I'm so happy to have found your voice. One of the most measured minds I've ever come across. Mutually dependent relationships versus toxic charity. Indeed.
Or rather than mutual dependence (because that isn't always feasible, given differences in resources), relationships where reciprocity is valued - where people contribute according to their abilities. I realize that might sound like I'm about to recap the Communist Manifesto (lol), but really, reciprocity and mutuality are key to any healthy group or relationship.
AA is a great example of this principle. A core part of their process is that "being of service" and helping others overcome their addiction is a core part (perhaps even the core part) of ones own recovery.
I know they get a lot of flak for being cult-like and people like to say its not actually that effective, but my impression is they've been more successful than anyone else at that mission.
I've been part of a social organization for over a decade, with varying levels of involvement. When I was very active, I resented members who weren't, especially if they critiqued those who made things run. Frustration with them was one of the reasons I withdrew for a time. I agree it's vital to spread contributions around as much as possible.
I see a parallel in politics. While I'm all for taxing the rich more heavily, I worry non-rich Americans don't value our government enough when we're not asked to pay more for it.
Great article with unique insight! Question: How common is this "toxic relationship between benefactor and the beneficiary"? Is it the norm in your experience? Presumably there are some percent of people who are able to avoid it? Thanks
…they will find meaning in responsibility to others, and cherish a role in which they feel they are necessary, in which their contributions are valued.
I'm so happy to have found your voice. One of the most measured minds I've ever come across. Mutually dependent relationships versus toxic charity. Indeed.
Thank you! ❤️
Or rather than mutual dependence (because that isn't always feasible, given differences in resources), relationships where reciprocity is valued - where people contribute according to their abilities. I realize that might sound like I'm about to recap the Communist Manifesto (lol), but really, reciprocity and mutuality are key to any healthy group or relationship.
AA is a great example of this principle. A core part of their process is that "being of service" and helping others overcome their addiction is a core part (perhaps even the core part) of ones own recovery.
I know they get a lot of flak for being cult-like and people like to say its not actually that effective, but my impression is they've been more successful than anyone else at that mission.
fantastic post
This is a great article.
I've been part of a social organization for over a decade, with varying levels of involvement. When I was very active, I resented members who weren't, especially if they critiqued those who made things run. Frustration with them was one of the reasons I withdrew for a time. I agree it's vital to spread contributions around as much as possible.
I see a parallel in politics. While I'm all for taxing the rich more heavily, I worry non-rich Americans don't value our government enough when we're not asked to pay more for it.
Great article with unique insight! Question: How common is this "toxic relationship between benefactor and the beneficiary"? Is it the norm in your experience? Presumably there are some percent of people who are able to avoid it? Thanks
Very well done. An important subject to me and my household. Keep up the great work. You articulated this so well.
…they will find meaning in responsibility to others, and cherish a role in which they feel they are necessary, in which their contributions are valued.
This is the take away for me.