Karl Popper was a British philosopher, born in Austria, who was alive during Adolf Hitler's reign of terror from the last months of 1939 to the mid-1940's.
Popper wrote his third book, The Open Society and Its Enemies, while in political exile in New Zealand during the course of World War II. It was published in two volumes in 1945, the same year of the war's end.
In the book, Popper argues in favor of liberal democracy and against historicism (i.e., history governed by historical, universal, and inevitable laws), as well as distinguishing between closed societies (e.g., authority-based, tradition-based, claims of absolute truth, and superstition-based) and open societies (e.g., freedom of thought, learning from mistakes, critical rationalism, equal application of laws).
One of the key points Popper makes in The Open Society and Its Enemies is his concept called the "paradox of tolerance".
So, what's up with that? Isn't tolerance a good thing? Being able to tolerate is a positive ability, isn't it? Isn't it a good thing by mere definition of its conceptual antonym, intolerance, and how intolerance is wrong?
Well, and this is strictly my speculation, Popper might say "yes and no" in response. More to the point, Popper explains "paradox of tolerance" this way: It might sound on the surface as though he's engaging in mere circular reasoning -- and I encourage you to read this passage more than once if you need to -- but Popper argues that society typically doesn't tolerate intolerance. However, in order to be a tolerant society, society must then tolerate intolerance. Therein lies an enemy of an open society and therein lies the paradox.
In other words, the tolerant people don't tolerate the intolerant and the intolerant people don't tolerate the tolerant...BUT... in order to bring about a tolerant society, the tolerant people would have to tolerate the intolerant. That naturally means, therefore, that the intolerant people would tolerate the tolerant. This whole scenario, however, would ultimately lead to the intolerant people taking over the society, since the tolerant people would tolerate them. Doesn't sound very good, does it?
The main problem with this is what defines "tolerance" and "intolerance", and those definitions are not universal. Granted, that's the rub, but let's look at the lens through which Popper was looking when he wrote his two-volume work. He wrote during the scourge that was Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime. Many people have asked how could the German people support such a madman. Popper's explanation, utilizing his paradox, is one of circumstance dictating support.
One of the key points Popper makes in The Open Society and Its Enemies is his concept called the "paradox of tolerance".
So, what's up with that? Isn't tolerance a good thing? Being able to tolerate is a positive ability, isn't it? Isn't it a good thing by mere definition of its conceptual antonym, intolerance, and how intolerance is wrong?
Well, and this is strictly my speculation, Popper might say "yes and no" in response. More to the point, Popper explains "paradox of tolerance" this way: It might sound on the surface as though he's engaging in mere circular reasoning -- and I encourage you to read this passage more than once if you need to -- but Popper argues that society typically doesn't tolerate intolerance. However, in order to be a tolerant society, society must then tolerate intolerance. Therein lies an enemy of an open society and therein lies the paradox.
In other words, the tolerant people don't tolerate the intolerant and the intolerant people don't tolerate the tolerant...BUT... in order to bring about a tolerant society, the tolerant people would have to tolerate the intolerant. That naturally means, therefore, that the intolerant people would tolerate the tolerant. This whole scenario, however, would ultimately lead to the intolerant people taking over the society, since the tolerant people would tolerate them. Doesn't sound very good, does it?
The main problem with this is what defines "tolerance" and "intolerance", and those definitions are not universal. Granted, that's the rub, but let's look at the lens through which Popper was looking when he wrote his two-volume work. He wrote during the scourge that was Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime. Many people have asked how could the German people support such a madman. Popper's explanation, utilizing his paradox, is one of circumstance dictating support.
During World War I, Germany (widely seen as the main aggressor) led the Central Powers, which included the Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria, as well as Austria and Hungary (Austro-Hungarian Empire), among others. The Central Powers were fighting against the Allied Powers (France, British Empire, Russia, Italy, Japan, America, etc.). The Central Powers fell to the Allied Powers, following Germany's surrender in November of 1918 and, ultimately, the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in June of 1919.
Following their defeat, Germany suffered many setbacks, both politically and socially. The Treaty of Versailles included Germany giving up a large amount of territory, accepting complete responsibility for causing the war (stated in the War Guilt Clause), significantly reducing its military, and paying billions in reparations to the countries of the Allied Powers. All of this would contribute to the sense of resentment among Germany's citizens.
