Transactional Relationships

Words are wonderful tools for understanding concepts and discussing them with others. This particular phrase has shown up frequently in recent days, for better and worse. First, let us be clear about what it means, and then we can see where it is impacting the culture.

"Transactional relationship" simply refers to having an interaction (either one-off or longer, on-going relationship) with someone which is based around providing a benefit to both parties as the basis for said interaction. Simple, yes; deceptively so. It may be self-evident that a purchase from the market is a transaction. What about the waitstaff at a restaurant? Or the 'crew' of a fast-food joint? In traffic, does my waving another driver through the intersection count? How about two co-workers who plan a social activity outside work? Finally, what about intimate relationships such as marriage? Truly, there are aspects to this concept which muddy that simple idea we started with.

The above examples are provided because they can certainly be transactional. Even though many cultures have moved away from dowries or bride-prices, marriage for love is still a recent convention, dating back only a few hundred years. However, money being directly involved is also not a determinant in this concept. Being "the beard" is a transactional relationship, but can be of social value to the parties rather than being a cash- or housing-based arrangement. Also, this introduces the aspect that one party can be ignorant of the true nature of their interactions because of assumed or undisclosed intentions. Similarly, if two co-workers seek to commiserate, it could simply be a trade; "give-and-take" or "quid pro quo" are other terms for transactional relationships. However, if one coworker is spying for the company or has romantic intentions, then it becomes a different dynamic. In driving, I could get something out of an interaction with another driver, but it could also simply be enforcing, or reminding them of, the 'rules of the road'. Causing others to adhere to accepted norms is part of social convention, and is less individual choice and more collective conformity. Both "waitstaff" and "crew" above are understood to be "servants" and the customers, "masters" (not the words typically used, but a replication of that traditional dynamic). Both provide customer service, are employed by the establishment, would not interact with those patrons except for the venue, and are limited by their role—but only one gets gratuities. This power differential only further complicates the issue, but neither determines nor precludes a transactional relationship existing. Anytime staff are providing customer service, however, it interferes with any other type of relationship; in other words, there is a transactional relationship as long as at least one party is acting in a professional, business capacity. All this demonstrates the complexity of our interactions and that a solely transactional relationship is rare. Especially if there is the possibility of multiple encounters, people tend to introduce kindness or other social aspects to the process. Think about if you witnessed a person purchase a drink and all they did was state the order, make the payment, and take the beverage—no eye contact or speech beyond "give me a [drink]". It would seem odd, rude, or downright antisocial for not engaging in the niceties we expect—to not even respond to a greeting, nor acknowledge the other individual's person-hood.

Now that we have this basic understanding of a transactional relationship, let us turn to the impact on our experiences. What is happening in the culture that makes this a noteworthy concept? Firstly, we can consider the reduction of social interactions into tools of profit. Secondly, how the culture encourages this approach and who benefits from the tendency. Finally, whether this is something which requires correction, and is that possible? Without going into an exhaustive—and tedious—list of examples and trends over decades, this is certainly a problem. Wave after wave of induced social phobia (things like "stranger danger" the 1980's, the "super-predators" of the 1990's, and the fallout from September 2001—again, from a perspective in the U.S.) caused many to increasingly think of the world as so dangerous that it would be better to just not risk interacting. This constant anxiety and withdrawal has become a self-reinforcing tendency; the more people lack in social connection, the more uncomfortable any interaction seems. Just as vitamin deficiency can easily be treated by adding the required nutritional sources, so can many issues be addressed by increasing socialization. As people double-down on their sickness, by giving even more hours to work (or other isolating tactics) and retreating from shared spaces (and other social adventures), it worsens the symptoms. In typical fashion, rather than acknowledge and address this issue, we are sold any number of remedies. This is akin to ignoring the vitamin deficiency and insisting that surgery is needed to treat the symptoms. One such idea is better living through accumulation: that acquisition can soothe the ache of longing. All this denial leads to the idea that we can buy our way out of any problem, which lends itself to settling for transactional relationships. As the idea that the only things which matter are those that "provide 'value'" becomes paramount, the very things that give meaning to our lives fade and wither. In part, this is because treating symptoms is more profitable than curing illness. Additionally, the tendency to invest in the system which makes the rich even more rich incentivizes them to maintain such a system.

In conclusion, I will answer in the positive: this must change and that change is achievable. Such changes are often as difficult as they are necessary, and begin with acceptance that our ideas have been wrong. Suffragettes, abolitionists, and various other civil rights movements throughout history have attacked oppressive systems, in part by alerting people to injustices perpetuated by the underlying assumptions of those systems. The lasting changes we need are only made when people come to understand the structure itself is the problem, and we must address both the symptoms and the cause.

Who is the Best Dog Walker?

You are.

That is the answer, although if you want to know why then you must read on. We can break down the modern system like this: I do not have enough time to walk my dog because I am away from home so much, therefore I need to spend even more time away in order to earn enough to pay someone else to do so. This is part of the endless cycle of consumption and depletion, as we spend our life turning time into money that is then used to buy things with that money which are supposed to save us time. While it may be good for the overall 'capital-e Economy', it does not actually fulfill the promise to participants of freeing them from the spiral into exhaustion and madness. It is the circular logic of needing to work in order to afford necessities, which leads to not having the time and energy for enjoyable activities, only needing to pay for increasing numbers of things; every decision leads deeper into the labyrinth of losing ones' life to working. If the COVID-19 Pandemic has demonstrated anything about our society, it is that there are numerous flaws in its expectations and applications. Many had an opportunity to step back from "the rat-race" and experience a life not dictated by the clock, a job, or other demands outside the home. Why do we spend time on things that do not matter to us in order to be "given" time to do those things which do matter? With news articles and dubious experts lamenting and commenting on the shift away from work and towards life, we can see some of those expectations changing. 

