Pure tolerance revisited

In December 2000, the first volume, third issue of Feminist Theory journal published a sharp and challenging article by Denise Thompson—“Pure tolerance revisited.” The appearance of this article itself holds dramatic significance: as a direct response to the editorial advocacy of “tolerance” as a core value in the journal’s inaugural issue, Thompson’s critique reveals deep divisions within feminist theory regarding political stance, theoretical boundaries, and academic inclusivity. Drawing on Herbert Marcuse’s 1965 classic text “Repressive Tolerance,” she argues that unlimited tolerance paradoxically becomes an instrument of repression, and why feminism must maintain intolerance toward patriarchy to preserve its liberatory mission.

Author Background: A Staunch Defender of Radical Feminism

Denise Thompson is an independent Australian scholar who has devoted decades to reading, researching, writing, and publishing feminist theory. She received her PhD in Sociology from the University of New South Wales in 1996, with a dissertation titled “Against the Dismantling of Feminism: A Study in the Politics of Meaning,” later published by Sage in 2001 as “Radical Feminism Today.”

Thompson’s theoretical framework has consistently been radical feminism. Although she herself has reservations about the typology of feminist schools, she acknowledges that “radical feminism” remains the most appropriate term to describe her theoretical commitment. The core of her scholarly work is constructing a theory of social domination—more precisely, a theory of male domination. She questions much of what has come to be taken for granted as “feminism” in contemporary academic feminism, pointing to the limitations of implicitly defining feminism in terms of “women,” “gender,” “difference,” or “race/gender/class.”

Within the Australian feminist intellectual tradition, Thompson represents an uncompromising, principled radical stance, her work continuously challenging postmodernism, poststructuralism, and identity politics’ influence on feminist theory.

Historical Context: Journal Launch and the Tolerance Debate

The writing context of “Pure tolerance revisited” is crucial. Feminist Theory journal launched in April 2000, and the editorial in the inaugural issue explicitly established “tolerance” as one of the journal’s core values. The editors advocated that the journal should serve as a platform for diverse feminist voices, welcoming dialogue among different theoretical orientations, methodologies, and political stances, emphasizing inclusivity and openness.

This stance reflected mainstream trends in academic feminism since the 1990s: a shift from the relatively unified political agenda of Second Wave feminism toward Third Wave feminism’s emphasis on difference, plurality, and intersectionality. Postmodern thought’s questioning of grand narratives, postcolonial theory’s critique of Western-centrism, and queer theory’s deconstruction of gender binaries all propelled feminist theory toward an increasingly fragmented and pluralistic landscape.

However, this pluralist turn also generated profound tensions: Should feminism remain open to all viewpoints? Are there core principles or boundaries of feminism? Does inclusivity undermine feminism’s political critical power? Thompson’s article is a response to these fundamental questions.

Marcuse’s Theory of “Repressive Tolerance”

To understand Thompson’s argument, we must first grasp the theoretical resources she draws upon. In 1965, Frankfurt School philosopher Herbert Marcuse published “Repressive Tolerance,” collected in the volume “A Critique of Pure Tolerance” alongside essays by Robert Paul Wolff and Barrington Moore Jr.

Marcuse’s core argument is that in advanced industrial society, ostensibly indiscriminate tolerance actually serves the purposes of repression. When society extends equal tolerance to right-wing policies, attitudes, and opinions (those maintaining existing oppressive structures) and left-wing policies, attitudes, and opinions (those challenging oppression), this “neutral” tolerance actually favors the powerful because it preserves the status quo.

Marcuse proposed the concept of “liberating tolerance,” arguing for intolerance toward right-wing movements and tolerance for left-wing movements. This radical proposition challenged liberal beliefs in neutrality and procedural justice, asserting that true liberation requires “selective intolerance.”

Marcuse pointed out that the so-called “free marketplace of ideas” is a fiction because different viewpoints have profoundly unequal access to the public sphere. The ruling class controls media, education, and cultural institutions; their views are systematically amplified while the voices of the oppressed are marginalized. Against this backdrop of structural inequality, formally equal tolerance actually reinforces inequality.

Thompson’s Core Argument: The Paradox of Feminism and Tolerance

Thompson applies Marcuse’s analysis to the field of feminist theory, developing her critique. Her core argument can be summarized in several key points:

1. The Essence of Feminism is Intolerance Toward Male Domination

Thompson first clarifies the definition of feminism: feminism is a political stance against male domination. If feminism remains “tolerant” of patriarchal ideas, of viewpoints that demean women, of theories that maintain male privilege, then it loses its meaning as feminism. Feminism’s very existence is founded on fundamental intolerance of certain things—namely, male domination and its ideological expressions.

She argues that demanding feminism remain tolerant of all viewpoints is equivalent to demanding feminism abandon its core political commitment. This is not a question of theoretical openness but of political coherence. A “feminism” tolerant of patriarchy would be self-contradictory, as absurd as an “anti-racism” tolerant of racism.

