This'll be the first in my 3-days-3-posts marathon to make up for Monday and Friday this week (both of which will not be filled with bloggy goodness
I'm strolling over into completely foreign territory right now to talk about something that has caused me no small amount of cognitive and emotional stress- Art.
Specifically, the sacrifices made in the name of art.
What do we owe to art? What power does art have over us? What are we allowed to do for art's sake?
No doubt this breaches the worlds of ethics, personal opinion, and aesthetics, all of which are intensely subjective topics, so coming to any sort of consensus is virtually out of the question, but I think the discussion merits existence regardless.
Art has existed since our cognition. And as we've progressed, we've taken all our knowledge and attempted to turn it into objective formulas- techniques and crafts. This has led to the rise of subversive works, not just in art, but in all fields. When there is a matter of certainty to how we create, those who are "truly" creative will deliberately exit the expected avenues of creativity in order to produce something new, unexpected, shocking, fascinating, or simply delightful. This is not a new phenomenon, but much of it falls under a recently named movement- postmodernism.
Subversive art, specifically, has taken many forms, from self-torture to pictures of anuses, but in the pursuit of a more shocking and surreal experience of aestheticism, what would normally be considered "art," has dabbled in the realm of real-world consequences.
http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2009/01/10/animal-torture-art/
Animal torture art (something I literally just now found out existed).
Human self-torture art.
Art that uses people, whether willing participants or not.
What exactly is "okay" in the realm of art? Why? Have we simply grown to justify immorality for the sake of art in our quest to constantly expand our artistic horizons?
Does an action lose much of its value when it's being performed for alternative reasons?
Let me give you an example-
We have an abusive father who beats his child out of malice. A clearly abhorrent act which obviously deserves jail time and a mandatory separation of the child from the father.
Now, what if the father is an artist who's making a statement about the world through beating his child? What if his intent is artistic and the suffering being caused is merely incidental?
How do we treat this new father? What exactly is the difference?
There must be some distinction, because we don't view the two as equal crimes, but we might not be likely to view the second father's actions as "acceptable" either. So the distinction is in intention.
But what exactly does that imply about the nature of actions? That as long as you don't mean to cause pain, you're off the hook? What about negligence? What value do we place on people being so irresponsible that they would cause harm to someone without recognizing how wrong that is? Isn't that a fair description of someone who lacks empathy?
Or maybe it's not that the perpetrator is negligent, but perhaps they feel the artistic value is worth more than the suffering! Isn't that even worse? Isn't that some really twisted act of ignoring empathy?
To put it another way, I feel sorry for those who suffer from psychopathy to an extent. The inability to feel empathy forces individuals to live by a set of rules (society's rules) that are contrary to anything they can have experience of. They don't know why what they're feeling is wrong- it doesn't make sense to them. It's genuine confusion.
Contrarily, someone who has empathy, but deliberately ignores it has absolutely no excuse for causing suffering. They're valuing something over their innate capacity for empathy.
What truth is worth more than life and happiness? Art? Why does art deserve that rank and title?
(Philosophically, why does life and happiness deserve it either? Both questions are equally valid)
Reaching back to a common theme of my posts- Where and why do we draw a line for what's acceptable for the sake of art?
Is animal torture?
How about human torture?
What if the human is yourself, so it's an informed choice?
Or perhaps a masochist, so it's an informed choice?
What if you're simply starving or suffering as a result of the art, and the art has no intention towards causing the suffering? Starving artists, artists who get too lost in their oeuvre?
What if the pain being caused isn't physical, but rather emotional?
Allow me to give you a fictional scenario from a play, "The Shape of Things."
The play is about an art student who meets and befriends a museum guard. He's intrigued by her, and they eventually start dating. Throughout the play, she gives him the motivation to change a significant number of qualities about himself, from the way he dresses to the way he talks and presents himself. By the end of the play, he comes to her senior art exhibit, which turns out to be about him.
Her art project was to take him and turn him into something completely different without ever actually forcing the change on him. Her time with him was entirely used for the purposes of art and she had never had feelings for him.
The ethical implications here are... incredibly complicated to say the least.
Human experimentation for the advancement of science, medicine, and psychology has been deemed unethical provided you cannot receive informed consent (and sometimes even if you can) by participants.
But the play presents something... not quite there. Almost like human experimentation when viewed through a cracked mirror.
The choices were entirely in the hands of the male protagonist. It was always within his power to stop it, but he was also deceived into believing in a legitimate connection that wasn't there. Does that deceit constitute any sort of criminal act? An immoral act would probably be pretty easy to argue, but it's unclear if you could ever really punish someone for it.
Furthermore, while the intent was never to cause pain, the intent was to use him for ulterior purposes. In other words, he was merely a means to an end instead of an end itself.
But we're talking about extreme cases that we don't often see or hear. Let me take this into a topic that may hit a little closer to home.
What about an acting role which causes someone to commit suicide?
Were they pushed too hard by a director looking for acting that was too real?
Or perhaps they pushed themselves too hard to be the perfect artist?
Is it a justifiable loss in the name of art?
What if your spouse was in a role that required them to have sex with someone else?
What if you were absolutely not okay with it, but your spouse wanted to go through with it?
Is the pain justifiable for art?
At what point does pain stop being justifiable for art?
After all, you're an unwilling recipient of the consequences of art, but it's more complicated than that, since the actual artist is willing.
However, this is a very particular example of something that I think is really a more general phenomenon-
Theater itself uses people for the purposes of art. They, unlike the poor boyfriend in "The Shape of Things," are willingly being used. Each production of the same play with the same characters takes people from the streets to attempt to fill those roles, no matter who they are. It could be anyone so long as they fit a set of criteria to be determined by the casting director, a tool used by the artform.
The theater does not care who you are or how you came to be. All it cares about is your ability to fulfill your duty and there will be no second thought if another can fill your role better than you.
The theater wants you to perform a set of actions and say specific things, no matter how you feel about them. It's up to another arm of the art, the director, to try to make you comfortable in order to streamline the process, but ultimately, your discomfort is of little consequence to the theater.
And then you sacrifice a large amount of hours, your time, your energy, your personal life- in order to keep up with the theater's demands so that you can be a part of this art.
When push comes to shove, that simply comes down to whether or not that personal sacrifice is worth it to you, as an individual, for the sake of art.
And what exactly defines this art form? The crowd? The collaboration? The polish? Is it still art if it's a bunch of unpracticed kids on stage in front of an empty auditorium trying to recite Shakespeare?
At what point does it go from being just pretending to being art?
And at what point does suffering start to be justified by art?
At what point does pain become acceptable just because someone doesn't intend to cause that pain?
I'm viewing this entirely from the perspective of someone outside the culture who has recently had negative feelings towards it, so it's entirely possible that my limited and biased perspective is totally incapable of understanding the pull of art that causes pain. Or maybe it's something deeper. Maybe pain is beautiful and it is art?
Who knows?
I wouldn't mind hearing some differing perspectives on this as, again, mine is super biased.
-
Wade
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Friday, November 30, 2012
Sorry!
Late night! I got nothin'.
I'll get back to you with something fun on Monday, alright?
-
Waddles
I'll get back to you with something fun on Monday, alright?
-
Waddles
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Relationships
Here's a big one. It's been coming for a while, but an old friend finally gave me some spectacular inspiration for writing it.
I need to preface this with something incredibly important and personal to me, which is why I feel as though I can maybe scratch the surface on the topic for once.
I'm currently dating an amazing woman who puts up with the worst I've ever shown anyone, and somehow that's only made us stronger. The downs I've faced in the last six months are among the worst I've ever experienced, with the highs being notably high themselves, and she's never once complained about the problems, helping me to shoulder them as long as I'd let her. As a result of this, and our overall connection, I'm in love (or just dependent) with her.
But the feelings I've had towards her are some of the most extreme feelings I've ever had, ranging from bitter sobbing sadness to simple and pure contentment. The negative feelings are more exceptional to me because they're a new aspect of my mind I haven't had to deal with much in the past with relationships. I've come across a new appreciation for jealousy that was once totally foreign to me. I've known a hurt unlike any other I've ever felt. These only exist resulting from a deeper connection than I thought I knew how to make.
With that said, I'm far from an example of healthy relationship material, however, I am at least pretty good about understanding others and their situations.
And it is from that experience as well as what little I know of psychology, ethics, and interpersonal relations that I draw my knowledge for this post.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relationships. I don't have to tell you how complicated and nuanced relationships are. That crap is complicated. So I will be glossing over things, missing things altogether, so please forgive me for that.
There's a million things that go into a successful relationship, and I don't even really have the space to adequately cover a single one of these, but I'm gonna' talk about six or seven and just dive into them, covering as much ground as I can think of in a single swoop.
My preface to this is to remind you, the reader, that all people and all couples are different. Some of this may not apply or may only apply somewhat to certain couples. However, even if this doesn't apply to you, you may want to consider if your relationship might be happier or healthier if you altered your style to incorporate some of these ideas.
1.Trust- This here's the golden egg of the relationship world. If you can't scrounge up some trust in your partner, your relationship is doomed. Doesn't matter which one of you lacks the quality (though it's made exceptionally worse when neither party has it). Trust is absolutely essential to the functioning of a healthy relationship. This word has some breadth to it though, so don't simply assume that, "well, I don't think my partner would cheat on me, therefore trust!"
Trust in fidelity is certainly one thing- and an important thing, but it only falls under a single category for trust- one that we can call physical trust. (You're about to see a shout-out to my post on subjects and objects, because I'm headed in a similar direction)
A. Physical trust- You trust your SO not to cheat on you, but you also trust them not to hit you or threaten your physical well-being. You trust your SO not to take any physical actions that result in you getting hurt. You trust your SO not to steal from you or take any kind of physical advantage of you.
B. Emotional trust- This is pretty similar to physical trust except that it entails more than simply trusting them not to do emotionally hurtful things, but you're also trusting them with your emotional burdens. Each partner is extremely unique in their emotional and cognitive developmental histories. You'll have different fears, different wants, different needs, different ideas, hobbies, tastes, comforts, discomforts. You have to trust each other with this knowledge. If you don't, you'll inevitably get hurt by a well-intentioned partner who simply doesn't know any better.
C. Cognitive trust- I would largely place the simple notion of deceit in this category. You have to trust that your partner is not lying to you. This can get into some sticky territory since our culture has placed some value on the idea of lying to "protect" someone. The simplest solution to this problem is to have a discussion about it and ultimately agree to either ban or utilize small lies as a couple. This is the category for discussion. Trusting your partner not to lie to you is important, but it goes further- you also have to be able to count on your partner as an available and willing conversationalist.
In other words- talk about all of your problems. All of your problems with your significant other. Now don't get me wrong- you don't have to constantly bring up how much of a problem you might have with your partner's friends- There must always be a balance and moderation. Converse as much as is required for their to be a mutual understanding about any given topic that causes problems for one or both of you, but be wary of "beating a dead horse." It might wear on their patience and cause a host of other problems.
D. Privacy- I felt this deserved a special mention since it is one of the topics that encompasses all three categories. Violating someone's privacy is deeply physical, emotional, and cognitive. For example, if you're looking at your partner's phone without their consent deliberately seeking information you think they may be keeping from you, you're violating their physical property (and not trusting that your partner isn't violating your physical connection through infidelity), emotional connections (as well as refusing to trust them with your fears and insecurities), and you're violating the trust they have that you will talk to them when you're feeling uncertain, while also refusing to trust that they are not lying to you in the first place.
A violation of privacy is a fundamental warning sign that you have little to no respect or trust for your partner. Have a conversation about this immediately if you are in a situation in which this is an issue.
