Toward Understanding Racial Tolerance and Acceptance

Journal of College and Character Volume 1, Issue 5

2000

Article 5

Do Unto Others: Toward Understanding Racial Tolerance and Acceptance Rivka Witenberg∗

∗

The University of Melbourne

c Copyright 2000 by the authors. All rights reserved. http://journals.naspa.org/jcc

Do Unto Others: Toward Understanding Racial Tolerance and Acceptance Rivka Witenberg

Abstract The ultimate, practical objective of understanding both prejudice and tolerance is to reduce discrimination. No where is this more important than in diverse societies where differences exist in culture, colour and creed. Tolerance is only necessary when difference or diversity is present and entails endurance at the most basic level and acceptance at its best. Racial tolerance has been under-researched and is largely unexplored from a psychological perspective and there are both definitional and conceptual issues needing further clarification. This paper will discuss definitional and conceptual issues surrounding tolerance in general and racial tolerance in particular and report on the fledgling literature about racial tolerance.

Do Unto Others: Toward Understanding Racial Tolerance and Acceptance Peer Reviewed Article Dr. Rivka Witenberg is a professor in the School of Behavioural Science, The University of Melbourne, Australia ___________________________________

ABSTRACT The ultimate, practical objective of understanding both prejudice and tolerance is to reduce discrimination. No where is this more important than in diverse societies where differences exist in culture, colour and creed. Tolerance is only necessary when difference or diversity is present and entails endurance at the most basic level and acceptance at its best. Racial tolerance has been under-researched and is largely unexplored from a psychological perspective and there are both definitional and conceptual issues needing further clarification. This paper will discuss definitional and conceptual issues surrounding tolerance in general and racial tolerance in particular and report on the fledgling literature about racial tolerance. __________________________________________________ The aim of this paper is to define and explore tolerance in general and racial tolerance in particular, while acknowledging the importance of the large body of research which examines prejudice. The starting point for defining and exploring tolerance is the assumption that tolerance is not simply the absence of prejudice but that it is a separate construct which is worth serious consideration from a psychological perspective. The elimination of all forms of discrimination and intolerance including those based on race and colour is one of the main aims of The United Nations Culture of Peace Declaration. The ultimate, practical objective of understanding both prejudice and tolerance is to reduce discrimination. Reducing discrimination based on race and culture is an important matter in a world were monocultural societies are virtually extinct today. Israel’s Supreme Court President, Justice Ahavram Barak argues that tolerance consists of two parts. The first part is the responsibility not to act with intolerance and the second is the responsibility to protect tolerance and advance it (“tolerance consists,” 2000). This statement raises several questions. Why is tolerance important? What is tolerance and how do we define it? What do we know about tolerance? Is it sufficient not to act with intolerance? How do we protect and advance tolerance? As an outcome of changing geographical and political realities we live in a complex world that is racially and culturally diverse but not necessarily harmonious. In Austria, Jorg Haider’s ultra-nationalist party is sharing power with more moderate parties. In Germany neo-Nazis are on the march and violence is again part of everyday life as attacks on immigrants and Jews are increasing. Anti-immigration parties thrive from France to

