Respect

7 comments:

Posted by frappyjohn on 2010-02-09 02:29:01:

Agreed. But the devil's in the details. From my experience there are two problems that may arise when addressing disrespect and they tend to discourage people from doing so:

1. Many people, when they are the subject of abuse or disrespect, respond emotionally in a negative way toward their attacker, thus exacerbating the problem and complicating its solution.
2. Even when the person attacked is careful to respond in an evenhanded way, many observers do not take notice of the situation until charges and countercharges start flying. Thus they perceive the problem as a "personality conflict" between two individuals and refuse to get involved.

The only solution, as I think you mean to imply, is to develop a culture in an organization where all members feel an obligation to respond when someone complains of abuse. But, here again, the devil's in the details. The complaint must be articulated clearly and forcefully (not casually) and with supporting details. The response must be thoughtful, rational, and evenhanded.

Posted by LucifersAttorney on 2010-02-09 17:31:22:

I see your point.

If the group is large enough, cliques become a problem. If people can be objective, and resist the instinct to herd, there is hope. If they automatically assume their buddies are in the right, all is lost.

Nothing is worse than not trying at all.

Posted by creativemindsunion on 2010-02-10 11:14:14:

Right... nothing is worse than not saying... this sort of dialogue is non-productive... anything is better than ignoring real values and time being spent in conflict when others affected cant seem to be bothered by the outcome.

Respect in our community needs to be paid forward as the willingness to pay attention to the details and provide mutual support as due process for keeping others informed and involved as support and as option for participation. The entire concept of community is based on unity of interest amongst diversity of values.

Thanks for bringing this up.

Posted by frappyjohn on 2010-02-20 18:53:34:

@lucifersattorney: Maybe we need to back up a step or two. Before we can address disrespect, we need to have a common understanding of just what we mean by "disrepect" (and "respect").

When I think carefully of what I mean by respect, I see I use the word in several different ways. Respect can mean:

• Admiring a particular person for attributes that we recognize are good and/or valuable.
• Giving due regard to a person's thoughts and feelings, even when we may disagree with them or we don't fully understand them. In a way this is what is often called "respecting the person as a person," but to get it right, I think, requires a certain amount of humility ... being aware of how difficult it is to put ourselves in someone else's shoes and fully understand them.
• Acting "respectful" or courteously in the way we treat someone whom we may not actually respect in the first or second sense.

All three of these are important. The first is obvious. The third may sound hypocritical but is actually a form of respect to the entire community, because a surface courtesy is necessary to have civil discourse.

But I think it's the second meaning that you are speaking of. Let's call it respect[2]. It's particularly important in an organization such as ours.

Each of us is attracted to this organization for a particular reason. It's natural to assume that most of us are here for the same reason and share many values. We don't have to be here long to realize that's not the case: What's central to one seems unimportant to others. And what seems trivial to one is all-important to others. We soon inadvertently step on toes and raise tempers, and then our own temper rises because of what seems like an unjustified response from the person whose toes we stepped on.

Being respectful in such a situation isn't natural or intuitive to most of us. It requires intent and self-control. These comes with emotional maturity (emotional intelligence) but that is in short supply in this world.

So in addition to learning respect[2], we must learn how to teach it.

Until that great day arrives where we all understand the importance of respect[2], the importance of respect[3] assumes more importance: practicing simple courtesy and civil discourse even when we strongly disagree with each other and may even suspect each others motives.

Some of the elements of civil discourse include:

• Discuss the merits of a person's ideas and avoid characterizing the person voicing those ideas.
• Allow both sides to express their thoughts fully. (Avoid interrupting or changing the subject.)
• Distinguish between facts, hearsay, and opinion. Recognize the weakness of hearsay evidence and its potential for abuse by rhetoricians.
• Avoid filibustering, repeating yourself until you get your way.

Again, this is two edged. We must each learn how to engage in civil discourse. But we must each also recognize and speak up when we as a group fall short of civil discourse in our meetings and communications.

I really appreciate your bringing this up. Merely inching toward a consensus on the importance of respect[2] and respect[3] will be significant progress for our organization.

Posted by creativemindsunion on 2010-03-01 00:19:17:

respect[4] the ability to recognize when your words and actions distract or misrepresent the actual terms and conditions which honor your truth or the reality by which the community and its initiatives garner the time and energy of other members in the form of honor

Posted by creativemindsunion on 2010-03-01 00:30:40:

as i see it the title of this thread says 'respect' and does little to talk about the values and ethic of how respect is established as functional definition but instead immediately counterpostures with some fractured forms of dysfunction which might be discussed as 'non-forms of respect'

gossip/manipulation/spin.... these are trigger words which are associated with hate crime and negative connotation

gossip is one way that a community tries to discuss and form opinions or even a common language for that which may or may not be understood/known/discussed but is creating personal or public dispute and may need redress

manipulation may be found in any form of direct confrontation or discussion or engagement in presentation of options... fabrication is when things are made up... influence is when there is politicking or dialogue with presentation of facts or bribes of sorts included preference manipulation implies specific elements of control

spin is likely a way to putting facts in a frame of perspective

each of these relies on a strong relation with fact if they are to be effective... fact seems to be the real issue here

the point i am making here is that some fact and negligence of fact can become forms of manipulation and spin all their own which lead me to think that talking about what respect is and how it can be applied to real terms of community value is the better use of this discussion

respect within a community would imply that the intention and means of arriving at those intentions in a dignified manner would be the best way to approach inherent challenges

a primary form of respect would simply involve telling the truth... finding out the truth and reporting it and being present enough to at least further a truthful discussion

not establishing a base form of respect as a commitment to a unified intention is likely where all other forms of disrespect and negativity emanate from... lets start there

Posted by frappyjohn on 2010-03-02 01:35:46:

@creativemindsunion: I take strong issue with you.

You defend the use of gossip, manipulation, and spin in an organization such as the Brycc House (but you call the terms themselves "trigger words" used in hate crimes).

Once again, I guess it all depends on how you define the terms. Your definitions are so at odds with conventional definitions that it makes any further dialogue almost impossible. For meaningful discussion to take place, the parties involved must begin with a common vocabulary.

I do agree that the quality of truthfulness is relevant to each of these terms. But all three terms have at their root an attempt to either ignore fact or subvert it. How can you reconcile this contradiction?

Gossip, by virtually any definition, involves spreading rumor about someone or something without letting the subject of the rumor know about it, e.g. talking about someone behind their back and not giving them the opportunity to defend themselves. This is poison to any organization, but it tears at the very heart of an organization such as ours which honors openness and cooperation.

I have witnessed gossip used within the Brycc House on at least two occasions within the past two years, and it has set our organization back significantly both times.

Luckily, the first time (when someone was circulating false rumors that someone else had opened a credit card account in the name of the Brycc House), several persons who heard the rumor checked out the facts and matters were set straight ... but radio was knocked off the air in the meantime and still is operating at a fraction of the signal strength we previously had. (Until that time radio underwriting had been the Brycc House's most promising source of income.)

Now it seems that rumors are being circulated that a certain person is personally responsible for certain debts in the Brycc House name, but (again, subverting truth) no evidence is presented to support this. This rumor appears to have split our board in two and ground to a halt any efforts to raise funds. Like the previous rumor-mongering episode, the timing of this campaign (in the dead of winter when income is already minimal) seems designed to do the most damage possible. We are two months late on our mortgage. We could lose our building because of this.

Gossip, manipulation, and spin are disrespectful to the individuals being attacked and to the group as a whole. They are anathema to civil discourse. And there is certainly no place for any of them in an organization that is supposedly dedicated to helping people work together.