Dignity... Between Pain and Struggle

Our question is simple :

We often use the concept of dignity without thinking about its content and, strangely enough, we don't even have to think about its content and concept when we say “my dignity comes first” or “he is beneath my dignity” or “he insulted my dignity.” The intuitive clarity of the word is not enough, but its intellectual, linguistic and traditional concept, although not clearly represented, is due to the fact that ethics is generally poorly studied, We can talk about “moral dignity” as a commitment to the set of sustainable norms adopted in society, and we can also talk about “communicative dignity” as a logic of recognition of the interlocutor, and when communication is built through the idea of dignity and recognition we can talk about moral dignity and when it is said that someone is held with dignity, that is, in their representational form, they speak and think holding on to a set of symbols of cultural expression.

We can talk about “civil dignity” in the logic of social interaction just as we can talk about “human dignity” and each time our talk about them will have different meanings or different degrees and levels of meanings, because the more your civil rights increase and the more your civil dignity is recognized, the more you can achieve your dignity as a virtue, and if we talk about modern political theory and political discourse, then here the concept of “dignity” is transferred from the level of personal to group dignity and this concept begins to express the logic of group interaction and representation in the political field because behind any collective protest and behind any collective claim is the logic of dignity. Right, dignity, honor and justice are concepts that can sometimes intersect in their content, and when they intersect and overlap, many conflicts arise, and the most important question here is whether we can say that in different eras, some euphemisms appear that can be used to replace the word “dignity” with a phrase that is more appropriate for our era? Is an “ideological person” a person with dignity and respect? Since I am not a philosopher but I study political and cultural practices and relations, I cannot say that understanding the moral category of dignity is the ability to distinguish between good and evil, but I can use that concept on the surface precisely because good and evil are some of the ultimate concepts that do not fit into the statement and explanation of the content of dignity,

So how do we recognize it?

We have no evidence of respect for the dignity of another person, even in the context of a greeting or a phrase, and when we move on to a person, we have partially lost a large element of the vocabulary associated with polite treatment of each other, and how would you call someone on the street if you needed to explain where you were going or ask about the time? If you ask, the vast majority will politely respond with “sorry” and we can't find a word to describe a randomly encountered person as a representative of some group or city for which we used to have some respect, so we just have to realize that for some reason, the issue of dignity is constantly turning into an issue of recognition, seeking recognition, and refusing to be recognized. The state recognizes or does not recognize its citizens and some people do not recognize or do not recognize others who deserve attention in order not to be noticed and their dignity respected. If recognition is a kind of communicative gesture to direct attention to another, to another group and to others, we can talk about human dignity, which when seen as an inherent element in the person who performs social actions at the same time we will remember that actions are always in the presence of another person translated as self-awareness, self-control and some independent choices of actions to deal with morality.

However, the situation is very complicated in that you can think about yourself whether you are a decent person or an inappropriate and untrustworthy person, so you cannot define yourself as a decent person basically if there is no external evaluation of what you do and what you do, and if there is no observer who can actually make a diagnosis of your person, you can call yourself a minority, but until you join a large community and declare yourself a minority, no one will listen to you and will not support you in order to achieve the right to your dignity, so to realize yourself as a part, you must integrate yourself as part of the community. And about the fact that dignity is always included in the structure of interaction with others, can it be said that this person, if he remains a minority, has dignity? How will he try to maintain his dignity? What will be its content? And if this person wishes to maintain his human dignity in his isolation, how will he measure it? Most likely there is a need for a conformist who will prove to him that he has not lost his dignity despite all the pains and tensions and all the actions and words directed at him, and who will be an evaluator of his actions and experiences and a self-viewer of his soul... from within his soul.