Social Revolution Part 1: Care, Control, and Flirting

Hello readers,

As today is September 11th I want to take a little bit to give a memorial for those who died on September 11th and since in the ensuing wars that have happened. I pray we learn many things from what happens when fear is utilized and how others are demonized through fear. And sadly, a few bad apples create havoc and fear for everyone. All we can do now is try to grow and seek peace even when people are not peaceable to us.

Control and fear is something I want to talk about today but I want to back up a couple steps and give a brief introduction to what I want to talk about in this entry. I want to explore more about three aspects of human relationships that often create significant tension for people trying to build friendships/relationships. Note: Most of this entry will be dealing with these questions in regards to relationships though the principles suggested can be applied to all relationships in general. Care, control, and flirting is named such because it is three responses people can have in response to people being nice to others. Of course we don't want to oversimplify too much because there are as many responses to others' care and compassion as there are people and situations that arise and people to react to others' behavior. Also, any one behavior can exhibit any level of all three intentions: care, control, and flirting. However, what I want to examine is our human tendency to assume a control or a flirting response in response to someone's kindness. (Minnesota Nice falls under a different category as that is social custom, I also want to limit my search to personal interactions, and while Minnesota Nice does affect social interactions, it does not affect the existential feeling of care, control, or flirting, except inasmuch as Minnesota Nice affects a subconscious. And while it does affect the subconscious a social construction can only do so much to determine behavior, givenness and an individual's BIS (Biological Incentive System) do the rest of the determining and then the rest is left up to individual choice.

So now that some of the nuance is accounted for let's give a scenario. A guy walks up a woman and comments that he likes her dress. The woman has three possible sets of responses that she can give. 1) She can act like he is caring and respond to his care. 2) She can think his comment is an attempt to control her behavior or get her to do something and respond to his control. 3) She can think he is flirting with her and respond in kind by either flirting or keeping him at a safe distance. Anyone have an answer to what the man's comment is? The correct answer is it's a trick question. In order to accurately determine whether he is caring, controlling, or flirting, you have to assess the man's behavior over a long period of time, and even then it may not be completely accurate in assessing whether the man has any one (or possibly a combination) of the three responses. However, in most social situations a comment like this one is going to be taken as one of the latter two responses, even though an honest discernment says it is really hard to tell what exactly the man is up to in this scenario.

Now why would a woman (or we can use a man receiving the same kind of comment) assume either a control or a flirting response? The best answer I've found is that there is a fear of the unknown in relationships because they are out of our control. This includes many different things such as what happens if I think about building a future (e.g. a friendship or relationship with a particular person), what happens if he/she likes me and I don't like her/him back? This fear creates an analysis that happens quickly in response to a given stimulus. And in a quick analysis, it's easier to come up with a control or a flirting response, partially because it's easier to respond to a control or a flirt response, and extremely difficult to respond to a care response, and if it's nuanced and multi-layered, it's even more difficult. And of course, discussing feelings is awkward because in society, men are only taught to have two feelings, and discussing feelings requires a level of vulnerability and trust on the part of both persons, so feelings do not always come to the fore right away, even if subconsciously our BIS is triggering feelings that motivate our actions toward a perceived reward. (e.g. sexual activity with someone we find attractive will trigger an orgasm which is a pleasant feeling.) The lack of discussion about feelings creates a game that forces the other to be vulnerable first as a back and forth game of both people trying to grab control in a relationship.

