Good reasons for pride?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

In another thread, it was written:

Originally Posted by Another poster

Ok, I just wanted to say that I am an American, and proud to be an American.

Since I am taking the statement out of context, I thought it proper to not include the poster name for now.

However, it got me thinking about something that I have noticed several times: People state that they are proud for something that I personally think does not warrant pride. Examples include citizenship, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic stratum, etc. All of those characteristics share a common trait: they are (mostly) accident of birth, and not something that the person stating his pride has done on their own. One could argue that sometimes people change citizenships or undergo sex change operations, but those are uncommon cases, not the norm.

IMO, in order to be rightfully proud of something, the thing that one is proud of must fulfill all the following criteria:
1. Be something that one has accomplished on one´s own, or at least mostly so. Traits that are genetic, economically inherited, or just plain luck, do not qualify.
2. They must be quite difficult, if something can be accomplished by many people it is not a good reason for pride.
3. Finally, and most importantly, the trait must be good to other people than the one who has it, and more good than bad for all people together.

For example, being a good parent fulfills criteria #1 and 3, but not #2. I have read some people stating "I am proud to be a man", which does not fulfill any criteria. It is genetic, not uncommon, and of neutral value compared to the alternative for all around that person.

I am fully aware that this leaves a fair number of people with not much to be proud of, but that is my take on it. Anyone with a good counterexample, something that they think should warrant pride, but does not fulfill at least one of the critera stated above? Any other related thoughts?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

pride n.

1. A sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect.
2. Pleasure or satisfaction taken in an achievement, possession, or association: parental pride.
3. Arrogant or disdainful conduct or treatment; haughtiness.
4.

1. A cause or source of pleasure or satisfaction; the best of a group or class: These soldiers were their country's pride.
2. The most successful or thriving condition; prime: the pride of youth.

5. An excessively high opinion of oneself; conceit.
6. Mettle or spirit in horses.
7. A company of lions. See Synonyms at flock1.
8. A flamboyant or impressive group: a pride of acrobats.

Not my favourite dictionary but I outlined the section I think appropriate. Whether you are justified in a proud association with your country is the debate; not the re-definition* that you have chosen.

*by setting extra prerquisites

[MyrddinsPrecint]

"pride", as in "i'm going to pride" or less frequently "are you wearing pride" is (at least in the US) relates to Gayness. Pride, the event, usually involves a parade, a festival, lots of free condoms, and later on lots of drunken parties. wearing it usually means you have rainbows on, rainbows being (again, at least here) a gay symbol.


the trick is that it's not being proud of being gay, it's being proud of having accepted one's gayness. it's celebrating the fact that you can live your life despite the social pressures, despite the negative feedback that you may receive.

i think that "i'm proud to be gay" or "i'm proud to be female" are, in reality, more "i'm proud to be openly gay" and "i'm proud to be a strong female"

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Gav

Not my favourite dictionary but I outlined the section I think appropriate. Whether you are justified in a proud association with your country is the debate; not the re-definition* that you have chosen.

*by setting extra prerquisites

I guess that you have misinterpreted me, maybe I explained myself badly in post #1.

The prerequisites, or criteria #1-3, that I wrote down are not intended to define what pride is. They are, on the contrary, intended to provide a definition of when pride is justified.

For example: if some average Joe says "I am proud to be American" it would not fulfill criterion #1, but if George Washington would have said it criterion #1 would have been fulfilled.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

"pride", as in "i'm going to pride" or less frequently "are you wearing pride" is (at least in the US) relates to Gayness. Pride, the event, usually involves a parade, a festival, lots of free condoms, and later on lots of drunken parties. wearing it usually means you have rainbows on, rainbows being (again, at least here) a gay symbol.

It might interest you to know that there is an event called Stockholm Pride, just as you have outlined above. It includes a lot of rainbow flags, and makes it to the mainstream media, which is why I know about it. Since "Pride" is not a Swedish word, "Pride" has become a synonym for this kind of gay party/demonstration/happeing. The Swedish word for "pride" is "stolthet", so they are not even remotely similar. There is no other Swedish word similar in spelling or pronounciation to "Pride", so it will probably stick as a loan from English.

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

the trick is that it's not being proud of being gay, it's being proud of having accepted one's gayness. it's celebrating the fact that you can live your life despite the social pressures, despite the negative feedback that you may receive.


i think that "i'm proud to be gay" or "i'm proud to be female" are, in reality, more "i'm proud to be openly gay" and "i'm proud to be a strong female"

This makes the statements more understandable to an outsider, but why did they not include the qualifiers? Pet Peeve of mine: non-exact language.

