What Keeps Us Safe

I propose that it is business that is the best defense. Guns and bombs aren't "making the world safer," and "a strong military is the best deterrent," is false. Instead, what keeps people from attacking and destroying a place is that place having what those people need. It is very difficult to destroy the only source of food or clothing, and it is a tremendous waste of effort to occupy a country just to insure they continue to produce them. Instead, establishing a mutual business relationship is securing the interests of all involved to maintain the status quo. People will go to great lengths to eliminate a bully, and nations are no different.

Relationship as Ownership

With popular culture singing about "my girl" and "my best friends' girl", is it any wonder? When "you should have put a ring on it" and "I need you to need me". From Pretty Woman to An Officer and a Gentleman to "I want to know what love is". There isn't any rationality to it, and because there is not supposed to be, people assume or play along that everything is the way it ought to be.

These pop-culture consumables are not meant to be models, at least not overtly, yet they end up being-in so many ways-just that. Without healthy models in their own lives, so many children end up needing something to base their ideals of relationship on. They can turn to the ubiquitous presence of music and visual media to learn. An understandable mistake, although a crippling one.

I will propose that it is not to own or be owned; that much is certain. However, the fear of being committed should not keep one from relationship. It is not about belonging in the sense of ownership, if we say "they belong together". It is the kind of belonging like birds belong in the air and fish belong in water; it is that right-ness of being that every moment else was not wrong but can never be right in the same way again.

We do what we value, and value what we do

 While this sounds simple, I will expand on the axiom in order to unpack it and demonstrate how it can have an interesting psychological effect.

First, many may be familiar with choosing what to do with their time; be it donating to a cause, pursuing a career, or visiting friends and family, our choices reflect priorities. Currently, I am doing what I value by writing here-I am choosing to reflect my values in my actions. What about the inverse, or second part of this axiom? Does it just mean that we value completing a task? It's actually less clear, and potentially insidious. What this points out is that once we make a choice (or pay a cost), we unconsciously seek to validate it. In part, this effect seeks to resolve cognitive dissonance by reaffirming that a previous loss was the correct choice. If we apply this to my writing, it could be that once I started this post (or the blog itself) I was invested and therefore would have trouble stopping; by taking time away from other areas of my life or 'paying the cost' I would need to defend that choice. This defence comes at a lower or higher intensity depending on the cost. If I were to give 90% of my money to a cause, I am likely to vigorously defend that choice-even or especially after it turned out to be a fraud! This is because the news that I was taken advantage of clashes with my self-image as an intelligent and cautious individual; the news that I was defrauded threatens my very belief in myself, and therefore must be combated.

This is referred to sunk-cost fallacy, and has been widely studied. Because it is already well-known, it can be found in many areas of life outside business and behavioural psychology. I have encountered it reading about self-help/self-improvement topics. Often, the advice is to spend money on a gym membership or exercise equipment in order to jump-start the process; "I've already spent the money, I might as well use it!". However, it also pops up for individuals looking to 'win friends and influence people'. You may even have encountered it a few years ago in popular articles describing how to get people to help you. It basically amounted to using this effect to manipulate others into giving more than they get; "have them give you something small, then when you make the big ask they are primed to agree."

My goal with this post is simply to acknowledge that this bias/cognitive error exists, hence the pithy title which I often recite as a reminder. As with most things, this is a tool that can be used for good or ill; it depends on the user more than the tool.

Self-Castration is Not Safety

First, I have elected to present this argument initially as a sex issue. This is drawn from the dominant culture arguments on the topic, however, since it is inaccurate I shall strive to bring it back to reality after the initial exploration. Second, and for clarity, I do not support violence in any form. There is no way in which I mean any of the following as blaming or as excusing retaliation. All human issues are complex and complicated, as are we humans. Finally, I can only urge and implore readers to accept discomfort in reading difficult writing; it is by challenging ourselves that we open the opportunity for learning.

 

Men have not taken women's power, and have never given it back. Women do not take men's power, men give up their power-most often in order to see seem less threatening to women. Because the things men are can be seen as negative, men pack away assertiveness, assurance, and audacity. There have been years of overt and covert labeling and shaming of men in order to "make women safe" and "make men less violent". Ironically, taking away a man's ability to defend himself is more likely to result in an act of violence. As a man is rendered defenseless, he feels more vulnerable. This leads to increased likelihood of feeling attacked, as he fears that any attack will be successful (since he can no longer defend himself). There is also the increased risk that an undefended attack will do more damage, even more than the attacker intended. So, this man will be more wary and guarded, which will lead those around him to judge that something is amiss, and suspecting him of being "on edge". This means they treat him differently, he becomes more wary, and the cycle builds until it fulfills itself. This is all backwards, as persons need to reclaim their own power instead of demanding others lose their power. This is where we begin to move away from the "female/male" expression of the issue, as the players can be any groups. Sex, gender, religion, culture, or geographic groups all play out these dynamics.

