Treacherous trinity: trust, dignity and proximity

You've been suggesting that dignity is the most important aspect in our lives.

I'm not the only one to think so. The very first Article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations says, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

The Declaration talks about human dignity, but it never defines what it really is.

We can say that it is about inherent worthiness of each person.

What does that mean? It surely shouldn't mean that an idiot deserves less respect than other people.

What is the respect that an idiot deserves? The concept of human dignity says that idiocy should not make a difference in how that person is treated.

Suppose that there is a person who is easily offended. Won't it be more difficult for her/him to protect her/his dignity than for others who are less easily offended? If so, it suggests that we are not uniform in terms of dignity.

You are talking about dignity in a sense slightly different from that in the Universal Declaration. The Declaration is more about how to set up social institutions so that human dignity could be systematically protected. Examples would be intolerance of torture, slavery and the like.

Dignity can be taken away by personal injuries and that is where our focus has shifted, I see. The shift probably suggests that we---you and I---do not see with our own eyes any systematic damage done to human dignity on a daily basis.

Are you sure that you do not witness dignity challenged in our everyday lives? It is possible that such instances are so prevalent that we have become blind to them. I think the kinds of discrimination touched upon by Article 2 of the Declaration happens everyday, everywhere.

That article is rather lengthy. "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

Do you remember talking about forgiving---that the burden of coming to terms with what happened is on the victims? I'm afraid the same principle applies here.

That is...?

When someone does or says something that deprives of your dignity, you cannot obviously go back in time and undo the doing or the saying. Your dignity is taken away for the moment.

And, you are saying that the best is to forget about it?

We can restore our dignity by responding or reacting to the incident in certain ways. To act as if it were nothing may be indeed the best way in some cases.

We should not act as if the offense was effective. That is, we should not take their bait or play their game. Is this what you have in mind?

Yes. You may reveal that you have noticed the offensive action or remark, but never show explicit anger or shock caused by it.

That will be easier for a verbal one than for a physical one...

Certainly. It is again up to the offended whether something can be done to the damage. It is possible to protect our dignity by firmly believing that others cannot possibly do something like that to us, in other words, by staying calm.

It will be best if the "aggressor" admits or realizes that they have not succeeded in humiliating. Does it come so easily?

Most likely, it will take a several rounds or more. It is possible that it never happens. But compared to preserving one's dignity, establishing and maintaining trust may be more difficult.

I remember that you run away whenever someone indicates that s/he does not trust you.

I don't actually run away! I just feel like it.

You also said that trusting a stranger, or acting as if you did, is against what biology dictates us to do, and that is what civilization consists of: defiance of biology.

The trust issue is more difficult on that account than the dignity issue. After all, our dignity is about how we think about ourselves.

Can we say that safeguarding dignity is part of our biological mechanism to survive?

I think so. On the other hand, the most primitive survival instinct says it is best not to place trust in someone casually. Trust is more about how we evaluate other people; it depends much more on others' behavior than in dignity.

Didn't you say human relationships are based on reciprocity? If so, you do have control.

The reciprocity principle works in many cases, but not in all. Trusting others would not make them trustworthy, at least, overnight. I can think of many complicated examples.

For example?

A person may be very nice to you, but nasty to others. Should you trust that person?

I've seen such relationships. Some couples are like that; they are only nice to each other.

You have stepped into yet another territory. Even devils become angelic when in love.

Doesn't that suggest that we should all be in love with each other?

Fortunately, we can't be forced to be in love with someone. Anyway, you implied that closeness in relationships brings trust. I think you have mistaken predictability as trust.

Predictability comes from observed consistency of past events, and so does trust. However, you can also be untrustworthy and consistently so. I know that predictability and trust are not the same.

When we are close to someone, you have more opportunities to observe that person and s/he becomes more predictable than others. Closeness also means that you are more likely to say to each other what you would not to people who are less close.

And that includes all the bad things about each other, right?

Yes, I knew I could trust you!

Let's say you have become predictable.

Closeness does not necessary mean belittling each other, but the possibility of exposing dark emotions and thoughts is certainly larger.

The dark emotions and thoughts could be about your partner in the relationship, but also about yourself and everything else in the world.

The problem is that it is difficult to maintain dignity when you let out your fear, anger, jealousy in unedited forms.

Proximity is a difficult ground for dignity, then.

