By Bob Beanblossom
7 September 2016
It seems to me that ‘everyone’ is demanding respect these days. That in itself shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what respect is.
Respect is like love, and like trust. It can be demanded, but cannot be taken: it can only be received as a gift of the giver.
The gift is completely independent of the receiver. Respect can be reciprocal, but from both sides it is an independent decision, attitude, action of the giver to give and the receiver to take and, in return, to give back.
To a large extent, it must be earned. It has to do with concepts described by
the old Boy Scout Oath and Law:
“On my honor . . .” As I am honorable, so honor I you.
The Scout also promised to be:
- Trustworthy
- Loyal
- Helpful
- Friendly
- Courteous
- Kind
- Obedient
- Cheerful
- Thrifty
- Brave
- Clean, and
- Reverent
These are qualities inherent in earning and giving respect. Some may take some thinking on, but it would be worth the effort–even some looking in the mirror. Together they suggest that respect for others starts with respect for self. Self respect is based upon living up to standards and principles, not living down to animalistic wants and satisfactions.
No amount of wealth, or power, or coercion can require respect. No organization or march or protest will ever earn respect without demonstrating those qualities. You can edit them, add to or take from the list. But you cannot change the intangible called respect.
It is not defined or limited by age, background, or any other socio-economic identifier that the world would like to use to box it in, to limit it, and corrupt it into a tool for self-advancement. It is not secured by social or economic position, or job title, or profession. It has no relationship with the too common, “Do you know who I am . . . !”
We do need more respect in this country–in our schools, in government, on the highways . . . But the best way to get it is to give it first. As individual as it is in giving, it is still a cooperative effort, a matter of give and take, of compromise, of incremental improvements, of recognizing that neither of us approximates perfection. That is not a popular concept in our winner-take-all society where each one of us knows so much more than anyone else, where our way is obviously the best way. If so inclined, check out 1 Corinthians 1:19-20.
Many social problems could be mitigated by the sharing of respect. It replaces demands and threats and ultimatums with cooperation and mutual problem solving. Life is not the Big Game. Life is the only game. It is not something to win at all costs. It is something to savor, to share. It is the attitude of the Greatest Generation, the WW II generation: “We will make a better place for our children–by hard work, by education, by living for God, and by mutual respect.
Respect has a price: The “I” must shrink relative to the “WE.” The “WE-THEY” game must be replaced by the new “US.”
Or, maybe not so new. Maybe this is what those founding fathers meant by “We the People . . . .” The didn’t say “We the Persons . . . ,” did they. And by Ike’s added phrase, “One nation, under God . . .”