1: Respect for who or what?

In this first, introductory dialogue, two friends, RLF and LS, try to determine what respect is, who or what deserves respect and why.

RLF: First of all, my friend, let’s begin by talking about what we mean by showing respect for someone.

LS: I’ll try to make a start at defining respect; I think it’s similar to ‘valuing’.

RLF: What do you mean, exactly – valuing whom for what reason?

LS: Good question. Why do we value something?

RLF: Well, we put value on something because we think it has value.

LS: That doesn’t get us very far, does it? Why do we value something? What does it mean to say we value something?

RLF: I suppose it means that we look upon it as something that is good, something worthy of our thinking it valuable.

LS: So, for example, we can look at a diamond, and value it, but why do we say we value, or that it has value?

RLF: Because if we can sell it, we get a lot of money for it.

LS: And money also has value then?

RLF: Of course it has value. Our whole society is based upon our valuing money, isn’t it?

LS: That is very true, but should the value we place on money extend the value we place on other things?

RLF: If you say things, then I think we should place our value on money above all other things.

LS: Tell me why exactly.

RLF: Because we can use money to buy anything we need. All things cost money. Everything has its price.

LS: I’ll concede that, for the moment. What about other object – I don’t want to use the word things again. What about people? Why do we value people?

RLF: Because we have been brought up to value people, surely.

LS: That sounds reasonable, except that it’s clear that some people have not been brought up that way. What can you say about people who do not value other people?

RLF: I think we can say that anyone who does not value other people has no value himself.

LS: And how can such a person become like that?

RLF: By not being valued himself, I think.

LS: Can you give me an example?

RLF: Yes, I should think that a person who has not been valued by his parents or his siblings – his brothers and sisters, or who has not been valued by anyone – such an unfortunate person surely wouldn’t value anyone else. Why should he?

LS: So you would say that valuing others begins with other people valuing you, would you?

RLF: Absolutely. It starts with self-respect – with knowing one’s own value.

LS: Which is in itself a learned behavior.

RLF: Exactly. We learn to value others if we ourselves are valued. If we are not valued by anyone, how can we possibly value anyone else?

LS: I am sure you are right, my friend. Now, my next question is; what is it that is valued in someone? What is it that we value in others?

RLF: For a start, I would say that people value those who they feel value them.

LS: So it is a reciprocal thing, is it? I value you to the same extent that you value me.

RLF: I would say so, yes.

LS: So someone who imagines they have no value, who perceives, rightly or wrongly, that they are not valued by anyone else, has no value for others. Is that what you think?

RLF: Yes, I do.

LS: Then how are we to proceed with that one person? How can we value him if he refuses to value anyone?

RLF: I suppose that for most people like that, they go through their lives as though they don’t care anything about the opinions of others.

LS: Which leads them to behave how, exactly?

RLF: I should think they do anything they want, regardless of what people’s opinions are.

LS: So they do anything they want?

RLF: Yes, I should think so.

LS: But what does that person want? Do you think that person can be the best judge of what is best for him?

RLF: Of course he is. Who has the right to tell him how to live his life? He lives it as he sees fit.

LS: Regardless of what anyone else says to the contrary?

RLF: Regardless, yes.

LS: Then what part do the laws of the land play in his life?

RLF: He has to abide by them, like the rest of us.

LS: But if he doesn’t abide by what the law says, what then?

RLF: Then obviously, if he breaks the law, he must be made to stop doing whatever it is that he is doing.

LS: So we do have a right to tell him what is right and what is wrong?

RLF: The law does, yes.

LS: And who or what is the law?

RLF: It is all of us; working through rules we have agreed upon and made into laws.

LS: Then what can we value of him, if he breaks the law?

RLF: There is nothing in him to value.

LS: Nothing?

RLF: Only that part of him that acquiesces to our laws.

LS: And if he refuses, what then?

RLF: Then we incarcerate him.

LS: We lock him up?

RLF: Yes, we put him where he can no longer do us any harm.

