Popper's Paradox of Tolerance
Karl Popper introduced the paradox of tolerance in his 1945 book The Open Society and Its Enemies (Vol. 1, Note 4 to Chapter 7). It is not a logical contradiction but a practical dilemma: if a society is unlimitedly tolerant, it risks being destroyed by the intolerant.
Core Statement (Paraphrased)
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”
The Paradox Explained Step-by-Step
1. Tolerance as a Social Contract
- In an open (tolerant) society, people agree to coexist despite disagreements.
- This requires mutual restraint: you don’t suppress others just because you disagree.
2. The Intolerant Reject the Contract
- Some groups or individuals refuse to tolerate others.
- They use freedom (speech, assembly, etc.) not to debate, but to destroy the system that grants those freedoms (e.g., Nazis in 1930s Weimar Germany).
3. The Dangerous Outcome
- If the tolerant never resist the intolerant — out of a commitment to "absolute" tolerance — the intolerant will eventually gain power and eliminate tolerance entirely.
- Result: Tolerance dies, replaced by oppression.
4. The Necessary Conclusion
- Therefore, a tolerant society must be intolerant of intolerance — not of ideas, but of actions that aim to destroy tolerance.
- This means:
“We should claim the right to suppress [the intolerant] if necessary even by force.”
Key Clarification: What Popper Does NOT Say
| Misinterpretation | Popper's Actual Position |
|---|---|
| "Any disagreement = intolerance → suppress it" | Only actions that seek to eliminate open debate (violence, censorship, coups) justify suppression. |
| "Tolerate everything except what I dislike" | Suppression must be rational, minimal, and defensive — not a blank check for power. |
| "Ideas should be banned" | Ideas can be debated; only anti-democratic tactics (e.g., shouting down speakers to prevent speech) cross the line. |
Real-World Example: Weimar Republic
- Nazis used democratic freedoms (elections, free speech) to gain power.
- Once in control, they banned all opposition and ended democracy.
- Popper’s point: Tolerating the Nazis’ actions (not just their ideas) enabled this.
The Paradox in One Sentence
To preserve tolerance, a society must paradoxically refuse to tolerate those who would use tolerance to destroy it.
Modern Applications (Used & Abused)
Used Justly: Banning political violence or incitement to genocide.
Abused: Labelling any dissent as “intolerance” to silence debate (e.g., “hate speech” laws applied to satire or science).
This inverts Popper: it becomes intolerance in the name of tolerance.
Summary Quote (Popper’s Own Words)
“In the name of tolerance, we should claim the right to suppress intolerance. But we should claim it only in the last resort, and only when we are certain that the danger is real and imminent.”
The paradox is not a justification for censorship — it’s a warning: tolerance is fragile and requires vigilant defence.
See Also:
The "I Demand Tolerance" Hypocrisy Quadrant
No comments:
Post a Comment