Abstract
This study examined how the moral value of ‘respecting elders’ was constructed in the interaction between parents and young children between 3 and 5 years of age. The everyday conversations between parent- child dyad were subjected to discourse analysis. The analysis suggested that in the parent–child everyday interaction what on the surface appears to be the selfless moral value of ‘respecting elders’ carried an alternate implied meaning. It seemed that the value of ‘respecting elders’ is contingent on some favours or other gains, rather than being just by virtue of ‘age’. The conclusion drawn from discourse analysis was later also validated by means of semi-structured interview of the parents. In this paper the focus is primarily on the discursive part of the study, nevertheless the data of the interview helps in establishing how parents actually conceptualized the value of ‘respecting elders’.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Realizing the limitations of acultural and individualistic nature of research in the field of morality ,constrained to the framework of cognitive developmental psychology, there has been an impetus to bring in cultural perspective (e.g., Haidt and Joseph 2004; Shweder et al. 1997). The present study attempts to explore the moral value of ‘respecting elders’. This value does not lie in the domain of morality, according to the traditional, much cited definition given by Turiel (1983, p3). However, with the expansion of moral domain (Saxena and Babu 2013) as marked by the inclusion of the cultural input, the value of ‘respecting elders’ have gained a moral status. Theoretically, it can be said to lie under the category of ‘authority/ subversion’, one of the five psychological foundations of moral domain as proposed by Haidt and Joseph 2004; Graham et al. 2015.
This value is of great importance in collectivist culture. In the Indian context of parent–child interaction ‘respect’ for parents is undoubtedly one of the first moral lessons of the children. Several rituals and practices such as touching feet of the elders and using appropriate address forms as a marker of respect are very common. For example, elder girl is addressed as ‘didi (elder sister)’, or elder boy as ‘bhaiya’ (elder brother). Several studies provide support for the importance of this value in the collectivist culture. In a study Tuli and Chaudhary (2010) found that the mothers provided agency to their children (3 to 6 years of age) in certain domains and situations, in accordance to relative priority attached to them. For example the mothers granted autonomy in choosing what to wear or in T.V watching, but rules pertinent to eating food were considered relatively non-negotiable. However, in comparison to the value of ‘respecting elders’, rules regarding food seemed more negotiable. Thus, respecting elders was considered by the middle class urban Indian mothers as a higher order value. Other studies too have shown the importance of this moral value in the collectivist /inter-dependent culture (Greenfield and Cocking 1994; Harwood et al. 1995; Hoff-Ginsberg and Tardif 1995; Markus and Kitayama 1991). These studies though emphasize on the importance of this value, but they do not explicate the meaning ascribed to this construct. The present study endeavours to fill this lacuna, and understand what parents actually teach their children by the value of ‘respecting elders’. This involves two things: (a) what parents themselves believe this value to mean, (b) how the meaning of this value is constructed in the everyday interaction between children and parents.
The belief of the parents has been studied by means of semi-structured interview. However, these conventional methods do not allow us to study the meaning making process. For example, in this case semi structured interview provided the information about parent’s belief, but it cannot explicate how this belief is actually practiced. In other words conventional methods help in knowing what participants want the researcher to know, but the actual process of implementation is not explored. In fact such methods decontextualize the construct being studied, stripping it off its ecological validity. Such shortcomings can be overcome by tapping everyday conversations around the construct being studied and analysing them through discourse analysis (Potter 2003). This method has an advantage of helping uncover the gaps between preaching and practising; or to say between belief and actual teaching. This method of study helps to investigate the behaviour in question as it is embedded in culture. As contested by Sinha ,D. (2002) it helps in exploring culture as a system which gives meaning to the construct being studied , rather than considering it as an extrinsic behaviour inducing condition. The present study endeavours to explore the meaning ascribed to the construct in the given socio-cultural milieu, rather than going with a preconceived meaning, and finding the antecedents or explanatory factors for it. In the present study all incidences in which parents- children talked about the value of ‘respecting elders’ were recorded , transcribed and subjected to discourse analysis.. The discourses about ‘respecting elders’ involved indications by mothers for misbehavior of children; which included pronouncing their names, passing derogatory remark, or not acknowledging them etc. Henceforth children were given the lesson of not doing so as this is not an appropriate way of behaving with elders (parents or grandparents).
