Summary on Tolerance-E.M. Forster-Questions-Answers

 Summary on Tolerance-E.M. Forster

& short answer questions (40–45 words each), and long answer questions (180 words each) for the essay “Tolerance” by E. M. Forster.

SUMMARY (Approx. 1000 Words)

In his essay “Tolerance,” E. M. Forster discusses the essential mental attitude required to reconstruct a war-torn civilisation. He begins by referring to the widespread talk of rebuilding—whether it is rebuilding London, England, or Western civilisation. People enthusiastically (eagerly) prepare blueprints (copies/plans), estimates, and political plans. However, Forster is reminded of the biblical line: “Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it.”

Explanation: “Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it.”

This line is from the Bible (Psalm 127:1). It means that human efforts alone cannot succeed unless they are based on the right spirit, values, and inner guidance. Even if people work very hard—making plans, building cities, or arranging systems—everything will fail if their minds and intentions are not pure, balanced, and moral.

Beneath its poetic surface lies an important truth: a healthy attitude of mind is essential for any lasting reconstruction. Without the right psychology or moral foundation, no plan—political, architectural, or economic—can succeed.

Forster argues that the foundation of civilisation must be a sound state of mind. No combination of architects, contractors, diplomats, or institutions can build a new world unless the people themselves develop the right spirit.

For example, London cannot be rebuilt beautifully unless people first develop a taste for beauty and reject ugly surroundings. As long as people remain indifferent, no reconstruction scheme will succeed.

 

 

The important question is: What is the proper state of mind necessary for rebuilding civilisation? Many would immediately say love. People often preach that humans and nations must love one another to stop the cycle of destruction. Respectfully, Forster disagrees. Love is the greatest force in private life, but it does not work in public affairs. History shows repeated failures of attempts to base politics on love—the Christian civilisations of the Middle Ages tried it, and the French Revolution proclaimed Brotherhood, yet both ultimately failed.

Extra Explanation:

How Christian Civilisation and the French Revolution Failed in Basing Politics on Love

History gives several examples where societies attempted to organise political life around ideals of love, brotherhood, and harmony, but these attempts eventually collapsed because human behaviour and political realities did not support such ideals. Two major examples are:

1. Christian Civilisations of the Middle Ages

During the Middle Ages, Europe claimed to be built on the Christian principle of “Love thy neighbour.” The Church emphasised charity, kindness, forgiveness, and brotherhood. However, in practice this ideal could not sustain political order. Why?

a. Church corruption

Many church leaders became wealthy, powerful, and politically ambitious. Their lifestyles often contradicted the very ideals of love and humility they preached.

b. Religious wars and persecution

Instead of love, the period witnessed:

The Crusades, where Christians fought bloody wars in the name of religion.

The Inquisition, where people were tortured for different beliefs.

Constant feudal conflicts among Christian rulers.

 

 

These violent practices showed that politics was driven not by love but by power, fear, and greed.

c. Social inequality

Though Christianity taught equality, medieval society was sharply divided:

Kings and nobles enjoyed privileges.

Serfs (lower class of peasants) and peasants lived in misery.

Feudalism kept society unequal and harsh.

Thus, the principle of love failed to guide political action.

2. French Revolution – “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”

The French Revolution (1789) famously proclaimed “Fraternity”—brotherhood—as one of its ideals. Revolutionaries believed that love among citizens would create a new, harmonious society. But the opposite happened.

a. The Reign of Terror

Instead of brotherhood, revolutionaries turned violent:

Thousands were executed by the guillotine.

Neighbours reported against neighbours.

Fear became more powerful than love.

b. Power struggles

Revolutionary leaders fought among themselves for control. Rival groups—Girondins, Jacobins, and others—destroyed each other. Political ambition replaced ideals.

c. Rise of dictatorship

Ultimately, the ideal of fraternity collapsed so badly that France ended up under the military dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte, only a few years after preaching love and equality.

Conclusion: Why These Attempts Failed

Both in the Middle Ages and in the French Revolution, love failed as the foundation of politics because:

Human passions like greed, fear, jealousy, and ambition are stronger than ideals.