Denmark (Walker, 2000) and cultural and racial unrest abound from Bosnia to Fiji. Although cultural and racial diversity has been acknowledged to be one of Australia's most important assets, reconciliation with Indigenous Australians is proving difficult and anti-immigration sentiments are also evident (Thomas, 1998). Tolerance is only necessary when difference or diversity is present because it is only when confronting diversity that our acceptance of others is truly tested (Robinson, Witenberg & Sanson, 2000; Vogt, 1997; Witenberg, 2000). “Toleration makes difference possible, difference makes toleration necessary” (Walzer, 1997, p. xii). Unfortunately, our knowledge and ability to reduce prejudice and discrimination is limited (Aboud, 1993; Aboud & Doyle, 1996). Clearly understanding tolerance and acceptance as applied to race and culture is becoming an important research goal both theoretically and practically. Currently, governments across the world have invested, and are expected to continue to invest, substantial resources in promoting racial and cultural acceptance. For example, in August 2000 the German Government committed 35 million dollars to eliminate racial and cultural discrimination. However, it is surprising how little we know theoretically and practically about racial tolerance and acceptance and the factors that promote it. Even definitional issues of tolerance are complex, (some would suggest contentious), and need further consideration. DEFINITIONAL ISSUES The meanings of racism and racial and prejudice are relatively straightforward and so is the meaning of discrimination. “Prejudice reflects an unfavourable judgement towards a particular group. Discrimination involves behaving differently, usually unfairly, toward the members of a group”. In comparison, tolerance is a much more ambiguous and complex concept open to several interpretations (Robinson et al., 2000, p. 5). The most commonly accepted definition of tolerance emphasises forbearance or endurance without interference. Thus, Vogt (1997) describes tolerance as the individual enduring that which is disliked, threatening, or which involves negative feelings, and notes that it involves compromise. Tolerance defined as endurance involves a recognition that other people have different opinions and practices but it does not entail any form of acceptance or support of the difference. In a similar vein Burwood and Wyeth (1998) define tolerance as “an intentional choice not to interfere with conduct which one disapproves” (p. 465). These definitions of tolerance imply that a person can be tolerant and prejudiced simultaneously. One can endure and refrain from acting intolerantly but remain biased, disapproving or judgemental. “For example, a school teacher or a lecturer may hold prejudiced beliefs towards students from a different racial or cultural group but may act in a tolerant way in order to maintain his or her position. “This possibility is rarely acknowledged in the literature, which tends to assume that tolerance and prejudice are mutually exclusive and/or are opposites of each other” (Robinson et al., 2000, p 3). In addition, “tolerance as endurance” carries with it connotations of superiority at worst and patience and fortitude at best. Embedded in the idea of “tolerance as endurance” is the notion that what is endured is less valuable or even socially or morally wrong. Who of us wants to be tolerated/endured because of our skin colour, our culture of for that matter our gender, or our religion (Witenberg, 2000)?

Secondly, tolerance can be defined as the absence of prejudice of what is disliked, towards those “whose practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own" (Robinson et al., 2000 p. 3). This definition focuses on absence of prejudice and goes beyond simply enduring or refraining from interfering. This sort of conceptualisation of tolerance has been adopted by much of the research into prejudice, particularly with children. However, as pointed out earlier, absence of prejudice does not imply tolerance. It is hard to argue that the absence of discrimination is necessarily evidence of tolerance particularly in a young child who may not have even noticed the markers of racial or cultural difference (Robinson et al., 2000). Prejudice and tolerance are most likely different psychological constructs and the lack of one does not necessarily entail the presence of the other (Witenberg, 2000). Burwood and Wyeth, (1998) argue that we should reach an intentional position where each one of us disapproves of fewer things. Otherwise tolerance without conscious deliberation and intentions is mindless. Thus “a third view of tolerance is that it involves a conscious rejection of prejudiced attitudes, beliefs and responses. That is, one's own negative stereotypes are recognised, judged against experiential knowledge or value systems, and rejected” (Robinson et al., 2000, p. 4). Recognising and rejecting prejudicial views moves a person from simply being “a narrow-minded bigot who shows restraint” (Burwood and Wyeth, 1998, p. 469) to a person who is tolerant both in judgements and conduct. Perhaps the strongest and most ideal way to think of tolerance hinges on full acceptance of others whilst differences between the “others” and oneself are recognised. This involves a conscious rejection of biased beliefs and behaviour and the valuing of others irrespective of their colour or creed. Acceptance of differences and diversity also entails “enthusiastic endorsement of difference” (Walzer, 1997, p.11). However, there is little research that has specifically addressed such a definition of tolerance (Robinson et al., 2000). THE CONTEXTUAL NATURE OF TOLERANCE A further definitional issue concerns how tolerance is conceptualised. That is whether tolerance is a global structure or influenced by contextual factors. Do different forms of tolerance (different religious beliefs, moral codes, political opinions, cultural practices and racial differences) co-vary? Is tolerant affected by what we are asked to tolerate and to whom we are asked to extend our toleration? It appears that the expression of tolerance can vary across different domains and across contexts (Vogt, 1997). Several studies examining political tolerance (or extending democratic or civil rights to others) and belief discrepancy (tolerance to opposing beliefs held by others) have shown that tolerance and intolerance coexist in individuals of all ages including children and adolescents. It appears that people are selective about whom and what they will tolerate and under what circumstances they are prepared to be tolerant. Hence it is argued that tolerance cannot be conceptualised as a global structure and should be viewed as multifaceted and context sensitive (McColsky & Brill, 1983, Sigelman & Toebben, 1992; Wainryb, Shaw & Maianu, 1998). For example, McColsky and Brill (1983), investigating political tolerance, found that a very high percentage of their participants defended “freedom of speech” as a democratic