 

Additionally, there is a tendency for the oppressed to become the oppressors; essentially, for retaliation. This is a cycle of violence wherein each oppressed group fights to get out of oppression and, stuck in the mindset of loss and violation, they seek to victimize/violate their former tormentors in order to demonstrate to themselves and others that they are no longer victims. However, if each group who takes power is prone to this violence, then there is no end to the cycle. Each previously oppressed group goes on to oppress others, creating a future wherein the now-oppressed must fight out of oppression and then goes on to oppress their oppressors. Some group has to be the one to relent and allow for their own victimhood to teach how bad it is, and advocate instead for the elimination for all oppression.

The answer to insecurity is never about tearing down, but rather to build up and raise all to a healthy minimum of self-esteem and power so that the abilities of others poses little threat. When all are secure in their own abilities is when true freedom begins.

On Discussions of Human Nature

I propose that the discussion of the nature of humans is actually less a point about how people are than it is about the nature of discussing humans. What I mean is that while we go on arguing about people 'being inherently good/bad' we are using words and concepts that are contemporary and mutable ('good' can be defined differently throughout millennia). There may or may not be any true "human nature" that we all share, but the long history of making it out to be one thing or another demonstrates the evolving views of those who discuss it. For instance, from "Satan" to "humours" to "astrological influence" to "biological determinism", these ideas simply show where public opinion leads to thinking on the subject. It does not actually reflect on how we are as a species, only our limited and temporal (temporary) thoughts about ourselves.

Another issue with this topic is that thoughts may come from individuals who have either done or not done their own 'personal growth' work. Here, I introduce the psychological concept of "projection", whereby things I dislike about myself get assigned to others around me. My point here is that someone who believes humans are essentially evil or sinful may not have confronted their own demons or Jung's concept of "shadow", and therefore has little real understanding of others. These individuals talk about their own opinion or understanding of the world from their own skewed viewpoint and make their own shortcomings about others.

 It is nearly impossible to see things objectively, as we are all seeing the world from a necessarily singular, individual viewpoint. Instead of demanding that all people are one way or another, it may be more helpful to consider each person as they are. Rather than demanding that 'everyone is selfish' and behaving as if that were true, find out how each person is on their own. We can, at a minimum, acknowledge that-despite a possible 'nature'-all humans are able to change and grow. This would allow us to accept how we are now while working to become better versions of ourselves.

How Seeking Identity Sucks

While the push for individuality is prevalent and seen in diverse media throughout daily life, it is juxtaposed with the fundamental refusal of self-reflection within the U.S. culture. Briefly, this refusal is demonstrated by the constant blame of "others", denial of wrongdoing by "me" (whoever is speaking), and lack of transparency in discourse or dialogue. This dynamic becomes an inauthentic parade to display for others rather than actually express ones' individuality. Without the ability to find and accept who one is, the result is the suppression of self and taking on of roles. This can be seen in the way people talk about each other, as family, friends, coworkers, etc. Labels like "my rock", the "fun friend", "Blanche to my Dorothy" (substitute your own pop-culture reference), or the "go-to guy" are prevalent. One may seek to 'live up to' a reputation, or to use one of the above labels in order to be unique or, more precisely, to have value. Believing one only has value as an individual because of being witnessed and judged as being an individual does not indicate a healthy self-image.

 

A part of the pursuit of 'The Good Life' is the futile flight from conformity. Individuality can be an internalized form of domination when people are trapped by thinking that their value only has to do with money. The fear of being seen as the same as everyone else (especially potent in an individualistic society) means that wealth is the only way to be oneself since the wealthy are the ones seen as expressing individual flair (and deserving of the label 'iconoclast'). The Lego Movie shows us the danger of conforming, and how forgettable Emmet is before becoming 'The Special'. Even Wyldstyle disdains him openly for not being a Master Builder. The initial message is that anyone who has no discernible outward or visible difference is nothing. It is only at the end of the movie that we find the concept that every individual has something to offer as themselves. This mirrors the reality that people can feel and see, where social media and popular culture are filled with sensational, odd individuals and stolid, sensible people are dismissed.

 

The question of self can also be found when I blend in to various groups and don't seem to have a solid "me"-sometimes people will say they are a 'chameleon'. This is actually an example of humanity, universality, and commonality amongst all of us. It is not a problem or suspicious to be able to relate, since we are all more alike than we are irretrievably different. It also relates to the concept of code-switching, an important ability to act appropriately in different situations.

 

Finally, what would it mean to have an identity? If I do accept myself, does anyone else? Is the essence of who I am only valid without influence from anyone else or despite those around me? We are a social species, and depend on the social environment we swim through everyday to offer cues as to "how we are". What this means is that prejudice is learned through our surroundings, just as oppression is internalized. Contrarily, celebration of differences and equity for all can be learned through exposure to others. My ability to find and celebrate myself is a prerequisite for doing the same for others, so I hope we can make this process less daunting with time.