Over this morning’s coffee my wife, Monica, and I discussed my penchant for infuriating people. She told me that the root cause of this problem is that in conversation, others perceive in me, an insufferable arrogance. It struck me that she was probably right. Although I do not feel that I am arrogant, my assertive approach in conversation does seem to affect people that way. Our conversation got me thinking about Ron Pereira‘s post on the subject of “humility” as a key characteristic of effective leaders. In my recent posts on leadership, I suggest that study of the personality traits of leaders is not a useful path toward the improvement of leadership, but I can’t help but wonder if I could become more effective in my enterprises if I were to somehow improve my approach in conversation in order to convey less arrogance and more humility.
Since you can’t get anywhere if you don’t know where you’re going, I decided that my first question should be, what do we mean by the concept of “humility”?
Humility and Humiliation - Two Sides of the Same Coin?
As usual, Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary goes roundabout, saying that humility is the “quality or state of being humble”. Following Webster’s lead, I looked up “humble” and found that it is defined as meaning:
1 : not proud or haughty : not arrogant or assertive
2 : reflecting, expressing, or offered in a spirit of deference or submission <a humble apology>
3 : ranking low in a hierarchy or scale : insignificant, unpretentious b : not costly or luxurious <a humble contraption>
Having already learned from my wife that in conversation, I convey an assertiveness and arrogance that creates problems, I realized that I would need to search more deeply .
The wonderful Online Etymology Dictionary informed me that the word humility can be traced back to circa 1315, from O.Fr. humilité, from L. humilitatem (nom. humilitas) “lowness, insignificance,” in Church L. “meekness,” from humilis “humble.”
Additional research led me to Oxford’s dictionary‘s explanation that the term comes from the Latin word “humilis,” meaning “low,” which, in turn, comes from the Latin “humus,” which means “earth” or “dirt” or “soil.”
In early usage, says Oxford, the term was first used to mean submission before authority.
HOLME in Ellis Orig. Lett. Ser. II. I. 65 (1419) With all subjection and humilitee We recomend us to oure roial Majestee.
Somewhat later, the term became popular with respect to even higher authority.
W. WHATELY Prototypes I. xi. (1640) 99 That is true humility to have a meane esteeme of himselfe out of a true apprehension of Gods greatnesse.
Now I was getting some idea of the roots of the term — dirt, lowliness, and submission — but somehow it seemed to me that something was amiss. Such self-abasing lowliness seemed a dubious goal. I decided that my next step should be to try and understand what the concept of “humility” means in today’s usage.
My Internet search on the term “humility” brought up many different explanations of the meaning of humility — too many to list. The idea of submission to authority lay at one extreme, as in submission to God’s will explained on various Christian Websites. The Eastern religions Websites tended to explain humility in terms of overcoming one’s ego and self-obsession through various spiritual practices. The more centerist secular Websites of the West explained humility in terms of behavior that is shy, understated, gracious, and deferential to others, At the other extreme, one Website went so far as to say that, if you are behaving humbly, you are not humble. In other words, humility cannot be aware of itself, or it becomes arrogance — an interesting paradox.
Humility and Becoming more Humble
it seems to me that humility may not be an idea that can be clearly defined nor a skill that can be learned. In the Supreme Court of personality, we might have to say that we cannot define it but we can know it when we see it.
But what is seeing it?
Might it be that when a person we know to be powerful by virtue of influence, money, and position, behaves in a self-effacing and deferential manner, we deem that person humble, but that when a person without the trappings of power behaves in a similarly self-effacing manner, we do not see humility in their actions, only behavior that is appropriate to their lesser station in life? 1
If this is the case, then going back to the etymology of the word, the humility we know by seeing it in others is a function of our assessment of their authoritative station in life. And in our submission to what we see as their magnanimously humble behavior, in some degree, we acknowledge their superiority and our own lowliness?
Just for the heck of it, let me take the idea to the edge of chaos. Jesus preached to his followers that they should be humble. Was his preaching an act of humility? Could his preaching be a humble act? His believers say “Yes”, but to those who did not believe that he was the Massiah, he was arrogant.