principle, but such rights would only be accorded to “acceptable” individuals or groups. Both Sigelman & Toebben (1992) and Wainryb et al. (1998) found in their research on tolerance to belief discrepancy that tolerance was a multi-dimensional rather than global construct. What behaviours the participant was asked to tolerate influenced their decisions. On a practical note, in Australia the “One Nation” political party has demonstrated aptly how tolerance and intolerance can coexist. Racist attitudes and beliefs have been expressed openly by the One Nation about the Indigenous people of Australia and people of Asian origin while at the same time, other immigrant groups appear to be tolerated. Such “focused intolerance” (Shamir and Sullivan, 1985) or tolerance as the case may be, has been confirmed by other studies and undoubtedly is also applicable to racial tolerance as recent work in progress has revealed (Witenberg and Mcdowall, 2000).1 In order examine underlying beliefs about racial tolerance and assess the effect of content and context, Witenberg and Mcdowall (2000) asked 11-12 and 15-16 year old students to make judgements and justify their choices to dilemma-like-stories relevant to the Australian context about people from Indigenous, Asian or English backgrounds. The stories could be resolved using either tolerant or intolerant views. Each story was repeated three times with each presentation dealing with a different behavioural dimension: holding prejudicial beliefs, expressing these beliefs and acting on these beliefs. Contrary to expectation, analysis of students’ judgements showed that 83% of the participants expressed tolerance on all three behavioural dimensions towards Indigenous Australians but the same level of tolerance was not extended toward people from Asian or even those from English backgrounds. 74% of the participant expressed tolerance on all three behavioural dimension toward people from Asian backgrounds but surprisingly only 62% expressed this level of tolerance toward people from English backgrounds considering that the dominant culture in Australia is Anglo-Celtic. Analysis showed that level of tolerance on any one of the stories was independent of level of tolerance of any of the other two stories. That is, racial tolerance is contextual in nature and level of tolerance depends on whom and what we are asked to tolerate. Based on students’ justifications, it is hypothesised that this “focused tolerance” may have its origin in contact and experiences with people from both Asian and English backgrounds. Although students’ familiarity with people from Aboriginal, Asian or English backgrounds were not measured, the likelihood (based on geographical location and knowledge of the area) that any of the students would have actually met or knew anyone from Indigenous backgrounds is questionable. However, the students would have had many opportunities to interact with people from both Asian and English backgrounds. On the basis of students’ responses (which referred directly to experiences with Asian and English people) it appears that personal experiences had coloured and influenced some of the students’ attitudes and helped to shape their prejudices and beliefs. The tentative conclusion from the findings of this study is that contact does not necessarily promote tolerance and acceptance. Rather it may entrench preconceived attitudes. Thus the notion that contact with people whom we dislike, fear or feel threatened by may eliminate prejudices (induced by the socialisation process) as previous research has suggested may still be valid but this relationship appears to be more complex and need further clarification.

