Lines in the Shifting Sand

Uit Mad Pride Nederland
Ga naar:navigatie, zoeken

The Implications of Being Tolerated

13 september 2022 • Dr. Sara Cvetkovska • tolerantie

Samenvatting: Engelse samenvatting van de thesis over de psychologische en sociale gevolgen van getolereerd worden

This is a summary of a doctoral thesis. The full version can be accessed at https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/422464 [DOI:10.33540/1463]

Introduction

Tolerance is considered a crucial ingredient for enabling the co-existence of diverse ways of life in pluralistic societies due to its potential to reduce intergroup conflict arising from deep-seated differences between groups and has been advocated in numerous national, international, and organizational settings (e.g. by UNESCO and the European Union), on the political right[1] as well as on the political left[2]. Although theorizing and research has approached tolerance from the perspective of tolerating agents, the possible implications for those being tolerated has received no systematic attention (but see Bagci et al.[3]). Given the emphasis on tolerance as a way of negotiating deep-seated differences, it is critical at this junction to evaluate the costs and benefits of being tolerated for targets. My research is a first in-depth look at the social psychological consequences of being tolerated, in the sense of being endured in spite of others' objections.

This dissertation focuses upon social tolerance as the endurance of outgroup practices that are considered deviant or objectionable. In contrast to its popular, modern usage as connoting appreciation and open-mindedness towards people different from oneself, in this thesis I define tolerance in its classical sense as enduring or putting up with something without attempting to change or prevent it[4][5][6]. I am concerned with tolerance at the intergroup level, such as the case of ethnic groups living together in one nation. Tolerance has similarities to both rejection and full acceptance, but is distinct from each[7]. Rejecting something may involve attempting to negatively interfere with it. Like rejection, tolerance involves a negative attitude (ie disapproval) towards specific minority practices, beliefs, and norms, but unlike rejection, it also involves the voluntary suppression of one's inclination to suppress minorities' expressions. Fully accepting something refers to appreciating it and not holding any objections to it. tolerance is similar to acceptance because both detail giving others the freedom to express themselves. In other words, the difference between tolerance and acceptance is in the attitude, while the difference between tolerance and rejection is in the behavior. Tolerance may therefore be characterized as being “intermediate between wholehearted acceptance and unrestrained opposition”[8].

To better understand the experience and consequences of being tolerated, this research was guided by three main questions:

  1. How do targets of tolerance interpret and experience being tolerated?
  2. What are the implications of being tolerated on targets' well-being?
  3. What are the implications of being tolerated on targets' willingness to engage in collective action?

The starting point is to understand just how tolerance is understood and experienced by its targets. One cannot simply assume that tolerated people regard tolerance in the same way that tolerators might perceive or intend it. Because targets of tolerance do not have access to the thought processes or intentions of tolerators (ie, the reasons for their disapproval of particular conduct, and their tolerance nevertheless), they must rely on perceiving and interpreting the other's behaviors. As shown by Adelman et al.[9], tolerance is often passive and manifests in non-interference or inaction, which is inherently ambiguous to interpret. Targets may be aware of there being norms of tolerance towards their behavior in a particular context, alongside the presence of negative attitudes. The task of detecting and responding to tolerance may therefore be characterized by a strong sense of uncertainty. Uncertainty is a powerful stressor which may contribute to poorer health when it is frequently faced[10][11], and this could make being tolerated a taxing experience for its targets.

The stress inherent in interpreting the uncertainty in tolerance may therefore have implications for the mental and emotional state of those being tolerated. Research Question 2 therefore concerns the possible well-being implications of being tolerated. Tolerance by definition cannot involve overt group-based rejection, discrimination, or exclusion, which are accompanied by a host of negative consequences for targets' health and well-being[12][13]. However, the negative evaluation, which is a central element of tolerance, might carry a cost of its own. For the targets of tolerance, tolerance may carry with it the implication that what is tolerated is in some way inferior or deviant – after all, one can only tolerate what one disapproves of. People are motivated to see their group identities in a positive light[14], so tolerance can feel condescending to targets and they may feel that the reasons for disapproving of their way of life are misguided or driven by bias. In fact, some expressions of tolerance (eg avoidance or expressions of disapproval) may be perceived by targets as expressions of subtle prejudice or as microaggressions[15].

Expressing dissatisfaction with being tolerated is likely to be met with backlash due to the common perception of being tolerant as generous and morally good. This may discouraged tolerated people to undertake collective action to resist condescending tolerance (see Research Question 3), which is an important topic for study because of the utility of collective action for less powerful groups to effect change in the status hierarchy[16]. Research on confronting discrimination has found that those who complain about their experiences of discrimination are often negatively evaluated by onlookers[17], including members of one's own group[18]. The illegitimacy of prejudice and discrimination are much easier to perceive and point out than harms ensuing from tolerance, which involves restraint from negative action despite a negative attitude; after all, when one is tolerated, they are still able to live as they wish. Given that perceived injustice is critical to disadvantaged groups' efforts to advocate for themselves[19][20] it may be the case that being tolerated undermines struggles toward recognition, acceptance and equality. On the other hand, being tolerated may allow disadvantaged groups more scope for collective action without fear of political repression for doing so[21]. Tolerance in principle acts as a barrier against oppression and discrimination and therefore might provide minority members the opportunity to engage in actions to achieve recognition and social change.