The study undertaken endeavours to investigate the moral value of ‘respecting elders’ comprehensively by investigating how parent’s conceptualize it at the level of belief , and the meaning that is ascribed to it in everyday discourse between parents and children.
Method
Participants
Twelve families living in New Delhi (India) from upper middle socio-economic status participated in the study. Of these, 6 families had either of the parents working in the government sector, and the remaining families had parent (s) working in private sector. Out of these 10 were nuclear having father, mother and children serving as a unit. While one family had the grandparents living with them, and the other had grandparents as well as other extended family members living together. The families included in the study had at least one child in the age range of 3–5 years. In fact the study is based on the interaction between this child and the parents (or grandparents).
The same families participated in both part of the study. While in the first part (discursive study) all 12 families participated, in the second part (semi-structured interview) only 7 of these parents could be interviewed.
Procedure
The study was carried out in two stages:
-
(a)
In the first stage, the parents (grandparents) were asked to audio record the interactions they have with the child (3–5 years), and incidences related to ‘respecting elders’ were later transcribed and subjected to discourse analysis.
-
(b)
In the second stage of data collection a semi structured interview was carried out with the parents. The interviews, like discourses were transcribed and then subjected to thematic analysis.
In the first stage for the purpose of recording conversations a voice recorder was left with the family initially for 2 weeks. They were requested to record the conversation they have with the child. The parents were asked to record whenever was convenient to them and there was no disturbance in the surrounding. Also, though the recorder was initially given for 2 weeks, however on an average the recorder was left with the family for 1 month. Each family had the recording of an average of 6 h. In order to remind the parents the researcher was in touch and sent messages intermittently. The parents were also provided with a small pouch in which they were suggested to keep the recorder and hang the pouch on their shoulders. This way it was convenient to carry the recorder while doing different chores and the recording went on in natural course. The recordings were then transcribed according to Jefferson (1984) and Du Bois (1991) notations, with some adaptations as per the convenience in typing, and was subjected to discourse analysis.
For the purpose of semi-structured interview, an interview schedule was formed. It basically comprised of questions aimed at validating the findings of discursive research and exploring the belief of the participants regarding the moral value under study. This was tapped by asking following two questions:
-
1)
What do parents mean by ‘elders’ when mentioning the value of respecting elders? ( This question helps in knowing how parents’ conceptualize the value)
-
2)
Do they imply to respect a chronologically older person or mean to respect a more experienced/ competent person and someone who extends benefits to them? (This question further helps in explicating parent’s belief about the value and also in validating the finding of the discursive research).
The interview was scheduled as per the availability of the participants.
Data Analysis
Discourse Analysis
Following steps were carried out to do the discourse analysis:
-
(i)
Of all the transcriptions related to moral values, those incidences were set aside which seemed to talk about ‘respecting elders’. These were those incidences where the parents had pointed out at the child’s misbehaviour with the elders, and ask him/ her to behave in an ‘appropriate’ way. This process of selecting incidences having a common theme to build a corpus of data is called coding.
-
(ii)
Next, after having a corpus of data, the researcher closely reads the discourses and deduces certain ideas (or in other words form certain hypothesis).
-
(iii)
The researcher then tries to validate these ideas by searching for a pattern throughout all the incidences of the corpus of data.
The fine grained analysis which involves searching of the pattern and validation of the initial hypothesis is guided by the following theoretical principles of discursive psychology:
-
(a)
Action orientation: Discourse is considered to act as a medium for carrying out actions, thereby making psychological mechanisms tangible and observable.
-
(b)
Discourse is situated: Actions are situated sequentially, i.e., a particular action gives way to the next plausible action.
-
(c)
Construction: Discourse is both constructive and constructed. It is constructed by means of words, categories, grammatical structures, cultural ideas etc. At the same time discourse is constructive, as it seems to create versions of reality.
-
(d)
Focus on deviant cases: At times there are cases in the corpus of data that are deviant. Such cases are analytically very rich and provide us an opportunity to investigate the robustness of our analysis
(For details of the theory and steps of discursive psychology, refer to Potter 2003, Discourse analysis and discursive psychology)
Thematic Analysis
The thematic analysis of the interview conducted was deductive/ theory driven in nature, occurring at explicit / semantic level only, as the researcher already had findings which simply needed to be validated. Following were the steps involved:
-
(i)
Compilation of the transcribed responses to each of the question of the 7 participant parents.
