The problem of tolerance. The problem of tolerance: history and modernity

Exacerbation in Lately interest in the problem of tolerance is a noticeable side of both ordinary and theoretical consciousness. This interest has important political and cultural grounds. The dominant view in the mass consciousness is that there is a lack of tolerance in the world. At the same time, there is a growing understanding that tolerance cannot be considered a panacea for all the ills of the modern world. With the naked eye you can see that intolerance of differences (racial, ethnic, religious, age, gender, etc.) can lead people to catastrophic consequences. However, one cannot help but see that connivance and indulgence may not to a lesser extent shake human world. So the problem of tolerance is not as simple as it might seem at first glance.

Pluralism of values and vagueness of norms in modern culture determined the need to develop the very concept of tolerance. The problem of tolerance is now the subject of attention of many sciences, and in each of them this term is filled with its own specific content. Thus, from an ethical point of view, tolerance represents the norm of civilized compromise between competing cultures and the willingness to accept other views. IN political science Tolerance is the willingness of the authorities to allow dissent in society. From a philosophical position, tolerance acts as an ideological category that reflects the universal rule of active attitude towards others. The “New Philosophical Encyclopedia” (2001, vol. IV, p. 75) gives the following definition: “Tolerance is a quality that characterizes the attitude towards another person as an equally worthy person and is expressed in the conscious suppression of the feeling of rejection of someone else.”

The word?tolerance? its roots go back to Latin language. The Latin term "tolerantia" meant "endurance", "passive patience", "voluntary enduring of suffering." In the 16th century other meanings are added: “permission”, “restraint”, “concession on the issue of religious freedom”. In the traditional sense, the word tolerance is perceived as tolerance for other people's behavior, other people's opinions, other people's beliefs. This interpretation seems too amorphous and needs to be specified.

Tolerance is a value necessary and fundamental for the realization of human rights and the achievement of peace. In its basic form, tolerance is the recognition of others' right to respect for their person and self-identity. For the first time, new European political and social values, established in modern times in the process of development of free enterprise, democratization of politics and power, and which served as the basis for today's international human rights standards, were defined in a call for tolerance as a fundamental value for the establishment of a new social order. Western political thinkers clearly expressed the idea of the need for tolerance for a society that could no longer tolerate the intolerance and hostility caused by the religious wars of the 16th-17th centuries. It is the recognition of tolerance as necessary condition Peace between nations helped to create the historical atmosphere that gave rise to the first European declarations of rights, which became the forerunner of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted on December 10, 1948.

Tolerance cannot at all act as an eternal abstract value or some kind of categorical imperative that must be followed automatically, regardless of the specific historical situation. Tolerance has a history and it shows that at a certain stage of existence human society there was no tolerance. Then, in the context of certain historical realities, a demand for tolerance arose. But, having arisen once, it no longer left the ethics of the Western world, however, the content of this concept changed from century to century. Tolerance is not a recent idea. On the contrary, scholars of the history of this term emphasize that tolerance was a principle of interreligious dialogue already in the Middle Ages. The need to prove one’s rightness not by force, but by word, required attention to other people’s opinions and developed various interpretations. Historically, the first and dominant form of manifestation of tolerance is religious tolerance. Understanding the problem of tolerance as freedom of conscience is typical for humanists (E. Rotterdamsky, T. More) and figures of the Reformation (M. Luther). The split of Western Christianity into Catholicism and Protestantism has led to the need to discuss the problem of the coexistence of different churches and different religious beliefs. This problem is especially acutely raised by J. Locke in his “Epistle on Tolerance” (1689), which the classics of the ideology of liberalism call a manifesto of tolerance. It reveals not only its principles, but also indicates the conditions in which it is possible: civil society, a state that recognizes supreme goal its development for the benefit of the individual citizen, the church formed as a free community of free citizens. It was important for Locke to defend the rights of new Protestant movements, the emergence and existence of which was directly related to the emergence of bourgeois culture and the ideology of individualism. Main argument Locke's defense of toleration amounts to an assertion of the fundamental irrationality of forced belief. Such coercion simply does not achieve its goal, since it is not capable of convincing a person to sincerely accept the belief imposed on him. Refusal of violence as a means of introducing a person to faith and emphasis on the sincerity of beliefs, subject to voluntary entry into the community of believers - these are the two main arguments in favor of tolerance in the 17th century. In Locke's works, tolerance acquires the features of a theory, which is why the origins of the conceptual justification of this concept and the first stage in the development of the problematic of tolerance are associated with his name.

During the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century. there is a theoretical understanding and practical implementation of the principle of tolerance. Thanks to the enlighteners, the concept of?tolerance? firmly entered the political vocabulary.

In the 19th century the problem of tolerance was developed in liberal philosophy, where it was understood as an expression of internal and external freedom, as the ability to make a thoughtful choice between alternative points of view and modes of behavior. Work by J. St. Mill's (1806-1873) “On Liberty” (1859) is considered as the second stage in the development of the issue of tolerance. It directly connects tolerance with the principles of justice and freedom. Society offers a person certain rules of life and imposes a type of behavior that deprives a character of individuality. Therefore, according to Mill, as far as he personally is concerned, the individual must be completely autocratic. A person cannot give up stereotypes, because standards of behavior form a field of freedom for the individual in the sense that the behavior of others is predictable, and everyone knows what to expect from the other, but at the same time the possibility of developing individuality must be preserved. The individual is understood by Mill as the “absolute sovereign” over his own life, and therefore tolerance for his opinions and behavior naturally follows from the principles of individual autonomy and freedom. Mill defines individual freedom as the citizen's right to autonomy in everything that does not cause harm to society. Freedom can only be limited by the principle of not causing harm to other members of society. Mill believed that people should be equal in a tolerant attitude, i.e. the subject and object of tolerance should not suffer from a tolerant strategy of behavior.

