Liz suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value reader offers and events

Click here for the latest Spectator Wine Offers

The Disrespect Agenda: Or How the Wrong Kind of Niceness is Making Us Weak and Unhappy

Between deference and insolence

Lincoln Allison
Social Affairs Unit, 120pp, £10,

Theodore Dalrymple

Wednesday, 23rd April 2008

Theodore Dalrymple reviews Lincoln Allison's new book

In reviewing this book about the social, political and intellectual indispensability of disrespect, I should perhaps declare an interest: I am several times disrespected in it. I hope the author will not conclude, if I fail to take my revenge on this occasion, that I am suffering from the wrong kind of niceness. All my niceness is of the right kind.

My problem is that I agree with quite a lot of what the author says, at least in his individual judgments, though I am not sure that he provides anything like a coherent or consistent argument. For example, he uses the term ‘deontological’ as a term more or less of philosophical abuse, claiming to be himself a utilitarian, without realising that his own utilitarianism, according to which all sentient or conscious beings are to count in the assessment of the utility of any action or policy, itself rests upon a deontological foundation.

Still, he is neither the first nor will he be the last to fail to provide a fully articulated, watertight philosophical argument for his prejudices. Many of them are sound, which is to say that they coincide with mine. He believes, for example, that someone who demands respect from others is being coercive, emotionally and sometimes physically; it is an intrinsically illegitimate demand.

No one on the author’s view is entitled to respect, merely by virtue of drawing breath or by virtue of the social position that he occupies. We owe no respect to Mr Blair and Mr Brown because they are, or have been, Prime Minister. Indeed, the freedom of a society can be measured by the irreverence with which it treats its most prominent members and cherished institutions. The author thinks, probably rightly, that, by this criterion, Hanoverian England was the freest society that ever existed.

But Allison does not distinguish clearly enough between respect and deference, or between healthy disrespect and mere insolence. He mentions Voltaire’s opinion that Isaac Newton was one of the two great geniuses that the English have produced, but does not mention that Newton very famously claimed to have seen further than others because he stood on the shoulders of giants, not exactly a disrespectful thing to have said. And no one who reads Mozart’s letter dedicating his six quartets to Haydn can remain unmoved by his entirely genuine and proper filial piety towards his great mentor, though he himself (as Haydn knew) was one of the supreme geniuses of his or any other age. Indeed, lack of respect for the achievements of others is probably incompatible with achievement oneself.

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comment | Apollo Art Books

1 | 2 Next page