TotW: Helping People

There's an old story about a man who ran up to a woman on the street, threw her to the ground, rolled her around, and beat at her. He was then called a hero and given a medal. She had been on fire, and he was putting the fire out and saving her life. It's a story about story telling, but also about how context changes the meaning of what we do.

When I was young I assumed what many leftists (and others?) assume, which is that helping people is straight-forward. You are nice to people, you give them what they ask for, and they get happier and more successful (that is, achieving what they want to achieve). Turns out this is a total failure of understanding and imagination.

I no longer think that people are that linear or simple. Both from my own experience of being given what I asked for (in relationships that failed, for example), and also from watching other people--including a lot of addicts of various sorts and people in violent relationships, I realize now that we all have layers, and want and don't want things that are good and bad for us. And even the things that might be most good for us have negative aspects, and even the things that will quickly kill us, can serve our needs in some way. Also, people have such diametrically opposed reactions to things -- some are bolstered by rough talk and humor, others by being built up and posi-talked. Sometimes it depends not on the person being assisted, but by their relationship to the person they're interacting with.

If we're all moving targets interacting with other moving targets, as people who care about (some) other people, and (sometimes) want to be helpful, how do we learn lessons and what lessons do we learn? One anews poster (or series of them) would say that "don't generalize" is (always) a good response. But we want to be generalized about (this is the appeal of identity, yes?) as much as we resist it. We want the correct generalizations, and only as long as we want them.

Aside: The extreme individualist response that we cannot know anything about other people and must let everyone be who they are, only taking stands as they come into immediate personal contact with us, seems to be a result of an intensely alienated society, in which we assume no meaningful connection between us, no way that who we are and what we do necessarily has an impact on each other outside of immediate specific interactions. Maybe that is the most sensible of the possible options in this society, but it doesn't seem ideal. Of course, the stagnant and suffocating small town everyone-in-everyone-else's-business model is also not a goal./end aside

Anyway, all that is lead up to the questions: who have you helped? Did you realize that you were helping when it happened? Did the person you were helping appreciate it? At the time, or later? What made (or makes) you decide to act (or refrain from acting)? Was there something about the context that made it work or not work? Are there particularly anarchist ways of helping people? What makes them that? What was the impact of you on the intervention? What would you do differently, if anything?

There are 28 Comments

"Are there particularly anarchist ways of helping people? What makes them that?"

I think being regularly/consistently available for and around the people you care about so that they can readily help themselves with you so to speak. Sometimes you don''t know what they need and they might not feel like straightforwardly going out of their way to ask you to help them with it, but if you happen to be around a lot, and their problem keeps coming up, they might mention it in passing and you may ask them about it, and they may ask for your opinion or help. If you get to know a person really well you might even dare to make a favor they'd appreciate before they even ask and it will be spot on, but you can still mess up.

This is different from charity where you parachute and give help to someone, imposing your timing and conditions on them. Instead, by being available and around them, they get to choose the time that is convenient to approach you, and you can dialogue each other's availability, preferences and boundaries. Also, you don't assume what their problem is and what a solution might be, you get to know each other through conversation, cohabiting and conviviality, and trust develops which leads to asking for help in terms which are more agreeable for each.

But there are so many case by case specifics and things are complicated, like the TotW points out.
In cases of spontaneously helping strangers, it's tough to call the shots in split second decisions.
In those cases what could make it anarchist is that you acted freely, not out of some sense of duty or obligation, but an urge you needed to satisfy (the urge to see a tragedy avoided or to remediate it) that is informed by your theory of mind guess and gut feeling that that person would greatly appreciate what you're about to do. In that situation, your intervention or non-intervention trolley cart problem style is never neutral, to put it that way. And it would also make it anarchist if you didn't expect, much less demand, anything in return, and to avoid further imposing yourself on that person's life beyond that impulsive intervention if they do not wish your help.

Also, seemingly unrelated detour, the picture features a soldier. In this context I'm reminded of two things:

In the military context the term mutual aid is used to refer to weapons and services given to allies, and Zizek recently said that communism he imagines is the wartime economy and international collaboration but geared towards the production of everything (including sharing important information, data, "intellectual property"), mentioned in the context of producing the necessary supplies to deal with Covid pandemic.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and authority always claims to do things for your own good or for the greater good. Some missionaries think they're helping people by saving souls, the white man's burden etc. Our whole modern civilization and its reliance on the industrialization of mass over-production/consumption/waste, technology and automation is predicated to be for the greater benefit, convenience, pleasure, liberty, and health of all.

"the things that might be most good for us have negative aspects, and even the things that will quickly kill us, can serve our needs in some way"

To me the taoist view of helping others is the best. We are good for what we're doing *despite* our egoism, not by design or devotion.

I tend to love being nice to others and helping them when they're *in need*, and it makes sense to life, and also that reassures me to think that some good person is out of trouble, more than knowing that I helped that.

But there's the highly self-centered, self-serving view of chasing after "helping others", making it an imperative. You're doing that basically for the make-belief... of you as a great, laudable human being, a very powerful disguise to cover for your own sex or power drives...

The leftist pursuit of needing to help people is nothing short of Christian. Examining the motives of why you do things I think is incredibly important. I spent so much of my life being an activist for in reality selfish reasons. Now I don’t feel like I need to help everybody. I do it when it feels like the right thing to do. Not just because it’s the hot topic of the week or because I’m supposed to. Altruism is just ignorance of your own motives.

"Altruism is just ignorance of your own motives."

maybe the most concise way of putting it i have come across. kudos.

That doesn’t mean your motives aren’t socially positive. In examining myself doing activism in the past though I realized it was for a myriad of reasons like a sense of social responsibility/guilt, pride, and a need to assert my identity as a good anarchist.

