“Harvard is the best university in the United States.”
“Derek Jeter was a great baseball player.”
These words echoed through the Davidson College Philanthropic Hall while a crowd of DCI Fellows adjusted their chairs and focused their attention on their guest speaker of the day: Associate Professor of Philosophy Dan Layman.
As part of the Fellows’ weekly meeting, we typically dive into topics related to public discourse and deliberative citizenship. This week, however, Dr. Layman introduced two key types of respect: appraisal respect and recognition respect.
So, what are these concepts, and what do they have to do with Harvard University and a former shortstop for the New York Yankees?
First, let’s talk about appraisal respect, which is rooted in admiration for someone’s prowess and ability. We’ll take the case of Derek Jeter, and the quote from above. Saying Jeter was a great baseball player is a form of appraisal respect: the speaker is taking the shortstop’s accomplishments – 5 World Series Titles, 14 All-Star Selections, 5 Gold Gloves, and the list goes on – and assessing them based on their apparent value. For this speaker, Jeter’s accomplishments are impressive enough to designate him as a ‘great’ player. The speaker, then, judges the skills and abilities Jeter has demonstrated on the field as things worth celebrating.
The same thought process applies to the Harvard case. The speaker – after some thought, we’d presume – comes to the conclusion that Harvard is the best university in the U.S. Their exact reasoning here we may not know – it could have something to do with the University having the biggest endowment in the world, its having produced 8 U.S. presidents, or its close association with more than 160 Nobel laureates – but, regardless, the speaker is affording the same type of high regard for the University’s achievements as the previous one did with respect to Derek Jeter.
Both of these examples are forms of appraisal respect if the speaker is basing them on specific reasons or criteria that justify their appraisal. Such claims do not have to be about institutions or professional athletes; they could also be about ordinary people. One could say “Martina is a good person” and that could also qualify as appraisal respect. If someone asked the speaker to explain their reasoning, they could explain their statement with a response like, “Well, Martina carried my groceries up the stairs for me last week, and then she lent Oskars a textbook for math class, so she meets my criteria for being a good person.” The underlying point is that, especially in deliberative contexts, a speaker should be able to formulate grounds for their appraisals and be ready to share those with others when prompted.
Here’s the caveat, though.
What if the speaker were to instead say “Martina is a horrible person. Truly, the absolute worst?”
In that case, it would be pretty clear that the speaker doesn’t have a huge amount of appraisal respect for Martina. But that doesn’t mean they have zero respect for Martina.
That’s where recognition respect – or the notion of respecting another being because, like us, they are another being – comes into play.
Recognition respect suggests that even if the speaker thinks Martina is a horrible person, they shouldn’t go around and treat her disrespectfully. This is because we recognize Martina as a fellow human being and must afford her a decent amount of consideration, despite whatever failings she may have.
Let’s say Martina is walking down the hall with a slew of books in her arms. There’s a heavy door about to slam in her face, and instead of assisting her, you let it close on her. In the process, she drops all of her things to the floor.
If she’s gathering her books from the ground and says, “Hey! Why did you let that door slam on me?” and in response you shrug and tell her it is because she hasn’t yet earned your respect, then you’d come out of the situation looking like a complete jerk. Why? Because you haven’t shown the proper degree of recognition respect to Martina.
Martina actually didn’t need to earn your respect in order for you to hold the door open for her: your recognition that Martina, like you, is another being who deserves consideration – regardless of how you assess her words or her actions – should be sufficient for you to do so.
Simple enough, right?
So, what does this have to do with DCI?
Here’s what I’d say: given that D Teams are filled with participants and facilitators who don’t know each other, the idea of appraisal respect may be less relevant in this context. After all, can you truly appraise someone if you met them just minutes ago? Should we judge them on the few words they say as they introduce themselves and share their thoughts on the topic that they may or may not have had a lot of time to think about?
Nevertheless, even if we know nothing about someone’s character, or their achievements, or their background, we do know that this person – like ourselves – is a free and sentient being whose reasons and judgments merit our recognition and, consequently, our fair and careful consideration.
And, in the context of DCI, such recognition respect is crucially important, and it is why egalitarianism is one of the key deliberative dispositions it encourages participants to adapt. In our meetings we explore some very sensitive subjects – topics that can range from immigration law to reproductive rights – and many participants have perspectives that differ vastly from their counterparts. Even still, the notion of approaching your fellow deliberators with respect and maintaining this consideration – including when the discussion gets heated – is a cornerstone of DCI, and it’s what helps keep difficult conversations going.