How can you have trust, if dignity is damaged, now and then? That means the sources of comfort can be self-destructive by their very nature. But we all need our own coterie, a group of people who, we think, understand us well.

I knew it! It's treacherous---trust, dignity and proximity.

What you read is a double-edged sword for the chicken and the egg

Birds of a feather flock together.

Let's say our meetings are the exceptions that prove the rule.

I thought we could start the new year with a more positive note.

Why do you think that different minds' getting together is negative?

True, Adam Smith saw the danger of like minds convening in one room.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." That one?

Yes, and do you remember the cliques in high school?

Their aim was to create birds of a feather by focusing on what could be labeled cool.

We need a sense of togetherness or belonging, but that often comes at the expense of the excluded.

Don't you think there are people who are happy to be excluded?

Oh no, do you want to start the year with a Unabomber-like note?

I don't want to be part of my grandmother's bridge circle, for sure.

Or, my nephew's Teletubbies fan club.

You see, there are groups that you'd rather not join. But in most cases, we need to belong to more than one group to satisfy our diverse needs and interests.

Family, close friends of similar interest/history, local community, student/professional associations, etc. come to mind...

The dark side of the psychology to belong is that it comes from the realization that we feel less at ease with people outside the groups.

As long as we don't go out to hurt the non-members, I would say forming groups based on feeling at ease is not bad at all. On the contrary, it happens because the population is not uniform. If it were, there would be no need for various groups. Diversity is a good thing, I thought you said that.

Only if it were so simple! Haven't you ever met people who give you an "are-you-one-of-us-or-not" exam, immediately after you are introduced to each other?

Where I was born, which schools I attended, which subject that I majored in, where I live, whether I have children, what I do on my days off, what is my favorite cuisine, whether I prefer coffee hot or cold in summer---I've been asked these.

Didn't the conversations come to an awkward end when it became clear that there was nothing in common between you two?

I remember the silence when I confessed my hatred for all iced drinks. But that's only natural. We have closer relationships with people who are similar to us. When people are similar, they don't even have to get to know each other through explicit means; similar and close are almost synonymous.

We seek validation of ourselves in others, and that leads to the desire to belong to a group. That group could be a couple or an extended family, too.

What's wrong with that?

When we belong to a big or solid enough group that all our different needs and desires are satisfied, we do not bother to get to know people outside the group.

One of your double-edged swords, again!

I'm afraid it is. Only when we are still in search of people that we could feel comfortable with, we are open to different types.

I suppose the open-mindedness of youth comes from that.

I would also say that long-established couples and tightly-knit families are---not always but usually---less outgoing due to the same reason. By the way, I think it is the same with the novels that we choose to read.

Do you mean to say that we tend to read a wide variety of fiction when we are young?

Most of us discover the kind of fiction that we like quite early in life. I only know of sci-fi fans who became so when they were teenagers and never changed.

Indeed, I haven't heard of anyone being transformed into a sci-fi fan from a romance fan.

We read what satisfies our desire and assures our existence, as far as fiction goes. I always happen to choose fiction whose protagonist I can identify with.

You read horror stories, I didn't know that!

My concern here is that the reading habit amounts to seeking validation of myself and not much else.

Surely, you cannot embody all the protagonists of the novels that you read and liked.

You are right, but it remains true that reading fiction for me has become reaffirming who I am, instead of expanding the possibility of whom I could be.

Isn't it something like a tight hug or a gentle tap on the shoulder? We need them.

I agree, but it is our duty to be able to understand increasingly divergent people as we continue to live on.

I've never heard of that one.

We shouldn't get old for nothing. You would agree to that, wouldn't you?

You mean, we should compensate for the loss of outer beauty with a gain in inner beauty?

If you could relate to people on the other side of the globe as much as you could relate to your neighbors, there would be more interest in world affairs. I believe that will lead to wiser political decisions.

What is your recommended strategy for greater understanding among people from different backgrounds?

You have to like them first.

You have to like them first to understand them? That doesn't make sense!

I know, but that's how our psychology works. If you detest something or somebody, it is guaranteed that you are not going to make sense out of it.

Isn't it the other way around---because it does not make sense, you don't like it?

If it does not make sense and if that is why you don't like it, you have to force yourself to like it so that it starts making sense.

First it was a double-edged sword, and now the-chicken-or-the-egg problem!

A wonderful way to start the new year!