In Pursuit of the Right Relationship

As an addendum to yesterday’s post, I should mention that I’m sure the real problem with this particular professor–and many professors in general, actually–isn’t as much technophobia as egomania. Professors hate to be ignored. They fancy themselves the center of their respective universes, and should be fawned over for their willingness to selflessly impart their vast knowledge to the poor, ignorant students who should drink up the wealth of their knowledge with hearty gratitude.

I engage only in a bit of hyperbole. If you work with professors at all, you know this isn’t necessarily that far from the truth.

But what these folks need to understand is that they are providing a service, yes, but the university doesn’t exist for the professors. By and large, the university exists for the students. The exception are those research groups that bring in money independently of the services they provide for their students. Most professors would be out of a job if it weren’t for their students. Realistically, then, professors need to stop looking at themselves as philanthropists whose good deeds need to be recognized and honored. They need to see themselves as servants. They can’t demand attention. They can’t require veneration. All they can do is avail their knowledge to their students; it’s up to the students to make the most of their education. If they would rather surf the internet that lend their ear to the lecture, that’s on the student (assuming he’s no disrupting the class.) I find it very arrogant of the professor who treats his lecture as a socialite might treat a salon hosted in her solar. Education is not by invitation only; don’t treat it as such.

Of course, it isn’t only professors who behave this way. I’ve seen similar behavior in doctors and ministers, to mention a few. They perceive their work as Ultimately Important, and while it may very well be that, they are still service providers. They lend their assistance to those in need, but they cannot command love or adoration. These are people who, in theory, have aligned themselves with a higher cause, be that human achievement, social welfare, or spiritual harmony. Their allegiance should be to that cause, and their self-worth should come from their service to those causes, not from the adoration of their “supplicants”. This is were the service industry becomes corrupted: when our own egos get in the way of the value we supposedly serve, valor is lost.

I suppose the only way to really remedy this dissonance is to consciously remind ourselves that we exist in service to the relationship, in whatever role we occupy. We must do our parts in faithfulness and loyalty, but we cannot demand the fidelity and commitment of our partners. In a right relationship, our partners (be they our students, patients, parishoners etc.) will commit themselves to the relationship in a manner that fulfills us and brings us a sense of satisfaction. But we cannot demand it of them. If they fail to live up to their end, our only options are to end the relationship, or accept that our relationship will never be “right”. If we accept that the relationship is weighted heavily in favor of our partner and we are not benefiting as hoped, we have to remind ourselves that though we may not be fulfilled in this particular union, the value that the relationship supports is the true end goal. In our commitment to right relationship and our ultimate values, we cannot coerce, manipulate, or oppress our partners. We can’t adopt a “my way or the highway” attitude. It derogates our god-center; it undermines our character. Our students may ignore us, and our children may belittle us, but we forge ahead secure in the knowledge that we are serving a greater goal. And we can hope, though we can never demand, that our ardent pursual of the right relationship will inspire our partners to commit themselves as well.

Tags: education, right relationships, interpersonal communication

Subscribe via RSS 2.0 | Comment | Trackback