Joe Collier: In defence of arrogance
7 Jul, 09 | by julietwalker
If I am to believe my critics, I am arrogant. By definition, arrogance is usually used pejoratively (as are such terms as unpatriotic, subversive, anti-establishment, irreverent, all of which I have been accused over the years), and describes people who have an exaggerated (inflated) view of their abilities (especially when compared to other’s); tend to dismiss the views of others in preference to their own; are interested in themselves rather than in others; and are self satisfied or overbearing in their comportment. While this set of definitions paints a picture of people who are unsavoury, is there another side to the story? Can aspects of arrogant behaviour be normal, defendable, and in some circumstances a necessary (probably an essential) part of conduct? Does this sort of label matter and anyway, who decides? Is it time for a rethink?
In the post second world war, middle class, environment of my childhood (late 40s, early 50s), everybody knew that well behaved people (and certainly children) did not ‘blow their own trumpets’, did not show off, did not indicate pleasure in achievement, did not brag, and would never put themselves above others. Ideally, we were supposed to be a modest, demure, and self deprecating. How this contrasted with the behaviour in my own family where my mother, who was a successful and charismatic actress, was brash, outspoken, pushy, proud, critical, and certainly did not hold back from promoting herself above others.
It was not until my adolescence that I resolved this culture clash. Ultimately, I decided that honesty was the pivotal issue. How could a classmate who had come top of the form not say that he was pleased, or someone who had trained hard towards some sporting event and then won say ‘it was nothing’, and even go on to deny they had trained at all. I decided that if I was good at something I should be prepared to say so; if I was happy in achievement, I would declare my pride; if I did not like someone or something, I had every right to speak up; if I felt I had a better solution to a problem than others, I should champion it. Certainly, the alternative approach, in which I saw the drive for modesty as getting in the way of clear thinking, as a form of self deception, as a distorted approach to self evaluation and self awareness, as the creation of a set of unreal values; was (and remains) not for me.
Whatever else, arrogance is a matter of interpretation. What some might describe as frank, confident, assertive, challenging, questioning, persistent or demanding, others could interpret as arrogance.
Arrogance is also often used to describe a full character trait (‘he or she is arrogant’), when that person’s pride might relate to only a small part of their lives. Most people can rightly be arrogant in matters relating to a domain in which they have true expertise/prowess (the most perfect roses at the flower show). Here, a public display of pride and pleasure seems thoroughly justifiable, while in most other spheres of their lives they remain unassuming.
Conversely, there is one form of arrogance that is global but seems almost universal, accepted, and disregarded. In it, one person tells the other person what he or she can do and even curtails their freedom, often gives no explanation, and if there is debate says ‘its because I say so’. I am talking of parenthood. What on earth do children think we adults are?
Finally there are circumstances where arrogant behaviour, as for example where decision-making blatantly overrides the views of others, is valued and even essential. Here, based on their experience, the person in question has to stand apart from others and believe in their own judgment above others, in circumstances where explanations or arguments will never be universally acceptable. I do not think one could be an effective judge, senior academic, doctor, or even an editor, without at times having to behave with arrogance. Having said that, in coming to such decisions, judgments should made within an agreed structure, should be consistent with societal norms, should not be designed or undertaken to hurt others, nor delivered with any sense of gratuitous pleasure.
I know that on many occasions I will have behaved in a way consistent with the word ‘arrogant’ when for instance - curtailing discussion (as the chair of a meeting), failing a student (as a PhD examiner), rejecting or rewriting a manuscript (as an editor), making a difficult treatment decisions (as a clinician), and, of course, writing a blog (or any other commentary/opinion piece). After all, how could I have written this (or any other) blog if I were not arrogant - only an arrogant person would think their views interesting enough to be read by others.
In my view arrogance has a bad name and its use needs a re-think. Arrogance is certainly not necessarily all bad and in some circumstances is essential. As long as I know what I am doing, am ‘arrogant’ in good faith, and my arrogance is not set to hurt unreasonably, then I am happy to live with the way I operate. But, of course, if I were arrogant, that is what I would say anyway.
