Theodore Darymple agrees with me.
Apr. 2nd, 2010 09:44 amA decade ago, in response to someone bragging about his high self-esteem, I noted the following important distinction:
In the Oxford English Dictionary there's an interesting difference between "esteem" and "respect." Both definitions start the same, "To hold in high regard," but respect has an addition: "for accomplishments or actions.The dictionary appears to be aware of this distinction, as the same concept can be found in the entry for pride:
The difference is subtle, but important. "Self-esteem" is the act of holding yourself valuable; on the other hand, "self-respect" is the act of holding yourself valuable because of your past, your accomplishments and actions. To me, being able to be a part of society, to be responsible for your own actions and to understand why you are a part of society, is an activity worthy of respect, not "esteem."
pride: the quality or state of being proud: asImagine my delight when my favorite living curmudgeon offered today his own essay on self-esteem vs. self-respect:
- inordinate self-esteem : CONCEIT
- a reasonable or justifiable self-respect
With the coyness of someone revealing a bizarre sexual taste, my patients would often say to me, "Doctor, I think I'm suffering from low self-esteem."As the saying goes, read it all.
...
Self-esteem is but a division of self-importance, which is seldom an attractive quality. That person is best who never thinks of his own importance: to think about it, even, is to be lost to morality.
Self-respect is another quality entirely. Where self-esteem is entirely egotistical, requiring that the world should pay court to oneself whatever oneself happens to be like or do, and demands nothing of the person who wants it, self-respect is a social virtue, a discipline, that requires an awareness of and sensitivity to the feelings of others. It requires an ability and willingness to put oneself in someone else's place; it requires dignity and fortitude, and not always taking the line of least resistance.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-02 06:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-03 12:00 am (UTC)I grew up in a household where valuing oneself was frowned upon, perhaps because abusive relatives abounded, and anyone who thought they had any value whatsoever would not have put up with such abuse. For whatever reason, "you'd have to earn any value you get" was a very strong message in my family. I think that's toxic.
Or in other words: people learn who they are and what their place is in the world by the messages they receive. Repeatedly telling people "you're nothing special" will probably not breed an attempt at dignity; repeatedly telling people "you're special and responsibilities commensurate with that specialness - just like everyone else" will probably breed a civil society.
Self-respect (and a sense of dignity, and the fortitude to have and enforce boundaries) requires a starter of some sort. The sense of entitlement (to food, safety, etc.) is not unreasonable, while a sense of entitlement (to service by others, to a bigger share of the pie, to more-than-others) is one that gets slowly educated out of people: a two-year-old is a tyrant; a five-year-old can already wait their turn; by ten (at the latest!) they're already pulling their weight in the family; by fifteen they carry more than their own weight. But there is a developmentally appropriate sequence to this, I think. And even when they're two, they're entitled to the sanctity of their bodies, to appropriate sleep/food/medical care, etc. Even if they are (like all two-year-olds) quite irritating.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-07 01:40 am (UTC)