Tolerance is necessary, and it cannot simply be replaced
with a celebration of differences in every situation. I acknowledge that there
are people who don’t want to be tolerated and, in principle, we should affirm
all people, not just put up with them. Still, we need tolerance as a tool in
the toolbox against hate.
Ideally, tolerance would be applied only to attitudes or behaviours that we strongly disapprove of, while people should be valued for who they are (1). In reality, the distinction between people and their behaviours and attitudes is fraught because some people see their own identities or the identities of others as inseparable from their politics, religious convictions, behaviours, or attachment to places where harm was done. In such cases, there is often a sense that the only choice is either acceptance, agreement and approval on the one hand or hatred and intolerance on the other hand, of both the person and the position.
However, tolerance is a good third option, even if it may be a less inspiring option in a range of stances one can take as part of the broader imperative of making space for “others”.
I was moved the other week by the words of a softly spoken, academic, Muslim woman and migrant to Australia who attended a roundtable that Together for Humanity organised with the Federal Minister for Education. She said how pleased she was to have a seat at the table. On merit alone, she certainly belonged there, but too often there is not enough space created for difference.
There is a verse in the Book of Genesis story of the Tower of Babel that seems benign but that I find chilling. “[All the people of] the whole earth were of one language and singular words” (2). Everyone, apparently, agreed with everyone else about everything, including the construction of a great tower. Thinking about this more deeply, we need to consider that the only way to have everyone across humanity agree on everything is by suppression of dissent (3). In such a context, this Tower would provide an opportunity for surveillance and to enforce totalitarianism. One person who disagreed with the enforced “groupthink” was Ashur, who had to leave civilisation (4). Another was Abraham, who, according to the Midrash, would later be thrown into a fiery furnace for daring to have another view (5). It was only after the defeat of the tower that Abraham and Ethical Monotheism emerged, thereby illustrating how putting an end to imposed conformity can unleash human flourishing.
I read a wonderful idea by the philosopher known as Manitou (6), that the primary challenge of all of human history is to leave space for the “other”. I love that.
I have been thinking a lot about Cain and Abel. Like my older brother Mendel and me and our many siblings, these two siblings were very different people, something that we recognise and acknowledge. Cain was a firstborn, a very practical and substantial (7) man. He produced food as a farmer for his whole family (8). He was the one who initiated the first act of worship (9). His mother thought that his birth was the most significant event in contrast to the much less exciting birth of his brother, which passed without comment or celebration. Abel’s Hebrew name, Hevel, means air or vanity. Far less practical than his high-achieving older brother, he became a shepherd. In a vegetarian age, that was not very productive, but it gave him the chance to contemplate the big questions of life, while standing around with his sheep. Unlike my brother Mendel and me, Cain and Abel never appear to appreciate each other’s distinct ways.
Cain eventually killed Abel. Before he did so, there appeared to be an interrupted attempt (10) at dialogue between them. Genesis tells us that “Cain said to Abel” but mentions nothing about what he said, only that the dialogue was followed by murder.
According to the Midrash, Cain believed that, as Adam and Eve’s son, all of the earth belonged to him (11). He did not think Abel had any right to exist on “his earth”. Cain began to talk at Abel. Abel failed to assert himself and claim a space for himself (12). The two brothers failed to appreciate each other’s ways of being and at least to tolerate those ways.
While I have argued for tolerance to be included in the toolbox for creating space for others, there are other tools. These include curiosity and questions like “tell me more”, instead of assuming we fully understand others without deep and slow listening. Another tool is the courage to sit with the discomfort of hearing the lived experience of others that can be painful to hear. Hopefully, we can get to a stage where tolerance is invoked far less often than appreciation and celebration of difference. Until then, I will do what I can to promote not just connection across difference but also tolerance.
Notes
1)
https://ethics.org.au/explainer-tolerance/
2) Genesis 11:1
3) Haemek Davar, Bick, E. Unity and Individualism,
https://etzion.org.il/en
4) Midrash Rabba
5) Kahn, Y. Tower Bavel The Brotherhood of Man - https://etzion.org.il/en
6) Ashkenazi, Y.L., Sod Midrash ha-Toldot, III, p. 151, cited in
Eitam, U.
https://etzion.org.il/en/philosophy/great-thinkers/manitou/kayin-and-hevel
7) Bick, E, https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/torah/sefer-bereishit/parashat-bereishit/bereishit-raising-cain-and-hevel
8) Haemek Davar
9) Genesis 4:3, Bick, E, https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/torah/sefer-bereishit/parashat-bereishit/bereishit-raising-cain-and-hevel
10) Genesis 4:8
11) Midrash Rabba
12)
Eitam, U.
https://etzion.org.il/en/philosophy/great-thinkers/manitou/kayin-and-hevel
No comments:
Post a Comment