Tolerance as a Mechanism of Control: A Reflection on Power Dynamics and Social Submission

While the concept of tolerance, rooted in the idea of “enduring” or “bearing”—a principle still relevant in personal relationships—was originally intended to promote coexistence between differing cultures and governments, it has been perverted into a tool of control that demands conformity. Under the guise of tolerance, those in power demand submission and obedience, perpetuating injustice and stifling genuine dialogue and change.

Those who preach tolerance define it as such: ‘Tolerance is the ability to adopt a fair, open-minded, and accepting attitude toward individuals whose beliefs, practices, race, religion, nationality, or opinions differ from your own. It involves freedom from prejudice, a willingness to empathize with or accommodate perspectives that may conflict with your own, and the capacity to acknowledge and respect the diverse beliefs and practices of others.” But this so far from the truth of what tolerance is really all about.

The willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one dislikes or disagrees with, without necessarily endorsing them will remain temporary.

Tolerance as a Tool for Control

Tolerance, when framed by those in control, often becomes a tool for perpetuating power imbalances. Rather than fostering true coexistence, it demands submission and endurance. The message is clear: the controlled must tolerate the authority of the powerful, not because of respect or agreement, but because they lack the power to challenge it. This dynamic, while seemingly benign, ultimately serves to maintain the status quo, ensuring that resistance is suppressed and authority remains unchallenged.

However, this peace is not without its cracks. The weaker party, though forced to tolerate the oppressive system, will often simmer with disgruntlement. Beneath the surface of this reluctant tolerance, plans for a takeover, rebellion, or escape are quietly taking shape. The peace that tolerance creates is fragile and temporary, not because it is genuinely peaceful, but because it fails to address the deeper injustices that fuel resentment. The willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one dislikes or disagrees with, without necessarily endorsing them will remain temporary. The achieved peace will never last.

In this environment, the very idea of peace becomes an illusion—an uneasy truce. The strong may sit comfortably, believing they’ve secured stability, but the controlled are not truly at peace; they are merely enduring. Their compliance is not the acceptance of the status quo, but a quiet defiance, a resistance that has not yet found its voice. And in time, this simmering discontent may erupt into what, at its core, is nothing less than war.

For when tolerance is the only bridge between power and submission, when negotiation and compromise are dismissed in favor of dominance, the quiet discontent will eventually tear the truce apart. The balance of power, fragile as it may be, will tip. War may not come immediately, but it is the natural endpoint of a system that thrives on silence, oppression, and unacknowledged pain. What appears as peace is but the calm before the storm—a false stability, teetering on the edge of inevitable conflict.

OTHERS telling you to TOLERATE. Why?

• They have the upper hand or the advantageous position.
• They are the bullies, the users, the abusers, the pushers.
• They impose their will or opinion upon you. They control and deprive.
• They make you accept what is unfair, unjust, or wrong. They control the source of your funding.
• They want you to be submissive and to leave it to God or to those who are in power and control.
• They tell you to “turn the other cheek” or be “politically correct.”
• They allow others to take what is yours and tell you that it is OK.

The bully learns quickly from a tolerant society. They recognize how to manipulate the submissive behaviors taught to their victims under the guise of peace and understanding. When bullying is merely tolerated—when it’s endured without consequence—the bully is emboldened. They escalate, provoking, harassing, and exploiting those around them. Left unchecked, they may grow into individuals who commit crimes. And crime, by its very nature, must not be tolerated. Criminals thrive in a society where wrongdoings are overlooked in the name of tolerance.

If YOU choose to TOLERATE. What is the implication?

• There is discord. There is a bully or an abuser.
• There is someone or something you just do not like but you find him/her or the situation still useful to you. Someone deprived, cheated, or insulted you and has not apologized. You tolerate.
• You can’t win yet. You are working towards a goal. You are not getting what you want. You wait for the opportunity to break away to be free or to conquer. So in the meantime, you put up with it and conform.
• You have accepted defeat, you gave up, and chose the life of servitude.

Teaching tolerance does not win the fight against hate, bias, and prejudice. Teaching tolerance is aiding and abetting bullies. To be an agent for prosperous and responsible change, the school system must teach and emphasize respect, kindness, gratitude, apology, and forgiveness. Teaching tolerance creates a subservient individual, primed as an easy victim for those who deprive, cheat, and insult. Primed to be a follower of an unwavering group, organization, or cult.

There is no compromise in tolerance, just conformity. There is no alliance in tolerance. Tolerance simply demands obedience: you do it their way. There is no negotiation. Every negotiation for a truce or an accord has an underlying discord.

Teaching Tolerance in Academia: Propagating the Tools of the Bully?

Academia now teaches that tolerance is not about weakness or submission. It is about recognizing the value of diversity, promoting empathy, and fostering peaceful coexistence. That it takes strength to embrace tolerance and respect for others, even in the face of differences or conflicts. However, if we allow our children to be influenced by this philosophy, then we are paving the path for the bullies to win. Without discipline, the bully sprouts and grows like a weed.

Preaching the freedom of choice and preaching tolerance goes hand in hand. They teach you that submission is the way to peace. Yes, the peace in a society where they impose and you willingly choose to obey, thereby creating no conflict for them. They teach this as an ideology, the ideology of tolerism. An ideology embraced and propagated by all bullies.

