Last edited by 8 years, 9 months ago

81. The problem of tolerance in modern society. The value of tolerance in the modern world.

Plan

1. Concept (definition and history of formation)

2. Approaches (axiological, ideal-typical, ontological-historicist, conflict) (may not need to be told)

3. Significance of tolerance (for society as a whole and in the field of politics)

4. The problem of tolerance (the current situation that makes it relevant; the paradoxes of tolerance)

1. Concept

A. Definition

Tolerance(from Latin tolerantia - tolerance) - a quality that characterizes the attitude towards another person as an equally worthy person and is expressed in the conscious suppression of a feeling of rejection caused by everything that marks something else in another (appearance, manner of speech, tastes, lifestyle, beliefs and etc.). T. implies a mindset for understanding and dialogue with others, recognition and respect for their right to be different. (R.R. Valitova, New Philosophical Encyclopedia)

"T. is the recognition and respect for human rights and freedoms, which, despite all differences, must be the same for all» (L.M. Romanenko)

T. calls "the strange value of refraining from using one's strength to the detriment of a fundamentally unacceptable deviation" (M.B. Khomyakov),

B. History of the term

Initially, the word tolerantia meant passive patience, the voluntary transfer of suffering. But already in the 16th century it was also understood as "permission", "restraint". It became especially widespread at the end of the 20th century due to the problems of interaction between different cultures, multiculturalism, etc.

2. Approaches

In total, in the scientific literature, we can distinguish four methodological approaches to tolerance: 1) axiological; 2) ideal-typical, whose adherents (for example, John Rawls and other representatives of deontological liberalism) see tolerance as a kind of moral ideal that society should strive to achieve; 3) ontological-historicist, considering tolerance as a certain way of coexistence of groups in history; and also 4) the “conflict” research approach, which is developed in detail by Boris Kapustin in domestic science, and in the West it is followed by Chantal Mouffe and Slava Zizek, Ernesto Laclau. Most often, this category is considered as a value-in-itself or as one of the historical types of political practice.

1) Axiological approach interprets tolerance as a "value-in-itself" (for G. Marcuse - "goal-in-itself", for Peter P. Nicholson - "good-in-itself") or, at least, as one of the values ​​of liberal democracy .

Herbert Marcuse in the 60s of the last century drew attention to the fact that in the liberal society of his day, subjects of politics are disappearing. Previously, tolerance served as a defense to the forces of liberation. Then the political struggle was replaced by political technologies. Society claims to be tolerant, but since there are no real opponents in it, tolerance turns into an apology for the status quo and an ideology of repression, because. genuine political subjects are out of bounds, out of tolerance. The practiced general tolerance is apparent. And if in the time of Locke atheists, Mohammedans and papists were outside the boundaries of tolerance, then in the time of Marcuse - the unemployed, the disabled, and so on. social outsiders, representatives of racial, ethnic, sexual and other minorities.

Moral theorists of tolerance, in order to resolve the paradox described above in the process of argumentation, as a rule, imperceptibly replace this category with some other, close in meaning, but still not absolutely identical concept. By tolerance they understand, for example, respect for the individual or for the diversity of cultures.

2) At the core ideal-typical approach is based on the normative-rationalistic view of tolerance, originating from Kant, based on the concept of natural inalienable individual rights. Kant avoids the problem of the moral community of individuals due to the fact that the moral laws he formulated and, above all, the categorical imperative, operate in the universal world. However, the communication of people - what, according to Kant, is "the greatest goal of human destiny" - is "the relationship of the particular to the particular, not reduced to an abstract universality."

3) Ontological-historicist approach used by Michael Walzer in his study of the five modes of tolerance, sometimes used by other communitarians and multiculturalists, as well as by all those authors who appeal to the illiberal grounds of tolerance. Its value is diminished by the fact that, by and large, its adherents reduce the theory of tolerance to a description of historical examples of tolerant regimes.

Michael Walzer, realizing that tolerance is easiest to practice in conditions of “clearly defined and generally recognized relations of domination and subordination,” still calls for striving for “mutual respect”. He emphasizes the need for tolerance, "mixed with some combination of curiosity and enthusiasm." From Walzer's point of view, positive discrimination measures are quite justified: "until the link between class and group belonging is broken, there can be no talk of any respect or tolerance here." Although he acknowledges that such measures, as a rule, only increase intolerance, especially at the initial stage.

4) When conflict approach, tolerance is not the abolition of the "struggle", not the opposite of it, but nothing more than a struggle, but within certain limits that cannot be determined a priori, since they are set by the practice of struggle.

Boris Kapustin proposes not to radically reject the idea of ​​universality as such, closing in on the horizon of the existing “here and now” private “we”, but to put “actual historical universality” in place of transcendental and metahistorical universality, to positionally distance ourselves in relation to cultural tradition, since without such distance (according to J. Habermas), any reflection is impossible at all.

Therefore, Boris Kapustin (following I. Berlin), unlike John Gray, consistently defends the point of view that "tolerance and indifference are not just different, but mutually exclusive concepts", since in its developed forms tolerance implies "not passive indifference, but active mutual recognition of opponents precisely as opponents, each of which is committed not only to its own values ​​that distinguish it from others, but also to the common value of freedom for all. In his opinion, a tolerant subject, defending his values, considering them "true", and the beliefs of another - delusions, evaluates his truth below the freedom of another to make his own choice, and recognizes that values ​​are so diverse that they cannot be ideally coordinated with each other. with a friend.

3. The value of tolerance

A. Significance of tolerance for society(R.R. Valitova, New Philosophical Encyclopedia)

A necessary condition for the social unity of people of different beliefs, cultural traditions, watered. beliefs

Key principle of civil society

B. The Importance of Tolerance in Politics(I.G. usachev, Political Encyclopedia, 1994)

The condition for orderly relations both within the state and between states

The condition for establishing effective contacts between societies. organizations, parties and states

Of particular importance is the manifestation of endurance, the ability to be tolerant of the game when it is watered. negotiations (the ability to listen to the opinion of the opposite side, to think it over)

T. is necessary when searching for watered. allies

4. The problem of tolerance

A. The current situation that makes the problem of tolerance relevant

You can talk about the processes of globalization, which led to the fact that

a) even Western European societies, which were previously monoethnic, are becoming polyethnic. Representatives of different ethnic groups and confessions are forced to live together.

b) contacts between countries, even distant from each other, have sharply intensified, both in private and politically. level

c) in conditions of multipolarity it is impossible to completely ignore the interests of other religions and countries.