The game works something like this. Men are taught to build up courage to make "moves" on a particular woman, and the woman so as not to seem too easily obtained plays "hard to get". Now of course, this is not always the case, men can play hard to get and women can make moves as well, but what's listed above is the general tendency for relationship forming. (I also realize that homosexual relationships create a different nuance but some level of this mutual seeking and game-playing exists in forming these relationships as well. And dare I say, even in friendship as well, since we're taught to not appear too needy, even building non-sexual friendships has some level of game theory, even though it looks different (mostly not calling too much, etc.) Game theory goes on for a period of time until both people build a level of trust based on how well each person has played the game. Playing the game well involves giving adrenaline rushes and endorphin highs to the other through encounter, teasing, sparks, whatever you may, namely the sense of being romantic. Or in a non-sexual friendship it mostly occurs when one of the two friends breaks the game by showing brokenness. Showing brokenness changes the rules of the game and breaks the game because the masks of perfection come off, and the person is exposed for the friends to see. Yes, you can hide your self from yourself.

Next, we have to explore why it's advantageous to play a game. We've explored the psychological effect above, but I think there is also a possible biological effect to playing a game with others. I've mentioned BIS which is an incentive system which encourages people to do things which are pleasureable. People move toward those things which are pleasureable, or they move toward things which may lead to greater pleasure later even if there is some pain now. New relationship forming has some level of anxiety. A new person means new circumstances, feelings, and a new person to explore and engage. The unknown creates fun but also creates complications, especially when people trigger unknown buttons which unleash all sorts of uncontrolled feelings. But part of the exploration is the notoreity and adventure of meeting a new person which creates an adrenaline rush. The continued game of vulnerability back and forth also creates good feelings for the participants.

Again, I'm going to use stereotypes here and realize that the opposite can be true depending on circumstance. Say a woman likes being pursued by a man before she dates him. She doesn't like to submit easily to saying yes for a date. So most men back off before asking this particular woman out. She enjoys the conquest of overcoming a "weak" man by getting him to step aside. She gets a happy adrenaline rush by taking control of another person and utilizing emotion and circumstance to her advantage. This is a great feeling for her. The other feeling she enjoys is when a man continues to pursue her and eventually enough magic happens for her to submit sexually to him; however that looks. Biologically she also feels good when a man has given enough pursuit and has continued to "hunt" her. However, she has issues about 2-3 months into the relationship when she notices that he cannot fulfill her any longer. He starts to beat her and starts dating other women looking for more conquests. She wonders why this behavior continues in her relationships.

Though this is stereotyped, it gives some insight into the minefield of dating at college campuses and with young adults in general. Women that like being pursued (of course not all of them) are acting on biological impulse. If a man continues pursuit of a woman, she is going to get a man who is strong and can target prey. His physical aggression will be comforting because she'll feel protected, which in turn leads to an increase in sexual pleasure. The man who goes after a woman who is hard to get also gets a large adrenaline rush from finally capturing his target. (Again, this can and does work in reverse too, I just wanted to use the stereotype that people would be familiar with). In a sense, it's a playing out of primal instinct, if man can hunt and do enough to capture the target (in this scenario the woman), he'll keep the woman happy. However, this is a danger in relying only on a BIS, because the Biological Incentive System tends to be short-sighted, unless an individual has trained his/her goals to be higher. The short-sightedness comes when the woman realizes all she has captured is a man who can hunt and she'll quickly become boring. The man gets bored unless the woman performs or is forced into more extreme sexual positions (handcuffing, beating to inspire orgasm, etc.) (Again, can work in reverse too.) However, eventually the hunt ends, the masks come off and people have to engage their own lives and stories. Sometimes this "hunt" transfers over into a meaningful, compassionate relationship, but oftentimes it doesn't, because it no longer feels good for the participant(s) involved. When that happens, at best all one can have is a mutual break-up, unless it's a hook-up relationship which then presents it's own complications. This inevitably hurts both participants, and it's because both participants chose a game which feels good in the short term instead of caring about the other and asking about feelings in order to build a long-term care. The short term game creates a burst of good feeling, while the long-term build up feels good but it's slow and not necessarily the lose your mind drunk on feeling adreanline, endorphine, alcohol, caffeine, and whatever else goes into enhancing one's short term burst of sentiment.

