The 21st SVU World Congress

Prof. Tomas Halik's Lecture
Delivered on the Occasion of his Receiving
SVU Andrew Elias Human Tolerance Award

The Post-tolerance Age

When in the autumn of the first year of the new millennium our television stations showed over and over again the frightful scenes of the collapsing skyscrapers in Manhattan, a picture returned to my mind of another edifice collapsing in a swirl of dust - the fall of the Berlin Wall in Autumn 1989. Since then I have been dogged by the question, what do these two dramatic events have in common? Might they not demonstrate two facets of our times?

On the scenes of the two events the immediate emotional reactions of the witnesses and those involved are diametrically opposed: in Berlin jubilation, in New York terror and pain. The first was perceived as a hopeful sign of the power of freedom, like an unstoppable stream breaking down barriers, while the other was seen as a warning signal of the vulnerability of free society. The first seemed to be confirmation of the belief that the western democratic ideal would spread in all directions, while the second showed that there are powerful forces in the world that not only reject the values of western civilisation, but are actually determined to destroy it. It was like seeing two faces of globalisation, two possible scenarios - the expansion of western values and the clash of civilisations.

Between Autumn 1989 and Autumn 2001 I read a whole number of books about changing paradigms of civilisation and the post-modern epoch, but it was only when I was suddenly conscious of the dissonance between those two noisy events that I became convinced that our generation was experiencing something like a "big bang" marking the end of one era and the beginning of another. The fall of the Berlin Wall brought to an end one of the great myths of modern times: the communist illusion of building "the kingdom of heaven" on Earth. I cannot rid myself of the depressing thought that the attack on Manhattan also marked the end of an illusion, namely, the West's conviction that its version of a happy and successful liberal society based on the ideals of the Enlightenment is universally plausible.

Western liberalism inherited from western Christianity a belief in the universal validity of its own ideals that would sooner or later fulfil the latent expectations of people in every corner of the earth. The fall of Communism confirmed the West in its conviction and indeed the events of 11th September 2001 may be interpreted as merely the work of a small group of fanatics and not be lent any profounder significance. However I can't help thinking that the two events - the fall of Communism and the attack planned in the caves of the Afghan desert - could be perceived differently by the West. Maybe it is precisely the task of thinking people in those countries which after the fall of Communism are once more becoming part of the western world to make a contribution to a new self-awareness on the part of the West. I can't help thinking that the West is not sufficiently aware that it too finds itself in a new situation after the fall of Communism and that the need for "transformation" does not merely concern the countries of the former communist bloc.

A feature of the Cold War was that both systems tended to define themselves negatively. When Gorbachov called on the Soviet regime to discard its "enemy image" as part of perestroika it was a major step towards the collapse of the entire system: it turned out that the system couldn't cope without an enemy, that it lacked any positive vision that might motivate its own citizens, let alone be an inspiration to the rest of the world. The western economic and political system of free competition was certainly attractive for lots of people, who were prevented from fully using their gifts and fulfilling their aspirations by the totalitarian regimes of "existing socialism". However the first decade of experience of creating a system of political and economic democracy on the ruins of Communism, in this strange bridgehead of West that the "transformation countries" now constitute, raises a number of issues. Can democracy be built in any cultural and moral climate whatever, or does it need a "biosphere" such as the one that was characteristic of western culture for centuries? What actually constitutes the West's identity? To what extent is the West today truly nourished by its spiritual roots? To what extent are "western values" accepted and acceptable in countries that were separated from the West for decades by the "iron curtain" of the Cold War?

Talking a few years ago to Islamic scholars at Cairo's Al Azhar University, I was forced to ask myself what moral vision the West now offers the world. I came to realise that ever since my country and its neighbours have again been perceived as part of the West it is much harder for me to answer that question. One of the reasons that Communism collapsed is that the set of values and ideals stemming from the European Enlightenment and culminating in the ideologies and myths of the nineteenth century was now exhausted. In the same way that the medieval concept of the world no longer corresponded to the experience of people on the threshold of the modern age, the experience of people who lived through the crises of the twentieth century can no longer adequately be interpreted by attitudes that were still shared uncritically by millions of people in the nineteenth century. The enormous power that has been amassed in the hands of humankind and the many recent experiences of its awful abuse is forcing people at the present time to re-evaluate that optimistic and somewhat naive self-confidence of Enlightenment rationalism. It would be irresponsible to go on relying on scientific and technical progress to ensure of themselves a happy future for mankind or assuming that a change in economic conditions will automatically bring about a change in people's consciousness and behaviour, or that "the invisible hand of the market" will per se ensure that standards will prevail in all areas of life. It looks as if it will be necessary to turn the old Marxist axiom on its head: for too long we have tried to change the world, it is now the time to make a responsible and concentrated effort to interpret and understand the world and our relationship to it.

