Dignitas
Okay, you tell me – what does the phrase ‘human dignity’ mean? I don’t mean look it up, I can do that and that’s not what I’m asking anyway; I mean what does it mean as far as you know? What, if anything, does it suggest to you if you hear it or read it? A commenter pretended to find it scary as well as funny that potentilla and I both consider it meaningless, so I’m curious.
Why do I consider it meaningless? I suppose largely because it doesn’t seem to refer to anything real. What human dignity? I don’t consider humans to have much dignity. We’re too mortal, too fleshy, too fragile, too clumsy, too weak, too dim to have dignity. It’s not a word it would occur to me to use about human beings; it’s not even an abstract noun it would occur to me to attribute to humans. What would be? I would say human inventiveness, human creativity, human curiosity. Human adaptability, intelligence, flexibility, sense of beauty; also the fragility-related ones I indicated above. Cruelty, violence. But dignity? No. I just don’t see us that way. I see us as very complicated animals busily doing a million things; as fascinating, but not dignified.
But why is this either risible or scary? Especially scary? (The risible could be just because it’s so clueless of me – every fule kno what ‘human dignity’ means.) It’s not the case that because I don’t think human dignity means anything that therefore I’m in favour of humans being degraded or shamed or humiliated; I’m not. I think much of the content of B&W makes that pretty unmistakable. So why is it scary? Is the idea that one has to find ‘human dignity’ a meaningful phrase in order to treat humans decently? If so, why would that be? What I think instead is that humans hate being shamed and humiliated, that in fact it is acutely painful for us, and that that is why it should not be done. Why isn’t that adequate?
What’s wrong with the phrase? It’s grandiose, that’s what. It’s a bit of inflated sentimental rhetoric, and I have a real gut-level dislike of sentimental rhetoric. I like precision, and accuracy, and non-inflation. I don’t like parade-ground language or political campaign language or ‘faith community’ language. I’ve thought about it and I don’t think I ever even use the word ‘dignity.’ I dislike it. If someone told me ‘You’ll like Bill, he has a lot of dignity,’ I would know instantly that I would loathe Bill. What’s dignity? It’s an inflated sense of self-worth and self-importance, surely; it’s next door to pomposity. ‘She spoke with a certain quiet dignity.’ No thank you! Who does she think she is, talking like that? In fact I also hate fiction that has people say things ‘quietly’ – I always detest characters who say things ‘quietly.’ It’s meant to indicate that they’re very impressive and superior and Right About Everything, and they make me stop reading whatever it is forthwith. No really – if you’re pissed off, then squawk vulgarly like the rest of us, don’t go saying things quietly. Don’t try to intimidate us with your poxy quiet dignity.
Okay wait – I’ve thought of one exception, and I must say I’m a tad flummoxed, but there it is. The Queen can have her dignity. I much prefer that to the alternative she’s offered. I’m no royalist, but as long as she’s there, she can have her dignity. She did do her best to hang onto it when she had to give that awful speech to appease the baying tabloids after Diana’s undignified car crash, and that was all right. But anyone else? Her husband? Pff. That’s not dignity, that’s a combination of militarism and bastardism. The pope? The archbishops? The president? You’re laughing now, right? You could say Mandela maybe, but I wouldn’t call it that – he’s not pompous enough. Not nearly. That’s why the Queen gets the exemption, I guess: her job forces her to have to parade up and down and be looked at a lot, and given that, she does have to look like something, and at her age by gum she has the right to decide it will be dignified. I noticed it when she was on tv last week – she looked quite grim, quite stiff, quite plodding – and that’s all right. She doesn’t have to look as human as Mandela does.
All right but really now – what is ‘human dignity’? A way of saying that humans should not be degraded? But it’s not. We don’t say humans are immortal as a way of saying they shouldn’t be murdered. Humans just shouldn’t be degraded, that’s all, because they don’t like it, any more than they like being hit or run over or made to eat rotting lobster. They don’t have to be dignified first.
OB, I understand your attitude ‘dignity’ as a concept, but to me it seems to be one of those pesky cluster concepts with many facets and even some internal contradictions. Yes, to say that someone is “dignified” does smack of pomposity and posturing. But in the phrase “human dignity,” I think a very different part of the cluster-concept is implied.
I don’t use the phrase myself – for some of the reasons you cite, especially vagueness – but I’ve generally taken it to mean something along these lines: We know what is most important to us, the essence of our humanity if you will allow a bit of poetry, by what it pains us most to lose or have trampled, or to see anyone else lose or have trampled. That is where this idea of “human dignity” seems to focus.
Control over one’s own body is so basic to everyone that we justly feel horror at the thought of losing it – with special horror reserved for the loss of control over excretory functions, which makes an adult feel infantalized. Control over one’s own mind is even more basic, hence the pathos of Alzheimer’s disease. People who face the imminence of physical or mental decline, whether by disease or simply the ravages of age, often say specifically that what they fear most is the loss of their “dignity” – and I don’t think they mean anything like the air of self-importance sometimes conjured by the word.
Although perhaps less horrifying because they seem less inevitable and more surmountable than disease and old age, imprisonment and slavery are also widely viewed as conditions that assault something we consider essential to our humanity. Like the loss of control over one’s own body or mind, loss of control over one’s life and actions more generally is seen as stripping one of one’s dignity.
On the whole, then, I think the phrase “human dignity” so used is really just a way of asserting the primary importance of human autonomy. Anything that strips us of our control over our very selves – our bodies, our minds, our actions, our lives – is also seen as stripping us of our dignity. An assault on dignity in this sense is indeed a grave crime.
Unfortunately, though, the phrase “human dignity” is multiply ambiguous. Yes, the phrase has often been used to indicate all the stuff I’ve talked about above, but it doesn’t actually convey that meaning very precisely – unlike, say, simply using the word “autonomy” if that’s what you mean. So all sorts of other b.s. gets smuggled in under the cover of the term by wankers like Leon Kass, who seems to use “human dignity” to mean human mystical magical holy sacredness because we’re the creations of God and only He has a right to decide when we’re going to die or what our nature is going to be – which, perversely, is the very opposite of autonomy.
But Leon Kass is a dishonest hack and an ass. For my part, I refuse to let his deliberately evasive rhetorical twisting of the term “human dignity” pollute what well-meaning (if imprecise) people usually seem to mean when they use it. Rather than get tetchy at the use of the phrase “human dignity,” I’ll just politely point out that it’s more than a little vague, and ask the person using it what he or she thinks it means.
