This past week an editorial by Peter Funt of Candid Camera fame in the Wall Street Journal considered our cultural fascination (obsession?) with respect, especially our hair-trigger eagerness to claim we’ve been disrespected and thus injured.
Funt writes: “Apparently ‘respect’ has emerged as society’s favorite go-to word when we don’t like someone or something, or they don’t like us.” He notes that at times it seems all we want is respect. He recalls an earlier era when “We were taught that respect was something we earned.” But now “Respect is no longer measured so much by what we achieve as what we demand.”
These observations are valid but perhaps further consideration is warranted. In a culture that valued merit, we may have considered “what we accomplished” earned us respect. We were evaluated on the basis of our actions. In today’s culture, however, the concept of merit garners less respect.
As a culture we have lessened the value of what we do and elevated the importance of who we are. And who we are depends less on accomplishment than on the simple fact that we exist. In other words, simply being deserves respect. The fact we exist, by itself, entitles us to respect.
Merit has become perceived as ephemeral and quite possibly the fruit of unfair advantage, undeserved opportunity, or a beneficial twist of fate. The current cultural analysis awards merit less esteem. As a result we strip merit out of our equations and base our demand for respect solely on our identity as a living human being. If we “show up” we deserve respect.
This sets the stage for conflict. Disputes arise when a subculture that considers respect must be earned encounters a subculture that considers respect is a baseline entitlement. As mediators we must prepare to recognize these variables.
The Taming approach to conflict resolution can help. We assess “what happened” using a Be Do Have model. We parse events and inspect be do have variables individually. We ask questions: “What are you trying to be that someone opposes?” “What are you trying to do that someone opposes?” “What are you trying to have that someone opposes?” We dissect the conflict and seek fundamental causes.
Knowing that who we are affects what we do and vice versa, and knowing what we have is determined by who we are and what we do, we combine the factors so we can track their interdependence. We end up viewing a rich tapestry of being, doing, and having that reveals clues that help us resolve conflict.
In this approach we might consider whether or not there is a sound reason for people Funt observed to expect respect for simply being. Is their expectation valid? In one special way, we find they are correct. In fact, we discover meeting such expectations plays a central role in “taming the wolf.”
That special case arises from our Franciscan worldview. When we recognize the divinity in the other person we cannot help but offer deep respect for the part of them that reflects the image of God. Just as Saint Francis saw the Divine in all creatures, we respect the essence of another human being. We enter into an I-Thou relationship. We share the deepest love possible, if only in a fleeting manner. When we look closely we discover present in all hearts such an aspiration to be recognized and acknowledged in this very Franciscan manner.
BUT we do not overlook the fact that people assume identities and act in ways that do not rise to the level of their divine self. Much of what we do reflects our smaller self, our false self, our fallen self. Our basic dignity as a human being becomes obscured behind a flurry of false identities and dubious actions. Thus, we are not perfect and not always deserving of unconditional respect. We may even earn the disrespect that comes our way.
In mediation we peel apart these various factors, the laudable and the reprehensible. We use discernment. While we show respect for the essential good nature of the person on the other side of the table, we identify aspects of their identity or behavior that do not rise to that level. We discover that if we express respect, admiration, and love for the divine self that is the sacred essence of the other, the heated nature of the conflict subsides, allowing us to address that which must be transformed.
We can then more effectively address issues causing friction by building on the foundation of respect for the true nature of each party. This choreography of identifying and recognizing causes behind conflict allows us to isolate disrespect. It allows us to quarantine disrespect and address issues with scalpel–like precision. We prevent the disrespect from spreading out of control and destroying the reconciliation process.
The mediator realizes disrespect is a potent poison that must be handled with care. The reason lies in the connection between disrespect and perceived threat to survival. When we disrespect someone we send an unstated, subliminal message: you do not have a right to exist. When we “make them wrong” we appear to “make nothing of them.” When we encounter things we do not like, our natural intention is to make sure they no longer exist. This comes across inadvertently and unconsciously, as a challenge to the other party’s right to survive. Most of us can recall times when an effort to eliminate a problem became misunderstood and it seemed we wished to eliminate the other person. We may have even fantasized that if the other person did not exist, our problems would be solved.
This is the reason a mediator works to make sure a party describe specific problems they wish to eliminate. We shift attention from the people to the problem. We use language that narrows the focus to a particular problem a party wants to eliminate rather than allowing attacks on the person behind the problem.
In Taming the Wolf I explain in detail the surprising equivalence between being right and survival. (And the equivalence between being wrong and non-survival.) We often overlook the other party’s mostly unconscious mental dynamic that transforms our critique of them into an attack on their survival. To correct the problem we must learn to pay close attention to the subtle ways our communications end up “making nothing of another.” Respect is simply a harmonic of this right/wrong equivalence with survival/non-survival. Respect is essentially a positive acknowledgment of another person’s right to exist.
Unpacking respect and disrespect as factors contributing to conflict should not be limited to mediation. If we hope to interact peacefully with those around us, we need to establish our respect for the divinity that resides in others. We need to greet others with what Murray Bodo called the face of a Franciscan.
Peter Funt summarizes his observations: “Today, those most adamant in demanding respect are often the least likely to deserve any.” True but our task is to understand why. In many cases, they need us to recognize their inner divinity before they can allow us to address a problem with their behavior. Often they feel their survival is at stake making them sensitive to the need to protect themselves from efforts to make them wrong, efforts to make them nothing. Respect is that social signal that tells them their existence is not threatened.
Often we can initiate a respectful dialogue simply by saying, “I’m having a problem. Would it be okay for me to discuss it with you?” When we give the other person power of choice we automatically convey respect. We signal we respect their right to survive and to make choices, their right to exercise free will. This typically eliminates problems that arise from an overactive sensitivity to disrespect.