(from Ilinskaya:)

The modern crisis of capitalism is also explained by the loss of those traditional moral attitudes that initially gave rise to this phenomenon.
Another feature of postmodernity is the "fluidity" of its social fabric. Even in an industrial society, each individual filled a strictly defined place with himself, occupied a certain fixed position in a more or less stable environment, the lines of demarcation between organizations and their substructures were rigidly defined in space. In the postmodern world, according to Seila Benhabib, most of us are members of more than one community, more than one language (and even ethnic) group.
In the conditions of space and time compression in which individuals have to act now, they arbitrarily choose a moral coordinate system, actualizing one of their identities at one time or another.

B. Paradoxes of Tolerance

The essence of the paradoxes: a) it is possible and necessary to be tolerant of those views and traditions that in themselves exclude tolerance, b) does not tolerance lead to a crisis of the moral foundations of culture

(Examples from Ilyinskaya)

A) In this series, we can also mention the practices of ritual mutilation, other forms of self-mutilation, excessive cruelty and torture of children in the process of home education among adherents of some sects, i.e. such cultural manifestations that are incompatible with the core values ​​of liberal democracy. Despite the verbal condemnation and criminal punishment of this kind of domestic practices, society, as a rule, "does not notice" domestic violence. In France, for example, according to Michael Walzer, the publicly condemned ritual mutilation of the genitals of newborn girls tacitly flourishes within immigrant African communities. Also “quite tolerable” is the domestic torture of one’s own and adopted children among members of a number of religious sects in the United States. The public periodically learns about what happens "behind the high privacy fence" when children die or are severely maimed, and their personality is irreparably traumatized. The reason for this tolerance, we believe, is simple: children do not represent a group that fights for its own interests. In addition, according to the liberal tradition, children (unlike women) have not yet reached "moral maturity" and are not capable of autonomy or self-legislation.
b) A paradoxical situation arises when some members of the community are forced to live according to norms that they do not recognize as “their own”. The other, “modern” part of the community is gradually losing its moral guidelines, since modern morality is possible only as long as it is nourished by unreflexive attitudes borrowed from morality traditional for this community. Such a statement is most easily illustrated by the example of the family institution (which is currently undergoing a serious crisis), since it was family values ​​that were perceived as moral for centuries, the family was the most important institution of socialization in a traditional society, etc. Same-sex love, from the point of view of traditional consciousness, was immoral, since it undermined the viability of a society in which the main task of the family was social reproduction. Today, thanks to the possibility of artificial insemination, "growing children in a test tube", surrogate motherhood, and so on, a same-sex couple may well have children. But the family is still the primary institution of socialization. A child raised by same-sex parents will obviously have different standards of marital behavior than one that was born and raised by a heterosexual couple.

B. Position Ilyinskaya (here is Ilyinskaya, but it’s probably better to express your own opinion)

We subscribe to the conservative point of view of John Gray regarding the advantages of tolerance in that, unlike rational projects for the reorganization of the world, it does not fight delusions. Tolerance as a virtue, inherent in people who are aware of their imperfection, is far from the requirement to secure certain preferences with the help of special rights or privileges, as well as from attempts to inculcate a certain way of life for everyone. She just lets live to deal with each other to those people who can moderate their demands and patiently endure differences. The politics of post-modern tolerance is not a politics of demands for the realization of imaginary rights, but the practice of mutual concessions and compromises in the process of reaching agreements that are suitable for today, and not for all time. However, tolerance is possible only where there is at least a minimum public consensus on issues of public morality, unity of purpose in the affairs of society, which is quite possible without unity of beliefs: a tolerant subject, defending his values, considering them "true", and the beliefs of another - delusions , must be aware that values ​​are so diverse that they cannot be perfectly coordinated with each other, and value their own truth below the freedom of another to independently make his own choice.
Today, to be tolerant is one of the requirements of the public morality of "civilized" humanity. It is simply indecent for a well-bred and educated individual to demonstrate manifestations of intolerance. But the idyllic picture of tolerance is broken when the tolerant subject collides with the "true" moral subject, with its traditionally closed, integral and therefore intolerant morality. m consciousness...

Parent meeting

THE PROBLEM OF TOLERANCE IN MODERN SOCIETY

“If I am not like you, then I do not offend you with this, but give you gifts.”

Antoine Saint - Exupery.

We have been living in the 21st century for several years now. Progress, the economy, new computer systems - everything is in the service of man. It would seem that life should be more measured, more confident, more joyful. But, however, in modern society there is an active growth of aggressiveness, extremism, conflicts. Why? Is society tolerant or not? What problems of tolerance exist in modern society?

Tolerance has always been considered a human virtue. It implied tolerance for differences among people, the ability to live without interfering with others, the ability to have rights and freedoms without violating the rights and freedoms of others. Tolerance is also the basis of democracy and human rights, intolerance in society leads to the violation of human rights, violence and armed conflicts.

The intolerance of a society is a component of the intolerance of its citizens. Fanaticism, stereotypes, insults or racial jokes are specific examples of expressions of intolerance that take place daily in the lives of some people. Intolerance leads only to counter intolerance. She forces her victims to seek forms of revenge. In order to fight intolerance, the individual must be aware of the connection between his behavior and the vicious circle of mistrust and violence in society.Each of us must ask ourselves: am I tolerant? Do I label people? Do I reject those who are not like me? Do I blame them for my troubles?

In order to understand the essence, level and features of the manifestation of tolerance in modern Russian society, it is necessary, first of all, to clearly define the meaning of the very term "tolerance".

Tolerance is interpreted as “... a quality that characterizes the attitude towards another person as an equally worthy person and is expressed in the conscious suppression of a feeling of rejection caused by everything that marks something else in another (appearance, manner of speech, tastes, lifestyle, beliefs). Tolerance presupposes an attitude towards understanding and dialogue with another, recognition and respect for his rights to difference.

"Tolerance - tolerance for someone else's way of life, behavior, customs, feelings, opinions, ideas, beliefs.

Thus, the main meaning of tolerance is tolerance for “alien”, “other”. This quality is inherent in both an individual and a particular team, a particular social group, society as a whole.