Already at this stage of development of the theory of tolerance, two main directions can be distinguished in determining the content of this concept. Firstly, tolerance is considered as a principle of dialogue, relations between certain social groups or public associations. Secondly, tolerance is interpreted as the right of an individual not to change his values, his character, if this does not violate the freedom of others and the rules of behavior in society, i.e. tolerance is seen as a condition for the development of individuality.
This interpretation of tolerance was subject to significant criticism in the 20th century, when the question arose not only of the coexistence of peoples and religious denominations in Europe, but also the problem of coexistence of different ethnic communities within individual states arose, legal system which is oriented towards democratic principles. Migration processes that developed after the Second World War led to a collision cultural stereotypes who had previously interacted quite peacefully. The question arose about the value of tolerance, since it leads to violation traditional cultures new priorities. As a result, new approaches to understanding tolerance within a pluralistic society are beginning to be developed, which is clearly reflected in John Rawls’s essay “A Theory of Justice” (1971), which is recognized as the third stage in the development of the liberal theory of tolerance. Rawls's principle of tolerance is dictated by his concept of "justice as fairness", based on the fundamental equality of all members of society. In order to find principles of justice, a person must put himself in a situation in which he must negotiate with others about what is fair. In such a situation, people would be guided by the principle of maximizing the minimum, i.e. would choose this social order, which would ensure the maximum welfare of its minimally wealthy members. Tolerance here is one of the main conditions of justice. The fact is that in any political discussions a person cannot be guided by his own private considerations about what is good for all mankind, for this would contradict the original position in which the principles of justice are chosen. For political discussions, according to Rawls, the principle of “superiority of right over good” is correct, in essence, and representing a concretization of the principle of tolerance.

Another representative of the liberal tradition of tolerance, Peter Nicholson, in his fundamental article “Tolerance as moral ideal" (1985) defines tolerance as an attitude based on six characteristics:

1. Deviation. What is treated with tolerance deviates from what the subject of tolerance thinks about as a matter of course, or from what he does as a matter of course.
2. Importance. The subject of deviation is not trivial.
3. Disagreement. The tolerant subject morally disagrees with the deviation.
4. Strength. The subject of tolerance has the power necessary to attempt to suppress or prevent or interfere with the subject of tolerance.
5. Non-rejection. However, the subject of tolerance does not use his power, thereby allowing deviation to exist.
6. Goodness. Tolerance is true, and the tolerant subject is good. This characteristic is debatable.

As a result, “tolerance is the virtue of refraining from using force to interfere with the opinion or action of another, even though they deviate in some important way from the opinion or action of the subject of tolerance and although the latter morally disagrees with them.” Moreover, tolerance is a good thing. However, while pointing out the theoretical possibility of understanding tolerance as an independent good, Nicholson actually says very little about how it is even possible. After all, if tolerance is a good-in-itself, then it does not need any justification for this goodness. Meanwhile, the goodness of tolerance is its most controversial characteristic. If the value of tolerance needs philosophical justification for its establishment in society, how can we talk about its inner goodness? Therefore, theorists prefer to talk about respect for an individual in case of moral disagreement with the opinions or actions of this individual. This formula is reminiscent of the Christian commandment about hatred of sin, but love for the sinner. However, history shows the danger of such an understanding, because it is not at all clear why respect for an individual should prevent the fight against the opinions or actions of this individual; in the same way, love for the sinner did not prevent the Inquisition from eradicating heresy and even encouraged it to do so. Understanding this danger forces us to introduce the principle of respect for human rights, the concept of which resurrects Mill's principle of individual autonomy and again leads us away from the interpretation of tolerance as a good in itself.

The followers of the liberal concept of tolerance, with its pronounced individualistic orientation, had many critics who argued that tolerance cannot act as a universal value. Each person is a representative of a certain ethnic group, a certain social class, a certain region, etc., therefore it is impossible to force him to accept the principle of tolerance if it is not obvious as unconditionally valuable. The need to study the social practices of establishing justice and tolerant communication, formed in various cultures, began to be discussed in order to find ways to establish the principles of interethnic and interfaith communication.

Modern criticism of the value of tolerance originates from Herbert Marcuse's pamphlet A Critique of Pure Tolerance (1969). In it, the author argues that in the modern world, tolerance, having lost touch with the truth, has ceased to be a “revolutionary virtue”, but has turned into “pure tolerance”, which contributes to maintaining the status quo rather than changing the existing order. And this serves as a death sentence for “repressive tolerance” and encourages us to look for a different, “discriminatory tolerance.”

In recent years, in modern political philosophy, the value of tolerance has been criticized by both political left and political right philosophers. To date, there is no developed complete theory that would be a response to this criticism. Meanwhile whole line philosophers are currently working to resolve this problem. IN modern literature In this regard, tolerance is increasingly being discussed about multiculturalism as a principle that presupposes the possibility of autonomous development of different communities within one society, preserving the diversity of values and ideals existing in society, and ways of organizing living space. The principle of multiculturalism poses the problem of pluralism of the bases of tolerance and excludes the possibility of finding a single formula of tolerance with which everyone would agree. An attempt to create such a pluralistic theory of tolerance was made by Michael Walzer in his book “On Tolerance” (1997). The author writes that tolerance “ensures life itself, for persecution is often carried out to death; In addition, it provides social life, the life of those diverse communities in which we all live.” Based on this, Walzer formulates a beautiful aphorism: “Tolerance makes difference possible; differences determine the need for tolerance.” Walzer views tolerance as a whole spectrum of attitudes: 1) submissive acceptance for the sake of peace; 2) passive, relaxed indifference; 3) the fundamental recognition that the other has rights, even if he exercises them in an unattractive way; 4) openness to others, curiosity; 5) approval of difference. Tolerance is possible only in conditions of peaceful coexistence of groups of people with different history, culture and identity. Developing the problem of coexistence, the author names and explores five “tolerant regimes”: multinational empires, consociational regimes, the international community, nation states and immigrant communities. Because of this diversity, Walzer suggests that practical issues of tolerance, such as those of religion, education, and gender, must be addressed differently in different political and cultural contexts.