Really. Have a conversation immediately if you feel as though there's a trust problem on any levels. Because conversations are healthy. Seriously. Have them. A lot. I cannot possibly stress this enough.
2. Understanding- Gained through emotional trust, understanding plays a fundamental role in any disagreement you may have with your significant other. Empathizing with your partner allows your partner to feel like you care enough to know exactly how they're feeling, and it allows you to see an alternate perspective that you may not have considered before. Too often, we get stuck in our ways, assuming that others have nothing left to teach us, no matter who they are. But so often are we surprised by the knowledge gained by simply spending a few minutes thinking and feeling as your partner instead of as yourself.
(And I don't mean that shitty biased way that some people "empathize" where they implant assumed and unrealistic motives into another person:
"Try to put yourself into the shoes of the guy who cut you off. Why do you think he did that?"
"He wanted to piss me off!")
You understand your partner by talking to them and, even if you disagree, trying to distance your own emotionality in order to see your partner's perspective without your own bias. It's a skill that develops the more you do it, so don't wait to start talking and understanding.
3. Compassion- The natural (hopefully) conclusion from gaining an understanding of your partner is to gain compassion for them. Their situations, their troubles, etc. It's one thing to understand where someone's coming from, but it's a whole additional trial to love them for it, particularly when you disagree or associate some other negative feeling with their circumstance.
This is often the thing you notice first when a relationship becomes love. It's something to be developed through an extraordinary amount of time with your partner. Don't expect either understanding or compassion to be fully realized without an enormous amount of work by both parties.
A wonderful quote that I believe sums up the value of compassion is, "If you can't handle me at my worst, you don't deserve me at my best." [EDITOR'S NOTE 3/24/15: I actually don't love this quote. It implies the onus is on your partner to deal with your actions whether they're acceptable or not, which isn't fair. I think a better quote might be, "If you can't handle me at my saddest, you don't deserve me at my happiest."]
4. Respect- While this coincides much with understanding, there are additional elements to respect. Respect is about acknowledging the differences between you and your partner as "acceptable" while also valuing the needs and wants of your partner. Respect, like understanding, doesn't necessarily translate into agreement, but it can translate into compliance. You may not like that your partner wants to pursue their career and, resulting from this, move away, but to respect your partner's independence and their desires, you may give them your blessing anyway.
However, on the opposite end of this, your partner may very much want to go, but may respect your desire to see them stay. It's a push and pull- a system of balancing that requires compromise and finding common ground. Maybe you'll opt to go with your partner. Or maybe you'll agree as a couple that it should only be a trial run.
Respect strengthens the bonds forged by trust, allowing both parties to remain independent people without diminishing the value of their connection to each other. Respect may often call for us to make sacrifices, as you might guess. It's painful, but rewarding to know that, despite your pain, your partner is happy. However, it is never wise to assume you know what your partner wants or needs without having a conversation first, so don't "respect" something that may not be there. Such actions can needlessly strain the emotional trust shared between you two.
[A very real problem we can run into is when we compartmentalize these relational items as separate. In reality, many of these are fully related to other items. For example, if your partner expects you to stop being friends with everyone of the opposite gender, you may feel like you have something of an obligation to respect that desire, but ultimately, such an expectation is fostered by a lack of emotional and physical trust. Respect isn't worth a whole lot if you're sacrificing trust to get there. As with all of these items, make sure to fully take stock what other elements any argument or request may have embedded within them.]
5. Expectations- Oh Jesus, this is the big'n. Expectations are something of the meat of any relationship, good or bad. Everyone has expectations for every relationship, whether platonic or romantic. You expect your friends to not poop on your bed while you're sleeping in it. You expect your friends not to break your belongings. You expect your friends to provide you with humor or compassion or sometimes just a shoulder to cry on.
Likewise, you expect your partner to trust you. You expect your partner to respect you.
But these are all really sort of universal expectations. We also have some pretty controversial expectations.
Like expecting a friend to bail you out of jail. Or expecting to be able to borrow your friend's clothes.
Expecting your partner to provide sexual stimulation when you want it. Expecting a relationship to be long-term. Expecting monogamy. Expecting commitment. Expecting your partner to sacrifice for you. Expectations come in many severities, shapes, sizes, etc. The important thing is to lay out your expectations in front of you and have a discussion over-time in the relationship about them, particularly when they become relevant. Do you expect your SO to flirt with and tease you once the relationship has started? That might be something to bring up early on. Do you expect your partner to spend time with your family on holidays if you're together by that point? Maybe that's something to bring up when it becomes relevant.
Whatever the expectation, failing to meet with your partner's expectation can lead to disastrous complications and it's up to your emotional and cognitive trust to prevent a fight or a separation depending on how intense the expectations are.
Do you expect your partner to stay in the same city as you after graduation? That's something you want to have a discussion about before the time comes so that you know what you should have invested in the relationship- so you can plan ahead. The earlier discussion will also prevent a flood of emotional distress if their expectations don't necessarily line up with yours, since you'll have more time to discuss it down the road.
Ultimately, if your expectations don't line up and you don't talk about it, then you may simply wind up facing a decreasingly happy relationship. The importance of talking with your partner cannot possibly be overstated with regards to expectations. If you don't tell your partner what you want out of the relationship, they will never know without making a lot of half-correct inferences based on your behavior and other context cues you put off. This is equally applicable to your sex life as well. While our culture may have this grand taboo about discussing sex, you will have to talk about your sexual expectations and desires with your partner in order to avoid having a bland and unhappy sex life.
While it can be amazing and romantic if your partner picks up on what you want without you saying anything, it's not very practical, and there's really no harm in telling your partner what you'd like. Do you wish your partner would work out more? Clean the dishes more thoroughly? Call you more often? Take you on weekly dates? Hold your hand in public? Avoid PDAs? Tell them! Have a mature, grown-up discussion about it. And if your partner expects you to not have mature, grown-up discussions with them, then maybe the relationship has some problems to be addressed...
Don't underestimate the power of simple expectations as well as the complex ones. Something as insignificant as only brushing your teeth at night and not when you wake up may end up having a large influence on the happiness of your relationship without you realizing it. That's why you need to talk about it when something bothers you or when you want your partner to do something.
And I know it can be awkward to ask your partner to do something multiple times. Maybe your partner doesn't want to do it, but is avoiding confrontation. Maybe your partner simply forgot. Maybe your partner isn't doing it out of some revenge- regardless of the case, you need to initiate the discussion- not in an accusatory way, mind you, but in an understanding and respectful way that invites compassion! (See all these buzzwords I'm throwing around? They'll be on the test)
6. Argumentation styles- On the topic of initiating discussion, you're gonna' find that most people fall under three categories of discussion/argumentation/confrontation styles. I'm going to be extremely biased towards one, even though all three can lead to successful, long-term relationships.
A. Aggressive- This is your type A personality. Raised voices, highly emotional arguing, and a lot of, frankly, irrational logic. These are highly confrontational people who are often interested in being right or exerting power and influence. People looking for a fight. This type of argumentation seems less inclined towards understanding, emotional trust, and respect, let alone compassion. A typical representation of abusive partners is someone who has an aggressive argumentation style, though I must stress that not all aggressive partners are abusive, and not all abusive partners are aggressive.
If you believe that you or your partner has this argumentation style and it's causing problems in the relationship, it may be worth looking into anger-management, therapy, or possibly a more compatible relationship. Some couples are able to function perfectly with aggressiveness, but if you don't feel that you're one of them, do not subject yourself to treatment like that, which can be highly vitriolic and outwardly hurtful.
B. Avoidant- This argumentation style is characterized by a lot of either passive-aggressiveness or often simply caving into your partner's needs or wants without examining/pushing for your own. Avoidant partners simply don't want to rock the boat, even if it's not healthy for them or the relationship. The partners of aggressive individuals are often either aggressive themselves or avoidant, taking one extreme or the other. The main concern with avoidant partners is that they are more easily capable of being walked on. The needs and wants for avoidant partners are less vocalized and, therefore, less often received unless their partner is someone willing to actively seek out their needs and wants.
C. Respondent- The balance of the other two styles, respondent individuals are willing to talk in order to solve problems, but are reserved enough to avoid emotional outbursts and yelling in most situations. Those who are respondent are more typically people who have not only understanding, respect, and compassion for their partner, but also themselves, which is also incredibly important in any relationship.
Remember, when you're "fighting", you're not at war. You're trying to close a serious emotional or cognitive gap between the two of you. You don't want your partner to lose. What does that gain you? The best outcome is one not focused on winning or losing, but on understanding, respecting, and compromising. This leads to growth for the individuals and the relationship as a whole, while promoting both parties getting needs and wants resolved.
7. Dependency- This is something I'm struggling with a bit myself, but it's something we've all seen. That couple that is together 100% of the time. That couple who collectively stopped having outside friends. Dependency is a very serious issue in relationships, especially if one partner is dependent, but not the other. This is a major disconnect in expectations in the relationship that would need to be discussed immediately before any other progress could be made. However, physical dependence isn't the only kind.
Sometimes, we require the presence or validation of our partner in order to feel remotely worthwhile ourselves. This happens often in abusive relationships as well as relationships with insecurities and self-esteem issues. Being dependent on another person is ultimately bad for your health and bad for the health of the relationship. Until you can love yourself, you cannot love another (or something like that). That's not exactly true, but in order to love someone else, we have to be willing to appreciate ourselves on a fundamental level. Until we can do that, our insecurities will only poison the relationship as well as ourselves. And if the relationship falls apart resulting from our insecurities, then that only services to reinforce our self-esteem issues. It's a gamble that's not worth the pain. If you're not feeling confident, start making changes to your life and your perspective until you are confident. Would working out make you feel confident? How about looking at yourself in the mirror every day and telling yourself that you're beautiful? Be confident in yourself, and then you can be confident in your relationship, and you won't have to depend on the emotional support of your partner to get you through each day.
8. Objective/Subjective- http://atouchofwaddles.blogspot.com/2012/10/objects-and-subjects.html
I already did a blog post on this one, but it's also super important and a lot of things from this tie in, so go read that if you haven't.
Relationships are scary and difficult and time consuming. We have to put ourselves out there, ask questions we're not used to asking. Talk about everything. We have to live in a radically altered way than single life when we're in a relationship- but this is how you grow. This is how you learn.
Which brings me to my last point.
9. Breaking up- Relationships end. Sometimes peaceably, sometimes catastrophically. But most of them end. How it ends is up to you.
But just remember that no relationship is without gain, even if it doesn't seem like it. Every time you go through the song and dance, you learn something new- about yourself, about human nature, about relationships, and yes, about partners. You're going to go through a lot of pain in order to find and maintain love, but if it's worth it to you, then keep up with it. Take the good and the bad and always remember the experiences along the way.
I don't have a single relationship in my memory that was without good times. And honestly, the good times are usually far more vivid than the bad times. If you obsess over the negative, you're going to set yourself up for a bad relationship down the road, where you're expecting the bad to be repeated. If you remember the positives more readily, then new relationships will be associated with those good times, and you'll be that much more excited to jump back into it.
Everyone copes with breaking up differently, but just try to make sure you're respectful about it. Try to have a mature, grown-up discussion about it- whether or not it's salvageable, whether or not you can be friends, whether or not you should give each other back gifts, etc.
Offer and ensure closure. No one likes to end a relationship filled with questions. It makes us depressed and frustrated, and it's just not worth it. You're already breaking up, which is the most awkward kind of interaction, so why should it matter to have a final thirty minute discussion where you hammer out the final details, answer any questions, and part like adults?
