The Ideology of “Respect Your Elders!”

The ideology of “respect your elders!” is prevalent in many cultures, but nowhere is it as prevalent as in Chinese culture. In Chinese culture, this ideology revolves around the idea that due to the fact that elders have lived longer (therefore being elder), they would have more experience in life – thus, they are wiser and more intelligent than those that have lived for a shorter period of time, and experienced less.

This ideology is deeply rooted in Chinese culture, and comes straight from the ancient Chinese tradition of filial piety (孝) – a cultural tradition that came into prominence with the spread of Confucianism in Imperial China. Historically, this would lead to ideologies where the state would be seen and treated as an extension of the family – an ideology, which to some degree, still prevails to this day. On a more micro-level, this ideal has led to the creation and propagation of stories, aimed at an audience of children, in which the model hero shows reverence and extreme loyalty to his elders – with a focus on family, and an even more specific focus on parents.

Ma Hezhi, “Illustrations of the Classic of Filial Piety”. Dated to the Song Dynasty. (Source: University of Washington)

While messages promoting loyalty towards family members and messages of respecting your elders in of themselves seem to be innocuous, the issue comes with the interpretation – the extent to which the ideology extends. In this case, specifically, an issue that pops up can be that of the act of respecting your elders – what constitutes respect? And, more importantly, what constitutes disrespect?

There exists a stereotype of Asian parents – a stereotype on the demands that Asian parents place on their children, and of how rigid these demands can be. Frequently, this stereotype is exaggerated and played with for comedic effect – jokes on A-sians are commonplace on the Internet, and on the ground, these stereotypes are frequently used in self-depreciating humor. However, as I can attest to first-hand, stereotypes come from somewhere – tiger-moms do exist, and there is cultural acceptance for such parents, who push for their children to master instruments, crush exams, seize awards – essentially to be the poster child, even from a very young age. While this, of course, does not represent the majority, or even a plurality of families, those who do engage in this style of parenting often treat any complaint by the child to be “disrespect”, and will leverage their own age and seniority as a way to enforce the idea that the parent is the superior in any confrontation.

Herein lies the problem – the idea that age, on its own, can be used as a way to justify a declared social superiority – that age can be used as pretext for the creation of a pseudo-social caste. It is my belief that this idea is based off of a faulty assumption – the faulty assumption that one who has lived longer has more experience – and that one with more experience will always be wiser than another with less – and here’s why:

Firstly, this assumption fails to take into account the magnitude of the modern world. Simply put, there are too many processes in motion, too many skills to be acquired, too much knowledge available, to be consumed or understood by any single person in a single lifetime. The argument that elders are inherently more intelligent would only work if it were the case that over a lifetime, it is possible to learn everything about anything and everything. While there is no doubt that many elders posses specific knowledge sets, there is also no doubt that the younger companion also has the capacity to possess another knowledge and skill set. If we accept that both elders and youth have the capacity to possess knowledge and skill sets, and that such sets can be different, then it logically follows that there will be some areas where the younger is more knowledgeable, and vice versa. This means that one of the core tenets of this ideology, that is – the idea that elders are inherently more intelligent – cannot be true, unless the knowledge and skill set of the elder is perfectly in line with the younger companion – a situation which is beyond unlikely.

But you may be saying, “But they have more wisdom! They lived longer, so they have experienced more!” However, it can also be argued that just because you lived longer, doesn’t mean that you would have experienced more. This can be divided into two points.

1) The area in which you are talking in is not of the elder’s expertise, but the younger’s. Thus, the younger has spent more time studying this subject and gathering experiences on it, which would mean that it would be the latter who is wiser – in that use of the word.

2) Different lifestyles. Having been in the world longer just means that there is more potential for experiences – what the elder may have done with that potential is completely up to them. They may have went out and experienced a little bit of everything, and had adventures around the globe. They may have experienced a lot of one thing, perhaps being a skilled military analyst. Or, they could have lived their entire life doing a 9-5 (or in HK, 9-6) job, where they may have taken no risks, and so their claim to having more experience may be faulty.

The second major problem with this ideology is that of stubbornness. Everyone is a product of their environment, and a major part of that environment is time, and the values of that time. Since nostalgia is a powerful force, people can get attached to their personal viewpoints, which would have been developed under different circumstances. However, time moves ever onward, and very little can truly stand the test of time. Due to this, the elder may get attached to ideas, which can lead to faulty advice – advice from another time – which may not be the best advice of today. This again disproves that the elders are inherently far more wise and intelligent than the younger, as knowledge and wisdom change. In some cases, experience can even be a hindrance, especially if the circumstances change drastically (something seen very much in the modern world). A fresh perspective may be more wise and intelligent in this respect, especially in rapidly evolving fields.

The third major problem with this ideology is that this discredits the possibility that they could be wrong. Glorifying anybody is a bad idea, as anyone and everyone is capable of making mistakes. When you glorify one, or one specific type of people, you are betting that they have not made mistakes, and you may blind yourself to the mistakes they make, justifying them with faulty logic. Glorification may also lead to you following their example, which may mean that you are repeating their mistakes without analysis. And if you are going to state that being old would make it easier to spot mistakes, we also have to take into account that the nature of what constitutes as a mistake can also change. This glorification also discounts the wisdom and intelligence the younger may possess, which may lead to a less flexible position – wherein you have fewer options to solve new and evolving challenges. Always look at ideas equally and not from where they are coming from. Sometimes, the source you expect to get it right has it wrong – mistakes are in human nature after all, and are unavoidable.

In conclusion, the very notion that you should respect elders as your superiors just due to their age is based off of a faulty premise – there are simply far too many factors at hand to be able to make this a rule of thumb. While I do not argue against respecting elders, much as you would respect any other person, with common decency, I believe that it would be dangerous to place a specific group of people on a pedestal – especially if that group’s distinguishing feature is that of biological age only.