The No Thank You Zone
After thinking about the thank you note controversies, and the deeply institutionalized forms of thankfulness that we are all forced to bow down to if we are not to risk public and private censure, may I suggest the declaration of "No Thank You Zones" or areas and relations in one's life where one does not expect thank you's since the sense of solidarity (I mean this in the most political sense) obtains over and above the sense of obligation?
The No Thank You Zone would not cover my relationship to five year-old Leo, for instance, who, with his healthy sense of egocentrism has to learn how to acknowledge the labor of others....
The No Thank You Zone would not cover my relationship to five year-old Leo, for instance, who, with his healthy sense of egocentrism has to learn how to acknowledge the labor of others....
21 Comments:
I like the idea that solidarity trumps obligation. Yet, putting this into practice is probably easier said than done. What I mean is that the obligation-expectation junkies are not necessarily in a frame of mind to respect one’s “No Thank You Zones.” Like blood-sucking leeches, they hang on until every last drop of bloody thanks has been sucked out of you. Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not talking about a genuine heartfelt thank-you offered to a giver who does something nice for you, the givee. The givee thanks the giver who smiles and says, “Think nothing of it.” Later, the giver goes on his or her way, forgetting about the good deed. After all, it’s not about the givee nor the giver, but the relationship between the two. Yet, is the favor truly forgotten? Something discombobulates the process driving thankfulness and forgetfulness. This includes that weird sense of being continuously beholden to the giver? Every time one crosses paths with the giver, one gets a knowing look, this unconscious sense that one still owes, that one is, in essence, a slave (or a fool). One has a primal sense that a blood sacrifice is what is owed—a sacrifice offered on the altar of obligation. I, for one, am tired of that altar and I'm ready to smash it to pieces.
Anonymous,
It is only those with whom there is no possibility of solidarity who would demand the constant posture of everlasting gratitude with which we are so familiar.
The idea of the No Thank You Zone would be that -- if I am thanking you, that means I have no solidarity with you. It is only with those with whom I have solidarity that each gift cancels itself out as soon as it is given, and the relation of solidarity strengthened.
In this sense, the more thank you's said, the less solidarity there is. In its place, that crippling sense of obligation and debt that can never be repaid.
yeah, no thanks. but the concept of debt mobilized here is a left undefined. one wonders why? beyond the an-economy of (absolute) gifts and total (for)getting there is, to be sure, a pragmatic realm of experience which is negotiated, daily, hourly even, which has its economies (libinal and otherwise) that are not so easily shaken off. I suspect that gesture of refusal, the establishing of "no thank you zones" will easily find praise in north america - precisely because everyone is in denial about debts: be they personal (consumer debt), global (world bank debt), or "karmic" (to avoid the monotheistic monikers for once).
anonymous 2,
You are confusing debt with gratitude/obligation, which is understandable, since we have seen the financialization of all life, by more than just the insurance industry in the past years.
It is hard to think of these two categories apart.
As for the formulation, "we are in denial of debt" -- from a Nietzschean point of view, this denial should be strengthened, since all religion wants us to be born into debt to a creator.
As a form of political praxis, what would it be like if everyone refused to pay their credit card debts for just one month? Of course our present day creditors would probably punish us with rising interest rates, but what if it was a massive enough strike, with enough resolve on the part of "the people" to cancel their own debts and throw away the cards? What if all students refused to pay back their loans? An individual refusal would be masochistic, but a collective one would be political.
So, obligations which stem from gratitude are negative, whereas obligations which stem from solidarity are positive? I don't understand the distinction. (As we have already discussed, my view of gratitude is quite different from yours.) If I judge an interpersonal debt to be invalid, then I can refuse to pay it. If I'm not truly grateful, then there's no need for thank yous.
Of course my distinction (between valid and invalid debts) assumes that I have enough power in these relationship to accept the psychic and material consequences of the payment or lack thereof. This leads me to conclude that I am simply too privileged to understand your resentment. From this privileged perspective, I can understand a less sympathetic interpretation of your original posting. However, because I know you (both as a reader and a friend), it's unimaginable to me that you would willingly shirk a legitimate obligation.