Interestingly, the major constraint to tolerance which emerged was not prejudice towards others but the right to freedom of speech. Many of the students in both age groups assumed that it was acceptable to openly express prejudicial beliefs “because we had free speech in this country” (16 years old) or “everybody has the right to have their own opinion and talk about them” (12 years old). These beliefs may reflect recent, vigorous political debate in Australia about “political correctness”. Unlike the participants in McColsky and Brill’s (1983) study, what these students had failed to understand is that being tolerant is not a blanket value. Whilst personal experiences and the misguided belief in freedom of speech appeared to support intolerance, tolerance itself was also vigorously defended. KEY BELIEFS ABOUT RACIAL TOLERANCE Content analysis of the data from the Witenberg and Mcdowall study collected thus far has highlighted key sets of beliefs that may be implicated in tolerance and acceptance. The most common set of responses was based on issues relating to justice, equality and fairness reflected in such responses as “It is wrong”, “It’s not fair” “We are all equal” and “we are all alike”. 57% of all the students used justice and equality to justify tolerance. This is how a 15 years old female expressed her beliefs about equality. “ I would explain that we are all equal and it shouldn’t matter were you come from or what you are. We should all be treated fairly and equally”. Justice, equality and fairness are also critical for moral development (Kohlberg, 1984). It is therefore not surprising that there has been studies to show that higher cognitive moral reasoning was associated with political tolerance (Avery 1988) and that the nature of moral beliefs influences political tolerance and intolerance (Wagner, 1986). Another set of responses was concerned with both justice and equality and “empathic perspective taking”. Tolerance in this case was justified in terms of both equality and selfreflective, empathic perspective taking where the students were able to “step into another person’s shoes” (Selman & Byrne, 1974). Perspective taking was reflected in responses such as “I would ask you, how would you feel if you were an Asia person and would always be served last” (12 years old) or “How you would feel if you were Asian and a shopkeeper wouldn’t serve you? Do to others as you would like them to do to you” (15 years old). Whilst 24% the students used this kind of support for tolerance, it tended to be favoured by females. Perspective taking and empathic orientation are means by which we can interact with others more successfully and respond to other people’s needs more readily. We know that empathy is a motivator of pro-social and altruistic behaviour (Hoffman, 2000) and that empathy and perspective-taking are both implicated in moral development (Kohlberg, 1984). However, it is too early to predict the relationship between perspective-taking and tolerance. A final set of beliefs, which was used by 19% of the students and favoured by males, concerned reflective thinking and “reasonableness”. Students expressed beliefs that racial intolerance was due to holding stupid, silly, unreasonable or unreflected ideas. For example, one 12-year-old male student observed that giving children from Indigenous backgrounds lower marks was stupid and “how could you possibly think that way?” A 15-year-old suggested that serving Asians last was “being very unreasonable. They [Asians] can’t

actually help that they are Asians”. “I would tell you that your views are ignorant and ill informed” (15 years old) sums up this idea very forcefully. Wainryb et al., (1998), in their study of tolerance to dissenting beliefs, concluded that reflective thinking may be one of the key variables that allows individuals to become more tolerant. Although Wainryb’s study did not measure reflective thinking, she and her coworkers concluded that judgements were reached through deliberation of what their participants were asked to tolerate and to whom they were extending their tolerance. If tolerance emerges as a by-product of reflection and deliberation, it may explain the lack of success traditional methods aimed at reducing racial prejudice have had. The ability to critically think and reflect on our beliefs and conduct may be the key to understanding tolerance. In contrast, dogmatism, “a way of not thinking,” diminishes our abilities to be tolerant (Vogt, 1997). Reflective thinking may also be important in the setting of appropriate moral limits to tolerance. Without reflective thinking and deliberation, toleration can become an unquestioning acceptance of practices that should be disapproved such as the perpetuation of racism by another individual or group. Clearly the students who used freedom of speech as a justification for expressing intolerant beliefs had not as yet understood the moral limits of tolerance. OTHER VARIABLES AFFECTING TOLERANCE A further factor that may advance or hinder tolerance relates to how people view their world more generally. Shamir and Sullivan (1985) argue that intolerance often arises from perceived threats (as in the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict) whilst Altemeyer (1988) has suggested a connection between perceptions of a dangerous world and authoritarianism (Schaller & Mueller, 2000). Further, a significant relationship has been found between age and political tolerance and between age and tolerance to dissenting beliefs. Age suggests a maturational process, but given that tolerance appears to be influenced by contextual factors it is unlikely that a global construct will emerge. CONCLUSION In conclusion, future researchers need to pay careful attention to both definitional and conceptual issues when investigating tolerance in general and racial tolerance in particular. For data to be interpretable, tolerance needs to be defined carefully and the methodology needs to be appropriate because of the complex nature of this concept (Robinson et al., 2000). Future research needs to further test under what circumstances and why people will be tolerant and to whom they are willing to extend tolerance. The roles of beliefs about justice and fairness, empathic perspective taking and reflective thinking and their relationship with racial tolerance need further investigation, as well as the possible influence of gender favoured beliefs on tolerance. However, the major challenge for future research is still to examine how racial tolerance becomes differentiated with age and what other factors affect this development. Only then can we begin to truly understand how to promote and protect tolerance. REFERENCES

