The Paradox of Tolerance
Karl Popper is probably the most underappreciated philosopher of the modern era. His writings provide a lens under which to examine many of the key social issues of today, from fake news, the anti-science movement, all the way to the controversies around power, religion, race, and gender that are gripping our world.
His most famous work of course is about the philosophy of science. While I have no hope to do justice to the breadth of his commentary on the topic, his key argument is both simple and exceedingly important:
You can only ever disprove a theory.
You can never call a theory ‘true,’ all you can do is relentlessly question it, test it, and observe whether or not its predictions align with reality. If they don’t, your theory is wrong; if they do, you’ve merely increased the body of evidence that the theory may be right.
It is a fundamental chink in the armor of any scientific discourse, which anyone who lacks the understanding of how the scientific method works, or who has an agenda against it, can use to question any finding. Many of the unscientific arguments you see proffered in the public sphere today take exactly that form: ‘prove it, or I’ll take your lack of a proof as evidence that my alternative is right.’ Popper argues the very opposite, that the very strength of a scientific theory is the degree of criticism it can be subjected to. Science may appear to deal in absolute truths, but it really merely is just a giant pile of evidence that says ‘you’re probably not wrong.’
Popper’s perhaps lesser known, but equally consequential, body of work is about building the foundations of a tolerant society. How do we foster a community that is inclusive of everyone and their perspectives? ‘Inclusive’ was not a commonly brandished word in Popper’s mid-20th century era, but when he speaks of tolerance, I find his meaning is much more aligned to the notion of inclusivity as we understand it today than to the slightly condescending modern meaning of ‘tolerant.’
And this is particularly where his views are underrepresented in the modern discourse about inclusion, respect of everyone’s identity and beliefs, and freedom of expression. Popper argues that:
An open society needs to be intolerant of intolerance.
This Paradox of Tolerance, as it came to be known, argues that intolerant behaviors, irrespective of any judgement of the values that underlie them, ought to be actively fought against in order to preserve an inclusive society. It is important to emphasize this last point: intolerant behaviors ought not to be judged on the merits of their underlying argument, or whether the party who is acting in an exclusionary manner has the moral high ground or not. These behaviors have to be combatted on the premise of them being exclusionary.
Social media shields intolerance from our intolerance.
I would be curious whether Popper would view our 21st century vehicles of intolerant discourse in this light. It is one of our chief new challenges to maintaining an inclusive society.
I take issue with the tone of the many conversations that I see unfolding in public today. Many of the points of views most vocally expressed, from the most horribly prejudiced, all the way to the very ones advocating inclusivity, are fundamentally driving an intolerant wedge into the public discourse.
My antidote has been to not engage, at the cost of not seeing my views represented in public, and of not being able to advocate for those I want to support the most. It weighs on me, but I still believe this is the better path: one of affecting the change I want to see in my community, but which doesn’t expose me to a public argument that would force me into a shouting match that is exclusionary by its very nature. You can’t have a conversation when everyone around the table is holding a megaphone.
May you and I ever be spared
Having to pick a side.
— J-J Goldman
This recent article about Professor Loretta Ross and her plea for calling people in, instead of calling people out, resonated with me in its advocacy of a better path to understanding and social change, through intimacy instead of public shaming. It is surprising how many people I know and appreciate in person, whose public persona on any form of broadcast medium I find plainly offensive. Some may argue that one’s true soul is bared when distilled down to a few characters, but I choose to hold tight to the idea that a person’s true self is the one you meet in person. So much of every person’s opinions is shaped by their life experience, and removing that context often makes them incomprehensible and unrelatable.
The Paradox of Tolerance often pits me against those very people I want to support and help, because I have to stand firm against public shaming and bullying, or lose that very inclusive society that I strive to foster.
And there is much one can do which would never fit on a social media post to enact change. In fact, I probably have more latitude to act for the very reason that I am not out there expounding my views, biased as they are, on social media. As I live and work in an environment that isn’t particularly predisposed to foster the best communication skills, I have also learned to predominantly judge people by their actions.
Most of my personal heroes who are working tirelessly to improve our community are not out in the public eye — they would most likely not have time to keep up with the deluge of it in the first place. It saddens me that so much of their time today tends to be redirected to patching up the damage that purely stems from the toxicity of the public discourse instead of working on the fundamentals of cultural and social betterment. I have to remind myself every single day to remain biased toward action over words, and to keep my objectives grounded in concrete, tangible, and, sadly, largely unspoken outcomes.