-
(ii)
The responses were then coded. Codes identify a feature of the data that appears interesting to the analyst. It refers to “the most basic segment, or element, of the raw data or information that can be assessed in a meaningful way regarding the phenomenon” (Boyatzis 1998)
-
(iii)
Generating themes: The codes are then sorted into different themes on the basis of similarity.
-
(iv)
Reviewing and revising themes: This involves forming a coherent pattern and arranging a hierarchy, starting from broad themes which might include sub-themes, which in turn shall include codes.
-
(v)
Finally an interpretative report linking themes/ subthemes / and codes is formed.
(For details refer to Braun, and Clarke 2006, Using thematic analysis in psychology.)
Result and Discussion
For want of space the original incidences were broken into small units and only those extracts which directly contribute to the conclusion have been included. The initial two extracts are examples of how parents want to teach their children to respect elders simply by virtue of ‘age’.
Extract 1
The mother (M) has bought the child (C, Paakhi, 5 years old) from her school. On entering the home, she asks the child to greet the grandfather (G), who is already present in the house, which was not in child’s knowledge.
1 M: dekho baba aayein hain , namastey karo !
M: Look grandfather has come, say hello!
2 C: no reply
3 M: paakhi namastey karo
M: paakhi say hello !
4 G: namastey beta
G: hello child
5 M: ↑paakhi beta namastey -pahele namastey karo ..namastey karo pahele , namastey kiya jata hai na jab bada koi ata hai
M: ↑paakhi child hello – first say hello..say hello first , you say hello when someone elder comes.
Extract 2
The mother (M) is playing with the child (C, Shaanu, 3 years) in the park. The child greets an elder (E) who passes by, by taking his name. The mother objects to it.
1 C: hi ajay !
2 E: hi beta !
3 M: shanu naam nahi lete bhaiya , uncle bolo ,beta !
M: shanu you don’t take name , say uncle ,child!
The above two instances exemplify how parents teach children to address elders in a particular manner as a mark of respect. In the first instance, the mother directly, rather emphatically asks the child to greet ‘Namaste’ to the grandfather (line 3), and gives her a general teaching to do so in front of elders (line 5). In the second incidence too the mother directly teaches the child to not to address the elder by name, and call him uncle (line 4).
Thus, parents seem to mediate their children’s everyday verbal interaction with elders even if it is limited to customary greetings and address. Such kind of intervention from parents right from early childhood ,though initially at behavioural level is likely to orient the child to later develop a deeper and more profound understanding of ‘respecting elders’. In another study the construct of ‘respect’ has been defined operationally on the basis of behavioural observation of the interaction between mother-daughter during a conflict situation (Dixon et al. 2008). In this study daughters were scored on their listening behaviours, including attending to their mothers when mothers were speaking, not interrupting their mothers, and acknowledging their mothers’ comments (nodding or verbally affirming what their mothers have said), and their defiant behaviours, including disobeying their mothers’ requests, being unwilling to cooperate with their mothers, and ignoring their mothers during the interaction. Both sets of behaviours have been identified as components of respect for parental authority (e.g., Briggs 1986; Harwood et al. 2002).
In the following incidences it is evident that though parents want to teach their child to respect ‘elders’, in practise they reduce this virtue to materialistically motivated idea of give-and take. Giving respect because the person benefits you or is more competent , rather than by virtue of the age.
Extract 3
This idea is illustrated with the help of an incidence where the mother (M) is making the child (C) do her homework. The mother engages the child in doing it by playing ‘who comes first’, wherein the mother creates a competitive situation. The mother challenges and says ‘let’s see who finishes first, the child her homework or the mother who has to count till 100’. The mother in between her counting, keeps giving directions to the child to write properly , keeps encouraging the child , and in order to keep the spirit of the game acts as if she has forgotten to count while she has been talking to her. The child responds to mother’s forgetfulness by calling her ‘buddhu’, to which the mother retorts back.
27 M: 80, 81, 82 (slow) wow aap toh kitna acha three bana rahey ho ..good girl ! arrey main bhool gayi 83 , 84 …90 ..95 ..arrey ! apney toh complete kar liya !wow! good girl , main toh second aa gayi ab kya hoga !
M: 80, 81, 82 (slow) wow you are making beautiful ‘three’ ..good girl ! oh I have forgotten 83 , 84 …90 ..95 ..oh ! you have finished ! wow ! good girl , I am second , now what will happen !
