A Different Set of Stories

I think that is a very interesting phrase. One that I can defend or defend against depending on the meaning given. A quick search on the web and one finds folks one all sides of the question of definition.

I think most Americans who subscribe to the notion that respect is earned mean, simply, that the earner is consistent with the views and values of the person granting respect. And not just consistent, but a leader promoting the views and values. A leader of the opposition does not earn respect. And this is the meaning I defend against.

A different meaning is more akin to being a hero. A fireman who enters the severely damaged and still burning building because there MIGHT be someone trapped inside, for instance, has just earned some respect. This is the meaning I can defend. Although for me, it is really a matter of earning "extra" respect.

If one can earn extra respect, is it possible to debit respect? Yes, I think. This is a two (or more) sided coin, too. As the fireman earns respect for putting life and limb at risk for the life of another, the arsonist loses respect for putting the victim at risk. Less dramatically, the fool driving drunk or recklessly loses respect every time they get behind the wheel.

But what is respect, then. Dictionary.com lists three definitions pertaining to people: esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment; deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly; and, the condition of being esteemed or honored: to be held in respect.

By those definitions, one has honorary respect by position even if that position is "old." I say honorary because it really has nothing to do with the individual, rather to the granfalloon the individual is a putative member of. That is certainly not an earned respect to me. I seldom give extra respect due to granfalloon membership.

That leaves the first of the three dealing with a person's worth and so forth. If we assume that everyone has the same "base" level of worth as a human being, that is, no extra respect given, we can assign a level of respect like the balance in an account. To that balance we credit or debit respect.

How, then, do we, as individuals, decide who to credit and who to debit? I think that is almost entirely based on our individual points of view about right and wrong. In my fireman example, it would be easy to imagine a scenario in which the guy with the gasoline can is the hero and the firefighter is the villain. The difference is one of point of view. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

I do not think it possible, or even desirable, to eliminate points of view. I believe they are necessary to life (which is, of course, just a point of view and subject to falsification). But I do think it is desirable to KNOW that what we hold as good and condemn as bad is just a point of view and has no inherent reality. And I believe that our most profound decisions, the ones with the biggest consequences, should always be based on our knowledge that right and wrong is subjective and that forcing our opinion on others will lead to prolonged conflicts of various levels of violence.

We should protect ourselves. It is human nature to do so and we will do so. But we should find optimal solutions that don't demonize entire groups of people. We seem to always do this, so maybe we have little choice in the matter, but "official" policy should steer a different course when ever possible.

In this RSA video Professor Renata Salecl shows that individual choice is rarely based on a simple rational decision with a predictable outcome. More than that, though, she points out the downside of being presented with an overwhelming set of options.

I have personal experience of this issue. I have been practicing make decisions quickly and without "full information" for inconsequential matters. As an example, when I go to DZ Akins, a local Deli, I look for one small section of their huge menu, then pick one of three items. I had discovered that my agitation level would go up in relation to the number of options available.

My latest agitation-reduction action was to close my facebook account yesterday. Facebook just made it impossible for me to keep up with changes. Well, not impossible, but far too time consuming. Facebook makes its money by keep users' eyes glued to their pages (and by selling user data). It is in facebook's best interest to keep changing things so that people have to spend more time working things out.

It will be a good thing for me, I think. Why? Well, I'm verbose. I don't want to have to limit what I say to a short paragraph. It is extremely difficult to communicate nuance in 500 characters. I sometimes use my writing as a "thinking out loud" practice to refine my "beliefs" about one thing or another. Without fb, I might be spending more time posting here.

Many organizations and activist groups talk about empowering this or that group. Over the years I've heard this from groups fighting sexism, racism, heterosexism and other isms.

Yesterday, as I heard this again, I noticed that I have a strong physical reaction to the phrase. So I had a look. What is that I hear and what do I find troubling about it? It is arrogant. (something I have some personal familiarity with!). To think that I have some special gift to bestow on some poor powerless person (or group) that will give them some of the power they seem to inherently lack is boldly arrogant.

As I looked at this, I realized I can't even think of another point of view about it which I think is part of the blindness of privilege -- in my case, white, male privilege. There might be another point of view that would seem workable to me, but I can't see it at the moment. So I'll just talk about the issues I see with "empowering" some group.

( Read more... )

There. The first cut at my thoughts on this issue.

Context is decisive. We navigate from birth to death by building from nothing a context for our lives. We are born into the social context of our culture. Then we discard that which does not work for us and create (or borrow) new bits and pieces that shape us and inform our decisions.

We like to think that we control our destiny. That we have free will. We do. Mostly, though, we don't really know that we do. We mostly live within the context we inherit without giving too much thought to it. Oh, we do nibble around the edges, making changes here or additions there. Mostly human beings don't give core beliefs a second thought. Sometimes we don't even give them a first thought.

How is our context created? We inherit a cultural conversation about right/wrong and good/bad. Most every change we make to the context of our lives involves a shifting of our belief about what is write/wrong or good/bad. We redraw the lines in the sands of our system of beliefs.

It is why we fight against that which we think is bad or wrong and we fight for those things we believe to be right or good. But what if there is no right/wrong or good/bad? What context is there if we disallow our opinions of proper and improper?

What context can you create if you stop considering something needs to be fought against or fought for?

Life is an carnival ride. We each get to decide if the trip around the circuit is fun and exciting or it is horrid and terrifying. It takes willingness. To create a "clean" context, one has to be willing to discard one's point of view about how the world works. A willingness to disbelieve that which we believe is the "real way" that life is.

Not an easy thing to do. But, it does alter the nature of the ride from birth to death!

Not the truth, just a self-generated context that allows for self-determination beyond that which is available by default. It is a great game!