Someone on twitter asked who you should trust more, someone with kind instincts (who makes less effort to be kind) or someone with unkind instincts who is making the effort to be kinder.
I don't know the answer to that, but it triggered some thoughts that I'm going to try mashing all together here. It might take a post or two (or maybe more, who knows?)
Long ago, I heard someone claim that the West is focused more on the individual, and the East is focused more on collectivism. I thought that both were true, but focused on different parts of human nature. That 80-90% of our behavior can be explained by... I dunno... how we were raised, what the people around us believe, how they think, the stuff we absorb growing up in a particular family and a particular society. But there's always that 10-20% - roughly estimating, as it varies considerably, and from person to person - that comes from specific individual choices we make.
That focusing on the individual helps remind us that we do have a choice, that we can choose differently. That we are not stuck following the path laid down by the generations before us, not stuck repeating patterns of behavior learned as a child, especially when the results don't make us happy.
It may not always be as true as we think, we may not always consciously choose, but it's well worth remembering. It frees us.
But it's only part of the story, and one most people don't use all that often. You can see a great deal of this at play with the cycle of poverty, with how people who are raised poor struggle to get out of it. How changing socio-economic class often involves changes in values and attitudes.
But it's true for more than just people at the poorer end of the scale. There was a thought-provoking article discussing how so many Ivy League graduates wind up on Wall Street, and it struck me that (according to the article) doing so was not actually the goal for most of them. They had other things they wanted to do with their lives, bigger purposes they wanted to do...
But, in a process that reminded me all too much of the 'golden shackles' that may handcuff you to deploying (i.e. the money is more than you can make elsewhere, which gets addicting... and when you finish a deployment and go back home you can live off the money for a little while, but eventually it runs out... maybe you find it hard to find a comparable job stateside or something... and you soon wind up deploying again) people wind up living a life that they hadn't planned on, and hadn't intended.
The part I find, well, a bit less forgiving about this in the 1% as opposed to the poor, is that they have so many more options than the poor caught up in the cycle of poverty. Like, maybe there are choices you can make to get out of being poor, but it's a long and hard slog no matter how strong your willpower... and it takes a very, very long time to get enough resources to have genuine choices... you are constantly limited in what you can do. Maybe you have to choose between paying rent, eating, and paying tuition. Or paying for health insurance, and praying that you don't get sick in the meantime. Sure, you've got choices... but they're very different from deciding whether to buy that tenth yacht or not.
But what are the golden shackles holding the 1%?
Most of it appears, on the outside at least, to be social programming. The pressure to "keep up with the Joneses". Things that, well, that in a society that admires individualism you'd think they could easily escape. Like... do you really need 10 yachts? It's not like you can sail them all at once, you know. Or do you give a different family member one?
How often are they in use, and how often are they idly sitting somewhere? How much of it is conspicuous consumption, signaling how wealthy they are to their peers, and how much of it is genuine need?
For those of us who don't even have one yacht, much less ten, it all sounds ridiculously unnecessary. Spending a ludicrous amount of money on things that are almost a complete waste (aside from the companies that make yachts and the people they employ. Said resources which could probably be used elsewhere, tbqh.)
Every time someone (who always considers themselves middle class, and barely getting by) posts some out-of-touch editorial where they lament how hard it is, and how everyone else just doesn't understand...
The matter-of-fact way they describe the expenses of nannies, and maids... all of it just serves to remind the vast majority of people - who can't afford a nanny or a maid - just how privileged this person is. Like, if a poor person could somehow manage to get an education and find a better paying job (and stop being poor) how much more could a person who has nannies and maids do if they cut out completely unnecessary expenses like that? (The editorialists don't seem to consider them unnecessary, of course, and someone has to take care of the kids and clean house. It's just, well, deciding not to use a daycare - and having the resources to do so - is a privilege. Whether that's hiring a nanny or having one of the parents stay home, in this era where most families need two incomes to survive, it's all a sign of wealth. Deciding not to do all the house cleaning yourself - and, again, having the resources to do so - is a privilege.)
Books and movies often show the 'poor little rich kid', who elicits a range of mixed emotions, because on the one hand wealth isn't everything, and it makes sense that they'd struggle as well. Everyone has challenges, rich or poor, though the particular type varies greatly.