This raises the next question of why is time caring for others not valued? Here, we are reviewing some critiques leveled previously by feminists. Let us take an important example: raising children. Certainly, if we repeat the above example and substitute dog-walking with parenting, there is a clear malfunction in the system. The desire to have children is similarly from a menu of selfish motivations, the most popular being love. This loving motivation makes parents want to spend time with and care for their own children. Now we return to the original question in its new form: since a parent should have the time and resources to care for their own child, why is that not a societal expectation? Why is the parenting role (or job) looked down upon as less important than working for someone else? Why are children made into a burden on individuals when all children grow up and join the surrounding society, which collectively benefits from another generation of adults? Kahlil Gibran wrote, "Your children are not your children." He was elucidating the point that while parents care for children, they do so temporarily and with the goal of turning them loose on the rest of us. It seems obvious that even a selfish person would want those parents to do the best possible job of raising healthy humans. This ought to make some of those flaws in society referenced earlier stand out more clearly. Let us conclude by examining one last aspect of this maddening system. The question of why this is not apparent to everyone and discussed in public as with other important issues we face?

This is a byproduct of the pace of life under the consumerism model. Both because we are trained to think that fulfillment comes from buying things and simultaneously to believe that we are the only ones responsible for our own condition. Also, being exhausted does not lead to reflection in those brief moments between work, shopping, and recovery from those activities. This is why it was only during the pandemic that people could get more of an outsiders' view of these issues, when so many distractions were unavailable. Also, why so many were uncomfortable with the state of leisure, similar to those who retire and do not know what to do with their time away from work. We could say that our exhaustion is a feature and not a bug of the system. The question now becomes what to do with the realization that this model does not serve the majority of people.

My Will Can Beat up Your Will

There is an odd idea that seems pervasive throughout U.S. culture and exists without much context or discussion. You may readily think of any number of examples where that could apply, but I refer to the notion of "will-power" as the determining factor in a conflict or contest. It struck me quite profoundly as I watched a scene in Marvel's movie Avengers: Infinity War. It has been mentioned elsewhere online and likely argued over by nerds everywhere since its release in 2018. The scene happens towards the end of the film, where Captain America holds back Thanos for a second. It has been established that Thanos is  a super-humanly powerful being, and him being the only one with the will to see his plan through. While Rogers is an enhanced human, he should be no match for Thanos. Yet, what defines Captain America is his refusal to stand down; he has faced unfair odds all his life and never hesitated to fully commit to the fight. The message is clear: this moment is not about objective or physical strength, but all about a will to win. Those few moments of struggle convey much of the idea which I am suggesting is problematic in real life.

Fantasy may be a grand place for such notions, where the very desire for an outcome creates the result one wants. However, it is too easy for people to delude themselves that such things are possible in reality. If you think no one could fall for this nonsense, remember that people pray for things or talk about "manifesting" their desires. I will include another aspect of comic/superhero tropes: the strength, agility, stamina, and other attributes that characters have without having to work at it. On a practical level, it allows the story to move quickly and focus on drama or action within the limited time of a book or movie. However, this also conveys ideas around innate, rather than learned and trained, skills. It seems connected to this "I should have this because I want it" ideal. Also, it is important as it relates to "fixed" and "growth" mindsets, which are worth exploring outside this post. Both these notions (will-power and innate talent) reflect ideas of worthiness and competition. I also recognize that we are dealing with the influence of media and entertainment upon consumers, and how people integrate the ideas they are exposed to from an early age. This is another topic for its own discussion. You may notice I am also not criticizing willpower in general. Grit has recently had a turn in the spotlight, and received a deserved discussion; we do not need to examine that here.

To return to the subject at hand, the psychological term for the belief that we can get something just by wanting is "magical thinking". This term is usually applied to and descriptive of the minds of children. Simply put, a child thinks of something they want and it then happens: someone they were mad at gets hurt or the sky clears of clouds when they want to go outside. There are a number of cognitive fallacies having to do with cause-and-effect, which are abandoned as we learn about the world. Magical thinking can be pernicious because of social pressures and/or personal experiences. Another component of this is children being egocentric. It is normal development for young humans to have no innate understanding that parts of the world are separate from them and their concerns. To a child, everything that they experience is about them and because of them. It is estimated that we develop empathy (here meaning an ability to consider others' experiences) by roughly 8 years of age. As with all abilities, empathy requires support to fully develop, so this depends on individual experience. Along with empathy, it is likely we also differentiate our self from the rest of the world during the same process. After all, it requires understanding that others are separate from ourselves in order to empathize with their differences. To believe that I should get what I want simply because I want it, or want it "more" (what scale measures that?) than someone else, is a selfish and egocentric belief. Once we are able to understand that others have similar desires, we can start to outgrow this tendency. We find it is just part of living with other humans that only sometimes do we get what we want. Unless there is an unlimited supply of something, we must take turns. This knowledge can inform our social development, as how we seek to fulfill needs comes into contact with others.

Above, I mentioned "worthiness and competition", and now these ideas come into focus. We must have methods for sharing, determining whose turn it is, and mitigating disappointment. These "wins" and "losses" can influence how we see ourselves, and how deserving we believe ourselves to be. It may be tempting to construct some superhuman entity which makes these determinations, thus relieving us of the burden of being the winner. Seeing others lose out hurts us because it is natural to empathize with them. We also know what it feels like because of our own turns as the loser. However, that magical thinking denies our agency in the very things we want because it eliminates the work and sacrifice of "taking turns". It gives up our self-determination, as it becomes a matter of some "universal force" making those decisions. While it can be a mitigating strategy ("I just was not meant to win" or "God willed it so"), it allows little room for improvement and skill-building. This is why it is so closely tied with fixed and growth mindsets. For any number of reasons, the creation of a supernatural force determining who "wins" is problematic. Now that we have arrived at some understanding of the developmental and social factors involved, we have opportunities to influence what sort of world we live in. Do we prefer a competitive world where each must develop methods of manipulation (of both self and others) to achieve goals? Do we prefer a cooperative world where we accept and encourage rational and honest ways of interacting?