On a different note, I would like to offer an example of an expression of gratitude offered in the spirit of solidarity: When school board candidates call to ask for my support at the upcoming city-wide DFL (Democratic Farmer-Labor) convention, even if I cannot commit to them, I thank them for their service to our schools and to the democratic process. My intent is to (a) offer encouragement, which is quite likely all that they will get for their troubles in a race with 13 candidates for 3 endorsements, and (b) remind them that if they do win a seat on the board that they are there to serve in solidarity.
Andrew,
I mean solidarity in a Marxist sense -- but today, there is no revolutionary class called the "proletariat" that we can support, so I would prefer to call it "labor" -- not in the organized sense either, but in the sense of work. I appreciate the labor of thinking and executing something whether it is a theory or a design or a meal...I don't appreciate the ready-made truisms of prophylactic gratitude, designed to ingratiate us either with parents, bosses or superegoes.
This is one big thought experiment for me -- to try to forge a new theory of solidarity that is neither Hallmark nor financially driven.
Andrew, you said:
"So, obligations which stem from gratitude are negative, whereas obligations which stem from solidarity are positive? I don't understand the distinction."
Certainly, you have a right to question this and you have a right to your opinions. For me, your words are an oversimplification of what's being discussed here. Ditto, for Anonymous #2. Yet, I can understand how you would draw these conclusions. Let's back up.
This isn't necessarily about non-payment of monetary debts. But, at a fundamental level this has everything to do with paying one's debts! Yes, one pays one's debts (to a person, to society, to whomever or whatever) and one expresses gratitude to one's supporters. Once expressed, one's 'thank you' or 'gratitude' should cancel any further obligation between the giver and the givee. Therein lies the rub: Often, within this relationship obligation becomes an heavy issue that hovers like a vulture. So much so that gratitude is removed from it's purest sense and morphs into a tool for manipulation, a tool to threaten, and to beat down the givee. The sense that one is expected to maintain an ever obliging faux humility simply because of a favor, a gift, a brief agreement or so-called lenient social policy, looms large. I think that this is part of the fallout of power (as in 'power over') in most relationships. The giver knows that he or she is 'one-up', the one in control. After all, the givee either had to ask for help or was obviously in need of assistance.
Though there's nothing wrong in asking for help. However, something is seriously wrong when that cry for help is met and graciously accepted; but, later used or imposed against the asker. How so? By the implication that the givee is weak and in a precarious position of servitude (slave) to the beneficient giver. Hence, the sense that gratitude in an hierarchical sense is slavery (one-up, one-down); whereas, gratitude expressed in solidarity with the giver is freedom--freedom to give and to receive without psychic nor social repercussions. I, however, don't think that I'm extrapolating. This is the tip of the iceberg.
I think that awareness is key to understanding what is going on here. Many are trained to objectively observe phenomenon like scientists; yet, the interpretation of this observance is part of your awareness of what is truly happening. Open your eyes.
I think that finally, the Christian ideal of charity is humiliating to the givee and crippling to the giver -- both are put in anonymous 3's master/slave dialectic. So I suppose that the pressure to express gratitude is actually a defensive posture. It comes from the fear of being punished for being a givee.
I'm trying to test a practice of gratitude that doesn't come out of this sense of fear.
Catherine,
The solidarity you seek goes hand-in-hand with class consciousness. You can't have one without the other. What we have in Minneapolis re our public schools is a popular front of competing and overlapping interests, be they self-interests or egalitarian. Our tenuous solidarity stems from the fact that we are under attack from suburban "tax-payer leagues" and other xenophobes.
Do "please" and "thank you" and other manners at once obscure and reinforce power relationships? Of course they do, but even in a classless society, there will remain vestigial customs from class society. Personally, I won't mind if "please" and "thank you" make the cut.
Finally, what you write of is not the "ideal" of Christian charity, but its material perversion. Ideally, the master/slave dialectic fades away as individual selves are united with the holy spirit. In practice, the giver seeks the ecstasy of the holy spirit by subjecting the givee to its alms, and the givee must agree to the terms that the gift (both the object and the act) comes from and through the holy spirit in order to receive it. Talk about solidarity. (Ha! Talk about colonialism. Talk about patriarchy.) In the Christian framework, the giver seeks to undo the consequence of original sin, to be reunited with the father. (I am writing here of the "loving Christ" side of Christianity, not its "punishing father" side.) In a Marxist framework, comrades seek to overcome alienation through class struggle. Does it really matter what theoretical framework underpins a person's kindness? If I had to choose that my children would grow up to become kind Christians or mean Marxists, I'd choose kindness.
