There are some who would identify deference as a weakness. In an age and society in which getting ahead at any cost prevails, the idea of acknowledging the superiority of another can be seen as a sign of inferiority. Those who strive for the top of the pile might subscribe to the theory that one should never acknowledge another person’s leadership on an issue or in a competition.
However, deference is a characteristic with a lot going for it. It assumes that one is not perfect, not always the best, and that knowing that is a quality, not a weakness. It’s just not something one runs into a lot these days. I would maintain that it is one of the weakness of our society (and that it is one among many!)
As the Japanese found themselves embracing the game of baseball, for instance, the tradition arose that when a batter came to the plate he would bow respectfully to the umpire and to the pitcher. I don’t know if that tradition persists into this day and age, given the rapid ascent of Japanese baseball and its adoption of world standards which don’t necessarily follow traditional Japanese custom anymore. But I have always thought it was a great custom, and one which added to the game of baseball. I suspect there are some in the stands at Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park who would sneer at the custom and call for the players to “get on with the game and stop all the silly bowing.”
The same kind of scenario might be played out in the U. S. Congress. Picture a Senator from the Republican party coming to the microphone and bowing respectfully to the Democratic side of the chamber (and vice versa) before launching into a defense of a position. I would simply opt for a single Member of Congress acknowledging in (her) speech that a member of the opposition deserves respect for their opposing position. Such deference to leadership might guarantee my continuing to listen to the speech longer than in the current pattern of launching into a blast on the integrity of the Member on the other side.
Is it a weakness to acknowledge the validity of another’s position? Have I capitulated my position by referencing the hard work and intelligence of another’s presentation? Does it mean that my opposition to the position no longer carries any weight? I’d like to think not.
I’m not advocating an abandonment of passionate disagreement with a position. I don’t want places like Congress to become mutual admiration societies with no strength of conviction or loyal opposition. I’m simply making the point that deference to the judgment or opinion of another can enrich the debate and indicate that the presence of opinions that differ can be a quality rather than a sign of moral depravity. Debating at the level of Congress is not just a friendly competition; it is supposed to lead to serious decisions which are vital to the health, welfare, and safety of a nation. Winning the debate is vital and something not to be avoided in the name of deference.
But a healthy respect for the opposing opinion and the person bearing that opinion makes for a setting in which honesty, transparency, and trust can prevail instead of suspicion, judgment, and denigration.
Graphic Credit: freedictionary.com
Definition Credit: Dictionary.com
