Paradox

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

was started by Greeks as the dream of unity and perfection is the symptom of the lost group spirit of tribalism. He argues that once the closed society is awaken – once individuals realized ideas of individualism, humanism, and ability to criticize they cannot go back to the closed society. ⁴⁸ Even though there are a lot of areas for improvement, Western liberal society in the 21^st century is much more tolerant of other religions, sexes, ideas, sexual orientation, etc. than it was a century ago. However, with the toleration and open society comes new challenges from those actors, either domestic or foreign, which have their interests in the dissolution of open pluralistic society which reveals the paradox of tolerance.

2.2.2 Paradox

The Paradox of Tolerance was defined by Karl Popper in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945). He was influenced by the political turmoil in Europe between World War I and World War II as totalitarian regimes took root in Germany and Russia. His book was therefore a defense of open society which he characterizes by having institutions that allow people to search for pragmatic solutions to social and political problems. This corresponds with modern institutions in a liberal democracy. For Popper, the enemies were the ones who tried to limit, undermine, or overthrow these institutions. He chose Plato as the one who gave the foundation to the formation of autoreactive regimes later on as, for Popper, Plato's Republic was, in essence, a rigid society and its philosopher-king whose knowledge of Forms would save the society from decay which for Plato was unavoidable therefore new society would be not changing in time. For Plato that was justice but for Popper, it had signs of totalitarianism as this society would be based on a strong state, collectivism, the censorship that would be enforced by state propaganda which Plato called Noble lies.⁴⁹⁵⁰

Popper lays out a critique of Hegel and Marx as well because he argues that they as Plato believe in these trans-historical laws that govern human history. As Popper was an eye witness to the rise of nationalism in Austria before the World War II and following Anschluss⁵¹ together with the rise

48 POPPER, Karl. The Open Society and Its Enemies. [online]. Routledge & Kegan Paul Plc, 1966. Retrieved from:

https://monoskop.org/images/5/5f/Popper_Karl_The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies_Vols_1-2_5th_ed.pdf. ISBN 0-691-01968-1. [visited: 21.2.2020]. Page 176.

49 In politics it refers to a myth or untruth knowingly presented by the elite to maintain social harmony. In this case it is to convince people of the city of their unequal standing and deep their ties to the city.

50 POPPER, Karl. The Open Society and Its Enemies. [visited: 21.2.2020]. Page 550.

51 Political union of Austria with Germany, achieved through annexation by Adolf Hitler in 1938.

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

of nationalism in Germany using the historical deterministic narrative and he lived throughout the time of establishing the Soviet Union which was using Marx historicism for overthrowing Tsar as socialism was a natural future development in human history, he was very critical to anyone using historical laws guiding humanity especially when the atrocities of those regimes which rise on that historical premise came to light. This personal experience made Popper die-hard defender of democracy and in order to preserve it in his work, he formulated the paradox of tolerance.

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.⁵²

He continues his argumentation that intolerant philosophies should be always suppressed as long as they cannot be countered by rational argument. If they can be met with a ration argumentation they should be kept in check by public opinion, as suppression, in this case, would be unwise.⁵³ But he argues that the right to suppress them if there is a need should be always reserved and that applies to usage of force as well. This non-renouncing the violence he bases on the fact that the intolerant could not be prepared to engage on the level of rational argument, but instead they begin to denounce all argument as well as they may forbid their followers to listen to ration argument, because they view it as deceptive, and instead of them they may teach them to answer arguments by the usage of force.⁵⁴ Therefore he claims the right not to tolerate the intolerant, in the name of tolerance. Any movement preaching intolerance by definition places itself outside of the law and the society should consider persecuting it the same way as murder or kidnapping is.⁵⁵

Popper was the first one to deal with this paradox but others derivate from his argumentation. John Rawls in his book A Theory of Justice. He argues that a just society has to tolerate the intolerant otherwise the society would become unjust as well. But he follows Popper's argument that such a society has to have a reasonable right for self-preservation:

52 POPPER, Karl. The Open Society and Its Enemies. [visited: 16.2.2020]. Page 543.

53 Ibid, [visited: 16.2.2020]. Page 543.

54 Ibid, [visited: 16.2.2020]. Page 543.

55 Ibid, [visited: 16.2.2020]. Page 544.

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

“While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.”⁵⁶

Michael Walzer and his work called On Toleration are asking “Should we tolerate the intolerant?”

