| Photo by Yasin Yusuf on Unsplash
I had an eye-opening experience on one of my business trips to Asia. A foreign friend called my attention to how I should observe some protocols when conducting myself in public. It wasn’t about me stumbling drunk or engaging in some embarrassing behavior. It was about demonstrating magnanimous and generous behavior towards a person of lesser status than me. She did not explain it this way, but I somewhat figured out what she meant by her curt comment.
Apparently, in her society, there are certain social expectations in inter-personal interactions dictated by how others perceive one’s status. The higher the attributed social status, the steeper the expectations are. The most important of the expected behavior or attitude is that of magnanimity. I was struck by this cultural practice and thought how awesome it is.
The attribution of higher social status is based not solely on personal wealth but also on intangible attributes. A person’s education, experience, special talent, expertise, or sheer strength of personality makes a person a desirable leader of men also propels one to such esteemed status. However, such status carries its own responsibility and sets of social expectations. Foremost, such an individual is expected to be “magnanimous” in the conduct of his affairs or his interpersonal interactions with other people, especially those “beneath” him.
I believe this practice goes back to a Confucian time and perhaps the basis of how public servants should conduct themselves both in their private and public life. I can still see some traces of it in how prominent figures present themselves in public these days. However, they concern themselves only with appearances, how people see them but are rarely mindful of the incongruence between their public and private lives. Often, efforts to be magnanimous are merely a show to get votes or public approval. The essence of the ancient practice of magnanimity is lost.
“The practice of magnanimity among those vested with power by the nation’s community or citizens is part of a social contract between the leader and the people he governs. The social contract, informal or formal, such as a national constitution, defines the scope of power of the office a leader occupies.”
The universality of this principle is evident. It is the basis of how we must order social relations in society such that the strong and the gifted would be compelled by an internal standard or social expectations set by the mechanism of social pressure, which is society’s power to confer social status based on material and personal merits.
This, too, guarantees that the strong and powerful will protect and provide for those of lesser status or who are unable to fend for themselves. This is the way it has been since man decided to live together and form social units that led to the formation of the tribe, town, city, and nation. It is a natural law based on man’s social nature. Unfortunately, today, we rarely see its natural form, only its corrupted version.
The practice of magnanimity among those vested with power by the nation’s community or citizens is part of a social contract between the leader and the people he governs. The social contract, informal or formal, such as a national constitution, defines the scope of power of the office a leader occupies. It guarantees that a leader will be restrained from exercising power to the detriment of the nation and its people. It also requires a disciplined observance of social norms to blunt the pursuit of personal interest against the nation’s interest and maintain the integrity of the office.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Dr. Fernando B. Perfas is an addiction specialist who has written several books and articles on the subject. He currently provides training and consulting services to various government and non-government drug treatment agencies regarding drug treatment and prevention approaches. He can be reached at fbperfas@gmail.com.
