Of Respect

There are two kinds of respect. There is formal respect that is expected and assumed in certain relationships such as between an elder and a younger, or a parent and a child in the social area or as between a judge and a lawyer, or a teacher and a student within the educational and work space. Formal respect is therefore imposed or assumed depending on the role or position one assumes in dealing with another. An important thing to appreciate about this type of respect is that its imposition is merely minimal in a sense that you cannot get any lower than this. Its application is also contingent upon the respective parties keeping to their allotted roles. This type of respect also does not have to be earned because its 'earning' has already been assumed and incorporated into its function.

To understand what I mean by minimal respect let us now consider the other kind of respect - informal respect. The is the type of respect that is not assumed but earned. It is earned by deeds, words, and reputation from individuals, groups of them or society as a whole by the individual or similar groupings . And this respect can only be earned by the use of one's abilities whatever they may be. This kind of respect is the truer and more meaningful type. While the formal respect is necessary for the smooth running and ordering of society, the informal respect is important because it gauges the quality of true respect. Informal respect can be layered on top of formal respect.

An illustration is this. Let us say there is this person who is a High Court Judge. He was completely undeserving of his position. He had no accomplishments to speak of prior to his appointment. He is not well endowed in any of the following areas: intelligence, integrity, diligence and a sense of justice. He is a corrupt bastard. But in a work environment formal respect is demanded and must be given. There are laws in place to ensure that this respect is given (contempt of court, fat bailiffs in the courtroom more ready to sleep than to escort anybody out). But as far as our informal respect goes, we have absolutely none for him. When he speaks we will not listen. When he makes a joke we will not laugh. When he decides something, we ridicule him in our writing. In fact, if there were no formal respect in place and the law of the jungle applied, I dare say we should be entitled to disembowel him.

And that is what is meant by the formal respect imposes a minimal kind of standard of respect applicable. However, if the Judge was in complete opposition to the other one I have given as an example, clearly our informal respect for him would be of a very high degree. Both formal and informal respect would be present. And when this happens there is a wholesomeness to the respect because it encompass both sides of the equation.

The problem is that most people confuse the kind of respect to be given and expect to receive. For example, a high ranking civil servant or high flying chief executive of a large corporation may think that they deserve respect from everybody else below them. They may demand that within their workplace but aside from that no further type of formal or informal respect should be accorded to them. A high ranking civil servant is in no formal kind of relationship with me because I am not in government. However, these type of chaps also tend to be older, so the type of respect I may give you is not out due to your position but because of your age. But these people may not see this and think its because of the other. And there is certainly no informal respect applicable. That still has to be earned.

People who demand to be respected usually tend to be the ones that least understand how it operates. They think that they're own personal accomplishments are enough to earn informal respect. How can that be the case when respect is issued from a third party? Informal respect is earned vis-a-vis each person and what they find as acceptable proof worthy of it. These misguided people confuse the informal respect with the formal one and what they really want is the former. The lazy and selfish will never be able to earn another person's respect because for them respect is about satisfying their own narcissism and has nothing to do with the other person.

I never quite understand these people. They think that by earning money they similarly earn people's respect. But just because you know how to make money means you necessarily know how to treat people and know about what's good in life. And respect that can be bought is worth little. It is the one that is earned that is the most meaningful and satisfying both to give and receive. For one is not entitled to receive respect if one does not know how to first give it.

The Renaissance Man Reloaded

Thomas Aquinas

The idea of and behind the Renaissance Man has always fasinated me. The general definition of the word has tended to focus on his intellectual side. American Heritage Dictionary defines him as 'A man who has broad intellectual interests and is accomplished in areas of both the arts and the sciences.' Wordnet defines him as 'a modern scholar who is in a position to acquire more than superficial knowledge about many different interests.' Most of the definitions take a similar texture. The general visual you have of these sort of men are heavily bearded, tubby and smarter than you can ever imagine; think Aristotle, Leonardo da Vinci, John Ruskin, Thomas Aquinas (that is a younger depiction of him, which I have always preferred; he is my icon of the Renaissance Man for some strange reason - although I have a sneaking suspicion it has to do with his entry I read once in the Britannica Encyclopedia I have around). And the idea behind the Renaissance Man is that he has a very broad level of understanding with some measure of depth of life and has drawn wisdom from its experiences. One with a great and broad level of knowledge, understanding of it and therefore wisdom. He is the great generalist.

I used to abide by that definition before. But over these last few years having brooded over the idea of doing so after taking into account the massive intellectual, scientific, technological, medical, dietary understanding, educational growth and achievements since the Renaissance, it is time to revise the idea of the Renaissance Man. Why don't I just replace it you may quite reasonably ask? For two reasons. The first is auditory. I quite like the sound of Renaissance and it's rather fun to say. It involves the whole face and mouth in saying it and if properly pronounced it sounds quite pretty as English words ripped from the French often sound (from the French word 'rebirth'). Secondly, I could not be arsed to come up with some crassy new name and sound like I'm touting something new. I'm not. Coining a word used to mean something in days when people were a bit more discerning with their literature. It was a goddamned event. Now, it's mandatory to be able to do so to write those business books or self help ones. None of that for me.

The idea of the Renaissance Man I think can withstand a revision without harm to itself as long as the core idea of what he is remains and the revision is guided by it. So what is it that I'm such a busy body about to write all about it? I think that there are generally four components to a person in this day and life. There is the physical (body), the mental (intellect which would include the arts, religion, and science), the emotional (love, hate, envy, etc. and the sexual) and the political-legal (financially solvency, your rights as a citizen, no prior convictions, etc.). Earlier I had thought of putting sexual as a component by itself, but then I thought that might be putting too much pressure on the guy.

I think that the Renaissance Man has to now weaken his intensity on his intellectual aspect and have a fair and reasonable appreciation of the other three components of his life. So he should not only know of what to do to be healthy, he must at the very least keep himself physically trim (not saying he can't smoke or cigar), he should also have a fairly good understranding of the political and legal system he is in and his rights within it; a sophisticated appreciation of the dynamic interplay between, within and of the undercurrent emotions, and naturally, he is able to keep in firm control of his; he is highly ethical and honest though not without cunning and cynicism; and perhaps even competent at a musical instrument or two, on top of having a reasonably wide level of knowledge, understanding and wisdom. He is to me the Great Generalist. You can throw any question at him and he can in all probability tell you something useful about it or he would have read it.

Damn, when I list it out like that, it sure does look like a tall order. But then that's the point I suppose. We cannot have just about every calling themselves a Renaissance Man (or Woman) as easily as say, some of the Heads of States in Malaysia hand out titles such as the multiplicitous forms of and ubiquitous 'Dato' and now 'Tan Sris' are also becoming a dime for half a dozen. And unlike some of those titles, you cannot pay, cajole or beg anybody to become one. It is something you have to achieve for yourself, by yourself. And more importantly it is a state of being and cannot be flashed around like a Dato'-ship or Tan Sri-ship can with their plate badges. In fact, by then such materialistic achievements would be incomprehensible to him. As I think it is becoming more unbearable for us.