Joe Collier is emeritus professor of medicines policy at St George’s, University of London
Its all about definitions I guess, what you describe isn’t arrogance to me. The definition I hold to is along the lines that an arrogant person rejects what someone says without looking into (or even ignoring) whether its correct or not, and makes fun of people.
D Marikar
July 7th, 2009 at 8:49 am
Interesting post. I would probably be tempted to leave the word alone though as I think it does quite a useful job. It clearly has its root in the verb ‘to arrogate’, which is to claim or appropriate for oneself without justification. Adjectively it therefore refers to displaying an exaggerated sense of self-worth or importance. Exaggeration is the key. The evil to which it points is the evil of misrepresentation: a tendency to present ourselves as more than we are. This tendency may be universal, although in some it is obviously more highly developed. Arrogance can therefore be usefully distinguished from confidence or professional pride, which do not seek to misrepresent. It might be interesting to consider an antonym such as humility. Some argue that this can be a form of misrepresentation, a slightly craven attempt to deny our own inevitable egotism. I guess the one benefit of humility is that, from the view point of eternity, if we don’t think too much of ourselves we are unlikely to be wrong.
Julian Sheather
July 8th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Thank you very much!
Dunk Sb shoes
July 9th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
I believe this argument is one of semantic meaning. People who are in the position of making complex judgements and taking important and difficult actions often need to be self-assured, able to make a decision based on complex information from a variety of different sources, provide responses and feedback that might be unwelcome or upsetting and rely on the value of experience and expertise to guide action. These virtues, however, are not synonymous with arrogance and are free from the negative connotations of the word’s accepted definition; an exaggerated sense of self importance or abilities. It is not unusual for people in positions of high status and power to erroneously assume that they have greater expertise, knowledge and skills than colleagues or, specifically in health care, the patient; there are few things worse than arrogance within professional and personal relationships to endure. The antonym of humility, in Soren Kirekgaards’ words, is where true helping begins. Humbling oneself to the person to be helped or worked with enables understanding. This process does not work through attempts to dominate that can breed contempt and poor interpersonal relations. I fear that promoting the word arrogance among young people in their professional training might result in highly problematic working practices. Let’s not redefine the word.
andrew brennan
July 10th, 2009 at 10:14 am
We should strive to teach all young people to be self confident without being arrogant. The first is, in my opinion, a very desirable way of being, especially when exercising professional duties. The second is an attitude to be avoided at all costs as it only alienates and offends people
Susana
July 10th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
The key problem is - Who decides?. One person speaking from a position of ‘confidence or professional pride’(to quote Julian Sheather)can be seen by another (opposition/ lobbyist/the public etc etc) as behaving arrogantly. I, for instance, was often accused of arrogance by my fellow consultants for not accepting applications for new medicines when I was chair of the local Drugs and Therapeutics Committee. Moreover, no end of argument dissuaded them. It seems that we (doctors, and those in like positions) need to accept that we are seen as arrogant, recognise what this means, and then
justify the position we have taken. Simply to pretend that we are above arrogance is not a solution’
joe collier
July 10th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Who decides should be he or she deemed responsible enough to make the decision; who has good enough reasoning skills to weigh up the relevant supporting information and arguments; and, importantly who has good enough communication skills to explain clearly why the rationale for a decision has been made. Accusations of ‘arrogance’ under such circumstances may be misplaced rebukes in the event of a conflict of opinion; such conflicts are unavoidable when working with highly complex matters. An ‘arrogant’ decision maker would be one who’s hubris did not allow for the balancing of other’s opinions or available evidence for reaching a decision. This is because he or she considers themselves so much more competant to be above the influence of cogent sources of alternative information. The inherent lack of reflectivity in the arrogant decision maker makes one a dangerous decision maker.
andrew brennan
July 11th, 2009 at 2:34 pm