28 C: @@@@ buddhu kahin ke@@
C: @@@@ You fool @@
29 M: hmm buddhu nahi kaehtey mumma ko , aap toh duffer ho
M: hmm you don’t call the mother as fool , you are duffer
30 C: aap ho duffer
C: you are duffer
31 M: wow ma’am ne apko star diya na , kal bhi apko ma’am star degi , kitna acha banaya apney three ..chalo ab ninu kartey hain , ab yeh ‘H’ sham ko banengey .
M: wow ma’am has given you star , tomorrow too she will give you star , you have made such good three.. come lets sleep , now this ‘H’ we will make in evening
Here after attaining victory the child passes a derogatory remark to the mother (line 28). In fact she continues to do so, even after mother’s forbidding (line 30). This adds support to the earlier proposition that though the parents want to command respect for elders (by virtue of age), they unknowingly communicate the idea of respecting a more competent person (and not just an older person). Here as the child establishes herself as the one who is more competent, by attaining victory, she takes the liberty of calling the mother ‘buddhu’ (fool). Looking at the above incidence from the mother’s perspective, the mother after discouraging the child to pass derogatory remark , does exactly the same thing for the child. Thus, indicating that the younger cannot say ill words to the elder, even though the elder can do it. Further , the mother unwittingly reinforces the value of competence in the child , as after the child in a tit-for- tat manner calls the mother duffer , she does not take up the issue ,rather congratulates the child on her work (line 31).
Extract 4
In another instance there is a fight between the sister (C, 5 years) and the brother (Adarsh, 3 years). The mother (M) tries to resolve the conflict.
14 M: faltoo main jagda nahi karna , jhagda zara bhi kiya toh maar kha jaoggey tum log baba se , baba ko bahut gussa aa raha hai
M: Don’t fight without any reason, if you fight even little you will be beaten by grandfather , he is getting very angry
16 M: aur apna kaam khud karo , uskey chakkar main mat pado, Adarsh ke .. .. bekaar main ladtey rahtey ho!
M: and do your work on your own , don’t get involved with Adarsh .. you keep fighting in vain!
17 C: mummy pagal !
C: mummy is mad !
18 M: ↑haan nahi aungi , kal se nahi aungi , pagal log kisi ko lene nahi atey hain , kal se tumko lene nahi aungi baithi rahena .. theek hai ?
M: ↑ ok will not come, from tomorrow will not come , mad people don’t come to pick anyone , from tomorrow onwards will not come to pick you up keep sitting ..ok?
19 C: lene ana !
C: come to pick me !
20 M: pagal hoon main ! pagal log kahan gaddi chala patey hain!
M: I am mad ! where do mad people drive car!
21 C: nah-nah-nahi
C: no-no!
The sister passes a derogatory remark to the mother (line 17). The mother very sharply replies back, rather threatens that now on she shall not come to pick the child from the school as she is mad (18, 20). This indicates that the mother is angry with the child for calling her mad, however she does not straightforwardly forbids the child from doing it. She rather threatens the child to take away the favour extended to her. Therefore, here the mother does not use her position of being elder, but her power to extend favours to command respect.
Extract 5
(For the purpose of clarity this extract has been broken into four sub-sections; 5a, 5b, 5c and 5d).
In yet another incidence the child (C, Shanu, 3 years old) does not acknowledge the grandmother (G) who has entered her room. Her lack of acknowledgement is interpreted negatively by the grandmother. The incidence is also mediated by the father (F), and mother (M).
Extract (5a)
1 G(granny) : hai ! kitna thanda kamra hai ! band kar diya jaye AC !
G: oh! The room is so cold ! shut the A.C!
2 F: band kar do !band kar do , remote dikha nahi yahan pe mujhe . yeh raha !
F: Shut the A.C! shut it , I couldn’t see the remote here , here it is !
(switches off the A.C)
3 F: kaun aya shanu ?..shanu kaun aya ?↑ shanu kaun aya ?
F: who has come shanu?..who has come shanu? ↑shanu who has come ?
4 C: pata nahi !
C: (I) don’t know !
5 G: kaun aya ?
G: who has come?