At the same time, it's like... so many of the challenge of a 'poor little rich kid' are things that could easily be overcome, given the resources available. (I say 'easily', but things like 'finding love' are just as hard. Or perhaps even harder, since there are all sorts of parasites willing to crowd around. And it's a lot harder to tell who is genuine and who isn't when people have an incentive to impress you. Still, if you feel called to do something particular with your life and you've got the resources, the only thing holding you back is yourself. If you don't feel satisfied with your job, if whatever your daily life is like is unfulfilling, you've got the key to undoing your golden shackles any time you want.)
All too often we wind up making choices without really thinking about it, shunting aside the occasional feeling of discomfort. The vague sense that we aren't living up to our full potential, aren't being who we want to be...
And that's true for people from all walks of life. Perhaps that's what the concept of 'mindfulness' is all about. Becoming consciously aware of the choices we make, and deliberately - mindfully - living in the present, choosing the ones that bring us closer to our most authentic self.
(If I criticize the wealthy for doing what most people do, i.e. following the well-beaten path, brushing aside the sense that they could be doing something else, that maybe they should give up that well-paying corporate job and risk it all for some uncertain and vague promise of better - it's in part because our society so often claims they deserve the position they're in because they're able to make those sorts of decisions. The entrepreneur and businessperson who makes it big by taking risks... the person compensated by society for offering something unusual, and rare, and needed. We think they deserve the rewards they get for consciously choosing to do something different, to see something nobody else has seen and act on it. The person who inherits wealth and privilege, who gets all the benefits of being well-off without having to take those sorts of risks, without having to consciously think about what they are doing or who they want to be... they don't seem to deserve the power and status our society confers on them. They're just muddling through like everyone else, and aren't really offering up anything special. It's like the perspective so many people had on the 'golden parachutes' for leaders of failed companies. I could come in and ruin a company just as easily as they did, so why do they deserve to get the type of compensation that would set me up for life? Sure, they may lose the friendship of some of their peers. Sure, they may be ashamed to face everyone, knowing they were a failure. They're still able to live comfortably for a very long time, so long as they don't squander that compensation on ten yachts or something.)
I don't know the answer to that, but it triggered some thoughts that I'm going to try mashing all together here. It might take a post or two (or maybe more, who knows?)
Long ago, I heard someone claim that the West is focused more on the individual, and the East is focused more on collectivism. I thought that both were true, but focused on different parts of human nature. That 80-90% of our behavior can be explained by... I dunno... how we were raised, what the people around us believe, how they think, the stuff we absorb growing up in a particular family and a particular society. But there's always that 10-20% - roughly estimating, as it varies considerably, and from person to person - that comes from specific individual choices we make.
That focusing on the individual helps remind us that we do have a choice, that we can choose differently. That we are not stuck following the path laid down by the generations before us, not stuck repeating patterns of behavior learned as a child, especially when the results don't make us happy.
It may not always be as true as we think, we may not always consciously choose, but it's well worth remembering. It frees us.
But it's only part of the story, and one most people don't use all that often. You can see a great deal of this at play with the cycle of poverty, with how people who are raised poor struggle to get out of it. How changing socio-economic class often involves changes in values and attitudes.
But it's true for more than just people at the poorer end of the scale. There was a thought-provoking article discussing how so many Ivy League graduates wind up on Wall Street, and it struck me that (according to the article) doing so was not actually the goal for most of them. They had other things they wanted to do with their lives, bigger purposes they wanted to do...
But, in a process that reminded me all too much of the 'golden shackles' that may handcuff you to deploying (i.e. the money is more than you can make elsewhere, which gets addicting... and when you finish a deployment and go back home you can live off the money for a little while, but eventually it runs out... maybe you find it hard to find a comparable job stateside or something... and you soon wind up deploying again) people wind up living a life that they hadn't planned on, and hadn't intended.
The part I find, well, a bit less forgiving about this in the 1% as opposed to the poor, is that they have so many more options than the poor caught up in the cycle of poverty. Like, maybe there are choices you can make to get out of being poor, but it's a long and hard slog no matter how strong your willpower... and it takes a very, very long time to get enough resources to have genuine choices... you are constantly limited in what you can do. Maybe you have to choose between paying rent, eating, and paying tuition. Or paying for health insurance, and praying that you don't get sick in the meantime. Sure, you've got choices... but they're very different from deciding whether to buy that tenth yacht or not.
