Meaning: This quote by Jane Rule, a Canadian author known for her works on lesbian themes, reflects on the concept of tolerance and its relationship to understanding. The quote suggests that humans are willing to tolerate certain things only when they recognize that they have no choice but to do so. It implies that tolerance is often borne out of necessity rather than genuine acceptance or appreciation of difference.

At its core, the quote addresses the complex dynamics of tolerance within human society. Tolerance is often seen as a virtue, a key component of a harmonious and inclusive society. However, Rule's quote prompts us to consider whether true tolerance can exist without a deep understanding of and empathy for the other. It suggests that mere acquiescence to the presence of something or someone different may not constitute genuine tolerance.

The notion that tolerance is contingent on understanding is particularly thought-provoking. It implies that true tolerance goes beyond a superficial acceptance of diversity and requires a deeper comprehension of the reasons behind the need for tolerance. This understanding may stem from knowledge, empathy, or personal experience, and it is this understanding that ultimately drives genuine tolerance.

In the context of social dynamics, the quote highlights the limitations of forced or obligatory tolerance. When individuals or groups feel compelled to tolerate something without a genuine understanding or acceptance, it can lead to simmering tensions, resentment, and ultimately, the breakdown of peaceful coexistence. This is especially pertinent in the context of issues such as diversity, inclusion, and social justice, where superficial tolerance can mask underlying prejudices and biases.

Moreover, the quote also challenges the notion of tolerance as a unilateral act. It suggests that the burden of tolerance often falls on those who are different or marginalized, rather than on the broader society to truly understand and accept diversity. This raises important questions about power dynamics, privilege, and the responsibility of the majority in fostering genuine tolerance and inclusivity.

On a deeper level, the quote prompts us to consider the interconnectedness of tolerance, understanding, and empathy. It suggests that genuine tolerance is not merely a passive acceptance of the "other," but an active and empathetic engagement with difference. This aligns with broader discussions on the importance of empathy in building inclusive societies and fostering meaningful connections across diverse communities.

In conclusion, Jane Rule's quote offers a thought-provoking perspective on the nature of tolerance and its relationship to understanding. It challenges us to move beyond surface-level acceptance and instead strive for a deeper, more empathetic understanding of difference. By doing so, we can work towards building a society where tolerance is not just a necessity, but a genuine reflection of our shared humanity.