6 C: pata nahi
C: don’t know
The grandmother enters the room and asks to switch off the A.C, as the room is too cool (line 1). The father switches off the A.C . He asks the child to tell who has come (line 3). The father’s question seem to be symbolic of making the grandmother feel wanted and to invite her to join them , as it is otherwise obvious that the child knows who she is . However, contrary to father’s expectation the child does not give a positive response (line 4, 6). The child might have said so either because she is being playful, or maybe because she is enjoying with the father and doesn’t want to include anyone else
Extract (5b)
7 G: pata nahi ! theek hai hum ja rahey hain !
G: Don’t know! Ok I am going !
8 F: nahi-nahi dadi ruk jao !
F: no-no granny stop!
9 G: jab pata nahi , faltoo log aa jatey hain kamre main to kya fayada !
G: when doesn’t know , useless people enter the room then what’s the use!
10 F: bolo dadi ruk jao .. .. dadi chali gayein !
F: ask granny to stop.. granny has gone !
11 F: shanu apney dadi ko kyon nahi roka ? ..aap batao shanu apney dadi ko kyon nahi roka ?
F: shanu why didn’t you stop granny ? You tell shanu why didn’t you stop granny?
12 C: no reply
13 F: haan shanu?
F : yes shanu ?
The grandmother too wants the child to acknowledge her, therefore she herself asks the child to identify her (line 5). But the child does not give a positive response. The grandmother then shows her displeasure by announcing that she is leaving the room (line 7). At this point the father indirectly urges the child to stop her grandmother, by himself saying so on behalf of the child, and later even asks directly to stop the grandmother from leaving (line 8, 10). The child however doesn’t stop the grandmother. The grandmother finally leaves the room and passes the verdict that as she is unimportant or unwanted therefore there is no point staying in the room (line 9). The father after the grandmother’s exit asks the child thrice why didn’t she stop the grandmother (line 11 &13), implying that the child owes a justification for an inappropriate action.
Extract (5c)
Later on the same day, the mother (who was initially not present) refers to this same incidence and mentions how she has hurt the grandmother.
1 M: aaj subha daddi ayi thi toh apney daddi ko kya kaha tha ?
M: when in the morning granny came then what did you tell her ?
2 C: namastey
C: hello
3 M: namastey toh nahi kaha tha ! apney daddi se kaha tha .. apney- kammrey se janey ke liye kaha tha ? aisey nahi boltey na shanu ! daddi bahut sad ho gayi thi .
M: you didn’t say hello! You told granny..you..asked her to go from the room ? you don’t say like this shanu! Granny got very sad.
In the same instance later the mother who was not present during the incident talks to the child about the happening. This indicates that either of the adults (father or the grandmother) had told the mother about it, implying that the event is of significance to them. Further, what has been communicated to the mother is that the child had asked the grandmother to leave the room (line 3). Referring to the earlier discourse, it is evident that the child didn’t actually say this , and this is the interpretation of the adults , indicating that failure to acknowledge the elder is interpreted negatively. The child from the beginning is reared to greet the elder in a particular way (line 2, namastey) and failure to do so is considered inappropriate. The mother here brings child’s attention to the emotions of the grandmother, and tries to make the child realize that the grandmother is sad because of her behaviour (line 3).
Extract (5d)
Then after a small pause the mother asks the child if she would like to wear necklace.
4 M: malla pahenogi ?
M: (you) want to wear necklace?
5 C: haan
C: yes
6 M: haan ?
M: yes?
7 M: dadi ne jo diya hai woh walla pahenogi ?
M: will you wear the necklace which granny has given?
C: haan
C: yes
8 M: theek hai
9 M: ok
(small pause)
10 M: apki daddi ne apko pearl ki malla di hai !
M: your granny has given you pearl necklace!
11 C: yeh mera malla hai ?
C: this is my necklace?
12 M: haan ..apke liye two-two malla diya hai !
M: yes..for you she has given two-two necklace!
(small pause)
13 C: acha lag raha hai na yeh malla ?
C: Is this necklace looking nice ?
14 M: haan acha lag raha hai
M: Yes it is looking good
The mother after trying to make the child realize that she has saddened the grandmother, asks her if she wants to wear the necklace given by the grandmother (line 4) . Here it appears that the mother tries to bring the child’s attention to the fact that the necklace has been given by ‘the grandmother’, as after obtaining affirmation from the child to her question regarding wearing of necklace, the mother goes on to specify who has given the necklace. She further goes on to mention that the grandmother has given pearl’s necklace ( even though a 3 year old child is not expected to be able to appreciate the stones) and that too two in number to the child (lines 7,10 12 ). The primary emphasis seems to be on the fact that the grandmother has given something nice to the child. The temporality of the event suggests that the mother intentionally referred to the necklace given by the grandmother to convey to the child that she should therefore behave nicely with the grandmother.
