What is tolerance in interethnic relations? Culture of interethnic relations

Everyone knows what the word "tolerance" means. And the translation, in fact, is not needed. Yes, Latin is "tolerance", and what? And just as everyone understands everything. There is even a question: "And what for in general to enter into language a superfluous word?" It is logical, when borrowed words fill an empty niche. There is no concept - there is no word in the language. A new phenomenon appears - the word that determines it also appears. If the phenomenon has come from a different culture, it is logical that the definition will also be from there. But if there was no TV or computer in the Russian-speaking reality, then there was tolerance! So why the new word?

Tolerance is not tolerance

The fact is that the words "tolerance" and "tolerance" differ semantically quite strongly. "Endure" in the Russian language is "to overcome some unpleasant sensations." "I do not like it, but I endure it. Forcing myself not to pay attention to trouble "- this is how you can convey the feelings of a person who is tolerant.

Tolerance is another. It's not overcoming one's own dislike and irritation (although, of course, the first steps towards true tolerance are exactly that). Adopting other people's traditions, someone else's way of life as a matter of course, a clear realization that all people are different and have every right to be such, that's what the word "tolerance" means.

A tolerant person just makes himself tolerate the existence of alien cultural norms, alien traditions, alien lifestyle. A tolerant person perceives all this as the only possible order of things. The phrase "we are all equal, we are one" is wrong. The truth is that we are all different - this is the norm.

His and others'

Before talking about what is tolerance in interethnic relations, it is worth remembering that at a certain stage of development each tribe called itself simple and unpretentious - "people". That is, we, gathered here by the fire, are people. And who else is wandering around, it's still necessary to understand. Well, what, that two legs, two hands and one head? Maybe this monkey is so bald? Whether it is not enough. He does not understand, he does not honor our gods, he does not like our leaders. It does not look like a person, oh, does not look like ...

The Roman word "barbarians" is a sound transmission of indistinct mumbling. "Var-var-var-var". Lopotit do not understand that. Here we are, the Romans are people, the right people, we speak clearly, in Latin. And these ... barbarians, in a word. And either they become normal people - they will speak Latin and recognize the primacy of Rome, or ...

Probably, the Huns had a corresponding evidence base, built on the same principle.

People are us and those who are like us. And all the rest are strangers, on whom no ethical and legal norms apply. That's how nations and interethnic relations have been formed for many, many hundreds of years. Gradually the circle of "people" expanded. We and our neighbors. We and our allies. We are Christians, or we are Judaists. We are white people. But there were always those who were around the world, beyond the borders. People of another nation, another faith, a different skin color. Not like that. Others.

Transformation of the picture of the world

On the one hand, it is still a positive trend. If the circle of "our" is expanding, then the culture of interethnic relations is slow, but growing. If you extrapolate, you can come to the conclusion that someday all will become "their own", and the place of bad and alien will be occupied, say, by extraterrestrials. Or sensible dolphins - it does not matter.

On the other hand, it is very, very bad. Because the trends clearly demonstrate that people need someone else's, just as their own antithesis. You need someone against whom you can be friends, forgetting about the small differences for the sake of large ones.

About what is tolerance in interethnic relations, began to reflect not so long ago. Just because in the XIX century slavery was a very common phenomenon, and the aborigines of Australia until 1967 did not take into account in the population census, thus excluding from among the citizens. With rare exception, Jews in the Russian Empire had no right to leave the Pale of Settlement until 1917, and the conflict in Ireland, based largely on cultural and religious contradictions, has existed for many decades, now flaring up and dying out. Therefore, international diplomacy of the past, of course, was quite tolerable within the framework of professionalism, that is, it is diplomatic. But this in no way meant that the task of the state included the education of tolerant citizens. The absence of war is already peace, but whether it is based on benevolent feelings toward a neighbor or simply on the awareness of the futility of an armed conflict is not so important.

Why did tolerance become a necessity?

For the sake of justice it is worth noting that it was in the twentieth century that there was a need for tolerance. Prior to that, the inhabitants of a single country mostly represented a cultural monolith. The British are British, the French are French, Japanese are Japanese. Strangers - gentiles, aliens, strangers - of course, were everywhere, but they were few. Ethnic tolerance was not very relevant simply because those to whom it was supposed to be directed were an extremely small group. So, no one cares about cases of influenza until the epidemic breaks out.

Only the twentieth century, with its active migration policy, endless wars that led to mass migrations, made people think about tolerance. And, of course, the Second World War, which clearly demonstrated to everyone what the dominant of one nation and interethnic relations are based on. More precisely, the twentieth century allowed us to look at the situation not from the burden-bearing responsibility of the white man, but from the "second-best copy", which is either to be improved or destroyed. The visibility was exceptional. Fascism easily convinced everyone that racial or religious prejudice is bad, and interethnic tolerance is good. Because no one guarantees that those who have just been in the role of the legitimate and majority power, suddenly will not be a minority, with all the ensuing consequences.

International law

In the twentieth century, the number of people who do not understand what tolerance is in interethnic relations has dramatically decreased. It has become an alternative to religious, racial, ethnic and any other tolerance. The ability to take someone else's culture, other people's traditions as a matter of course, adapt to them has become, in a certain sense, the key to survival. Because the twentieth century is not the tenth, and the sword and dagger have long since been replaced by automatic weapons and explosives.

That equality, which philosophers have been saying for many centuries, has finally been legislated. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed in 1948, for the first time made mutual respect not voluntary, but mandatory. In the Preamble of the UN Charter and in the Declaration of the Principles of Tolerance of UNESCO from 1995, definitions are given, voicing the basic principles of tolerance. They are reduced to a rather simple statement: all members of the civil society have the right to be different, and the task of the state is the right to provide.

