Was he right? Was he wrong? Well I'll leave that for you to decide by yourself. The facts are that he did it, in a way many would think was uncalled for. He gave his reasons, justified them, and proceeded to impose the appropriate punishment. There's nothing lawfully or logically wrong about that, after all, he acted within the limits. Who can say that he overstepped the boundaries with those actions, and that he should face disciplinary action? Probably no one. So what's wrong then?
Well, the questions are: Are his reasons suitably justified enough? Were the punishment appropriate? Were the punishment given to the appropriate people?
Returning on the topic of this post, respect. This word as a noun has many definitions, and as a reference to a trusted source, dictionary.com gave 8 different definitions, of which two are ones of interest - number 3 and 4. I may be wrong, but I believe that my friends are referring to only one aspect of the word - number 3, and as I have not asked the teacher or plan to ask the teacher, I would not know which meaning of the word he is referring to. As such, we must always take into consideration that he could be referring to the other meaning of the word - number 4, and then all the arguments about the matter will have a chance of being irrelevant.
The definitions hinges on two words - esteem and deference. Esteem refers to how the person gives a value to or regards a matter, while deference is about yielding and giving in or accepting something. The former is more personal than the latter, and by that I mean there is less room for discussion on what is respectable in the deference sense.
As for the well known quote about respect being earned, it applies to both definitions of respect. If a leader or figure of authority shows that he is capable, the people would no doubt hold him in high regard, or respect him, and that respect is earned by him proving his abilities. But on the other hand, if a person is of a higher status or more advance in age, do those attributes make him deserve respect? I would say yes. And why?
Because firstly, the deference is towards his "privileged position". The person has power over you, so you have to respect him. Would you be disrespectful to an incapable dictator, where at his command your life could be forfeit? A rational person would not be disrespectful, as the respect is given towards not the person's abilities but his power. Secondly, the deference is towards his age. Chinese culture dictates that all children should have filial piety. The reason for this, in my opinion, is that deference and respect should be shown to those who have lived in the world longer. We are not taking into account life experience here, though that is one good reason why we should respect the elders. Should a boy genius who has experienced much of the world give respect to a middle-aged cripple who has seen nothing but the four walls of his house? Yes. Because the cripple has managed to survive in the world till middle-age, whereas the boy genius with all the experience in the world has only survived till boyhood. Well, looking at it another way, the middle-age man is closer to his death, assuming that all people die at the average age of 70, and we should respect people that are closer to dying than us. Looking at the world now, we respect the sick, the handicapped, the dying, and most of all, the dead. We may respect the dead, those who have achieved much in their lives, but we also respect the dead, those that have done nothing. Death is a privileged position, as those who have achieved it are beyond us. Immortality is a curse. But I digress.
Returning to the matter at hand, should the speaker deserve respect? Or should we give the speaker some respect? Yes, basic respect would not be too much to ask for. I’m sure one good reason why the speaker is up there speaking is that she knows what she is talking about; the topic is related to her profession.
As for whether people need to give other people of similar age and authoritative positions respect, that is another matter altogether. But I believe that the reason why certain people were let off early, was, firstly the guy meting out the punishment had no authoritative right to punish his colleagues, even if they were disrespectful and in the wrong. Also, the objective of the lecture in the first place was to educate the students, and not the teachers.
To answer the three questions mentioned above at the start: The reason of no respect was given when it should have been given was justified. The punishment was appropriate, as it was not too unreasonable. And it was given to the appropriate people, meaning to all the students (as for those who left earlier, it doesn’t really make a difference).
After so much talk about whether respect should be given, did I give respect to the speaker? No. And for that I am sorry (I’m sure most of you who did not pay attention would feel bad for the speaker, who is there speaking while the intended audience isn’t listening). If given the same scenario again, what would I do? Probably the same thing which I did before. Now what does this signify? A lack of self-control.
P.S. Sorry if I seem incoherent halfway, it was finished at around 4am.
No comments:
Post a Comment