Toleration and coexistence in conflicting societies: some tensions and implications for education

Abstract

In this paper, the author shows that the issue of whether toleration promotes coexistence is controversial and therefore needs careful consideration in light of the complexities that are involved in understanding and teaching toleration in the schools of conflict and post-conflict societies. In particular, this paper offers a critique to the interpretation of toleration-as-respect as a means of fostering coexistence in education. A vignette from the author’s ethnographic research is used to support the argument that the assumption about a ‘naturalised’ link between toleration and coexistence is problematic and might well be counter-productive. It is shown that there exists an alternative interpretation of tolerance that highlights the antagonism between conflicting communities. Finally, the paper proposes an account of how an ethics of responsibility and hospitality may provide valuable alternatives that enrich existing interpretations of toleration and coexistence in educational settings of conflicting societies.

Keywords:

• tolerance/toleration
• coexistence
• conflicting societies
• education
• responsibility
• hospitality

Notes

1. At the outset of this paper, I make a distinction between tolerance (an attitude) and toleration (a set of practices). When it does matter in the text, this distinction is retained. Otherwise, I prefer the use of ‘toleration’ because it has a praxis (political) rather than an attitudinal (psychological) orientation – an orientation that is also closer to that of ‘coexistence’ as a practice.

2. Hayden analyses extensively the cases of Bosnia and India to show the problematic assumptions of writers who assert that Bosnia had a ‘pluralistic culture’ since ‘mosques, synagogues, Catholic and Orthodox churches stand side by side’ (2002, 205). Similarly, the construction of Indian communalism, argues Hayden, is not an indication of pluralism and tolerance. In other words, the point is that we should interrogate that which is supposedly being ‘tolerated’ and that living side by side is not always an indication of acceptance and tolerance.

3. Those interested in more methodological details about this ethnography might want to review some of the published work based on these data (Zembylas 2008, 2010b).

4. Some may argue that the work of destroying coexistence has already been carried out in that the school spaces are already segregated. However, this argument simply confirms the earlier position that tolerance-as-respect by itself does not necessarily contribute to coexistence.