Evaluative self-respect, which expresses confidence in one's merit asa person, rests on an appraisal of oneself in light of the normativeself-conception that structures recognition self-respect. Recognitionself-respecting persons are concerned to be the kind of person theythink it is good and appropriate for them to be and they try to livethe kind of life such a person should live. Thus they have and try tolive by certain standards of worthiness by which they are committed tojudge themselves. Indeed, they stake themselves, their value and theiridentities, on living in accord with these standards. Because theywant to know where they stand, morally, they are disposed toreflectively examine and evaluate their character and conduct in lightof their normative vision of themselves. And it matters to them thatthey are able to “bear their own survey,” as Hume says(1739 (1971), 620). Evaluative self-respect contains the judgment thatone is or is becoming the worthy kind of person one seeks to be, and,more significantly, that one is not in danger of becoming an unworthykind of person (Dillon 2004). Evaluative self-respect holds, at the least, thejudgment that one “comes up to scratch,” as Telfer (1968)puts it. Those whose conduct is unworthy or whose character isshameful by their own standards do not deserve their own evaluativerespect. However, people can be poor self-appraisers and theirstandards can be quite inappropriate to them or to any person, and sotheir evaluative self-respect, though still subjectively satisfying,can be unwarranted, as can the loss or lack of it. Interestingly,although philosophers have paid scant attention to evaluative respectfor others, significant work has been done on evaluativeself-respect. This may reflect an asymmetry between the two: althoughour evaluative respect for others may have no effect on them, perhapsbecause we don't express it or they don't value our appraisal, our ownself-evaluation matters intensely to us and can powerfully affect ourself-identity and the shape and structure of our lives. Indeed, anindividual's inability to stomach herself can profoundly diminish thequality of her life, even her desire to continue living.
A third kind of recognition self-respect involves the appreciation ofthe importance of being autonomously self-defining. One way aself-respecting individual does this is through having, and living inlight, of a normative self-conception, i.e., a conception of being andliving that she regards as worthy of her as the particular person sheis. Such a self-conception both gives expression to ideals andcommitments that shape the individual’s identity, and alsoorganizes desires, choices, pursuits, and projects in ways that givesubstance and worth to the self. Self-respecting people holdthemselves to personal expectations and standards the disappointmentof which they would regard as unworthy of them, shameful, evencontemptible (although they may not apply these standards to others)(Hill 1982). People who sell out, betray their own values, liveinauthentic lives, let themselves be defined by others, or arecomplacently self-accepting lack this kind of recognitionself-respect.
One issue with which contemporary philosophers have been concerned iswhether self-respect is an objective concept or a subjective one. Ifit is the former, then there are certain beliefs, attitudes, anddispositions a person must have to be self-respecting. A person whothought of herself as a lesser sort of being whose interests andwell-being are less important than those of others would not count ashaving recognition self-respect, no matter how appropriate she regardsher stance. If self-respect is a subjective concept, then a personcounts as having self-respect so long as she believes she is nottolerating treatment she regards as unworthy or behaving in ways shethinks is beneath her, regardless of whether her judgments aboutherself are accurate or her standards or sense of what she is due arejudged by others to be reasonable or worthy (Massey1983a). Psychologists, for whom “self-esteem” is the termof practice, tend to regard the various dimensions of a person's senseof worth as subjective. Many philosophers treat the interpersonaldimension of recognition self-respect objectively, and it is generallythought that having manifestly inaccurate beliefs about oneself isgood grounds for at least calling an individual's sense of worthunjustified or compromised (Meyers 1989). But there is no consensusregarding the standards to which individuals hold themselves and bywhich they judge themselves, and certainly the standards of theself-defining dimension of recognition self-respect are inescapably,though perhaps not exclusively, subjective. Complicating theobjective/subjective distinction, however, is the fact of the socialconstruction of self-respect. What it is to be a person or to have astatus worthy of respect, what treatment and conduct are appropriateto a person or one with such a status, what forms of life andcharacter have merit—all of these are given different contentin different sociocultural contexts. Individuals necessarily, thoughperhaps not inalterably, learn to engage with themselves and withissues of self-worth in the terms and modes of the socioculturalconceptions in which they have been immersed. And different kinds ofindividuals may be given different opportunities in differentsociocultural contexts to acquire or develop the grounds of thedifferent kinds of self-respect (Dillon 1997, Moody-Adams 1992–93,Meyers 1989, Thomas 1983b). Even fully justified self-respect maythus be less than strongly objective and more than simplysubjective.