However not only was the Marxist blueprint based on by now untenable notions about human beings and society. There were also many notions of the liberal tradition that were too closely bound up with attitudes of the cultural era now coming to a close. Indeed the "second Enlightenment" of the nineteen-sixties, with the events of 1968, rocked the then communist world and Western Europe, albeit very differently. At the time both systems survived the shocks they received. The present change is far more radical. I consider the notions of the fundamentalists of every hue that it is possible to react to "the close of the modern age" by a simple return to the thinking of the pre-modern epoch to be a dangerous illusion. If we are truly to understand the civilisational and mental changes of the present time in order to react adequately to them, then we must critically reconsider the fundamental ideas and values espoused by the West. They include the main theme of my reflections here today: the idea of tolerance.

***

It looks as if the ability to accept and tolerate difference in others and not react with the sort of immediate disapproval that could spark off destructive conflicts will be one of the necessary virtues of the years to come. It always was important, but never before in history has humanity's heterogeneity shown up so urgently and immediately as at this present period in which "all walls have collapsed" and so many borders and distances are easily overcome. My critical questioning of the modern concept of tolerance is by no means intended to cast any sort of doubt on the values of peaceful coexistence and well-intentioned communication between people of different traditions and philosophies. On the contrary. It is necessary to ask whether we cannot find a firmer basis for future coexistence and sharing among different human communities than the model of tolerance that emerged from the age of Enlightenment. The basic issue for a future all-embracing world order is finding a basis for a new "oikumene". This will no longer be of the "pax Romana", "pax Britannica", "pax Sovietica" or "pax Americana" type. All parts of our planet are now mutually interlinked and no world power has any chance of dominating this development and taking its destiny in its own hands without regard for others. We are all interdependent and have to discover universally acceptable rules of mutual coexistence.

We now know far more about the historical, cultural and social conditionality of various ways of thinking and are learning to view the world through others' eyes - and in this respect literature, film and various forms of cultural exchange and dialogue play an enormous role. We sense that it is no longer enough to be indulgent from time to time in respect of those who haven't the good fortune to possess all our knowledge. After all we have experienced and learnt we are now more self-critical and less sure of our ownership of the truth. Often we are prey to the other extreme, namely, the total loss of self-awareness , our own identity and the ability to recognise truth sufficiently for it to give us enough certainty for moral choice.

The Western concept of tolerance has quite a complicated pedigree. But probably crucial to its inception were the noble endeavours of western intellectuals - from Cusanus and Erasmus to Jean Bodin and Lessing - to transcend the religious disputes of modern times. Frustrated by the way that both Christian denominations in the religious wars betrayed the evangelical injunction to "love one's enemies", a number of European scholars started to seek some kind of "third way" for Christianity. It was as if that Christian Humanism revived the much earlier vision of Joachim de Fiore, who had prophesied an "age of the Holy Spirit" when the spiritual attitude of monks bearing the "eternal Gospel" would replace the institutional church. That attempt at a "third way" subsequently gave rise to the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. One of its outcomes was the French Revolution and its declaration of human and civil rights. But in human history no event or current has ever been devoid of ambiguity, paradox or surprising reversals. As present-day historians have shown, the very sons of the French Revolution, in their "struggle with fanaticism" applied principles and used methods that foreshadowed the actions of totalitarian states in the twentieth century. In the twentieth century, the Enlightenment principles of religious tolerance and respect for conscience and human rights were not only to be embodied in international conventions but also acknowledged in official documents of the Catholic church. One British liberal historian has declared it most surprising that in our epoch it has been the Pope and the Catholic church - with its bloody history! - that have been most decisive in their defence of human rights and freedom of conscience in many parts of today's world. There could be a much deeper cause, however.