Thus we see how in the above extracts (3–5) respect is associated with ‘competence’ and ‘benefits’ in the context of parent–child interaction. Further in order to explicitly determine parent’s belief about the moral value under study, and not fall prey to our own imposition a semi structured interview was conducted. The main question was clarifying what parents mean by ‘elders’ in relation to respect, do they mean respecting chronologically older, or refer to other factors like experience/ or being benefactor. As mentioned earlier the main focus of the present paper is the discursive part of the study, thus here only the main findings of the interview are presented, which adds validity to the discursive findings.
It is noteworthy that in response to the questions asked, the parents in the beginning mentioned elders of the family (parents, grandparents) as those who should be respected ,but on probing went on to mention neighbours , strangers , and even servant working at their houses
Below are mentioned some exemplary verbatim ( and their English translations)
“Suppose Maine kisi apney naukar ko rakha hua hai , usney bola ki gudia aisa nahi karo , aur issney bola ki tameez se baat karo servant ho servant raho . She should not say like this”
Suppose I have kept some servant, he/she asks her not to do something, and she (the daughter) replies back that the servant should behave like a servant, and stay within limits. She should not say like this.
“Elders main toh koi bhi , sabse- jaisey mummy, papa, dada , dadi , family toh hain hi , aur adosi-padosi sab hi log ho gaye , even aap bus main ja rahey ho koi unknown person hai , woh bhi toh elder hi hai”
Elders include everyone, like mummy, papa, grandparents, neighbours, and even strangers in the bus.
Thus, establishing that ideally by saying respecting ‘elder’, the parents mean to respect chronologically older. Further to gain clear support for discursive findings parents were directly asked, if they think that respect to elders should be based on experience and by virtue of being the benefactor (and not just being older). Most of the parents clearly declined it. Parents replied that respect should be based on their being parents than on their experience. One of the parents articulated that one can gain compliance but not respect through this, and it should be based on age.
“Respect ka experience se toh nahi matlab hai , maan ligiye ki koi road pe ja raha hai , hummey kya pata uska experience , toh kya hummey respect nahi karna chahiye ! kyonki woh buddha hai , uskey baal safaed dikh rahey hain iska matlab ki woh mujhse bada hai , age dikh rahi hai , isliye main uski respect kar rahi hoon , usney zindagi main kya kiya , mujhe kya pata !
Respect has nothing to do with experience, suppose someone is going on road, now we don’t know about his experience, so shouldn’t we respect! Because the person is old, is white haired , that means the person is elder to me , I can see the age , that’s why I am respecting the person , what he has done in his life , how do I know !
Similarly, when asked should respect be sought because elders extend benefits to children most of the parents disagreed and considered it to be a wrong practice. One of the mother though cited it to be wrong, considered it to be the demand of the present times. While other considered it to be the strategy to teach children to respect.
Therefore juxtaposing the findings of discourse analysis of everyday conversations and thematic analysis of the semi-structured interviews one can draw the conclusion that ideally by ‘respecting elders’ parents mean to respect chronologically older. However, in practise the value gets reduced to respecting one’s benefactor.
Conclusion
It appears that ‘respect for elders’ is a prominent value emphasized by parents in their day to day interaction with their young child. However, there seems to be a gap in what this value seems to suggest at the level of belief, and its implementation in practice (as evidenced by means of interview and discourses respectively). At the level of belief parents seem to suggest that elders should be respected simply by virtue of their ‘age’. This idea is similar to the notion of ‘public respect’, according to which all elders of the society should be respected (Sung 2001). However, in practise the concept of age seems to have taken a back seat, and parents seem to command respect by virtue of being the benefactor or being more competent. This is in line with the findings of Chadha and Misra (2006) who explored patterns of prosocial reasoning and behaviour of Indian children in the age range of 5–14 years from both the high and the low SES in a naturalistic set-up. They too found that the children mostly cited ‘authority/ punishment’ as the reason behind their prosocial action in response to the request made by the adults, rather than mentioning ‘respect’ as the motivating factor.