LS: For ever?

RLF: That depends upon the severity of his crime, surely.

LS: So if his crime is deemed to not be severe, we let him out again.

RLF: Yes, that is what we do.

LS: And when he does it again, we throw him into prison - for a bit longer this time.

RLF: That’s correct.

LS: What can we do to stop him if periods of imprisonment fail?

RLF: WE can try to educate him – to rehabilitate him.

LS: In what way? How do we teach him?

RLF: By showing him that his way is not the best way.

LS: Or not the right way? And how do we begin, I wonder?

RLF: By showing him some respect, first of all. I can’t imagine how we could educate him without showing him that he is worthy of the time we are going to spend rehabilitating him.

LS: And when he has been respected, then what?

RLF: Then we release him and let him get on with his life. We give him some self-respect by the very act of us respecting him.

LS: Hoping, presumably, that his new found respect for himself leads to a respect for others, and that he doesn’t commit any more wrongdoings.
So, let me ask you again. What is there in this man we can now value?

RLF: That he has some value for us. If he shows us respect, we should show him some too.

LS: But, if it is known that he has been in prison, most people will give him a wide berth – they will avoid him, won’t they?

RLF: Yes, they will, of course.

LS: So what can he do to change this?

RLF: He can live his life in ways that show others he can be trusted to value them and what they have that he does not have.

LS: So he must behave in ways we approve of if we are to ever value him again?

RLF: Yes, I think that is right.

LS: So he must conform to our ways?

RLF: Some of them, yes.

LS: And what ways might those be?

RLF: Well, he must begin by not breaking our laws, so that we no longer feel threatened by his presence in our midst.

LS: And how can he do that? How can he succeed in showing us that he deserves our respect?

RLF: As I have said; by behaving in normal ways, ways that do not contravene – go against what we think is valued.

LS: Can you give examples of these ways?

RLF: Yes, he can start by being trustworthy and decent, by treating us in the same manner as he would like to be treated by others.

LS: That is to say morally – he must behave in ways that are moral.

RLF: Yes, I would say that is essential.

LS: What would you say if he became successful in a financial sense? Should we still respect him?

LS: I see where you are leading me here. I would say that if he earns his money in lawful ways, then we should respect him.

LS: But if he has earned his wealth by doing something illegal or immoral – like selling drugs to young people, then we shouldn’t respect him. Is that what you are saying?

RLF: Yes, of course. If he has made money out of someone else’s misery, he should not be deserving of our value – of our respect. On the contrary, he should be dealt with by the law of the land.

LS: And locked up again?

RLF: If he goes against our laws, yes, he should be locked up.

LS: So his wealth cannot or should not work in his favour?

RLF: As I just said, if he has got it by unlawful means, then no, he should not be held in our esteem.

LS: What about the rich industrialist who has made his money through the manufacture of weapons – guns? What is he deserving of?

RLF: Unfortunately, making armaments that can be used to kill people, is not necessarily against the law. If he is licensed to make guns, he is acting within the law.

LS: But there are people who believe he has no right, morally, to manufacture weapons that are used to kill and injure people.

RLF: Then of course, such people will not value him in any way.

LS: So we cannot, in fact, rely on the law of the land to show us who to value and who not to value.

RLF: Yes, I see what you mean.

LS: Then what are we to do? Who are we to value if the laws of our land cannot help us?

RLF: I should say that one sure way is to value those who behave in a morally correct way.

LS: Those and no others?

RLF: You would have to provide examples to test me. I would have difficulty in finding some all encompassing characteristic to value – except that moral one. If a person behaves in ways that are morally correct – if that person does nothing against another person in any moral sense, then that person is deserving of our respect.

LS: Let’s begin with a question that will help us to focus our thoughts.

RLF: That is always a good way to begin a debate. What is our question?

LS: I am glad you refer to the question as our question. Let’s see; who should be deserving of our respect? Would that help us to begin?

RLF: I am not sure about including the word ‘should’.