Considering the problem of tolerance, two important remarks should immediately be made. Firstly, “alien”, “other” does not mean ideas, behavior, actions, rituals that inevitably lead to degradation, to the destruction of the social, spiritual. The undoubted problem in this case is that in practice their catastrophic, negative value is not always immediately and unequivocally revealed. Hence the difficulties in evaluating these ideas, and, accordingly, personal social difficulties in forming a certain attitude towards them. On the other hand, we should not forget that it is precisely a tolerant attitude, devoid of the desire to immediately prohibit, stigmatize, that makes it possible to reveal the true essence of the “other”. Another observation follows from this. Tolerance does not imply a mandatory rejection of criticism, discussion, and even more so of one's own convictions.

At present, the problem of the formation of tolerance is particularly acute. This is due to a number of reasons: a sharp stratification of the world civilization according to economic, social and other characteristics and the growth of intolerance associated with this; development of religious extremism; aggravation of interethnic relations caused by local wars; refugee problems.

As the Russian philosopher Yu.A. Schreider noted: “The most terrible catastrophe that threatens us is not only atomic, thermal and similar options for the physical destruction of mankind on Earth, but anthropological - the destruction of human society in man.”

Conditions are necessary for the germination of the ideas of tolerance, but the seeds sown in time will surely sprout. It is important to “sow” consciously and purposefully, and then we will not have to “pull grass from the ground”, and when spring comes and the sun warms, it will grow by itself. Moreover, it is important to look at them from the standpoint of a systematic approach that reveals the interdependencies and mutual influences of systems at different levels.

Initial principles of tolerance:

1) renunciation of violenceas an unacceptable means of introducing a person to any idea;

2) voluntary choice, emphasis on the sincerity of his convictions, "freedom of conscience". Just as in Christianity "sermon and example" are ways of converting to one's faith, the idea of ​​tolerance can become a kind of guideline, a kind of flag of a movement that unites like-minded people. At the same time, one should not condemn or blame those who are not yet "enlightened";

3) the ability to force oneself without forcing others.Fear and coercion from the outside does not generally contribute to restraint and tolerance, although as an educational factor at a certain moment it disciplines people, while forming certain mores;

4) obedience to the lawstraditions and customs without violating them and satisfying social needs. Submission to the laws, and not to the will of the ruler or the majority, seems to be an important factor in development and movement in the right direction;

5) acceptance of the Other, which may differ on various grounds - national, racial, cultural, religious, etc. Everyone's tolerance contributes to the balance of the integrity of society, the disclosure of the fullness of its parts and the achievement of the "golden mean" on the basis of the golden rule of morality.

So, now it is of great importance to realize the importance of the phenomenon of tolerance for our society. The problem of education of tolerance should unite people of different, first of all, specialists of different directions and levels - psychologists, teachers, educators, managers, leaders and ordinary specialists, as well as representatives of different age groups.

One of the principles of tolerance is “the ability to force oneself without forcing others”, which means not coercion, violence, but only voluntary, conscious self-restraint. Involuntarily, a parable about a sage comes to mind, to whom a mother brought her son with a sweet tooth and asked him to convince him not to eat sweets. The sage told them to come in a month. “Do not eat sweet things,” said the wise man, addressing the boy. “Why didn’t you say this right away, why did you make me wait a whole month?” - the woman was indignant. And then the sage admitted that he could not do this because at that time he himself ate sweets. This is precisely the example of tolerance, self-restraint, which requires starting with oneself personally. I think that the ability of one's own behavior and example to attract others to the positions of tolerance is initially necessary and very important for the development of tolerance.

PARENT MEETING

06/03/2011

Agenda

1. Road safety prevention.

Traffic police inspector Ulanova S.G.

1. The problem of tolerance in society.

Social teacher Lityagina I.V.

1. Summing up the results of 2010 – 2011 academic year

Deputy Director for UPR Shkuratova N.A.

1. Distribution of a memo for parents on the Law of the Ministry of Defense No. 176 of 12/24/2010. "On the protection of minors from the threat of alcohol addiction and the prevention of alcoholism among minors in the Moscow Region"

Social teacher Lityagina I.V.

1. Miscellaneous.

PROTOCOL

1. On the first question, a speech was made by traffic police inspector Ulanova S.G., who reminded those present of the rules for using scooters and motorcycles: the age at which you can ride these vehicles; All road users need to know the rules of the road. She spoke about the situation with road traffic injuries in the Serpukhov region. Answered questions from parents.
2. On the second question, the social pedagogue I.V. Lityagina was heard. (report attached).
3. On the third question, Deputy director for UPR Shkuratova N.A., who informed the parents about the end of the 2010-2011 academic year. Students of the 3rd year passed the exams in March, now they are doing work practice and preparing for the defense of their thesis. 2nd year students take exams in general subjects. Then they will go through an internship. Students of the 1st year continue their theoretical education, from June 10 they will start their practical training. For the bulk of students of 1-2 courses, industrial practice will take place in the workshops of the school, but if it is possible to arrange a student for practice in production, then this can be done by drawing up an agreement and bringing it to the school. June 28 graduation party. Summer holidays for 1st and 2nd year students from July 01 to August 31.
4. On the fourth question, they heard a social teacher Lityagina I.V., who reminded parents of the content of the Law of the Ministry of Defense No. 176 of 24.12.2010. "On the protection of minors from the threat of alcohol addiction and the prevention of alcoholism among minors in the Moscow Region." I distributed to those present memos for parents, which contain extracts from the aforementioned law.
5. We listened to the social teacher Lityagina I.V., who told the parents that students would be involved in repair work (plastering, painting) and school improvement work (windows, floors, flower beds). The parents did not object to this. All those present agreed to involve students in these types of work.

The recent aggravation of interest in the problem of tolerance is a noticeable side of both everyday and theoretical consciousness. This interest has important political and cultural grounds. The mass consciousness is dominated by the judgment that it is tolerance that is lacking in the world. At the same time, there is a growing understanding that tolerance cannot be regarded as a panacea for all the ills of the modern world. It can be seen with the naked eye that intolerance for differences (racial, ethnic, religious, age, gender, etc.) can lead people to catastrophic consequences. However, one cannot fail to see that connivance and condescension can shake the human world to no lesser extent. So the problem of tolerance is not as simple as it might seem at first glance.