Staying in Lanes

Society is comprised of varying individuals with differing perspectives and motivations. In order for the society to function--just for it to be possible for any citizen to go about tasks involving others--there need to be common understandings and rules. Most of the time, in western cultures, each individual is "looking out for #1" and leaving other people to do the same. This makes rules especially important, as they prevent one person's self-interest from harming another. Pollution, traffic, price gouging and more are regulated by our common laws, which are the agreements we make when we engage in public spaces. Usually, we are operating from an inherent understanding of the rules in society; we do not consider it acceptable to brush our teeth while riding the bus, for instance. These are shared spaces, and where the rules are not set by law, they are determined by norms and mores [MORE-AYS] (those expectations internalized through living in a culture). These laws and rules make day-to-day life possible with the strangers we live amongst because they provide templates for interactions. There is no need to negotiate each purchase, since the price is clearly marked and there is a "check-out" where one pays; the experience is an established routine, no matter which store one enters. If I attempt to change this routine, things get confusing and others will question my capacity to participate in public activities. Similarly, one does not need to guess, or question other drivers about, who goes first at a 4-way intersection since there are clear laws for determining that answer. As an aside, it is actually this situation that alerted me to things being amiss some time ago. Additionally, there are certain fundamental understandings which guide behavior in novel circumstances. We all know which side of the road to drive on. Even non-drivers know this, as it is part of everyday life. Additionally, pedestrians use the same left-hand drive/stay right rule when walking and biking. When encountering another pedestrian, I will automatically tend toward the right, as that is the standard of the country wherein I live. This is also why we will look to others in new situations: to find out what the rules are so that we fit in and avoid trouble. It is only when we are unclear or uncertain about the rules that we recognize how easy they make things. All of this is preamble to explore something which happened to me recently.

Because we are in the midst of a pandemic, the standards are set and widely known. The understanding is, and has been, "wear a mask, and stay six feet apart." This pandemic is complicated by folks seeming to seek out conflict regarding masks, denying that this disease is worrisome, and disregarding the health and discomfort of others by violating the reasonable, minor precautions most people are utilizing. Where I live is a low-traffic, residential area, and there is a common standard that has grown out of living through the past year. As a group, people here seldom wear masks outdoors, instead choosing to keep extra space between us. This is the expectation or social norm that has been 'agreed to' by common practice in public, outdoor spaces. I was walking on the sidewalk and there were a couple people approaching from the opposite direction. There were many factors to consider with these strangers, but I had many previous instances to guide me. However, as these folks grew closer, I felt my apprehension rise and I began to consider that I might get "too close" to them. It happened that they did not move to their right, nor acknowledge our proximity in any way. We came abreast each other at a place with a fence to my right, so I had nowhere to retreat. We were so close I could have reached out and touched them, and my reaction was nearly to push them away, so strong was my revulsion and alarm. Instead, my arm acted as a sort of spacer as I raised it with my hand open, and we passed this bottleneck as I quickened my pace. In a few steps, I heard one of them say something like, "What's that about?!" I turned, and expressed (repeating to myself to remain calm) that they had been too close; the reply was effectively, "Just say something!". I took this to mean that my reaction was too impactful, although I remain uncertain how my panicked "Get away!" would have been received. It is common to believe oneself to have the correct answer in a situation, and their response indicates a desire to modify my reaction rather than examine their own assumptions. I do not claim that I am without fault, as in writing this I have recognized how anxious I have become over the course of the past year.

This post is mostly about expectations, and when it may be acceptable (or necessary) to violate them. As I outlined above, we operate daily on shared expectations and are thus able to function together in public. However, I also firmly believe that we are expected to accept and account for different perspectives in a democratic society. My experience is about a willingness to allow others to violate norms-even when I feel wronged by their actions. For example, I have crossed the street when someone pushing a baby stroller was on "my side" (my right, their left). An inconvenience, and something I "should not need to do" given the reasoning in the first paragraph. However, I remain willing to make an effort to maintain my own safety, to accommodate the limitations of others, and accept that--when I am uncomfortable--it is up to me to resolve that discomfort insofar as it does not conflict with others' needs. A society must work together through disagreements, even when certain citizens do not understand or experience the conditions that others are complaining about. We have been living through two such experiences simultaneously: irritation about wearing masks and protest of state-sponsored, racist murder. I am not equating them, but wish to point out how they have similarities despite being fundamentally different. My hope in doing so is to alleviate some contention between said groups, or prevent others from conflating them.

Because this is intended to be a democracy, for the safety of the greatest number of citizens we should "err on the side of caution". In the pandemic, we have a small number of folks who claim that masks are an unnecessary burden, and consider themselves "protestors". In this case, the cost of accommodating these citizens would be an increase in illness and deaths. However, if we investigate their claims while  continuing to wear masks (properly, and including those citizens), fewer people will die. If it had turned out that we all looked a bit silly afterwards because it was not as serious as most feared-then that's the price. We sacrifice a bit of pride by looking silly, but can hold our heads high because we did it in order to protect others. Thankfully, it has become clear that the preventative measures we were able to enact are adequately effective, and the numerous anti-mask "protestors" who have recanted on their deathbed attests to the seriousness of this situation. This last point also indicates how easy it can be for any of us to downplay a situation until we experience it. This leads us to Black Lives Matter, and the statement that persons of color are targeted and killed by police. Here, the cost of continuing under current policing practices does not lead to more lives being saved. If we kept the status quo and had those protestors await changes until a full evaluation could be done, more lives would be lost if they were right. This is complicated by needing an objective set of studies to determine the truth of the matter, which is part of the very problem needing evaluation: racism skews how issues are seen. Any of us who have not experienced it cannot understand what it is like. The same policy of erring on the side of caution dictates that we act swiftly to change police practices and save lives.