LS: Why?

RLF: Because it seems to put us under an obligation to respect someone.

LS: And what is your objection to that?

RLF: That our respect flows from us and us alone.

LS: But we have already hinted that those who live within our laws are deserving of our respect, haven’t we?

RLF: OK then, in that sense we should not object to the word ‘should’ in our question.

LS: Who is deserving of our respect? Does that sound better?

RLF: Yes, I think it does. It asks us a question without conditions or obligations on our part.

LS: Right, then let’s try to answer it. Let’s give specific examples of people and see if we think they are deserving of our respect.

RLF: These people – we must know something about them, if we are to respect them. Do you think that is right?

LS: Yes, but think about the person before us – a man of extreme physical strength, for example. Would we respect him because he looks threatening, physically?

RLF: I think we would definitely feel something akin to respect. It might just be that kind of feeling we call respect, but which is actually a shade of fear.

LS: And that is not the same thing as respect, is it?

RLF: Not at all. Fear passes for respect and that is why so many confuse the two.

LS: Because those they fear, they respect?

RLF: Something like that. I don’t think people differentiate fear from respect – we often think the two are similar.

LS: That is surely because they make us react in similar ways. We defer to those we fear and we do the same to those we fear, I think.

RLF: But the feeling instigated by fear cannot be the same as the one caused by respect.

LS: How are they different?

RLF: Fear can usually lead to loathing and resentment, and then a reaction against that feeling of being afraid – we say, don’t we, that the worms turns – meaning that even those oppressed by fear will eventually rise up against those that are feared. Respect instigates no such feelings. On the contrary, a feeling of real respect will usually turn into a feeling of admiration and affection.

LS: I think that is exactly right. And that’s a great way of differentiating the two; by talking about what each one can lead to: fear leads to hatred, whereas respect can lead to affection.

RLF: Yes, and only a fool, or a coward allows his fear to turn into affection.

LS: Yes, I think that is correct.

RLF: Now that we have cleared up that confusion, let’s talk about specific people – leaders, for example.

LS: Can we talk about two famous people in history: Sir Winston Churchill, the British wartime leader, and Marshall Stalin, the former leader of the Soviet Union?

RLF: WE can, but why do you think we should? Tell me.

LS: I would like you to think of both as extremely powerful men, with extremely powerful personalities. But who would you respect and who would you fear?

RLF: Well, being British myself, I would have to say that I would fear Lenin and respect Churchill, even though both were indeed powerful men.

LS: Why would you not fear Churchill? Did he not have the power of life or death over people?

RLF: No, not at all. Even though he had all the tenacity of a British bulldog, he had no power over the individual’s life. He could send that person to fight, but he could not have him harmed in any way directly. What had people to fear from Churchill?

LS: Whereas, the people of Russia had enough reason to fear Stalin – individually?

RLF: Stalin had the power, the ability and the willingness to destroy those who opposed him in any way.

LS: And so the people feared him?

RLF: Yes, I believe they did.

LS: But now, he is revered as a great leader – someone deserving of respect, is he not?

RLF: That is because any fear of him has faded, with his death in 1953. How can you be afraid of someone who is dead?

LS: So you say that he is respected but not feared?

RLF: Yes, the respect – the so called respect that we now say we feel for him is diluted from the fear of him.

LS: All that is left then is respect.

RLF: But I would have to say that is not real respect, it is a sort of fossil of the fear he instilled in his subjects, and that is not respect.

LS: Perhaps another way of looking at the difference between fear and respect is to ask which one inspires people to do something to the best of their ability.

RLF: Both might be aid to do that, but I think fear does it by making people afraid of the consequences of their doing something badly, whereas respect – and love- inspire. Fear never inspires, it threatens.

LS: That’s well said, respect, which can lead to real affection surely inspires people to excel.

RLF: So respect is a more potent feeling that fear?

LS: I would say so, yes.

RLF: And leaders would do well to remember that, I think.

LS: What other attributes lead one person to respect another?

