Evaluating the Limits of Tolerance
In the Aeon article The Limits of Tolerance, Paul Russel, a professor of Philosophy, unpacks important issues surrounding ideological and non ideological identities, and the different types of tolerance that should correspond. I thought it was a timely piece to put out considering I still hear people defend the value of racist humour “We can only get over the past if we joke about it!” or using racial stereotypes as a basis of analysing whole demographics of people. The author shuts down the validity of that kind of thinking with these main points: Religious identity has ideological content and is thus available for criticism and debate. On the other hand, non-ideological identities, such as race and gender, lack ideological content and cannot serve as a basis for criticism or evaluation of any kind.
The article intricately carves out other complexities of identity. Yet there were major dimensions that his argument leaves unanswered. I agree that “traits one can’t change” should be the dividing marker of traits one can or can’t criticize. However, where he has drawn that line reveals a rather obtuse understanding of the qualities, beliefs, world views and shared struggles that make up a person and the group zie represents. There was not nearly enough attention given to the issue of where culture fits in. Firstly, bigotry isn’t just towards a biological makeup but the cultural stereotypes associated with it. Secondly, what are the stakes involved in criticising and evaluating culture? Russell acknowledges that certain ideological identities aren’t chosen– someone born a Muslim or a nationality like English for instance, “what really matters is not so much that the person’s particular religious identity is chosen but that it has some relevant ideological content and is, to that extent, sensitive to criticism, reflection, discussion and debate.” If he’s arguing whether something is debatable on epistemological terms, then it’s a pretty weak and shallow project. Whether we should use someone’s identity as a topic of debate rests on many other factors.
I think an important distinction here has to made between critiquing a religion and critiquing a religious identity. True you can’t change your skin colour like you can your religion. But to some, a religious identity feels as fiercely innate as something they are born with. We can analyse any religious texts but it doesn’t mean we can understand what the religion means for an identity and to its community. The choice we make to publicly debate such significant things shouldn’t rest solely on whether they contain the ideological content that makes them debatable. We should also see whether we are even able to make a valid argument about something we might not fully know, and to that end- what is the purpose?