IN modern philosophy tolerance is understood as a very problematic, contradictory and even paradoxical concept. The logical paradox of tolerance lies in the contradictory assertion of the goodness of abstinence from the prevention of moral evil. The British researcher Susan Mendus, in her monograph “Tolerance and the Limits of Liberalism” (1989), which has become a classic for the modern theory of tolerance, illustrates this paradox with the words of Bossuet: “I have the right to persecute you because I am right and you are wrong.” Another British moral philosopher, B. Williams, states that since tolerance is required only for that which cannot be tolerated, it represents some kind of “impossible virtue?” The logical paradox of tolerance gives rise to difficulties practical application this concept to phenomena public life(for example, drug addiction and pedophilia). These difficulties lead many modern philosophers to the concept of tolerance as an instrumental value, i.e. something that contributes to the achievement of another, more significant value. Because of this, tolerance is considered not as a goal, but as a means, as a minimum requirement for social relations. Only in a tolerant society can the full development of the true capabilities of man and society be achieved.

The history of tolerance as a theoretical issue and contemporary discussions in this area indicate that tolerance cannot currently be considered solely as a fashionable slogan or as a tribute to political fashion. Now the following questions are especially acute: how can a tolerant attitude be formed? How can we solve the problem of interethnic conflicts? What should be the tolerance strategy today? what are the limits of tolerance? In the modern theory of tolerance there are no unambiguous answers to the questions posed. And the theory of tolerance itself, which would meet the characteristics of a modern multicultural pluralistic society and the processes of globalization and would provide the necessary political and moral consensus in such a society, has not yet been developed. Discussions about tolerance as a value continue. Tolerance remains one of the most controversial values of modern society. However, this inconsistency does not diminish its significance, but rather reflects the extreme complexity of the world in which one is doomed to live. modern man. One can agree with the German researcher A. Fromman, who claims that tolerance is very difficult.

LITERATURE

1. Bondyreva S.K., Kolesov D.V. Tolerance (introduction to the problem). - M., 2003.
2. Age of tolerance. - 2001. - Issue. 1-2.
3. Lektorsky V.A. On tolerance, pluralism and criticism // Questions of Philosophy. - 1997. - No. 11.
4. Linguistic and cultural problems of tolerance: Abstract. report inter-dunar. conf. Ekaterinburg, October 24-26, 2001 - Ekaterinburg, 2001.
5. Logic of tolerance and law: Scientific materials. conf. Ekaterinburg, December 24-25, 2001 - Ekaterinburg, 2002.
6. On the way to tolerant consciousness. - M., 2000.
7. Pertsev A.V. Life strategy of tolerance: the problem of formation in Russia and the West. - Ekaterinburg, 2002.
8. “Epistle on Toleration” by John Locke: points of view / General. ed. M.B. Khomyakova. - Ekaterinburg, 2002.
9. Reardon B.E. Tolerance is the road to peace. - M., 2001.
10. Skvortsov L.V. Tolerance: an illusion or a means of salvation // October. - 1997. - No. 3.
11. Tolerance // Modern philosophical dictionary. - M., 2004. - P. 726-730.
12. Tolerance. Research, translations, information about books. Bulletin of the Ural Interregional Institute of Social Sciences. - 2001. - No. 1.
13. Tolerance in the context of diversity Russian culture: Theses of the international. scientific conf. May 29-30, 2001 - Ekaterinburg, 2001.
14. Tolerance in a society of differences: Collective monograph / Ed. V.E. Kemerova, T.Kh. Kerimova, A.Yu. Zenkova. - Vol. 15. - Ekaterinburg, 2005.
15. Tolerance in modern civilization: Materials of international. conf. Ekaterinburg, May 14-19, 2001 / Ed. M.B. Khomyakova. - Ekaterinburg, 2001.
16. Tolerance and non-violence: theory and international experience: Materials of the Winter School of Young Teachers of the Ural-Siberian Region (Ekaterinburg, January-February 2000). - Ekaterinburg, 2000. - Part 1-2.
17. Tolerance and education: modern problems of the formation of tolerant consciousness: Collective monograph / Rep. ed. A.V. Pertsev. - Ekaterinburg, 2006.
18. Tolerance and polysubjective sociality. - Ekaterinburg, 2001.
19. Tolerance and consent. - M., 1997.
20. Tolerance: Materials from the school of young scientists “Russia - West: philosophical foundations of sociocultural tolerance.” - Ekaterinburg, 2001.
21. Walzer M. On tolerance / Transl. from English I. Mürnberg. - M., 2000.
22. Philosophical and linguocultural problems of tolerance: Collective monograph / Rep. ed. ON THE. Kupina and M.B. Khomyakov. - M., 2005.
23. Khomyakov M.B. The problem of tolerance in Christian philosophy. - Ekaterinburg, 2000.

interethnic schoolboy tolerance

Currently, international cooperation is actively developing, there is a gradual interpenetration of cultures through the exchange of information in various fields human activity. Human communities belonging to different nations, countries and continents cease to be isolated. We are united not only by one planet Earth, but also by common interests of survival on this planet, the development of civilization, the development of cultures. All this requires interaction, mutual understanding and cooperation. This requires a basic understanding of each other, knowledge of the languages and cultures of other peoples. In particular, this occurs when lexical units move from one language to another, as a result of which the vocabulary of each language is enriched separately.

