In every setting, there seems to be a need for standardizations, idealizations, definitions and nomenclatures of all kinds. This is understandable as society seems to need reference points by which it can make assessments, judgments, and make sense of things. True enough, we do need reference points as a yardstick for making comparisons. The concept of defined Values seem to be another one of these reference points.
However, this raises a question: shouldn’t reference points be fixed? Wouldn’t it be difficult, if not impossible, to reliably take measurements with a meter that shifts randomly?
The lighthouse serves as a reliable reference point for the boat because it does not shift. The compass is appropriate because it interacts with the earth’s magnetic field by fixed rules, so the navigator can use them and be sure of not getting lost. Even bees make a dance around the sun to point each other in the right direction.
How much more a society of men? What reference points do we need to keep us headed in the same direction, to ensure that we have a valid means of lining a Person A with or against a Person B, matching an Action C with an Action D? Our answer to these questions seem to lie in Values, norms, and we use these to define the right and the wrong, the acceptable and the unacceptable, etc.
WHAT ARE VALUES?
Anyone could give an acceptable definition of Values, and indeed, many sources define Values differently. It doesn’t help that the word, Value, is an homonym. In this context, however, we are talking about Values as “principles or standards of behavior, one’s judgment of what is important in life.” More relevant here is the definition of Values as “basic fundamental beliefs that guide or motivate attitudes or actions, [helping us] determine what is important.”
THE DEEPER THEORY
The renowned Social Pscychologist, Shalom H. Schwartz, has arguably done the most work regarding Values and its ramifications, and his works clarify these further. According to Schwartz’s Theory of Basic Values, all values have six features in common (Schwartz, 2022). He also goes on to describe ten basic personal values, which he believes are likely universal to every human because:
they help humans cope with one or more of the following three universal requirements of existence:
- needs of individuals as biological organisms;
- requisites of coordinated social interaction; and
- survival and welfare needs of groups.
These Values are all in dynamic relationship.
VALUES OR ETHICS? ETHICS OR VALUES?
Values are a part of Ethics, which is concerned with the right and/or the wrong in human actions. Since actions are governed by Values most times, it is safe to infer that Ethics is really about the the Values underlying these actions. So, for one who might be more inclined to go by Ethics instead or Values, such must understand that Values and Ethics cannot be separated.
…actions are governed by values most times… Ethics is really about the Values underlying these actions.
So much has been given to the study and definition of Values, and there are even standardized lists-such as the list of core Values- that define the Values that one can expect to see in another person. By implication, this suggests that Values, since they are so standardized, can be used as a yardstick to measure humans and their actions.
VALUES AS A YARDSTICK
The value of Values as a yardstick cannot be denied. They are not only useful in comparing person to person, but also in personal eVALUations. For instance, a person’s values play a huge role in their decisions. The bigger the decision, the more a person evaluates their personal values, consciously or not, before proceeding. For instance, a person who is driven by self-enhancement (a combination of achievement and power) is less likely to genuinely care about the welfare of other persons so much as to establish a non-profit. If they do, then there is likely an underlying motive that still cycles back to self-enhancement.
…a person’s values play a huge role in their decisions. The bigger the decision, the more a person evaluates their personal values
Furthermore, Psychologists believe in the transformative power of values, and together with Ethics, our Values can change our inner world and interact with our perception of the external environment (Chowdhury, 2019).
The interest in Values is so much that values have been made ‘measurable’ by various metric systems, such as these questionnaires:
- Valued Living Questionnaire(VLQ),
- The Schwartz Portrait Values Questionnaire(PVQ),
- Personal Values Assessment(PVA).
These measurements seem to suggest values could be more ‘universal’ and ‘standard’, just as you could definitively measure the length of a line on a piece of paper with a ruler.
But can we really measure Values? In the professional, scientific community, there is an understanding of the limitations, but without it? Values are discussed as though a person could be dissected, and their values picked out. By that, you could define what they are, where they’ve been, what they can and can’t do, the roles that do or do not fit them. This is where the problems arise. Boards containing labels such as honest, caring, trustworthy, easygoing, authentic, beautiful, bold, compassionate, kind, leader, etc, are put up, and persons are pasted on these boards.
Values are discussed as though a person could be dissected, and their values picked out. By that, you could define what they are, where they’ve been, what they can and can’t do, the roles that do or do not fit them.
THE PROBLEM WITH VALUES AS A YARDSTICK
1. PRECONCEPTIONS
If you were asked to describe a person, your response would most likely contain some Values that you have observed regarding the person. Consequently, whoever you have made the description to would see the described person from your own perspective. They will construct an image of the person you have described based on the Values that you have used. Thus, without even meeting the person described, you have made someone else believe that they know this described person, whom they haven’t met. This gives room for preconceptions prejudice.
