Wendy Brown\'s Perspective on Tolerance

Wendy Brown's Perspective on Tolerance society defines itself by the accepted set of norms that it establishes to define itself. Those that lie outside of those "norms" are viewed differently than those the fit neatly within the constructs of the society. Tolerance is viewed as an acceptance, or desire to live in harmony with those that are different from ourselves. It is seen as the way to end violence and conflict in the world, bringing in a world of peace and harmony. However, as Wendy Brown points out, things are not always as they appear. Brown points out that "tolerance" has a dark side, which has emerged dramatically as a result of the "War on Terror." This analysis will support the thesis that Brown's work is biased by her own decidedly biased liberal viewpoints, rather than representing a comprehensive historical analysis of the development of tolerance as we know it today.

Tolerance According to Wendy Brown

According to Brown, disapproval and regulation are at the hear of tolerance, as defined by Western society. This definition of tolerance means not affirmation and acceptance of others that lie outside of societal norms, but to conditionally allow them. Tolerance as been touted as the better alternative to violence, but the War on Terror demonstrates that tolerance can be a means to justify violence. The War on Terrorism is underpinned by the differences between the "Civilized West" and "Barbaric Islam." Brown notes that tolerance, "reifies that which we do not like" (Brown, p. 47).

Browns' analysis of tolerance places it in a different light than that which has been presented to the public. Wendy Brown's view of tolerance highlights the norms, dominance of the powerful, and abjection of those that are tolerated. Those that are considered to be "intolerant" by Western standards are labeled as barbaric. Labeling of the intolerant as barbaric places them as a status that is less than civilized and is therefore used as justification for violence towards them. When viewed through Brown's eyes, it is difficult to view the War on Terror as anything more than imperialism, just one step short of colonialism. Brown states, "the native, the fanatic, the fundamentalist, and the bigot are what must be overcome by the society committed to tolerance" (Brown, p.184).

Brown demonstrates how the increase in 'tolerance talk' since the 1980s has been promoted by state, national, and nongovernmental bodies has become a form of regulatory practice. Practicing tolerance towards a cultural sub-group or minority has become a type of badge that proclaims one's credentials as a member of civilized society. Yet, one must maintain the group's separation and uniqueness. The differences remain, but it is virtuous and moral not to suppress them. Tolerance works in the private realm, but when the subject of tolerance moves into the political arena, it is transformed into intolerance.

Subjugation and Society

Plato believed that justice was the primary virtue upon which successful society is built. He further argued that justice is achieved by properly balancing wisdom, courage, and temperance. However, he did not feel that this balance was possible for the common person. This state of perfection could only be achieved by philosophers. Like Brown, Plato was never able to make his ideal society conform to what happens in real society and he died in prison as a result of his ideas, a victim of intolerance. Plato's, ideas disagree with Brown, but what happened in his real life, supports her vision of the evils of tolerance.

John Locke has been called the Father of classic liberalism. Liberalism advocates a system of government where citizens play a more active role in the political process. Locke sees tolerance for the beliefs of other as a necessity. Freedom of speech is a major precept of a successful society. Locke's position is that revolution against social order is an expression of he violence of the government in breach of its contract with the people (Keohane, p. 481). Locke and Brown would agree on several key points. Brown sees the government's embrace of the term tolerance as a means to legitimize its actions of intolerance. It gives the government the ability to enforce its own cultural and legal norms on others without public objection. This is the key argument that Brown makes throughout the body of the work. Tolerance protects the beliefs and ideas of others, yet at the same times distances them from the norms of the mainstream. Cultural differences are not rationalized, they are simply accepted as the way a society is. Minority cultures are to be respected, but not necessarily adopted by the mainstream.

The separation of private and public life has been a tool to achieve tolerance. Those differences that make each culture unique are not allowed to enter into public life, but must remain an area that is private. Brown argues that to relegate culture and belief to the private realm is to rob it of its communal nature. One's culture becomes a matter of personal preference, not an idea that should be used to build a community of like-minded people.

Brown further argues that relegating culture and belief to the private realm creates a society that has no "culture" of its own. The society would operate based on rational market principles alone, leaving morality to the individual. Brown sees the dark side of tolerance that declares "difference" as "dangerous in its nonliberalism, (hence not tolerable) or as merely religious, ethnic, or cultural (hence not a candidate for a political claim)" (Brown, p.174).

Plato argues that a hierarchy is necessary in order to make society work as a whole. When an emphasis is placed on equality, it results in a democracy, which Plato claims is the road to destruction as people continually pursue their own self-interests (Plato, p. 41). Brown could not disagree with Plato more when she makes a broad comparison between women in America and women in the Middle East. The point that she was trying to make is that political equality is different than cultural equality. She wanted to point out that women in American are still culturally subjugates. However, the example that she gives seems as more of an emotional response, than a factual comparison. Plato and Brown view subjugation in a differently. Plato sees it as a positive aspect of society, whereas Brown sees it as a negative attribute. Brown claims that to be tolerant, one must be in a position of power (Brown, p. 178). She sees tolerance as one way street. This comment a broad generalization and does not account for cases that do not fit the norm.