G, the way you describe it, “human dignity” could perfectly be replaced by a single word: “humanity”. All this, autonomy, conscious control over one’s body and destiny, ability to think are constituents of the definition of a human being.
As you say, by adding the dignity bit to that, people like Kass try to trick us into admitting that this dignity has a kind of separate existence, that the concept is in a way part of the very fabric of the universe. They try to trick us into dualism.
Have you noticed that, for all the “positive” examples OB gave us, the pope, the queen, Nelson Mandela, the phrase is most often used in a negative, accusatory sentence? As in: “Atheists try to deny our HD”, “The nazis not only wanted to exterminate the Jews but also to strip them of their HD”, etc… And always somehow, they fail, these enemies of HD. The stories using the concept want to show us the unbreakable eternal quality of HD, as if ultimately it wasn’t possible for human beings to be, quite easily in fact, stripped of all dignity.
They say “human dignity” but they mean “soul”.
OB wrote:
“I like precision, and accuracy, and non-inflation. I don’t like parade-ground language…”
I’m not sure what you take to be parade-ground language, since in my unfortunately more-than-limited experience it is usually precise, accurate and well targeted (well at least the barbs aimed in my direction were).
On the subject of human dignity – it seems a pretty wooly and subjective concept.
Arnaud, you may be partly right from a semantic perspective, but wrong from a factual perspective. That is, people may generally believe – and therefore mean – that autonomy is uniquely human and therefore that our humanity lies in our autonomy. But I’m not so sure that autonomy is uniquely human. Seems to me that all sorts of animals exercise various degrees and kinds of control over their own bodies and actions – including family dogs who are taught to exercise self-control over their excretory functions and only “go” in proper places (outside), much like human toddlers. (Well, we don’t teach toddlers to go outside, at least not with modern plumbing. But the gist is the same.)
Then again, even from the perspective that autonomy is uniquely human, using the vague term “humanity” would still be potentially misleading. There are lots and lots of things that comprise our humanity: Autonomy is a very specific aspect of our humanity upon which we place extraordinary importance. It is the priority of autonomy over other aspects of human nature that makes it essential.
I still think it’s best to use the word “autonomy” when you mean, well, autonomy. Both “humanity” and “human dignity” are too open-ended and prone to misinterpretation – deliberate and otherwise.
Great diatribe against dignity, but I offer these quotes from Kant for your reading pleasure–
“In the realm of ends everything has either a price or a dignity. Whatever has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; on the other hand, whatever is above all price, and therefore admits of no equivalent, has a dignity.”
“But that which constitutes the condition under which alone something can be an end in itself does not have mere relative worth, i.e., a price, but an intrinsic worth, i.e. a dignity.”
“Intrinsic worth” sounds better, and autonomy is a related concept. The thing is, “dignity” is all mixed up with comportment (head held high) and denial of messy animalness. Not appealing. But should we banish it from the English language? When Africans were sold at slave auctions, they were denied something basic…isn’t a suitable word, if you must use just one, “dignity”?
Without dignity, in some form, we do rather risk being reduced to the forms of bare existence so memorably described by Primo Levi, amongst others. I quite agree that, if you take it to be a synonym of ‘pomposity’ then it has little value. But, for the advocates of precision, it isn’t such a synonym.
Frankly, the world could use a lot more dignity. If politicians comported themselves with dignity, they wouldn’t do most of the things we detest them for.
I recall also that being ‘equal in dignity and rights’ is right there in the UDHR, and back in 1948 they certainly knew what the implications of the opposite were…
The entire concept of human rights is founded in the idea that humans deserve a basic level of honour and protection. Without that we are left with a society that the members of powerful groups assign dignity to their own, and deny it to subject groups. Not saying that isn’t universal, but the basic concept ‘human dignity’ seems to me arbitrary, and its a strawman game to pretend its not a related class of idea to the idea of (e.g.) universal human rights or its subset, female equality.
Now, I do think that the use you are objecting to is pompous speciesism or anthropocentrism, or somesuch; but although pompous its not meaningless. IMO.
Surely dignity is not so much a quality that one has but a response to a situation one finds one’s self in. So in the face of humilation and shame, or even death, a human can act with dignity by refusing to be cowed, or refusing to show fear.
The best recent example is Saddam’s conduct at his hanging. Compared to the bloodthirsty mob that lynched him, he showed extraordinary dignity. Pity he was such a shit otherwise…
I think that Rockingham is right about dignity being a response to a situation. One behaves in a dignified way to the extent that one retains one’s self-control in action and speech even when circumstance removes control over one’s freedom, or even one’s exctretory functions (believe me, I know about this). The Queen was dignified because she did something unpleasant which needed to be done in a self-controlled way. Dignity is not so much about autonomy (freedom from the control of others), but about self-control. We don’t say that someone who uses their freedom to get dead drunk and puke in the gutter, is dignified.
It is more difficult to have dignity to the extent that one had lost (particular aspects of) one’s autonomy (like physical freedom, or access to privacy for excretory functions), because it requires more mental effort, but it is not impossible. Au fond, dignity is about our own response to whatever situation we find ourselves in.
My objection to the wider phrase ‘human dignity’ is chiefly that it is far too vague to be employed, as it often is, in documents conferring rights on people. At best, it means something like ‘a right not to be put in a situation where it is more difficult to retain dignity than it normally would be’. But, much as one might wish something like that, how can one possibly think that anyone has a right to it?
The word ‘dignity’ does not need the qualifier ‘human’, because (I submit, and subject to further scientific exploration) the desire to retain self-control for its own sake is a peculiarly human desire. This is not surprising, since we know that humans are the main proponents of being able to see ourselves from the outside, as others see us, even if some animals can do it a bit sometimes.
I think the point about Kant’s use of the word is just a red herring about translation, as I said yesterday. (does anyone know what word he actually used?). In any case, it can’t be what the UN and so on are groping towards, because what is the point of saying that soemone has a right to something which they actually have by definition?
autonomy, conscious control over one’s body and destiny, ability to think are constituents of the definition of a human being I disagree strongly with this, but this comment is long enough already.
I need to go and do some more research, don’t I.
