Poster: limits of tolerance 1

Poster to visualize and thematize the limits of tolerance.

© Joddid

Here is the PDF in DIN A 1 format (59.4 cm x 84.1 cm)

Democracy enables and requires the critical negotiation of values and attitudes. But are there also values and attitudes that are non-negotiable? And if so, where is the limit? This poster can serve as an opportunity to make your own boundaries visible and to discuss them.

It is based on the "limit of tolerance" method, which can be used to initiate quick and case-related communication. It can help to make different or highly controversial points of view visible and workable. Personal experiences and observations are placed at the center of the discussion and made accessible for (collegial) reflection. We draw on statements from the volume Behrens/Besand/Breuer: Politische Bildung in Reaktionären Zeiten, p. 328ff.

Phase 1: Introduction of the method
The method begins with an explanation of the assignment. The participants are asked to think of situations in their educational careers in which they were confronted with ideas of inequality (e.g. misanthropic, racist, historical revisionist, etc.). statements or such behavior) or have observed such situations. It is important that these are situations in which there was uncertainty about how to act in relation to the questions: Should I act here? Why did I (not) act? Would I have been better off acting differently? And so on. As the cases are to be presented to the other participants in the further course of the method, it is important at this point to point out to the participants that the entire setting is a space of trust - the cases brought in or the communication about them must not leave this space. Moderation cards or sticky notes (in the case of working with the poster) and pens are then distributed. The participants are asked to write down their cases on the cards or sticky notes. They are given about 10 minutes to do this.

Important notes on the process:

• Participants can submit several cases. Only one case may be recorded per moderation card or sticky note.
• The cases must be described as specifically, but also as briefly as possible (no generalizations in the sense of: "you often hear this or that statement ...", "people always say ...", but a concrete, experienced situation).

• It is only about the description of the experienced/observed situation.

  Reasons or descriptions of action or non-action are not included in the description of the case.

  They are not included in the description of the case.

• For better comprehensibility, the cases must be short, concise

  (one bullet point if possible) and easy to read on the cards or slips of paper (this can be supported by symbols or small drawings).

• If the participants find it difficult to work through the question,

  the focus can be shifted slightly, for example by removing the restriction

  the pedagogical career is removed.

Example of a task: "What situations have you already experienced in your teaching career in which you had to deal with right-wing extremism, exclusion or contempt for humanity?"

Phase 2: Presentation phase
The participants take it in turns to present their cases to the group. The moderator ensures that the case descriptions are as specific as possible, but do not go beyond a description of the situation. Case evaluations, descriptions of solutions or assessments are not required at this point.

Important notes on the procedure:
For large rounds, it may be necessary to reduce the number of cases. There are two ways to do this:

1. participants who bring in several cases are asked to choose the case that is most urgent for them, or

2. the group is divided into smaller groups (2-3 people) in which the cases are briefly presented and discussed in order to then select the most conflict-ridden or the most unclear case, for example.

Phase 3: Classification of the cases
After the presentation of the cases, the moderator draws a visible line in the room (a boundary) (rope, masking tape, etc.) and divides the sides of the boundary into the poles "tolerable" and "intolerable". In the case of working with the poster, this step can be skipped by referring to it and asking the participants to form a circle around it. The participants are then asked to classify their own cases. This must be done without any comments from the participants.

Phase 4: Silent discussion
The moderator now asks the participants to look at the other participants' cases and see which cards they think are not in the right place or are stuck in the right place. The following rules apply to this phase:

• If a card or piece of paper is "out of place", it may be repositioned.
• Cards or slips of paper that have already been repositioned may be repositioned as often as desired.
• It is not allowed to speak. During the process, the moderator observes which cases are repositioned particularly frequently and marks them if necessary.

Important notes on the process:

• At the beginning, it should be consistently reminded that the repositioning of the cards or sticky notes takes place in silence. As the phase progresses, however, the urge to discuss may steadily increase and the participants will hardly be able to hold back. These times are well suited for a transition to the subsequent discussion phase.
• Occasionally, participants have a problem grasping the concept of tolerance. This contingency and the resulting uncertainty among the participants is entirely intentional and can also be fruitful for the subsequent communication processes between the participants. Nevertheless, it can happen in groups that the "silent discussion" does not get off the ground because of this. At such points, the etymology of the word can be used as an impulse. Tolerate comes from the Latin word tolerare, which means to endure, bear, endure.

• Should only a sluggish, silent discussion process develop overall,

  because the participants seem to be in agreement or are reluctant

  to move their colleagues' cards around, you can also bring your own prepared

  cases into the silent discussion afterwards. These should then

  of course be very controversial (e.g. cases from the underlying book).

Phase 5: Discussion of particularly controversial cases
The discussion phase can be introduced in different ways:

• In some cases, as mentioned above, it may happen that the

  the "silent discussion" phase can lead to a smooth transition to an open discussion

  discussion, in which the moderator, after a certain time, does not intervene with

  the "do not speak" rule.

• In other cases, when the repositioning process "subsides", the moderator can provide impetus for discussion and open up the discussion by asking questions in a targeted manner about cards that have often been moved.

Phase 6: Meta-reflection and conclusion of the method
At a suitable moment (e.g.: The discussion flattens out, contributions to the discussion become redundant because everything has been said), the moderator asks the participants to interrupt the discussion and take a step out of the circle. (In rooms with little space, other actions can also be carried out that promote distancing from the current events).

In the next step, the facilitator initiates a reflection on the process just experienced by asking the participants to describe it. The facilitator can provide support here by offering perspectives from the point of view of their external observation:

• Where do you see fundamental similarities, where differences?
• What does this mean for joint action in the field of democracy education?
• How do we deal with differences?