[Jeff Kremer]

Respect, what a waste of a word that should have so much meaning. There are so many different ways it is used that things like, "I have respect for you" translate to "I couldn't think of anything better to say because I loathe your core but feel the need to say something nice about you" to what it is supposed to mean which is "I hold you to be someone worthy of the honor that comes with having the word respect used to describe a feeling I have toward you". Compliments and the ideas behind them such as respect have become so watered down that they have come to mean "I don't loathe you and all that you are" instead of "I hold you higher on a pedestal than your peers because of this trait".

Over the years I have been told numerous times to respect my authority figures. The vice principle at my old Christian school, who was a short little man who I am convinced has a Napolean Complex, was one of the people that I was told to respect. I was told this many times, mostly by him. I was in seventh grade at the time, and had just left one of his classes that had turned into a lecture on how us students should respect him because he had accomplished all this that he hadn't. I look on the wall at a sign that says "If you expect respect, be the first to show it". I determined at that time that either he was a hypocrit or he was wrong. Neither of those warranted my respect.

"Respect your elders" is a phrase I've often heard over the years. One time I decided to ask why. I asked this to an old youth pastor of mine. He proceeded to look baffled that someone would challenge such a basic tenet of what is pretty much the society in which I lived. He said I should respect them because they had been around longer than me and were wiser. I told him if I were to respect someone for being wiser then sure, fine. But I would never respect someone for having kept blood flowing through their body for a few years longer than I had. That is basically what "Respect your elders" boils down to. These people have had blood in their veins longer than you, therefore you should respect them.

Respect for my peers. Aside from being non-existent due to the fact that you could randomly pick the names of four of my peers out of a hat and chances are that those four people's IQs would roughly equate that of a domesticated turkey, respect for your peers is just a bad concept. If someone is my peer, they are my equal, although previous context implies otherwise, we'll use the real definition for a while. So if someone is your peer, and therefore your equal, the respect you hold for them should equate that which you hold for yourself. To hold them on a higher pedestal is just illogical.

Respect for another person's ideas and opinions. Well, I don't have to tell you how many stupid ideas there are out there, or that respect for all other people's ideas and opinions is one of them. Opinions can be wrong, so can ideas. For us to not treat ideas that have a constant track record of failure (altruism anyone?) with some level of contempt then we are denegrating our own. The ones that actually do work. Now, I am not saying we should reject every idea proposed, I am saying that some are not worth taking the time to look at.

Overall, I'm just tired of people telling me who or what I should or should not respect. If I am going to respect someone or something I am going to respect them or it because they or it is worthy by my standards which are determined by my own mind. I will not respect them because of the idea that I should respect them has been dumped on me without reason by someone who does not have enough respect for me to let figure out what I should or should not respect on my own.

[Judith]

You've made some excellent points, Jeff.

People talk about the "duty" of respect children owe their parents, automatically, simply by virtue of the relationship. Did Stalin's daughter owe her father respect? I say she didn't. Character has much to do with respect. Respect in that sense is earned.

There's also "respect" in the sense of the courtesy we owe to all of our fellow human beings simply by virtue of being alive. We treat them with basic courtesy and dignity unless and until they show that they deserve otherwise. Even if we lose respect for some people as a result of their actions, we don't descend to their level, because to do so would demean ourselves.

I've also seen "respect" thrown around as a street term to mean the kind of deference animals give to the "alpha" of a pack or herd. Actually, the people who use it that way have a very crude understanding of actual pack or herd dynamics; the alpha of a pack or herd has responsibilities that these people who want that kind of deference have no intentions of fulfilling. People who use the term that way are usually simple bullies.

In any event, trying to reason with people about these things is usually pointless. If people demand "respect", they probably have a conventional mindset that isn't going to be changed by reason, and you'll just frustrate yourself and probably "get yourself into trouble" with those in positions of authority. Just take some consolation from knowing that there ARE people out there who get it. You'll find more of them when you get to college, and even more of them if you go to grad school.

Judith

[Chris Grieb]

A quick thought is that the "respect" is a form of the Argument from Intimidation. I think that people may deserve courtesy but not "respect". People deserve courtesy up until the moment they show they are using courtesy to take advantage of you. This whole issue needs a lot more thought.

[Rich Engle]

It's always been catchphrase-simple for me: respect is simply something that is earned. It can't be demanded, and I'm not even sure it can be falsely given, at least for long.

There's different kinds. Respect does not carry a good-moral requirement. For instance, isn't it "valid" for, say, a con artist to respect the technique of another, better connie? That's respect, but it's for something that is wrong (stealing).

If you respect someone, and you are aware and sane, it's because they did something that you value, admire.

I do not find respect to be a difficult concept to examine.

[Judith]

There are a number of different "dictionary definitions" of respect. The one you mentioned, Rich, is one of them.

I think it's also valid to talk about adults treating children with respect, and to mean by that acting with courtesy and dignity. The child being respected doesn't have to have earned it; it's due one simply by virtue of being another living being. And it's educational in nature, to teach a child how to behave and how to treat one's self and others.

It makes sense to talk about respecting property rights, or respecting boundaries. Similarly, it makes sense to talk about respecting laws or rules.

I recently said I "lost all respect" for someone who showed terrible judgment in a certain situation and acted despicably. If that person were to fall on his sword and disown the act and apologize to the many people he wronged, I would reconsider and gain some respect for him, because it would show that his judgment isn't hopelessly impaired, but I would still not consider him in the light in which I held him previously because I would remember the depths to which he was capable of descending under pressure.

All different meanings; all different nuances.

Judith

This post has been edited by Judith: 19 December 2006 - 06:14 PM

[Chris Grieb]

When you first meet a person how should you treat them One premise might be the presumption of innocence. By presumption of innocence you know nothing about them and so you treat as a rational, honest person. You also keep in mind that you don't know anything about them. You don't offer them your life savings.

[Jeff Kremer]

You meet a person you give them the basic human respect that is required based on them being human before you can make a character judgement, basically a mid point. They can earn or lose from there.

[John Dailey]

~ Though this thread is oriented at what "respect" DOESN'T mean, much has been commented on what it is, more or less, intended to mean. Well, that's definitions for you: clarification of what something 'is' implies what it's not (though, rarely vice-versa.)

~ Personally, I've had need to pin down this subject myself, what with raising two kids. Ergo, dictionaries aside, what I've determined that it is, is: not crossing a certain 'line' you recognize as dividing the 'ok' area from the not-'ok' area (whether re nature or people.) Identifying where that 'line' is, and being aware that it can be in different places re different contexts (ie: considering 'exceptions') is the tricky part.
--- Where there's no line drawn, there there be no respect (poor Rodney!)

~ As to the thread's main complaint about the hypocritical use of the term, well...I have no respect for those who use it (or any other terms) hypocritically.

LLAP
J:D

[John Dailey]

Addendum:

~ Rich mentions the idea of respect being 'earned.' This IS an other important territory, except that it's meaning here seems closer to finding someone being admirable or impressive, such as in another's abilities (like in 'Who-ah!'); quite different from "To go there [not-ok area], 'permission' is needed; do I bother getting it?"

~ A last aspect on this 'earned respect' context: trust. Rather, lost trust. Once someone 'crosses-a-[your]-line', for them to get trust from you that they won't do it again...there's only one way for them to get this trust/'respect'...the old-fashioned way: they have to e-a-r-n it...back.

LLAP
J:D

This post has been edited by John Dailey: 27 December 2006 - 08:40 PM