The word “dignity” can be used to describe people, but when I speak of each person having dignity, it’s not a description, so much as a manner in which I should treat others. You (Ophelia)said that the Queen, for example, has dignity. When I speak of each person having dignity, I mean that each person should be treated with the same respect as the Queen is. You could use another word if you don’t like the word “dignity”. If you take a look at the UN Declaration of Human Rights, you’ll find that it is based on the instrinsic dignity of all members of the human family. (I’m translating from Spanish). What word would you substitute? Value?
“I think the point about Kant’s use of the word is just a red herring about translation…”
The Kant passage suggests how we might want to think about dignity–as having intrinsic worth. When you say buying and selling people is wrong you want to say something stronger than “they don’t like it”–you want to say that’s entirely the wrong thing to do with people. They aren’t that kind of thing. They have …dignity.
Granted the word is often used vaguely and with great pomposity, occasionally it does seem like the bon mot. When I see people treated as things (piled up by Nazis in ditches and railway cars) I can have a “give them their dignity!” reaction.
amos – yes, value, or worth. Because those words mean something in another context, so we can more readily understand the concept which the UN wishes to convey.
That’s my problem with the use of the word a propos of Kant. To say that people shouldn’t be bought and sold because they have dignity appears to me to be to say that they shouldn’t be bought or sold because they are entities which have the property of not being properly able to be bought or sold. It doesn’t tell us why they shouldn’t be.
Actually, I think that ‘because they don’t like it’ is a pretty good answer, perhaps the only answer. (Where “they” = lots of the people lots of the time, combined with the Golden Rule). If no person cared two hoots about being bought and sold (suppose this could happen without constraining their freedom to do what they wanted in most or all ways eg in relation to where they lived, what they worked at, whom they married etc), would a system under which they were, in fact, bought and sold, be wrong? And if so, why? Surely it is, in fact, the constraint to their autonomy that we think is wrong?
Having thought about it some more, I think it may be the case that dignity is not only about a response to a situation (as opposed to being something that an outside body can confer a right to), but also exists entirely in reference to the state of mind of the person who does (or doesn’t) have dignity. If you look at me retching in public from chemo and think “poor person, she has lost her dignity” what you are doing is empathising with how you think I feel. But I may not care about that, but feel pleased that I am continuing not to snap at the very well-meaning but irritating nurse who is trying to help me. If this is explained to you, surely you cannot coherently say “no, sorry, you are wrong, you have lost your dignity”? You might imagine that you, in my situation, would feel different, but that is a different kettle of fish. Conversely, you might say to the Queen “I think you behaved in a very dignified way” but if she said “no, I really feel bad inside and as though I have no dignity left”, you couldn’t exactly say she was wrong, could you?
This strikes me as a pretty ridiculous objection to make to “dignity.” It’s quite obvious to me that dignity is a synonym for self-respect and respect from others. It’s being proud of things that we should rightfully be proud of. Inventiveness, intelligence, autonomy, ethics–all of these are things we should be proud of. It may be a “cluster concept” as the above commenter put it, but cluster concepts are often useful. “Dignity” is a catchphrase for “rightful sense of self-worth.”
I think the phrase “human dignity” so used is really just a way of asserting the primary importance of human autonomy.
Well, no, because a lot of what we derive our dignity from is our nature as social animals as well as autonomous beings. We pride ourselves on our ability to be selfless and serve others, for instance. Autonomy is certainly *involved* in dignity but it’s not the only thing.
I’m glad I asked! Very interesting discussion.
G’s point about the terror of losing control of one’s body or mind is compelling…yet (as he agrees) dignity still isn’t quite the right word. (I did finally look it up in the Concise Oxford, deliberately after I wrote the post rather than before, and there it is a heavily class- and rank-laden word – it’s a kind of ‘stateliness.’ It clearly applies to some people and not others; it’s of its essence not a word that applies to all humans but one that differentiates people of Worth from the others.) I don’t know what is though. A word that means something more neutral, more default-state; a state of non-degradation; but there is no such word.
I think I resist the word partly because we shouldn’t have to have dignity or worth or stateliness in order not to be degraded. Carpet-weavers, coal-miners, house-cleaners shouldn’t be stripped naked and thrown into ditches any more than the Queen should; neither should circus clowns, strippers, constestants on reality tv shows.
“contestants on reality tv shows… shouldn’t be stripped naked and thrown into ditches…”
Not even *temporarily*, to make a point…? Heck if they were ON TV being stripped, etc, they’d be queueing round the block for the chance….
The trouble with basic human dignity is that so few people want to actually exercise it…
Ophelia, I think you are focusing a lot on the “comportment” meaning of the word. Why should people hold their heads high, and all that? Good question.
But there’s the moral use of the word–we protest buying and selling slaves, packing Jews into cattle cars, etc., in the name of their dignity. In that case, I think we are talking about the basic kind of thing they are, maybe their “intrinsic worth” as Kant says.
Even if dignity talk is “nonsense upon stilts” as Bentham said of rights talk, it has its use. We ought to speak fervently about the wrongness of certain things, and speaking about what people really, really, really want doesn’t do the job.
Jean,
Hmmmm. I’m not sure. I could be dead wrong, but my intuition is that it’s a mistake to use inflated, non-credible language – nonsense on stilts, in fact (which I should have used at the beginning, dammit, because of course it is what I’m getting at) – to speak fervently about wrongness. Why? Because it’s non-credible. I think moral claims that seem too puffed out and unbelievable just make people laugh instead of doing better. I think they give the Callicles types an excuse for ignoring them. ‘Oh come on Socrates, you know most human beings have no more dignity than an earthworm.’
I take the point that talking about what people want doesn’t do the job – but I think talking about degradation does, at least does as well as and probably better than talk of dignity does.
Well that sounds too upbeat. I don’t mean to be upbeat – I do think a word is needed – but I want a better one. I want one that’s credible rather than risible. But I ain’t got one.
I wonder if other languages have them – I wonder if German and Spanish and French have the perfect word(s).
An abstract (of a different kind) (NUI Maynooth.
…‘(H)uman’ is etymologically related to the Latin for earth, humus, so that ‘human’ means what is ‘earthly’ (as an adjective), or an ‘earthling’ (as a substantive). Generally speaking it means what is proper to the kind that ‘we’ are, or to the species of rational animals, referring in particular to their kindness (humanity) and their fallibility (‘all too human’).”
I think I resist the word partly because we shouldn’t have to have dignity or worth or stateliness in order not to be degraded.
This doesn’t make much sense. It’s not possible to degrade something that has no dignity or worth. Degradation means a denial of worth, a denial of respect, a denial of dignity. You can only talk about degrading something that you attach some kind of worth to.
