Tolerance: an urgent problem

      The topic of tolerance — the ability to accept the appearance, actions and opinions of others positively, without harassment or hatred — has taken on an ever-greater importance. Many scientific studies have examined different types of tolerance, with areas of focus including tolerance in communication, society, religion and ideology. It is difficult to find any aspect of modern social life not tied in some way to the issue of tolerance. Discussions of tolerance now actively involve not only religious leaders and the general public, but scientists and politicians.

     Tolerance toward personal appearance in contemporary society has become a topic of still more acute urgency as a result of multiculturalism and the general trend of democratization in most countries throughout the world. In both private and official spheres, attempts are being made to assess the admissibility of moral condemnation or legal restrictions as obstacles wearing of certain types of clothing.

     The fierceness of the debate often stems from the desire of members of ethnic or religious groups to wear traditional clothing in all settings. A striking example is the so-called "anti-hidzab wave," a bitter controversy over the legality of bans on wearing certain types of women's clothing, with disputes waged in France, Germany, Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands.

     The high-profile emergence of such seemingly minor issues (previously resolved on the primitive level of "like/dislike") indicates that in many respects tolerance toward others' personal appearance may have primary importance among the species of tolerance.  In social interaction, personal appearance, as the vessel a person creates as the most visible projection of the inner self, is assessed by others (both consciously and unconsciously) before any other factor.

     In speaking of the values placed on personal appearance, it must be kept in mind that socially accepted rules of conduct exist as relative concepts and depend on the cultural traditions of a given society.

     This work represents an attempt to apply universal, panhuman criteria in order to "develop common rules of conduct," seeking an optimal tolerance that may lie between infinitely tolerant and absolutely intolerant attitudes toward personal appearance.

The mechanism of perceiving personal appearance

     What gives us a basis for placing human personal appearance, directly or indirectly, in an exceptional position relative to the numerous other "tolerances"? Foremost, that the appearance has a fundamental role in the semantic fields for both the individual as "other" and the individual as "observer," carrying a significant part of the information transmitted from one person to another.

     The transmission and perception of information begins with visual contact between two individuals, occurring as an instantaneous mutual "identification" in order to determine where each stands as "friend or foe." This process may be likened to contact between a healthy and an infected person:  as long as the infection seems harmless, no active measures of defense are employed. Each person has the right to be "sick," but for any illness, specific "therapeutic measures" are recommended. These may be simply wishes — to wear or not to wear certain clothing. In other cases, the recommendations regarding appearance are established by law and take the form of a ban.

     In our view, tolerance toward appearance, as a component in human tolerance, can serve as a "litmus test" to reveal aspects of human culture in general, and of behavioral culture in particular.  Moreover, tolerance toward appearance may be considered key in determining an individual's, group's or community's degree of overall tolerance. The appearance of the "other" may in one case go unnoticed or ignored, but in another case may attract attention to varying degrees. We evaluate others' appearance based on subjective criteria. These criteria stem above all from the characteristics of the observers themselves.  What draws intense attention from one person may go entirely unnoticed by another.  However, the subjective opinion of each observer is determined by a number of objective factors:  individual mental traits, upbringing, life experiences and many other elements. In addition, individual reactions to the appearance of other people in a given setting depends on temporary factors:  mood, fatigue, the surrounding environment...

     Considering the situation of an individual with sound mental health and sufficient socialization, we may assume that the signal drawing attention to another person's appearance comes from the fixation of a definite difference between what is expected and habitual and what is actually encountered.

     An observer may take conscious note of a selection of dominant elements in another person's appearance, and different observers may notice different things.  Many details important in themselves may remain outside the field of conscious perception.  Thus for example the number of stars on epaulettes may go unnoticed (noticing only the presence of a "military uniform"), the pattern of a skirt (if it "catches the eye" only in being overly short) and the like.

     To analyze the phenomenon of selective awareness in the context of the "observer" viewpoint, the topic may be divided among the following items or questions:

- what draws the focused attention of the observer when perceiving another person's appearance (the content aspect)

- what goes unnoticed by the observer, or is deliberately ignored, but may be an object of unconscious fixation (the unconscious aspect of perception)

- the reason for the selective fixation on specific elements in the appearance (the causal-axiological aspect of perception).

     These three key questions may lend themselves, in a context of sociological testing, to a kind of "code cracking" of tolerance levels. Each of the answers to these questions corresponds to certain key aspects of the concept of tolerance.

     The first question approaches the subject from the content perspective.  In its answer, we inevitably encounter what might be called the quality of "strangeness," the distinction of this "thing" from what is commonly accepted among "others."