The other issue with the game is that it makes any sort of care reflex impossible. Since care, control, and flirting look very similar, it's easier to think that someone is wanting to play the game and respond whether one wants to play the game or not. A care reflex is beyond most people's imaginations for two reasons, a) there isn't a whole lot of a care reflex for most people to begin with, and b) a care reflex is extremely nuanced so a person must be capable of nuance and communication in order to engage someone with a care reflex. Care also has to become a habit, which is hard because it can be discouraging to be a caring person, especially when many people assume a caring person's intention is either control or flirting.

Now to nuance this more, sometimes the game is needed for security, because people have been hurt by those who appeared to be caring, or they want some relief after a bad long term friendship/relationship break-up and want some semblance of control in their lives. These psychological needs must be met; however, in order for society to really change, we need to be a people that care less about control, and care more about caring for others. We have to be people that not only recognize the game but also work to do something about it, even if the game is an endemic cultural problem that teaches people to be focused only on short-term sentiment. (Which is another nuance I want to throw in, we all need short term intense sentiment in order to feel good and function. Depression happens when life becomes unstable and people are unable to count on others for support. Short bursts of feeling can keep people feeling and healthy, adrenaline rushes are a good thing, but what I want to argue against is building a relationship philosophy that seeks these rushes as ends in themselves, either in how much we control others or how well we can play games with other people to get them to do what we want.)

So to conclude, I want to leave with a few remarks about how we can build a society of more caring people.

1) Be a caring person. The habits of a caring person will eventually spread in reputation and people will know there is something different about person X. Be that person that asks how others are doing and try hard to remember things going on in different people's lives. Remembering that someone is in a Greek class she likes is something that can be a deeply caring intention (it can also be used in the game so intention is important as well.)

2) Know how your responses can be taken and be patient with others if they mistake or catch certain parts of other intentions. Flirting and control are not necessarily bad things and these intentions may come in certain actions. If you're walking with someone and you grab their arm because a car comes close you're taking control of the other person. Now this is also a caring response, and can be a flirting response that activates a "spark." However, the person is not going to know what one's intention is unless there is a habit of care and time spent with each other (which is another problem is that people don't want to invest time and intention in relationship, but that can be saved for another post/discussion, etc.) So people may react poorly, and it's partly the society we live in, partly the fears of someone being controlled or someone having unwanted feelings, and partly the awkwardness certain situations bring forth because of the unseen givenness of one or both persons. Part of being patient is talking honestly about one's feelings and engage what's going on with each person, in other words having a conversation and meeting/privileging the other where he/she is at.

3) Finally, talk. Talk about what you're feeling and encourage others to do the same. Build a friendship environment where people can be themselves and encourage an ethic of care. And if we take Jesus as an example, in the modern age a lot of his actions could be seen as controlling or flirting. Jesus did heal women and break social custom by actually talking to women (note he had women followers and John 4 where he talks to a Samaritan woman who have been a major social taboo for any Jew.) Jesus kept caring and talked about what society was like and how people engaged either other. In his teaching and healing, He remained open to the other. This openness to the other can only happen if we know our own feelings, especially if they're complicated. If we fear for someone we care about making poor choices, or if we like someone and care about them, these nuances are important to know for both people to think about and engage in friendship/relationship building to build an ethic of care for the common good.

This discussion is far from complete, though I will end it here for now. All I can really say is to try to love like God loves, privileging the other, listening, and caring, and in these actions, different habits will form and people will see difference. Also, we have to know the "signs of the times" and understand how relationships form and think about why are things happening the way they are. When we know our habits and know how society construes relationships, we can work to be the change we want to see. And also, we can't count on religion to help us in a lot of circles, because these same cycles of competition and hunting in relationship building occur, even though they look different and focus on purity and laughter, rather than a "hunt" persae, even though it is a hunt of sorts, because the end goal is the same of having some sort of relationship with the other. All we can really do to start is show why our faith must be about building a real care ethic and act in those ways that show care.

Peace,
Aristocrates