Servant's Industry

There is an acknowledgement of the shift from a previous economic base of manufacture and innovation to one of services and personal attention. This has been going on for decades, and is a byproduct of the globalization of trade and business. What it essentially means here in the United States is that workers no longer have a solid employment future at a company that makes goods because of the need for those goods. People are instead increasingly at jobs which perform services for others. These jobs regularly place individuals into lower-status and lower-power positions related to those they service or serve. The categories are huge, from hospitality, caring, and leisure, to financial, education, and sales. These include numerous specific titles: clerk, teller, waitstaff, nurse, consultant, cook, painter, instructor, manager, sitter, mechanic, driver, therapist, technician, and on ad astra. Included are food service, personal assistant/shopper, driver (chauffeur or taxi), host, and performer. Here "performer" includes not only actor, artist, athlete/competitor, or musician, but also buskers, content creators (YouTube or otherwise), and sex workers. This last group is no longer restricted to in-person services or pre-recorded videos, but nowadays includes "camera models" who can interact with online audiences through chat features. It is also this last group which I think best illustrates the issues I find with this trend. It is not about the commonplace argument about loss of talent, as I think many individuals could be incentivized into a manufacture trade if that were necessary. After all, all the folks in these jobs are skilled, often talented, and intelligent workers. It is actually about status and power, the ability of professionals to maintain autonomy and pursue advancement, and an overall stability for the economy.

In many ways, the move to "independent contractors" was not driven by employees seeking to expand their freedom and escape the confines of employers, but was a move on the part of employers to escape the confines of legal requirements around employment. Rather than pay one full-time person a guaranteed wage and minimum hours, providing benefits like holidays (or other paid time off) and medical insurance, it turns out to be cheaper to pay just a wage more workers to do the same work in a part-time capacity without all the other requirements. This has lead to not only a decrease in the number of individuals who can afford to live, but an increase in the costs to communities as those workers must find public services to offset the lost benefits. Similarly, the supposed "disruptive technologies" around sharing apps are advertised as an 'opportunity' for workers; they end up being just another way for the few to exploit the many. Much of this is what has been called the "gig economy", where a worker will not have a single job but cobbles together a living out of multiple "gigs".

Supposedly individuals more directly 'own' their work (or effort and skills) and are empowered to sell it to business owners in the 'free market'. Claiming that 'independent contractors' are in a better position than an employee, I think misses a few points. These workers are not subject to the protections employees are, and are desperate enough to jump into something-even if it's as risky as a pyramid scheme (Multi-Level Marketing, or MLM). Being ignorant of the practices and standards of a profession they are only in as a "side hustle", they don't know the history of folks who have worked in the field which led to the protections these self-proclaimed "disruptors" are side-stepping. Not that taxi driving is glamorous-nor is it the road to riches-but it is an established profession with understood guidelines and protections. Those are all the results of years of struggle by drivers to obtain the bare minimum of legal recognition and safety regulation. This cycle is played out in various fields in diverse ways, all summed up in the same manner: eliminate security for workers and increase benefit to owners.

Controlling the Narrative

There are things you don't want anyone to know, for fear of judgement; they may be things you're struggling to understand and are uncertain of how to address them. How far can this be taken before it is harmful? Can it ever be healthy? On a basic level controlling (or attempting control of) what is known is distorting reality-also known as lying. If every part of each aspect of a situation were known to others as I know them, there would be no mystery or deception. When I work to keep information from others-in part or in whole-then I want to shape another persons' perception. I do not want them coming to their own conclusions; rather, I want to control what they think. This may be an extraordinary interpretation, but it is not an irrational one. It is commonplace, and often unconscious, to tell only part of the story-even to tell the story which places us in the best light. Whether it is malicious or harmful is separate from the fact of it happening. Note that I will use "lie" as the root word for this discussion for the sake of brevity and simplicity.

Positive public relations in business puts a "spin" on things by only giving out particular information. It is a recognized form of public affairs, and can rely on claims of "intellectual property" and "trade secrets". This can move from complete and factual statements about something into "cherry-picking" only positive aspects, even to suppressing vital 'negative' information that consumers would need in order to make a fully informed decision. The need for private companies to be seen as beneficent entities leads to dubious statements. Naturally, this has extended into advertising, with companies making claims about products that are rather ridiculous lies. Similarly, individuals in the public eye (i.e. celebrities, politicians, and spokespersons) can have personal and professional needs around public image and control of information. We can see this in various campaigns and agencies. However, sometimes "staying on message" can be a form of disinformation-a special kind of lie. Again, we return to the idea that not everything is exposed; there are some things that those advertising their wares are scared of coming to light. These examples can have a far greater impact than those of an individual. I skim over this aspect because it is not the focus of the post, and deserves more exploration another time.

When it is an individual controlling or seeking to decide what is seen or known, we may call it 'privacy', 'secrecy', or 'confidentiality'. We may have select friends we tell all things to, while others receive only cursory or superficial versions of events in our life. Social media is an excellent example: the struggle to always appear positive and likable, as having it all together. It may go beyond "polite" topics, and become a neurotic competition for approval. However, in these situations the harm is fairly restricted to a few individuals around the liar. While it can lead to fervent defense, shame, and "family secrets", it will not have widespread impacts. There's more going on, and as much denial as is put into it, a person cannot succeed at 'spin' and remain authentic.