But let us return to the idea of tolerance. The best known version of the Enlightenment concept of tolerance is to be found in Lessing's drama Nathan the Wise, which is a parable about three rings. The best way to achieve peace and tolerance among believers of different religions is to undermine their certainty in the truth of their own beliefs. In this post-modern era one may encounter a view that goes even further: truth isn't simply hidden from the scope of people's proud and presumptuous manipulation, "truth does not exist" - or more precisely, it exists simply as an agreed convention. So the only sure space for freedom and tolerance is total relativism and noetic scepticism. "Whoever talks about truth is a potential fascist."

Note: the principle of tolerance came into being as a service to people seeking access to the truth, as a defence of their right to take their own non-conformist route to the truth. At a certain moment "truth" itself, or more precisely the possibility to find and stand in the truth, is sacrificed to the value of tolerance. In response to that position we might assert that the path to the principle of tolerance is not to relativise or disparage truth but instead to recognise its "absolute character". If we perceive truth to be something fundamental, as well as great and profound, something that transcends the individual human being's ability to fully apprehend and exhaust it, then it follows that the right of every individual to draw freely from that source must be guaranteed. In order to have a better and profounder knowledge of what is true and good I need to enter into dialogue with others who are capable of broadening or correcting my knowledge. But if I deny the possibility of discovering what is true and good, what then decides? Am I then, in my dealings, to submit to the majority, or to convention, or to fashion, or to momentary whim, or to some external force? On what then may I ground my critical thinking, including my right to criticise those who violate human rights and ethical rules, including the principle of tolerance?

Tolerance only stands a chance where other values are respected in practice and actively adhered to, such values as those listed by Robert Speemann, namely: "the culture of self-control, the culture of reflection and disinterested attachment to the truth, the culture of unconditional respect for human dignity, as well as a sure conviction on which that respect is founded in the event of conflicts". Cf. Speemann R. Poznámky k pojmu fundamentalismu, in: Liberální společnost, sborník z konference v Castel Gandolfo 1992, publ. Filosofia - nakl. AV ČR, Praha 1994, p. 148)

Tolerance is part and parcel of a certain set of "virtues"; it forms part of a circle of firmly interconnected assumptions and consequences. Tolerance is a building block in the construction of a certain culture from which it cannot be detached without destabilising the entire structure and itself losing sense and purpose.

***

Let us take a closer look at certain concepts of tolerance in terms of that culture.
I would like first of all the recall the well-known parable about the wheat and the tares in Matthew's gospel (Matt. 13.24-30). Jesus warns his disciples against overzealousness: in their efforts to tear up the weeds they risked uprooting the wheat too. He counsels patience: let them grow together; God in his judgement will then separate the wheat from the tares. The tolerance that Jesus requires is based on an "eschatological differentiation" between this world (saeculum) and the kingdom of God. Attempts to anticipate God's judgement and usurp it is unmasked as yet another sinful attempt to usurp God's position and play at God. As we know from the story of Man's first fall in the opening pages of the Bible, Scripture regards the yearning to "be like God" as the fount and principle of all evil. "To judge not" and instead tolerate patiently the ambivalence of this world, not to overstep the bounds of one's competence in recognising the tares from the wheat, not to obstruct the activity of the disciple "who does not walk with us" - those are all the fruit of faith that helps us not to confuse ourselves and the Absolute, of our hope of meeting the Absolute at the "end of time" and particularly of a love that alone introduces the Absolute into this world of relativity.

The well-known hymn in the letter to the Corinthians says that "love endures all". The ability to be tolerant is an aspect of love's omnipotence. Once again: The Bible does not recognise "tolerance" as a value of itself - the ability to "endure something" (or even everything) is a characteristic of love.