2. Academic Tolerance Masks Power Inequalities

Thompson points out that emphasis on “tolerance” and “pluralism” in academic contexts often masks the reality of power relations. In academic institutions, patriarchal ideas enjoy institutional, historical, and structural advantages. They are not one equal “viewpoint” among many but the dominant paradigm.

When editors advocate tolerance for all feminist voices, this implies all viewpoints occupy equal positions and can compete freely in the “marketplace of ideas.” But this ignores the fact that anti-feminist viewpoints (including those appearing in feminism’s name) are supported by the entire patriarchal culture, while radical feminist viewpoints are often marginalized, ridiculed, or distorted.

Against this backdrop of inequality, formal tolerance actually favors patriarchal positions because it allows anti-feminist viewpoints to gain legitimacy in feminist spaces without compensating for power imbalances.

3. How “Repressive Tolerance” Operates in Feminist Theory

Thompson demonstrates how Marcuse’s “repressive tolerance” operates within academic feminist circles. She might point out (based on her arguments in other works):

Equalization of viewpoints: Treating radical feminism’s critique of patriarchy, postmodern feminism’s rejection of “grand narratives,” liberal feminism’s emphasis on “choice,” certain queer theory’s deconstruction of the “women” category, etc., as equally valid “different perspectives.” This equalization dissolves political differences between these positions, making fundamental critique of male domination merely one “opinion” among many.

Blurring of boundaries: In the name of “inclusivity,” allowing viewpoints that actually contradict feminist politics to enter feminist discursive spaces. For example, certain discourses emphasizing “choosing femininity,” “sex work empowerment,” or “biological differences” may actually reinforce patriarchal gender norms but are accepted as “a form of feminism” under the discourse of tolerance.

Delegitimation of critique: When radical feminists critique the above trends, they are often accused of being “dogmatic,” “exclusionary,” or “intolerant.” The discourse of tolerance itself becomes a disciplinary mechanism, stigmatizing efforts to maintain feminist political boundaries.

4. Feminism Needs “Selective Intolerance”

Thompson’s conclusion is that feminism needs what Marcuse called “selective intolerance”—intolerance toward patriarchy and its ideological expressions. This is not narrow-mindedness or dogmatism but a requirement of political clarity and theoretical coherence.

She likely argues that feminist theory should clarify its boundaries: what counts as feminism and what doesn’t; what constitutes legitimate disagreement within feminism and what represents a departure from feminism itself. This requires insistence on core principles—primarily opposition to male domination.

The Predicament of Academic Feminism

Thompson’s article touches on a core dilemma of academic feminism: how to balance between academic institutional norms (emphasizing objectivity, neutrality, inclusivity, “free marketplace of ideas”) and feminist political commitment (as a liberation movement with clear stance and goals)?

Academic institutions often demand “balance” and “multiple perspectives,” which may mean giving platforms to anti-feminist viewpoints. Academic career advancement mechanisms reward “originality” and “theoretical innovation,” which may encourage rupture rather than continuity with feminist traditions. The professionalization and abstraction of academic discourse may disconnect feminist theory from women’s movement practices.

Thompson represents a stance that feminism should not sacrifice its political core for academic respectability. She insists that feminism is first a political practice, and its academic expression must serve rather than betray this political goal.

Resonance with Bronwyn Winter and Others

Notably, Thompson’s article appears in the same journal’s final issue of the same year, while Winter’s “Who Counts (or Doesn’t Count) What as Feminist Theory?” appeared in the inaugural issue. These two articles are highly aligned in spirit, both questioning the blurring of feminist theoretical boundaries and the dilution of political stance.

Winter’s article uses a “dictionary use exercise” to show how feminist terminology is emptied of political content, while Thompson reveals the mechanism of this depoliticization from the angle of tolerance discourse. Both authors belong to the radical feminist tradition, both insisting that feminism must maintain clear opposition to patriarchy.

Their critique targets not only overt anti-feminism but theoretical trends appearing in feminism’s name that actually weaken feminist political power: excessive relativism, abstract celebration of “difference,” rejection of any universalist claims, deconstruction of the “women” category, etc.

Philosophical Dimensions of the Tolerance Debate

Thompson’s article also touches on broader political philosophy questions: What are the limits of tolerance? Karl Popper proposed the “paradox of tolerance”: if we are unlimited in our tolerance toward the intolerant, tolerance itself will be destroyed. Therefore, to maintain a tolerant society, we must be intolerant of intolerance.

Thompson’s argument can be seen as an application of Popper’s paradox to feminist theory: to maintain space for feminism as liberatory theory, we must be intolerant of patriarchal thought. Allowing anti-feminist viewpoints to circulate freely in feminist discourse will ultimately destroy feminism itself.

This also involves the distinction between negative and positive liberty. Negative liberty emphasizes freedom from interference, which may support tolerance of all viewpoints; positive liberty emphasizes achieving specific values and goals, which may require intolerance of viewpoints that obstruct these goals. Feminism as liberatory politics is closer to the idea of positive liberty.

Critique and Reflection

Thompson’s position also faces some potential criticisms and questions:

Who Draws the Boundaries?

