Tolerance is an essential value in contemporary liberal democracies, but it has its limitations when applied to the politics of queer existence. Philosophers have posited various arguments for and against this application of tolerance, examining issues such as the definition of queerness, the role of tolerance in achieving social change, and the relationship between tolerance and oppression. In this article, we will explore these debates and consider whether there are philosophical limits to tolerance when applied to queer politics.
What is meant by "queer"? The term can refer to individuals who identify outside of heterosexual and cisgender norms, as well as those who challenge traditional ideas about gender and sexuality. Queer activists argue that their identity should be acknowledged and respected, rather than simply tolerated. They contend that tolerance implies acceptance based on existing power structures that privilege heteronormativity and cissexism. Some philosophers have argued that tolerance fails to address systemic forms of oppression that shape social relations and experiences of embodiment.
Queer theorist Judith Butler writes that tolerance may reinforce "the very conditions of domination" (Butler, 1990, p. xii).
Others have challenged this view, arguing that tolerance can play a role in advancing social change. Philosopher Martha Nussbaum suggests that toleration can lead to more open and inclusive societies where marginalized groups can flourish (Nussbaum, 2015). She argues that tolerating difference can help create a more just society where all people can live together without fear or prejudice. This approach recognizes the complexities of individual identities while also acknowledging that some forms of intolerance are unjustified.
The application of tolerance to queer politics raises questions about how it relates to other values such as equality and freedom. If tolerance becomes the only value, does it leave room for other demands such as equal rights? Can tolerance be applied equally across different contexts, including schools, workplaces, and healthcare systems? These debates highlight the need for nuanced discussions about how best to support queer individuals within broader political frameworks.
We must consider whether there are limits to tolerance when applied to queer existence itself. Tolerance implies that certain behaviors or identities should not be criminalized but does not necessarily mean that they should be endorsed or celebrated. Queer activists argue that some practices or expressions should be protected even if they challenge dominant norms.
Philosopher Sara Ahmed has argued that tolerating homophobia and transphobia reinforces heteronormativity by allowing bigoted attitudes to remain unchallenged (Ahmed, 2017). Instead, she advocates for actively challenging these beliefs through education and social movements.
Philosophers have debated the role of tolerance in supporting queer politics and whether there are limits to its application. While toleration may play a valuable role in creating more inclusive societies, it must be combined with other values such as justice and equality. Further research is needed on how to balance respect for individual differences while promoting collective action against systemic oppression.
References:
- Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
- Nussbaum, M. C. (2015). Political liberalism: Some questions for conceptual clarity. Ethics, 126(1), 81-112.
- Ahmed, S. (2017). Living a feminist life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
What are the philosophical limits of tolerance when applied to the politics of queer existence?
Tolerance is an important aspect of any society that advocates for equality, fairness, and inclusion, but it has its limitations when it comes to addressing issues related to queer existence. Tolerance implies accepting something as normal even if one does not necessarily agree with it, which can be problematic when it comes to marginalized communities like the LGBTQ+ community.