However, a number of contradictions have intensified in Russia, in particular, the contradiction between the growth national identity resulting in an attempt at revival national cultures, and the actual unpreparedness of society for a positive perception of the entire national diversity of our multicultural society.

Raising a tolerant personality is currently one of the most important social problems. Difficulties in mutual understanding that naturally arise among people due to racial, national, age, gender and other differences in the situation of their constant intensive interaction lead to an increase in psychological tension, cultural intolerance, interethnic aggression, and religious extremism.

It is impossible to overcome these crisis phenomena only through political and economic decisions. The roots of the problem lie deep in the human psyche. It is necessary to build tolerance, teach people to interact effectively and peacefully when solving problems complex issues that modern life poses to them.

Besonov A.B. notes that the formation of tolerance should be the task of the school as an educational institution. Moreover, this educational work should begin from the first grades. For many children, it is at school that they first become members of a relatively stable group of peers.

If at this stage adults do not help children develop such a quality as tolerance, if they do not develop the skills of tolerant interaction, children may spontaneously develop an intolerant worldview, which will not be easy to change in the future.

Most authors studying this problem agree that when considering the concept of “tolerance,” two conditions are essential: the presence of interaction with the environment, “pushing” the organism to change, and the absence qualitative changes body.

Accordingly, intolerance has two opposite poles of manifestation: destruction of the organism when interacting with the environment or refusal to interact with the environment, leading to the death of the organism.

Experience shows that within the framework of traditional education, spontaneous formation of tolerance does not occur in children. This poses two tasks for us: studying the psychological mechanism of tolerance formation and identifying a set of psychological conditions, under which the formation of tolerance will proceed most effectively.

The problem of the culture of interethnic interaction and tolerance is especially relevant for the multi-ethnic regions of our country. This is one of the most difficult problems educators have ever faced.

We are witnessing more and more tangible trends reflecting the desire of ethnic groups to revive, preserve and develop their national traditions, language and establish modern culture at the personal and group levels through national forms and symbols. At the same time, these ideas, which are inherently progressive and productive for improving educational systems, are perceived: extremely one-sidedly, outside the context of a single federal and cultural space, outside the principle of dialogic education. This is especially evident in multi-ethnic regions, in which the formation of an individual as a representative of one’s ethnic group directly depends on the degree of harmonization of the cultural interests of the ethnic group and its multinational environment. Dialogue of cultures in multiethnic cultural environment is possible only when each of its subjects, aware of their self-worth and originality, sees, understands and accepts the values of the other partner in this dialogue. If this does not happen, then the phenomena of either ethnocentrism and cultural nationalism, or cultural totalitarianism arise, when the state, defending its interests, inhibits the development of national cultures. These manifestations negatively affect both the development of traditional cultures and interethnic relations.

Analysis practical activities schools in some large multi-ethnic regions shows that in the training and education of schoolchildren, regional material is not sufficiently taken into account and there is no provision for studying the ethnic culture of the peoples of the region where the child lives. The culture of ethnic groups inherent in a given region is not fully applied; as an effective means of developing interethnic tolerance among schoolchildren.

The development of interethnic tolerance of a schoolchild in the process of: studying regional culture requires improvement of classes on the study of traditions, customs, rules, rituals, folklore, art based on a rational combination of forms and methods aimed at understanding national and universal values, the foundations of world and domestic culture, revealing a holistic picture of the world and ensuring the child’s understanding of it. Therefore, there is a need to develop a concept for the formation of interethnic tolerance among schoolchildren, based on the study of ethnic culture, peoples living in the same territory, as the main factor in their intensive development and spiritual self-enrichment.

To solve the problem of developing tolerance in junior schoolchildren we contacted general theories personality formation, in particular the personality of a child of primary school age (E. Erickson, L. Kolberg, D.B. Elkonin, V.S. Mukhina, G.A. Tsukerman, E.L. Melnikova, etc.). The generally accepted point of view on the development of a child’s personality presupposes, on the one hand, the role of an adult in this process, and on the other, the role of the emotional component, the affective attitude of the adult to the child and the child to the adult’s assessments.

It has been established that the development moral feelings occurs as a result of the “relocation inside” of normative knowledge and those moral feelings that arise in a child under the influence of evaluation from an adult. A child’s rational and affective attitude towards rules and moral norms develops through the emotional and evaluative attitude of an adult towards him.

On this basis, we concluded that the mechanism for the formation of tolerance should be based on the work of an adult with the emotions of a child. This is a mechanism for translating cognitive content into emotional content. E.L. Yakovleva reveals the essence of the principle of transformation as follows: “In order for the problem to be solved, a person needs to understand his attitude towards this, i.e. what feelings (not thoughts) he has about this.”

Children need to gain such an experience when they fully feel that as a result of creative active action in problematic situation It is possible to realize your own uniqueness by maintaining and developing positive relationships with your immediate environment. It is important that there is a positive assessment from a significant adult.

The term “tolerance” first appeared in 1953. The English immunologist Medawar meant by tolerance a property of the immune system in which the body perceives a foreign body as its own and does not react to it in any way.

Subsequently, the word “tolerance” began to be used by other scientific disciplines, in each of which it acquired its own special meaning. In the article we will look at what this concept means, synonyms for the word “tolerance”, and also outline the main problems of tolerance, justifying them with statements from fiction.

Tolerance is...

So what is tolerance? The definition of this term is most often referred to as tolerance of the behavior, culture and ethnicity of others. In sociology, tolerance is viewed as patience for a different way of life. But this does not mean at all that this term is a synonym for the word “indifferent”. It can be regarded as an opportunity to give others the right to live as they see fit.

