Deference

Andrew Chang
Deference

(I was writing my sea lion article for a bit but I didn’t like where it was going so I decided to write it on another topic that I felt would be an okay and perhaps less ridiculous opinion.)

It seems that somewhere down the line we forget who we wanted ourselves to be. We began in elementary school: brave soldiers looking out into a new frontier wondering what we could conquer. It continued throughout middle school—perhaps then with a touch of realism and the realization that perhaps we were not all meant to be astronauts and kings. Then, with the swiftness of a dropping bomb, high school hits. And it is here, in the grave of our dreams, where rebirth can be realized and found.

It seems counterintuitive to aspire yet constantly defer to other people at the same time. Students frequently envision a specific peer (or peers) to be an academic Adonis, disallowing themselves the chance or opportunity of surpassing that particular individual. It hits us particularly hard in school—with a competitive academic environment, it’s sometimes clear who gets the grades and who struggles to pass the classes. But only through cementing the position of those currently better than us (“You’re so smaaaaart” and “I hate being in a class with her; she always sets the curve”) can we finally and completely lose hope. For it is when we defer and lose our confidence in self that we can give up for good.

Modesty can sometimes be deference in disguise; in the same way that there are average people unwilling to allow themselves to become better, there are also exceptional people who deny themselves the opportunity of advancement. It is crucial to realize that confidence isn’t necessarily a bad thing; if anything, it is something that should be praised. In any competitive atmosphere, confidence involves treading on the toes of those around us—and it often is passed off as arrogance. But I say that this doctrine is nothing short of ridiculous. The perpetuation of a cycle of deference and forced modesty only leads to less innovation and less success.

When a person does not do well, their mindset ought not be one of dismay or surrender. Rather, it should encapsulate a general feeling of competition: of coming back better than before and obtaining the goal so elusive and far away. In essence, it is obvious—we can only do things if we try. Failure is no reason to believe that someone is better than the other; rather, it should only be the impetus for improvement.

It seems that somewhere down the line we forget who we wanted ourselves to be. We began in elementary school: brave soldiers looking out into a new frontier, wondering what we could conquer. It continued throughout middle school—perhaps then with a touch of realism and the realization that perhaps [the usage of "perhaps" and "realism"/"realization" is repetitive] we were not all meant to be astronauts and kings. Then, with the swiftness [I can't really come up with a good alternative, but I do think that this word is awkward] of a dropping bomb, high school hits. And it is here, in the grave of our dreams, where rebirth can be realized ["realized" is repetitive] and found.

It seems counterintuitive to aspire yet constantly defer to other people at the same time. Students frequently envision a specific peer (or peers) to be an academic Adonis, disallowing themselves the chance or [delete "or opportunity"] opportunity of surpassing [change to "to surpass"] that particular individual. It hits us particularly hard in school—with [change to "within such"] a competitive academic environment, it’s sometimes [change to "often" clear who gets the grades and who struggles to pass the classes. But only through cementing the position of those currently better than us (“You’re so smaaaaart” and “I hate being in a class with her; she always sets the curve”) can we finally and completely lose hope. For it is when we defer and lose our confidence in self that we can give up for good. [I'm kind of confused-- you make it sound like it's good to give up and lose confidence? I'm not sure if I'm missing what your point is or if your wording is misleading...]

Modesty can sometimes be deference in disguise; in the same way that there are average people unwilling to allow themselves to become better, there are also exceptional people who deny themselves the opportunity of advancement. It is crucial to realize that confidence isn’t necessarily a bad thing; [the semicolon usage is repetitive] if anything, it is something that should be praised. In any competitive atmosphere, confidence involves treading on the toes of those around us—and it often is passed off as arrogance. But I say that this doctrine is nothing short of ridiculous. The perpetuation of a cycle of deference and forced modesty only leads to less innovation and less success.

When a person does not do well, their mindset ought not be one of dismay or surrender. Rather, it should encapsulate a general feeling of competition: of coming back better than before and of obtaining the [change to "that"] goal so elusive and far away. In essence, it is obvious—we can only do things if we try. Failure is no reason to believe that someone is better than the other [change to "than another"]; rather, it should only [delete "only"] be the impetus for improvement.

I think what's confusing me is that "deference" is usually a positive term: I looked it up to make sure I wasn't wrong, and the word's synonyms were respect and honor..... so maybe when you refer to deference, you should refer to it as [forced] deference, like you refer to modesty? I don't know, but I am pretty sure that the word has a positive connotation, not a negative like you portray it to be.]