Robert L. Fielding

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Being a student – what it means – what it includes

What does being a student at university entail? What does it mean? What is it for? Some like the noted educationalist, Sir Ken Robinson, concur that the tertiary education of a country is the means by which university teachers are found. However, that view seems to restrict the outcomes of graduation.

Surely, going to university is something more than just producing people to fill slots – vacant positions in commerce and industry or education. Surely, going to university is about something more than ingesting facts and an outpouring of those facts in final examinations.

Surely, going to university has something to do with making students think for themselves. In my day, going to university meant not just finding the answers to questions, but, more importantly, finding out more questions to ask. It is by formulating and asking questions that students come to realize the full implication of their time spent studying for a degree.

A healthier society, a more successful company, a more thorough piece of legislation, a more conclusive report, and a more inclusive piece of research – all are achieved by means of the ability to formulate questions.

But studying at university is also the first chance most young people get to leave home, to live away from their nearest and dearest, and stand on their own two feet. It is about taking responsibility for their own lives, and it is about learning how to live with others. It is an integral part of the forming of a civilized society, in which everybody comes to respect each other’s rights as citizens of that society.

It is a sort of social experiment. If it doesn’t work out, a student can always journey in from home every day. Students who do that, who live at home and go in as day students, miss out on the full import of a university education; they miss having to integrate into campus society, they miss taking part in everything that goes on after classes finish at five, and they miss the vital opportunity to enter an adult world, and that is arguably the most vital part of any education.
Robert L. Fielding

Respect for students - respect for teachers

Respect is a coin with two sides – I respect you and you respect me. That is how it works’ it’s a mutual recognition of trust and accord.

In the classroom, it is doubly important – again, for you and I – for students and for teachers. However, it is not automatic, as it might once have been. Respect for the headmaster, usually a large man with a booming voice, was often akin to fear of him.

In these more enlightened days, respect is most probably nearer to its true quality. But students often complain of certain things.
They say, for example:-
We are ignored.
We feel judged or rejected.
We are not taken seriously.
We are mocked.
We are stereotyped.
We are not asked for our ideas.
Others make decisions about us without our input.
Others do not try to understand us.
We are not listened to.
Our preferences are not taken seriously.
We are not asked what we think we need.
Others believe they what is best for us.
We are not given reasonable explanations.
We feel controlled.
Our way of doing things is not accepted.
Others believe they know us better than we know ourselves.
http://www.rlfielding.com/respectenglish.htm

Now some of these complaints point to various problems –
a) In the institution
b) In the teacher
c) In the students
d) In the ‘accepted values of the teaching profession’.

It is clear that if such complaints persist, some things must change – (a, b, c, d or all of the above). Change requires several things to happen:-
i) There must be a perception that change is needed.
ii) There must be a willingness to change.
iii) There must be conditions that promote change.
iv) There must be time to change.

Of these sources of the problems, I would say that (d) …the accepted values of the teaching profession – would take the longest to change or be changed.

If teachers are the main source of the problem, then the most likely course is observation of lessons followed by counseling of the teacher.

If students are the source of some of the problems, then there is another problem that is very hard to eradicate – it is this: students’ attitudes to learning, to what is entailed in learning, to their attitude to their teachers, all may have been formed and fossilized prior to their coming up to university.

Studying at university always entails a different set of methods and attitudes to learning, and it is often these differences that students find hardest to take on board.

Teachers at universities should not be seen merely as ‘fonts of all knowledge', like some oracular authority, but rather, should be facilitators, encouraging and indeed facilitating students’ attempts to discover for themselves.

In this digital age, in which access to information is universal, the idea that teachers can know all there is to be known about any particular topic is palpably untrue.

Teachers should guide rather than lead, assist rather than just approve, and discuss rather than arbitrarily mark right or wrong. So teachers need to rethink their roles, and students also need to rethink what they think their teacher is there for.