But what are the golden shackles holding the 1%?
Most of it appears, on the outside at least, to be social programming. The pressure to "keep up with the Joneses". Things that, well, that in a society that admires individualism you'd think they could easily escape. Like... do you really need 10 yachts? It's not like you can sail them all at once, you know. Or do you give a different family member one?
How often are they in use, and how often are they idly sitting somewhere? How much of it is conspicuous consumption, signaling how wealthy they are to their peers, and how much of it is genuine need?
For those of us who don't even have one yacht, much less ten, it all sounds ridiculously unnecessary. Spending a ludicrous amount of money on things that are almost a complete waste (aside from the companies that make yachts and the people they employ. Said resources which could probably be used elsewhere, tbqh.)
Every time someone (who always considers themselves middle class, and barely getting by) posts some out-of-touch editorial where they lament how hard it is, and how everyone else just doesn't understand...
The matter-of-fact way they describe the expenses of nannies, and maids... all of it just serves to remind the vast majority of people - who can't afford a nanny or a maid - just how privileged this person is. Like, if a poor person could somehow manage to get an education and find a better paying job (and stop being poor) how much more could a person who has nannies and maids do if they cut out completely unnecessary expenses like that? (The editorialists don't seem to consider them unnecessary, of course, and someone has to take care of the kids and clean house. It's just, well, deciding not to use a daycare - and having the resources to do so - is a privilege. Whether that's hiring a nanny or having one of the parents stay home, in this era where most families need two incomes to survive, it's all a sign of wealth. Deciding not to do all the house cleaning yourself - and, again, having the resources to do so - is a privilege.)
Books and movies often show the 'poor little rich kid', who elicits a range of mixed emotions, because on the one hand wealth isn't everything, and it makes sense that they'd struggle as well. Everyone has challenges, rich or poor, though the particular type varies greatly.
At the same time, it's like... so many of the challenge of a 'poor little rich kid' are things that could easily be overcome, given the resources available. (I say 'easily', but things like 'finding love' are just as hard. Or perhaps even harder, since there are all sorts of parasites willing to crowd around. And it's a lot harder to tell who is genuine and who isn't when people have an incentive to impress you. Still, if you feel called to do something particular with your life and you've got the resources, the only thing holding you back is yourself. If you don't feel satisfied with your job, if whatever your daily life is like is unfulfilling, you've got the key to undoing your golden shackles any time you want.)
All too often we wind up making choices without really thinking about it, shunting aside the occasional feeling of discomfort. The vague sense that we aren't living up to our full potential, aren't being who we want to be...
And that's true for people from all walks of life. Perhaps that's what the concept of 'mindfulness' is all about. Becoming consciously aware of the choices we make, and deliberately - mindfully - living in the present, choosing the ones that bring us closer to our most authentic self.
(If I criticize the wealthy for doing what most people do, i.e. following the well-beaten path, brushing aside the sense that they could be doing something else, that maybe they should give up that well-paying corporate job and risk it all for some uncertain and vague promise of better - it's in part because our society so often claims they deserve the position they're in because they're able to make those sorts of decisions. The entrepreneur and businessperson who makes it big by taking risks... the person compensated by society for offering something unusual, and rare, and needed. We think they deserve the rewards they get for consciously choosing to do something different, to see something nobody else has seen and act on it. The person who inherits wealth and privilege, who gets all the benefits of being well-off without having to take those sorts of risks, without having to consciously think about what they are doing or who they want to be... they don't seem to deserve the power and status our society confers on them. They're just muddling through like everyone else, and aren't really offering up anything special. It's like the perspective so many people had on the 'golden parachutes' for leaders of failed companies. I could come in and ruin a company just as easily as they did, so why do they deserve to get the type of compensation that would set me up for life? Sure, they may lose the friendship of some of their peers. Sure, they may be ashamed to face everyone, knowing they were a failure. They're still able to live comfortably for a very long time, so long as they don't squander that compensation on ten yachts or something.)
No comments:
Post a Comment