Rejecting a Governmental Honor

[Deleted]

Happy New Year Everyone!

For today's question, I'm interested in hearing what people think about rejecting a governmental honor. French economist Thomas Piketty, who wrote a very influential book released in 2014 called "Capital in the 21st Century" (which I happen to be reading right now, incidentally) was just nominated for the French Legion D'Honneur for his book. He declined on the basis that he doesn't think it's the government's place to decide who is honorable.

This is a fairly common type of civic recognition - Great Britain has the MBE, the United States has the Presidential Medal of Freedom, for example. While it is not unheard of for people to decline such an honor, it is relatively rare.

I'm curious whether people agree with Piketty that this sort of honor is essentially out of bounds for governments or if you think it is an appropriate recognition of the noteworthy achievements of a society's citizens.

Personally, I would likely accept any honor that I was offered for cultural or civic reasons, as long as I didn't feel like the decision was being made for political purposes or for something undeserved. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

[Klopstock]

Well, there are different views on it. On the positive side, governments are supposed to represent their country. Therefore, governments bestowing honors on deserving citizens makes sense for a country and its sense of national pride and identity. Knighting actors, musicians, public servants, and athletes generally reflects this side.

Cynics might take a darker view of it. Governments have agendas, and they often honor whom they wish to honor in order to suit their own interests. Often that can include donors, creating episodes like the "Cash for Honors" scandal in the UK or questionable nominations of fundraisers to serve as ambassadors in the U.S. It's always worth remembering that an honor both honors the recipient and reflects on the bestower. History is full of questionable honors granted for suspect reasons.

I definitely agree that there shouldn't be a government monopoly on recognition. And there isn't. The Nobels were privately established; industries give out awards (the Academy Awards, the BAFTAs, etc.), and other parts of a community get in on the action. That's a good thing.

Normally, however, governments consult with a potential recipient before announcing or nominating them for an honor. To avoid precisely the kind of situation where someone declines one.

[Deleted]

I was thinking about the pre-consultation side of it myself. You'd honestly think someone would run it by the recipient first to avoid embarrassment. I'm assuming the French have either become used to people accepting the honor without question, or some intern somewhere forgot to place a call. Given that the Currie's and Sartre all supposedly declined an honor like this, you'd think there would be recognition that declining is a possibility!

[Klopstock]

I read that French academics frequently refuse the Legion of Honor. That makes me wonder even more why they didn't ask Picketty before nominating him. Or maybe they did, he refused, and he announced it? The details are unclear from the newspaper (predictably).

[Deleted]

"He declined on the basis that he doesn't think it's the government's place to decide who is honorable."
He is absolutely right.
Instead, they could write a proposal, specifying the reasons, and ask the people (referendum) what they think of it. Then gather the best answers, and compose a comedic best-seller stating all the envy, greed and idiocy of the results. This would create "referendum analyst" jobs!
And then still give him the option to accept the honor, regardless of the outcome
Profit!

[Baden-Wuerttemberg]

People can reject these titles and medals for any number of reasons. The reverse would be strange: To imagine a person would have an obligation to accept such a symbol.

Not knowing how it's done in these government departments, but I think it would be no great trouble for those administrating the list of this year's nominees to discreetly inquire first with the persons in question whether such a title would be welcome? Then there would be no more embarrassing situations where a nomination is publicly announced, and publicly rejected. The rejection does not affect any other nominees, it's merely a matter between the government department and the individual nominee. It's merely one recipient less this year. Of course this would presuppose a government department with a sense of humility, which doesn't assume that its attentions are welcome to everyone by default.

It's much trickier with competitive prizes. Prior rejecton on discreet inquiry affects others. Example, a city offers a literature prize, awarded to one writer each year. Imagine they already have a short list of 4 potentials for this year. If they inquire discreetly with candidate 1, and candidate 1 rejects it, they can still call candidate 2 and inquire. And so forth. What is more desirable:
a) Prize publicly announced as awarded to candidate 1, but publicly rejected.
b) Backup candidate gets the prize. But potentially, candidate 1 could become indiscreet and announce in a drunken moment: 'Yeah, it would have been me that year, but I rejected it because...'
(I don't really like either variant.)

[Sauron]

Jan 9, 2015 7:06:13 GMT -5 Baden-Wuerttemberg said:

Not knowing how it's done in these government departments, but I think it would be no great trouble for those administrating the list of this year's nominees to discreetly inquire first with the persons in question whether such a title would be welcome? Then there would be no more embarrassing situations where a nomination is publicly announced, and publicly rejected. The rejection does not affect any other nominees, it's merely a matter between the government department and the individual nominee. It's merely one recipient less this year. Of course this would presuppose a government department with a sense of humility, which doesn't assume that its attentions are welcome to everyone by default.

I believe this is what happens in the UK with OBEs/MBEs/titles etc. A small minority will reject it based on their republican ideology and beliefs.

[WolfVale]

A person who rejects a high honor gains a lot of recognition and notoriety by refusing an honor. In some cases, they manipulate the rejection in order to publicize another agenda that they espouse.