Methodology

For my research, I made use of a wide range of methods and designs, which were administered among a variety of target minority groups, aiming to provide a first broad-ranging understanding and empirical examination of the experience and consequences of being tolerated. Chapter 2 describes a qualitative interview study among trans people in the Netherlands, which addresses Research Question 1. Chapters 3 and 4 report quantitative studies conducted among ethnic minorities in the United States and the Netherlands, respectively, and both address Research Question 2. Chapter 5 reports an online Cyberball experiment[22] administered among women interacting with men, and addresses Research Question 3. Through these four studies, I examined targets' perception and subjective experiences of tolerance, followed by the well-being consequences of being tolerated and the mechanisms linking tolerance to well-being. Finally, I moved from the realm of feelings to the realm of action and examined the social implications of being tolerated.

Main Results

The Experience of Tolerance

From a target's perspective, the experience of being tolerated is steeped in ambiguity. Targets must interpret others' actions in order to make attributions for how they are treated. Complicating this endeavor is the tendency for tolerance to manifest as non-interference, which is usually inaction[9]. Omissions are by nature difficult to spot and difficult to interpret. Thus, the targets of tolerance are often unsure of the true nature of what is happening when they are tolerated. This uncertainty extends to knowing where the boundaries of tolerance lie. Tolerance always has limits, which if crossed, will result in things being considered intolerable[4][5]. However, the targets of tolerance, in the absence of explicit information, have no way of knowing where those boundaries are. As Chapter 2 shows, this can be a stressful and taxing experience which can cause targets of tolerance to avoid doing anything that may upset tolerators[23][24], which effectively limits the freedom of the tolerated. This uncertainty additionally makes it difficult to know how one should respond to being tolerated, for example by attempting to educate the tolerator or rather distancing oneself.

The Intermediacy of Tolerance: Well-Being and Collective Action

A similar pattern of results emerged across the different studies that I conducted: the experience of being tolerated has more positive implications than that of being rejected, but more negative implications than being accepted. This was found to be the case for multiple specific dependent variables, including positive and negative well-being, identity needs, freedom of expression, interactions with tolerators, and using one's voice in protest.

Well Being. The threat to identity needs, such as the needs for self-esteem, belonging, and self-efficacy, was present when being tolerated and when being rejected, and was partially responsible for decreased well-being among targets of both types of treatment, as shown in Chapter 3. Yet, tolerance seemed to be harmful to a lesser degree than pure rejection, indicated by smaller effect sizes. However, the interview study in Chapter 2 shows that tolerance presented some unique threats to identity among trans people, including the hampering of one's ability to express oneself and be recognized by others the way one sees oneself. Being tolerated was linked to greater national identification among ethnic minorities in the Netherlands, which in turn was linked to increased positive affect (Chapter 4); however, whereas acceptance was directly linked to positive affect, tolerance's positive implications were dependent upon one's sense of inclusion in the national group. This indicates that the positive consequences of tolerance may be more fragile than those of full acceptance, as tolerance is more liable to shift to intolerance than to acceptance[25][7]. The precariousness of tolerance is itself a likely reason for the different consequences of being tolerated and of being accepted: not knowing where the boundaries of tolerance lie can be a stressful and taxing experience.

Collective Action. Being tolerated differed from both being accepted and being rejected when considering outcomes in the social realm beyond well-being. Tolerated women were more trusting and had more positive expectations of future interactions than women who were rejected by the men in their virtual team, but the pattern was reversed when comparing tolerated to accepted women (Chapter 5). When it comes to raising one's voice, being tolerated had a mobilizing effect when compared to acceptance: tolerated women raised their voice more against being behaviorally included in the team activities without being appreciated. However, when compared to being rejected, being tolerated had a demobilizing effect as theorized by Brown[2]: in spite of a lack of acceptance and negative implications for well-being, tolerance may not be resisted by targets, thus preserving tolerators' disapproving attitudes as well as any pre-existing power differentials between the tolerated and those who tolerate them. Interestingly, this pattern of results did not carry over to collective action tendencies beyond the experimental setting. Rather, there was some evidence that women who were accepted were more inclined to agitate for societal change in relation to the position of women in general, compared to women who were tolerated. This indicates, as some theorists have noted[21], that not having to face the opprobrium of an opposing group can stimulate mobilization among disadvantaged groups. The question of whether being tolerated has a mobilizing or demobilizing effect is a complex one whose answer will depend on multiple factors in a given situation. One such factor could be what tolerated targets compare being tolerated to : When tolerance is compared with rejection, respondents feel that tolerance is preferable. However, when framing tolerance in opposition to acceptance, the shortcomings of tolerance were emphasized. More research is needed into the social consequences of tolerance and how they are linked to a particular group's past experiences and future expectations.

