Nikita Kudelin

by Nikita Kudelin, January 2010, Tomsk, Russia

Human history amounts to thousands of years, and there always was misunderstanding between people because of different religions, political views and belonging to different nations. On this basis, many terrible occurrences took place. The most impressive are Christians’ persecutions in Roman Empire, inquisition during the middle Ages and genocide of Jews in Fascist Germany.

People started to think about problem of tolerance during ages of Roman Empire. This country is the very first example of multinational country. That is why the state was interested in keeping peaceful relationships between ethnic groups inside the empire. Titus Livius and Niccolo Machiavelli approved this fact. Period of English Civil War can be called the next step of tolerance’s foundation: the first laws about religious tolerance were introduced. In XVII century, Voltaire created the basis of tolerance, but in my opinion, they received real acceptation only after the World War II – the event that made a strong impact in souls of several generations.

However, there is a question: how did we come to tolerance? A human being can fell different emotions; he can love or hate, be happy or be sad. In addition, every human understands surrounding people differently. Thus, a pluralistic society was created (this was approved by the Old Testament of the Holy Bible). Historical experience shows disadvantages of such kind of society and this fact guides us to tolerance.

Tolerance has different definitions, but I suppose that tolerance is human ability to coexist, work and communicate with each other in a peaceful way despite difference in nationality, religion, world outlook, sexual orientation and political views. Nevertheless, most of western sources give tolerance a different definition – it is ‘support’. However, I will use as the basis more neutral definition, which I have already mentioned. It is also rather widespread in Russia.

Experience of generations shows us that many people suffered and morals reduced without tolerance. That is why nowadays it is considered that tolerance is the way of human survival. Nowadays it is important because there are many reasons for enmity between people. There are conflicts between subcultures, people with different sexual orientation. Sometimes religious conflicts can take place, despite religious freedom in the most of countries.

On the one hand, ‘full’ tolerance can resolve this problem: people will bear ‘strangenesses’ of others and this will keep peace inside nations. But there are some limits. It is difficult to bear disordered persons, for example. Therewith, absolute tolerance will affect society. Human is social and if there is no support and no blame (what is announced by tolerance), a person will degrade, and, thus, the society will degrade.

On the other hand, there is a possibility to live without tolerance at all. In such kind of situation a person will feel himself more free, his point of view will not be limited (tolerance forbids people to pressure their point of view). Moreover, this point is supported by most of Russian Orthodox Church representatives. Unfortunately, after looking at previous human experience we can conclude that it will bring irreparable harm to the society.

However, there is the third variant. As we know, philosophers desired to create a society without enmity and disagreement during all the time. Plato, Babeuf, Saint-Simon introduced ideas of utopia socialism, Marx and Engels tried to promote communism, Godwin – anarchism. Saint-Simon dreamed about a state where the poor could work by their hands and the rich – by their brains, Karl Marx suggested a society of proletariat, William Godwin proposed an idea about society organized without state pressure. All these ideas have one common point – the state must be based on the society without social groups, in which everyone will have the same rights. That would be an ideal country without tolerance because it would suddenly become unnecessary, because everyone is equal. However, human being is individual; it is not possible to set everyone under one template. Every person has its own skills and intentions. Thus, it is not possible to create such society, and so it is impossible to make absolute peace and prosperity between human beings.

Nevertheless, the discussion would not be full if I forgot to concern areas where tolerance is necessary and how it can affect life in our country. Russia is the country with a wide range of ethnic cultures and languages. Nowadays there is a complex of misunderstandings connected with race and religious discrimination. Different groups of people try to solve this problem: we often can hear as Russian Orthodox Church representatives, scientists and art workers speak about vitality of race tolerance on TV.

This propaganda brings successful results. For example, there are all conditions for peaceful human coexisting in the Tomsk oblast: I believe I surely have never heard about such problems since I came there. In fact, this may sound moronic, because there are a lot of students from China, Vietnam, Mongolia in our city. However, young people threat them well and do help them to get the feel of a new country. I suppose our population is tolerant enough thanks to tolerance basis that were formed in Soviet Union. At the time, different programs of children from southeast countries acceptation to families, international youth festivals were popular. This made sure every person that a human from another country has no difference at all, that they has the same interests, goals and desires. In addition, existing religious tolerance furthers peace, and, in addition, most of world religions are represented in Tomsk: Catholic and Orthodox churches, mosques and synagogues.

It is great that we can see the situational improvement in other constituent territories. Of course, there are some regions with serious conditions (of affairs), but we must hope that better understanding of the tolerance’s problem and effective work of the state aimed at improving conditions will make the situation better. Because the majority seeks to peace and agreement, so that people will be able to work and children will be able to study without fear that someone will intrude into the school.

Another important point is the attitude to disabled people. Millions of people are mentally or physically handicapped because of several reasons in our country. I know a lot about this problem, because one of my closest friends is the disabled. I have been a friend of him from my childhood, and I do understand how it is complicated for him to deal with our world. Sometimes it was not easy to treat him, but I had never seen any difference between us, I always interpreted him as a normal person, as a friend. He is a friendly, cheerful, smart person. Despite that, he used to have many problems in communication with other people. I did not lose the connection between us after moving to another city. Nowadays I see how he makes friends and he becomes less lonely. Limits of tolerance must be extended to him and many other people so that they will be able to realize themselves for society’s good. This should be supported as by the state as by the society. The support can be given to invalids’ families so that they will help them to find a job, to show them.

Thus, tolerance is necessary, but it should be reasonable in order to support progress. It is vital in our country, as there are many ethnic groups, and tolerance will unite them. It is spreading in more humane way than ‘searching for an enemy’, that was common in resolving hot questions in the past. However, persons must understand by themselves its importance. Maybe, it would be possible to study basis of tolerance from early age and without pressure (it is not suitable for tolerance), but with arguments and evidence. Tolerance’s basis must be widespread in family; still the main parts of the society. Only in this case the young generation will be tolerant. But we should not forget about adults. Correct propaganda in the same manner will unite current generations. Thus, on a peaceful, evolutional basis, our country will be powerful and our society will be ready to work for their good.

I believe that these actions are rational and suitable for human nature. Despite that, tolerance may restrict someone’s opinion in the limits of selected stratum; it is not able to limit freedom of thinking, because thoughts may be important, fascinating and useful. We also should understand that any person can contribute in the society’s life, and we are to help, to support other people in this. It can support democracy in whole, because every person will be able to suppose, and his point of view will not be jammed, and he will not press someone else’s opinion. We can come to an ideal society this way.