Once that happens, most of the complaints mentioned above will disappear. Students will have taken control of their own learning and accepted responsibility for it, taking something away from traditional teaching, and adding something to teaching in and for the new millennium.
Robert L. Fielding

Respect: what it is?

Dialogue #1: Respect for others
Don't insult people or make fun of them.
• Listen to others when they speak.
• Value other people's opinions.
• Be considerate of people's likes and dislikes.
• Don't mock or tease people.
• Don't talk about people behind their backs.
• Be sensitive to other people's feelings.
• Don't pressure someone to do something he or she doesn't want to do.
U. Thant – former DG of the UN
Every human being, of whatever origin, of whatever station, deserves respect. We must each respect others even as we respect ourselves.

Here, two people, Roger Lewis Fullerton and Len Smith discuss respect. They are trying to understand what it is.

RLF: Some believe that we must respect other people as we respect ourselves.

LS: The question is: Can you respect others if you don’t respect yourself?

RLF: I think it would be impossible – surely respect begins with self-respect. I mean, if you do not think well of yourself, you will find it difficult to think well of others.

LS: I think people who lack self-respect only respect those who are more powerful in some way.

RLF: Yes, I think you are right, but is that respect or just a sort of fear? Remember, fear is not the same thing as respect.

LS: Then perhaps we should begin by defining what we mean by the word, ‘respect’.

RLF: I think it means something like having esteem ; for a person you think has qualities you admire.

LS: Or has abilities you admire.

RLF: What about the word ‘deference’? Do you think that is the same thing as respect?

LS: Perhaps we should think of a particular situation, involving several people, and then we might be able to say whether respect was being shown, deference, or esteem.

RLF: Can you think of a scenario that would illustrate those aspects of respect/

LS: First, let’s think about a schoolboy and a headmaster; what sort of feelings do you think the schoolboy has regarding the headmaster?

RLF: That would depend upon what the boy had done; if the boy had done something wrong, and was about to be punished in some way, then I should think that the boy would be afraid of the headmaster.

LS: And what would that feeling be closest to – respect, deference, or esteem?

RLF: It would be close to none. As I said, fear is not at all the same thing as respect, although we often confuse the two.

LS: And many people in positions of authority might prefer someone to be afraid of them.

RLF: Yes, they might, but that is probably because of some insecurity they feel about their own position.

LS: I agree, but I still think such people prefer to be feared for other, more practical reasons too.

RLF: What reasons are those?

LS: For the reason that if someone in authority is feared – let’s say that some men who work under a manager are afraid of him, then they might do as they are told by the manager, whereas if they are not afraid of him, they might not always obey him so readily.

RLF: I see, yes, I think you are right. But is that kind of feeling always effective in getting the best out of someone?

LS: I should say that it isn’t, no!

RLF: Why?

LS: Because people who are afraid will often come to hate and detest those swho they fear.

RLF: Again, I ask you why you think that is true?

LS: For the very simple reason that living in fear is very wearing – very tiring, if you see what I mean, and people who live in fear will often rise up against those who instill fear in them.

RLF: And what do they feel once they have faced down the person they once feared?

LS: I should say they feel the opposite of respect for them. I should think they feel loathing, and dislike for them.

RLF: Those two things do seem to be the opposites of respect, don’t they?

LS: Which brings us back to our two other terms: esteem and deference.

RLF: Esteem sounds a lot like respect to me. Again, can we think of the boy standing in front of the headmaster, except that this time, the boy is there to be praised for his excellent schoolwork.

LS: Then who feels what?

RLF: I would say that both feel some sort of esteem for each other- both realize that the other is appraising them positively, and this reinforces the feeling of esteem, of respect.
To be continued

Why respect?

Because we live in a society that is highly competitive. To disrespect another is to place yourself above them in status and in what you presume you deserve. That disrespect permits denial of any harm such competitiveness may cause to another and justification that you deserve more than another. To respect another is to bring to conscious awareness that all of us are more alike in our humanity than we are different across nations, across races, across beliefs, and across gender.