If feminism needs to be intolerant of certain viewpoints, who decides which viewpoints exceed feminism’s boundaries? Will this lead to establishing a “feminist orthodoxy” that suppresses innovation and critical thinking?

Thompson might respond that this is not a matter of authoritative decree but of political debate. Feminism’s boundaries should be maintained through open political argumentation, not administrative power. The key is maintaining central critique of male domination, not prescribing specific theoretical formulations.

Limitations of Radical Feminism?

Critics might point out that the radical feminist tradition itself has its limitations and blind spots—for example, early radical feminism’s insufficient attention to intersectionality of race, class, and sexuality, exclusion of transgender people, neglect of non-Western women’s experiences, etc. If we absolutize radical feminist positions, will we reproduce these problems?

This involves a deeper tension: how does feminism balance between insisting on core political principles and remaining open to self-critique and evolution? Thompson’s position emphasizes the former, but this doesn’t necessarily exclude the latter. The key may lie in distinguishing feminism’s core commitment (opposing male domination) from specific theoretical formulations (which can be revised and developed).

Strategy vs. Principle?

Thompson’s position can also be questioned from a strategic angle: In contemporary academic and political environments, is a radical intolerance stance effective? Will it lead to further marginalization of radical feminism? Should more flexible, inclusive strategies be adopted to expand feminist influence?

But Thompson might argue that such strategic considerations are themselves part of the problem. Feminism should not sacrifice its political clarity for “influence.” History shows that feminism’s power comes from its radical critique, not from compromise with the mainstream.

Contemporary Relevance

More than two decades later, Thompson’s argument remains profoundly relevant:

Tolerance Debates in the Internet Age

In the social media era, debates about free speech, platform responsibility, and “cancel culture” have reactivated tolerance questions. Marcuse’s “repressive tolerance” theory is widely cited to analyze why giving equal platforms to hate speech and marginalized voices actually reinforces oppression.

Feminists face similar questions: Should we “dialogue” with gender-critical positions or sex work abolitionists? Should these viewpoints be given platforms in feminist spaces? These debates essentially reproduce the issues Thompson discussed.

Continuing Tensions in Academic Feminism

The tension between political commitment and academic norms in academic feminism has not disappeared. Neoliberal universities increasingly emphasize “impact,” “interdisciplinarity,” and “stakeholder engagement,” which may further blunt feminism’s critical edge. Meanwhile, demands for “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” show continuing concern about protecting feminist spaces from harmful viewpoints.

Intersectionality and Boundary Questions

The rise of intersectional feminism raises new boundary questions: What is intersectional analysis, and what is merely enumeration of multiple identities? How to critique certain positions appearing in intersectionality’s name (for example, some critiques of “white feminism” actually reject any universalist analysis of gender oppression)?

Thompson’s framework can help us distinguish: genuine intersectional analysis should deepen rather than weaken critique of all forms of domination (including male domination). If certain “intersectional” discourse actually obscures or denies gender oppression, it exceeds feminism’s boundaries.

Transgender Debates

One of the most heated boundary disputes in contemporary feminism involves transgender issues. Some self-identified radical feminists exclude transgender women, while other feminists (including many radical feminists) consider such exclusion itself anti-feminist.

This controversy partly involves how to apply Thompsonian boundary-setting: what viewpoints are compatible with feminism’s core commitment, what are not? Different sides invoke the principle of “opposing male domination” but reach opposite conclusions. This shows that even within frameworks insisting on clear political stance, concrete applications may involve profound disagreements.

Conclusion: The Politics of Tolerance

“Pure tolerance revisited” reminds us that tolerance is not a neutral, unconditional virtue but a profoundly political concept. What should be tolerated and what shouldn’t—these decisions reflect and shape power relations.

For feminist theory, Thompson’s article poses a fundamental challenge: Can we maintain both political clarity and critical edge while remaining open to internal diversity? The answer may lie in distinguishing different levels of disagreement:

At the level of core principles: Intolerance must be maintained toward male domination and its ideological expressions. This is feminism’s defining characteristic.

At the level of theory and strategy: Legitimate disagreements can exist about how best to analyze and oppose male domination. Marxist feminism, radical feminism, intersectional feminism, etc., can have different emphases and methods, as long as they are all committed to opposing male domination.

At the level of specific issues: Feminists may have different views on evaluating particular policies, practices, or cultural phenomena, requiring ongoing political debate.

Thompson’s contribution lies in insisting on the first level’s non-negotiability. In a culture constantly attempting to absorb, dilute, and depoliticize feminism, this insistence has crucial value. It reminds us that feminism is not merely an academic discourse or identity label but first and foremost a liberatory politics—a refusal of oppression, an imagination of a different world, a fundamental intolerance of domination.

As Marcuse insightful recognized, true liberation sometimes requires intolerance. For feminism, intolerance toward patriarchy is not prejudice or narrow-mindedness but its raison d’être. In this sense, Thompson’s article is not merely a criticism of a journal’s editorial policy but a profound reflection on the nature of feminist theory—a reflection that remains urgent and necessary today.