From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Deferential" and "Submission" redirect here. Not to be confused with Difference (disambiguation) or Differential (disambiguation). For the legal doctrine, see Judicial deference. For other uses, see Submission (disambiguation).
"Reverence (attitude)" redirects here. It is not to be confused with Reverence (emotion).



Smolenski (2005) examines deference in colonial Pennsylvania, to see how claims to political authority were made, justified, and accepted or rejected. He focuses on the "colonial speech economy," that is, the implicit rules that determined who was allowed to address whom and under what conditions, and describes how the qualities that inspired deference changed in the province from 1691 to 1764. The Quaker elite initially established a monopoly on political leadership based on what they believed to be their inherent civic virtue grounded in their religious and social class. By 1760, this view had been discredited and replaced with the general consensus that civic virtue was an achieved, not an inherent, attribute and that it should be determined by the display of appropriate manliness and the valor of men who were willing to take up arms for the common defense of the colony. Further, Pennsylvanians came to believe that all white men, not just wealthy property owners, were equally capable of achieving political voice. Martial masculinity, therefore, became the defining characteristic of the ideal citizen and marked a significant transformation in the way individuals justified their right to represent the public interest.[2]


Erving Goffman, a Canadian-born sociologist and writer, explored the relationship between deference and demeanor in his 1967 essay "The Nature of Deference and Demeanor".[3] According to Goffman, a person with a poor demeanor will be held in lower esteem in the eyes of society. The same is true for people who behave in a good demeanor, however: society will hold them in a higher esteem. An example of this situation can be seen through the way a person acts in a social setting. e.g. a man pulling out a chair for a woman at a restaurant. On the other end of the spectrum, a person not bathing before they go to a fancy dinner party. These examples can be defined as presentational deference. Demeanor does not only limit itself to the actions of an individual, but also the appearance of an individual. A person offers themselves to a social group through a good appearance or a well demeanored appearance. When an individual has a well demeanored appearance it makes interaction between people easier. After a person is socially accepted to a group, it is expected that they will conform to interactional norms. Through acting on those norms, people receive deference.


There is ongoing debate among psychologists as to the extent to which deference in a relationship is determined by a person's innate personality type or is the result of a person's experiences and conditioning. In interpersonal relationships, a partner can assume a submissive role to fit in or to make him or herself acceptable to the other partner,[4] and can be a benign aspect of a relationship. On the other hand, it may be an indication of an interpersonal problem, such as partner abuse. If one or both of the people are experiencing chronic, pervasive emotional distress then the sex partners or individuals may require psychological evaluation.

In interpersonal relationships, some people prefer or are willing to adopt a submissive role in sexual activities or personal matters. The level and type of submission can vary from person to person, and from one context to another; and also is dependent on the other partner being willing to assume control in those situations. Some people can include occasional acts of submission in an otherwise conventional sex life, or adopt a submissive lifestyle.

See also[edit]


  1. ^ John B. Kirbya, "Early American Politics—The Search for Ideology: An Historiographical Analysis and Critique of the Concept of 'Deference,'" The Journal of Politics, Volume 32, Issue 04, November 1970 pp 808-838
  2. ^ John Smolenski, "From Men of Property to Just Men," Early American Studies, An Interdisciplinary Journal, Fall 2005, Vol. 3 Issue 2, pp 253-285
  3. ^ Erving Goffman (1967). Interaction Ritual. New York, NY: Anchor House. ISBN 0-394-70631-5. 
  4. ^ James J. Gross (2006). Handbook of Emotion Regulation. Guilford Publications. ISBN 978-1-59385-148-4. 

Further reading[edit]

  • Foley, Deference and the Presumption of Constitutionality (Dublin: IPA, 2008)
  • Zuckerman, Michael. "Endangered Deference, Imperiled Patriarchy," Early American Studies, An Interdisciplinary Journal, Fall 2005, Vol. 3 Issue 2, pp 232–252; in colonial Virginia
  • Soper, Philip. 2002. The Ethics of Deference. United Kingdom: University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 0-521-81047-7
  • Telles, Joel. 1980. The Social Nature of Demeanor. Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia, Cabell Hall.