The pluralism of values ​​and the blurring of norms in modern culture have determined the need to develop the very concept of tolerance. The problem of tolerance is now the subject of attention of many sciences, and in each of them this term is filled with its own specific content. So, from the point of view of ethics, tolerance is the norm of a civilized compromise between competing cultures and readiness to accept other views. In political science, tolerance is the readiness of the authorities to allow dissent in society. From a philosophical standpoint, tolerance acts as a worldview category that reflects the universal rule of an active attitude towards another. The “New Philosophical Encyclopedia” (2001, vol. IV, p. 75) gives the following definition: “Tolerance is a quality that characterizes the attitude towards another person as an equally worthy person and is expressed in the conscious suppression of a feeling of rejection of someone else.”

The word? tolerance? its roots go back to Latin. The Latin term "tolerantia" meant "endurance", "passive patience", "voluntary transfer of suffering". In the 16th century other meanings are added: "permission", "restraint", "concession on the issue of religious freedom". In the traditional sense, the word tolerance is perceived as tolerance for someone else's behavior, someone else's opinion, someone else's beliefs. This interpretation seems to be too amorphous and needs to be specified.

Tolerance is a value that is necessary and fundamental for the realization of human rights and the achievement of peace. In its basic form, tolerance is the recognition of others' right to respect for their personality and self-identity. For the first time, New European political and social values, which were established in the New Age in the process of development of free enterprise, the democratization of politics and power, and served as the basis for today's international human rights standards, were identified in a call for tolerance as a fundamental value for establishing a new social order. Western political thinkers clearly expressed the idea of ​​the need for tolerance for a society that could no longer tolerate the intolerance and enmity caused by the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries. It was the recognition of tolerance as a necessary condition for peace among peoples that helped to create the historical atmosphere, thanks to which the first European declarations of rights appeared, which became the forerunner of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted on December 10, 1948.

Tolerance can by no means act as an eternal abstract value or some kind of categorical imperative that must be followed automatically, out of connection with a specific historical situation. Tolerance has a history and it shows that at a certain stage in the existence of human society, no tolerance existed. Then, in the context of certain historical realities, the demand for tolerance arose. But, having arisen once, it no longer left the ethics of the Western world, however, the content of this concept changed from century to century. Tolerance is not a recent idea. On the contrary, researchers of the history of this term emphasize that tolerance was the principle of interreligious dialogue already in the Middle Ages. The need to prove one's correctness not by force, but by word, demanded attention to the opinions of others and developed various interpretations. Historically, the first and dominant form of manifestation of tolerance is religious tolerance. The understanding of the problem of tolerance as freedom of conscience is typical for humanists (E. Rotterdamsky, T. Mohr) and figures of the Reformation (M. Luther). The split of Western Christianity into Catholicism and Protestantism led to the need to discuss the problem of the coexistence of different churches, different religious beliefs. This problem is especially sharply raised by J. Locke in his "Message on religious tolerance" (1689), which the classics of the ideology of liberalism call the manifesto of tolerance. It reveals not only its principles, but also indicates the conditions under which it is possible: a civil society, a state that recognizes the welfare of an individual citizen as the highest goal of its development, a church formed as a free community of free citizens. It was important for Locke to defend the rights of new Protestant movements, the emergence and existence of which was directly related to the emergence of bourgeois culture and the ideology of individualism. Locke's main argument for religious tolerance boils down to asserting the fundamental irrationality of compulsion to believe. Such coercion simply does not achieve its goal, since it is not able to convince a person to sincerely accept the belief imposed on him. The rejection of violence as a means of introducing a person to faith and an emphasis on the sincerity of beliefs, subject to voluntary entry into the community of believers - these are the two main arguments in favor of tolerance in the 17th century. In Locke's works, tolerance acquires the features of a theory, which is why his name is associated with the origins of the conceptual justification of this concept and the first stage in the development of tolerance issues.

During the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century. there is a theoretical understanding and practical implementation of the principle of tolerance. Thanks to the enlighteners, the concept? tolerance? firmly established in the political vocabulary.

In the 19th century The problem of tolerance was developed in liberal philosophy, where it was understood as an expression of internal and external freedom, as the ability to make a thoughtful choice between alternative points of view and ways of behavior. The work of J. St. Mill (1806-1873) "On Freedom" (1859) is considered as the second stage in the development of tolerance issues. In it, tolerance is directly connected with the principle of justice and freedom. Society offers a person certain rules of the hostel and imposes a type of behavior that deprives the character of individuality. Therefore, according to Mill, as far as he himself is personally concerned, the individual must be completely autocratic. A person cannot abandon stereotypes, because the standards of behavior form a field of freedom for the individual in the sense that the behavior of others is predictable, and everyone knows what to expect from the other, but at the same time the possibility of developing individuality must be preserved. The individual is understood by Mill as "absolute sovereign" over his own life, and therefore tolerance for his opinion and behavior naturally follows from the principles of individual autonomy and freedom. Mill defines individual freedom as the right of a citizen to autonomy in everything that does not harm society. Freedom can only be limited by the principle of not harming other members of society. Mill believed that people in a tolerant attitude should be equal, i.e. the subject and object of tolerance should not suffer from a tolerant strategy of behavior.

Already at this stage of the development of the theory of tolerance, two main directions can be distinguished in determining the content of this concept. Firstly, tolerance is seen as a principle of dialogue, relations between certain social groups or public associations. Secondly, tolerance is interpreted as the right of an individual not to change his values, his character, if this does not violate the freedom of others and the rules of behavior in society, i.e. tolerance is seen as a condition for the development of individuality.
This interpretation of tolerance was subjected to significant criticism in the 20th century, when the question arose not only of the coexistence of peoples and religious denominations in Europe, but also the problem of the coexistence of various ethnic communities within individual states, the legal system of which is oriented towards democratic principles. The migration processes that developed after the Second World War led to a clash of cultural stereotypes that had previously interacted quite peacefully. The question arose about the value of tolerance, as soon as it leads to the violation of traditional cultural priorities. As a result, new approaches to understanding tolerance within the framework of a pluralistic society are being developed, which was clearly reflected in the work of John Rawls "Theory of Justice" (1971), which is recognized as the third stage in the development of the liberal theory of tolerance. Rawls' principle of tolerance is dictated by his concept of "justice as fairness" based on the fundamental equality of all members of society. In order to find the principles of justice, a person should put himself in a situation where he has to negotiate with others about what is fair. In such a situation, people would be guided by the principle of maximizing the minimum, i.e. they would choose such a social structure that would ensure the maximum welfare of its minimum well-to-do members. Tolerance is one of the main conditions of justice here. The fact is that in any political discussions a person cannot be guided by his private considerations about what is good for all mankind, because this would contradict the original position in which the principles of justice are chosen. For political discussions, according to Rawls, the principle of "supremacy of law over good" is true, in fact, and is a specification of the principle of tolerance.

