Social Physics

I'm pretty sure that when you are a grown-up you don't get to automatically have everything your way. I'm not talking about what you like on your hamburger or whether you even eat hamburger. I'm talking about socially. Yes, we all have needs, and some needs are non-negotiable, like needing a tissue after you sneeze or insulin if you're diabetic, and, lest you argue that these are not social needs, I will remind you that family, friends, and conversation partners appreciate neither a snot-covered upper lip nor having to take someone to the hospital who has gone into a coma. But very few emotional/social needs really are non-negotiable. The truth is, in order to live in the world, a person can't have every single need met all the time. Life is a series of compromises, because we don't live in a vacuum. We live with and need other people. Unless you are a hermit who lives on the side of a mountain who sews his own clothes from cloth he has woven from crops he has grown from seed he has harvested from wild-growing plants, you must live in a world with other human beings, and you must, to some degree, get along with them and their needs.

For instance, say you are crabby when you are sick. You don't want to talk to anyone, you want the food that comforts you, and you want the TV tuned to the channel you prefer while you suffer on the sofa in your most comfortable position. On the surface, these are your "needs." You "need" to be in a bad mood and you "need" your comfort food, your shows, and your favorite fuzzy blanket. Because you are sick, your loved ones will generally allow you these things, because they love you and they feel bad that you feel so terrible. They will probably leave you alone, not eat your food, and not insist that they be allowed to watch their shows instead. But you don't "need" any of these things. You want them. And because you are sick, which, in our culture, often confers upon one a somewhat special status, usually the people around you will humor you in these things for a reasonable amount of time. If you snap at someone, you are cut some slack. If you demand that no one eat your cookies, probably no one will ( I am keeping teenagers out of the equation here. Please.). No one will turn the channel. No one will swipe your fuzzy throw. Even if it technically belongs to someone else. We generally respect others' "needs" when they are the subject of a pitiable situation, like illness. Or tragedy, or great stress. But when you are well again, back to 50/50 you go, if you have a life like most of us. Unless you are royalty or hold some other kind of exalted position, most of the time, you have to give a little to get a little. You may give a bit less than 50% sometimes, or even much of the time, and still not be ostracized if you are lucky enough to be surrounded by people of more-than-average generosity (or less-than-average security or backbone). But if you are someone who routinely walks on others (meaning, does a lot more taking than giving, or who, as a rule, accepts kindnesses without reciprocation), there are consequences eventually. Someday you may look around and find yourself alone, literally or metaphorically. We all understand these rules. We may live up to them in varying degrees, but, in general, we accept them.

But I am here to go one further. Here's the thing. Whether you have lost your job, or your mother has died, or you have been diagnosed with cancer, you are still not allowed to walk on people. You may be given some extra leeway for a little while, because good people understand that stress and grief often cause us to lose our self-awareness briefly (or even not so briefly). We may behave badly for a bit because we are simply unable to attend to anything other than our interior survival, and people understand this. But this period, notwithstanding onset of true mental illness, ends. We cannot treat others badly - ignore their needs - indefinitely. At some point, we are expected to come back to level. That is, we must eventually return to a 50/50 approach. That means, no matter how much internal (or external) pain we are experiencing, at some point not years down the road we must be treating people kindly, respectfully, and as if their needs matter, yes, as much as ours do.

