Emma Gordon and Andrew Boutflower with chief adjudicator Michael Cockerell

The winning paper

Emma Gordon and Andrew Boutflower
Hampshire County Council

Tolerance

On Valentine's Day, I finally told my boyfriend that I tolerated him. I was being kind, explaining to him that despite certain shortcomings (his belly is bigger than I'd like for example), he still falls within my limits of acceptability. Strangely enough, my liberal attitude towards the state of his body didn't go down too well.
     I learned two things from this experience: firstly, setting the limits of tolerability is a fine, and often personal, science. Secondly, there is a difference between active and passive tolerance. To feel merely 'tolerated' or have tolerance thrust upon you is not necessarily a good thing. However self-designated tolerance can produce surprising results. As Jeremy Clarkson once said: 'I would rather have a vasectomy than buy a Ford Galaxy'. Now, that's a lot to tolerate to get the right car!
     At first consideration, the word 'tolerance' conjures up an image of wisdom, experience and patience. Our society sees tolerance as an indicator of intelligence, with skills such as critical thinking and the ability to empathise winning people jobs and friends. Being able to rationalise and accept ideas that fall outside of conscious or subconscious limits has been key to the success of liberal politics in the UK. It's undeniable that this way of thinking can prevent confrontation and is vital to democracy. But if there are no limits – or tolerances – set around a field of 'acceptability', how can we tell right from wrong?
     A scientific view of tolerance states that 'the greater deviation from target, the greater the loss'. Taking this as a theory and assuming that the 'targets' – or aspirations – of each individual in society are very different, is it actually possible to create common tolerances without incurring too much personal loss? One thing is certain: ignoring individual needs and setting society's tolerances at the wrong level can be disastrous – as the sad story of Joe Scholes goes to show.
     Joe was a very disturbed boy. From an early age he started to inflict serious injury on himself, enduring appalling pain. Joe refused help or treatment and so, after years tolerating this behaviour, Joe's family sent him to a children's home. Whilst in care, Joe became involved in a series of mobile phone thefts which, whilst minor, were committed during the reign of David Blunkett and his zero tolerance approach to street crime. Despite being judged a high suicide risk, Joe was imprisoned. And found hanged in his cell several days later.
     The obvious lesson to be learned from this story is that imposed zero tolerance can be utterly destructive. However, was the tolerant society which allowed Joe's behaviour to reach such extremes prior to intervention any better? Both too much and too little imposed tolerance can be unsuccessful. But when an individual chooses to tolerate something – Joe's self-harming for example – it's incredible how far limits can be stretched. So what's the solution? How can we as a society benefit from people's vast personal capacity to tolerate without being seen to impose tolerance?

[go to page 2]

Forthcoming in the UK and Ireland

Young Scotland Programme
November 2008
[click here]


Young England and Wales Programme: January 2009
[click here] to download brochure
[click here] to book online

UK Young Local Authority of the Year 2009
[click here] to download brochure
[click here] to book online

Retrospective

Young Local Government Programme: Autumn 2008
[click here

Young Scotland and Young All-Ireland Programmes
Summer 2008
[More]

Young
England
and Wales Programme:
Spring 2008
More]

Young UK and Ireland Final
2008
[More]

Young Local Authority of
the Year
2008
[More]

News

Collette Paterson on the Young Scotland Programme
[click here]

Walter Humes on the Young UK and Ireland final
[click here]