It is common in everyday discourse and philosophical discussion totreat self-respect and self-esteem as synonyms. It is true thatevaluative self-respect and self-esteem both involve appraisingoneself favorably in virtue of one's behavior and personal traits, andthat a person can have or lack either one undeservedly. However, manyphilosophers have argued that the two attitudes are importantlydifferent (for example, Darwall 1977, Sachs 1981, Chazan 1998, Harris,2001, Dillon 2004, 2013). One way of distinguishing them is by theirgrounds and the points of view from which they areappraised. Evaluative self-respect involves an assessment from a moralpoint of view of one's character and conduct, while self-esteem can bebased on personal features that are unrelated to character, and theassessment it involves need not be from a moral point of view: one canhave a good opinion of oneself in virtue of being a good joke-telleror having won an important sports competition and yet not think one isa good person because of it (Darwall 1977). Another way ofdistinguishing them focuses on what it is to lose them: one would loseevaluative respect for oneself if one judged oneself to be shameful,contemptible, or intolerable, but self-esteem can be diminished by thebelief that one lacks highly prized qualities that would add to one'smerit (Harris 2001). Self-respect is also often identified withpride. In one sense, pride is the pleasure or satisfaction taken inone's achievements, possessions, or associations, and in this sensepride can be an affective element of either evaluative self-respect orself-esteem. In another sense, pride is inordinate self-esteem orvanity, an excessively high opinion of one's qualities,accomplishments, or status that can make one arrogant and contemptuousof others. In this sense, pride contrasts with both well-groundedevaluative self-respect and the interpersonal kind of recognitionself-respect. But pride can also be a claim to and celebration of astatus worth or to equality with others, especially other groups (forexample, Black Pride), which is interpersonal recognitionself-respect; and pride can be “proper pride,” a sense ofone's dignity that prevents one from doing what is unworthy, and inthis sense it is the agentic dimension of recognitionself-respect. Pride's opposites, shame and humility, are also closelyrelated to self-respect. A loss of evaluative self-respect may beexpressed in shame, but shameless people manifest a lack ofrecognition self-respect; and although humiliation can diminish orundermine recognition self-respect, humility is an appropriatedimension of the evaluative respect of any imperfect person.
Muschla, J., Muschla, G., & Muschla-Berry, E. (2013). Math starters: 5- to 10-minute activities aligned with the Common Core math standards, grades 6-12 (2nd Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
You sho…HI5003 Economics for Business Tri2 2014 Topic for Assignment DUE Week 11 ( 27 september) Unemployment – Discuss the unemployment issues, and comment unemployment in various states of Australia.
But first, we turn briefly to Turner’s (1990) role theory. In light of their segregation into different “discourse communities” (Bacon, 2002), we contend that effective service-learning requires that the participants experience both a quantitative and a qualitative change in their conventional roles as faculty members, students, and community partners. Drawing on Turner’s (1990) discussion of role change, we propose a framework for understanding the complex but critical relationships among students, faculty members, and community partners.
But how will it be with just the one who falls when there is not another to raise him up?” – Ecclesiastes 4:9, 10 As the scriptural text quoted above implies, teamwork can accomplish what the individual cannot do on his or her own.
Both parts must be completed in order to …Subject: Assignment – 3 Value: 20% Due date: 19-Sep-2014 Return date: 10-Oct-2014 Submission method options Alternative submission method Task Instructions: This assignment uses the Football Tipping C…HI6006 Competitive Strategy Tri2 2014 Guidelines for Group Assignment 2 Written document: A short report Marks: 20 Report Due: Week 11 Words limit: 1200 • Students need to research and identify a comp…HA 2022 INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS LAW Assessment 2 Individual Report PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS: Candidates are required to write 2000 words on the topic given below.
Teamwork is defined as “a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they are mutually accountable.” (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993) In today’s society, with so much emphasis on pride and personal achievem...
"Teacher resource apps are designed to assist teachers in completing common tasks (e.g., taking attendance, communicating with parents, monitoring student learning and behavior, etc.)" (Cherner, Lee, Fegely, Santaniello, 2016, p. 117). The market is flooded with such apps that teachers can use to manage their classrooms and tasks. Quality varies, however, and selecting one based on a star-rating system might not be sufficient. So, how do you select one?
And in terms of setting high expectations for all, Robert Marzano (2010) reminded educators that this is easier said than done. It's the "teachers' behaviors toward students [that] are much more important than their expectations," as students "make inferences on the basis of these behaviors" (pp. 82-83). Students become easily aware of differences, as "teachers tend to make less eye contact, smile less, make less physical contact, and engage in less playful or light dialogue" with low-expectancy students. They also pose fewer and less challenging questions to them, and delve into their answers less deeply and reward them for less vigorous responses" (p. 83). The key to overcome this is for teachers to be aware of their own behaviors: identify students as early as possible for whom they have low expectations, identify their similarities and differential treatment of them, and then set out to change and treat low-expectancy and high-expectancy students the same.