Anatomy of pride

A custom that I have always found difficult to stomach is the constant rating of people against one another, trying to establish who is "better" than who else in particular when it is aimed at determining if someone´s company is worth the effort. It might be related to the fact that I have always considered myself an outsider and that I did not find any inclination to pay attention to anything just because it was popular. And one the most popular activities in any society is keeping track of everybody´s compliance with the social norm.

I understand that abiding by a set of common rules is essential to the upkeep of the society as such, which otherwise dilutes or falls apart, but once the inspection goes beyond the laws and enters into the realm of social norm it is not policing anymore, it becomes plain old gossip. Unsurprisingly, gossiping has two distinct components: the first one is making a big display of one´s own compliance, the second one is bringing the offenders to the public attention so that they can be punished, spurned or even ostracized. Here is where the idea of pride comes in, also with those same two components.

Photo: Peter H from Pixabay

The first part of pride is publicly claiming direct or indirect authorship in an ostensible success. If you make a scientific discovery, solve a crime, cure a disease or defeat an enemy tribe it is understandable that you expect a recognition of the social benefit of that good deed. Then pride comes in and adds a not-so-evident corollary: since you have achieved something, it is likely the you will be able to deliver similar feats in the future, so society shall appreciate you above others. While this is probably a reasonable quick solution to the problem of  "ranking" people if  you cannot devote a lot of time to the task, but thinking more deeply, once you have solved a disease there might not be a second disease to overcome, or there might be no need for additional military efforts once the enemy has been vanquished so, as they say in the advertisement for financial products, "past performance is not indicative of future results" that is, your utility to society might not be as large in the future as it has been in the past and therefore your ranking should not be that high. The situation get only worse when we speak of second-hand pride, like the one we feel through the achievements of our children (where our role is, at best, a supporting one, if any) or even our sports team (where cheering in the stadium might be a very tiny contribution, but certainly not if you do it from the comfort of your living room).

The second aspect of pride is composed of certain activities that can actually detract from your status. It is clear that openly breaking the law or failing to meet the most basic standards of civility are anti-social behaviors that should be penalized by society, regardless of what your status is. But once you start considering that some activities pertain to certain ranks and not to others this judgment, which allegedly intends to hold the society together becomes harmful instead: if the social norm is (as it is common in many small villages) that people shall respond to the greetings on the street even if they are strangers, considering that responding to some people is "below your station" not only breaks the norm, but actually tries to use the social status to excuse or even defend this violation. And that is the way societies and friendships start to come apart: when a state determines that a verbal attack from a neighbor does not deserve a diplomatic answer and that they are sending the tanks instead, they are implicitly saying that their high status allows them not to follow the norm and reply outside of it.

Another point against the single ranking is the fact that people are polyhedral, with many different facets, and while it is indisputable that someone who runs 100 m dash in 10 seconds is better runner than the one who takes 11 seconds, that is not indicative of the "total value" of each one. The former can be a despicable person, while the second one, being a worse runner, might be a much better human being.

So next time you hear (or feel compelled to say) "I am not going to dignify that comment with an answer" take a moment to think about the deep meaning of the sentence: is the speaker exempt from the obligation to respond? Or are they at loss for words, and that is why they do not intend to respond? Perhaps are they just tired and prefer not to continue with the discussion? At any rate, I have the impression that pride is always a very short-sighted feeling which often leads to rushed or irreflective responses. I try to keep an eye on myself not to fall for it, I hope you do too. Have a nice evening.