Ask a nurse. If he is allowed to be frank, he will tell you that because someone has lost her leg in a war, she is not interminably "allowed" to abuse her caregivers, to demand certain treatment, or  to speak to others as if their feelings aren't important. Head injury or major depressive disorder aside (because we would never reach the end of this article), she must eventually grease others' wheels in order to be part of any social equation. Yes, I mean it. Even when her stump is excruciating and she is still having nightmares, to the extent that she can, she is still expected to speak kindly and respectfully to those around her, and to not assume that others live to deliver her every wish. In other words, pain does not entitle one to selfishness. If you live on this earth, no matter what your situation, you must live as if other people's needs are as important as yours. Because they are. A nurse of an injured veteran deserves to be treated just as well as the veteran. We think we should give people - and ourselves - space to be horrible if they are suffering. But, really, this does no one any favors. Because here's another thing. It doesn't alleviate our suffering to be horrible to someone. We like to tell ourselves that it is using all our energy to suffer; we have no energy left to give to anyone else. Balderdash. It takes no energy at all to be kind. It is our natural set point to be kind. The point at which we have convinced ourselves that someone else doesn't deserve to be treated the way we would wish to be treated, because we have decided we have the corner on suffering, and that corner has somehow elevated us above the need to consider others, is the point at which we have actually lost some humanity. Occasionally there needs to be a period of sympathetic understanding. But ultimately we must expect everyone - even those in pain - to behave well. It doesn't serve someone to refuse to ask them to be compassionate and kind, as if asking this of them asks too much. In fact, it dehumanizes them. It says, "it's okay, we don't expect you to be part of the human equation." That is harmful, not helpful. Expecting them to return to a give-and-take place is doing them a favor. It is an invitation to be part of the community, to be connected to others, which, as I said above, we are, whether we like it or not, because we have no right to get our needs met if others can't.

There is no one right way to be, and no wrong way. Whoever we are is okay. You can be as awful or selfish a person as you want. But you aren't allowed to act that way. You can be shy. But you still need to be polite. You can be an introvert. But you aren't allowed to ignore people. If you are an extrovert, fine. But you can't go around talking everyone's ears off and never letting them get a word in. I mean, you could do all these things. But not without consequences. If you don't mind ending up alone, or disliked, or in jail, then go ahead. But if you want to live in the world and be part of it, you need to behave in a way that takes others' needs into account. For a selfish person, that means sometimes giving someone something you want to keep. For a shy person, that means swallowing some fear and reaching out to someone because they need something. An introvert need not be ashamed that he is one.  Some people just are introverted. But he cannot lean on it, either, or nurse it, if it means acting as if others don't exist, because that could really hurt someone's feelings. It's not okay to hurt someone and excuse it because you feel you have "needs" (in this example, to be turned inward). Introversion is not a "need." It is a reality like any other. It requires examination, not rationalizing. Similarly, an extrovert loves the energy she gets from interacting with others. Fine. But that doesn't mean she can talk to the exclusion of anyone else. She must be aware that others need to feel significant, too, which means giving them space to share as well. We must look at our preferences, even if we call them "needs" or "programming," and make sure we are not putting ourselves first in every situation. We don't need to apologize for who we are, either. We just have to behave in a way that views others ' needs as important as our own.  It's not okay if it's just a habit, either, and you behave inconsiderately or arrogantly because it is an habitual trait to which you pay little mind. As grown-up, decent people, it is our moral duty to do unto others in pretty much all ways.

The point is this: we are all connected. The world changes for all of us whenever each of us is born or dies. You cannot just cherry-pick and say "I'll take this part and this part of living with others, but I'll leave these other parts to someone else." That's a recipe for bitterness and resentment. It is likely that no one else wants those onerous things, either. So, then, who's going to pick up those hard jobs - the ones that require giving when we'd rather receive? You can go around saying "that's just not who I am," but if what that really means is, "I don't feel like meeting your needs; I only want to meet mine," then you aren't being strong or self-sufficient. You are just being selfish.

We all have things we are not good at or would prefer not to have to do. But when we are talking about living in a world with other people, it is likely those are the things we really need most to do. It will be better for others. But it will likely be great for us. Giving to someone else is only a sacrifice if you believe that your needs necessarily come before theirs. Once you have figured out that giving someone else what he needs, even at some inconvenience to yourself, feels at least as good as when he does the same for you, you are on the path to some of the greatest riches you could ever ask for. 

Here's the main thing. If we all gave rather than took, none of us would ever lack anything. I'm not asking you to be the one who always gives and never receives. I'm saying that you should never need to be in that position. When everyone is always tending to someone else's needs, everyone's needs are always being met. Those are just the rules. It's just the physics of being social creatures. If all any of us ever did was look inward at our own needs, we would all be bumping into each other all the time, and we would never get anywhere. Look up! And see what you can do for someone else.