From “The Difficulty of Tolerance” in Toleration. An Elusive Virtue:
Any society, no matter how homogeneous, will include people who disagree about how to live and about what they want their society to be like. (And the disagreements within a relatively homogeneous culture can be more intense than those within a society founded on diversity like the United States.) Given that there must be disagreements, and that those who disagree must somehow live together, is it not better, if possible, to have these disagreements contained within a framework of mutual respect? The alternative, it seems, is to be always in conflict, even at the deepest level, with a large number of one’s fellow citizens. The qualification “even at the deepest level” is crucial here. I am assuming that in any society there will over time be conflicts, serious ones, about the nature and direction of the society. What tolerance expresses is a recognition of common membership that is deeper than these conflicts, a recognition of others as just as entitled as we are to contribute to the definition of our society. Without this, we are just rival groups contending over the same territory. The fact that each of us, for good historical and personal reasons, regards it as our territory and our tradition just makes the conflict all the deeper.
One thought I had here is that in some cases conflicts can maybe happen inside or outside a framework of respect, but usually the kicker is that in a lot of the most important and difficult conflicts at least one party sees the conflict itself as a fight for respect, at least in a broad sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, and your comment highlights the fact that rights claims and demands for respect often travel together, and are not so easily distinguished from one another.