It’s not enough to say “they don’t like it.” The nature of “disliking” rape or slavery is very different from the nature of “disliking” getting stuck in traffic. One is degrading, the other isn’t, and the reason for this is connected to dignity and self-worth.
If someone told me ‘You’ll like Bill, he has a lot of dignity,’ I would know instantly that I would loathe Bill. What’s dignity? It’s an inflated sense of self-worth and self-importance, surely; it’s next door to pomposity. ‘
No, dignity is self-worth, period. Not inflated self-worth, but a proper sense of self-worth. Honestly, what your argument boils down to is that respecting yourself is the same as conceit. You’re conflating two different things–or rather, you’re conflating an appropriate balance of attitudes (self-respect and humility) with an extreme version of one attitude (sense of self-importance). It reminds me of when people conflate defending one’s rights with selfishness. Conservatives frequently do this to women–you want to have a career and fulfill yourself? Then you’ve got an inflated sense of self-importance! You’re selfish and think too much of yourself!
When people talk about dignity, they always mean an *appropriate* sense of self-respect, and it’s silly to equate this with self-importance.
Think of the times we say to someone, “have a little dignity!” It’s usually if someone won’t leave a significant other who treats them like dirt, or other circumstances when they won’t stand up for themselves. It’s when they don’t treat themselves like they have value or importance or humanity.
Which is why quiet anger is dignified–it signifies self-control. Squawking means you’re just a burgeoning cauldron of emotion. Quiet anger signifies that you’re controlling yourself and acting deliberately. And yes, that deserves greater respect than someone throwing a temper tantrum.
And OF COURSE dignity is class-laden. All virtues are class-laden, in that they have been presumed to be the property of certain classes (or races, or genders). So what?
So far, dignity, or human dignity, might be
– something that every single human has whatever they do or are (ie intrinsic worth or value) and which entitles them to certain rights (gosh, that sounds dangerously like a soul, non?) (and possibly they even still have it when they are dead?)
– something that humans have because other humans give it them or refrain from taking it away (ie autonomy)
– something that humans have because, or to the extent, that they themselves think so (self-respect or self-worth)
– something that some humans have some of the time as judged (descriptively) by other humans (ie stateliness)
I don’t know if this is an accurate summary of the debate so far, but it at least suggests to me that the word is far too vague to be bandied about as much as it is, especially in relation to quasi- or actually legal documents.
It’s not enough to say “they don’t like it.” The nature of “disliking” rape or slavery is very different from the nature of “disliking” getting stuck in traffic. One is degrading, the other isn’t, and the reason for this is connected to dignity and self-worth. The nature of the difference is not helpfully explained by using the words ‘degrading’ or ‘dignity’; those words do not explain the difference, they just provide labels. The difference is, in fact, to do with the level of and cause of the loss of autonomy. When we get stuck in traffic we lose a small amount of autonomy for a short while, for reasons which are to do with our own choices and which are not to do with a deliberate action by someone else aimed at causing the loss of autonomy.
Oh, and why is being fleshy or weak or fragile antithetical to dignity? Surely our dignity arises from how we handle our fleshiness and mortality, not from some sort of escape from these things. Saying that fleshiness precludes dignity is a Christian and patriarchal attitude. Christian, because in Christianity the body is the site of sin and weakness and the goal is to separate oneself from one’s body and identify oneself with the mind and/or soul. Patriarchal, because women have always been more identified with the weaknesses of the body than men, thanks to things like childbirth and breasts and menstruation and physical strength differences.
But Leia, you’re just taking all these things as self-evident when the whole point is that (I’m claiming) they’re not. If the situation were as you describe, then I’d agree with you, but it isn’t, and that’s my point. You even translated dignity into self-respect at one point apparently without even noticing you’d done it – but the issue is the word dignity, not self-respect.
What do you mean ‘No, dignity is self-worth, period. Not inflated self-worth, but a proper sense of self-worth’? Who says? How do you know? You can’t just dismiss overtones and implications by fiat.
‘Surely our dignity arises from how we handle our fleshiness and mortality’
But since I don’t think we have dignity, I don’t think it does arise from that, because I don’t think it arises from anything.
I’m not denying we have something (only to lose it at the end) – only that it’s dignity that we have. We have a decent default state in which we’re not filthy or naked or falling down or making fools of ourselves…but I don’t see why a decent default state should be dressed up as something grander. Dignity is too much to aspire to (and way too confining and demanding and boring when we get there).
I like the being stuck in traffic example. I really don’t like that, but I really, really, really don’t want to be bought and sold. The number of “really’s” doesn’t do justice to the difference. If I am bought and sold, that conflicts with the kind of thing I am–it violates my “dignity.”
I think dignity talk is coherent, and we do know how to talk this way, we are not confused on a daily basis. Still, I can understand having misgivings, and wondering whether (in the end, underneath it all), this talk makes sense.
But I entirely agree that ‘degrading’ provides a necessary label. I could go on for hours about degrading treatment; I’m about to co-write a whole book on the subject. But it still doesn’t follow that ‘dignity’ is an equally necessary label. We don’t have inflated terms like that for the obverse of other crimes and actions we feel strongly about. We have the label ‘rape’ without having to have some inflated word for the absence of rape – ‘inviolability’ perhaps? Bad things are really really bad, but they don’t need glory-words to make that apparent.
I think that’s a fairly general principle, actually, isn’t it? Crime is crime, and the objects of it don’t have to be in some elevated state in order to be objects of it. Crime and degrading actions are not about the state of the objects, they’re about themselves. They don’t depend on who or what the object is. (They have, in the past, and sometimes still do de facto, but they shouldn’t, and that’s not a legal principle. Degrading a queen is no worse than degrading a hooker – officially.) Murder is just murder, assault is just assault. The victims don’t have to be dignified or pretty or young or clever.
“glory-words”
“It is because God has assigned worth to man and woman that human dignity is established. Man’s glory is derived, dependent upon God’s glory for his own. It is because mankind bears the image of God that he enjoys such an exalted rank in the nature of things. From his creation to his redemption, man’s dignity is preserved. He is created by One who is eternal and is made for a redemption which stretches into eternity. His origin is significant – his destiny is significant – he is significant”
You even translated dignity into self-respect at one point apparently without even noticing you’d done it – but the issue is the word dignity, not self-respect.