The qualifier openly makes perfect sence to me, since it requires that one has the gumption to go against often hostile surroundings, and gumption is something that one can make oneself do. The qualifier strong, however, is another case. My take on it is that either one is it or not, but that is like eye color: a personal trait that one can do much about. Therefore, claiming pride in strength is unwarranted, IMO.

Why do the not say "I am proud to be open", or "I am proud to be strong"? Seems more sensible to me.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

{snip} Anyone with a good counterexample, something that they think should warrant pride, but does not fulfill at least one of the critera stated above? Any other related thoughts?

I'm not sure your criteria 2 & 3 are necessary. (Actually I'm not sure I understand what your are saying in 3--is it that it must be an act that beneficially affects someone else?).

For a counterexample to #2 -- I'd think a schoolchild who doesn't have a great deal of native intelligence, but achieves good grades through dint of (extremely) hard work and studying could justifiably take pride in that accomplishment. (That may be a counterexample to #3, as well).

For a counterexample to #3--A person who builds his own house, entirely by hand, and alone, I think could justifiably take pride in that accomplishment.

--Philistine

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!

In another thread, it was written:

Since I am taking the statement out of context, I thought it proper to not include the poster name for now.

However, it got me thinking about something that I have noticed several times: People state that they are proud for something that I personally think does not warrant pride. Examples include citizenship, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic stratum, etc. All of those characteristics share a common trait: they are (mostly) accident of birth, and not something that the person stating his pride has done on their own. One could argue that sometimes people change citizenships or undergo sex change operations, but those are uncommon cases, not the norm.

IMO, in order to be rightfully proud of something, the thing that one is proud of must fulfill all the following criteria:
1. Be something that one has accomplished on one´s own, or at least mostly so. Traits that are genetic, economically inherited, or just plain luck, do not qualify.
2. They must be quite difficult, if something can be accomplished by many people it is not a good reason for pride.
3. Finally, and most importantly, the trait must be good to other people than the one who has it, and more good than bad for all people together.

I understand this is your opinion, but pride has a lot of different meanings, as Gav listed above. None of these meaning require what you seem to feel they should.

Pride often has a negative association with it as well. There is a huge distinction between a pride and self confidence (belief in oneself) as well. For example, some people are proud of objects, like a car, which have nothing to do with the self and can be taken away easily. This is the pitfall of pride, whereas confidence is based on achievements and cannot easily be taken away.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

I have read some people stating "I am proud to be a man", which does not fulfill any criteria. It is genetic, not uncommon, and of neutral value compared to the alternative for all around that person.

Being a man is not genetic. Being male is, but being a man is defined socially, and often varies individually. With this mind, being a man can require one to be confident, well adjusted, have a list of achievements, give to charity, etc... In other words, being a man means more than just having a penis, and is much to be proud of.

[Inquartata]

Well, I for one agree with you, Peter. ( Be afraid. )There has been a good deal of pride "inflation" latterly....people affect to feel pride in things that are not accomplishments, but states of being.

BTW, the current dictionary definition may simply reflect this inflation of the meaning of the word, just as it reflects a lot of, well, poor usages. The definition Gav cited is a recent one. ( It does not occur in Webster's Unabridged 1913 edition, for example. )

I am also a bit dismayed to see that a minority segment of society is not content with having completely coopted one word, "gay", but is now trying to do so with another, "pride".

Unless they think they are a group of lions or something...

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Well, I for one agree with you, Peter. ( Be afraid. )There has been a good deal of pride "inflation" latterly....people affect to feel pride in things that are not accomplishments, but states of being.

It's hard to argue with your opinion of 'pride inflation', but I seriously question it.

Pride, has never been considered a virtue, and is considered one of the 7 deadly sins, which implies that negative connotations have been associated with the word for quite some time.

It's possible that way back when, pride meant something slightly different, and there was a separate unrelated reason why it was considered a sin, but, I have seen nothing to lead me to believe this.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

BTW, the current dictionary definition may simply reflect this inflation of the meaning of the word, just as it reflects a lot of, well, poor usages. The definition Gav cited is a recent one. ( It does not occur in Webster's Unabridged 1913 edition, for example. )

Very good point, although you say it like it's a surprise or a bad thing. Language is constantly changing (evolving one might say) and the change usually starts from the lower classes/uneducated populace who are less bound by etiquette. Although, as I mentioned above, pride has, for some timenow, had negative connotations associated with it...

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I am also a bit dismayed to see that a minority segment of society is not content with having completely coopted one word, "gay", but is now trying to do so with another, "pride".