This is where the topic becomes more intriguing, because an unintended effect of lying is one of denying authentic connection. Rather than letting ones' mistakes and limitations be known, one chooses to obfuscate and deny their existence. This places a barrier between parties, known on one part and sensed by the other. The liar must guard against the lie being found out, for fear both of being judged for the original action as well as for covering it up. The other party begins to place the liar out of reach, as being 'other' in some way; they may not suspect lying, but know that somehow the liar is different. We all know that we are imperfect, and either we have a damaged self-image and think we're alone in that or a healthy self-image and recognize that everyone makes mistakes. If others don't own up to mistakes, we have to suspect something is wrong somewhere.

Finally, it is this social aspect that is at the heart of the matter. Because we are social creatures, and require connection, how we achieve that connection is vital. Basically, either we can connect to others through control or through vulnerability. There is a part of being around others that involves the challenge of judgment. The fear of rejection is the most common motivation for lying. Yet losing connection is the biggest risk of lying. This is an inherent tension of willing to be known by others. Additionally, others cannot struggle with their own judgements if I am not putting who I am in full view. This-again-is part of being human: to experience judgments. Here it is both judging others and being judged by others. The opportunity to be challenged by differing judgments or facts. These judgements are separate from truth or self-image; however, they matter because a healthy human requires the acceptance of other humans. That challenge of facing a difficulty and encountering it directly builds a more solid individual; we could say that it builds character.

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.

Top down versus bottom up

The idea being that collectively deciding, or cooperative (like the old idea of the co-op), we make better decisions and more people benefit. When an individual decides or makes the decision for a group or multiple others, a person can easily and erroneously make decisions based on their own interests rather than that of the groups. In business, decisions made by "thought leaders", CEOs, a small number Board of Directors, or just the owner of the business – these are all examples of this tendency. It is also this tendency for small groups to think small, or to limit their scope of value, that leads to cutting corners, outsourcing, and overvaluing the bottom line, and in the end disaster (see: Bhopal, financial crisis 2008, Exxon Valdez, Deepwater Horizon, Hurricane Katrina/New Orleans, etc.).

So this tendency is inherent in hierarchical system, and most businesses, and does not lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. The values and priorities of the few (elite) do not reflect those of the many (majority).

On the other hand, collections of individuals (working toward a common goal) value "people goals". Instead of maximizing profits for the business, people value maximizing happiness, capability, and helping others. It is through these actions that people both get and give fulfillment. So rather than a successful individual driving the economy, as happens now with "luxury" being prioritized over functionality – see Flint Michigan. Rather than expensive vacations to exotic locations, custom vehicles, designer clothing, and mansions, what most people would choose to value is stable income, safe and reliable housing and transport, some expendable income and leisure time, and choices around having children. These priorities are not reflected in the economy, where Apple, ExxonMobile, deBeers, and Microsoft top the investment banking worlds.

Much like micro loans, being given the power and opportunity to fulfill everyday citizens' dreams, this is very important. What is currently happening is, instead, the same individuals being told what opportunities they will be allowed to have and even what dreams to pursue.

I recommend The Wisdom of Crowds, published in 2004, written by James Surowiecki.

The Case Against Charity

I recognize that charity does good, and I think we can all see some of its positive effects. The part I don't hear in any discussion is the attendant negative, where charity causes harm or gets in the way of greater positive change. I will be using the term "mendicant" only because I like the sound and broad applicability, not because it is proper or best; I prefer it to 'poor', 'beggar', 'of modest means', or any number of synonyms or euphemism.

If two acquaintances meet and one who cannot afford it asks the other to pay for the meal, that's considered rude and the mendicant will be told so in a manner either large or small. When the same two people meet and have equal means to pay for the meal, often one will offer to pay for the other without prompting or judgment. The only thing different in this example is how able both are to afford the meal. The absurdity is that paying for the other is acceptable when there is no need or request. This situation seems to put the value on perceived status rather than the inherent worth of the person.

Then comes the case of giving to a mendicant on the street. The scenario seems straightforward: here is someone in need, and I have the ability to help with minimal effort/impact to myself, so I'll pitch some coins into their cup. However, not everyone who can contribute does so; again, there are judgements involved and different factors to consider. These may include one's sense of security, mood, visibility of the act of giving, having already given recently, if this mendicant has money in their cup, how long they have been in this same spot, and more. Society expects that the act of giving/helping is an individual choice, so that each contribution is not coerced, while at the same time leaving the decision (and potentially someone's life) totally to the caprice of various strangers. None of which is connected to the needs of the mendicant. There is no way to determine, in the context given, whether the donations are needed, suitable, adequate, or effective. This begins to demonstrate an inherent flaw in the current system of charity.

Another scenario is the "donation/resale center". This is a place where people with means can give items they don't need to people who do. It could be directly, with the items provided to the mendicant, or a larger operation that sells the donations to "give the proceeds to those in need". One thing that seems to appeal to those donating is that it's a more sterile and removed process. One never need to even see the unappealing mendicant, but simply drop items off at a convenient, aesthetically pleasing, well-lit location. This begins to show other issues with the charity system: since we rely on staff to do all the work, it is susceptible to various abuses. From embezzlement and graft to extortion of vulnerable persons and outright fraud. I'm not saying these things are common, just that there is no way of knowing with the current system. I believe that most workers in this field have noble intentions and wouldn't think of abusing their position. However, there is no oversight outside of each company/corporation/foundation. The closest thing would be a complaint to a government agency that oversees taxation, labor practices, or possibly business practices. I'm looking at you, Cancer Fund.

