infrastructure. To now adopt a sense of self-congratulatory humanity to the inevitable migratory outcomes caused by this neo-colonialism is an affront to all people.
Equally offensive was the suggestion that England was the most tolerant of the three countries. This may be true in a relativistic sense but the implication of comparison; that England represented a favorable model of how to deal with racial and religious difference, is highly misleading. Although the speaker glibly conceded that Jack Straw’s (Leader of the House of Commons) recent behavior has compromised her analysis. Mr. Straw aroused controversy when he suggested that women wearing the full veil inhibit community relations and that he recommend Muslim women remove their veils completely. The idea that prior to Mr. Straw, England’s treatment of its ethnic minorities has been praiseworthy is a-historical at best, Eurocentric propaganda at worst.
She even suggested that Enoch Powell, England’s most famous racist, was a lone voice that the English establishment decried, as if no one else shared his sentiments! As any person of color living in England at that time, and as ethnic minorities in Western countries know all too well, the Enoch Powells of the world merely say what the rest of the population has too little courage or too much English decorum to say themselves. Indeed, a Gallup poll, taken ten days after his infamous ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, showed that 74% of those asked agreed with what he said.
This is not to suggest that there were not people who vehemently opposed Powell and were outraged by his bigotry, but Powell, like all other racists, are products of the society that they live in. As Khalil Gibran so eloquently explains in The Prophet, “So the wicked and the weak cannot fall lower than the lowest which is in you also.”
