Respectfully? The Lost Art of Disagreeing Without Disrespect (#737)

I recently published an essay that generated some spirited disagreement. That was precisely what I had hoped it would do.

The essay was titled Greed: When is Enough Enough?  https://www.ricklecouteur.com/post/greed-when-is-enough-enough-732

I write because I enjoy exploring ideas, questioning accepted wisdom, and encouraging conversations about subjects that matter to me.

I do not expect everyone to agree with my opinions. Indeed, I often learn more from people who disagree with me than from those who share my views.

But one particular response has caused me to reflect on something quite different from the subject of my original essay.

Respect.

The response began with the word:

Respectfully.

What followed was anything but respectful.

It included assumptions about my professional career, dismissive observations about my experience, and suggestions that I should stop expressing my opinions. There was even a suggestion that I should return to a retirement home.

I found myself wondering when the word respectfully became a convenient introduction to disrespect.

And, more importantly, what happens to intelligent discussion when disagreement becomes personal?

Respect Is Not a Word.

It Is a Behavior.

There is something peculiarly contradictory about beginning a statement with Respectfully and then proceeding to insult the person to whom it is addressed.

It reminds me of another familiar expression:

With all due respect.

We all know what frequently follows.

The problem is that respect cannot be conferred upon an insult simply by announcing it beforehand.

Respect is demonstrated through behavior. It is reflected in the words we choose, the assumptions we make, the questions we ask, and our willingness to consider another person's perspective.

Respect does not require agreement. Respect does not require admiration. Respect does not even require liking the person with whom we disagree.

Respect simply requires recognizing that the other person deserves to be treated with dignity.

Adding the word respectfully to an insult does not make it respectful.

It merely makes the contradiction more obvious.

Disagree With the Argument, Not the Person

There is an important distinction between challenging an argument and attacking the person who makes it.

If someone writes an essay about corporate ownership, for example, there are numerous legitimate questions to explore.

Are the author's assumptions correct? Is the evidence convincing? Have alternative explanations been considered? Are the conclusions justified?

These are the foundations of intelligent disagreement.

But questioning someone's right to express an opinion because of their age, employment history, or presumed financial circumstances, is something entirely different.

It shifts attention away from the subject under discussion and toward the individual.

In philosophy and rhetoric, this is commonly described as an ad hominem argument:

Attempting to discredit a position by attacking the person presenting it, rather than addressing the substance of the argument.

Personal experience can certainly be relevant to a discussion. But making assumptions about another person's experience without knowing their history is a particularly unreliable foundation for criticism.

And even when those assumptions happen to be correct, they do not automatically invalidate an argument.

An argument should stand or fall primarily upon its merits.

Not upon the age, occupation or retirement status of the person presenting it.

The Retirement Home Argument

One of the more remarkable aspects of my recent experience was the suggestion that I should return to a retirement home.

Presumably, the implication was that someone of my age should stop commenting on matters affecting the profession to which I have devoted much of my life.

I find that an extraordinary proposition.

When did retirement become intellectual disqualification?

Does leaving formal employment mean that accumulated knowledge, experience and curiosity suddenly become irrelevant?

Does advancing age diminish someone's right to participate in public discussion?

And why should a person's age have any bearing on whether an argument is valid?

There is a certain irony here.

We spend decades acquiring knowledge, making mistakes, developing judgment, and accumulating experience. Then, apparently, we reach an age at which some people believe we should quietly disappear from the conversation.

Of course, experience does not automatically confer wisdom. Older people can be wrong, just as younger people can be right. Experience should never provide immunity from criticism.

But neither should age provide grounds for dismissal.

In fact, I would suggest that one of the great benefits of intergenerational discussion is the opportunity to combine accumulated experience with fresh perspectives.

Younger professionals may challenge assumptions that older generations have accepted for decades. Older professionals may offer historical context that younger colleagues have never encountered.

Both have something to contribute.

Neither should be told to stop talking.

Retirement is a change in employment status, not an expiration date for intellectual participation.

The Danger of Assuming You Know Someone

Another troubling feature of disrespectful disagreement is the confidence with which people sometimes make assertions about individuals they barely know.

A person's professional title does not reveal the entirety of their career.

Their current employment does not necessarily reflect their previous experience.

Their age does not establish their financial circumstances, political opinions, professional achievements, or understanding of the world.

Yet assumptions are remarkably easy to make.

And once made, they can become the foundation for an elaborate criticism of someone who bears little resemblance to the person being described.

There is a simple alternative.

Ask.

If someone's professional experience is relevant to a discussion, ask about it.