Even though his discussion is focusing on the groups and toleration within a one-state entity he concludes that most minority religious or ethnic groups living in the tolerant society and benefiting from it and in some aspect intolerant. He argues that intolerant people living in the tolerant environment could learn to tolerate or at least to act as they possess this virtue as encounters with the other groups are unavoidable but in the end, they would support the state in crafting policies to separate them as a way of protecting themselves due to the fear of potential fanaticism from the other group.⁵⁷

This issue has been addressed even before the 20^th century even though at the time it did not have a coined term. In the USA it was Thomas Jefferson who gave a thought to the notion of a tolerant society. During his first inauguration speech in 1801, he warned those who might try to destabilize the unity of the US, stating:

"Let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."⁵⁸

Others did not focus solely on tolerance and its paradox but because the concept of freedom of speech is tied with the paradox they focused on it instead. Michael Rosenfeld points out why the society should give freedom of speech to the extremists who, if they ought to gain power, would ruthlessly suppress the speech of those whom they disagree? He points out that there is a difference in approach to hate speech between European states and the USA in which there is no limitation of speech whatsoever.⁵⁹

56 RAWLS, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1999. ISBN 978-0-674-00078-0. [visited: 16.2.2020].

Page 220.

57 WALZER, Michael. On Toleration. Yale University Press, 1997. ISBN 978-0-300-07600-4. [visited: 16.2.2020].

Page 81.

58 JEFFERSON, Thomas. First Inaugural Address. [online]. University of Chicago Press, 2001. Retrieved from:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s33.html. [visited: 14.2.2020].

59 ROSENFELD, Michael. Extremist Speech and the Paradox of Tolerance. Harvard Law Review, 1987. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1341168. [visited: 16.2.2020]. Page 1.

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

This dilemma on which speech should be tolerated and which should be suppressed was already discussed before it was put into the framework of the paradox of tolerance. In the 19^th century it was John Stuart Mill in his work On Liberty (1859) he defines that every opinion is either 1) true, 2) false or 3) partially true. He argues that a person does not have a priori insight into the truth, the mind has to be open to revision and observation. There could be a debate that some believes even though true could be thought of as harmful but argue that it should be suppressed means either that believe is infallibility on its harmfulness or the debate on that topic has to be allowed which lead to a debate on the issue, therefore, believes from the case number one should not be suppressed.

Mill argues that cases in category number two, those that are false, should not be suppressed as well as affirmation of them being false leads to debate that transfers to better understanding. He argues that false claims should be put under dispute which allows us to hear opposite arguments to the truth which will serve as its re-articulation.⁶⁰ Case three for Mill is the case of those areas where truth has more sides to it such as morality. He argues that individuals are unable to see the whole truth and the only possible way for them to see is to reunite and combine the opposites. ⁶¹ It is apparent that Mill and Jefferson do not advocate for immediately silencing the intolerant or false information as long as the debate will occur and the protagonists of those opinions will be open to reason. In the same narrative operates Poppers' paradox as well. None of them advocates for immediate silencing those who are intolerant and if given power would squash tolerance immediately.

This thesis is looking at the Czech Chinese relations which were opened in 2013 in a very naive and tolerant way towards the People's Republic of China. Because PRC domestically is a very restrictive regime, in other words very intolerant to anything else that is not given by the CCP, having very open relations for the Czech Republic means giving the PRC opportunity to exercise sharp power in the Czech Republic. Therefore, bringing its intolerant practices to the country and thus having a negative effect on the democracy in the Czech Republic. Therefore, according to this paradox, the Czech Republic cannot be unlimitedly tolerant of the PRC as it would lose its tolerance in the long term. Thus according to this paradox the Czech Republic has the right to suppress the intolerant. The paradox does not immediately advocate silencing the intolerant but if

60 MILL, John Stuart. Liberty, XVIII. [visited: 14.2.2020]. Page 249.

61 Ibid, [visited: 14.2.2020]. Page 258.

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

other means can be employed to keep them in check they should be used first. In Czech Chinese relations it means to redefine the relations to be more balanced and equal not to reach for short-sided solutions like blocking the Chinese social media as the Czech Republic would lose its openness and become as intolerant as the PRC. This thesis thus will use the paradox of tolerance to draw new lines in the Czech Chinese relations especially in the spheres where the Chinese sharp power focuses the most.