Wow. That was long. I am sorry.
-
Waddles
I need to preface this with something incredibly important and personal to me, which is why I feel as though I can maybe scratch the surface on the topic for once.
I'm currently dating an amazing woman who puts up with the worst I've ever shown anyone, and somehow that's only made us stronger. The downs I've faced in the last six months are among the worst I've ever experienced, with the highs being notably high themselves, and she's never once complained about the problems, helping me to shoulder them as long as I'd let her. As a result of this, and our overall connection, I'm in love (or just dependent) with her.
But the feelings I've had towards her are some of the most extreme feelings I've ever had, ranging from bitter sobbing sadness to simple and pure contentment. The negative feelings are more exceptional to me because they're a new aspect of my mind I haven't had to deal with much in the past with relationships. I've come across a new appreciation for jealousy that was once totally foreign to me. I've known a hurt unlike any other I've ever felt. These only exist resulting from a deeper connection than I thought I knew how to make.
With that said, I'm far from an example of healthy relationship material, however, I am at least pretty good about understanding others and their situations.
And it is from that experience as well as what little I know of psychology, ethics, and interpersonal relations that I draw my knowledge for this post.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relationships. I don't have to tell you how complicated and nuanced relationships are. That crap is complicated. So I will be glossing over things, missing things altogether, so please forgive me for that.
There's a million things that go into a successful relationship, and I don't even really have the space to adequately cover a single one of these, but I'm gonna' talk about six or seven and just dive into them, covering as much ground as I can think of in a single swoop.
My preface to this is to remind you, the reader, that all people and all couples are different. Some of this may not apply or may only apply somewhat to certain couples. However, even if this doesn't apply to you, you may want to consider if your relationship might be happier or healthier if you altered your style to incorporate some of these ideas.
1.Trust- This here's the golden egg of the relationship world. If you can't scrounge up some trust in your partner, your relationship is doomed. Doesn't matter which one of you lacks the quality (though it's made exceptionally worse when neither party has it). Trust is absolutely essential to the functioning of a healthy relationship. This word has some breadth to it though, so don't simply assume that, "well, I don't think my partner would cheat on me, therefore trust!"
Trust in fidelity is certainly one thing- and an important thing, but it only falls under a single category for trust- one that we can call physical trust. (You're about to see a shout-out to my post on subjects and objects, because I'm headed in a similar direction)
A. Physical trust- You trust your SO not to cheat on you, but you also trust them not to hit you or threaten your physical well-being. You trust your SO not to take any physical actions that result in you getting hurt. You trust your SO not to steal from you or take any kind of physical advantage of you.
B. Emotional trust- This is pretty similar to physical trust except that it entails more than simply trusting them not to do emotionally hurtful things, but you're also trusting them with your emotional burdens. Each partner is extremely unique in their emotional and cognitive developmental histories. You'll have different fears, different wants, different needs, different ideas, hobbies, tastes, comforts, discomforts. You have to trust each other with this knowledge. If you don't, you'll inevitably get hurt by a well-intentioned partner who simply doesn't know any better.
C. Cognitive trust- I would largely place the simple notion of deceit in this category. You have to trust that your partner is not lying to you. This can get into some sticky territory since our culture has placed some value on the idea of lying to "protect" someone. The simplest solution to this problem is to have a discussion about it and ultimately agree to either ban or utilize small lies as a couple. This is the category for discussion. Trusting your partner not to lie to you is important, but it goes further- you also have to be able to count on your partner as an available and willing conversationalist.
In other words- talk about all of your problems. All of your problems with your significant other. Now don't get me wrong- you don't have to constantly bring up how much of a problem you might have with your partner's friends- There must always be a balance and moderation. Converse as much as is required for their to be a mutual understanding about any given topic that causes problems for one or both of you, but be wary of "beating a dead horse." It might wear on their patience and cause a host of other problems.
D. Privacy- I felt this deserved a special mention since it is one of the topics that encompasses all three categories. Violating someone's privacy is deeply physical, emotional, and cognitive. For example, if you're looking at your partner's phone without their consent deliberately seeking information you think they may be keeping from you, you're violating their physical property (and not trusting that your partner isn't violating your physical connection through infidelity), emotional connections (as well as refusing to trust them with your fears and insecurities), and you're violating the trust they have that you will talk to them when you're feeling uncertain, while also refusing to trust that they are not lying to you in the first place.
A violation of privacy is a fundamental warning sign that you have little to no respect or trust for your partner. Have a conversation about this immediately if you are in a situation in which this is an issue.
Really. Have a conversation immediately if you feel as though there's a trust problem on any levels. Because conversations are healthy. Seriously. Have them. A lot. I cannot possibly stress this enough.
2. Understanding- Gained through emotional trust, understanding plays a fundamental role in any disagreement you may have with your significant other. Empathizing with your partner allows your partner to feel like you care enough to know exactly how they're feeling, and it allows you to see an alternate perspective that you may not have considered before. Too often, we get stuck in our ways, assuming that others have nothing left to teach us, no matter who they are. But so often are we surprised by the knowledge gained by simply spending a few minutes thinking and feeling as your partner instead of as yourself.
(And I don't mean that shitty biased way that some people "empathize" where they implant assumed and unrealistic motives into another person:
"Try to put yourself into the shoes of the guy who cut you off. Why do you think he did that?"
"He wanted to piss me off!")
You understand your partner by talking to them and, even if you disagree, trying to distance your own emotionality in order to see your partner's perspective without your own bias. It's a skill that develops the more you do it, so don't wait to start talking and understanding.
3. Compassion- The natural (hopefully) conclusion from gaining an understanding of your partner is to gain compassion for them. Their situations, their troubles, etc. It's one thing to understand where someone's coming from, but it's a whole additional trial to love them for it, particularly when you disagree or associate some other negative feeling with their circumstance.
This is often the thing you notice first when a relationship becomes love. It's something to be developed through an extraordinary amount of time with your partner. Don't expect either understanding or compassion to be fully realized without an enormous amount of work by both parties.
A wonderful quote that I believe sums up the value of compassion is, "If you can't handle me at my worst, you don't deserve me at my best." [EDITOR'S NOTE 3/24/15: I actually don't love this quote. It implies the onus is on your partner to deal with your actions whether they're acceptable or not, which isn't fair. I think a better quote might be, "If you can't handle me at my saddest, you don't deserve me at my happiest."]
4. Respect- While this coincides much with understanding, there are additional elements to respect. Respect is about acknowledging the differences between you and your partner as "acceptable" while also valuing the needs and wants of your partner. Respect, like understanding, doesn't necessarily translate into agreement, but it can translate into compliance. You may not like that your partner wants to pursue their career and, resulting from this, move away, but to respect your partner's independence and their desires, you may give them your blessing anyway.
However, on the opposite end of this, your partner may very much want to go, but may respect your desire to see them stay. It's a push and pull- a system of balancing that requires compromise and finding common ground. Maybe you'll opt to go with your partner. Or maybe you'll agree as a couple that it should only be a trial run.
Respect strengthens the bonds forged by trust, allowing both parties to remain independent people without diminishing the value of their connection to each other. Respect may often call for us to make sacrifices, as you might guess. It's painful, but rewarding to know that, despite your pain, your partner is happy. However, it is never wise to assume you know what your partner wants or needs without having a conversation first, so don't "respect" something that may not be there. Such actions can needlessly strain the emotional trust shared between you two.
[A very real problem we can run into is when we compartmentalize these relational items as separate. In reality, many of these are fully related to other items. For example, if your partner expects you to stop being friends with everyone of the opposite gender, you may feel like you have something of an obligation to respect that desire, but ultimately, such an expectation is fostered by a lack of emotional and physical trust. Respect isn't worth a whole lot if you're sacrificing trust to get there. As with all of these items, make sure to fully take stock what other elements any argument or request may have embedded within them.]
5. Expectations- Oh Jesus, this is the big'n. Expectations are something of the meat of any relationship, good or bad. Everyone has expectations for every relationship, whether platonic or romantic. You expect your friends to not poop on your bed while you're sleeping in it. You expect your friends not to break your belongings. You expect your friends to provide you with humor or compassion or sometimes just a shoulder to cry on.
Likewise, you expect your partner to trust you. You expect your partner to respect you.
But these are all really sort of universal expectations. We also have some pretty controversial expectations.
Like expecting a friend to bail you out of jail. Or expecting to be able to borrow your friend's clothes.
Expecting your partner to provide sexual stimulation when you want it. Expecting a relationship to be long-term. Expecting monogamy. Expecting commitment. Expecting your partner to sacrifice for you. Expectations come in many severities, shapes, sizes, etc. The important thing is to lay out your expectations in front of you and have a discussion over-time in the relationship about them, particularly when they become relevant. Do you expect your SO to flirt with and tease you once the relationship has started? That might be something to bring up early on. Do you expect your partner to spend time with your family on holidays if you're together by that point? Maybe that's something to bring up when it becomes relevant.
Whatever the expectation, failing to meet with your partner's expectation can lead to disastrous complications and it's up to your emotional and cognitive trust to prevent a fight or a separation depending on how intense the expectations are.
Do you expect your partner to stay in the same city as you after graduation? That's something you want to have a discussion about before the time comes so that you know what you should have invested in the relationship- so you can plan ahead. The earlier discussion will also prevent a flood of emotional distress if their expectations don't necessarily line up with yours, since you'll have more time to discuss it down the road.
Ultimately, if your expectations don't line up and you don't talk about it, then you may simply wind up facing a decreasingly happy relationship. The importance of talking with your partner cannot possibly be overstated with regards to expectations. If you don't tell your partner what you want out of the relationship, they will never know without making a lot of half-correct inferences based on your behavior and other context cues you put off. This is equally applicable to your sex life as well. While our culture may have this grand taboo about discussing sex, you will have to talk about your sexual expectations and desires with your partner in order to avoid having a bland and unhappy sex life.
While it can be amazing and romantic if your partner picks up on what you want without you saying anything, it's not very practical, and there's really no harm in telling your partner what you'd like. Do you wish your partner would work out more? Clean the dishes more thoroughly? Call you more often? Take you on weekly dates? Hold your hand in public? Avoid PDAs? Tell them! Have a mature, grown-up discussion about it. And if your partner expects you to not have mature, grown-up discussions with them, then maybe the relationship has some problems to be addressed...
Don't underestimate the power of simple expectations as well as the complex ones. Something as insignificant as only brushing your teeth at night and not when you wake up may end up having a large influence on the happiness of your relationship without you realizing it. That's why you need to talk about it when something bothers you or when you want your partner to do something.
And I know it can be awkward to ask your partner to do something multiple times. Maybe your partner doesn't want to do it, but is avoiding confrontation. Maybe your partner simply forgot. Maybe your partner isn't doing it out of some revenge- regardless of the case, you need to initiate the discussion- not in an accusatory way, mind you, but in an understanding and respectful way that invites compassion! (See all these buzzwords I'm throwing around? They'll be on the test)
6. Argumentation styles- On the topic of initiating discussion, you're gonna' find that most people fall under three categories of discussion/argumentation/confrontation styles. I'm going to be extremely biased towards one, even though all three can lead to successful, long-term relationships.
A. Aggressive- This is your type A personality. Raised voices, highly emotional arguing, and a lot of, frankly, irrational logic. These are highly confrontational people who are often interested in being right or exerting power and influence. People looking for a fight. This type of argumentation seems less inclined towards understanding, emotional trust, and respect, let alone compassion. A typical representation of abusive partners is someone who has an aggressive argumentation style, though I must stress that not all aggressive partners are abusive, and not all abusive partners are aggressive.
