When Intolerance is Necessary

The paradox of tolerance, I find, is oft-cited in liberal circles. Advanced by philosopher Karl Popper, it states that unbridled tolerance, including that of the intolerant, will lead to the loss of tolerance entirely. To use Popper’s own words, “In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.” For the purposes of my argument, I will postulate that most agree with this statement. The debate, however, lies in what can be qualified as “intolerance” and the degree to which we must stringently censor the “intolerant.”

In this day and age, the paradox of tolerance goes hand-in-hand with political correctness and woke culture. Wokeness extends beyond simple awareness of issues relating to social justice and equity—it encourages active promotion of equity in social interactions. Some pundits in the mainstream media claim that wokeness stems from misguided arrogance. They claim that those who identify with wokeness have a false sense of superiority that compels them to lead others to conform to their behavioral standards. 

This perspective is not simply espoused by conservatives. Timothy Egan of the New York Times recently wrote an article entitled “How the Insufferably Woke Help Trump.” He argues that liberals shoot themselves in the foot through their condescension, falsely believing in their own moral correctness. In fact, his subtitle read, “Democrats are insulting and condescending to the swing-state voters they need the most.” 

All too often, individuals argue against woke culture without acknowledging its purpose. These intentions are important, and they are noble. Primarily, woke culture’s aims are to generate social change and foster inclusivity and equity. Woke culture attempts to help historically marginalized people feel more welcome in a culture that has not always included their voices and respected their personhood. No matter what your political beliefs, you have to acknowledge that these intentions are just ones.

These anti-wokeness arguments further belie the fact that wokeness often comes from a place of hurt. You can disagree with their methods, but you cannot simply dismiss the woke as arrogant. Many of them are simply young people who feel marginalized by the dominant (and dominantly white) culture of the United States. These people turn to the internet to empower themselves and unite with others. They hope to diminish the intolerance that they feel from others to preserve what little tolerance already exists. To tell them to simply cut it out is callous and, rather ironically, condescending as well.

Moreover, woke culture’s detractors expect the woke to simply back off without meeting them halfway. People moan and groan about how woke culture has imposed restrictions upon them, but they’d be hard-pressed to cite the ways that they have attempted to compromise. Rarely do those who rail against political correctness try to engage in discourse with the woke. Rarely do they attempt to listen, nor do they attempt to understand how slight changes in their behavior can have an impact on whether others feel accepted and respected. Instead, they dismiss woke culture as an annoyance. In doing so, they propagate the prejudiced assertion that marginalized people should just accept the dominant culture and do nothing to attempt to change it. 

But let’s talk about the way that the woke partake in discourse with others. Oftentimes, conversations between the woke and those who disagree may feel like condemnations. The woke do struggle to convey their message in a constructive fashion. They struggle to reach across the aisle and sway others to their  side. This is seen in such trends as “cancelling,” whereby members of the woke publicly condemn an individual whose words or actions they perceive as offensive. The choice by many of the woke to attack, rather than respectfully and civilly discuss, has been criticized heavily by such liberals as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. 

Still, with the understanding that these methods are imperfect, it is important that we consider why they are employed. I believe that many of the woke have tried to thoughtfully and constructively strike discourses with those who disagree with them. I believe that, in the past, people who believe in social equity have made good-faith attempts to explain why political correctness is not simply a burden, why terminology, speech and cultural practices matter. And I know that many have not felt heard—I know that many continue to feel that this culture, this country, does not welcome them. It is understandable, then, that they turn to other ways to voice their frustrations. 

Let’s take this argument from the abstract to tangible. After the protest two weeks ago, I heard members of this community hold it as an example of woke culture’s faults. They articulated their qualms about the protest’s execution, as I did in The Exonian. Many failed to acknowledge that the protest came from a place of hurt. Many, including myself, also failed to acknowledge that the protest was planned under a state of similar hurt and anguish. Like myself, they failed to fully empathize with those who organized and planned the protest and reduced all that hurt to how it was expressed. 

In some ways, what happened at Exeter reflects what happens across this country.

When we talk about the “woke,” we need to acknowledge the systemic, historic marginalization that many of them have faced. We need to move beyond the methods the woke use and move into why these methods are necessary in the first place. Of course, I am not saying that we should just accept those methods of expression we disagree with. Still, I ask that people—liberals and conservatives alike—think critically about the why, not just the what. In interactions with the woke, people should not be so quick to defend and retort. Instead, they should ask themselves one question: “Why do the woke take issue here?” Perhaps, it will lead them to a greater understanding of not just woke culture, but the way people exist in relation to each other in society at-large.