It appears that history is replete with examples of human violence and cruelty. So much so that most academic disciplines regard competition and self-interest as fundamental to an understanding of “Human Nature”. Given the ubiquity of violence throughout history, evidence of other primate violence and are reliance on economic systems that are born out of a fundamental belief in competition, is it possible to suggest that humans can interact nonviolently?
I think it is. Morality is an invention, a system used to control people and tell them how to live. At the root of this belief is that humans are fundamentally in competition with each other because they have to share a finite amount of resources. This belief represents a fundamental mistrust of humanity. That if human beings are left to their own devices they will be destructive to themselves and others, and that rules and moral codes prevent people us from greed and selfishness. It becomes clear that my gain is another’s loss and my loss is another’s gain (this is a curios situation when considering what makes a close relationship). The problem, of course, is that we are also socialized to believe that if we try to meet others needs, by not evaluating and dictating their behavior, we cannot meet our own needs. Consider the example:
I am working late and remember that my girlfriend has a strong need to have me home at a reasonable time to help relieve her from a long day at work and with our daughter. Her need is maybe cooperation and understanding. At the same time, I have a strong need to finish my work, so that I can feel relaxed and at ease over the weekend. My need is order and ease. What "should" I do? I believe that we are socialized to believe that if we meet others needs, we sacrifice our own. Someone is right, someone is wrong. A person "should" do what is right. But what is right in this case? If I stop my work and drive right home, I am not able to meet my need for order and ease. If I attempt to meet my own need by staying at work, I am not able to meet my girlfriend’s needs (of which I ultimately want to do).
To me the problem isn't deciding whose need is stronger or more important, so to make a decision, but rather is a problem of our reliance on a win-lose paradigm. One in which one person's gain, be it in material or psychological resources, is another's loss. In a world, or organization, where we are trying to meet needs, there are no win or lose. When we begin to think about issues and problems that arise throughout the day in terms of needs we open ourselves up to new solutions. So I go from a situation where I could only choose to a) meet my needs or b) meet her needs, to one that considers meeting all needs, just by utilizing a different language. What might this look like? I am not sure, it might be a phone call, where I show empathy and understanding for her needs, and make a request for her to help me meet my needs for order and ease. If she trusts that I am truly concerned about meeting her needs, she will not only want to help me meet my needs, but do so joyfully. I believe that it is actually a gift, to be able to meet others needs. I give her the gift of helping me meet my needs. What can be more gratifying, for her and me?
No comments:
Post a Comment