If you believe that you or your partner has this argumentation style and it's causing problems in the relationship, it may be worth looking into anger-management, therapy, or possibly a more compatible relationship. Some couples are able to function perfectly with aggressiveness, but if you don't feel that you're one of them, do not subject yourself to treatment like that, which can be highly vitriolic and outwardly hurtful.
B. Avoidant- This argumentation style is characterized by a lot of either passive-aggressiveness or often simply caving into your partner's needs or wants without examining/pushing for your own. Avoidant partners simply don't want to rock the boat, even if it's not healthy for them or the relationship. The partners of aggressive individuals are often either aggressive themselves or avoidant, taking one extreme or the other. The main concern with avoidant partners is that they are more easily capable of being walked on. The needs and wants for avoidant partners are less vocalized and, therefore, less often received unless their partner is someone willing to actively seek out their needs and wants.
C. Respondent- The balance of the other two styles, respondent individuals are willing to talk in order to solve problems, but are reserved enough to avoid emotional outbursts and yelling in most situations. Those who are respondent are more typically people who have not only understanding, respect, and compassion for their partner, but also themselves, which is also incredibly important in any relationship.
Remember, when you're "fighting", you're not at war. You're trying to close a serious emotional or cognitive gap between the two of you. You don't want your partner to lose. What does that gain you? The best outcome is one not focused on winning or losing, but on understanding, respecting, and compromising. This leads to growth for the individuals and the relationship as a whole, while promoting both parties getting needs and wants resolved.
7. Dependency- This is something I'm struggling with a bit myself, but it's something we've all seen. That couple that is together 100% of the time. That couple who collectively stopped having outside friends. Dependency is a very serious issue in relationships, especially if one partner is dependent, but not the other. This is a major disconnect in expectations in the relationship that would need to be discussed immediately before any other progress could be made. However, physical dependence isn't the only kind.
Sometimes, we require the presence or validation of our partner in order to feel remotely worthwhile ourselves. This happens often in abusive relationships as well as relationships with insecurities and self-esteem issues. Being dependent on another person is ultimately bad for your health and bad for the health of the relationship. Until you can love yourself, you cannot love another (or something like that). That's not exactly true, but in order to love someone else, we have to be willing to appreciate ourselves on a fundamental level. Until we can do that, our insecurities will only poison the relationship as well as ourselves. And if the relationship falls apart resulting from our insecurities, then that only services to reinforce our self-esteem issues. It's a gamble that's not worth the pain. If you're not feeling confident, start making changes to your life and your perspective until you are confident. Would working out make you feel confident? How about looking at yourself in the mirror every day and telling yourself that you're beautiful? Be confident in yourself, and then you can be confident in your relationship, and you won't have to depend on the emotional support of your partner to get you through each day.
8. Objective/Subjective- http://atouchofwaddles.blogspot.com/2012/10/objects-and-subjects.html
I already did a blog post on this one, but it's also super important and a lot of things from this tie in, so go read that if you haven't.
Relationships are scary and difficult and time consuming. We have to put ourselves out there, ask questions we're not used to asking. Talk about everything. We have to live in a radically altered way than single life when we're in a relationship- but this is how you grow. This is how you learn.
Which brings me to my last point.
9. Breaking up- Relationships end. Sometimes peaceably, sometimes catastrophically. But most of them end. How it ends is up to you.
But just remember that no relationship is without gain, even if it doesn't seem like it. Every time you go through the song and dance, you learn something new- about yourself, about human nature, about relationships, and yes, about partners. You're going to go through a lot of pain in order to find and maintain love, but if it's worth it to you, then keep up with it. Take the good and the bad and always remember the experiences along the way.
I don't have a single relationship in my memory that was without good times. And honestly, the good times are usually far more vivid than the bad times. If you obsess over the negative, you're going to set yourself up for a bad relationship down the road, where you're expecting the bad to be repeated. If you remember the positives more readily, then new relationships will be associated with those good times, and you'll be that much more excited to jump back into it.
Everyone copes with breaking up differently, but just try to make sure you're respectful about it. Try to have a mature, grown-up discussion about it- whether or not it's salvageable, whether or not you can be friends, whether or not you should give each other back gifts, etc.
Offer and ensure closure. No one likes to end a relationship filled with questions. It makes us depressed and frustrated, and it's just not worth it. You're already breaking up, which is the most awkward kind of interaction, so why should it matter to have a final thirty minute discussion where you hammer out the final details, answer any questions, and part like adults?
Wow. That was long. I am sorry.
-
Waddles
Monday, November 26, 2012
Technology Time!
Truthfully, the TV story from Friday reminds me of another that took place that same Christmas.
My mother loves technology. She gets a kick out of the new i-gadgets that come out, so naturally, she picked up an i-pad for Christmas to tinker with, completing her trifecta of owning an iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPad. I asked her if I could have her old iPod Touch mostly out of curiosity myself (I also love tinkering with technology). However, after a single night with it, I realized that a gizmo like that had no place in my world.
Some find comfort in the vast array of options afforded by their iEquipment for mobile enjoyment, but I find it mostly just distracting.
If I'm on the go, I'm typically paying attention to where I'm going, leaving me unable to play flash games on a tiny slab. If I'm not moving, I usually have my computer, which is the superior choice for fiddling on the internet or playing games or seeking information. And in the odd scenario where I'm not at home and unable to move, it's usually in a situation where I'd feel a little rude playing "Fruit Ninja."
This is not the case for everyone, mind you, but in my world, if I have downtime in which I can't move and it's not offensive to drift off, I would only want the music portion of the iSeries. Anything more seems over the top.
Sure, sometimes it's nice to have a mobile hotspot app, or a TomTom app, or any one of the million other apps that are convenient (and here's where I'm going to start sounding old), but in a world where information flows literally endlessly towards you, we're overloaded with stimuli, unable to stop and appreciate something atechnological, like nature or the simple process of trial and error or even getting lost and having an adventure.
As a huge proponent of technology, I think having all the world's knowledge at our fingertips is amazing and should be utilized by everyone. But we also need to remind ourselves to be distant sometimes. Back away from technology and appreciate the non-digital world.
Ultimately, each person is different, so I can't, say, give my girlfriend withering looks when she plays flash games on her iPhone during many periods of downtime. But I can choose for myself to keep fully separate my connection with technology (specifically my computer) versus my connection with the non-digital world. [Although to be completely fair, that's getting increasingly difficult, since the entire world is approaching symbiosis with technology. And maybe I'm on the wrong side of history for wanting the two to remain distinct enough that we can tell the difference... Who knows?]
To be sure, the "culprit" (if I want to implicitly mark it as a problem) is mostly mobile devices. Tablets, smart phones, laptops, Nooks, Kindles, etc. We hang out with friends and family, and we always seem to have something open. We're fidgeting with some piece of technology to keep ourselves busy. I don't necessarily think this is bad.
In truth, I don't even think the human attention span is actually shrinking, as many would suggest examining the same set of behavior. No, I think we're experiencing an existential overload. Humans were so incredibly limited before on a day-to-day basis. A kid raised on a farm didn't have a huge selection of books to read or friends to play with or things to do. Being bottlenecked into certain hobbies or activities was, in truth, somewhat productive. We grew and learned certain things because there was nothing else to do. The notable exception would be when faced with libraries, where the knowledge was similarly immeasurably vast.
Here's my theory- when faced with untold resources, most people break down and regress in order to avoid the phenomenal task of making a decision out of millions of options. We see a library- something that has a book for everyone. But instead of reading, we go drinking with our friends. Combing through the books would take immense commitment and a certain lust for exploration that we rip from our children through the education system.
Nowadays, that infinite access is at our fingertips almost at all times. So, instead of being bottlenecked into a few very specific hobbies or conversations, we do something mindless (relatively) and self-indulgent to avoid the angst of billions of choices and not knowing how to proceed. We text our friends. We play little flash games. We scout Reddit or 4chan. Safe zones where we know what to expect and our minds are not taxed.
This is all, of course, the result of an education system and, indeed, a populace wholly unprepared for the implications of the internet and the growing world of technological marvels. This is an unpopular opinion (and a fiscally irresponsible one), but the kids that get iPads through their school in elementary school? That's probably good for them. They're getting access to the infinite world of the internet earlier and systematically learning how to utilize it properly. It may very well be that this coming generation is the first generation that will truly know how to, as a whole, use technology to the extent of its capacity.
The system needs to embrace and integrate this incredible world as early as possible, since it's not just a niche market anymore- this is the future of our very way of life. It's not something we can choose to avoid or ignore anymore. It's not simply a convenience to have a computer now- it's almost a necessity. This technology will continue to progress and surpass previous models at an unbelievable pace, and it simply doesn't do the future justice to try to make kids learn about this world on their own.
[Here I am contradicting my earlier desire to remain partially distant from technology, now telling the world to embrace it. Oye, my nostalgia's fighting my common sense... In fairness though, I wrote this last part several days after the first part.]
-
Waddle
My mother loves technology. She gets a kick out of the new i-gadgets that come out, so naturally, she picked up an i-pad for Christmas to tinker with, completing her trifecta of owning an iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPad. I asked her if I could have her old iPod Touch mostly out of curiosity myself (I also love tinkering with technology). However, after a single night with it, I realized that a gizmo like that had no place in my world.
Some find comfort in the vast array of options afforded by their iEquipment for mobile enjoyment, but I find it mostly just distracting.
If I'm on the go, I'm typically paying attention to where I'm going, leaving me unable to play flash games on a tiny slab. If I'm not moving, I usually have my computer, which is the superior choice for fiddling on the internet or playing games or seeking information. And in the odd scenario where I'm not at home and unable to move, it's usually in a situation where I'd feel a little rude playing "Fruit Ninja."
This is not the case for everyone, mind you, but in my world, if I have downtime in which I can't move and it's not offensive to drift off, I would only want the music portion of the iSeries. Anything more seems over the top.
Sure, sometimes it's nice to have a mobile hotspot app, or a TomTom app, or any one of the million other apps that are convenient (and here's where I'm going to start sounding old), but in a world where information flows literally endlessly towards you, we're overloaded with stimuli, unable to stop and appreciate something atechnological, like nature or the simple process of trial and error or even getting lost and having an adventure.
As a huge proponent of technology, I think having all the world's knowledge at our fingertips is amazing and should be utilized by everyone. But we also need to remind ourselves to be distant sometimes. Back away from technology and appreciate the non-digital world.
Ultimately, each person is different, so I can't, say, give my girlfriend withering looks when she plays flash games on her iPhone during many periods of downtime. But I can choose for myself to keep fully separate my connection with technology (specifically my computer) versus my connection with the non-digital world. [Although to be completely fair, that's getting increasingly difficult, since the entire world is approaching symbiosis with technology. And maybe I'm on the wrong side of history for wanting the two to remain distinct enough that we can tell the difference... Who knows?]
To be sure, the "culprit" (if I want to implicitly mark it as a problem) is mostly mobile devices. Tablets, smart phones, laptops, Nooks, Kindles, etc. We hang out with friends and family, and we always seem to have something open. We're fidgeting with some piece of technology to keep ourselves busy. I don't necessarily think this is bad.
In truth, I don't even think the human attention span is actually shrinking, as many would suggest examining the same set of behavior. No, I think we're experiencing an existential overload. Humans were so incredibly limited before on a day-to-day basis. A kid raised on a farm didn't have a huge selection of books to read or friends to play with or things to do. Being bottlenecked into certain hobbies or activities was, in truth, somewhat productive. We grew and learned certain things because there was nothing else to do. The notable exception would be when faced with libraries, where the knowledge was similarly immeasurably vast.
