The term tolerance is frequently used by woke activists. They usually present themselves as fighters against intolerance. At the same time, they behave intolerantly towards criticism.
There is no double standard in this, because in this view intolerance is only considered problematic when the respective intolerance can strengthen systemic power structures and oppression. Certain kinds of intolerance are therefore accepted (e.g. towards white people in antiracism, TERFs in queer activism).
The woke handling of tolerance follows an activist logic of denunciation: anyone who does not actively resist oppression is themselves regarded as a complicit in the oppression.417 This view of tolerance draws on the ideas of the philosopher Herbert Marcuse.418
The new-left philosopher Marcuse saw “repressive tolerance” in 1965 as a form of impartial tolerance: impartial tolerance protects the established machinery of discrimination and the exercise of power (for example rearmament, chauvinism, and discrimination on racial and religious grounds). Marcuse contrasts impartial tolerance with his “liberating tolerance”: liberating tolerance means intolerance towards everything that could be used to support the unjust status quo. According to Marcuse, it is necessary to proceed repressively against allegedly regressive movements that oppose progressive goals:
“That tolerance is withdrawn from regressive movements before they can become active, that intolerance is also practised towards thinking, opinion, and the word (intolerance especially towards conservatives and the political right) – these anti-democratic ideas correspond to the actual development of democratic society, which has destroyed the basis for all-round tolerance.” 419
Marcuse’s ideas about liberation, oppression, and democracy legitimise a repressive approach: since systemic power always maintains itself and threatens progressive movements, progressive activists should also be allowed to use means that are rejected by the system.420 A “liberating tolerance” should therefore also be allowed to defend itself with violence against alleged intolerance.
To justify such repressive behaviours, Karl Popper’s famous “paradox of tolerance” is often instrumentalised. The philosopher Popper warned that unlimited tolerance (towards intolerance) would necessarily lead to the disappearance of tolerance. However, Popper saw intolerance only as a last resort, as intolerance should only be used if the other side employs violence. These narrow limits of Popper’s justification for intolerance are ignored by woke activists. From their perspective, already problematic viewpoints justify intolerance.421
Certain elements of postmodern philosophy legitimise this tendency towards intolerance. From a postmodern perspective, society is often viewed as a mirror image of various discourses: in order to maintain the system, dominant discourses are said to have been created by elites who thereby secure their societal influence.
Inspired by this view of the system, even theses that could support dominant discourses can be seen as a form of oppression. Through this extremely broad view of oppression and the emphasis on the need for protection, woke activists legitimise their intolerance (see Cancel Culture, Protection, and epistemic violence).