Instead of "tolerance" what we found in the New Testament is an appeal for us "to love our enemy and repay evil with good". Loving one's enemy seems an absurd injunction ever since love has been perceived as an emotion. Our enemy understandably arouses negative emotions within us and one of the commandments of modern man - formulated by humanist psychology and psychoanalysis - is "don't suppress your emotions". But in the New Testament love is something more than emotion. There Jesus transcends the usual principle of justice, "eye for an eye", what you do to me I'll do to you. He replaces it with the rule: "As God does to me so I'll do to you". Even when I am wronged I am not to resort to methods that foster evil. I am to renounce the right to vengeance and reject the spirit of revenge lest I further crank up the spiral of violence. To step out of the circle of hatred and turn the other cheek is to set up a mirror to evil. It is through such contrasting behaviour that the face of evil is revealed. There one thing we can learn from the horror films about vampires that commercial TV showers on us: evil detests a mirror. For according to an ancient theological and philosophical tradition it has no essence of its own, it is merely "a lack of good" (privatio boni), and exists as a mere shadow.

Let us dwell for a moment on the concept of "shadow". One of the wisest recipes for how to obtain the virtue of tolerance is offered us by depth psychology, and namely in connection with the "shadow archetype". C.G. Jung maintains that each of us has his or her own shadow - an aspect of our personality that we try to conceal both from others and from ourselves. Sometimes it that that part of our being that is burdened with guilt, sometimes it is more of a "debt" - in the sense of something undeveloped, neglected, raw. Those aspects of our own personality that we are either unwilling or unable to admit to ourselves we often project onto others - and there we have no problem condemning them roundly! Jung used to advise his clients, when someone (or a group of people) really annoyed them, to ask themselves whether the other person or persons weren't setting up a mirror to them, whether they weren't reminding them of the unacknowledged "dark side" of their own ego. "Retracting one's projections" and acknowledging one's own failings and recognising one's own shadow can lead to a deeper knowledge of oneself, and also ease one's tensions towards others and also one's conflicts. The precondition for tolerance - the ability to put up with the otherness of the other implies accepting putting up with our own complicated and problematic nature, and the heterogeneity of our own ego. The Biblical parable about the wheat and the tares challenged us to have patience with others - but we must have patience with ourselves too. We too are fields in which wheat and tares grow together and often we are unable to tell them apart.

***

Let us pose ourselves another question. Is tolerance the last word, the ultimate value in our co-existence with others, those who are different from us?

The great protestant theologian of the 20th century, Dietrich Bonhoeffer distinguished between "cheap grace" and "expensive grace". If a Christian refers to the primacy of grace over deeds simply to justify his indolence by this belief, then this is evasion and blasphemy - "cheap grace". Grace that is worthy of the name is a gift and vocation at one and the same time, strength and a call to follow Christ, to live a life of challenge, to take the steep and narrow path.

We could similarly refer to "cheap" (superficial, unauthentic) tolerance, that either conceals indifference to others or indifference to the truth. "Dear" (demanding) tolerance begins when acceptance of the other involves a painful challenge to my own convictions. Emanuel Levinas, a thinker who centred his thinking on the religious and moral experience of people who came to maturity amidst the tragedies of the twentieth century, teaches us that He who Augustin says is closer to us than our own hearts, sees us above all through the face of the stranger. All dividing walls have fallen; we have no excuse: we see or are able to see everything and everyone. One of the aspects of the (near) omnipotence that technology provides us is our (near) omnipresence.

Expensive, demanding tolerance definitely transcends the meaning ascribed to the word by the Enlightenment tradition, which - in common with the entire modern age in the West - was not yet capable of pluralistic thinking. In that sense the present post-modern age is truly post-tolerant. On the one hand, radically pluralist situations give rise to anxiety and fundamentalisms of every kind. On the other hand they also offer something more than "cheap and easy" tolerance - more than mere forbearance, peaceful coexistence, "armistice". It offers scope for sharing and communication, in which we are required over and over again in the face of others' difference to question our own identity, where the boundaries of my understanding of others and myself are widening all the time - among other things, so that I might provide the same service of co-existence to others.

                                    Tomáš Halík
June 2002
delivered at the World Congress of the Czechoslovak Society of Science and the Arts in Plzeň when receiving the "Andrew Elias SVU Human Tolerance Award"

~~~

SVU HOME PAGE, WHO ARE WE AND WHAT WE DO, SVU WORLD CONGRESSES, PLZEN 2002