Here's my theory- when faced with untold resources, most people break down and regress in order to avoid the phenomenal task of making a decision out of millions of options. We see a library- something that has a book for everyone. But instead of reading, we go drinking with our friends. Combing through the books would take immense commitment and a certain lust for exploration that we rip from our children through the education system.
Nowadays, that infinite access is at our fingertips almost at all times. So, instead of being bottlenecked into a few very specific hobbies or conversations, we do something mindless (relatively) and self-indulgent to avoid the angst of billions of choices and not knowing how to proceed. We text our friends. We play little flash games. We scout Reddit or 4chan. Safe zones where we know what to expect and our minds are not taxed.
This is all, of course, the result of an education system and, indeed, a populace wholly unprepared for the implications of the internet and the growing world of technological marvels. This is an unpopular opinion (and a fiscally irresponsible one), but the kids that get iPads through their school in elementary school? That's probably good for them. They're getting access to the infinite world of the internet earlier and systematically learning how to utilize it properly. It may very well be that this coming generation is the first generation that will truly know how to, as a whole, use technology to the extent of its capacity.
The system needs to embrace and integrate this incredible world as early as possible, since it's not just a niche market anymore- this is the future of our very way of life. It's not something we can choose to avoid or ignore anymore. It's not simply a convenience to have a computer now- it's almost a necessity. This technology will continue to progress and surpass previous models at an unbelievable pace, and it simply doesn't do the future justice to try to make kids learn about this world on their own.
[Here I am contradicting my earlier desire to remain partially distant from technology, now telling the world to embrace it. Oye, my nostalgia's fighting my common sense... In fairness though, I wrote this last part several days after the first part.]
-
Waddle
Friday, November 23, 2012
Materialism and You
Welcome to the Black Friday edition of my blog, per request from an old friend. (Which is great- I had nothing else to write about and it was gonna' come off as kinda' half-hammed)
Black Friday is... well, incredibly American. It just seems appropriate that it's in this country that we celebrate one particular holiday immediately following another-
Specifically, we celebrate a holiday in which we give thanks for what and who we have, typically focusing more on the familial relations and good luck that we've encountered in our lives that has allowed us to thrive in a sometimes bleak world.
And then we celebrate a holiday that ignores the previous holiday's message entirely by going out and buying expensive and ostentatious gadgets and gifts.
Before you stop me, yes, I've participated in several black Fridays, so I'm not condemning anyone without condemning myself first.
I spent somewhere in the ballpark of ten hours in line at a Target last year, in fact, waiting with my brothers who were determined to buy a 46" TV for $300. I didn't want anything at the time, I was just talked into going with them to keep them company. So, I froze my assorted limbs and genitalia off while I sat and talked with my brothers. As the night progressed, I was wrangled into seeing the TV as a potential gift from my father, and I eventually acquiesced. I had been sucked into the allure of a brand new TV that I had no use for. I already had a 36" flat screen that suited me fine.
So, after getting the TV, I kept it in its box, trying mildly to sell it for a modest profit. I waited, unable to do even that- For over six months before finally deciding to give my old TV to my parents and just keep the damn thing for myself.
I didn't need it. I didn't even really want it until I was convinced to want it. But isn't that the very essence of American material culture? Ads, commercials, sales, flashing lights, bonus, deluxe, double, super, mega, buy-one-get-one-free, half-off, free samples, Christmas gifts, greeting cards, six-pack, irresistible, limited time offer, gotta-have-it, bulk, salesmen giving sales pitches to increase sales during the once-weekly sale to end all sales!
We're a culture saturated by this idea that you have to have stuff to be happy. That somehow the fact that we own things increases our street cred or our worth to society. It's not what you do or who you are, but what you possess.
Sure, my 46" TV has slightly increased the quality at which I play games and watch movies with my girlfriend. But in the long run, I won't remember the size of the TV mattering a whole lot. It'll be the times I had with people that I remember. And my health and level of life-satisfaction/stress. This is part of why I don't like the consumer culture so much. We've convinced people to compulsively want things so much that people have had their lives ruined by mere objects. People have gone into crippling, irreversible debt just to own things that someone else convinced them they need or want or should have. But is this their fault? Not really. Not anymore so than it's their fault they follow gender norms. When culture pushes something as truth hard enough, we all find ourselves adhering to it, sometimes completely subconsciously. Sometimes against our will.
I don't feel super comfortable wearing a skirt (I've done it before). I know it shouldn't matter. It's a piece of fabric. Clothing. It says nothing about who I am, what I've done, what I'm going to do, etc. And yet, I feel so much more comfortable and in-my-own-skin when I'm wearing jeans. Not for any ideological values I have, lord no. I don't care if some other chap wants to wear a full dress outside. It's because culture has shaped my comfort zones, my wants, my needs, my tastes.
Imagine a world where wife beaters were the stylish article of clothing. Where showing skin was an act of reverence to the natural world and the bodies we've been given. Where academics wore tank tops and high school drop outs wore cardigans to hide their shameful bodies. I can picture that world so clearly and it makes just as much sense as the flip side. Because ultimately, it's fabric- nothing more and nothing less. No article of clothing would mean anything if it weren't for our culturally induced ideas of modesty and fashion.
And in that same way, our culturally induced ideas of consumerism and wanting things has forced people to make irrational and unwise financial decisions in order to feel as though they've "arrived" at the American dream, with a house, a wife and two kids, and two cars. Society has told us to want that life so badly that we're willing to take on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to get there. Once we're there, we realize that there's always something more to want or need. But suddenly, we're so far in debt, we can't move anymore. Our lives stagnate and fall apart.
Objects are not inherently bad. However, we must distance ourselves from their perceived emotional value in order to remind ourselves that there's nothing inherently good about them either. Objects are objects. There for convenience and use.
I think this quote nicely sums it up:
"Love people and use things; don't love things and use people."
There was a much better and more full quote that I couldn't find, but the gist is the same. Stuff is just stuff. Eat a big frozen pizza with your loved ones instead of a giant turkey. Watch a movie, play a board game, or just sit and talk instead of going out and indulging in shopping for more things. (I did catch the irony of mentioning two "things" that you could be doing instead of buying more "things," but I believe that if an object brings you together with people, then it definitely has a good use)
Here's the one way I'll really differentiate from my desire to distance myself from the consumer culture- comfort.
I just got a soft queen sized bed and I'm bringing home an electric blanket this weekend to keep warm. If I could afford a tempur-pedic mattress, I would buy one. When your quality of life can actually be improved through home goods, you jump onto that ship and you buy yourself what you need to be in better health. But if it won't make you healthier in a pretty objective sense, then you probably don't need it.
Finally- I will make an odd recommendation to you- If you've never indulged in black friday- do it once. The full package- wait in line from the night before, huddling together with a loved one for warmth.
Don't do it for the item(s) you're getting though. Do it for the experience. Look around you and really see the other people. See the environment. See what our culture has become. Where our passions lay. Experience the bone-chilling, nighttime temperatures and use it as an excuse to become closer with someone. Experience the soul-crushing weight of object-demand. Revel in it.
It's another perspective to check off the list.
-
Waddles
PS- the real reason you shouldn't shop on Black Friday is that it's artificial demand created by corporations to get you to buy in a frenzy which causes accidents and deaths each year while simultaneously destroying the morale of retail workers everywhere. And I should note that these corporations don't often offer a fair shake to those employees which they force to work Black Friday. See Wal-Mart protests.
Black Friday is... well, incredibly American. It just seems appropriate that it's in this country that we celebrate one particular holiday immediately following another-
Specifically, we celebrate a holiday in which we give thanks for what and who we have, typically focusing more on the familial relations and good luck that we've encountered in our lives that has allowed us to thrive in a sometimes bleak world.
And then we celebrate a holiday that ignores the previous holiday's message entirely by going out and buying expensive and ostentatious gadgets and gifts.
Before you stop me, yes, I've participated in several black Fridays, so I'm not condemning anyone without condemning myself first.
I spent somewhere in the ballpark of ten hours in line at a Target last year, in fact, waiting with my brothers who were determined to buy a 46" TV for $300. I didn't want anything at the time, I was just talked into going with them to keep them company. So, I froze my assorted limbs and genitalia off while I sat and talked with my brothers. As the night progressed, I was wrangled into seeing the TV as a potential gift from my father, and I eventually acquiesced. I had been sucked into the allure of a brand new TV that I had no use for. I already had a 36" flat screen that suited me fine.
So, after getting the TV, I kept it in its box, trying mildly to sell it for a modest profit. I waited, unable to do even that- For over six months before finally deciding to give my old TV to my parents and just keep the damn thing for myself.
I didn't need it. I didn't even really want it until I was convinced to want it. But isn't that the very essence of American material culture? Ads, commercials, sales, flashing lights, bonus, deluxe, double, super, mega, buy-one-get-one-free, half-off, free samples, Christmas gifts, greeting cards, six-pack, irresistible, limited time offer, gotta-have-it, bulk, salesmen giving sales pitches to increase sales during the once-weekly sale to end all sales!
We're a culture saturated by this idea that you have to have stuff to be happy. That somehow the fact that we own things increases our street cred or our worth to society. It's not what you do or who you are, but what you possess.
Sure, my 46" TV has slightly increased the quality at which I play games and watch movies with my girlfriend. But in the long run, I won't remember the size of the TV mattering a whole lot. It'll be the times I had with people that I remember. And my health and level of life-satisfaction/stress. This is part of why I don't like the consumer culture so much. We've convinced people to compulsively want things so much that people have had their lives ruined by mere objects. People have gone into crippling, irreversible debt just to own things that someone else convinced them they need or want or should have. But is this their fault? Not really. Not anymore so than it's their fault they follow gender norms. When culture pushes something as truth hard enough, we all find ourselves adhering to it, sometimes completely subconsciously. Sometimes against our will.
I don't feel super comfortable wearing a skirt (I've done it before). I know it shouldn't matter. It's a piece of fabric. Clothing. It says nothing about who I am, what I've done, what I'm going to do, etc. And yet, I feel so much more comfortable and in-my-own-skin when I'm wearing jeans. Not for any ideological values I have, lord no. I don't care if some other chap wants to wear a full dress outside. It's because culture has shaped my comfort zones, my wants, my needs, my tastes.
Imagine a world where wife beaters were the stylish article of clothing. Where showing skin was an act of reverence to the natural world and the bodies we've been given. Where academics wore tank tops and high school drop outs wore cardigans to hide their shameful bodies. I can picture that world so clearly and it makes just as much sense as the flip side. Because ultimately, it's fabric- nothing more and nothing less. No article of clothing would mean anything if it weren't for our culturally induced ideas of modesty and fashion.
And in that same way, our culturally induced ideas of consumerism and wanting things has forced people to make irrational and unwise financial decisions in order to feel as though they've "arrived" at the American dream, with a house, a wife and two kids, and two cars. Society has told us to want that life so badly that we're willing to take on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to get there. Once we're there, we realize that there's always something more to want or need. But suddenly, we're so far in debt, we can't move anymore. Our lives stagnate and fall apart.
Objects are not inherently bad. However, we must distance ourselves from their perceived emotional value in order to remind ourselves that there's nothing inherently good about them either. Objects are objects. There for convenience and use.
I think this quote nicely sums it up:
"Love people and use things; don't love things and use people."
