Last week, I attended Shadow Day at my daughter’s school. On Shadow Day, parents attend classes with their children.
As I sat in her American Literature class listening to a discussion of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s classic The Scarlet Letter, her teacher questioned the virtue of tolerance. In his brief comment on the topic, he referenced a talk he once heard by Elie Wiesel.
Elie Wiesel survived the concentration camps and Jewish persecution of World War II. On the day that my daughter’s teacher heard Wiesel speak, another member of the audience asked how he could be so tolerant of other people after all of the hardships he had endured. In his reply, Elie said that he used to try to be tolerant, and that he eventually realized that in his tolerance he was making himself better than other people. So, he now just wanted to understand.
Amen.
I often hear people speak of tolerance as if it is a high virtue. I acknowledge that tolerating someone is better than annihilating them, and I still don’t want to be a tolerant person. Like Elie Wiesel, I want to understand.
I’ll explain my reasoning by using some definitions from Dictionary.com.
Tolerant
- inclined or disposed to tolerate; showing tolerance; forbearing: tolerant of errors.
In order to be tolerant, I must learn to tolerate.
Tolerate
- to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.
- to endure without repugnance; put up with: I can tolerate laziness, but not incompetence.
When I look at these definitions, I see what Elie Wiesel spoke of in his answer. When I tolerate another person, I permit their existence. I endure their presence. When I permit someone’s perspective, I place myself in a superior position to them. When I endure something, I probably find it distasteful, painful, or annoying in some way.
I don’t want to permit other people to have their views. I don’t want to endure their presence. I don’t want to be tolerant.
Rather, I want to understand.
Understand
- to perceive the meaning of; grasp the idea of; comprehend: to understand Spanish; I didn’t understand your question.
- to be thoroughly familiar with; apprehend clearly the character, nature, or subtleties of: to understand a trade.
For example, my wife has a “female” view of the world and I have a “male” view of the world. These different perspectives often create different interpretations of events.
I want to live in peace with my wife. I want to live and work with her in a way that allows both of us to be happy with the relationship.
If I learn to tolerate her perspective, I will always carry a subtle judgment of it. I will permit her to be different. (As if she needed my permission.)
If, instead of tolerating her, I learn to understand her, I can live and work with her without the feeling that I am enduring something unpleasant. I can start to see and value what she sees.
In the realm of workplace conflict resolution, this concept applies equally well. When we tolerate other people, we are, in effect, judging them. We are filtering their views and perspectives in a way that says we permit them to exist. (Again, like they need our permission.)
When we understand people, we let go of the judgment, and we start to see people more clearly. We lower the filters and pretense that tend to mark tolerant relationships.
So, I don’t want to be a tolerant person. I want to be an understanding one.
If you liked this post, please tweet it, like it, share it, or leave a comment.
For periodic email updates, special offers, and other occasional gifts
available only to email subscribers, complete this form.
[...] By accept differences, I do not mean tolerance. I have already written about why I don’t want to be a tolerant person. [...]
An idiot and the smart man are looking at the same tree.
But they don’t see the same thing.
Why should I try to understand the idiot’s perception ?
And what is wrong with superior position ?
The answer is not quite so simple as the question, and I think it would take a conversation rather than a brief written dialogue to adequately address it.
That said. Here are some brief, albeit incomplete, thoughts
The simplest answer to why you should try to understand their perspective is this: You should try to understand the “idiot’s” perception if you want to communicate with them.
If your goal is to maintain the “superior” position, then I suppose you wouldn’t care to communicate with the person. So, you wouldn’t need to understand their perspective.
If every relationship was a one-off transaction with no lasting consequences, then I could blithely go through life presuming that I was superior to everyone with whom I had a disagreement.
As a practical matter, in a world where I need to work with others over relatively long periods of time, I’m not comfortable with the presumption or assumption that I am superior to them in any way.
If I hold information they do not have, then I simply know something that they don’t know. It does not make me superior to them.
If, by chance, my mental capacity is greater than theirs, I have an obligation to help them rather than to criticize them. (This is my perspective. It is based on my world-view and personal values.)
You are free to disagree with me. I don’t take it personally, and I don’t think it makes you inferior to me. (I’m also not willing to accept an inferior status to you.)
I am interested in understanding more about your perspective. For example, assuming you are working to communicate with someone, why wouldn’t you want to understand their perspective?
Thank you for answering, Sir.
I used superior not as a Nazi sense, but more like quality. The sirloin steak is superior to pork chop.
And I see no benefit in trying to understand “pork chop”. In addition, I have seen so many good “understanding” steaks turning into pork chops, but rarely the other way around. They are doomed by DNA.
It is interesting that I am, like you against tolerance but for totally different reason.
You see it as being superior.
Every time I hear, “look at me how tolerant am I” my answer is simple. ” It is more your rubber spine…..”
But I need your advice on something.
After reading about you, there may be an answer
What to do when one craves social contacts but dislikes people ?
recoveringteacher
Thanks for engaging in dialogue.
I think I see your point about steak vs pork chop. Many people would say that steak is superior to pork chops, and I would add this observation: Steak is not superior to the person who prefers pork chops.
Here’s what I mean, by definition, superior, inferior, better, and worse are all comparative rather than absolute statements. Until two people agree on the objective, measurable standards they will use to judge the quality of an idea or thing, determinations of superior and inferior are merely statements of personal preference. And, in the arena of personal preference, we can disagree without either of us being right or wrong, superior or inferior.
While it is true that someone can be mistaken about objective facts, they can never be mistaken when they state their perspective. Their perspective might be based on bad data, poor assumptions, incorrect logic, or any number of other challenges, and still, when they say that it is their perspective, it is, in fact, their perspective.
If you have no need to communicate with another person (the pork chop in your example), then you would have no need to understand their perspective. If, however, you want to connect and communicate with them, it might help to understand their perspective so that you can better frame your communication in a way that makes sense to them. It is a matter of choice based on your personal goals and desires.
With regard to craving social contacts but disliking people, I have this offer: reframe your thinking about people.
My example (below) might not apply to you. I only offer it to further explain my meaning.
I prefer to be alone. It is the most comfortable place for me. Interacting with, working with, and being around people exhausts me.
These are statements of fact.
What I do with these facts then impacts how I develop social contacts. I can choose to look at people as objects that drain my energy or I can look at people as people who have wants, needs, and desires equal to my own.
If I use the first “frame” to think about people, I begin to dislike them because they negatively impact me and my desires.
If I use the second “frame,” I can find positive ways to work with people even though it takes energy.
For more specifics on this concept, I recommend Leadership and Self-deception by the Arbinger Institute.
Does that help?