What is respect
We got in a discussion in comments on Just the questions, ma’am about whether it is reasonable to demand respect, which entailed a discussion of what respect is and what people mean by it. I agreed that it’s reasonable enough to demand a minimal version of respect, but I pointed out 1) that people often mean something very maximal by the word and 2) that that fact is often disguised because the minimal version is available. So I was pleased, while re-reading Simon Backburn’s ‘Religion and Respect’ to see this:
‘Respect’, of course is a tricky term. I may respect your gardening by just letting you get on with it. Or, I may respect it by admiring it and regarding it as a superior way to garden. The word seems to span a spectrum from simply not interfering, passing by on the other side, through admiration, right up to reverence and deference. This makes it uniquely well-placed for ideological purposes. People may start out by insisting on respect in the minimal sense, and in a generally liberal world they may not find it too difficult to obtain it. But then what we might call respect creep sets in, where the request for minimal toleration turns into a demand for more substantial respect, such as fellow-feeling, or esteem, and finally deference and reverence. In the limit, unless you let me take over your mind and your life, you are not showing proper respect for my religious or ideological convictions. We can respect, in the minimal sense of tolerating, those who hold false beliefs. We can pass by on the other side. We need not be concerned to change them, and in a liberal society we do not seek to suppress them or silence them. But once we are convinced that a belief is false, or even just that it is irrational, we cannot respect in any thicker sense those who hold it—not on account of their holding it. We may respect them for all sorts of other qualities, but not that one.
This is exactly what I was (and am) claiming.
Phrases like ‘equal concern and respect’ trip off the tongue. But in any more than the most minimal sense of ‘deserving equal protection of the law’ or equal toleration, there are, quite properly, gradations of respect. We respect skill, ability, judgement, and experience. The opinion of someone who has demonstrated these qualities is more important to us than the opinion of a newcomer, or someone who is foolish and wild in his reasonings. We defer to some people more than we defer to others, and this deference is a measure of respect.
Same again. And to ‘demand’ the upper level of the gradation is to demand something that can’t be given as a mere act of will or generosity, and that thus is not ‘respect’ in the sense intended; therefore it is futile to demand it. I can’t demand that people respect me as a mountaineer, because I’m not one. If I do demand that and people decide to humour me, what they’re giving me is not respect. Thus my demand falls to the ground like a broken moth, forceless.
This whole notion of respect creep reminded me of a bit from Life of Brian. The actual word at stake in the dialog is “right” rather than “respect,” but of course one must respect rights. So we must all respect Stan’s – excuse me, Loretta’s – right to have babies…
FRANCIS: I think Judith’s point of view is valid here, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man …
STAN: Or woman.
FRANCIS: Or woman … to rid himself …
STAN: Or herself.
REG: Or herself. Agreed. Thank you, brother.
STAN: Or sister.
FRANCIS: Thank you, brother. Or sister. Where was I?
REG: I thought you’d finished.
FRANCIS: Oh, did I? Right.
REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man …
STAN: Or woman.
REG: Why don’t you shut up about women, Stan, you’re putting us off.
STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN: … I want to be one.
REG: … What?
STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on I want you all to call me Loretta.
REG: What!?
STAN: It’s my right as a man.
JUDITH: Why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
STAN: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!?!?!
STAN: It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But you can’t have babies.
STAN: Don’t you oppress me!
REG: I’m not oppressing you, Stan — you haven’t got a womb. Where’s the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?
(STAN starts crying.)
JUDITH: Here! I’ve got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the *right* to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister, sorry.
REG: What’s the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can’t have babies?
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: It’s symbolic of his struggle against reality.
SPLITTERS!
Just after reading this post I went to the coffee point and saw this notice:-
Fire has no respect
Know your instructions
Well, no, fire is not that polite I suppose. It doesn’t say excuse me or wait for you to finish what you’re saying before butting in. I suppose in this case “no respect” equals “dangerous”.
Another instance – back of a bus next to a load of fairly drunk and noisy young blokes. One is talking loudly about his sex life. His mate sees me (wincing probably) and says to him, “Have some respect,” by which he means, keep your voice down. Be polite in public.
When I say “I respect your argument” I mean you have made some forceful points or have reasoned properly even if I don’t agree with what you say.
What a word!
Basic respect is given to all.
Above that respect has to be earned.
Fire has no respect – cool. That draws on that old phrase, I suppose – ‘__ is no respecter of person.’ I’m not sure if __ is interchangeable or if it’s one thing – death, disease; I don’t know. Will have to look it up.
Respect: = Regard; esteem; stature; prize; eminence; consideration; toleration.
“The respect of those you respect is worth more than the applause of the multitude”. — Arnold H. Glasow
I used to play Go. As a game originating in the Japanese and Chinese cultures (it’s Weiqi in Chinese, I think) there is a strong and explicit requirement to respect your opponent.
What I like about all this is that you show your respect by playing the hardest and most honest game (eg http://senseis.xmp.net/?RespectYourOpponentsAbility) you can.
Sadly I don’t play Go any more, but that’s still the kind of respect I respect.