Leerlo en Español

‍

In some languages, the expression is “mutual trust and respect,” with trust ahead of respect. In other languages it is “respect and trust”—the reverse order. What should it be?

We learn from people who think differently. If they think like us, there is nothing to learn. As Zen Buddhism says: “If two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary.”

In order to learn from people who disagree with us, we need to be open-minded—willing to learn and benefit from what those who disagree with us say. For that mutual respect is needed.

Immanuel Kant, the philosopher, says respect is when we recognize the sovereignty—the undeniable right—of the other party to think differently. I am adding the “why” to respect: because we learn from differences. None of us is perfect. Those who disagree with us complement us—they see what we do not.

In day-to-day conversation, we usually put trust ahead of respect because we cannot learn from a person we do not trust. We will not listen openly to the points they make because we suspect that person might be trying to convince us of something from which they will benefit at our expense.

But this sequence—trust ahead of respect—poses a problem: trust does not exist a priori. It needs to be earned. This is different from the concept of respect. We need to respect the other party from the moment we meet them; otherwise, we will not learn anything from their disagreement.

So: respect people who disagree with us from the moment we meet, while trust comes with time and experience. In that case, trust cannot be first. Respect should come first.

The expression “mutual trust and respect” is thus wrong. It should be “mutual respect and respect”.

And that is how one of the Jewish sages recommends we behave: kabdehu ve chashdehu, “Respect and suspect,” he says. Start with respect but watch carefully to see if the person is trustworthy.