Have we muddled the real meaning of the word "tolerance"? George Mason economics professor Robin Hanson
says though the word "is a feel-good buzzword in our society," many
people who consider themselves "tolerant" aren't the real deal:
folks are proud of their "tolerance" for gays, working women, Tibetan
monks in cute orange outfits, or blacks sitting at the front of the
bus. But what they really mean is that they consider such things to be
completely appropriate parts of their society, and are not bothered by
them in the slightest. That, however, isn’t "tolerance." "Tolerance"
is where you tolerate things that actually bother you.
His colleague Alex Tabarrok
then suggests that most people just aren't
"truly tolerant"--though libertarians might be. In fact, Tabarrok
suggests that societies' movements towards greater "tolerance" aren't a
product of tolerance at all, but of changing demographics and
definitions of normal.
As I suspect Robin would acknowledge, gay rights have not advance d because of more tolerance per se,
i.e. they have not advanced because more people are willing to accept
behavior that bothers them ... since few people are or ever-will-be
truly-tolerant, tolerance by itself probably can't get us very far
towards a society of peaceful variation. Instead, we will have to
argue that variant practices are normal, not bothersome or a subject of
indifference. The route to drug legalization, for example, is to
encourage more normal people who "smoke pot and like it" to come out of
When we say that our society is growing more
tolerant, do we just mean that certain ways of living are coming to
seem more normal? Is that substantively different from true "tolerance"?
Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments
or send an email to the author at
hhorn at theatlantic dot com.
You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.