If their position seems inconsistent with their previous statements, ask them to explain.

If their argument appears incomplete, identify what is missing.

Curiosity is considerably more productive than assumption.

And it is far more respectful.

Why Personal Attacks Limit Intelligent Discussion

The consequences of disrespect extend beyond the individual who receives it.

When a discussion becomes personal, the original subject frequently disappears.

Instead of examining evidence, participants defend their reputations. Instead of considering alternative perspectives, they become increasingly entrenched in their existing positions.

The conversation shifts from discovering something to winning something.

And winning often means humiliating the other person.

This is particularly evident in online discussions, where the absence of face-to-face interaction can make it easier to forget that there is another human being on the receiving end of our words.

Sarcasm generates attention.

Insults attract responses.

Outrage encourages engagement.

Thoughtful disagreement is rarely as entertaining.

But it is infinitely more useful.

There is another consequence that concerns me even more.

When people witness someone being ridiculed or personally attacked for expressing an opinion, they may become reluctant to contribute their own perspectives.

The loudest voices dominate.

More thoughtful voices withdraw.

And the discussion becomes intellectually poorer.

Disrespect does not simply silence individuals.

It can impoverish the entire conversation.

Respect Is Not the Same as Politeness

There is an important distinction worth making.

Politeness concerns manners.

Respect concerns how we regard and treat other people.

It is entirely possible to be superficially polite while being profoundly disrespectful.

Beginning a personal attack with Respectfully is an excellent example.

Equally, it is possible to disagree passionately, challenge someone's conclusions, and express considerable frustration, while remaining respectful.

Some of the most valuable conversations I have experienced have involved vigorous disagreement.

The participants did not necessarily moderate their opinions. They did not avoid difficult questions. They did not pretend to agree when they disagreed.

But they recognized that disagreement did not diminish the humanity or dignity of the other person.

That recognition changes everything.

It allows us to challenge ideas without humiliating individuals.

It permits criticism without contempt.

And it creates the possibility that we might actually learn something from one another.

Intellectual Humility

Perhaps respect in disagreement begins with a recognition of our own limitations.

We do not know everything.

Our experiences, however extensive, represent only a fraction of the human experience.

Our opinions are shaped by our education, professional backgrounds, personal circumstances, and the information available to us.

Other people have encountered different circumstances and reached different conclusions.

That does not necessarily make them wrong.

Nor does it necessarily make us right.

Intellectual humility does not mean abandoning our convictions. It means recognizing that even strongly held convictions deserve examination.

It also means accepting the possibility that someone with whom we disagree may understand something that we do not.

I have learned a great deal from people whose opinions differ substantially from mine.

I hope to continue doing so.

But learning requires an environment in which people are willing to exchange ideas rather than insults.

The Responsibility of the Writer

There is one final consideration.

Those of us who choose to publish our opinions invite criticism.

That is part of the bargain.

If I write something that is factually incorrect, I should expect to be corrected.

If my reasoning is flawed, I should expect it to be challenged.

If I overlook an important perspective, I should be grateful when someone brings it to my attention.

And if I criticize institutions, businesses or professional practices, I should expect people who disagree to defend them.

I have no objection to any of that.

Indeed, I welcome it.

But there is a reciprocal responsibility.

Those who criticize should make an effort to understand what was actually written, distinguish facts from assumptions, and address the argument rather than invent a caricature of its author.

The writer has a responsibility to be thoughtful.

The reader has a responsibility to be fair.

Neither responsibility disappears simply because the conversation takes place on the internet.

Respectfully

I began this essay with a single word.

Respectfully.

It is a good word.

It expresses an intention to recognize another person's dignity, even when we disagree with their opinions.

But words are easy.

Respect is demonstrated by what follows them.

I have no desire to live in a world where everyone agrees with me. Such a world would be intellectually impoverished and extraordinarily boring.

I want to be challenged.

I want to encounter unfamiliar perspectives.

I want people to identify weaknesses in my arguments and introduce evidence I may have overlooked.

I want conversations that make me reconsider what I thought I knew.

And I hope to extend the same courtesy to others.

But I also want a world in which disagreement does not become an excuse for personal humiliation, in which age does not disqualify participation, and in which people are judged by the substance of their arguments rather than assumptions about their lives.

Perhaps the next time we are tempted to begin a response with Respectfully, we should ask ourselves a simple question.

Will the words that follow demonstrate respect, or merely announce it?

Because respect is not something we say before expressing an opinion.

It is something we demonstrate while expressing it.

#bunyipsbooksbeyond