Consider the implications of this view. If humility is an attribute we ascribe to others on the basis of our perception of their relative power and authority, then those who are without power can never be humble enough relative to their lowly station in life. The admirable quality of humility is therefore, reserved for those we regard as powerful, and their power is thereby increased in proportion to our gratitude in submission.2 Could it be that our tendency to ascribe the quality of humility to those who exercise their power over us with magnanimity, is really nothing more than a variation in the famous Stockholm Syndrome?
This explanation of humility would do a lot to explain my particular problem.
Those in positions of power and authority are socially chartered to assert their beliefs, ideas, and opinions. Their charters are based on institutional endorsements such as university degrees, business titles, church hierarchies, and fame and fortune acquired through heroic deeds, self-promotion, public exposure, and plain old luck. Those of us without such charter, are dutifully grateful when they behave with what we perceive as humility.
But what about those of us who have not obtained by some means, the station in life that allows us to act in a manner perceived as appropriately humble? When we set to out express challenging beliefs, ideas, and opinions, humility is not an option. Our every assertion of a challenging notion is, by definition, a violation of our proper status and station in life. To avoid other’s perception of our being arrogant, the only tactic available to the lowly, is to obsequiously cite authority or to couch our statements in a manner that poses no obvious challenge to established authority and common knowledge.3
Now I have a theory of humility and its time to see if I can put it to work.
Am I arrogant?
In my own skin, I am not in the least bit arrogant. I do not look down on others nor do I denigrate them with airs of superiority. I am simply fascinated by some ideas that challenge both authority and conventional wisdom and I am eager to explore those ideas in conversation and dialog at every opportunity. Because these ideas are unconventional, I go to great lengths to say what I mean and mean what I say. My belief is that in a dynamic exchange of ideas with others, my own understanding will undergo change and improvement. Truthfully, sometimes I talk too much and seem to listen too little, but there is no arrogance in that mistake. There is only the joy of exchanging ideas with willing others and watching how my own understanding is constantly transformed.
Can I become more humble?
I can certainly work on being more courteous by talking less and listening more, but I am not sure if I can become more humble. Humility is a function of power and I have none of that to spend. I can only hope to find others who share my fascination with ideas that speak for themselves, and who do not respond to me with anger and offense, as one who is exceeding the prerogatives of his station in life. Maybe it is our accusations of arrogance in the behaviors of others the deafens us to the kinds of ideas needed to overcome the dogmas that have relegated us to perpetual fear, suspicion, and conflict. Maybe the much lauded quality of humility is nothing more than a doctrine of submission that hammers us down and renders us powerless to engage in the struggle of ideas by which we can make a better world.
So, my choice in dealing with others comes down to this. Humbly restrain myself from expressing challenging ideas OR converse about things that matter and infuriate most people. Which do you think represents honorable course of action?
When I think about it, in my life experience, the thinkers and leaders who have most influenced my understanding of the world, were not humble. They spoke passionately, saying what they meant and meaning what they said. They were the people who were not afraid to challenged fundamental assumptions and thereby, rocked my world. They needed no humility because, simply put, they had something worthwhile to say.
[print_link('', '')]
=========Footnotes=======
- I would call this a systems view of humility. ↩
- With respect to leadership, a Machiavellian view of humility as a pretense supports the idea of behaving humbly as means to greater power. A more generous view is that the leader’s humility is defined as such, not by the leader, but by others who view the leader as humble relative to his or her power, thus we can have humility that may not be aware of itself ↩
- We are gagged by authority. ↩
Marc, there are a lot of problems with your explanation of humility. I can think of many people who occupy a lowly station in life who behave with humility. Humility is not the sole province of the powerful.
Thinker, I think you are correct.
Those of humble means can behave with humility. Their submission before authority is regarded as appropriate to their station in life, and when they behave with arrogance, others take note of their excesses.
Still I can’t help but wonder how we can ascribe to the powerful the quality of humility, even when those individuals collect ridiculously large salaries and live with all the trappings of the emperors of Rome. Humble emperors?
Something tells me that when we characterize individuals as arrogant and lacking in humility, our condemnation is more a means of telling them to shut-up and submit to authority than anything else. We don’t like people who dare to challenge our comfortable assumptions. We want to make them more humble. We want to “humiliate” them.
When it comes right down to it, the problem may be characterizing people as arrogant or humble. We might do better to abandon the practice of labeling and substitute references to what a person actually does, in practice.
Something like that.