This gap at the level of belief and practise can be explained from two vantage points. Firstly, developmentally speaking reference to reward and punishment in order to teach something to young children (in this case 3–5 years) is more convenient for the parents. However, since this pattern has been observed in older children as well (Chadha and Misra 2006) there ought to be an alternate explanation. Another plausible explanation can be the rapidly changing cultural milieu of our country. Earlier respect was associated with obedience and subservience, but now its meaning is shifting to courtesy and kindness (Mehta 1997). Thus, giving space to an open communication channel marked by negotiations and even disagreements between parents and children. Therefore earlier driven by obedience based respect towards elders, instances of disagreements on part of children were less. As a matter of fact parents didn’t even praise their children fearing that they shall develop self-pride and egoism (Anandalakshmi 1994). However, now days there is space for negotiation in the two way parent–child discourse. This creates the challenge of educating the child about the thin line of difference between voicing opinion or showing disagreement, and being rude or dis-respectful . It is here when the parents solicit respect by using punishment-reward strategy.
It can be concluded that the meaning of the construct ‘respecting elders’ itself have undergone a change. Earlier ‘respect’ was blind obedience to the elders by virtue of their age. In current times also the idea is of respecting elders is because of the age factor, however it no longer means an unquestioned obedience. Thus, in practise in a two-way communication channel marked by push- and pull between parents and children the value of respect is often reinforced by the parents by asserting one’s position of being a benefactor. The present study is constrained in the sense of taking only a single cohort of participants; nevertheless the study can be taken forward by drawing comparison among different cohorts across different time frames. This shall help us understand better how cultural change account for the gap in preaching and practise; or how the meaning of the value has undergone metamorphosis with time.
References
Anandalakshmi, S. (1994). The girl child and the family: An action research study. New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development.
Du Bois, J. W. (1991). Transcription design principles for spoken discourse research. Pragmatics, 1, 71–106.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Briggs, C. L. (1986). Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chadha, N., & Misra, G. (2006). Prosocial reasoning and behaviour among Indian children: a naturalistic study. Psychology and Developing Societies, 18(2), 167–199.
Dixon, S. V., Graber, J. A., & Gunn, J. B. (2008). The roles of respect for parental authority and parenting practices in parent–child conflict among African American, Latino, and European American families. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(1), 1–10.
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2015). Moral foundations theory: the pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.
Greenfield, P. M., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1994). Cross-cultural roots of minority development. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Haidt, J., &Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: how innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus Fall, 55–66.
Harwood, R. L., Miller, J. G., & Lucca Irizarry, N. (1995). Culture and attachment. Perceptions of the child in context. New York: Guilford Press.
Harwood, R. L., Leyendecker, B., Carlson, V., Asencio, M., & Miller, A. (2002). Parenting among Latino families in the U.S. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 4. Social conditions and applied parenting. Vol 2 (pp. 21–46). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Hoff-Ginsberg, E., & Tardif, T. (1995). Socioeconomic status and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (Vol. 2, pp. 161–188). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcript Notation. In J. Heritage (Ed.), Structures of social interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Mehta, K. (1997). Respect redefined :focus group insights from Singapore. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 44, 205–219.
Potter, J. (2003). Discourse analysis and discursive psychology. In P. M. Camic, J. E. Rhodes, & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 73–94). Washington: American Psychological Association.
Saxena, V., & Babu, N. (2013). Expanding the domain of morality by going beyond moral reasoning: emerging trends in moral research. Psychological Studies. doi:10.1007/s12646-013-0201-2.
Shweder, R. A., Much, N. C., Mahapatra, M., & Park, L. (1997). The big three of morality (autonomy, community, and divinity), and the big three explanations of suffering. In A. Brandt & P. Rozin (Eds.), Morality and health (pp. 119–169). New York: Routledge.
Sinha, D. (2002). Culture and psychology: perspective of cross-cultural psychology. Psychology and Developing Societies, 14(1), 11–25.
Sung, K. (2001). Elder respect exploration of ideals and forms in East Asia. Journal of Aging Studies, 15, 13–26.
Tuli, M., & Chaudhary, N. (2010). Elective interdependence: understanding individual agency and interpersonal relationships in Indian families. Culture & Psychology, 16(4), 477–496.
Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
About this article
Cite this article
Saxena, V., Babu, N. Respecting Elders as A Moral Virtue: Terminal or Instrumental?. Psychol Stud 60, 146–153 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-015-0305-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-015-0305-y