There was a much better and more full quote that I couldn't find, but the gist is the same. Stuff is just stuff. Eat a big frozen pizza with your loved ones instead of a giant turkey. Watch a movie, play a board game, or just sit and talk instead of going out and indulging in shopping for more things. (I did catch the irony of mentioning two "things" that you could be doing instead of buying more "things," but I believe that if an object brings you together with people, then it definitely has a good use)
Here's the one way I'll really differentiate from my desire to distance myself from the consumer culture- comfort.
I just got a soft queen sized bed and I'm bringing home an electric blanket this weekend to keep warm. If I could afford a tempur-pedic mattress, I would buy one. When your quality of life can actually be improved through home goods, you jump onto that ship and you buy yourself what you need to be in better health. But if it won't make you healthier in a pretty objective sense, then you probably don't need it.
Finally- I will make an odd recommendation to you- If you've never indulged in black friday- do it once. The full package- wait in line from the night before, huddling together with a loved one for warmth.
Don't do it for the item(s) you're getting though. Do it for the experience. Look around you and really see the other people. See the environment. See what our culture has become. Where our passions lay. Experience the bone-chilling, nighttime temperatures and use it as an excuse to become closer with someone. Experience the soul-crushing weight of object-demand. Revel in it.
It's another perspective to check off the list.
-
Waddles
PS- the real reason you shouldn't shop on Black Friday is that it's artificial demand created by corporations to get you to buy in a frenzy which causes accidents and deaths each year while simultaneously destroying the morale of retail workers everywhere. And I should note that these corporations don't often offer a fair shake to those employees which they force to work Black Friday. See Wal-Mart protests.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
A World of Thought Experiments
Sorry for dropping off the face of the earth Monday. I shall be more diligent in the future (hah).
Today, I think talking about thought experiments is going to be beneficial. As a philosophy major, I often am stumped and frustrated why my analogies seem to offend so many people that I use them with.
To them, the situations I concoct with my metaphors are outlandish and hardly representative of those situations being examined in the first place. I need to take a step back and describe the purpose of thought experiments in order to really drive home why I use them and why they seem to have little relevance on the surface.
(And also, if you find yourself arguing with people, this is a terrific method for drawing out inconsistencies in someone's philosophies)
A thought experiment is a situation deliberately set in the most extreme of circumstances- oftentimes circumstances that are not even grounded in reality. This is to take personal investment, among other variables, out of an argument, leaving only the most important details or concepts. For example, a direct attack at the concept of "the edge of the universe" can be found in the thought experiment of Lucretius' Spear.
Effectively, Lucretius was a man who traveled to the farthest reaches of space with a spear. When he reached the edge of the universe, he hurled his spear at it. Logically, only one of two things could happen:
1. It kept going.
2. It hit a wall.
In either case, the "edge" of the universe wasn't actually a true edge because either the spear traveled further or it hit a wall which extends beyond the edge. Both imply that there is more past the point being examined.
Of course, this was a thought experiment from many years ago, and a viable argument now might be that anything that touches the edge gets disintegrated by some natural force or something.
However, the main point of the argument is to distance your thoughts and feelings about infinity to look at the logic behind "infinity."
Using a more... relevant example, let's take a friendly pro-life person. If I'm trying to tease out where their most extreme positions are, I might ask them what they would do in a situation where they are forced to shoot a man in order to save another man.
The point of the experiment isn't that it might happen. In fact, there's virtually no chance whatsoever of it happening. The idea is that you're discovering what your personal ethics do for you in the most dire of situations.
In this case, they may be forced to concede their deontological position on human life in order to save another human.
Brief explanation- Deontology is the ethical philosophy of Kant. It's a position of unwavering ethics with no gray zones. If there is a situation in which it would be immoral to do something, then you can never do that thing. If always doing that thing caused society to break down, we can never enact it. Lying, stealing, killing, cheating, stepping on others.
The extremist pro life position is deontological about life. It has a sanctity that must never be taken away regardless of the circumstance (including death of the mother). With that in mind, forcing them to choose between murdering one person or letting both people be murdered, would be impossible for them. The most likely scenario is that they refuse to play the game, causing both people to die, but at least not by the individual's hands.
However, if someone admits that they would kill one to save the other, their entire philosophy has been compromised in a single example, because they've just admitted that, at some fundamental level, a life is worth another life. Similarly, they've admitted that life itself has a value that can be calculated at all.
And that is a defining position of utilitarianism- the opponent philosophy to deontology which suggests that no action is inherently wrong, but rather, an action's worth is determined by the consequences it causes. If killing one person saves a hundred, you absolutely are morally justified in killing that person.
If, however, the pro life person staunchly opposes the killing of the person, you can change the scenario to make it more and more utilitarian to judge their consistency.
What if you had to kill a convicted pedophile, rapist, murderer who's openly said he'll do it again, but killing him would save a busload of pregnant nuns (don't ask).
Obviously, we can make the situation more and more absurdly weighted until it becomes obvious that killing the lone person is the only way out (in my opinion), which is why I don't value deontology as a set of ethical obligations.
What if taking one life literally saved the rest of human existence?
What if taking one life saved God?
There will always be a situation which forces you to rethink your defining philosophical positions in life. The purpose of a thought experiment is to find that fine line you would have to cross. Once you find it, you can determine exactly why you believe the things you do (Hey, I remember saying something eerily similar to this back in the abortion post).
At least if you started out some level of utilitarian, a compromising theoretical example wouldn't make you rethink everything, just what values you place on certain things.
The thought experiment forces you to come to terms with uncomfortable truths about your place in the world. We must not run from this discomfort- we must embrace it and grow with it.
These experiments range from being highly abstract (Lucretius) to being highly pragmatic (any situation grounded in reality that is plausible).
If you asked a pro life person what they would do if their wife became pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy, you'd probably hear that they would put it up for adoption. Of course... Sometimes, all you have to do is look at their past to determine whether or not they're just lying to you (and themselves) as seen here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/scott-desjarlais-political-hypocrites_n_2155011.html (it was his mistress though, which really just makes his position as a "Christian" that much more disgusting)
Everyone has a breaking point. Some will experience it. Some will never admit it.
You should be honest with yourself enough to imagine what you would truly do in any given scenario, not just what you would want to do.
-
Wade
Today, I think talking about thought experiments is going to be beneficial. As a philosophy major, I often am stumped and frustrated why my analogies seem to offend so many people that I use them with.
To them, the situations I concoct with my metaphors are outlandish and hardly representative of those situations being examined in the first place. I need to take a step back and describe the purpose of thought experiments in order to really drive home why I use them and why they seem to have little relevance on the surface.
(And also, if you find yourself arguing with people, this is a terrific method for drawing out inconsistencies in someone's philosophies)
A thought experiment is a situation deliberately set in the most extreme of circumstances- oftentimes circumstances that are not even grounded in reality. This is to take personal investment, among other variables, out of an argument, leaving only the most important details or concepts. For example, a direct attack at the concept of "the edge of the universe" can be found in the thought experiment of Lucretius' Spear.
Effectively, Lucretius was a man who traveled to the farthest reaches of space with a spear. When he reached the edge of the universe, he hurled his spear at it. Logically, only one of two things could happen:
1. It kept going.
2. It hit a wall.
In either case, the "edge" of the universe wasn't actually a true edge because either the spear traveled further or it hit a wall which extends beyond the edge. Both imply that there is more past the point being examined.
Of course, this was a thought experiment from many years ago, and a viable argument now might be that anything that touches the edge gets disintegrated by some natural force or something.
However, the main point of the argument is to distance your thoughts and feelings about infinity to look at the logic behind "infinity."
Using a more... relevant example, let's take a friendly pro-life person. If I'm trying to tease out where their most extreme positions are, I might ask them what they would do in a situation where they are forced to shoot a man in order to save another man.
The point of the experiment isn't that it might happen. In fact, there's virtually no chance whatsoever of it happening. The idea is that you're discovering what your personal ethics do for you in the most dire of situations.
In this case, they may be forced to concede their deontological position on human life in order to save another human.
Brief explanation- Deontology is the ethical philosophy of Kant. It's a position of unwavering ethics with no gray zones. If there is a situation in which it would be immoral to do something, then you can never do that thing. If always doing that thing caused society to break down, we can never enact it. Lying, stealing, killing, cheating, stepping on others.
The extremist pro life position is deontological about life. It has a sanctity that must never be taken away regardless of the circumstance (including death of the mother). With that in mind, forcing them to choose between murdering one person or letting both people be murdered, would be impossible for them. The most likely scenario is that they refuse to play the game, causing both people to die, but at least not by the individual's hands.
However, if someone admits that they would kill one to save the other, their entire philosophy has been compromised in a single example, because they've just admitted that, at some fundamental level, a life is worth another life. Similarly, they've admitted that life itself has a value that can be calculated at all.
And that is a defining position of utilitarianism- the opponent philosophy to deontology which suggests that no action is inherently wrong, but rather, an action's worth is determined by the consequences it causes. If killing one person saves a hundred, you absolutely are morally justified in killing that person.
If, however, the pro life person staunchly opposes the killing of the person, you can change the scenario to make it more and more utilitarian to judge their consistency.
What if you had to kill a convicted pedophile, rapist, murderer who's openly said he'll do it again, but killing him would save a busload of pregnant nuns (don't ask).
Obviously, we can make the situation more and more absurdly weighted until it becomes obvious that killing the lone person is the only way out (in my opinion), which is why I don't value deontology as a set of ethical obligations.
What if taking one life literally saved the rest of human existence?
What if taking one life saved God?
There will always be a situation which forces you to rethink your defining philosophical positions in life. The purpose of a thought experiment is to find that fine line you would have to cross. Once you find it, you can determine exactly why you believe the things you do (Hey, I remember saying something eerily similar to this back in the abortion post).
At least if you started out some level of utilitarian, a compromising theoretical example wouldn't make you rethink everything, just what values you place on certain things.
The thought experiment forces you to come to terms with uncomfortable truths about your place in the world. We must not run from this discomfort- we must embrace it and grow with it.
These experiments range from being highly abstract (Lucretius) to being highly pragmatic (any situation grounded in reality that is plausible).
If you asked a pro life person what they would do if their wife became pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy, you'd probably hear that they would put it up for adoption. Of course... Sometimes, all you have to do is look at their past to determine whether or not they're just lying to you (and themselves) as seen here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/scott-desjarlais-political-hypocrites_n_2155011.html (it was his mistress though, which really just makes his position as a "Christian" that much more disgusting)
Everyone has a breaking point. Some will experience it. Some will never admit it.
You should be honest with yourself enough to imagine what you would truly do in any given scenario, not just what you would want to do.
-
Wade
Friday, November 16, 2012
Corporate Apologetics and "The System"
Hokay, so I have company over later to watch Gravity Falls (If you haven't seen it, you're missing out on a show that Disney makes that is hilarious. [I know, I was shocked too]). So this post comes to you from scenic 5:30 on my couch because sleep schedules are something I don't have anymore.
As I started cooking ramen after getting out of bed (shit, what do I call this? Night? Morning?) at fuck o'clock in the... time sphere- I read the FOURTH justification for corporate douchebaggery that I've seen the past 24 hours. From a normal person- not like a CEO or anything.
This goddamn baffles me, so I'm here to talk to you about why that is totally unacceptable.
This all arose from two separate, but equally interesting discussions in corporate America that have been gaining traction recently-
1. Wal-Mart workers, if you were unaware, went on a walk-out for the first time in, well, ever a little over a month ago- protesting substandard working conditions, low wages, no benefits, and, to re-use my terminology, all around corporate douchebaggery. The interesting thing, however, is that after the relatively unsuccessful walk-out, Wal-Mart employees realized that they were all in the same boat (imagine that), and they found power in numbers.