Finally, the establishment of a charity for a particular cause, such as an under-studied disease or other specific need (domestic violence or animal shelter). Here we can have specific individuals who have enough passion, or money/influence, to work towards change in a special area; often this will be a Foundation. Many times I have heard the founder or most well-known proponent for an organization talk about a personal impact; they had a friend or family member effected, driving them to take action. Noble, but so random and narrow to be laughable. This model also demonstrates an underlying inequity: who establishes and contributes to such charities, and therefore decides what is a "worthy cause"? I put this in scare quotes because - again - every individual is inherently worthy. That cannot be otherwise, else we risk the other-ing that leads to sanctioned and targeted neglect, killing, and even genocide. I may seem to digress, yet this is an important point in the discussion. By making certain individuals (be they mendicant, or person of color, or differing sexuality/gender than oneself, or religious affiliation) other we take away some of their power because we consider them to no longer have the same status as we do. This is easily seen when discussing mendicants, just notice your own reaction when hearing "vagrant", "bum", or "beggar". Returning to the point here, consider that impact on how charities could select only certain individuals to assist, while leaving others without. In order to receive what a mendicant needs, they need to conform to some established criteria and be an acceptable case - not a "lost cause". Those in power continue to determine how "worthy" someone is and whether they receive aid, directly and indirectly, by tying support to metrics established by those in power. For example, let's say an orphanage receives funding from a religious group. That funding could be limited to helping people the religious group deems 'worthy' and not for helping "unrepentant sinners". I say this demonstrates the core of unhealthy power dynamics: that one would consider a mendicant to not have the exact same rights or is incapable of having them.

This leads to another point, one central to helping others, which is that of self-determination and empowerment. When I give something to another person, it makes a difference whether they "earned" it or not; this can be seen in the difference between a busker and a mendicant. Giving to someone who is sitting passively with a cup feels different than giving to a performer-this is true on both parts. When a busker performs, they are demonstrating a skill and pride in their abilities. Contrast this with a mendicant who simply asks for others to act on their behalf. I am exclusively using this to demonstrate how an active or passive part in ones' own life changes more than having a single meal; this leaves aside ability/capacity, for example. The notion of autonomy is central to mental health and recovery. Think of times when you may have felt helpless or taken advantage of and get an idea of how important this can be. When that state becomes typical or standard, self-esteem and even hope are lost.

Finally, I will mention another point from a mental health view. A number of charitable organizations have taken to providing impact statements, documents that demonstrate action on the factors mentioned above. This is the start of accountability. However, when services/items provided are not adequate the assumptions seem to be 'they got something, that is all that matters', 'we can't do enough with our current budget/we need more to do more', or 'this is not meant to actually solve the issue, we are only providing enough to keep mendicants out of the way'. Harm reduction is important, and I do not intend to dismiss this aspect. It is simply that when we forego solutions we are not reducing but instead prolonging the harm; what sense is there in treating a condition instead of curing it?

The points so far: the focus on perceived status/value of mendicants, the random nature of giving that is not tied to outcomes, continued dis-empowerment of mendicants, lack of accountability, and vagaries of what cause is recognized as needing. My intention is to demonstrate how the underlying truth of our current system of charity is control. It is, in fact, an expansion of the Capitalist System that forces individuals to conform to the demands of those with money/power. This ranges from whether one gives to a mendicant on the street (act nice to the passers-by to get money to survive) to establishing a foundation (fill out these forms to apply for benefits...to survive).

"Charity" comforts us that we are 'doing something' instead of recognizing how backwards and broken the system is. Rather than fooling ourselves this way, it is time to analyze and address improvements to this system. The real value must be placed on choice and empowerment for the mendicants, with the end goal being the ability to dig oneself out of a difficult circumstance.

I Take Responsibility for Trump

I did not take seriously the possibility of someone so obviously unfit, unqualified, and unbelievable. I dismissed out of hand, denied with disdain, and scoffed with self-satisfaction. I did not consider for a moment that a great number of people could be swayed by their own disaffected frustration with the way things are. I was as lulled into complacency as so many privileged citizens have been. It is still unthinkable to me that this terrible individual had a chance of being given such a position. He is so demonstrably incapable of the dignity, restraint, and consideration required to be a leader. I look at him still and see the opposite of nearly all attributes that make a person fit for an elected office, let alone one at such a level. I put his chances of success on par with the possibility of Mickey Mouse being elected.

To be clear, these are not excuses. I am not asking for mercy for my error, and I fully recognize that I will be paying a price for my pride. No, this is to explicate my own responsibility and demonstrate how I missed all the opportunities to prevent this travesty. Instead, I should have been making efforts to talk with those individuals who were accepting and supporting the messages that Trump-the-candidate was spouting. It is not in my power to change DNC/RNC policies, I cannot lobby or buy media time, nor can I influence large number of people at rallies. However, I can reach out and build relationships with those who believe differently than I do.

In this way, most of all, is how I failed. I believe it is because we don't have good relations and strong, mutual respect for "others" that people like Trump succeed. Those "divisions" allow us to be steered like cattle by persuasive personalities. I use scare quotes because those words are artificial constructs and the emphasis denotes how they don't fit in reality. Lately, and with tremendous effort, I have begun looking for positive outcomes. In this case I have hopes that there may be some yet.

I cannot ignore this situation, and hope that no one else is able to, as well. I have been shaken from my complacency, and I hope that everyone else is also. I realize that things can truly be worse, and believe that others want that not to happen. We can come together, and need to more than ever.

The Stake That Sticks Up is Hammered Down

The title of this post is taken from a Japanese proverb (see end of post). The reason I'm repeating a 'tired and misunderstood' aphorism is this simple: special people are ruining the world.

I believe this is the precise meaning and original reason for the saying. Not that every individual must conform or is prescribed a narrow role to fulfill. Rather, I take it to mean that those who "stick out" do not fulfill their obligation to the structure in which they reside. I see ubiquitous examples in a hyper-individualistic society like the U.S. From the person at a stop sign telling others to "go", sociopathic commodities traders, and the lobbyist/elected official 'revolving door positions' to entitled socialites, self-righteous Social Justice Warriors, and privileged children. These are all examples of persons who - by exempting themselves from common rules - cause havoc and unhappiness for others. As they are self-absorbed, it seems likely they rationalize by concentrating on the desired effect to themselves and ignoring the harm to others.