My point is that these terms are generally used as synonymous. Your usage of the term “dignity” as synonymous with “conceit” is idiosyncratic.
What do you mean ‘No, dignity is self-worth, period. Not inflated self-worth, but a proper sense of self-worth’? Who says? How do you know? You can’t just dismiss overtones and implications by fiat.
You can’t just make them up, either, which is what I think you’re doing here. I don’t think dignity has the connotations you’re imputing to it. I think it’s part of a cluster of concepts that includes “respect,” “value,” “importance” and “pride” and that when people use “dignity” they generally mean “behaving with appropriate respect and/or pride towards others and oneself.”
I’m not denying we have something (only to lose it at the end) – only that it’s dignity that we have. We have a decent default state in which we’re not filthy or naked or falling down or making fools of ourselves…but I don’t see why a decent default state should be dressed up as something grander.
Yeah, see, I think you’re misunderstanding the concept again. “Dignity” isn’t supposed to be just something that we “have”–it’s also a way of *looking at* and interpreting and evaluating what we have. When people talk about “human dignity”, you’re assuming that they’re denying bodily weaknesses and functions and all the rest of it. Rather, what they’re usually saying is that people handle their human impulses in a way that is respectful and respectable. It’s a value judgment.
I don’t think we “have” anything by your definition of “have.” You’re saying that there’s something objectively special about humans, but it doesn’t quite rise to the level of dignity (if I understand you right). I think that’s mistaken. I think “special” and “dignity” are both human concepts that we use to talk about things we respect and value. So to me, talking about whether or not we “have dignity” is meaningless. Rather, the debate should be over which aspects of ourselves we should *consider* dignified, or which aspects of ourselves we should *accord* dignity to.
That’s good! So you haven’t yet got over your–what-do-you-call-it?–sense of human dignity?
Excuse my smiling.:-)!
We have the label ‘rape’ without having to have some inflated word for the absence of rape – ‘inviolability’ perhaps?
“Rape” is a different kind of label because it labels an action, and there isn’t always an opposite for an action.
“Degradation” is a state of being, and “degrading” is an adjective used to describe different types of action. Adjectives don’t make sense except in relation to each other. I don’t see what meaning “degrading” has if you get rid of concepts like “dignity.” The definition of “degradation” is “loss of dignity.” The two terms rely on each other. It’s like saying we can have a word for “sad” but not for “happy.”
Actually, I think “degrading” is a word that belongs to exactly the same family as “dignity” and somebody could find it just as vague, emotional, unclear… Degrading treatment brings people “down”–they are not given the status they are entitled to.
I do believe you’re talking mostly about comportment. Sure, “victims don’t have to be dignified or pretty or young or clever”–dignity in the moral sense is spread equally among persons. You really can murder a turnip because it doesn’t have the worth of a person. You can’t murder persons,whether they comport themselves with dignity or not. That’s because of their … dignity (i.e. their intrinsic worth as persons).
I know it’s late in the conversation but I’d like to add a fourth definition to potentilla’s list namely “the capacity not to be degraded by circumstances or other’s attitudes” which I think is closer to the contemporary understanding of the concept. It’s precisely the sort of thing that realty show participants are conspicuously lacking in. Not that I particularly like the idea – it’s smacks a bit too much of crypto-moralising for my taste. After all, while it may be admirable – a virtue – it’s still a capacity and capacities are arbitrarily endowed and a pretty poor basis for any sort of moral judgment. (Not to mention that it’s a favorite subject for sentimental middle-brow books and films of the sort that make me want to throw up.)
Here’s the link to the Merriam-Webster’s definition of “dignity”:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dignity
1: the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed
2 a: high rank, office, or position b: a legal title of nobility or honor
3 archaic : dignitary
4: formal reserve or seriousness of manner, appearance, or language
And from Webster’s online dictionary:
1. The quality of being worthy of esteem or respect: “it was beneath his dignity to cheat”; “showed his true dignity when under pressure”.
2. Formality in bearing and appearance: “he behaved with great dignity”.
3. High office or rank or station: “he respected the dignity of the emissaries”.
So basically, the first and most common and important definition of “dignity” has to do with being worthy of respect.
*Secondary* definitions have to do with station and comportment. This makes sense: societies give people high stations because they think something about them deserves respect, and these stations go along with certain kinds of comportment. But the core of why they’re supposed to have the station and the comportment is that they have qualities that deserve respect.
If they have the station and the comportment but not the qualities, then they have what is termed “false dignity.” I think OB, when she talks of “dignity,” is referring to what most people would think of as “false dignity.”
But the central definition of “dignity” itself is “being worthy, honored or esteemed.”
Well, no. The first and most common and important definition of “dignity” (according to Merriam-Webster) does not have to do with being worthy of respect – you’re translating again. Being worthy, honored or esteemed is not the same thing as being worthy of respect. Of course it’s similar and related, but it’s not identical, which is presumably why you translated. But your translation just backs up my point, which is that ‘dignity’ is too inflated and sentimental (among other things). You seem to believe me without realizing it.
In any case the Concise Oxford defines it differently.
You have a point about degrading. But on the other hand…do the words shame and humiliation also require opposites to make them meaningful? I don’t think so – and I don’t even know what the opposites would be. Pride? No – you can be shamed without having first been proud.
I can see that degradation is literally the opposite of dignity, but the literal definition was never the point (that’s why I said don’t look it up at the beginning). The point is the connotations, the lived meaning. I think dignity is a patriotic-type word, a Sunday School word (to go Mark Twainish for a moment), a pious word, in a way that degradation isn’t. I would bristle if anyone referred to my dignity. I don’t want any dignity. I don’t want to be humiliated, and I don’t want dignity either.
We’re probably talking at cross-purposes, actually.
I don’t think dignity has the connotations you’re imputing to it. I think it’s part of a cluster of concepts that includes “respect,” “value,” “importance” and “pride”
I realize all that; I just think dignity has some extra – how shall I say – gas around it. That’s basically all I’m talking about. It’s an aesthetic point, a stylistic point, along with curiosity about what that’s about and whether others share my view of it; clearly some do (and others don’t). But I don’t think anything sinister flows from my dislike of the word – I don’t think it’s ‘scary’ (to quote Jimmy Doyle). Funny possibly, but not scary.
Being worthy, honored or esteemed is not the same thing as being worthy of respect.