Aboud, F. E. (1993). A fifth grade program to reduce prejudice. In K. McLeod (ed.), Multicultural education (The State of the arts National Study Report no. 1). Toronto, University of Toronto, Faculty of Education. Aboud, F. E. & Doyle A. B.(1996). Does talk of race foster prejudice or tolerance in children? Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 28, 161-170. Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Avery, P. G. (1988). Political tolerance among adolescents. Theory and Research in Social Education, 16, 183-201. Burwood, L. & Wyeth, R.(1998). Should schools promote toleration? Journal of Moral Education, 27, 465-473. Enright, R. D. & Lapsley, D. K. (1981). Judging others who hold opposite beliefs: The development of belief-discrepancy reasoning. Child Development, 52, 1053-1063. Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implication for caring and justice. NY: Cambridge University Press. Kohlberg, L. (1984). The philosophy of moral development: Essays on moral development Vol. 2. San Francisco: Harper and Row. McColsky, H. & Brill, A. (1983). Dimensions of tolerance: What Americans believe about civil liberties. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Robinson, J., Witenberg, R. & Sanson, A. (2000). The development of tolerance. In M. Augoustinos & K. Reynolds (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice and racism. (In press). Selman, R. L. & Byrne, D. F. (1974). A structural-developmental analysis of levels of role taking in middle childhood. Child Development, 45, 803-806. Sigelman, C. K. & Toebben J. L. (1992). Tolerant reactions to advocates of disagreeable ideas in childhood and adolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38, 542-557. Schaller, M. & Mueller, A. (2000). The danger in the dark: Effect of ambient darkness and beliefs in a dangerous world on stereotypes and prejudice. (submitted for publication). Shamir, M. & Sullivan, J. L. (1985). Jews and Arabs in Israel: Everybody hates somebody, sometime. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 29, 283-305. Thomas, T. (1998). The great wall of racial divide. Australian Quarterly Journal of Contemporary Analysis, 5, 38-41.

Tolerance consists of two parts (2000, May). The Haaretz Newspaper Internet edition. Vogt, W. P. (1997). Tolerance and education: learning to live with diversity and difference. Thousand oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Wainryb, C., Shaw, L. A. & Maianu, C. (1998). Tolerance and intolerance: Children’s and adolescent’s judgments of dissenting beliefs, speech, persons, and conduct. Child Development, 69, 1541-1555. Wagner, J. (1986). Political tolerance and stages of moral development: A conceptual and empirical alternative. Political Behaviour, 8, 45-80. Witenberg, R.T. (2000). Racial tolerance and acceptance as the basis for harmonious living in a civil society. Paper presented at AME, Glasgow, Scotland, 7th – 11th July 2000. Walker, J (2000, May 13-14). Written into our psyche. The Weekend Australian Review. p. 19.