Power struggles dominate political life.

Social and economic inequalities cannot be erased by idealistic slogans.

 

 

Love is an individual moral value, not a practical political force.

Thus, history repeatedly shows that politics requires justice, law, and discipline—not simply love or goodwill.

Love becomes vague, sentimental, and unrealistic when applied to nations and unknown strangers. People can only love what they personally know, and the circle of our personal knowledge is small.

In large communities and international relations, tolerance—not love—is required. Though a dull, negative, and often underrated virtue, it is essential. Tolerance simply means putting up with people, accepting differences, and learning to live together peacefully. It is not heroic or dramatic, yet it is the only basis on which different races, classes, and interests can coexist after the war.

The world is overcrowded, and people constantly come into contact with those they may dislike because of appearance, habits, culture, or behaviour.

There are two solutions to this problem. One is the Nazi solution: eliminate, banish, or segregate people who are disliked. This violent approach is destructive and immoral. The other is the democratic method: learn to tolerate those we dislike. Tolerance may be dull, but it is practical and humane, and it alone can help build a peaceful future.

Forster emphasises the importance of negative virtues—not being irritable, revengeful, or touchy. He has lost faith in militant positive ideals because they often result in violence. Phrases like “I will purge this nation” horrify him, especially in a modern world where nations and communities are interdependent and cannot be separated cleanly.

Explanation (in brief)

The writer says that he no longer trusts aggressive political ideals—those that claim they will “clean,” “purify,” or “reform” a nation with force. History shows that such strong, militant promises usually lead to violence, hatred, and destruction rather than real improvement.

When leaders use phrases like “I will purge this nation,” it frightens him because it suggests removing or attacking groups of people. In today’s world, where nations, religions, and communities are deeply interconnected and dependent on each other, it is impossible—and dangerous—to separate people in such a harsh way.

Therefore, he rejects militant ideals because they ignore the complex unity of the modern world and tend to create more suffering than progress.

 

Reconstruction will not be quick, he warns, because society is not psychologically ready for it. Civilisation sometimes enters phases of regression, and the present era seems to be one of them.

He gives a personal example: after the war, if he meets Germans, he will not try to love them, because he cannot forget their actions, such as breaking his window. But he will try to tolerate them, because practical living demands it. Germans cannot be exterminated, nor can any nation exterminate another. People must live together simply because there is no other workable alternative.

Forster does not claim that tolerance is a divine principle, though he humorously refers to the biblical line: “In My Father’s house are many mansions.”

Explanation (Brief)

The line “In My Father’s house are many mansions” means that God’s world is big enough to include many different kinds of people, beliefs, and ways of life. It suggests that there is room for everyone and that no single group has a monopoly on truth. It is a message of tolerance, acceptance, and broad-mindedness.

Instead, he calls tolerance a practical makeshift solution—useful for an overcrowded and overheated planet. Love often fails when one is surrounded by strangers, but tolerance helps maintain peace in everyday situations—standing in queues, travelling in buses or trains, using the telephone, working in offices and factories.

Tolerance also requires imagination, because one constantly needs to put oneself in the position of others. This makes tolerance a subtle, though underrated, spiritual discipline.

Explanation (Brief)

The statement means that tolerance is not just a social virtue but a quiet spiritual practice. It requires inner strength, patience, humility, and self-control. Although people do not praise it as much as dramatic or heroic actions, tolerance helps us rise above anger, prejudice, and narrow-mindedness, making it a deep and important form of spiritual discipline.

Few great thinkers praised tolerance openly—St. Paul and Dante did not—but Forster mentions some who upheld this virtue: the Indian emperor Ashoka, the Dutch scholar Erasmus, the French essayist Montaigne, the English philosophers Locke and Dickinson, and the German poet Goethe. These figures embody and support the creed of tolerance, which Forster feels is essential for modern civilisation.

Forster further warns that it is easy to detect fanaticism in others but hard to recognise it in oneself. For example, the British easily criticise Nazi racism, but must examine their own racial prejudices within the British Empire. True tolerance requires self-examination.