     The second aspect relates to the problem of unconsciously welcoming or ignoring the right of others to be different, to be "different from the majority," as well as the right of others to have a need for this distinction.

     The third aspect reflects/reveals the causal-axiological dimensions of perception.

Borders of tolerance

     In everyday situations, the degree of tolerance often depends on the observer's sense of security. The more comfortable a person feels, the easier it becomes to understand and accept others.

     A state of comfort, in most cases, is associated with habit:  the habitual represents security, and therefore comfort. In turn, habit, comfort and security are all concepts related to the unmanifested side of being, although supported namely by being's manifested elements.  On this basis, we can assume that the borders of tolerance have two "fronts": one manifested and one unmanifested. Perhaps this is why the phenomenon of tolerance concerns both psychologists, as specialists in the "unmanifested" front, and politicians, as representatives of the "manifested."  Psychologists study the issue in order to determine levels of tolerance and identify "risk groups."  Politicians, too, in dealing with tolerance issues, provide backing for laws governing the conduct of citizens, or establish general recommendations of an ethical nature (as in the Declaration of Principles on Tolerance, adopted by resolution 5.61 of the General Conference of UNESCO on November 16, 1995).

     In speaking of tolerance, we found it necessary to define various borders of tolerance. The author proposes to distinguish two distinct types of borders of tolerance — "external" and "internal" — for each individual. An apparent violation of these borders leads to the lessening (or complete disappearance) of a tolerant attitude — first toward the appearance of the "other," and then toward its "bearer."

     The criterion for a person breaching an external border of tolerance involves a sense of physical danger stemming from those whose appearance seems out of the ordinary,  This criterion can readily be linked to physical features: it is met when others appear capable of causing contamination, wounds, damage, injury.

     A basis for determining the external borders of tolerance may be found in one postulate of general (universal) morality — the principle of reverence for life, as expressed by Albert Schweitzer: "It is good to maintain and to encourage life; it is bad to destroy life or to obstruct it."

     The criterion for breaching the "internal" border of human tolerance involves a sense of psychological discomfort.  This discomfort is most frequently triggered by the individual unconscious.

     It should be noted that tolerance and its borders are connected, above all, with a cognitive component. Tolerance's cognitive component has a dual nature: it consists of an awareness of the borders of individual personalities (physical, intellectual, aesthetic), and of personal awareness of the real world's diversity. (Clearly, these borders may vary throughout a person's life.)

Levels of tolerance

     Tolerance toward appearance may, in our view, serve as the primary basis for diagnosing the state of general tolerance. It may therefore be helpful to use a kind of "quantitative" ratings scale for level of tolerance toward appearance. This scale could include the following conditional key gradations in the range of an individual's or society's tolerance:

• an approving, unconditional acceptance of the appearance of the "other,"

• a rational and tolerant attitude toward this appearance,

• an attitude of forced toleration,

• an attitude of indifference, and

• intolerance.

     An unconditionally approving attitude toward the appearance of the "other" is possible in a context of broad acceptance of the diverse, multi-faceted variety of the external world. This tolerance comes closest to what one definition describes as "the innate (natural) tolerance — openness, inquisitiveness, trustfulness — typical in a small child...," and as "the natural and unconditional acceptance of another person, who is viewed as an autonomous being with intrinsic worth...". Moreover, a person with this attitude will take pleasure in the diversity of people and their faces, in their clothing's unexpected variegations, viewing these as reflecting the many facets of nature and culture's richness. This is the highest level of tolerance.

     The next level of tolerance is a rationally tolerant attitude toward diverse human appearances. Such tolerance arises as an individual recognizes the diversity of the objective external world as a whole. This level of tolerance could be said to differ from the preceding type in only one respect — in its balance, free of emotionality (without approval, but with definite acceptance). This is a purely "intellectual," rationally grounded and durably principled position. In this kind of human tolerance, "tensions and conflict are far from disallowed... This is a genuine, mature, truly positive tolerance, based ... on a much greater awareness and acceptance of human reality".

     The following level of tolerance is characterized by forced toleration — that is, the tolerance of one person forced to endure another out of a need to observe decorum, avoiding ridicule or accusations of poor manners, intolerance, xenophobia or extremism.  Such a "conciliatory" tolerance, sometimes emphatically declared by individuals, is fraught with internal neurotic tension stemming from the contradiction between the individual's outward, manifested conduct and his unmanifested emotions. This situation comes loaded with potential for an "outburst," when the suppressed emotions lead to intensified internal aggression, which then reaches the point of outward display. This level of tolerance is in fact a kind of deferred readiness for intolerance.

