Tolerance-E. M. Forster-Regression of Civilization

 1. How, according to Forster, can peace be established in the post-war phase of 'regression of civilization'? What 'concrete instance' does he present in support of his view?

Ans. According to E. M. Forster, peace in the post-war period of the “regression of civilization” can be established only through tolerance, mutual understanding, and personal relationships among individuals. Forster believes that political systems, governments, and large organizations often create conflict, but genuine human contact can build harmony. He argues that if individuals develop sympathy, friendship, and respect for one another beyond differences of nation, race, or ideology, lasting peace can gradually emerge in society.

To support his idea, Forster presents a concrete instance of personal relations between individuals of different nations. He explains that when people from different countries meet as friends and treat each other with trust and kindness, they overcome prejudice and hostility. Such personal connections prove that human goodwill is stronger than political divisions.

Thus, Forster emphasizes that peace does not come only from treaties or political agreements, but from the growth of understanding and friendship among ordinary people across the world.

2. 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.

3. 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.