In philosophy, the word “tolerance” means patience with other views and habits. In society, this quality is needed in order to exist peacefully with people of other faiths, national and religious affiliations.

Ethical sciences define tolerance as the ability to calmly and without aggression perceive all forms of self-expression of another person. Here the main synonyms for tolerance are the concepts of benevolence and tolerance.

Definition problem

In general, synonyms for tolerance are concepts such as respect, understanding and acceptance.

Tolerance cannot be called concession, indulgence or leniency; moreover, it does not mean tolerance of injustice on the part of another person or rejection of one’s own worldview and behavioral characteristics.

You can consider many definitions of tolerance, but none of them will fully reveal the meaning of this process due to the fact that it is impossible to fully cover all aspects of human life. So what is tolerance? The definition of this term can be summarized as follows. Tolerance is a conscious, sincere tolerance, a special psychological attitude that is focused on respectful perception of other values, beliefs, ways of self-expression and other components of human individuality. This is an active position that helps to achieve mutual understanding between opponents.

Tolerance in the modern world

Modern problems of tolerance are practically no different from those given in the literary works of the classics. These include ethnic, social, and gender misunderstandings. There is only one rule left to learn: no matter how much the world changes, tolerance will always be considered a virtue.

But now, more than ever, the primary task that needs to be resolved is the problem of developing tolerance. This is due to the following reasons:

A sudden and dynamic division of civilization along economic, ethnic, religious, social and other criteria. As a result, the level of intolerance in society has increased.
The growth of religious extremism.
exacerbated interethnic relations (for example, the war between Ukraine and Russia).
Problems with refugees.

To cultivate tolerance in someone, it is necessary certain conditions, so called basic principles. These include 5 positions:

Violence should never be a means to an end.
A person must consciously come to a certain decision.
Push yourself without forcing others. The basic principle of tolerance is a person’s ability to remain himself without forcing others to change their views.
Compliance with laws, traditions and customs is an important factor in the development of tolerance.
Accept others for who they are, regardless of their differences.

The relevance of the problem of tolerance is beyond doubt. After all, as the philosopher Yu. A. Schrader once noted: “The most terrible catastrophe that threatens earthly civilization is the destruction of humanity in man.” That's why so much has been written and said about accepting other people as they are.

Tolerance and literature

To understand the full depth of this problem, it is better to resort to literary arguments. Stories, novels and novellas describe different life situations, where, using the examples of the main characters, you can see what tolerance is in real life.

The relevance of the problem of tolerance first appeared in the literary works of Ancient Rus'. The wandering writer Afanasy Nikitin described the diversity of religious movements in India. In his texts, he invited the reader to think about the diversity of the world and be more tolerant of people with different faiths.

But works of classical literature deserve special attention. Writers of that time talked about the problems of tolerance that existed in society. So, in works of the XVIII centuries, problems of tolerance have been widespread in the scientific and educational sphere. Already in the 19th century, the problem of class tolerance began to arise. In particular, this is evidenced by the works of Tolstoy “War and Peace”, Turgenev “Fathers and Sons”, where the main arguments of the problem of tolerance are considered.

According to the classics

From the pages of classical literature you can learn a lot about the problem of tolerance. The arguments presented in the works are relevant even today. Take, for example, the story “Children of the Dungeon” (V. G. Korolenko). The author tells a story about little boy Vasya, who could not find understanding in family of origin. Despite the fact that his father occupied a high position in society, he was always alone. One day he meets Valk and Marusya. These guys came from the lowest social class of the population. Thus, two social realities collided and were closely intertwined. Vasya was able to understand and accept the pain of others, he began to understand adults better and thanks to this he was able to establish relationships with his own father.

This work reveals the problem of social inequality, and as long as there is a stratification of society into classes, it will remain relevant.

Another example from classical literature can be found in Tolstoy’s “Walking Through Torment.” It mainly talks about gender tolerance, when a woman becomes equal to a man. Since at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries this problem of equality became widespread, it was the basis for many literary works.

The problem of interethnic tolerance is well revealed in the work “Sea Stories” (K. M. Stanyukovich). Russian sailors once picked up an African-American boy on the high seas and treated him with all human compassion, despite the color of his skin.

This problem is also revealed in the story of L. N. Tolstoy “ Prisoner of the Caucasus" The main idea that the author was trying to convey was the following: “There are no good or bad nations, there are only good and bad people different nations."

Literary arguments

Tolerance was one of the authors’ favorite topics different styles and genre. This problem occurs not only in novels, short stories or stories. For example, in Krylov’s fables the problem of finding a compromise between characters with different points vision. In the fable “Swan, Cancer and Pike,” the heroes could not move the cart, since everyone did what he was used to: Cancer backed away, the Swan flew up, and the Pike jumped into the water, so “the cart is still there.”

In the fable “The Elephant and the Pug,” a small dog, for no apparent reason, begins to bark at a calmly walking elephant, instead of simply passing by. Some may say that this is just a funny children's story, but, in fact, there is something else hidden here. If we draw a parallel with some everyday events of the present time, we can see that the problem of tolerance is hidden in this simple work. Often on the streets you can meet people who quite rudely, arrogantly or with dissatisfaction express their opinions to others, completely strangers. For example, a situation: a group of vacationers arrived in a resort town. Their place of residence was located next to the station, so there was no point in taking a taxi, although their bags were not light. But at the crossing they started talking to each other about how hard it was to walk with such a load. A woman who was passing by heard these words and expressed her opinion, saying that “poor people” had arrived and could not afford to take transport.

The situation is not entirely typical, but it is perfect for drawing an analogy with the fable “The Elephant and the Pug.”