     A further reduction in tolerance levels is characterized by an indifferent attitude toward the appearance of the "other," who is regarded with complete apathy.  The root of this is simply a "who cares" attitude, demonstrating egoism. Formally, tolerance is present here, but it is motivated either by the individual's anti-social tendencies or, on the other hand, zealous reliance on a politically correct determination "not to notice," "not to react." In our view, namely this level gives rise to the prerequisites for a possible shift from tolerance to intolerance.

     The following levels of tolerance have "negative" connotations and essentially represent intolerance, with several possible gradations. A minimum level of intolerance may be shown in antagonism toward another person's appearance "by conviction," implying, for example, displays of open antagonism, sidelong glances, openly expressed irritation, uncomplimentary remarks or shouts at those whose appearance is perceived as negative. This antagonism is expressed in a hostile attitude within the bounds of law. Taken further, it can develop into open protest, agitation or propaganda of intolerance toward the "different" appearance. Then there is a possible transition to a sharply negative attitude, leading to direct acts of aggression in violation of legal norms.  Examples of the active persecution of "outsiders" on the basis of appearance may include harassment, bullying or murder.

     Of course, other valid gradations may be proposed for determining levels of tolerance or intolerance.

Stable and dynamic borders of tolerance

     An important parameter characterizing attitudes toward others' appearance is the notion of the stability of tolerance (that is, the stability or permanence of certain personal attitudes and beliefs).  In our view, this concept should be applied to the entire quantitative scale of levels examined above: both tolerance and intolerance may be stable as well as unstable.  In particular, intolerance may prove very stable and persist in individuals or a community group for decades.  On the other hand, a fairly high tolerance level may prove unstable — various topical influences may lead to a rapid shift to intolerance (one example might be the aftermath of a terrorist attack).

     It is proposed to distinguish three degrees of stability of tolerance / intolerance — high, mid-range and low.

     1. A high degree of stability of tolerance / intolerance (maximum stability) arises out of a stable system of human perspectives, a deep understanding of the value of human life (or, in the case of intolerance, out of complete disregard for this value). Effectively, stability of tolerance reaches this degree in a life strategy supporting humanity's preservation as a species, or in unswervingly fanatical adherence to any "overruling" idea (in the case of intolerance).

     2. A low degree of stability of tolerance / intolerance (instability) arises from a mental state that recalls "limping," "stumbling" over some aspect of tolerance — for example, over a specific appearance. Unstable tolerance may be stabilized through measures aimed at strengthening "limping" types of tolerance or by giving broader support for its unstable parts by invigorating other, more stable ones.

     3. It is also possible to speak of an intermediary mid-range degree of stability of tolerance / intolerance — an area that lies between high and low stability.

     It should be noted that the external and internal borders of tolerance examined above may shift and change throughout a human life in proportion to the individual's spiritual and moral development.  However, the external border is generally more stable and changes not so much in connection with the dynamic features of the personality itself so much as under the influence of changes in the surrounding environment's degree of security (for example, a city where an act of terrorism has recently occurred may experience a sudden — possibly short-lived — contraction of the borders of tolerance among many residents).

     The borders of tolerance may shift not only for distinct individuals but also for many groups in human society — the borders change in proportion to the development of social consciousness.  On the whole, taking a fairly long-term view of history, there does seem to have been a significant expansion in the internal borders of tolerance among the representatives of certain civilizations, even as the external borders — for all of humanity — have remained essentially unchanged.

     Dynamism in the borders of tolerance is a precondition for achieving influence over social groups in order to optimize an area (field) of tolerance.

The field of tolerance

     Based on the above analysis, we introduce the concept of a two-dimensional field of tolerance, in which the parameter of "individual tolerance to another's appearance" is represented as a point in a rectangular coordinate system. In this system (see figure), the positive values of the y-axis correspond to the levels of tolerance (LT) considered above, while the negative represent levels of intolerance (LI); between them is a buffer area of the indifferent attitude toward appearance, close to "zero tolerance." The x-axis includes three distinct bands of degrees of stability of tolerance (DST) - low, mid-range and high.

Translation of the above figure:

Map of tolerance

(with a sample presentation of data from a sociological survey)

X-axis: 

•          Low

•          Mid-range

•          High

Y-axis:

•          Unconditionally approving attitude

•          Rationally tolerant attitude

•          Forced toleration

•          Indifferent attitude

•          Hostile attitude within bounds of law

•          Aggressive attitude with violation of legal norms]

  As an example, the figure shows a possible distribution of the percentage of respondents in the zones of a map of tolerance (a distribution potentially resulting from a hypothetical poll).  At the right of and below the map are shown the calculated total values of percentage distribution of respondents by the LT-LI bands and the DST bands.

