Kafka's Tolerance

I am puzzled by those who do not find the rise of tolerance as an overriding value troubling. Tolerance seems to me as an extremely brutalizing factor when taken as an independent good.

Let us take the example of the Former Jugoslavia. Serbs and Jews were exterminated together by the Nazi-backed Croats. The Croats in WWII were more open and vicious in their genocidal actions than Nazi Germany. The Bosnian Muslims were also allied with Nazi Germany and part of the WWII Croatian state. Serbs in the 90’s did not want to be part of any state run by people who tried to revive the Croatian Ustashi past (Franco Tudjman) or who had worked on behalf of the Nazi war effort (Alija Izetbegovitch was a recruiter for the Muslim SS divisions).

The Serb unwillingness to tolerate living in a state run by Nazi sympathizers made them intolerant of the national groups that Tudjman (Croats) and Izetbegovitch (Muslims) claimed to represent. That was therefore intolerant of the Serbs. Such intolerance is a sin against Tolerance and therefore the Serbs needed to be exterminated again. No better tools existed than those who had done the job back in WWII. Sadly for the Tolerant, some Croats sided with the Serbs in their intolerant desire not see Jugoslavia broken up, some Muslims did not want to live in an Islamic state and followed Fikret Abdic when he decided to set up a separate state in Bihac allied to the Serbs, and those famous intolerant Serbs got along well with people who did not shoot their civilians or side with those who did.

Tolerance demands that Jugoslavia be broken up because self-determination demands the right to form a country for a group that demands it while those who do not want to live in the new state be bombed into submission. Those who protest at the inconsistencies and who worry at the character of the new state are also cursed by Tolerance.

In a less bitter vein, let us consider the impact of prizing tolerance. Tolerance understood as being able to live together without coming to blows is necessary for any human endeavor such as simply living. Tolerance understood as accepting and respecting (beyond simply being human) the culture and values of others is more totalitarian. I am willing to understand the origins of forced marriage of children, I am not willing to tolerate it and if given power, will not sanction it and will seek to eradicate it. That means that those who make forced marriage of children a priority and I cannot exist peacefully unless there is a greater force that restrains both of us.

The assumption that Tolerance trumps all means that any conflict will be seen as a lack of tolerance on one side and therefore, any means are acceptable to eliminate the threat to global tolerance. Bigotry is the only possible cause for conflict and thus those who give in to it must be worthless human beings. This permits any tactic including accepting the existence of concentration camps and the strafing of civilians.

Any accusation of intolerance is thus a death sentence for the accused and they do not have a presumption of innocence. There is the modern social principle that the greater the accusation, the lower the burden of proof. This makes defeat an unbearable cost for any human government that does not want to see its civilians massacred. It also makes the conduct of a war difficult as well.

The gravity of the accusations assures their use if politically feasible by parties not constrained by moral instincts. Propaganda and false accusations are elements of any war. Tolerance makes them more potent weapons than ever before. Previously, war was considered a practical matter that could be conducted rationally. Emotional tools were employed but the decision to conduct a war and the reasons were accepted as part of the political process of states. Now, war for concepts like preserving the state, accomplishing national goals, and providing security for the main nation and its citizens is considered despicable and those who undertake this fundamental element of state action are considered criminals.

Tolerance has transformed a rational process into a crime and punishes the loser. This makes losing an unacceptable price and ensures that conflicts will be protracted while sentiments rise against the ignominies of one’s leaders being treated as criminals for preserving the state or its people.

Tolerance is also an unlimited ideal. Is the desire to live with those who are similar or a distrust of other groups intolerant? People may band together out of common ideals, priorities, or outlooks. Jews living in New York lived together and could enjoy easier access to religious services, cultural centers, acceptable butchers, and generally enjoy the benefits of specialization and not need to worry about misunderstandings with non-Jews.

This may cause problems in some cases and not in others. Is the desire intolerant?

Christians in Lebanon are unlikely to trust Muslims. Given the brutal civil war, is that irrational? They are in contact with Muslims on a daily basis but still do not trust them to look out for their interests or even survival. That is perfectly rational when one looks into the specifics of Islamic ideology and the actions in Lebanon over time. Where the Muslims move in, the Christians move out.

Is that intolerant?

By Tolerance the idol, the answers are yes. The conclusion then is that those who exhibit such concerns must be suppressed by any means possible. Instead of rational and sometimes emotional disagreements, you have a much more bitter conflict sanctified by the self-righteousness of those who may proclaim one tolerant or not.