“Whatever has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; on the other hand, whatever is above all price, and therefore admits of no equivalent has a Würde.”
The great German philosopher, Immanuel Kant’s words, in an attempt to elucidate his moral principle, the ‘categorical imperative’, places human beings above all price. These words, used in 1785, brought on the center stage, the concept of human worth. There have been many thinkers like him, that have talked about dignity in the historical times in their writings and researches but there was no established usage of the concept then as we see it now.
Irrespective of its old roots, dignity has never been defined outright, in political, scientific, or legal terms, probably because different areas required a different definition. In general terms, dignity is perceived to be the inherent worth that all human beings share equally. Today, it is the moral basis of our entitlement to human rights. It shapes our decisions and outlook towards ourselves and others. It limits or delimits our tolerance as well as our stimuli to the environment and fellow beings. It has permeated our lives and everything we do. We feel compelled to take action when dignity seems to be at stake. Philosophy birthed it, but now it is everywhere, be it law or politics.
Broadening of the concept:
In ancient times, the concept of dignity was based on the idea of social status in a natural order. The kings, senators, priests, or those thought of as the nobility or elites were considered to be dignified. Thus, the concept of dignity was unstable as when one lost a position of power, they were also out of the purview of dignity. The Stoics are considered to be one of the firsts who brought to light the concept of individual dignity – the inherent worth of human beings, based on their individual characteristics. The thought was primarily explored during the Renaissance and Enlightenment-era, and propagated by Christianity. Their idea although, had a theological incarnation, according to which human beings have dignity because they were created in the image of God. It also had a secular incarnation, according to which human beings have dignity because they have rationality. The real change that ensued was the centuries-long migration of ‘sacredness’ attached to a king or a God to the core of the individual person. As it broadened, it became more all-pervasive. Common folks, including marginalized groups (slaves, blacks, women, etc.) came under the umbrella of dignity. This formed the modern concept of dignity.
Formation of the ‘One shape fits all’ approach:
As the concept of dignity broadened, more and more people identified with it. One major advantage was that earlier, women who were often ignored when dignity was talked about also came under its purview. But as this happened, dignity soon became a socially understood concept without it being well-defined and definite. It was used in Constitutions of many countries, the moral code of conduct in several organizations, each having broad meanings. In the general sense, it came to be understood as a way of being, an unwritten social code for the common folk. Behavioral patterns, tone of speech, the field of work, the smallest of acts to the big ones, all could now be classified as dignified or undignified.
What I would like to stress is that to date the concept of dignity is highly ambiguous. This fact has given birth to everyday roles that people when classified on the basis of gender, caste, creed, financial strata, etc., have to play in order to be called dignified. The problem with this approach is that individuals differ largely from each other in their views, opinions, aspirations, way of living, etc., while dignity acts as a rigid mold. If we look at ourselves then we’ll realize that there are various societal expectations that derive their origin from uncontrollable factors such as our gender, or some partially controllable factors such as our financial stability. Even then, the concept of dignity is rarely seen as a root cause of the formation of these roles.
<<<Also Read: Embracing Forgiveness>>>
Gender roles specifically are very problematic as they create gender inequalities. These inequalities in the form of general stereotypes are instilled generation by generation. Differential treatment depending on gender is seen from birth. For example, the gendered division of household work is accepted almost everywhere. Boys are more likely than girls to have maintenance chores like mowing the lawn or painting, while girls are given domestic chores like cooking and cleaning. And thus as they grow up, women are often expected to be docile and shy, while men are expected to be well-built physically and emote less. The dignity of a woman is often judged on the basis of her clothes irrespective of all other features. A man’s worth is often based on his capacity to earn and sustain a family. Thus, the burden solely falls on them, while they struggle to share their financial problems even with their close ones. Professional choices are also expected to be based on an individual’s gender. Women are discouraged for armed forces or sports where physical strength is given importance while fashion designing, make-up artistry, etc., are considered to be feminine jobs, not suited to men.
Even if we fail to notice, but dignity has strengthened these constructs by great proportions. And as more and more of us think of dignity in the way it has been passed on to us, the more we are going to attach it with our own stereotypes. The sole purpose of dignity to promote the idea of having a basic right to a decent, safe life for everybody irrespective of any classifications like those based on gender is somewhere lost.
Conclusion:
In contemporary times, these lines have blurred to some extent with the increase in the reach of education, its availability, and improvement of living standards, contributing to both men and women taking up roles by choice, both personally and professionally. We see women entrepreneurs, male homemakers. We see children being emotionally closer to their father than to their mother. But the numbers are few. We are still far from detaching dignity to these gender roles. Breaking off these constructs requires a mental revolution. We certainly have to understand that individual dignity was introduced as a concept to safeguard basic human rights, provide the freedom of choice, and the right to a healthy life to men and women, poor and rich, whites, blacks and browns, all alike. We have to look beyond our traditional and long-existing social order, and constantly try to create a new one. This will only happen when all of us strive to use the concept of dignity responsibly, as an aid to give us all, the right to live life in our own ways, until it doesn’t violate the same human rights that the others possess.
Kailasha Online Learning
Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn.
Download our Android app from Google Play Store.
cover image source: happydays365.org
One Comment