Your friend and comrade,
Andrew
Andrew,
Whoa, what a choice you have given me -- kind Christian or mean Marxist?
I met many of those at the U of M -- of both kinds -- and I would say that the reason that you would wish your kids to be the kind Christians as opposed to the mean Marxists is that the first were happier than the second, even though both live in bad faith as it were. (There must be a few of those, but Irvine is remarkably free of Marxists -- no surprises there).
The mean Marxist is the one who holds onto resentment as critical consciousness -- which makes for a very unhappy life.
I'm not an orthodox Marxist -- as you can tell, but I would hope that there would be a solidarity with thinking and critique that could come out of our sense of materialism.
In a critique of Christian idealism, one would have to say that what you call "material perversion" is the rule and not the exception.
Couldn't we have a third alternative future for our children? The generous anarchist???
If please and thank you are “vestigial customs,” as you say, then they are up for interpretation. Yet, who gets to interpret these mannerisms for a modern society? I could say that interpretation is left up to each individual. That, however, is hardly the case here. Within relationships, gratitude is shared between individuals for many things. Yet, the pivotal crux is in the interpretation of the process of gratuity. Often the mere act of gratefulness is mis-interpreted as weakness, a sign that the givee is not just grateful but enslaved to the giver—the one in power. Therefore, thankfulness takes a perverse turn in this relationship. Gratitude turns bloody because it’s a necessary element in order for vampires to maintain control. As Dr. Liu mentioned, her little child is exempt. What I am talking about is the perverse development of this kind of relationship over time. Children benefit from being trained to appreciate things. They only stagnate or grow perverse when parents (and others) get caught up in fomenting guilt through years long expectation-obligation pounding.
Continuous and often feigned gratitude remains the sacrificial blood sacrifice to keep the tenuous and perverse balance between the giver and the givee in tact. Without it, the relationship would necessarily break down, de-concentrating the power hold and redistributing it to the givee. This would create solidarity.
This is similar to the Holy Spirit alliance that you mention. One must “offer” up, as you say, a continual stream of gratuity, solidifying the relationship with the divine. Yet, instead of solidarity, this relationship is still hierarchical. Personally, I’ve spent over twenty years camped out in church pews, trying to maintain the so-called ecstasy. I have even seen people fake it as best they can. In a way, I don’t blame them for trying to fake it, especially as one must always appear ‘holy,’ even if one is not. Why let the appearance of holiness deter one from fellowship with believers.
I’ve been a part of many Christian churches. In my forays into some churches, I’ve seen some interesting manifestations of the Holy Spirit: tap dancing, shaking and quaking, writhing upon the floor, even barking like a dog. The primitive basis for the ‘ecstasy’ is the psychosexual alliance between lovers. Yes, ‘getting it on,’ and in the temple no less. Today, however, Christians talk a lot about holiness; yet rarely stop to think about whether their lives reflect this quality—this union with the divine. They think that it has something to do with how they dress, where they ‘summer,’a.k.a. Martha’s Vineyard, the car they drive, or a sizeable bank account. On the other hand, other Christians think they reflect the divine when they ‘try hard’ to maintain a look of abject poverty, which, in this economy, in not hard to do. Ah, the life of the pseudo-ascetic!
One talks about offering alms to the spirit and agreeing to the “terms and conditions,” but that is simply a guarantor relationship. In other words, your soul is saved if you do this or that. Yes, I’ve heard it said that it’s all about the heart! One’s heart must be right with the Lord! Basically, one has no assurance one way or another if one’s heart is right. The only thing that one has in this relationship is continual, sometimes downright sniveling gratitude offered to an invisible entity. Yes, this relationship sounds so ethereal, so very lovely and otherworldly, yet it lacks definition because it’s adherents are in denial of what it truly is—another way to impale one’s self upon the altar of obligation.
Christians talk a lot about doctrines of Holy Spiritism. Yet, everyone has seen the outgrowth of this carried to extremes: social and cultural stagnation, rigidity, perversion, and often murder in the name of spiritual symbolism. If it had not been for some rulings made by the Council of Nicaea in 318 and 325 ad, respectively, the concept of a Holy Spirit would be void (or at the very least driven underground). These ancient rulings affect and control how Christians worship and their often loudly expressed spiritual dogmas. These are the very dogmas, which have helped many (self-included) to tread a long and arduous road to agnosticism.