Well, not quite coopted. I mean one can be proud or be full of pride and no one will make any association with the minority segment. Now if one is going to Pride, that's another thing. And, FYI, Pride events exist in many countries besides just the US and Sweden, and I've always heard them referred to as Pride regardless of the native language.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Unless they think they are a group of lions or something...

Have you seen some of the costumes?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Philistine

I'm not sure your criteria 2 & 3 are necessary. (Actually I'm not sure I understand what your are saying in 3--is it that it must be an act that beneficially affects someone else?).

Bad wording by me. Let´s see if I get it right this time: I meant that in order to warrant pride, it must beneficially affect at least some of those around the person claiming pride, and that the total pros for those benficially affected must be larger then the total cons for those negatively affected. Hope that sounds more clear.

Originally Posted by Philistine

For a counterexample to #2 -- I'd think a schoolchild who doesn't have a great deal of native intelligence, but achieves good grades through dint of (extremely) hard work and studying could justifiably take pride in that accomplishment. (That may be a counterexample to #3, as well).

That is a valid counterexample, and one that I, when you remind me of it, have seen in a paper some time ago. I read about a Norwegian girl with Down´s syndrome who by applying herself had managed to get a High School diploma, and not in a special school, it was a usual school. She had several bad grades, but no failed ones. She also had one quite good grade - in social studies, IIRC.

If I rephrase criterion #2 to:
At least one of the following:
2a. They must be quite difficult, if something can be accomplished by many people it is not a good reason for pride.
2b. They must be difficult, given the factors that the person claiming pride can not control.

Then pride would be warranted if #1 AND #3 AND (#2a OR #2b) is true.

Originally Posted by Philistine

For a counterexample to #3--A person who builds his own house, entirely by hand, and alone, I think could justifiably take pride in that accomplishment.

--Philistine

I claim this to be an invalid counterexample, on the grounds that it actually fulfills #3. That person has increased the supply of housing, and when he decides to sell it prospective buyers will have more to chose from. If he does not sell it, his children will have more to inherit.

Always fun to discuss with someone who invariably posts well-thoughtout responses, and never gets overemotional!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by achilleus

I understand this is your opinion, but pride has a lot of different meanings, as Gav listed above. None of these meaning require what you seem to feel they should.

Well, In intended this thread to be about the should part.

Originally Posted by achilleus

Being a man is not genetic. Being male is, but being a man is defined socially, and often varies individually. With this mind, being a man can require one to be confident, well adjusted, have a list of achievements, give to charity, etc... In other words, being a man means more than just having a penis, and is much to be proud of.

Well, then your definition of man differs from mine. To me, it means all that fulfill all the following criteria:
1. Be a Homo Sapiens individual.
2. Be at least 18 years old.
3. Have at least one male genital organ.
4. Do not have any female genital organ.

I specifially do not include anything about behavior there. It is perfectly possible to be confident, well adjusted, have a list of achievements, give to charity, while at the same time be a person not fulfilling either #3 or #4. If someone is proud of their achievements - why not claim pride in them directly, rather than claiming pride in being a man? Less to argue with that way.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!



Well, In intended this thread to be about the should part.

I know, I realize that you want discuss what you think pride should be, but it's just not universal. In fact, when I think of the word pride, my first thought is negative associations with the word. Catholic school rearing it's ugly head, as well as phisophipcall reading. I prefer to be self confident, not proud.

You comment on how you hate imprecise language, well, language is a very fluid, imprecise notion. It's constantly changin, adding new words, new meaning, new things being named, and people are constantly adding there own thoughts on what a word means to them.

We all do it, and you provide a great example of it here. Another great example of people having personal definitions are the threads about what defines a sport.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Well, then your definition of man differs from mine. To me, it means all that fulfill all the following criteria:
1. Be a Homo Sapiens individual.
2. Be at least 18 years old.
3. Have at least one male genital organ.
4. Do not have any female genital organ.

I specifially do not include anything about behavior there. It is perfectly possible to be confident, well adjusted, have a list of achievements, give to charity, while at the same time be a person not fulfilling either #3 or #4. If someone is proud of their achievements - why not claim pride in them directly, rather than claiming pride in being a man? Less to argue with that way.

Your definition above describes an adult male.

The word man has multiple definitions, and again, there is a big difference between male and man. For example, in the Jewish culture, at the age of 13 males go through a ritual, and afterwards are deemed 'Men'. Now, when I see this 13 year old I think 'boy', but his culture tells him, he's a man now.

Other cultures also have specific tests that must be passed before a male can be considered a Man. These rites of passage make it clear that being a man is not just about a certain age and having a penis, but something more. Something that is defined by the society we live in.