What would be the goal or underlying motivation for such seemingly diverse groups of people to behave so similarly? The simplest explanation would be fear. I could expand or de-emphasize it by using words like scarcity and insecurity. In the end, I am still talking about a belief that if one does not 'bend the rules' then one will suffer or 'lose out'. That belief is simply a story that intellectualizes the basic human emotion of fear. However, and more importantly, this belief confuses a want with a need. If I am willing to trample another person to get to a sale item, I have confused priorities. A TV on sale is not the same situation as boarding the last life boat on the Titanic. Not that I agree with trampling someone even then.

I will state my own opinion here: the minimum expectation to which people could hold themselves is of 'not taking my own stuff out on others.' In this case, eliminating or soothing my own fear at the expense of another is not acceptable. My emotions, even intense ones, are solely mine and for me to grapple with. If I require help, I am able to make requests. I cannot - in good conscience - use controlling behaviours to force others to get what I want.

Another reason why these are 'special' people is that they are not fulfilling a culturally necessary role through these actions. Even 'rebels' and 'deviants' have a place in society: that of questioning or challenging authority and complacency. This is noble and necessary. However, selfishly disrupting the harmonious functioning of culture by interfering with others for ones' own benefit is not. This is not conscious or peaceful protest of unjust laws, it is blindly acting out habitual, feal-based patterns. I will suggest calling it selfishness.

According to http://dictionary.reference.com:
selfish
1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself.

So, in the end, these 'special' people are just selfish people. It may be time to use the hammer appropriately on the selfish, for the benefit of all.


The following links are discussions about the meaning of the proverb:
Reddit
Wikiquote
Cultural Blog

Why Is There No Post Here?

I was inspired to write a critical analysis of The Lord of the Flies recently, and it ended up being a larger project than I anticipated. It has taken much longer than most of my posts, and expanded into something that may require publishing in another format. I am replacing one of the original posts (yes, it was turning into a series) with this explanation, and will need to write new posts to take the place of the other parts. This is at the same time as a number of changes in my life, so I appreciate your patience with my process.

Why We Work

I often hear people refer to the so-called "helping professions". I have a sense that this is disingenuous. Every job, every field, and every profession is about helping others. This may not be the expressed or intended purpose (since most businesses operate to make a profit), but helping others is what actually happens. I also believe this is what motivates most people to do their jobs, that inherent sense of reward. Customer service and nursing, banking and policing, teaching and trash collection are about serving and helping others. It may be that nobody wants to do that particular task or people are so specialized that they don't have time or knowledge to do the job; either way, the one who steps up to that role is helping others by doing so.

Proclamation

I have to start sometime, and it might as well be now. I am often right, but I keep my mouth shut and let others run the show. I don't speak up or tell people what I know and think because I'm afraid. I see the answers all the time, and can't keep silent anymore.

I have to start somewhere, and it might as well be here. There may not be many who agree with me, but the number who do seems to be growing. I don't reach out to them and say what I feel because I'm afraid. I see the need everywhere I turn, and can't stay silent anymore.

People are in pain. It needs to end. There are things we can do. It is time to start.

A Discussion About Debate

I feel it's important to keep this subject in mind, especially during such emotional and challenging times as these. I am letting go of needing to be "right" or "bright": of finding the answer everyone should abide by or saying the witty, pithy thing everyone admires. I am stating my feelings here without expectation; I am stating here my desires without attachment. You choose to listen and/or hear just as you choose how to interpret my message. There is no goal I have in mind or ultimate "me" I need to become, only the pursuit of becoming more clear. In that pursuit, I want for us to talk about important subjects with the intensity in our hearts, with truth and reason in mind, and with compassion.

I am consciously not commenting on the many tragedies occurring right now, those that have been reported in the past couple weeks, or any potentially looming. I am focussed instead directly on the meta-conversation and meta-debate. I am drawn to the value-indeed, necessity-of holding and reminding ourselves to hold discussion of how and why we have discussion.

I, like you, have opinions. I feel things much as you do. I have wishes and dreams and believe you do also. I am imperfect, and think we are similar in this also. Most of all, I have questions. We are similar enough that I think you have questions as well. I even have a favorite question: "What Is It?" This is the shortened form, compressed and distilled into a purified reminder. It means to ask about reality, about what is true, and what is behind what we see. What moved behind, what motivated, what "caused" that which I see? It's my favorite both because I ask it all the time and because it covers so much of what I'm interested in.

Why am I sharing this and why should you bother reading it? Because I think it's the same question you are asking.

Why are we talking to others if not to understand? Why are we being open and vulnerable to one another if not to be understood? Recognise that we are all very similar and want similar things. By this I mean shelter, food, clothing, friends, a sense of fulfillment, a legacy, and fun. We are not so different that we cannot understand and be understood. We are not enemies that cannot coexist. We are not so alien we cannot communicate.

Therefore, in the interest of understanding and being understood, to realise the goal of knowing what is real, valuable, and true I ask you to commit to debate. We may be rivals, even opponents at times, but only to the extent we choose to be. Let us choose to value differences and allow for them. Let us acknowledge common needs and work together to meet them. Let us discuss with the intention of reaching the end together rather than separate.

My Very Own New Word!

Disneed: a self-destructive or harmful pattern of thinking, doing, and/or interacting.  The prefix dis- is used as in a dis-ease, dis-function, or dis-order whereby an actual need is sabotaged to result in a counterproductive outcome.  My disneed for being helpless led to us getting lost and missing the dinner.  The underlying drive may be to not be responsible; so as to bring down others expectations of me to such a minimal level that I won't be asked to do anything in the future.  It could also be a sense that I am not fit to make these decisions and so I force others to take control and make decisions.  At any rate the term disneed describes the underlying motivation.