Well, yes, it is. Being “worthy” is the same thing as being “worthy of respect.” Being “honored and esteemed” is the same as being “respected.” My point was that dignity is linked closely to “respect” or “respectable,” both in the normative sense (“SHOULD be respected,” as in “worthy”) and in the positive sense (“IS respected,” as in “honored and esteemed”).
do the words shame and humiliation also require opposites to make them meaningful? I don’t think so – and I don’t even know what the opposites would be. Pride? No – you can be shamed without having first been proud.
How? “Shame” means having your pride, your honor, your status taken away. What does “shame” mean in the absence of concepts like pride and honor? What does “humiliation” mean in the absence of dignity?
The point is the connotations, the lived meaning.
Well, yes, exactly. The lived meaning of “dignity” in common parlance has to do with self-respect, usually. When people talk about “human dignity” they refer to the conditions we need to respect ourselves and others. I really don’t see where you’re getting the idea that “dignity” connotes something like “conceit” or “self-importance.” I can certainly see the argument that people attach their dignity to things they shouldn’t–like being created by God rather than being evolved. But I see no basis for the notion that, when people say “have some dignity!”, they mean “act like the Queen of England and indulge in a lot of pompous grandeur.” They generally mean “have some sense of your own worth.”
A couple of other points before I have to rush madly off –
One, there is a certain amount of joking, or do I mean irony (a more dignified way of putting it) here, which may have been missed.
Two, one argument is that ‘not liking’ being degraded is not adequate. Well no it’s not but that’s not (I see upon re-reading) what I said – I said we hate it and then that we find it acutely painful. I did thus make the point that it’s special, that it’s not just a mild thing.
Why do we find it acutely painful…? That will take some thought. I’ll sit on it and chew it over, as Julian so elegantly (dignifiedly) put it the other day. Because it takes away or spoils something about our sense of self…but that something isn’t exactly dignity. I would say self-respect is much closer. A kind of default state of being comfortable that depends on self-respect.
Oh okay, three – is it true that all adjectives are relational, that you can’t have an x without a minus x? I don’t think so. All adjectives are part of a binary pair? I don’t think so.
We’re probably talking at cross-purposes, actually.
Yes, it does seem like it. Basically, it seems like you’ve got an emotional dislike of the word “dignity” (and I don’t mean this dismissively; we all have emotional dislikes of certain words and phrases). It seems like you associate it with a finger-wagging old man.
I tend to have that reaction when people talk about “sanctity,” myself. Or when people talk about “respect for the office,” like the office of the presidency or that of a police officer. I recognize that these terms can be used legitimately, but they make my hackles rise.
is it true that all adjectives are relational, that you can’t have an x without a minus x? I don’t think so. All adjectives are part of a binary pair?
“Relational” isn’t the same as “part of a binary pair.” The relationship might be more triangular or pentagonal or whatever…like, there’s a term, and then there are close relatives of the term, and then there are things that are partly defined by being NOT the term. It’s not that every adjective can be paired off neatly with an opposite.
I did thus make the point that it’s special, that it’s not just a mild thing.
Yeah, I get that, but the point is not just that degradation isn’t “mild” (you can have mild degradation, but we usually call that embarrassment). The point is that it’s a different *kind* of harm (in addition to being a different *level* of harm).
‘What does “shame” mean in the absence of concepts like pride and honor?’
A deviation from the norm, which is not necessarily defined as pride and honor. I would never, ever talk about honor in terms of myself, but I would certainly talk about shame. Leia I think you’re just overlooking or denying the way some of these words are loaded – heavily loaded. ‘Honor’ is a colossally loaded word. (As is shame.) It’s no good just pointing to a dictionary and saying that’s all there is to be said.
Where I’m getting the idea that “dignity” connotes something like “conceit” or “self-importance” – from my own intuitions initially (which, again, is why I said don’t look it up, I wanted to compare intuitions), later backed up by (as I said) the Concise Oxford.
I agree with you that dignity can be used in phrases like ‘have a litte dignity’…but it’s also true that I would shy away from saying that myself. (I’m very fussy about language – I’ll admit that that’s idiosyncratic.) What I’m curious about is why: what makes it loaded.
Seriously – does the invented (but familiar-sounding) phrase ‘she had a certain quiet dignity’ not strike you as repellent? Does it make you want to get to know her better?! Surely not!
Catching up – heh – yes, exactly: sanctity-type word. That’s all I mean really, that and curiosity about why. Although I guess I traipsed after it into something slightly more substantive…
A deviation from the norm, which is not necessarily defined as pride and honor.
A deviation from the norm isn’t “shame,” though! I think you’re the one who’s overlooking something here–being “shameful” isn’t the same as being “abnormal”! Dying your hair pink is a deviation from the norm in our society, but very few people would describe it as *shameful*. In any society that has the concept of “shame,” “shamefulness” is associated with a lack of qualities associated with “pride” or “honor.” I certainly agree that these are loaded terms–loaded with implications of gender and class and other such things. But I don’t see how you can possibly argue that they’re not related to each other in common parlance.
If we take a look at what “shames” people, it’s almost always related to the concept-cluster of things like pride and honor and dignity–it’s shameful to run away from a fight if you’re a man, a man with pride wouldn’t do such a thing. It’s shameful to sleep around, a woman with pride and dignity wouldn’t do such a thing. It’s shameful to tell a lie, a person with pride and dignity wouldn’t do such a thing. Etc. Some of these are things we *should* attach value to (honesty); others, not so much, but I don’t think you can separate either shame or pride from things we *do* attach value to or from each other.
As for this mysterious woman with quiet dignity–dignity itself isn’t enough to make me want to get to know someone, but neither is it something that makes me want to *not* get to know her. I think it’s really funny that you have this repelled reaction to this hypothetical person.
In many circumstances, I’d certainly *admire* someone with “a quiet dignity,” whether or not I’d want to have drink with them. “Quiet dignity” is used to describe someone who’s cool under pressure, who doesn’t let pressure make her succumb to her worst instincts. That’s admirable. I’m kind of amused and puzzled that anyone would have such a negative reaction to an innocuous phrase like that.
Though I’ll admit, “quiet dignity” has become a kind of cliche and is a huge example of lazy writing–because usually authors who use it won’t describe *what* the character is *doing* that makes her so dignified.
“is it true that all adjectives are relational, that you can’t have an x without a minus x? I don’t think so. All adjectives are part of a binary pair? I don’t think so.”
What? Haven’t you ever been gruntled to find out that you’d mantled something properly the first try?