Conclusion

Given the continuing interest in tolerance as a way to negotiate deep-seated intergroup differences and its profound potential impact on society as a whole, it is crucial to identify and evaluate its meanings and consequences to targets. Although there are still many nuances and caveats to understand (eg, the impact of different forms of tolerance or different types of target groups), some general conclusions can be drawn. First, being tolerated is often highly ambiguous for targets to identify, interpret, and know how to cope with effectively. Second, being tolerated can threaten one's well-being and identity needs, notably one's sense of belonging in groups; however, while tolerance is more threatening than acceptance, it is still preferable to facing rejection. Third, being tolerated can discourage targets from agitating for greater acceptance of their group. For a wide range of tolerated groups in liberal settings, including ethnic, sexual, and gender minorities, being tolerated can be harmful.

Referenties
  1. ↑ Carson, D.A. (2012). The intolerance of tolerance. Cambridge, UK: Williams B. Eerdmans
  2. ↑ 2,0 2,1 Brown, W. (2006). Regulating aversion: Tolerance in the age of identity and empire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  3. ↑ Bagci, C., Verkuyten, M., Koc, Y., Turnuklu, A., Piyale, Z. E., & Bekmezci, E. (2020). Being tolerated and being discriminated against: Links to psychological well-being through threatened social identity needs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 1463-1477. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2699.
  4. ↑ 4,0 4,1 Cohen, A. J. (2004). What toleration is. Ethics, 115, 68–95. doi: 10.1086/421982
  5. ↑ 5,0 5,1 Forst, R. (2017). Toleration. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (2017 ed.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/toleration/
  6. ↑ (King, 2012)?
  7. ↑ 7,0 7,1 Verkuyten, M., Yogeeswaran, K., & Adelman, L. (2019). Intergroup toleration and its implications for culturally diverse societies. Social Issues and Policy Review, 13, 5-35. doi: 10.1111/sipr.12051
  8. ↑ Scanlon, T.M. (2003). The difficulty of tolerance: Essays in political philosophy. UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 187
  9. ↑ 9,0 9,1 Adelman, L., Verkuyten, M., & Yogeeswaran, K. (2021b). Distinguishing active and passive outgroup tolerance: Understanding its prevalence and the role of moral concern. Political Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1111/pops.12790
  10. ↑ Greco, V., & Roger, D. (2003). Uncertainty, stress, and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1057-1068. Doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00091-0
  11. ↑ Zakowski, S. G. (1995). The effects of stressor predictability on lymphocyte proliferation in humans. Psychology and Health, 10, 409-425. Doi: 10.1080/08870449508401960
  12. ↑ Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Postmes, T., & Garcia, A. (2014). The consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1-28. doi:10.1037/a0035754
  13. ↑ Pascoe, E. A., & Richman, L. (2009). Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 531-554. doi:10.1037/a0016059
  14. ↑ Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
  15. ↑ Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  16. ↑ Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social-psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56, 319–331. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.4.319
  17. ↑ Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001a). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 254-263. Doi: 10.1177/0146167201272010
  18. ↑ Garcia, D. M., Reser, A. H., Amo, R. B., Redersdorff, S., & Branscombe, N. R. (2005). Perceivers’ responses to in-group and out-group members who blame a negative outcome on discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 769-780. doi:10.1177/0146167204271584
  19. ↑ Jetten, J., Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Garza, A. A., & Mewse, A. J. (2011). Group commitment in the face of discrimination: The role of legitimacy appraisals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 116-126. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.743
  20. ↑ van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504-535. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504
  21. ↑ 21,0 21,1 McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. Y. (Eds.). (1999). Comparative perspectives on social movements. Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  22. ↑ Williams, K. D., & Jarvis, B. (2006). Cyberball: A program for use in research on interpersonal ostracism and acceptance. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 38(1), 174-180. doi:10.3758/BF03192765
  23. ↑ Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-292. Doi: 10.2307/1914185
  24. ↑ Verkuyten, M., Yogeeswaran, K., & Adelman, L. Y. (2020a). The negative implications of being tolerated: Tolerance from the target’s perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15, 544-561. doi.10.1177/1745691619897974.
  25. ↑ van Doorn, M. (2014). The nature of tolerance and the social circumstances in which it emerges. Current Psychology Review, 62, 905-927. Doi: 10.1177/2F0011392114537281
Overgenomen van "https://madpride.nl:443/index.php?title=Lines_in_the_Shifting_Sand&oldid=576"