Another representative of the liberal tradition of tolerance, Peter Nicholson, in his fundamental article "Tolerance as a Moral Ideal" (1985), defines tolerance as an attitude based on six characteristics:

1. Deviation. What is tolerated deviates from what the subject of tolerance thinks of as due, or from what he does as due.
2. Importance. The subject of deviation is not trivial.
3. Disagreement. The tolerant subject morally disagrees with the deviation.
4. Strength. The subject of tolerance has the power necessary to attempt to suppress or prevent or interfere with the subject of tolerance.
5. Non-rejection. However, the subject of tolerance does not use his power, thus allowing the deviation to exist.
6. Goodness. Tolerance is true, and a tolerant subject is good. This feature is debatable.

As a result, “tolerance is the virtue of refraining from using force to interfere with the opinion or action of another, even if they deviate in something important from the opinion or action of the subject of tolerance and although the latter does not morally agree with them.” In addition, tolerance is a blessing. However, while pointing to the theoretical possibility of understanding tolerance as an independent good, Nicholson actually says very little about how it is possible at all. After all, if tolerance is a good-in-itself, then it does not need any justification for this goodness of it. Meanwhile, the goodness of tolerance is its most debatable characteristic. If the value of tolerance for its establishment in society needs a philosophical justification, how can one speak of its inner goodness? Therefore, theorists prefer to talk about respect for the individual with moral disagreement with the opinions or actions of this individual. This formula is reminiscent of the Christian commandment about hatred of sin, but love for the sinner. However, history shows the danger of such an understanding, because it is not at all clear why respect for the individual should prevent the fight against the opinions or actions of this individual; in the same way, love for the sinner did not prevent the Inquisition from eradicating heresy and even encouraged it to do so. Understanding this danger forces us to introduce the principle of respect for human rights, the concept of which resurrects Mill's principle of individual autonomy and again leads us away from the interpretation of tolerance as a good in itself.

The followers of the liberal concept of tolerance, with its pronounced individualistic orientation, had many critics who argued that tolerance cannot act as a universal human value. Each person is a representative of a certain ethnic group, a certain social stratum, a certain region, etc., therefore it is impossible to force him to accept the principle of tolerance if it is not obvious as unconditionally valuable. The need to study the social practices of asserting justice and tolerant communication, formed in different cultures, was discussed in order to find ways to establish the principles of interethnic and interfaith communication.

Modern criticism of the value of tolerance originates from Herbert Marcuse's pamphlet Critique of Pure Tolerance (1969). In it, the author argues that in the modern world, tolerance, having lost touch with the truth, has ceased to be a "revolutionary virtue", but has turned into "pure tolerance", which contributes to the preservation of the status quo rather than changing the existing order. And this serves as a verdict for "repressive tolerance" and prompts the search for a different, "discriminatory tolerance."

In recent years, in modern political philosophy, the value of tolerance has been criticized by both the political left and the political right philosophers. To date, there is no developed complete theory that would be the answer to this criticism. Meanwhile, a number of philosophers are currently working on a solution to this problem. In modern literature on tolerance, in this regard, more and more people talk about multiculturalism as a principle that implies the possibility of autonomous development of different communities within the same society, preserving the diversity of values ​​and ideals existing in society, ways of organizing living space. The principle of multiculturalism poses the problem of pluralism of the grounds for tolerance and excludes the possibility of finding a single formula of tolerance that everyone would agree with. An attempt to create such a pluralistic theory of tolerance was made by Michael Walzer in his book On Tolerance (1997). The author writes that tolerance “ensures life itself, for persecution is often carried on to death; moreover, it provides for social life, the life of those diverse communities in which we all live. Based on this, Walzer formulates a wonderful aphorism: “Tolerance makes differences possible; Differences, on the other hand, determine the need for tolerance.” Walzer sees tolerance as a whole spectrum of relationships: 1) submissive acceptance for the sake of peace; 2) passive, relaxed indifference; 3) the fundamental recognition that the other has rights, even if he uses them in an unattractive way; 4) openness to others, curiosity; 5) approval of the difference. Tolerance is possible only in conditions of peaceful coexistence of groups of people with different histories, cultures and identities. Developing the problem of coexistence, the author names and explores five "tolerant regimes": multinational empires, consociative regimes, the international community, nation-states and immigrant communities. In view of this diversity, Walzer suggests that practical issues of tolerance, such as religion, education, and gender, must be dealt with differently in different political and cultural contexts.

In modern philosophy, tolerance is understood as a very problematic, contradictory and even paradoxical concept. The logical paradox of tolerance lies in the inconsistency of the affirmation of the goodness of refraining from preventing moral evil. The British researcher Susan Mendus, in her monograph “Tolerance and the Limits of Liberalism” (1989), which has become a classic for the modern theory of tolerance, illustrates this paradox with the words of Bossuet: “I have the right to persecute you because I am right and you are not.” Another British moral philosopher B. Williams states that, since tolerance is required only for what cannot be tolerated, it is some kind of "impossible virtue". The logical paradoxical nature of tolerance gives rise to difficulties in the practical application of this concept to the phenomena of social life (for example, drug addiction and pedophilia). These difficulties lead many modern philosophers to the concept of tolerance as an instrumental value, i.e. that contributes to the achievement of another, more weighty value. Because of this, tolerance is seen not as a goal, but as a means, as a minimum requirement for social relations. Only in the conditions of a tolerant society can the full disclosure of the real possibilities of a person and society be carried out.