But seriously, OB, like, chill, dude [in a totally non-gender-specific way, y’dig?] We all deserve a *nice* kind of dignity, much as the human condition should aspire to a *nice* kind of nobility, not the one that entitled some nob to ride his horse through your garden and deflower your daughter…..or your son, if we’re being non-gender-specific…
Excuse me, but I am totally noble and dignified enough to run around deflowering all the attractive young men I choose.
*nods*
Data point: the *Compact* Oxford English Dictionary says that dignity is the “state or quality of being worthy of respect.” If the *Concise* Oxford says something else…well, that kind of takes away from Oxford’s dignity, I suppose. Heh.
Intuitions about language are always interesting. The only context I’ve seen “dignity” used the way OB thinks of it is in the phrase “stand on your dignity,” which is usually used in a joking kind of way, at least in my experience.
Good grief, I must have blinked.
I don’t like ‘she had a certain quiet dignity’ either, but for the literary stylistic reason which Leia refers to at 21.42.42. It isn’t clear precisely what is meant, and one suspects that the any author using it isn’t clear in their own mind what they intended. (I think I share OB’s intuition that I wouldn’t like the person, but mainly because the sentence sounds as though it has either “Although…” in front of it or “..but….” following it).
Leia, if you read some of the early comments before you arrived, you’ll see that I have a relatively similar intuition to yours about what the word entails. But, this thread suggests that not everyone shares it; actually no-one else seems to share it so far (Ophelia, and Jean, and G, all seem to mean something noticeably different, both from the self-repesct/worth/control type meaning and from each other).
There is no right answer to the meaning of the word dignity.* BUT, if this comments thread is representative, anyone considering using the word should be extremely cautious if they actually intend to communicate anything. (Of course, the UN may well not do so).
* Just to add to the war of the dictionaries, Chambers says dignity is “the state of being dignified: elevation of mind or character: grandeur of mien: elevation in rank, place etc: degree of excellence: preferment: high office: a dignitary” which is pretty useless.
There is no right answer to the meaning of the word dignity.* BUT, if this comments thread is representative, anyone considering using the word should be extremely cautious if they actually intend to communicate anything.
Part of this, I imagine, is the lack of context. We’re talking about the word isolated from any particular sentence or paragraph. I’d say most words get pretty vague once you take them out of context.
I think you’re right about the differences in definition but I also think Jean and G actually come pretty close to what you and I were saying, potentilla (which is also similar to what the UN is getting at). Maybe not precisely the same, but close. G’s emphasis on autonomy isn’t that different from self-control, for instance. Ditto for Jean’s talk of worth. And, in real life, I’ve heard people use the word in fairly standard ways. Then again, it’s always come up in similar contexts, which points again to the importance of context.
For what it’s worth, I didn’t take myself to be disagreeing with Leia’s sense of what “dignity” amounts to, though maybe emphasizing one element.
There is a historical dimension to this issue. Once upon a time, only nobles and kings and the rich had dignity, that is, were worthy of respect. In that context, to say that all humans have instrinsic dignity is a revolutionary affirmation. I think that the Kant and the UN Declaration use the word “dignity” with awareness of the revolutionary nature of insisting that all humans have dignity. Let’s remember that the UN declaration comes at the end of World War 2 and the begining of a long process of decolonization. When did India become independent? The UN declaration dates from 1948. Behind the UN declaration is the idea that all of us having the same instrinsic dignity, all of us have the same rights: that is, no more right to colonize. Everything that Kant says on ethics must be seen in the context of his version of the French Revolution.
A deviation from the norm isn’t “shame,” though! I think you’re the one who’s overlooking something here–being “shameful” isn’t the same as being “abnormal”!
No no I didn’t mean that kind of norm! I was too cryptic. I meant deviation from a person’s normal state. Shame is a deviation from how we normally feel (except people who do feel chronic shame, which must be an appalling state to be in). We don’t normally feel dignified and then feel shamed if we are shamed – we normally feel just normal, unremarkable, how we are; shame is a swerve from that.
The cliché was what I meant about the quiet dignity – although I will say that I really would find it very bizarre and off-putting to be told about anyone that she or he is very dignified. I’m not being weird here: that’s not an alluring description at this point in the world’s history! It really isn’t. I defy you to say otherwise. (Now, I can imagine it in journalism for instance – that would be different. Of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, of the Saudi woman who has been sentenced to 200 lashes for being raped, of Darfur refugees…hmm…that does change the picture somewhat, actually. Which may connect with your point about patriarchy. Okay, I’ve thought of a counter-example. I was looking for that!)
Dave, I’m not unchilled, I’m just interested. Can’t a person be interested?
amos, I’d rather say we all have the same rights than say we all have intrinsic dignity…but still, the dignified refugees have changed my mind a little. I still think it’s a word that should be used very sparingly and cautiously, but I can now think of contexts where it wouldn’t make me turn queasy.
Too bad I had to do it myself! All these comments, and no one could help me.
[stalks off with quiet dignity]
Gosh, I’m sorry I had other things to do. This discussion has been quite interesting to read. I still have other things to do and little time to contribute, but I just wanted to say “Kudos!” to one and all, because I really enjoyed reading this comment string.
:-)
G
Of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, of the Saudi woman who has been sentenced to 200 lashes for being raped, of Darfur refugees…hmm…that does change the picture somewhat, actually.
…well, exactly. I think that’s how the word’s generally used, no? To describe situations where someone has survived a difficult situation with grace? And “human dignity” refers to this human capacity and, as Amos points out, emphasizes that the capacity is indeed human and not restricted to a noble class.
I mean, I definitely wouldn’t say of a friend of mine, “Oh, she’s so dignified!” I agree, in casual conversation it would make her (and me!) sound pompous. But “dignity” isn’t used all that often in *casual* conversation–more like serious conversation about serious, difficult topics.
I’d rather say we all have the same rights than say we all have intrinsic dignity
Honestly, I think these two concepts are so interrelated that they’re hard to separate from each other. In fact they’re often defined in terms of each other.
It’s actually funny to me that you used the Queen as an example of dignity in your original post. Because I’m so used to seeing the word used to describe people who are the exact opposite of royalty in that they’ve been abused and denigrated by their neighbors but manage to maintain self-respect and command respect from decent people: rape survivors, those who are tortured or imprisoned because of their service of a good cause, those who are falsely accused or the victims of some form of witch-hunt, etc.