     As shown in the figure, the field of tolerance is broken into 18 zones of tolerance, each of which lies at the intersection of one of the bands of DST with one of the bands of LT or LI. The set of zones obtained in this manner, our so-called map of tolerance, may be used for visual depictions of the results of sociological surveys.  (It is assumed that each zone corresponds to a certain band of scores on the DST scale and the LT-LI scale — along the lines of the scoring system used in V.V. Boyko's test of communicative tolerance.)

     Maps of tolerance, as in the model considered here, may be used in the development of various socio-psychological methods for correcting the tolerance of certain population groups.  In particular, the following tolerance optimization algorithm could apply.

     1. On the map of tolerance, a core of tolerance may emerge — one or more areas with the greatest percentage of respondents. The number of these zones is arranged so that more than half the respondents fall into the core of tolerance.  Thus, in this example, the core of tolerance consists of four zones, with the total percentage of respondents distributed as 25 + 10 + 10 + 9 = 54% (in the figure, these zones are shaded).

     2. For each of the largest subgroups of respondents (the core zone of tolerance), an individual program for tolerance correction is developed.  In this example, it could be inferred that the two subgroups (with the percentage of respondents 25 or 10) need a boost in their degree of stability of tolerance.  At the same time, we may conclude that for one of the core subgroups (with 9% of respondents), it would be advisable to pursue an increased level of tolerance — to shift the intolerance of this subgroup's members at least to minimal tolerance.

     3. For each subgroup, specific methodologies of socio-psychological tolerance correction are developed.  Methods of influencing the subgroup's members should be determined based on the idea of the borders of tolerance considered above.

     In addition, the methodology of psychologically influencing members of the subgroup should account for respondents' answers to the above three key questions: "Where does the given individual's attention focus?", "What doesn't the individual notice?" and "What is the reason for this selective fixation on the appearance?" In the process of sociological testing, answers to these questions may help in deciphering the individual's level of tolerance.

     4. After the completion of the tolerance correction program's various stages, there are periodically repeated surveys of members of the same group, and the survey results drive the formation of new maps of tolerance.  The comparison of these with maps from earlier periods gives a way to assess the effectiveness of the measures taken for tolerance correction and to identity areas for seeking to influence the respective subgroups of the population group being studied.

     The evaluation methods and the optimization algorithm developed for tolerance toward the appearance may be used in studying other types of tolerance.

One option for correcting the field of tolerance

      It should be noted that the general concept of tolerance has some similarities with fashion in its broadest sense: both seek to define human attitudes toward the new and still unfamiliar.  Accordingly, tolerance toward unusual, seemingly "inappropriate" forms of clothing has much in common with tolerance toward new clothing styles.  Both types of tolerance essentially relate to attitudes toward individual human appearance.

     It is also possible to trace similarities between the dynamic borders of tolerance and dynamic standards in fashion, so indispensible to the fashion industry.  In both cases we are dealing with the typical dialectical process of removing contradictions as development occurs — in the case of styles in clothing, through the appearance of new standards for fashion, and in the case of tolerance toward appearance, by establishing or abolishing the corresponding relevant regulations.  Examples of such regulations could be the French king Philip the Fair's ordinance on clothing of 1298 or the seven ordinances of 1550-1698 preserved in the archives of the city of Leipzig.

     An historical example of establishing guidelines for appearance by means of rules directed toward certain ethical and faith-based goals, going beyond caste and hierarchical distinctions, may be found in the traditional practice of Buddhism. These rules are codified in the canonical Theravada Buddhist texts, which provide detailed explanations of the conditions and causes of the rules' origins.

     A new standard for clothing styles will violate the old standard, and therefore also certain preexisting ties in society, only to the extent that this is necessary in order to establish a more relevant causal tie for optimizing the whole system of "living conditions as life" under different, contemporary conditions.

     Similarly, the state of the field of tolerance toward appearance signals the existing conditions of "comfort" and security, and sometimes the need to change certain conditions of life or its quality. Therefore, these concerns also involve working to optimize the system of "living conditions as life" under new socio-cultural conditions.

     In this way, "fashion is decontextualized and recontextualized, and types of clothing borrowed from other traditions no longer have a definite origin." The deliberate introduction of ethnic elements into clothing styles can be seen as a kind of "vaccine" boosting society's "immunity" to appearances.

     Contemporary clothing styles that cause a relaxation of social conservatism may be regarded as a "form of systematic training for the human capacity for constant change".  In turn, the history of the fashion industry shows that the "legitimized" inclusion of elements from a variety of ethnic cultures not only satisfies society's demand for novelty, but also increases the level of tolerance toward appearance.