Much is said lately about respect, or perhaps more appropriately, lack of respect. In my reading today I came across what I think is a good explanation of the term (from Robert & Edward Sidelsky’s (How Much Is Enough) that seemingly helps:
“[T]o respect someone is to indicate, by some formality or otherwise, that one regards his views and interests as worthy of consideration, as things not to be ignored or trampled on. Respect does not imply agreement or liking; one can respect an enemy. It does not imply any special admiration. But it does imply a certain recognition or ‘taking account’ of the other’s point of view….”
In this sense, “respect” seems to require a lot of the respecter, in particular, some humility, some willingness to consider the thought, if only a brief thought, that the other is not wearing a “kick me” sign, is not “to be ignored or trampled on.” That last sentence is, I think, the key ingredient that seems to often be absent in today’s discourse — “a certain recognition or ‘taking into account” of the other’s point of view.” It is, in this information age, so easy to tune into that which spouts only one point of view, and only uses the other as a punching bag.
But beyond having listened for that moment, having taken into account the other point of view, it occurs to me that we are not then somehow freed to become disrespectful. Having had a discourse, respect has no place for the use of “whack job” or “total loser” when describing the other.
It occurs to me... 