Can we say that to make gratitude a metaphysics is the aim of the Holy Spirit?
But in the Confucian system, the bone crushing sense of indebtedness to one's parents and ancestors comes down to a practice of filial piety that is not at all transcendent, but just as oppressive. I see a lot of Chinese converts to Christianity getting down with the Holy Spirit because it provides that spiritual dimension lacking on the home front. In either case, one remains a child and supplicant.
I am all for manners -- I don't believe in some kind of reformed Stalinist comradeship or Maoist protocol...I'm just pointing out that there are ways in which powerf relations are mystified as relations of radical obligation.
Therefore, a thoughtful practice of directed rather than general ingratitude would result in the critique of such relations.
I meant power relations, not powerf relations
Dr. Liu wrote: "Can we say that to make gratitude a metaphysics is the aim of the Holy Spirit?"
Sure, we can go there. Actually, metaphysics is probably the natural home for Holy Ghost-like gratitude. How so? In metaphysics, one can grease up gratitude, slide it every which way--make gratitude a philosophic study, a science, maybe even a religion; yet, it remains open to any and all interpretations. This way, one can stay engaged in the debate, no matter the angle.
... Also, I think that one does "remain a child and supplicant" in the face of an omnipresent and seemingly all-knowing and powerful other. That, in my opinion, is the whole point. One has to suspend one's adult, critical thinking faculties in order to continue to believe.
Dr. Frankenstein points to his monster creation (Frankenstein, Jr.) and states, "You child, me adult." Of course, what Franky, Jr. does not know won't hurt him; or, rather won't obliterate papa by his lack of belief. In other words, once Frankenstein, Jr. becomes enlightened, Pappa Frank's power-hold shrivels considerably.
You can call me Catherine! PLEASE!
Yes, of course.
. . . Also (I'm like a leaky faucet on this blog!) you wrote about knowing many Chinese people who are experiencing some divinely inspired highs. Maybe, this is due to a lack of spirituality in the home as you say. But, maybe it's due to a sense of disconnection (spiritual or other) within family life relative to the outside social environment. A sense of alienation from the outside may create a feeling of alienation inside the family. I think that I can say that one's family life has some permeability when it comes to outside factors. I don't know if that is necessarily true for all Chinese people in this country or abroad. Yet, I think there is sometimes a sense of isolation.
Catherine: I didn't intend to create a dichotomy between kind-Christians and mean-Marxists, but rather to illustrate a preference for actions over ideas. While I do want my children to be happy, my hope is that they will be kind. Perhaps this is because I have found my own happiness to be contingent upon the kindness of others, and I completely agree that resentment (whatever the justification) makes for a very unhappy life. But on an intuitive level, I believe in kindness, whether framed by Christian ideals of charity and forgiveness or Marxist solidarity. At their core, both frameworks require that actors empathize with the suffering of their fellows. Both offer a specific explanation for why people suffer, but as with "traditional" medicine, if you have a working remedy then a correct etiology is irrelevant. (This is not to say that the search for correct etiology should not be a cornerstone of science-based medicine, or that thinking and critique should not be the basis of a materialist philosophy.)
Anonymous-4: Regarding my proposition that manners could conceivably lose their class-based ideological functions yet be retained in some vestigial form, I was writing of a hypothetical classless society, not the one in which we currently live. You are correct that in a master-slave relationship gratitude can be interpreted as weakness; however, in this same relationship ingratitude will almost certainly be interpreted as defiance and lead to further suffering. In other words, the problem is not the gratuity, it is the relationship. Regarding my own experience as a parent, I completely agree with you! It is my children's defiance of me which serves as a constant reminder that I am not their master, that they are their own selves. This is why advocates of corporal punishment insist that the punishment has to start at a very young age, before the child has an opportunity to form a notion of their own freedom.
Andrew,
I think that sometimes the greatest kindness is a refusal to fall into an objectified forms of kindess that do more harm than good.
Sometimes with graduate students, I think that the imposition "unkind" standards or deadlines may in fact be just what they need...in order for them to assume responsibility!
Your graduate students sound a lot like my children.
Post a Comment
<< Home