As such, they've decided to strike Wal-Mart during Black Friday, possibly the busiest day of the year for any retailer. Their demands are few and simple, listed here: http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/support-walmart-black-friday-strikers
The first and most important item- a minimum salary of 25,000/year and health insurance for all workers.
I should note that the current poverty line in the US is $22,133 for a family of four.
Current Wal-Mart "salary" for a typical employee making just over minimum wage at 40 hours/week comes out to $18,000/year assuming each week is exactly 40 hours without overtime.
To give you an idea of what this would cost Wal-Mart, it employed 1.4 million Americans in 2010, making profits of $15 billion per year.
A strict $7,000 raise for all employees would cost roughly 9-10 billion dollars per year, leaving 5 billion in profits. Two additional notes- A. I'm doing really shoddy math and making lots of assumptions (like including all corporate employees of Wal-Mart who probably already make over $25,000), and B. I'm not accounting for the costs of health care for all of its employees.
Regardless, five billion in profits is still more than most corporations will see in any given year, and more than most businesses in general will see in their lifetimes.
2. Occupy Wall Street (OWS) recently announced a comeback plan to help reduce outstanding medical debt in the country called "The Rolling Jubilee." Without getting into the nitty gritty, the effective idea is that members of OWS donate money to buy derelict debt from banks for pennies on the dollar in the way that collection agencies currently do. (If you have 10,000 in debt that is expected to remain unpaid, the bank may label it as a loss and sell it for $200 to a collection agency who is hoping to turn a profit by buying the debt, since the bank doesn't have the resources to hound you all day for the full cost)
OWS then abolish the debt instead of trying to collect it from you.
[It sounds wonderful on the offset- but the problem is that the debt OWS is purchasing is debt assumed to be uncollectable in the first place. Debt that few resources will go to collecting.
We're not necessarily talking about a person living paycheck to paycheck, just barely living under debt. No, we're talking about people who are so deep in debt that they may be homeless, dead, or simply not trying anymore. However, this isn't what I came to talk about, so I apologize for getting off topic]
In both of these stories, a single idea arises that joins the two together-
Contracts.
In the case of Wal-Mart, your standard employee signs a contract agreeing to the terms of their employment, including wages, benefits, conditions, liabilities, etc.
In the case of the OWS movement, the debt being purchased is debt from loans or credit cards that were received in the signing of a very similar contract.
However, in both, the noteworthy idea is that the people signing these contracts are signing away their right to complain or demand a better bargain. This is where the apologists come in.
The argument I've heard several times now is simply in defending the nature of the contract regardless of the context in which the contract is used.
These are all direct quotes that effectively sum up the same argument: Ignorance of the system is not an excuse- or to put it in a way that we've all heard before- "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it."
And that's all well and good- that quote, taken by itself, makes a sort of cold, logical sense. If ignorance of the law was an excuse, then people would be able to get away with some pretty heinous stuff under the rationale that they didn't know it was against the law. But on the opposite end, can we really be expected to know everything about the law? Even lawyers don't know everything about every law, and that's their job. Have you ever gone online and looked at one of those lists of funny laws that are still "technically" in effect? What would happen if a cop pulled you over for breaking one of those archaic laws? You would feel cheated if the law didn't make sense, wouldn't you?
The situations are different to be sure, but think of it this way-
In our culture, the internet has given us some important gifts, but in an attempt to avoid legal hot water wherever an enterprise goes, we've become inundated with contracts. Tell me- how many times have you scrolled to the bottom and hit "I Agree" without actually reading the End User License Agreement (EULA) or Terms of Service (ToS)? More than you can count, I bet. I know I don't read them in 90% of circumstances. Is that smart? Hell no, you should read every contract you sign up for. Some of them are downright scary. Facebook? When you click "I agree," you sign away all ownership to any picture hosted on Facebook. It becomes their property to do with as they see fit. That's terrifying-- but-- we acquiesce for convenience and because there's little alternative. Do you want to network with your acquaintances and friends? Well, you have to sign away something, no matter how much you dislike it.
This proliferation of contracts has us so overloaded with terms and liabilities and licenses, that they all blend together and are meaningless. The cruel logic of it is that each contract is, itself, something you should and could relatively easily comb through. But, combined with the eight other contracts you sign a day, it's a bit taxing. Especially if some of them simply repeat what others say. You don't want to double check each and every contract to make sure you're not selling away your soul. And why should you have to? Your time is just as valuable as anyone else's. So, you do what anyone would do- the only thing we can do. You trust that the contractor isn't being deceitful or underhanded in any way, and you trust that the terms of agreement make sense and have logical consequences.
This is where average citizens get into hot water- trust. Trust is a quality that we admire and honor in the human race. And yet, we abuse the hell out of it.
You walk into a bank to sign up for a credit card. You don't like it, but you need to build a credit rating so that you can someday take out a loan for a car or a house or even a business. It's the smart thing to do. But, no one in school taught you a damn thing about credit cards. You only vaguely know what 1.3% APR means. You're fairly intelligent. You reason that 1.3% is the interest rate, but you're not positive, because you have no clue what "APR" stands for, and no one's about to tell you. You'd look it up, but you notice that there are four or five other initialisms that you're unfamiliar with, along with a slew of financial terminology that, in context, makes your head swim. You're smart, but this is something people take multiple classes on at the college level. You have a 40 hour/week job and a kid. You don't have time to sit and study the nuances of credit card finances- you just want to get the credit card, since you understand the most basic principle- pay with the card each day, pay off the card each month. That's easy.
But, the banker who just sat you down sees it another way. You're prey. You're the $100 bonus for him if he can sell you the high-interest credit card with a large spending limit. Your situation? Meaningless to many of these salesmen. True, some are there to help you, but many are not and have no interest in whether or not you'd be a wise choice for that high-responsibility credit card.
So, this man, trained in the art of making you feel flattered and insecure at the same time, goes into a sales pitch that he's spent countless hours perfecting. Telling you all the reasons why the bigger card would be better for you, even if you don't want it- neglecting to mention the ways it could be worse for you. He's throwing financial buzz words at you that, to him, actually make some sense because it's his field. But to you, the words could be in any order and they would make a comparable amount of sense regardless- It's all mumbo jumbo to you, and you just wanted the simple, easy, small credit card. However, you've grown insecure. This salesman is good and has pointed out several compelling reasons why you might need that massive spending limit and why it might be good for your credit. He's even talked about all the bonuses and rewards you get for signing up. It seems like a pretty sweet deal, actually.
Finally, you acquiesce, because what else could you do?
If you've been to college, I'd like to give you a comparable situation.
You walk into a classroom halfway through the semester- doesn't matter which one except for one critical detail- it's not in your area of expertise and it's in the building you've stayed away from up to that point. You sit down amongst a gaggle of students who look and sound like they have the subject completely figured out, but when the professor speaks, it's total nonsense to you. As it should be, you've never had a class in it, and someone dropped you into the middle of it without any preparation. You turn to ask your neighbors what's going on, and they happily explain. The problem is that their explanation relies on the terminology and concepts you haven't learned and don't really understand- so the explanation flies over your head. You apologize for sounding stupid, but you ask what one of those terms means, and the student rolls their eyes and gives you a ten minute explanation of that single term, bringing in new terms that you don't understand. You can see where this is going. There's no way that you'll be able to learn enough to discuss it effectively without spending weeks and months studying and attending lectures, reading notes and books. It's an ordeal. So you nod absently and copy what the professor says word for word, even though it's completely meaningless to you. And at the end of the period, you've learned nothing except just how woefully ignorant you are of the topic.
That is what it's like to sign up for a credit card when you don't know what you're doing or what they're talking about. It's frustrating, confusing, and you just want to leave as quickly as possible, even if it means not reading the contract, because chances are, you're not going to know what the contract is saying anyway beyond some vague understanding of some of the individual terms.
So, we trust that the banker means us no harm and is genuine when he tells us that the bigger card is the cheaper and smarter way to go.
Do the same for mortgages, and now you see why there were so many foreclosures in the past few years- why the housing bubble burst. Most people are of average intellect, and many people are of even less IQ than average. A smart person may be able to see through each sales pitch, but ultimately, their knowledge of credit and mortgages is piecemeal at best. So why do we expect everyone to know all the terms of each contract they signed inside and out? And more to the point, why are these contracts fair when we are coerced into accepting them?!
Yeah, you can not sign up for a credit card, but the consequences of that are that you may never own a house or be approved for a lease. Without a credit rating, what can be determined about your level of responsibility? There are ways around this, to be fair, but not all contracts can be so easily avoided. Wal-Mart is a terrific example. Are you old? Disabled? Unskilled? High school drop out? Looking to help pay for college? Or are you just down on your luck and forced to seek employment in desperate places? Wal-Mart is waiting with open arms.
Comparatively, most other places in town are relatively strict about hiring, and maybe you didn't make the cut for one reason or another, but Wal-Mart's high turnover rate and enormous size make it ideal for hiring constantly, so sometimes, they're the only option you have. In such a case, your options are:
A. Don't have a job
B. Sign a contract with Wal-Mart, regardless of how you feel about that contract
That's coercion if ever I've seen it, and it's how employers were able to force workers to work 12+ hours a day for virtually no compensation at any age, with the looming threat of machinery cutting off your limbs every day.
That's why unions had to come into being. That's why strikes were necessary.
In corporate America, there is no "I think I've made enough profit today, time to be generous." There's always room for more profit, so most corporations will do whatever the bare minimum is for its employees, and often times, its consumers as well. Corporations have given us no reason to trust that they have our best interest in mind, and yet we're forced to do just that, because the alternative is almost always worse.
So that. That is why I cannot fathom why corporate apologists exist in the average people. It baffles and concerns me. Each person in this country (aside from the upper class) is one unfortunate accident away from being in an extremely compromising situation. The fact that we lack empathy for the people already in those situations is astounding and shameful.
You guys are blaming the victim for something that is ultimately, a problem on both ends.
Yes, everyone should read and understand the contracts they sign. However, to do this, we need good education and simple-to-read contracts. Furthermore, we need to trust that the contracts are made in good faith by people who are looking out for our interests and not just the bottom line.
Overloading each person with a million contracts and expecting them to adhere flawlessly to each one without guidance? Cruel and unusual.
I'm glad you're smart enough to know a sizeable amount about credit, interest, and mortgages. But for the rest of America, we should be able to trust that the food we're being served isn't somehow simply poison in a pretty package. Not everyone can see through the packaging.
-
Waddles
As I started cooking ramen after getting out of bed (shit, what do I call this? Night? Morning?) at fuck o'clock in the... time sphere- I read the FOURTH justification for corporate douchebaggery that I've seen the past 24 hours. From a normal person- not like a CEO or anything.
This goddamn baffles me, so I'm here to talk to you about why that is totally unacceptable.
This all arose from two separate, but equally interesting discussions in corporate America that have been gaining traction recently-
1. Wal-Mart workers, if you were unaware, went on a walk-out for the first time in, well, ever a little over a month ago- protesting substandard working conditions, low wages, no benefits, and, to re-use my terminology, all around corporate douchebaggery. The interesting thing, however, is that after the relatively unsuccessful walk-out, Wal-Mart employees realized that they were all in the same boat (imagine that), and they found power in numbers.
As such, they've decided to strike Wal-Mart during Black Friday, possibly the busiest day of the year for any retailer. Their demands are few and simple, listed here: http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/support-walmart-black-friday-strikers
The first and most important item- a minimum salary of 25,000/year and health insurance for all workers.