One's own and someone else's

The problem of tolerance fiction represented by a wide variety of works. It is reflected in the children's fairy tales of Andersen and Pushkin, it can be observed in the stories about Winnie the Pooh and Carlson. Samples tolerant behavior Animals from Kipling’s “Mowgli” could serve as an example.

Arguments for the problem of tolerance can be found in every second literary work. Even in stories about war or political repression there is room for something human. Take, for example, “Alpine Ballad” by V. Bykov. The events of the story take place during the Great Patriotic War. Prisoners escape from the Nazi camp: Russian soldier Ivan and Julia, a girl from Italy. They only had three days. Three days of long-awaited freedom, pursuit and life in the most difficult conditions. When the Nazis overtook the fugitives, Ivan took all the blame upon himself, for which he paid with his life. Julia cherished the memory of the brave soldier all her life. After the end of the war, she found his relatives in Russia and wrote to them about Ivan’s death. She wanted to talk about the feat simple soldier, who saved an unknown foreigner. They didn't even know each other's language.

The interethnic problem of tolerance is described here. Arguments from literature that are written in a similar vein reveal deep meaning tolerance and humanity. The reader would understand the behavior of the protagonist more clearly if he defended his compatriot. But here was an Italian woman whom they didn’t even know. So why did he do this? The main character did not divide people into “Russians” and “non-Russians” and simply did what he could have done if there had been someone else in the Italian woman’s place. The author tried to show that there is no such thing as “us” and “stranger”; there is simply a person in need of help.

Love line

The problem of accepting others is no less colorfully described in M. Sholokhov’s novel “ Quiet Don" Here, in the harsh conditions of the civil war, tolerance seems to be something impossible, but the author introduces an additional “variable” that is a level above conventions - this is love.

The heroes of the novel - Dunyashka Melekhova and Mishka Koshevoy - loved But during the revolution, their families stood on opposite sides of the barricades, and when all hostilities ended, Mishka Koshevoy turns out to be an enemy for Dunyashka's family. But they are in love, and this love is above all conventions. Morality will always stand above ideological and political preferences.

From words to deeds

A lot has been written about tolerance, but in practice everything happens quite differently. Beautiful stories about accepting people with different worldviews exist only in books, but not in real world. In particular, this applies to the younger generation.

Problems of tolerance in youth environment provoked, first of all, by antisocial behavior and the commercialization of relationships. For the younger generation, modern devices always come first and only then everything else. The old values have long been lost. New youth groups and movements are being created every day, and the number of antisocial radical organizations is growing. Simply put, among teenagers and young people it is now “not fashionable” to be tolerant.

IN educational institutions, in particular schools, study the concept of tolerance. However, the matter does not go further than definition. Research shows that acceptance of others is falling. Perhaps the lack of positive examples, which could show how to be tolerant, perhaps few students read Russian classics. Nevertheless, sooner or later each of them will have to write an essay on the topic “The Problem of Tolerance.”

And this can become a serious problem when there is no clear understanding of the problem, and the essay is an Unified State Examination task.

To write an essay “The Problem of Tolerance”, arguments from literature are extremely important. They can be used as a basis for drawing analogies with events in the modern world. Alternatively, you can briefly describe the work and explain why its opinion is authoritative. The second option is much easier, but for the sake of example we will try to combine two ways of writing an essay.

Essay example

“Perhaps very soon people will begin to live in absolute isolation from each other in order to preserve their fragile world from outsiders. But this will not happen soon, although there are already serious prerequisites for this transition - low level tolerance in society. Now we need to live up to the word “norm”.

If there is at least something different in a person, he may not be accepted into the team, society, or even worse, made an outcast. Like the heroine from the story “Daughter of Bukhara” by L. Ulitskaya, Mila. The girl has had Down syndrome since childhood. She is raised by her mother and makes every effort to make the girl happy. But the attitude towards people with special needs in society is indifferent, and if you’re lucky, lenient.

“Various idiots” and “useless members of society” are just a few of the epithets with which the author characterized society’s attitude towards “other” people. For some reason, it is believed that such people have no right to compassion, respect or understanding.

But there are people who have other, distinctive characteristics. It is worth remembering L. Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace”. The main character Pierre Bezukhov does not fit in at all. And here we are talking not so much about his clumsiness as about his character. He is naive, gullible and simple-minded. Open to the world and very kind. But where selfishness and hypocrisy are held in high esteem, he is a stranger.

And in the modern world, similar situations occur at almost every step. The boy had an accident and became disabled, now he has much less chance of joining society when he grows up. Over time they will turn away former friends, will begin to be ignored and bypassed by others. Now he is an invalid, a useless member of society. A girl who likes to read books, doesn’t watch TV and very rarely visits the Internet also feels the sidelong glances of her peers.

Such situations make you wonder whether people can be called human when they, without bitterness or regret, exclude their own kind from their society. To be tolerant means to remain human. And anyone can succeed in this if they simply treat others the same way they would like to be treated.”

The issue of tolerance is difficult to understand. It can occur in various areas of life and situations. And to summarize all of the above, we can note the following: tolerance is humanity. And humanity is nothing more than the ability to get along with one’s own kind, without diminishing their importance and without losing one’s individuality.

Interethnic tolerance is beliefs and behavioral practices based on the ideas of equal rights of all people, regardless of their ethnic or national identification. Problems of interethnic tolerance are among the most pressing in the modern world. Similar problems are discussed in connection with nationalism and racism as manifestations of intolerance towards others.