Since it is self-destructive rather than productive or generative it isn't actually a need.  It would be too easy to say "My need to be irresponsible..." where it is not an actual need.  What I want is to accurately diagnose and describe what is happening, and that starts with recognising an error in thinking.  As language has power and the words we use will shape our thoughts and beliefs I feel that making this distinction is important.  It allows me to point to my self-destructive habits and know/show how the result was not what I really wanted nor needed.  It can call attention to where I need to focus-on the problem-rather than on blaming and belittling myself as the "uncorrectable source of the problem".  I do not believe in condemning people; it is the internal issues-which can usually be corrected-that should be the focus.  I hope that this tool helps with that goal.

Certainty is Comfort

The difficulty in life is that we do not know what to do-that we are unsure of our path, our goal, our selves.  We worry instead about how to pay bills, about raising children, pleasing our lovers, impressing our bosses, or the rut we find our selves in.  Everything in life is a challenge and there aren't easy, clear-cut answers.  Uncertainty is the most challenging thing to face in life and if we could feel sure of things, we would feel much better.  Certainty is safety to our minds, it is not being attacked, not being dumped into the street or by our lover.  Being certain of our health, our home, and our future allows us to enjoy all that life offers us.  Feeling lost and overwhelmed is commonplace and accepted, it's understood that we will be confused about all these things.  So how do we solve it?  We could recognise there is no way to actually solve uncertainty, that the future is uncontrollable.  That would be to admit that we are not the all-powerful, planning- and doing-beings we imagine ourselves to be.  Instead we create a system that we instill with the expectation that it has answers.  We convince ourselves that this process can solve all the problems, create certainty, and has a clear path to follow which will keep us safe.  The future is still just as uncertain and uncontrollable if we believe in hocus-pocus.  The problem lies in believing it and not acting in accord with reality.  If one gives up control of more areas of life and expects that everything will be fine just because of one's prayers, that does not solve the underlying problem.  It will just feel better, because there is no acknowledging of that undesirable uncertainty. 

Religion offers answers.  It does not necessarily offer real answers.

The Gift of Giving

There are very few valid reasons for anyone to have an excess of a commodity, basically only two: in order to give it to others or to save it in the short-term for a known or unknown need. This is true of any commodity, whether it be food a farmer grows or money a "philanthropist" has accumulated. Why do I say only these reasons? This is because any other rationale is an excuse for self-serving and unnecessary hoarding. What could be the broad, human benefit of holding on to things one does not need?  Whatever you just thought or actually said out loud, those are the selfish and short-sighted excuses I mean.  The system of capitalism encourages artificial scarcity and hoarding because it thrives on insecurity.  This has to do with the desire of business owners to have a workforce they can control and is another topic altogether.  There is no rational, valid reason for any to suffer when there are so many resources available; it is just that those who are able-and allowed-to keep more than their share want to leverage more power and status.  All this leads not just to suffering of those who do without those missing resources.  It is also that those hoarding the resources are doing without the joy of giving and providing to others, they are lacking that basic connection to those around them. 

Choice and Consequence

Capitalism is not a system that allows people to exercise free will, even though it is supposedly based on choice. We are told that we are free, that because we can pay for what we want and because the capitalist system provides so many options, that we have real choices.  However, all the choices boil down to the same one: pay or die.  If you can't afford food, you starve; if you don't have the cash for health care, you'll get or stay sick; when you need a vacation, you'd better have plenty of cash.  The problems of capitalism are ameliorated by factors like insurance, subsidies, and donations, but these are not solutions.  Also, the illusion of choice is exposed by having only those select "approved" choices. In this I mean not that we should be able to break laws or do without them altogether, those are collective decisions and necessary for societal well being.  I mean simply that true innovation and free thought is stifled.  We are caught up in the system and have to work within its confines.  This is due to spending so much energy just to meet our "cash needs" (food, clothing, shelter, recreation) there isn't much left over for exploration.  There is only funding for research that "those in charge" allow for, and they only want to pay for things that will get them more money and power. If we want to do something, we have to get their permission and support.  If we want to operate outside of their purview, we still have to work inside the system and have those same  "choices".  It is a self-fulfilling, self-perpetuating cycle whereby the more one plays the game, the more the game controls the player.

Is This Thing Working?

This will be the first in a series of posts about capitalism; something which is on everyone's mind, no doubt. I mean that with everything that has happened recently in the U.S. economy and elsewhere, there are few more pressing issues in the minds of most. There isn't a grand outline although I do have a few ideas and, of course, they have been bumping around in my head for a while, so I'm hoping for something akin to coherence.

The question asked of any system or device is whether or not it works, the same must hold true for capitalism. We must remember first what capitalism is and is not. It is simply an economic system; that is, a way for everyone to make a living and have what they need. It is not the basis for freedom, does not create equality and harmony, nor does it act as a creative force-those are all the responsibility and province of humanity itself. When something has been around for as long as something like capitalism has, it's like water for fish-you simply stop recognising its existence. The problem with that analogy is that fish need water; they have adapted to that environment and cannot live outside of it. Can the same be said of humans and capitalism? Hardly. At best, we can say that it fills the need to be able to produce and distribute goods and services at a barely-tolerable, minimally-acceptable level. I describe it in this way because by its own standards, there are gross inadequacies and rampant misallocation. The claim capitalists make about this system is that it will produce goods at levels people need without outside intervention. They claim that surplus will be minimised and efficiency maximised. The problems with these claims are widespread and obvious when looked for. One may not recognise these as it is common practice to blame such problems on individuals, "human nature", and artificial manipulation of the economy. It becomes clear that the system itself results in these conditions, so I don't feel the need to repeat the arguments from others here. This means that shortages and concentration of goods are inherent, stemming from the guidelines of capitalism. Thus, returning to our original question, we must conclude that it is not effective for those who cannot get what they need within this system.