Although this logically forms part of the recovering from corporate life series, it also covers wider issues so I am doing it as a post that is separate to that series (although I may make it a PS on that series’ page).
Today a friend and I were discussing my transition to retirement, and - when I was talked of my recovery from work progress - she commented “That job was destroying you.”
And it was - absolutely no question about it.
But that comment further crystallised something I have been thinking about in a range of contexts, which is:
when should friends get involved in situations you are being harmed - and when should they NOT
Now, despite work being a nightmare, could my friends have done anything?
Well, yes - emotional and mental support, as friends do, and as they did, but could they change the situation at work? No.
If they had tried something like marching in and telling the problem people off, they would have been charged with trespass, put my job at risk, and accomplished nothing.
One friend did make sure I knew of other job opportunities (she is renowned for giving lots of practical help like that, bless her - a truly outstanding friend), but it was still up to me to apply for them, and in comparison to younger, less beaten down models, I didn’t look like such a good offer.
What about friends in difficult relationships? I have helped move people out of DV situations, so I know the sorts of practical help that can be provided, but most commonly being a shoulder to cry on, a sounding board, or - when it is genuinely appropriate and not an exercise in lording it over others (as I have seen done FAR too many times) - offering some gentle advice or suggestions or prompting questions is what is appropriate there.
It is NOT my role to change friends - even if they are being self harming. I can express concern about that, but it is not for me to try to force them to be better. Professionals might have the skills, authority and role to do so, but one of the key aspects of being professional is that they would not - or should not - use such skills in situations where they have a personal relationship owing to the biasing effect of that conflict of interest.
Dr Devon Price recently wrote a column about supporting people no matter what: I agree with that in principle, and it was consistent with training I had decades ago as a volunteer phone counsellor, but I don’t have an appropriate filter to link to that in this blog.
I wrote “in principle”, and that leads in to situations where I consider an intervention of some form may be needed.
The one that immediate;y comes to mind is if my friend is being violent or coercive/controlling of others, or is the subject of violence / controlling/coercive behaviour.
Such behaviour is an infringement of free will, and thus is unacceptable - and that also applies to bullies in so many other people. (People who are uncomfortable or even angry at being confronted with a broader / more progressive point of view are NOT being bullied.)
However, if physical violence is involved, I do not have the skills - nor the legal authority - to get involved, so my “involvement” would be to call the police and hope they get their response right (which is not always the case, due to a range of factors including unmanaged unconscious bias).
But, in general ...
if I
- have the necessary skills, and
- it is safe to do so, and
- it is consistent with role of friend,
then yes, I would expect that I should help
If any one of those three was a no, then helping is not a clearcut yes - it may be, after further consideration, but that is a subject for another column.
I apply these sort of problems to other situations as well.
As an example, consider social problems such as inequity, poverty, and discrimination.
These occur as a result of either active government policies or government refusal to act (or a combination of both), and governments have the potential to act to cause a more constructive state of society.
That they don’t is often a measure of the fact that they have been captured by the interests of the rich, who benefit from the neoliberal infested version of capitalism that pervades too many of our societies.
The facts remain that: 1. they have the capacity, 2. it is safe for them to act, and 3. doing so is consistent with the role of governing for the people (not just the rich), and thus such actions should be taken.
At least one nation has had a welfare budget: others will, and whether the conservatives like it or not, that IS the way of the future, and they can choose to be on the wrong side of history if they want, but they - and the people they allegedly care about - if they got on board.
In terms of international relations, I accept and support the principles of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and, again, there are many situations I consider nations should have taken action, but they didn't because of problems such as being a nation with a third rate character, victim blaming, or cowardice.
As I wrote in the rough notes when I was planning this post, they are “selfish, unreasonable excuse-finding, cowardly, hypocritical, unbecoming and active co-harmers by doing nothing”.
They are NOT part of the international order that has been developing over the last century or so.
Furthermore, if they are stopping/slowing action on the climate crisis, they are engaging in acts of aggression against the rest of the human species.
OK, so up to this point that could all have been published on my political blog. But now let’s look at our entire planet from the point of view of extraterrestrials intervening.
I recently wrote about why I consider extraterrestrials will not openly make contact with the Earth - see here.
In terms of the three points I listed above:
1. do ETs have the necessary skills?
Possibly - we are so backward it would be like us trying to work out how to make stone tools again in terms of technology. Similarly, we are very behind the times spiritually,but that is something I consider they do have the skills to deal with.
2. is it safe to do so?
Unequivocally NO. Our species has a history of extreme aggression, particularly when it comes to ETs (or even people from other nations/places/parts of our own society), and we have an oversupply of weapons.
On this item alone, I - as someone who cares for all sentient life - would not want them to put their lives/wellbeing at risk for the sake of something WE should be handling better.
On top of that, the mental-=psychological-emotional damage caused by having to deal with such backward souls and hearts and minds as are too common on this planet can also be damaging (to us, let alone extraterrestrials).
3. is it consistent with the role of beneficent ET?
This is arguable, but I am not going to argue it here, as it is very late and intervention by ETs has been ruled out - to my satisfaction, using my criteria. You are free to consider otherwise, Dear Reader.
(PS - I think yes, no, and maybe - it is a case by case thing on this aspect)
Possible flaws
Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider:
- there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”;
- I could be wrong - so keep your thinking caps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.
If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below, and there’s also Instagram.
Note that I am cutting back on aspects of my posts - see here.
Remember: we generally need to be more human being rather than human doing, to mind our Mӕgan, and to acknowledge that all misgendering is an act of active transphobia/transmisia that puts trans+ lives at risk & accept that all insistence on the use of “trans” as a descriptor comes with commensurate use of “cis” as a descriptor to prevent “othering” (just as binary gendered [men’s and women’s] sporting teams are either both given the gender descriptor, or neither).Copyright © Kayleen White 2007-2024 NO AI
I do not consent to any machine learning aka Artificial Intelligence
(AI), generative AI, large language model, machine learning, chatbot, or
other automated analysis, generative process, or replication program to
reproduce, mimic, remix, summarise, or otherwise replicate any part of
this post or other posts on this blog via any means. Typo’s
may be inserrted deliberately to demonstrate this is not an AI product.
Otherwise, fair and reasonable use is accepted under Creative
Commons 4.0 on an Attribution-ShareAlike basis https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
.jpg)