Lack of tolerance in action

As a consequence, all states that have signed these international instruments are required to legislatively enforce such standards of conduct. This applies both to the norms of criminal and administrative law, in which responsibility should be prescribed for the violation of rights and freedoms of others, and to the requirements of the educational or cultural sphere. The state should not only punish those who seek to restrict others in their national, cultural or religious self-expression, but also to cultivate tolerance and respect in people, to plant them in society by all available means.

From this point of view, the tradition established in the Russian media to use the dubious term "a person of Caucasian nationality" is a direct violation of the norms of interethnic tolerance. Determining criminals, based on their alleged nationality, in a situation where this is in no way connected with the composition of the crime itself - is extremely incorrect. Especially if there is no "person of Slavic nationality" anywhere, "faces of Germanic-Roman ethnicity", "persons of Latin nationality". If all the above definitions even sound absurd, ridiculous and ridiculous, why did the "person of Caucasian nationality" become the norm? In this way, a stable association is simply fixed in the minds of people: a native from the Caucasus is a potential criminal. And it does not matter that the Caucasus is large and multinational, that the population of this territory is diverse and numerous. There, as elsewhere, there are criminals, but there, as everywhere else, decent people are incommensurably larger. Stereotype is easy to create, but difficult to destroy. Interethnic relations in Russia suffer very much from such ill-considered statements by media people.

Brotherly peoples are no longer such and fraternal

It is precisely with such manifestations of the formation of public opinion that the legislation of countries that have ratified international acts in this field must fight. The provision of information in the press and on television, lessons in schools, various kinds of events dedicated to the promotion of tolerance and mutual respect - all this should be controlled by the state. The alternative, alas, is sad. Civil disturbances, conflicts, the growth of xenophobic sentiments in society - it is very difficult to fight against such manifestations. It's easier not to admit them right away. The state should form public opinion, and then there will be new traditions and norms of behavior that will unintentionally determine the actions of citizens. Yes, crimes motivated by national or racial intolerance are evil almost inevitable. But if criminals face common condemnation and contempt - this is one thing. But if they meet with tacit understanding and approval, in the extreme case, indifference is quite another ...

Unfortunately, at present, interethnic relations in Russia are far from cloudless. Previously, during the multinational USSR, the mechanism of state propaganda worked specifically to foster mutual respect, and the emphasis was on the fact that regardless of nationality, everyone is a citizen of one big country. Now, unfortunately, the level of tolerance towards representatives of other nations has fallen dramatically, as this aspect of education is given little attention. But international differences in the media are emphasized quite sharply. And one can only hope that the situation will soon change for the better.

Not everything is so rosy

For the sake of justice, it should be noted that the ideal of mutual respect and mutual understanding that the modern cultural community is striving for has also quite unpleasant side effects. Tolerance is, of course, wonderful. As well as Christian non-resistance. You can turn your cheeks to infinity, if this is consistent with the principles and moral beliefs. But no one guarantees that the non-resistance person will survive. Because his system of moral values includes both humanism, love for one's neighbor, and conviction of universal equality. But who said that these principles will be shared by the opponent? Chances are great that the non-prototype will be given a good start at the face, and then simply pushed aside. He will not reassure anyone and will not re-educate anyone - simply because such behavior by representatives of another culture will be regarded not as the exclusive beauty of the soul, but as a banal weakness. "Tolerance" is a term that is far from universally accepted and not universally perceived in a positive way. For many, this is lack of will, cowardice, the absence of rigid moral principles, for which it is worth fighting for. As a result, there is a situation where only one side shows tolerance and tolerance. But the second actively imposes its own rules of the game.

Tolerance and chauvinism

A similar problem faced modern Europe. A large number of migrants from the Muslim East and from Africa led to significant cultural shifts. The settlers themselves are not at all eager to assimilate, which is understandable. They live as they are used to, as they see fit. A tolerant Europeans, of course, can not force them - because it violates the rights of the individual. It seems that behavior is absolutely correct. But is it possible to harmonize interethnic relations in a situation where, in fact, there is no dialogue? There is a monologue of one of the parties, one that does not want to hear anybody's arguments or understand them.

Already, many Europeans complain that visitors not only do not want to behave "in a European way." They demand that the indigenous people conform to the norms and traditions adopted in the old homeland. That is, tolerant Europeans can not impose their norms and rules, but intolerant visitors can do it! And they are imposing! Because their culture considers such behavior to be the only possible and correct one. And the only way to change such traditions is restrictions in rights and freedoms, forced assimilation, which is incompatible with the philosophy of mutual respect and personal freedom. Here is a paradox. Examples of tolerance of this kind are described quite accurately by a child's joke "at first we'll eat yours, and then each your own."

Tolerance - not equal to service

Unfortunately, the consequence of this situation is the growing popularity of fascist movements. The desire to protect, preserve their culture, protect it from other people's brutal interference makes some Europeans acutely feel their own nationality. And it pours out already into forms far from civilized.

We can say that the wave of interethnic conflicts that has overwhelmed Europe in recent times is just a consequence of the overabundance of tolerance. Because at some point people forget what tolerance is in interethnic relations, and cease to distinguish it from servility. Mutual respect - it is mutual. There is no one-sided mutual respect. And if one of the nations does not want to reckon with the traditions and norms of the other, then there can not be any tolerance. If this fact is ignored, conflicts are inevitable. And they will be much more serious - simply because they will flow out of the legal field. The revival of extremist fascist movements in Europe as a symmetrical response to the cultural imbalance caused by a large number of visitors, this clearly proves. Like everyone, even the most wonderful and humane measure, tolerance is good only within reasonable limits. An overdose turns the medicine into poison.