There is no cooperation in tolerance. The people who want you to tolerate their impositions say there is. The people professing tolerance identify the word with courtesy and appreciation. They also identify the word with patience. There is a fine line between patience and tolerance. Patience carries the ingredient of love, whereas tolerance does not. Patience assumes a connection, tolerance does not. A nurse may tolerate the ornery patient because that is her job. However, the wife of the ornery patient has patience because she loves him.

Patience will allow you to solve a problem, work your way out of a terrible situation, or untie a hard knot. On the other hand, tolerance looks at the problem, the situation, or the knot and simply accepts it. You improve with patience, you deteriorate with tolerance. Patience allows you to work and help inform the ignorant.

You can choose to tolerate the behavior of your companions or your community. That is your right. But never ever make the mistake of identifying tolerance for patience or kindness. Do not mistake diplomacy or being patient and cordial for tolerance. Do not mistake a negotiated truce for tolerance. Tolerance has its place. It plays a crucial part in our lives. Tolerance is beneficial only if you have made a firm decision to make a change for relief. It allows you to make a plan. There is a time for tolerance. But continued tolerance, even when there is the opportunity to win, is cowardice.

On the other hand, tolerate or endure if you must, until you are able to negotiate a truce, free yourself from the shackles of the situation, or fight back. Fight, not because you hate or are hated, but because you are defending and protecting what and who you love and respect. When there is tolerance, usually injustice follows.

The Skewed Lens of Tolerance: From Pragmatism to Misapplication

Tolerance began as a pragmatic tool—a way for one group to coexist with others by simply enduring differences. It implied bearing what didn’t align with one’s own beliefs, often with the tacit expectation that the tolerated group would conform to existing norms. Its purpose was social stability, not celebration.

Over time, particularly in English-speaking academia and public discourse, tolerance shifted meaning—not through natural linguistic evolution, but through ideological reframing. Influences from liberal thought and certain strands within Hindu and Islamic philosophies broadened the term from endurance to active acceptance. Latin and Spanish, however, continue to define tolerance as simply “to bear” or “to endure,” without implying full approval.

While this expanded definition may suit some contexts, applying it globally—especially in societies founded on individual rights like the U.S.—can backfire. In rights-based systems, tolerance once meant: “I don’t agree with you, but I’ll live with it.” When that becomes “embrace everything,” it undermines boundaries and may empower bullies who exploit generosity and misplace respect for others.

How it went astray

Figures like Madanjeet Singh, informed by Gandhi’s non-violent philosophy, redefined tolerance in late 20th-century UNESCO declarations to include “respect, acceptance and appreciation” for diversity. This broadened, aspirational meaning worked well in pluralistic, hierarchical contexts like India, where patience and gradual change were strategic tools for inclusion.

But when universally adopted without context, this expanded sense of tolerance encouraged passive submission and confusion in societies not structured like that—especially those with constitutional protections and individual rights.

The unintended outcome

In such environments, expanded tolerance becomes a shield for oppression. Victims feel pressure to accept mistreatment for the sake of “harmony.” Institutions preach patience, but fail to teach respect, accountability, or justice. In effect, tolerance becomes a tool of control, not coexistence.

Reclaiming balance

We must return to the original distinction:

• Tolerance (endurance)—bearing what we cannot yet change,

• Respect—extending recognition and dignity where it’s earned,

• Justice—acting to maintain fairness and rights.

• Patience—waiting with purpose, without surrendering resolve; the strength to endure time without forsaking direction.

Tolerance isn’t a substitute for friendship, justice, or dignity. It is a temporary bridge built on endurance—not an invitation to abuse. Patience, when mixed with love, supports growth. But tolerance alone, untempered by discernment, fosters weakness.

The Misconception of Tolerance

Tolerance is often mistaken for compassion or patience, but in truth, it is fundamentally different—rooted more in endurance than in empathy or kindness. To tolerate means to endure differences, opinions, or behaviors one neither agrees with nor embraces. It is a neutral, often passive stance; it demands self-control and restraint, but not emotional engagement or moral conviction.

Simply put, tolerance allows coexistence by requiring people to endure discomfort or disagreement without conflict—but it does not inspire care, understanding, or meaningful action.

Compassion, however, is active and deeply human. It arises from empathy—a genuine concern for others’ well-being—and drives acts of kindness, healing, and connection. While tolerance merely prevents confrontation, compassion transforms relationships. It seeks not just to avoid harm but to alleviate suffering and build understanding.

In practice, what is often praised as tolerance is frequently devoid of compassion. It becomes the discipline of “putting up with” someone or something—an act of endurance born out of necessity, fear, or power imbalance. Such tolerance lacks the warmth and transformation that compassion can bring.

Tolerate me, I have the control.

Those who wield power and control have exploited the core idea of ‘enduring’ or ‘putting up with’—central to the scientific and etymological meanings of tolerance—and insidiously recontextualizing it within power dynamics to justify demanding submission and obedience, thus suppressing resistance and ensuring their dominance.

While it may have been intended to promote peaceful coexistence, its application often serves to maintain the status quo, leaving those at the bottom with little choice but to endure what is imposed upon them. The peace that tolerance creates is often a fragile, temporary one, masking the resentment that can, over time, fuel efforts to disrupt or overturn the existing order.

---