I should note that the current poverty line in the US is $22,133 for a family of four.
Current Wal-Mart "salary" for a typical employee making just over minimum wage at 40 hours/week comes out to $18,000/year assuming each week is exactly 40 hours without overtime.
To give you an idea of what this would cost Wal-Mart, it employed 1.4 million Americans in 2010, making profits of $15 billion per year.
A strict $7,000 raise for all employees would cost roughly 9-10 billion dollars per year, leaving 5 billion in profits. Two additional notes- A. I'm doing really shoddy math and making lots of assumptions (like including all corporate employees of Wal-Mart who probably already make over $25,000), and B. I'm not accounting for the costs of health care for all of its employees.
Regardless, five billion in profits is still more than most corporations will see in any given year, and more than most businesses in general will see in their lifetimes.
2. Occupy Wall Street (OWS) recently announced a comeback plan to help reduce outstanding medical debt in the country called "The Rolling Jubilee." Without getting into the nitty gritty, the effective idea is that members of OWS donate money to buy derelict debt from banks for pennies on the dollar in the way that collection agencies currently do. (If you have 10,000 in debt that is expected to remain unpaid, the bank may label it as a loss and sell it for $200 to a collection agency who is hoping to turn a profit by buying the debt, since the bank doesn't have the resources to hound you all day for the full cost)
OWS then abolish the debt instead of trying to collect it from you.
[It sounds wonderful on the offset- but the problem is that the debt OWS is purchasing is debt assumed to be uncollectable in the first place. Debt that few resources will go to collecting.
We're not necessarily talking about a person living paycheck to paycheck, just barely living under debt. No, we're talking about people who are so deep in debt that they may be homeless, dead, or simply not trying anymore. However, this isn't what I came to talk about, so I apologize for getting off topic]
In both of these stories, a single idea arises that joins the two together-
Contracts.
In the case of Wal-Mart, your standard employee signs a contract agreeing to the terms of their employment, including wages, benefits, conditions, liabilities, etc.
In the case of the OWS movement, the debt being purchased is debt from loans or credit cards that were received in the signing of a very similar contract.
However, in both, the noteworthy idea is that the people signing these contracts are signing away their right to complain or demand a better bargain. This is where the apologists come in.
The argument I've heard several times now is simply in defending the nature of the contract regardless of the context in which the contract is used.
"But regardless of their reason they lose. Because they will be fired. And they won't get sympathy because its the wrong thing to do to their employer. It's an unprofessional way to try and get a raise. And they won't get unemployment for disregarding the policy they received in writing in my handbook that says they need to be there.
Don't like your pay? Don't agree to it; look elsewhere."
"Ignorance is no excuse and banks are not educational institutions. Loans, variable, fixed, actual interest rates are very easy concepts. It's not lying if YOU chose a variable rate loan and never bothered to investigate what would happen if interest rates went up. Like it or not our society is a credit based one and people better educate themselves very quickly. "
"You cannot possibly be asking that others (All of us) be punished for the lack of foresight and due diligence on someone else's part? Nobody made these people go get a mortgage they couldn't afford, THEY did that. I can expect people to educate themselves when they are getting 100k mortgages. No court or arbitrator in the county is going to dissolve a contract based upon one parties lack of understanding of what the terms and conditions mean. It's a contract and you better make sure you understand what you are signing or get some help! Ignorance of the law is not a defense."
"Everyone everywhere understands that loans carry interest. The details are almost irrelevant. Everyone everywhere also knows not to just sign a contract without understanding it. If some grown adult chooses to do so i have absolutely no sympathy for them when they suffer the potential consequences. Does anyone have ant shred of personal responsibility anymore?"
These are all direct quotes that effectively sum up the same argument: Ignorance of the system is not an excuse- or to put it in a way that we've all heard before- "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it."
And that's all well and good- that quote, taken by itself, makes a sort of cold, logical sense. If ignorance of the law was an excuse, then people would be able to get away with some pretty heinous stuff under the rationale that they didn't know it was against the law. But on the opposite end, can we really be expected to know everything about the law? Even lawyers don't know everything about every law, and that's their job. Have you ever gone online and looked at one of those lists of funny laws that are still "technically" in effect? What would happen if a cop pulled you over for breaking one of those archaic laws? You would feel cheated if the law didn't make sense, wouldn't you?
The situations are different to be sure, but think of it this way-
In our culture, the internet has given us some important gifts, but in an attempt to avoid legal hot water wherever an enterprise goes, we've become inundated with contracts. Tell me- how many times have you scrolled to the bottom and hit "I Agree" without actually reading the End User License Agreement (EULA) or Terms of Service (ToS)? More than you can count, I bet. I know I don't read them in 90% of circumstances. Is that smart? Hell no, you should read every contract you sign up for. Some of them are downright scary. Facebook? When you click "I agree," you sign away all ownership to any picture hosted on Facebook. It becomes their property to do with as they see fit. That's terrifying-- but-- we acquiesce for convenience and because there's little alternative. Do you want to network with your acquaintances and friends? Well, you have to sign away something, no matter how much you dislike it.
This proliferation of contracts has us so overloaded with terms and liabilities and licenses, that they all blend together and are meaningless. The cruel logic of it is that each contract is, itself, something you should and could relatively easily comb through. But, combined with the eight other contracts you sign a day, it's a bit taxing. Especially if some of them simply repeat what others say. You don't want to double check each and every contract to make sure you're not selling away your soul. And why should you have to? Your time is just as valuable as anyone else's. So, you do what anyone would do- the only thing we can do. You trust that the contractor isn't being deceitful or underhanded in any way, and you trust that the terms of agreement make sense and have logical consequences.
This is where average citizens get into hot water- trust. Trust is a quality that we admire and honor in the human race. And yet, we abuse the hell out of it.
You walk into a bank to sign up for a credit card. You don't like it, but you need to build a credit rating so that you can someday take out a loan for a car or a house or even a business. It's the smart thing to do. But, no one in school taught you a damn thing about credit cards. You only vaguely know what 1.3% APR means. You're fairly intelligent. You reason that 1.3% is the interest rate, but you're not positive, because you have no clue what "APR" stands for, and no one's about to tell you. You'd look it up, but you notice that there are four or five other initialisms that you're unfamiliar with, along with a slew of financial terminology that, in context, makes your head swim. You're smart, but this is something people take multiple classes on at the college level. You have a 40 hour/week job and a kid. You don't have time to sit and study the nuances of credit card finances- you just want to get the credit card, since you understand the most basic principle- pay with the card each day, pay off the card each month. That's easy.
But, the banker who just sat you down sees it another way. You're prey. You're the $100 bonus for him if he can sell you the high-interest credit card with a large spending limit. Your situation? Meaningless to many of these salesmen. True, some are there to help you, but many are not and have no interest in whether or not you'd be a wise choice for that high-responsibility credit card.
So, this man, trained in the art of making you feel flattered and insecure at the same time, goes into a sales pitch that he's spent countless hours perfecting. Telling you all the reasons why the bigger card would be better for you, even if you don't want it- neglecting to mention the ways it could be worse for you. He's throwing financial buzz words at you that, to him, actually make some sense because it's his field. But to you, the words could be in any order and they would make a comparable amount of sense regardless- It's all mumbo jumbo to you, and you just wanted the simple, easy, small credit card. However, you've grown insecure. This salesman is good and has pointed out several compelling reasons why you might need that massive spending limit and why it might be good for your credit. He's even talked about all the bonuses and rewards you get for signing up. It seems like a pretty sweet deal, actually.
Finally, you acquiesce, because what else could you do?
If you've been to college, I'd like to give you a comparable situation.
You walk into a classroom halfway through the semester- doesn't matter which one except for one critical detail- it's not in your area of expertise and it's in the building you've stayed away from up to that point. You sit down amongst a gaggle of students who look and sound like they have the subject completely figured out, but when the professor speaks, it's total nonsense to you. As it should be, you've never had a class in it, and someone dropped you into the middle of it without any preparation. You turn to ask your neighbors what's going on, and they happily explain. The problem is that their explanation relies on the terminology and concepts you haven't learned and don't really understand- so the explanation flies over your head. You apologize for sounding stupid, but you ask what one of those terms means, and the student rolls their eyes and gives you a ten minute explanation of that single term, bringing in new terms that you don't understand. You can see where this is going. There's no way that you'll be able to learn enough to discuss it effectively without spending weeks and months studying and attending lectures, reading notes and books. It's an ordeal. So you nod absently and copy what the professor says word for word, even though it's completely meaningless to you. And at the end of the period, you've learned nothing except just how woefully ignorant you are of the topic.
That is what it's like to sign up for a credit card when you don't know what you're doing or what they're talking about. It's frustrating, confusing, and you just want to leave as quickly as possible, even if it means not reading the contract, because chances are, you're not going to know what the contract is saying anyway beyond some vague understanding of some of the individual terms.
So, we trust that the banker means us no harm and is genuine when he tells us that the bigger card is the cheaper and smarter way to go.
Do the same for mortgages, and now you see why there were so many foreclosures in the past few years- why the housing bubble burst. Most people are of average intellect, and many people are of even less IQ than average. A smart person may be able to see through each sales pitch, but ultimately, their knowledge of credit and mortgages is piecemeal at best. So why do we expect everyone to know all the terms of each contract they signed inside and out? And more to the point, why are these contracts fair when we are coerced into accepting them?!
Yeah, you can not sign up for a credit card, but the consequences of that are that you may never own a house or be approved for a lease. Without a credit rating, what can be determined about your level of responsibility? There are ways around this, to be fair, but not all contracts can be so easily avoided. Wal-Mart is a terrific example. Are you old? Disabled? Unskilled? High school drop out? Looking to help pay for college? Or are you just down on your luck and forced to seek employment in desperate places? Wal-Mart is waiting with open arms.
Comparatively, most other places in town are relatively strict about hiring, and maybe you didn't make the cut for one reason or another, but Wal-Mart's high turnover rate and enormous size make it ideal for hiring constantly, so sometimes, they're the only option you have. In such a case, your options are:
A. Don't have a job
B. Sign a contract with Wal-Mart, regardless of how you feel about that contract
That's coercion if ever I've seen it, and it's how employers were able to force workers to work 12+ hours a day for virtually no compensation at any age, with the looming threat of machinery cutting off your limbs every day.
That's why unions had to come into being. That's why strikes were necessary.
In corporate America, there is no "I think I've made enough profit today, time to be generous." There's always room for more profit, so most corporations will do whatever the bare minimum is for its employees, and often times, its consumers as well. Corporations have given us no reason to trust that they have our best interest in mind, and yet we're forced to do just that, because the alternative is almost always worse.
So that. That is why I cannot fathom why corporate apologists exist in the average people. It baffles and concerns me. Each person in this country (aside from the upper class) is one unfortunate accident away from being in an extremely compromising situation. The fact that we lack empathy for the people already in those situations is astounding and shameful.
You guys are blaming the victim for something that is ultimately, a problem on both ends.
Yes, everyone should read and understand the contracts they sign. However, to do this, we need good education and simple-to-read contracts. Furthermore, we need to trust that the contracts are made in good faith by people who are looking out for our interests and not just the bottom line.
Overloading each person with a million contracts and expecting them to adhere flawlessly to each one without guidance? Cruel and unusual.
I'm glad you're smart enough to know a sizeable amount about credit, interest, and mortgages. But for the rest of America, we should be able to trust that the food we're being served isn't somehow simply poison in a pretty package. Not everyone can see through the packaging.
-
Waddles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)