The history of tolerance as a theoretical problem and current discussions in this area indicate that tolerance cannot currently be considered solely as a fashionable slogan or as a tribute to political fashion. Now the following questions are especially acute: how can a tolerant attitude be formed? How can the problem of interethnic conflicts be solved? what should be the strategy of tolerance today? what are the limits of tolerance? In the modern theory of tolerance, there are no unambiguous answers to the questions posed. And the theory of tolerance itself, which would correspond to the characteristics of a modern multicultural pluralistic society and the processes of globalization and would provide the necessary political and moral consensus in such a society, has not yet been developed. Discussions about tolerance as a value continue. Tolerance remains one of the most controversial values ​​of modern society. However, this inconsistency does not reduce its significance, but rather reflects the extreme complexity of the world in which modern man is doomed to live. One can agree with the German researcher A. Fromman, who claims that tolerance is very difficult.

LITERATURE

1. Bondyreva S.K., Kolesov D.V. Tolerance (introduction to the problem). - M., 2003.
2. Age of tolerance. - 2001. - Issue. 1-2.
3. Lektorsky V.A. On Tolerance, Pluralism and Criticism // Questions of Philosophy. - 1997. - No. 11.
4. Linguistic and cultural problems of tolerance: Proceedings. report inter-dunar. conf. Yekaterinburg, October 24-26, 2001 - Yekaterinburg, 2001.
5. Logic of tolerance and law: Proceedings of scientific. conf. Yekaterinburg, December 24-25, 2001 - Yekaterinburg, 2002.
6. On the way to a tolerant consciousness. - M., 2000.
7. Pertsev A.V. Life strategy of tolerance: the problem of formation in Russia and in the West. - Yekaterinburg, 2002.
8. John Locke's Message on Tolerance: Points of View / Gen. ed. M.B. Khomyakov. - Yekaterinburg, 2002.
9. Reardon B.E. Tolerance is the road to peace. - M., 2001.
10. Skvortsov L.V. Tolerance: an illusion or a means of salvation // October. - 1997. - No. 3.
11. Tolerance // Modern Philosophical Dictionary. - M., 2004. - S. 726-730.
12. Tolerance. Research, translations, information about books. Bulletin of the Ural Interregional Institute of Social Sciences. - 2001. - No. 1.
13. Tolerance in the context of the multiformity of Russian culture: Abstracts of the International. scientific conf. May 29-30, 2001 - Yekaterinburg, 2001.
14. Tolerance in a society of differences: Collective monograph / Ed. V.E. Kemerova, T.Kh. Kerimova, A.Yu. Zenkova. - Issue. 15. - Yekaterinburg, 2005.
15. Tolerance in modern civilization: Proceedings of the international. conf. Yekaterinburg, May 14-19, 2001 / Ed. M.B. Khomyakov. - Yekaterinburg, 2001.
16. Tolerance and Nonviolence: Theory and International Experience: Materials of the Winter School for Young Teachers of the Ural-Siberian Region (Yekaterinburg, Jan.-Feb. 2000). - Yekaterinburg, 2000. - Part 1-2.
17. Tolerance and education: modern problems of the formation of tolerant consciousness: Collective monograph / Ed. ed. A.V. Pertsev. - Yekaterinburg, 2006.
18. Tolerance and polysubjective sociality. - Yekaterinburg, 2001.
19. Tolerance and consent. - M., 1997.
20. Tolerance: Materials of the school of young scientists "Russia - the West: the philosophical foundations of socio-cultural tolerance". - Yekaterinburg, 2001.
21. Walzer M. On tolerance / Per. from eng. I. Myurnberg. - M., 2000.
22. Philosophical and linguoculturological problems of tolerance: Collective monograph / Ed. ed. ON THE. Kupina and M.B. Khomyakov. - M., 2005.
23. Khomyakov M.B. The problem of tolerance in Christian philosophy. - Yekaterinburg, 2000.

A. A. Pogodina

Te hominem esso memento!

(Remember that you are (only) human)

The words of this epigraph are borrowed from a speech delivered during a triumphal ritual in distant antiquity. Then they sounded like a warning to tyrants. Today, these words can sound like a life principle of any person, regardless of his social status, place of residence, gender, nation and age. This principle warns any human child against violence, making it clear that a person does not have absolute power over another, does not have the right to enslave, interfere in the world of another and forcefully change this world. A person has no power over the thought, action, life of another person. This maxim is especially relevant for a multinational state, which is Russia.

However, there is an opinion that monoculture, unlike polyculture, is basically "destructive, pathological, leads to marginalization, borderlines, state production of laws of violence and cruelty, dehumanization of society and itself" .

In such states, a person is not always given the opportunity to integrate into various social communities. There is one, "the only true" culture with clear rules, norms, worldview ideas. If a person of a different mindset and these "postulates of life" are not close to him, he either becomes a dissident, a kind of "outsider of society", or "steps over" his life principles and successfully merges into society. Does this statement lead to the conclusion that monoculture loses to polyculture in the process of creating favorable conditions for the successful socialization of its citizens? Far from it. A multicultural, multinational state has its own very serious problems in this process. In one area, in one state, different cultures "coexist" with absolutely different sometimes not only cultural values ​​and social experience, but also with biological differences (genetic characteristics, the specifics of hormonal processes, the specifics of nutrition), with peculiarities in the mental structure of the individual (temperament, character accentuations, features of the formation of basic mental processes, etc.). In any of these aspects, any nation, nationality is original. Such originality is preserved even in the process of centuries-old migration of entire peoples. Assimilated into one or another multi-ethnic environment, the people retain their specificity, originality. An example of such a phenomenon can be the centuries-old process of resettlement of Jews in the multicultural states of the West, East (the main principle: "Accept the culture of other peoples while preserving one's own") or modern Russian, Armenian, Ukrainian quarters in US cities.

However, in modern conditions of socio-economic destabilization, the desire to preserve the originality of a particular nation, nationality is sometimes characterized by negative manifestations.

These manifestations are especially pronounced in modern Russia. The constant migration of other ethnic groups to its territory causes fear among the Russian people, fear for the infringement of their "national dignity". Shades of this fear are different: from indifference to conflicts, from cold indifference to the phenomenon of xenophobia (fear, sometimes hatred towards people of another nation). In part, these manifestations are a kind of defensive reaction, and sometimes they are initiated by representatives of other ethnic groups themselves. One way or another, a person (in particular, a Russian person) forgets that he is just a person and does not have the right to condemn, anger, hatred, infringement of the life of another.