Let's start with the fact that there is no single scientific approach to the definition of the concepts “ethnicity”, “nation”, “race”. We rely on sociological approach, within which an ethnos is a community, a social group whose members believe that they are united mutual language, origin (real or alleged), territory of residence (modern or historical), culture, including religion, style of clothing and jewelry. Also often referred to as a psychological trait: a feeling of connection between their own. However, all these signs are not absolute. Thus, the same language is often spoken by people who identify themselves with different ethnic groups. The territory that any ethnic group associates with its origin is never closed to the residence of representatives of other ethnic groups. The specifics of a particular ethnic culture are even less amenable to clear definition and differentiation from other cultures. According to modern sociology, All ethnic differences are completely acquired, despite the fact that many representatives of one or another ethnic group believe that they are united by some “natural” qualities. Not all people consider it necessary to identify themselves with a certain ethnic group. Sometimes this is difficult, since among relatives there are representatives of different ethnic groups.

Nation is a concept related to ethnicity, but not identical to it. When they talk about the emergence of a nation, to the above-mentioned unifying features of an ethnic group they add economic and trade ties, and most importantly, the emergence of their own state. A nation is a society united politically and economically within the borders of a state, usually ethnically heterogeneous.

The emergence of ethnic groups dates back to the distant past, while national states date back to modern times. Not every ethnic group has its own state, at the same time, today there are practically no mono-ethnic states and a nation is spoken of as a civil community: a group of people who are citizens of one state.

NATIONALISM - ideology and policy, the values of which proclaim loyalty to one’s nation, activities for the benefit of own people, regardless of social and cultural differences within the nation. Radical nationalists often proclaim their intolerance towards others in ethnic, religious, culturally, deny diversity within one nation. Supporters of moderate nationalism condemn manifestations of intolerance towards other nations, ethnic groups, and cultures; they advocate recognition of the diverse unity of the nation and solidarity with other peoples.

Race is an even less defined concept than ethnicity. We share the point of view of the famous sociologist Anthony Giddens: physical differences in skin color or other characteristics are usually called racial. Many pseudoscientific theories have been devoted to justifying the concept of race, and these theories have had big influence on mass consciousness. They are based on the search for codependence between a person’s appearance and his biological characteristics. The number of races varied among different authors from four or five to three dozen. However, these theories did not find experimental confirmation, firstly, due to large quantity found exceptions and inconsistencies. For example, the so-called “Negroid” shade was determined by dark skin, but its shades have very large gradations, and curly or wavy, dark or blonde hair in people with dark skin completely refute any clear “racial” classification. Secondly, the development of genetics has refuted the theory that there were several lines of racial development from our anthropoid ancestors. A scientist conducting a blood test for a particular person cannot confidently determine whether the sample was taken from a representative of the “Negroid”, “Caucasian” or “Mongoloid” race. Third, genetic diversity within those populations that share similar external signs, is not inferior to intergroup diversity. E. Giddens points out that on the basis of these scientific data, many biologists, anthropologists and sociologists came to the conclusion that the theory of racial differences has not been convincingly confirmed.

Physical differences between people, some of which are inherited, often give rise to social discrimination. Consequently, race is a false correlation of the physical, external characteristics of an individual with the supposedly innate traits of his character or behavior. R a - s i s t - one who believes in a biological explanation for the superiority or inferiority of some people compared to others. Such ideas, as a rule, are intended to justify economic and social discrimination: people with the wrong skin color or type of culture are pushed into the least profitable economic positions, into non-prestigious areas of work.

So, race, ethnicity, nation are types of imagined communities. Of these, the nation has the greatest certainty as a community correlated with state borders, the laws of the state, its economy and politics.

For many people, their ethnic identity is of great importance, and these views deserve respect and tolerance. Nowadays, the phenomenon of ethnicity has become important throughout the world. In the early 1960s. there were about 800-900 politically identifiable ethnic groups in the world. Nowadays there are more than 3,000 of them and they live on the territory of 180 countries.

Parent meeting

THE PROBLEM OF TOLERANCE IN MODERN SOCIETY

“If I’m not like you, then I’m not insulting you, but giving you a gift.”

Antoine Saint - Exupery.

We have been living in the 21st century for several years now. Progress, economics, new computer systems - everything is at the service of man. It would seem that life should be more measured, more confident, more joyful. But, however, in modern society There is an active increase in aggressiveness, extremism, and conflicts. Why? Is society tolerant or not? What problems of tolerance exist in modern society?

Tolerance has always been considered a human virtue. It meant tolerance for differences among people, the ability to live without disturbing others, the ability to have rights and freedoms without violating the rights and freedoms of others. Tolerance is also the basis of democracy and human rights; intolerance in society leads to violation of human rights, violence and armed conflicts.

The intolerance of a society is a component of the intolerance of its citizens. Bigotry, stereotyping, racial slurs or jokes are specific examples of expressions of intolerance that occur in the lives of some people every day. Intolerance only leads to counter intolerance. She forces her victims to seek forms of revenge. In order to combat intolerance, individuals must recognize the connection between their behavior and the vicious circle of mistrust and violence in society.Each of us must ask ourselves: Am I tolerant? Do I label people? Am I rejecting those who are not like me? Do I blame them for my troubles?

In order to understand the essence, level and features of the manifestation of tolerance in modern Russian society, it is necessary, first of all, to clearly define the meaning of the term “tolerance” itself.

Tolerance is interpreted as “...a quality that characterizes the attitude towards another person as an equally worthy person and is expressed in the conscious suppression of feelings of rejection caused by everything that signifies something different in another (appearance, manner of speech, tastes, lifestyle, beliefs). Tolerance presupposes an attitude towards understanding and dialogue with others, recognition and respect for their rights to be different.”

"Tolerance -tolerance of other people’s way of life, behavior, customs, feelings, opinions, ideas, beliefs.”

Thus, the main meaning of tolerance is tolerance for the “alien”, “different”. This quality is inherent both to an individual and to a specific team, one or another social group, to society as a whole.