In the years following World War I, significant social and political unrest arose in Germany. The billions in reparations Germany had to pay was a huge blow, causing Germany's Great Depression. At the worst point, around the latter part of 1923, the inflation rate reached a whopping 41% with prices, in effect, doubling every four days. The government printed large amounts of the German mark, resulting people's savings being wiped out and the mark becoming worthless. Unemployment reached 30% at that time and, after a period of improvement, once again in 1930.
The combination of national resentment and economic collapse was fertile ground for someone, anyone, to take advantage of the people's suffering and sentiments, even to evil ends. Adolf Hitler was that person, and take advantage, he did. (The title of a 1989 BBC documentary was self-explanatory: The Fatal Attraction of Adolf Hitler.) Karl Popper saw all this and how easily good people could acquiesce and support someone so evil, all the way to blaming groups of people who were not responsible for Germany's downfall as being responsible.
A boiled-down version of this might be that, for a society to be good, it doesn't have to tolerate everything.
It's easy to see how Popper's elements of a closed society, like authoritarianism, absolutism, and superstition, can be quite handy for the intolerant to gain control and will dictate, if in control, how they will rule.
This whole paradox theory does have a slippery slope element to it. That is to say, it can be abused. For example, and with an eye to public discourse and especially social media, if someone disagrees with you, you could simply level the claim that they are intolerant. That would be it, period, and end of story in those same individual's mind. Multiply that by others around you or the multitudes on social media, and the idea of "being intolerant" becomes multiplied, intensified, propagated.
However, being intolerant is not the presence of mere disagreement, and many people think they are one in the same and act accordingly. Expressed mathematically, it would read: Disagreement ≠ Intolerance
To tolerate means some sort of uncomfortableness exists. Most often, we hear it associated with some sort of physical pain: I can tolerate the pain until I can get it stopped. Sometimes, we use it referring to a person, or maybe a group: I tolerate his/her/their behavior because...[fill in the blank]. (We usually say "put up with" more so in those instances.) So, to tolerate someone who is different than you (e.g., gay, trans, different ethnicity) really means you're not comfortable with them for whatever reason(s). I'm not arguing that no one has the right to be uncomfortable with someone who is different, but (and I may be mincing words here) accepting of, or even just coexisting, with those who are different is more desirable.
Popper's paradox extends to a much broader picture, society as a whole. (There will remain those in the camp of mere disagreement means intolerance.) Someone, or some group, that is genuinely intolerant of others (e.g. anti-LGBTQ, racist, anti-poor people) and acts and/or speaks accordingly really shouldn't be tolerated. There a few ways this could be expressed:
I think Karl Popper's paradox of intolerance is just as relevant for us today as it was eight decades ago. It seems we face similar threats in America, as do other countries around the world where right-wing parties have risen to power. We are seeing how the intolerant rule. It will only get worse from here.
And we should not tolerate it.
Terry
This whole paradox theory does have a slippery slope element to it. That is to say, it can be abused. For example, and with an eye to public discourse and especially social media, if someone disagrees with you, you could simply level the claim that they are intolerant. That would be it, period, and end of story in those same individual's mind. Multiply that by others around you or the multitudes on social media, and the idea of "being intolerant" becomes multiplied, intensified, propagated.
However, being intolerant is not the presence of mere disagreement, and many people think they are one in the same and act accordingly. Expressed mathematically, it would read: Disagreement ≠ Intolerance
To tolerate means some sort of uncomfortableness exists. Most often, we hear it associated with some sort of physical pain: I can tolerate the pain until I can get it stopped. Sometimes, we use it referring to a person, or maybe a group: I tolerate his/her/their behavior because...[fill in the blank]. (We usually say "put up with" more so in those instances.) So, to tolerate someone who is different than you (e.g., gay, trans, different ethnicity) really means you're not comfortable with them for whatever reason(s). I'm not arguing that no one has the right to be uncomfortable with someone who is different, but (and I may be mincing words here) accepting of, or even just coexisting, with those who are different is more desirable.
Popper's paradox extends to a much broader picture, society as a whole. (There will remain those in the camp of mere disagreement means intolerance.) Someone, or some group, that is genuinely intolerant of others (e.g. anti-LGBTQ, racist, anti-poor people) and acts and/or speaks accordingly really shouldn't be tolerated. There a few ways this could be expressed:
Absolute tolerance is unsustainable.
Don't tolerate intolerance.
or
Be intolerant of intolerance.
I think Karl Popper's paradox of intolerance is just as relevant for us today as it was eight decades ago. It seems we face similar threats in America, as do other countries around the world where right-wing parties have risen to power. We are seeing how the intolerant rule. It will only get worse from here.
And we should not tolerate it.
Terry