This "forgetfulness" leads to an overwhelming feeling of aggression, cruelty and hatred among people, chauvinistic and fascist ideas in society. The consequences are bloody feuds, wars, pogroms, terrorist attacks by "pseudo-humans" against civilians. The latest world events of rampant terrorism are a kind of indicator of the moral pathology of polyculture. It is worth considering at least the fact that the two multicultural superpowers, Russia and the United States, are the most blasphemous terrorist attacks.

The question arises: is it possible to talk about the problem of tolerance in such conditions? What kind of tolerant attitude, for example, can there be towards terrorists, murderers of innocent people? The answer to this question does not lie on the surface, and the problem itself is rather contradictory. However, this question cannot and does not remain rhetorical. It is solved by many theorists and practitioners, people who are not indifferent to what is happening with the genus Homo sapiens. Let's try to make our own contribution to the solution of this issue and start with the definition of the fundamental category.

In many cultures, the concept of "tolerance" is a kind of synonym for "tolerance": lat. - tolerance - patience; English - tolerance, tolerance, it. - Toleranz, French. - tolerance. In the process of historical and cultural development and the formation of philosophical thought, the category of "tolerance" ("tolerance") has undergone changes. This is a natural phenomenon, since society itself was changing, different ideas were put at the forefront in human relationships.

In the era of the XIX century. the verb "endure" consisted of many lexemes (26) and expressed different meanings: endure, suffer, strengthen, stand without exhaustion, wait for something, allow, relax, do not rush, do not drive, etc. Despite the ambiguity, the category "tolerance" has a contemplative, passive characteristic, orientation.

A similar characteristic of the concept has been preserved in modern dictionaries. In the "Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language" edited by D. N. Ushakov, the category of "tolerance" is completely identified with the category of "tolerance". In the Dictionary of Foreign Words and Expressions, the concept is also defined as "tolerance for other people's opinions, beliefs, behavior, indulgence towards something or someone". In the same dictionary, two more definitions appear related to the biological and social aspect of considering the problem:

A more passive orientation can be traced when analyzing the definition of "tolerance" in the Explanatory Dictionary of Foreign Words. In this source, the concept of "tolerance" is associated with the absolute "loss of the ability to produce antibodies" (medical and biological aspect).

The characterization of the definition of "tolerance" is modified in the preamble of the UN Charter: "... show tolerance and live together, in peace with each other, as good neighbors". Here, the concept acquires not only an effective, socially active coloring, but is also considered as a condition for successful socialization (integration into the system of social relations), which consists in the ability to live in harmony both with one's inner world and with the world of people (micro- and macroenvironment).

The harmony of relations implies, first of all, respect by the subjects of each other. Such a semantic load is carried by the definition of "tolerance", proposed by the American dictionary "American Heritage Dictionary": "Tolerance is the ability to recognize or practical recognition and respect for the beliefs and actions of other people." This reference to the American dictionary is given by the Maltese researcher Kenneth Wayne in the article "Education and Tolerance". In his article, the scientist comes to the conclusion that the definition of "tolerance" in the American dictionary is incomplete, since it is "not just recognition and respect for the beliefs and actions of other people, but recognition and respect for other people who are different from ourselves, recognition as separate individuals and the social or ethnic groups to which they belong.

For a multinational state, this is especially true, since the object of intolerance is representatives of specific ethnic groups. However, once again we have an equation with at least two unknowns: the first is whether all people who are unlike us can be recognized as individuals, social groups; the second - is it always respect - indulgence towards others and the absence of personal value orientations. The national political encyclopedia will help us to answer this question: "Political tolerance is an indispensable requirement in the relations of all active participants in public life who are aware of the need for orderly civilized relations both within the state and between states." This definition prompts us to solve the problem of finding the first unknown: tolerance extends to persons (a group of persons) striving for positive interaction, orderly relations that do not violate the universal laws of being, do not harm others in the exercise of their own freedoms. Such a logic of reasoning can meet a lot of criticism, because it confirms the New Testament principle "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." And we know that in life, answering evil for evil, pain for pain, a good result cannot be achieved. Oxford political scientist Jonathan Rawls suggests that "society has the right to suppress and harass an inadequate subject only in self-defense, when this inadequate subject demonstrates an intolerance that threatens the public order" . It is difficult to disagree with this statement, but it is still possible to supplement it. Before applying any measures for self-defense, one should analyze the current critical situation, try to identify the reasons that led to it (motives for inappropriate behavior). And if even for a moment the thought arises that the inadequacy of action is caused by our behavior, our ideology, then there can be no talk of any tactics of self-defense. The reason for the negative manifestations of others is in ourselves, in our intolerance, ever demonstrated. All the same Jonathan Rawls argues that "people who show intolerance should not complain if intolerance is shown towards them ...".

Social tolerance (from lat. tolerance - patience, endurance) - a sociological term denoting tolerance for a different worldview, lifestyle, behavior and customs, religion, nationality; tolerance lies in the awareness and granting to others of their right to live in accordance with their own worldview and serve the values ​​of their original culture. Tolerance means acceptance, correct understanding and respect of other cultures, ways of self-expression and manifestation of human individuality. A tolerant attitude is seen as a social value that ensures human rights, freedom and security. Tolerance also does not recognize nationalism.

According to the Declaration of Principles on Tolerance (UNESCO, 1995), tolerance is defined as follows:

The value and social norm of civil society, manifested in the right of all individuals of civil society to be different, ensuring stable harmony between different confessions, political, ethnic and other social groups, respect for the diversity of different world cultures, civilizations and peoples, readiness to understand and cooperate with people who differ in appearance, language, beliefs, customs and beliefs.

The characterization of the definition of tolerance in the Preamble of the UN Charter is as follows: "show tolerance and live together, in peace with each other, as good neighbors." Here the lexeme receives not only an effective, socially active coloring, but is also considered as a condition for successful socialization (integration into the system of social relations), which consists in the ability to live in harmony, both with oneself and with the world of people (micro- and macroenvironment).

In contrast to “tolerance” (endure - “without resisting, without complaining, meekly enduring, enduring something disastrous, difficult, unpleasant”), tolerance (in the modern language the word came from the English. tolerance) - the willingness to accept behavior and beliefs that are different from your own, even if you do not agree or do not approve of them.