In addition, you get many adult males that refer to themselves as women.

[Krazyhades]

People, the point that you are all forgetting is nationalism, a major force in shaping the 20th century, all around the globe. This, while the term pride may have been incorrect, one can tell that the poster means a nationalist pride, a pride of being part of a community.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Pride, has never been considered a virtue, and is considered one of the 7 deadly sins, which implies that negative connotations have been associated with the word for quite some time.

That is a statement filled with categoricals ( "never"? ). I mean, the whole deadly sins list is a Judeo-Christian thing, to begin with. Thus I wonder if it's really universally condemned. But in any event, the perception seems to be changing ( perhaps as a result of the diminution of religiousity in modern opinion social "leadership" groups such as the media and academe ). Certainly "gay pride" does not seem to be taken negatively by its proponents and the liberal-minded. Nor do such slogans as "Say it loud/I'm black and I'm proud" or "I'm proud to be an American" seem to connote negativity...

Very good point, although you say it like it's a surprise or a bad thing.

It can be...or not. Like most things, it depends. Linguistic changes can be valuable or corruptive. Neologisms might be an example of the former; I'd put Snoop Dog's izzle nonsense in the latter category.

Language is constantly changing (evolving one might say) and the change usually starts from the lower classes/uneducated populace who are less bound by etiquette.

Yes, and it's fascinating. One discovery that tickled me was that the 'ebonics' pronunciation of the word "ask"---that is, "aks"---is actually an earlier but then-standard pronunciation than the modern Standard English one.

Well, not quite coopted. I mean one can be proud or be full of pride and no one will make any association with the minority segment.

For the moment. OTOH one can no longer use "gay" in its erstwhile sense without someone sniggering.

Have you seen some of the costumes?

Bare costumes seem a lot more common than lion ones. Oh my.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

That is a statement filled with categoricals ( "never"? ). I mean, the whole deadly sins list is a Judeo-Christian thing, to begin with. Thus I wonder if it's really universally condemned.

When mentioning virtue and sin, I was of course referring to the whole Judeo-Christian thing. It's a very good point that it may not be universal. However, pride has had negative connotations for quite some time...

And to my knowledge has never required that which Peter claims it should require.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

But in any event, the perception seems to be changing ( perhaps as a result of the diminution of religiousity in modern opinion social "leadership" groups such as the media and academe ). Certainly "gay pride" does not seem to be taken negatively by its proponents and the liberal-minded. Nor do such slogans as "Say it loud/I'm black and I'm proud" or "I'm proud to be an American" seem to connote negativity...

As noted above in the definition, and as I'm advocating, pride means many different things to many different people. What you and Peter seem to be commenting on is how pride is often confused/abused/interchanged with self confidence gained through achievements.

For example, I've been taught that (and it's old saying) that one can take 'pride in a job well done.' You worked hard and accomplished something, so take some pride (confidence) in that accomplishment. One however, can be proud of their expensive new car, and this has nothing to with the person gaining confidence through accomplishment. This latter sort of pride is the dangerous/negative pride. It can be taken away easily, and doesn't really change the person, just the perception.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

It can be...or not. Like most things, it depends. Linguistic changes can be valuable or corruptive. Neologisms might be an example of the former; I'd put Snoop Dog's izzle nonsense in the latter category.

I would just say it is a fact that language evolves and changes, neither good nor bad, but necessary. Without this change our language would become obselete.

The way we speak and write today would considered vulgar and nonsensical compared to earlier times. And in the future, 'izzle' may become standard and proper.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

For the moment. OTOH one can no longer use "gay" in its erstwhile sense without someone sniggering.

What's funny, is that I've never been able to use the word gay without the sniggering. I've grown up with that word constantly associated with a 'alternative' lifestyle. So, while you say one can 'no longer', I think 'wow I can't think of a time when 'gay' just meant 'happy'.

And perhaps in the future, the definition for gay=happy will be listed as archaic or obselete in the dictionary...

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Bare costumes seem a lot more common than lion ones. Oh my.

[Epee_Pox]

I use "proud" when I'm referring to anything on which I base some measure of self worth or respect. And not just my own, but also that of others, vicariously.

For example, if I felt that my self worth was enhanced by the actions and policies of my country, I would say that I was proud to be an American.

Or, if I felt that my self-respect was enhanced by the fact that I had accomplished some achievement, I would say that I was proud of that achievement.

And, if I felt that a young child's achievements ought to enhance his self worth or respect, as if he just learned to tie his shoes, I would say that I was proud of him.

I think this pretty much covers all the meanings, not too much vagueness there.