When considering the problem of tolerance, two important remarks should be made immediately. Firstly, “alien”, “other” does not mean ideas, behavior, actions, rituals that inevitably lead to degradation, to the destruction of the social and spiritual. An absolute problem in in this case is that in practice their catastrophic, negative value is not always immediately and unambiguously revealed. Hence the difficulties in assessing these ideas, and, accordingly, personal social difficulties in forming a certain attitude towards them. On the other hand, we should not forget that it is a tolerant attitude, devoid of the desire to immediately prohibit or stigmatize, that allows us to identify the true essence of the “other.” Another remark follows from this. Tolerance does not necessarily imply refusal from criticism, from discussion, and especially from one’s own beliefs.

Currently, the problem of developing tolerance is particularly acute. This is explained by a number of reasons: the sharp stratification of world civilization along economic, social and other characteristics and the associated increase in intolerance; development of religious extremism; aggravation of interethnic relations caused by local wars; refugee problems.

As the domestic philosopher Yu.A. Schrader noted: “The most terrible of the catastrophes that threaten us is not only atomic, thermal and similar options for the physical destruction of humanity on Earth, but also anthropological - the destruction of human society in man.”

Conditions are necessary for the ideas of tolerance to germinate, but seeds sown in time will certainly sprout. It is important to “sow” consciously and purposefully, and then we won’t have to “drag the grass out of the ground,” and when spring comes and the sun warms up, it will grow on its own. Moreover, it is important to look at them from the perspective systematic approach, revealing the interdependence and mutual influence of systems at different levels.

Basic principles of tolerance:

1) non-violenceas an unacceptable means of introducing a person to any idea;

2) voluntary choice, emphasis on the sincerity of his beliefs, “freedom of conscience.” Just as in Christianity “preaching and example” are ways of proselytizing, the idea of tolerance can become a kind of guideline, a kind of flag of a movement that unites like-minded people. At the same time, one should not condemn or blame those who are not yet “enlightened”;

3) the ability to force oneself without forcing others.Fear and coercion from the outside do not generally contribute to restraint and tolerance, although as an educational factor at a certain point it disciplines people, while forming certain morals;

4) obedience to laws,traditions and customs, without violating them and satisfying social needs. Submission to laws, and not to the will of the ruler or the majority, seems to be an important factor in development and movement in the right direction;

5) acceptance of the Other, which may differ according to various characteristics - national, racial, cultural, religious, etc. Everyone’s tolerance contributes to the balance of the integrity of society, the disclosure of the fullness of its parts and the achievement of the “golden mean” based on the golden rule of morality.

So currently it has great importance awareness of the importance of the phenomenon of tolerance for our society. The problem of education of tolerance should unite different people, first of all, specialists of different directions and levels - psychologists, teachers, educators, managers, leaders and ordinary specialists, as well as representatives of different age groups.

One of the principles of tolerance is “the ability to force oneself without forcing others,” which does not imply coercion or violence, but only voluntary, conscious self-restraint. One can’t help but think of a parable about a sage, to whom a mother brought her son with a sweet tooth and asked him to convince him not to eat sweets. The sage ordered them to come in a month. “Don’t eat sweets,” said the sage, turning to the boy. “Why didn’t you say this right away, why did you make me wait a whole month?” - the woman was indignant. And then the sage admitted that he could not do this because at that time he himself was eating sweets. This is precisely an example of tolerance, self-restraint, which requires starting with yourself personally. I think that the ability to attract others to a position of tolerance through one’s own behavior and example is initially necessary and very important for the development of tolerance.

PARENT MEETING

06/03/2011

Agenda

Prevention of road safety.

Traffic police inspector S.G. Ulanova

The problem of tolerance in society.

Social teacher Lityagina I.V.

Summing up the results of the 2010 – 2011 academic year.

Deputy Director for Management and PR Shkuratova N.A.

Distribution of a memo for parents about the Law of the Moscow Region No. 176 of December 24, 2010. “On the protection of minors from the threat of alcohol dependence and the prevention of alcoholism among minors in the Moscow Region”

Social teacher Lityagina I.V.

Miscellaneous.

PROTOCOL

On the first issue, we heard a speech from traffic police inspector S.G. Ulanova, who recalled rules for those present use of scooters and motorcycles: age from which you can ride one vehicles; Traffic rules must be known to all road users. She spoke about the situation with road traffic injuries in the Serpukhov region. Answered parents' questions.
On the second question, social teacher I.V. Lityagina was heard. (report attached).
On the third question, the deputy was heard. director for educational resources N.A. Shkuratova, who informed parents about the end of the 2010-2011 school year. 3rd year students passed their exams in March, are now undergoing practical training and preparing for their defense thesis. 2nd year students take exams in general education subjects. Next, they will undergo practical training. 1st year students continue theoretical studies, from June 10 they will begin Internship. For the majority of 1st and 2nd year students, industrial practice will take place in the school’s workshops, but if it is possible to arrange a student for industrial practice, this can be done by drawing up a contract and bringing it to the school. June 28th graduation party. Summer holidays for 1st and 2nd year students are from July 1 to August 31.
On the fourth issue, social teacher I.V. Lityagina was heard, who reminded parents of the contents of the Law of the Moscow Region No. 176 of December 24, 2010. “On the protection of minors from the threat of alcohol dependence and the prevention of alcoholism among minors in the Moscow Region.” I distributed leaflets for parents to those present, which contained extracts from the above-mentioned law.
We heard social teacher I.V. Lityagina, who told parents that students would be involved in repair work (plastering, painting) and school improvement work (washing windows, floors, decorating flower beds). The parents did not object to this. All those present agreed to involve students in these types of work.