The decisive chapter in the history of tolerance was the Cromwellian period of English history in the 17th century. At that time, among the various Puritan sects that were part of Cromwell's army, only the Independents and the Levellers were interested in freedom and tolerance. According to their views, no belief can be so infallible that other beliefs existing in the community can be sacrificed to it. John Saltmarsh, one of the prominent advocates of tolerance in the Cromwellian era, said: "Your arguments will be as obscure to me as my arguments to you, until the Lord opens our eyes."

In general, tolerance was established both in England and in America, not so much as an ideal principle, but out of necessity - when the monolithic unity of society was destroyed. It turned out that there would be more peace in the society if one did not try to impose religious unity on it from above.

It is noteworthy that the problem of tolerance first arose in Western civilization precisely at the religious level, and religious tolerance laid the foundation for all other freedoms that were achieved in a free society. It is sometimes thought that nothing is more difficult than being tolerant of people who hold different religious beliefs. This judgment is based on the assumption that religion is fundamentally fanatical, and this is partly true in the sense that religion means the total self-giving of the individual. Ideally, faith should generate charity, not fanaticism, since it leads to the juxtaposition of fragmentary and limited values ​​with the absolute and divine.

In reality, however, a religious person can easily fall into the temptation to sanctify his limited values ​​by the light of the absolute to which he is devoted, and at the same time call on God as an ally. So religion can sometimes contribute to the deepening and toughening of fanaticism, whatever it may be - cultural, state or ethnic.

The Enlightenment of the 18th century, which is often endowed with a spirit of tolerance, gave rise to a very dangerous Jacobin fanaticism of the rationalistic type. The only prominent representative of tolerance in that era was Voltaire. He is credited with saying: “I do not agree with what you say, but I will sacrifice my life defending your right to express your own opinion,” an aphorism that expresses the classical theory of tolerance. Voltaire's views were formed when he observed the events in England, where in the 17th century. in conditions of religious pluralism and religious tolerance, civil peace was achieved and a general atmosphere of mercy was established.

In fact, any belief - religious, political or cultural - can lead to intolerance if there is no doubt left about the infallibility of the ideas we believe in and the falsity of the views we challenge. Political freedom means that we have enough confidence in our political opponents to allow them to organize, campaign and form a new government. Economic freedom implies tolerance for competing economic interests. Competition contributes to the formation of a more harmonious community and stimulates the initiative of individuals and social groups.

Tolerance towards people belonging to a different nationality presupposes that we are aware of the existence of similarities and identities hidden under differences; for example, we are aware of the belonging of individual groups to humanity as a whole. Tolerance towards people who differ from us in their beliefs and habits requires an understanding that the truth cannot be simple, that it has many faces, and that there are other views that can shed light on one side or another of it. The ability to comprehend the various aspects of truth, or to recognize the limitations of the truths we believe today, comes from a rational and patient analysis of the difficulties that any knowledge faces, as well as a spirit of religious humility, ready to recognize the conditional and historical character of the most “absolute” of all truths.

Although tolerance, or the ability to establish and maintain community with people who differ from us in any respect, should be considered a virtue, as rare as its value is high (since a person is naturally inclined to community on the basis of tribal consciousness), it is nevertheless has two drawbacks. One of them is the tendency to be indifferent to the values ​​that feed beliefs. “Tolerance is a virtue of people who do not believe in anything,” G.K. Chesterton said about this.

Another disadvantage is the need to establish minimum moral standards, the serious violation of which is not allowed by the community; and the need to protect the community from conspiracies and treason - especially from treason led by fanatical and totalitarian political movements that seek to destroy freedom and justice. But even in this area, where intolerance of intolerance is the norm, care must be taken that a simple deviation from tradition is not taken as a betrayal of the fundamental values ​​of freedom and tolerance.

In psychology, as in other areas of scientific knowledge, it is necessary to distinguish between ordinary and strictly scientific definitions of tolerance. However, in modern psychological literature, it is extremely difficult to make this distinction; it is enough to give only some definitions of tolerance: “the value of interaction in conditions of contradiction”; “acceptance of other, different from your own, interests and goals”; "friendliness, calmness, peaceful disposition, the opposite of aggressiveness, malice and irritability"; “the ability to listen, to try to take out the grains of reason from the information received and to get along with different points of view, no matter how much what is heard contradicts one’s own views”; "striving for agreement, non-conflict." All these definitions can serve equally as ordinary and scientific definitions of the psychological phenomenon of tolerance.

Differentiated understanding of the phenomenon of tolerance, which includes:

natural (natural) tolerance - openness, curiosity, gullibility - characteristic of a small child and not yet associated with the qualities of his "I";

moral tolerance - patience, tolerance associated with the personality ("external self" of a person);

moral tolerance - acceptance, trust, associated with the essence or "inner self" of a person.

Tolerance of the first type- this is a natural and unconditional acceptance of another person, an attitude towards him as a self-sufficient and self-valuable being. Such tolerance takes place in the life of a small child, in whom the process of personality formation (the process of personalization) has not yet led to the splitting of individual and social experience, to the formation of a “persona” or “facade”, to the emergence of a “double standard”, to the existence of separate plans of behavior. and experiences.

Tolerance of the second type characteristic of the personal mode of existence, it is a derivative of the process of personalization and, in terms of age, is inherent in the majority of adults to one degree or another. A "tolerant" person seeks to restrain himself, using the mechanisms of psychological defenses (rationalization, projection, etc.). However, behind its "facade" it hides its own intolerance - growing tension, unspoken disagreement, suppressed aggression. This is essentially a hidden, delayed internal aggression. Although such "tolerance" looks at first glance better than "intolerance", both are, nevertheless, phenomena of the same order and of the same nature. In this sense, we can say that such tolerance is the reverse side of intolerance, various forms of violence and manipulation of a person, ignoring his subjective characteristics, all that has such a destructive effect on relations between people.

Tolerance of the third type It is built on a person's acceptance of both others and himself, on interaction with the external and internal world in an accepting, dialogic manner. As opposed to violence and manipulation, such interaction implies both respect for the values ​​and meanings that are significant for another, and awareness and acceptance of one's own inner world, one's own values ​​and meanings, goals and desires, experiences and feelings. For a person with this type of tolerance, tensions and conflicts are not at all excluded, one can say that he constantly lives in a situation of tense existence, is not afraid to face this tension, to withstand it with dignity and accept it as an unconditional existential reality. This is a genuine, mature, really positive tolerance, based (unlike tolerance of the first and second types) on a much more complete awareness and acceptance of reality by a person.