AHA! I have just realized that I aim barking up the wrong tree in my consideration of the idea of humility. Humility is not a property an individual possesses. It is in the eye of the beholder! What causes one beholder to see humility in someone, when another sees only arrogance in that same person?
I think the answer is “FEAR” and I mean to explore this alternative path of consideration in a future post about something I call, “Interplay”.
As interesting topic. While I lived abroad I had many occasions to work with missionaries of the Roman Catholic Church. They were an interesting group and some (by no means all) used their ostensible humility like a weapon to cut one another up…saying, in effect, I’m better than you because I’m more humble than you. I called this ‘playing the piety game’. This may be like the false humility of which you speak.
I also have been (and still am) accused of being arrogant. I don’t feel arrogant, but I do feel sure of myself in some areas. If I don’t know about some area (say, brain surgery) I will be the first to say so, but if we are talking about why hypothesis testing doesn’t apply in an analytic study, I am quite sure of myself and am difficult to sway, especially by someone who doesn’t understand the problem. Is this arrogance?
In any interaction between people, the communication takes place on many levels including the words people say, how they align themselves physically, and how they exchange touching, eye contact, and the like. There is also another interplay, largely unspoken, over control or power to decide who will ‘control’ the interaction. I think humility dictates not that you cede this control, but that you don’t insist on your ‘holding the reins’. In other words if control gets to be an issue, let it go.
If the interaction is about learning or information exchange and there is a more or less explicit battle for control going on at the same time, it is likely that not much learning is taking place about about the subject matter. There may be a lot of learning going on about the nature of each person.
These observations are unsupported by any scientific research, of course, and represent only my own petty, arrogant and ignorant point of view.
So you have wrestled with the question as I have. I am glad to know that I am not alone you arrogant slob
I woke early this morning because of the Daylight Savings time change. The TV was on and tuned to a 1 hour info-tisement about Extendzee. It is a product that is designed to make you more manly, if you know what I mean. As I watched, I noticed that when the presenters were making their key sales points, they all extended their arms with their palms up in a gesture of supplication. I have seen a lot a priests and shamans in this same posture of supplication and HUMILITY. I am currently applying this new method to better convey my great and most admirable humility.
The question of ‘humility’ (and, as used in this dialogue, it’s opposite, ‘arrogance’) depends on how you consider ‘humility’ arises; is it not a ‘quality’, which is a fine energy not really belonging to any individual, but may be accessed under certain circumstances. It is age-old – but humanity has been concerned about ‘The Passions’ – where do they reside? In the heart, in the head, in the ‘soul’ (however you understand that). With the panoply of ‘passions’ that surge through us, I am not sure there is room inside any one of us for all those energies. In the Middle-ages, such ‘energies’ were personnified, which helped to understand and deal with them (so ‘Humilitas’ in Hildegaard von Bingen’s play ‘Ordo Virtutum’, is one of the main characters – female, and wise. She is the main teacher in the play, and does her work calmly yet with brilliance – she is a ‘light’ to emulate). If we turn ‘Ignorance’ into a personnification, he becomes a foul little creature with very long, very hair arms and hides in nasty little dark corners (like under the chair you are probably sitting on whilst reading this) and takes the unwary always by surprise. He stinks a bit as well!
Well, scientifically, this doesn’t hold water… yet experientially it gives a lot to be working with – in fact if we hold there is ‘Scientific Truth’ (which is verifiable, repeatable, always with the same results under the same circumstances), then there must be ‘Metaphoric Truth’, which gives different results every time and is wholly unpredictable, but powerful – the ‘Performing Arts’, for example, are experienced differently every time. Now I think we get closer to understanding ‘humility’: it is not mine nor yours, it is a fine energy that may be accessed, especially if we are inclined to look out for it, and yes, a good performer needs to become familiar with accessing this most delicate vibration, so different from the vibration of ‘arrogance’ (also not belonging to any of us, but in powerful supply, whenever we are in the spot-light!)
I pass these thoughts on humbly, but hopefully persuasively… A.R.
A.R.
Thanks for a very interesting take on humility (and arrogance). I like the idea of a “delicate vibration”— To which we can become attuned or with which can resonate? Is this akin to realizing our capacity for sacred awe? But I wonder…
Is humility a quality of performance to be played? Then humility must be able to know itself. In knowing itself, doesn’t humility become arrogance? Doesn’t it begin to “stink a bit?”