This problem becomes more pronounced in job application processes and HR, where a person could have had a list of Values in their resume, cover letter or some other documentation as regarding the application process. The recruitment team would sum up a person from a piece of paper and decide on that person right there.
sum up a person from a piece of paper… The Values system seem to give a justification for making preconceptions
The Values system seem to give a justification for making preconceptions about other persons, and this may be unhealthy and unfair.
2. AM I QUALIFIED TO YOU?
Values have been defined and redefined over the times. Some person at some place will see some things, coin a word, and say this is Courage. Someone will coin another word, call it Trustworthiness, and make the definitions of what seems to be the traits ‘expected’ of a trustworthy person. Same goes for ‘Honor’, and so many other Values.
The problem is that these definitions were made by some other people, and from another time too. They’ve survived this long, wholly accepted and rarely questioned (and for good reason, perhaps).
Let’s say the ramification of times is ignored in this discussion, it is still bothersome that in an age that prides itself freedom and expression, we still collectively agree to define ourselves by ramifications that were proposed by other persons. We all strive to measure up to these yardstick that society has held up against us.
There is the famous discussion on what to answer when asked, “Tell me about yourself” in an interview. A lot of persons get stumped in this situation, unsure of how best to answer. So, most people turn to the internet. Thus, it is no surprise that the internet is filled with blogs and forums seeking to address this question. People turn to other people for answers on how what to say about their own self. This is further proof that we describe ourselves based on what society has defined.
The person who asks this question is advised to answer such a question in such and such a manner- with suggested formulae and fill-in-the-blank templates. Of course, these are also standardized answers. They are based on what the interviewers ‘expect to hear.’ But of course, the interviewers are also members of society, and they are aware of and agree with this system of definitions and classifications, and they can place the interviewee in files and folders and compartments in their heads based on the appropriate labels as applied by society.
So, when a person is asked to describe themselves, it seems to translate to asking them to define their own self based on how they believe the society perceives them, to display those labels already plastered on them.
.. .place the interviewee in files and folders and compartments in their heads based on the appropriate labels as applied by society
3. CHEATING THE SYSTEM
Just as with any standardized system, these system of predefined Values can be cheated. Anyone who understands the rules and the characteristics that apply to a Loyal person can pretend to be the most loyal person alive, and would pull it off too. Whereas, by definition, the pretense alone confirms this person as one who is not loyal and should not be trusted. However, other members of society have no way of immediately knowing this. They have seen someone with some traits that fit into their definition of trust, and they can trust the person. Often times, this ‘innocence’ can come with pretty grave consequences.
4. HOL THIS RULER STEADY
A person John was once described as untrustworthy for failing to keep a seat for a classmate Jane who had yet to arrive in class, while there were others around needing a seat. Trust, in this instance, would have been to be ‘trusted’ to preserve that seat. This is to be at the expense of the other people needing seats!
On the one hand, if that is trust, then perhaps everyone should remain untrustworthy. On the other hand, if John had matched up to Jane’s expectation of trust in this instance, John would have been forced to compromise his own Value of Fairness. This suggests that conflicts largely due to a clash/mismatching of of Values or their defintions.
This is another problem with the Value system, and why it is such a poor reference point. They are far from absolute, they are too dependent on the situation. They cannot always be pinned down. If the John in the instance above had been described by Jane to a third person Jill, Jane could have told Jane that John could not be trusted. This is the unfair prejudice mentioned earlier, and it is why one should avoid making preconceptions.
Oh, what do you call a poor mother that stole a few tomatoes in a market to feed her starving children- Caring for her children, or a Dishonest thief?
How do you define the people that caught her and pushed said tomatoes up her privates- Justice-serving or Cruel?
How do you define these same people who do nothing when their political leaders loot funds- Self-preserving or Hypocritical?
It would ‘depend’ on who you asked, and how much of the story they knew. And that is just the point. The definitions applied to Values are too relative to serve as an absolute yardstick, or a proper reference point for such a complex society as this.
IF NOT VALUES, THEN WHAT?
Maybe there is a need for another system. A system that is in aversion to standardizations, idealizations, these boxes that we have kept ourselves in, and these systems of classifications that we have set up for ‘convenience’. A system that further encourages an approach to every person and every situation with an open mind, a system that gives everyone a fair chance, that does not write anyone off without the full story, a system that accepts that it is not absolute and is applied as such.
A system that does not define a person by a couple of laid down rules.
Maybe that is the only ‘Value’ we need- not dumping other people in labeled folders for ease and convenience.
REFERENCES:
What Do You Think? 