4.4.1 Tolerance Towards Other People
Societies are peaceful when everyone shows tolerance towards other people, without regard to ethnicity; this has been widely achieved.
People from different ethnic groups live together in many places, including most cities. The term ‘ethnic’ is used here to describe racial, tribal, cultural and religious categorisations – which represent a significant part of people’s identity, but which are not necessarily the way in which they choose to define themselves. As Amartya Sen, in his book The Argumentative Indian, pointed out:
“People are also free to decide that their cultural or religious identity is less important to them than, say, their political convictions, or their literary persuasions, or their professional commitments.” (p. 356)
People have overlapping identities and they can belong to many social groups. Each person lives in a neighbourhood which may be of mixed ethnicity; they may have work colleagues who are similarly various; they may be friendly with other people who share the same interests; and they may feel connected to people in other neighbourhoods who share the same ethnic identity.
As discussed earlier (4.3.2), individuals tend to conform to the expectations of the social groups to which they belong but tolerance is needed between different groups. David Cannadine’s book, The Undivided Past: History Beyond Our Differences, argues for tolerance and he shows how this has been achieved in the past:
“historians, together with other academics, have too often been complicit in underpinning a Manichaean model of the world – a world, that is, characterised by divisions, and above all distinctions between ‘them’/ bad and ‘us’/ good. And that unwholesome model has been publicised – effectively rendered the orthodoxy – by political leaders and mass media, for whom it is of course convenient. …For such simple messages …are pernicious, as seeming to justify further strife, and as militating against the understanding of our commonality and shared humanity which should be our goal for the future.
…the divisive Manichaean model is simply not true – it does not provide a valid description of our actual experience; and its untruthfulness and invalidity can be demonstrated through historical analysis. This is what Cannadine then sets out to do, by examining – each in a separate chapter – six contenders for the role of exclusively providing identity: religion, nation, class, gender, race, and civilisation.”
People can be described as living together in peaceful pluralism if they coexist in the same geographical area without friction. This is a realistic aspiration and has been widely achieved in practice:
● London, for example, is a cosmopolitan city which houses many ethnic groups. A 2006 report on 26 pupils. 26 languages. One lesson for Britain noted that there were 52 different languages spoken in just one school: Uphall primary school in Ilford, which was reported as an “outstanding” school by Ofsted inspectors.
● The report Identity, Politics and Public Policy, published by IPPR in April 2010, described what it calls a ‘convivial culture’ in London and other large British cities (p.7).
● The Economist magazine described many other examples of successful integration in December 2008 – in Europe: “When town halls turn to Mecca”, and in America: “Hockey and hijab”.
In a peaceful tolerant society, where people see that others behave in a manner which they themselves expect and approve of, trust and cohesion gradually develop naturally. People become accustomed to each other through the presence of individuals who belong to more than one community – for example when people of different ethnicities live in the same neighbourhood, or work in the same organisation, or marry and have children of mixed ethnicity.
Peaceful coexistence depends upon people being willing to accept that other people may hold different beliefs. As Isaiah Berlin wrote in his essay The First and the Last:
“The enemy of pluralism is monism – the ancient belief that there is a single harmony of truths into which everything, if it is genuine, in the end must fit.”
He argued that differences in values exist, but can be understood:
“I do believe that there is a plurality of values which men can and do seek, and that these values differ. … if a man pursues one of these values, I, who do not, am able to understand why he pursues it or what it would be like, in his circumstances, for me to be induced to pursue it. Hence the possibility of human understanding.”
He did not suggest that understanding implied agreement: “of course, if I pursue one set of values I may detest another”. He went on to say:
“If pluralism is a valid view, and respect between systems of values which are not necessarily hostile to each other is possible, then toleration and liberal consequences follow, as they do not either from monism (only one set of values is true, all the others are false) or from relativism (my values are mine, yours are yours, and if we clash, too bad, neither of us can claim to be right).”
He argued for mutual respect and discussion without attempting to impose beliefs on another person. This argument applies to differences in political beliefs in the same way as differences in ethnicity.
Freedom of belief is included in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Appendix 1). Governance which tries to suppress people’s beliefs will be unacceptable to them. There have been many wars of religion which have demonstrated the futility of attempts at forcible conversion, not to mention the associated violence and loss of life.
There are also some specific behavioural requirements which can contribute to peaceful pluralism; these are examined in the rest of this chapter. The other dimensions of governance can also play their part, and the different strands of the argument are brought together in the final chapter of this book (9.3.2).
This page is intended to form part of Edition 4 of the Patterns of Power series of books. An archived copy of it is held at https://www.patternsofpower.org/edition04/441c.htm.