We don’t normally feel dignified and then feel shamed if we are shamed – we normally feel just normal, unremarkable, how we are; shame is a swerve from that.
Oh, true. But part of what goes into “normal” is a certain level of dignity/pride/self-respect/what-have-you. Just like we don’t feel *happy* all the time–we feel normal, and then we feel sad if something bad happens. But part of our normality is a certain level of happiness/contentment/whatever. Sadness lowers that level relative to whatever it was before.
Or to put it another way–just because we’re not conscious of something doesn’t mean it’s not there and we won’t feel its loss.
Focusing on loss is how I ended up at this conception that the word “human dignity” is all about autonomy. What’s said by people who confront what they conceive of as a loss of their own dignity – losing control of one’s body or mind, etc. – that pointed me towards autonomy.
I think the references above to people maintaining their dignity in the face of degradation also seems to be largely about autonomy: When other forms of people’s control over their own lives is stripped from them – the infirm and disabled, refugees, victims of torture and other horrible crimes – we take it as a display of extraordinary character when they exercise their autonomy and self-control over what they *can* still control. In extreme circumstances, perhaps the only thing that is still under a person’s control is his or her visible emotional reactions to those circumstances – and respect for such control does seem to be universal, and we do call that “dignity” among other things.
But displays of stoicism or good humor in the face of suffering, while admired as a virtue, are not necessary elements of “human dignity.” Whether you are dragged kicking and screaming to your execution or wave to the crowd with a wink and a smile for the pretty women (or men, as you prefer), your execution is no more and no less an assault on your human dignity, the ultimate stripping-away of your autonomy. I think the phrase “human dignity” is typically used to indicate an essential feature of our humanity, our freedom to do and to be as we will, our autonomy. It isn’t a virtue displayed by some and lacked by others: Rather, it is that which belongs to us by right as humans, and ought not be denied anyone without great cause.
Where “human dignity” is used to point towards a basic feature of human value, our autonomy and our right to our autonomy, just “dignity” as a virtue term seems to be a way of talking about a person’s excellence in the exercise of their autonomy: “Dignity” in this sense indicates someone’s ability to exercise autonomy over whatever remains within their power to control in difficult circumstances, even if it is only their outward display of emotion. That does admit of a scale, and everyone does not necessarily have it.
I prefer “autonomy” and similar terminology to “self-respect” because I’ve heard that term used too often as a bludgeon: “Show some self-respect!” is often simply a code for “Act how I think you should act!” Respect is always tricky that way, because it is (at least partly) about perception: Someone can be respected without being worthy of respect, and vice versa.
[philosophy geekery]
As I recall, this discussion is hashed out in some complexity and detail by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics (usually translated as “honor” rather than “respect”, but in the context of that discussion, either word will do).
*trots over to bookshelf, returns*
Yep. Book 4, Chapter 3 & 4 if anyone’s interested. Chapter 3 on “greatness of soul” (megalopsuchia) is especially interesting in the context of this discussion.
[/philosophy geekery]
G, thanks!
“Murder is just murder, assault is just assault. The victims don’t have to be dignified or pretty or young or clever.”
Absolutely. They just have to be human, which means they have human dignity.
It’s a (possibly) necessary ethical irrational, the negative space of rights. The spirit of the principle rather than the letter of the law.
ob: In the UN declaration, intrinsic
human dignity is the basis or justification for equal rights. I agree with you that it’s a weak and perhaps unnecessary foundation. I see human rights more as a body of international laws than as something which pre-exists the legislation and conventions. I don’t see why they can’t say that rights are rights, just as they say the law is the law. Human rights, like national law, is the product of a legislative body, in this case, the UN General Assambly, the declaration then being ratified by the authorities in the nations that sign. I don’t believe in natural law and I suspect that you don’t either. Still, justifications like instrinsic human dignity are useful for convincing people at times. People like a bit of highsounding rhetoric with their beans. The important thing is to protect the rights, even at the cost of a bit of rhetoric.
Thanks, G. That’s very interesting and informative. I definitely think autonomy’s a big part of it. I just don’t think it’s all of it because we’re not 100% autonomous beings, we’re social, and dignity (along with “rights” and “morals” and other hard-to-define terms) has a lot to do with our relationships with each other. Which includes perception, as you said, which makes all of these things hard to pin down because it can be tough to separate conventionality from virtue.
Thanks for the pointer to Aristotle’s discussion, too. I believe Martha Nussbaum has actually written a book about this whole subject but I haven’t read it, so don’t know how good it is.
What I mean by us being social, by the way, can best be summed up by a paraphrased (and joking) quote from Terry Pratchett: Autonomous people need other people to be autonomous at.
There’s a Pratchett quote for every occasion, I firmly believe.
we’re not 100% autonomous beings
Though, on reflection, that’s a rather trivial point. Basically, I think G’s right about everything s/he said in that last comment.
Interesting discussion, everyone!
Yeah it is!
G is George Felis, by the way; he has an article on the front page here.
I’ve always liked the word ‘megalopsuchia’ – it’s especially nice if you realize that pusillanimous means tiny-souled. Pusillus -a -um, tiny.
“I think that’s how the word’s generally used, no? To describe situations where someone has survived a difficult situation with grace?”
Well it is one way it’s generally used, and for some reason that fact escaped me until that moment when I remembered it in mid-type. But there are other ways – one if which is the way Leon Kass uses it, which is where all this started. (I lost sight of that because I got interested in free-associating on the topic.) Kass uses it no fewer than seven times in his pervasively wrongheaded speech at the Manhattan Institute, and he uses it to make truly wretched arguments. He uses it in fact as the basis of the argument: these truth claims would undermine human dignity therefore they are wicked and false.
I think I need a new thread for that one. I haven’t exhausted Kass yet…
“It’s a bit of inflated sentimental rhetoric, and I have a real gut-level dislike of sentimental rhetoric.”
Rhetoric: OK Ophelia, I’ll go along with you there, in its sense of deliberate exaggeration. But ‘sentimental’ is a boo word, used as a say-no-more-straight-to-the-bin blocker.
(Sentimental [adj] weakly emotional; mawkishly susceptible or tender.
Mawkish [adj] characterised by sickly sentimentality. BINGO! Circle complete.)
Is sentimentality OK, provided it is not sickly? Is there such a thing as healthy sentimentality? I need to know, and fast. I hope I don’t have to throw out my Andre Rieu DVDs, and my video of ‘Rose Marie’.