Finally, Forster clarifies that tolerance is not weakness. Putting up with others does not mean surrendering one’s principles. It simply means maintaining harmony without violence. He ends by expressing hope that once the “house” of civilisation is rebuilt through tolerance, love—our greatest private virtue—may eventually enter and govern public life too. But until then, tolerance is the only realistic foundation for rebuilding the modern world.

SHORT ANSWER QUESTIONS (40–45 words each)

1. Why does Forster believe reconstruction cannot succeed without a sound state of mind?

Forster argues that true reconstruction requires the right psychological attitude. Architectural plans, political schemes, or economic systems cannot succeed unless people develop a sound state of mind. Without this mental foundation, no rebuilding—physical or social—can endure or produce meaningful results.

 

2. Why does Forster reject “love” as the basis for public life?

 

Forster believes love works only in private relationships, not in public affairs. People can love only those whom they know personally. Applying love to nations or strangers becomes unrealistic and sentimental, leading to disappointment and failure in large-scale social or political matters.

 

3. Why does Forster consider tolerance more practical than love in rebuilding civilisation?

 

Tolerance, though dull, helps people live with differences. In a crowded world, it is impossible to love everyone, but tolerating others prevents conflict. Tolerance provides a practical foundation for cooperation among races, classes, and nations, making it essential for reconstruction.

 

4. What are the two possible solutions to disliking others, according to Forster?

 

Forster says one solution is the Nazi way—killing, banishing, or segregating people we dislike. He rejects this violent method. The other solution is democratic: tolerating people as best as we can. Though less dramatic, it is humane, practical, and essential for peace.

 

5. Why does Forster call tolerance a “negative virtue”?

 

Forster calls tolerance negative because it involves restraining oneself rather than performing heroic actions. It requires patience, self-control, and acceptance, not dramatic emotion. Although it lacks grandeur, it is necessary for maintaining harmony in an overcrowded, diverse modern world.

 

LONG ANSWER QUESTIONS (180 words each)

1. Why does E. M. Forster consider tolerance more important than love for rebuilding civilisation?

Forster argues that while love is the greatest force in private life, it is impractical in public affairs. Love requires personal knowledge and emotional closeness, but in the modern world, individuals and nations deal largely with strangers. Attempting to base political or international relations on love leads to vague sentimentalism and unrealistic expectations. History has shown that movements which preached universal love, such as medieval Christianity or the French Revolution, ultimately failed to create lasting harmony.

In contrast, tolerance is a practical and workable virtue. It does not demand emotional involvement or deep affection. Instead, it requires self-control, patience, and the ability to accept differences. In a crowded world filled with diverse races, cultures, and beliefs, tolerance becomes essential for peaceful coexistence. Forster believes that the post-war world can be rebuilt only if people learn to “put up with” those they dislike, rather than trying to love them. Tolerance may be dull and undramatic, but it prevents conflict and allows cooperative living. Thus, for the reconstruction of civilisation, tolerance—not love—is the necessary spiritual foundation.

2. How does Forster justify tolerance as the foundation for the post-war world?

Forster believes the world has become overcrowded and interconnected, making conflict inevitable unless people learn to tolerate one another. Differences in culture, habits, appearance, and beliefs are unavoidable, and one cannot expect universal harmony based on love. He rejects the Nazi solution of eliminating those who are disliked, describing it as brutal and dangerous. Instead, he supports the democratic method—peacefully accepting the presence of others.

Tolerance, according to Forster, is a “negative virtue,” requiring restraint rather than emotional heroism. Yet it is this very restraint that allows diverse groups to live together without violence. Tolerance also demands imagination, because people must constantly put themselves in the place of others. It is needed in everyday social interactions—queues, buses, offices—as well as at national and international levels. Forster cites examples of great thinkers like Ashoka, Erasmus, Montaigne, and Locke, who upheld tolerance as a civilising force. He concludes that while tolerance may not be glorious, it is the only practical basis for rebuilding civilisation. Once the world is reconstructed through tolerance, love may eventually enter public life.