Yeah, I am an "individualist", but what does that even mean, other than that I wont put a collective desire above mine?!

Altruism is bullshit in my view when its seen as a sacrifice to someone else, here we return to the "other" which is basically all of you because I'm not around you, I'm just some sack of shit in cyberspace

I used to help women become single mothers, until I realized they didn't necessarily want that.

pure gold! lol

Politicized philanthropy is essential to prefigurative politics. You have to show people by example how you want to live and how you want the world to be so they know another world is possible. Of course do-gooders don't always get a good reception but sometimes they do so keep trying and learn to do it right.

surely that what this totw is about. what's your answer?

I saw a video about some tender hearted millennial boys in the bay area who made hot homemade burritos and rode their fixies down to wherever the homeless people live and fed them. I just wanted to hug them I was so proud.

being "proud" of someone else's deeds or activities is patronizing as fuck. appreciative? sure. supportive? why not. proud? come on...

Everytime I've helped people I tell them I'm an anarchist and that's what anarchists do AND THEY LAUGH AT ME and call BS and that anarchists wreck things and steal off of hard working people and don't believe in private property AND CALL ME LOOSER LIBERAL instead.
Are self identified anarchists like myself just fooling ourselves? Aren't we really just weak Christian losers or misfits, like that word sociopathic describes us and criminals, individuals who can't fit in to a community, BUT PREACH ALL THE TIME, like Jesus did, not idols meant for him no flags or borders, turning over the tables of merchants was his no consumerism and private property, his miracle of multiplying fish and bread was just getting people to share, BUT ITS SO DAMN UNHUMAN AND WEAK, we didn't get this far in evolution being kind and sharing, OH NOOO, WE STOLE AND TOOK WHAT WE DESIRED, BUT WE ANARCHISTS CRINGE AND FLAP OUR HANDS WHEN STRong men impose thremselves on oùr posteriors. Why why why are we psychopathic pathological meak political jesusfreak high on shrooms, it sounds good, BUT WE'RE ALL WEAK AS PISSSSS!q

wtf is this doogle-shit doin all over my beloved @news?

P U E R I L E

"WE ANARCHISTS CRINGE AND FLAP OUR HANDS"

I think you're on to something. Autism.

There’s a certain dishonesty to the anarchists out there proclaiming “to do the work.” They’re out there prefiguring future societies for people who think they’re weirdos and bad neighbors.

Anarchism, US-style, is all about getting other people to do the work.

Working sucks!

"I no longer think that people are that linear or simple. Both from my own experience of being given what I asked for (in relationships that failed, for example), and also from watching other people--including a lot of addicts of various sorts and people in violent relationships."

Yes, sometimes you can actually hurt somebody by helping them...and i've found that putting yourself out there and being absolutely generous, and this is a rule more so than an exception, often leads to other people taking advantage of you. This is especially true i've discovered over the years in a society based on tolerance...when people can get away with not reciprocating help and kindness, they will often do it! It gets really tricky; sometimes i have to laugh when other people get surprised by the utter lack of loyalty and respect that people display. My key ethic when dealing with other people is to be true to my word...since i feel we should never expect other people to reciprocate good deeds, but people do always seem to want other people to reciprocate good deeds...

"But we want to be generalized about (this is the appeal of identity, yes?) as much as we resist it. "

No i don't want to be generalized about, i want people to see me for who I am. I don't use this forum because i want other people to think of me as an anarchist, i use it because i have always longed to make friends with people who share certain anarchist ideas. Sometimes i appreciate compliments but i feel like those are often empty or are coverups for insults. In my artwork, whenever someone compliments it it i'm always thinking "what are you REALLY thinking?!", and to me the best compliment in that realm is to add to it or maybe even "steal" it...

It's very complicated, but it's not as we could map out all interests, motivations and interactions and come up with optimal arrangements that will please everyone.

What people feel factors in what some call "moral autonomy".
The less you're capable of feeling and of being influenced by your own feelings, the less you are able to be held responsible/accountable for your actions.
This doesn't mean you get a scot free card, it means you are less in charge.
What is taking over instead? An external directive: ideology, orders, re-programming, coercion?

Sociopaths don't feel empathy, but they do feel that they have something to gain or lose and act accordingly. If you could make someone feel more or less empathy, or more or less anger, they would act differently.

What's the point in discussing affects? It depends on whether it feels good to help others, whether it feels bad not to help em. Rarely do people carefully measure cost-benefit and possible outcomes, even businesses and governments fail at this.

"Anyway, all that is lead up to the questions: who have you helped?"
Let's say I have some people in mind.
"Did you realize that you were helping when it happened?"
Yes, it was very deliberate and concrete.
"Did the person you were helping appreciate it? At the time, or later?"
Yes they did, precisely at that time and in exact proportion to the help received.
"What made (or makes) you decide to act (or refrain from acting)?"
I acted on reflex, on impulse, on a whim, out of a curiosity.
"Was there something about the context that made it work or not work?"
It worked because it was simple and straightforward and there were no hidden expectations, nor hidden strings attached.
"Are there particularly anarchist ways of helping people? What makes them that? What was the impact of you on the intervention?"
It was anarchist in that I acted on my own initiative, helped in the degree and manner that I felt appropriate and I did not overstay my welcome, or overstepped any personal boundaries. The impacts in the situations I'm imagining minimal.
"What would you do differently, if anything?"
I wouldn't do anything differently except having done some of these things sooner if I had known I could, or how to do them, but I didn't then. Sometimes you miss windows of opportunity you can only see in hindsight.

Attorney General ⁦
@keithellison
⁩ urges protesters to treat the National Guard troops with respect — says they’re here to help. He points out Guard members had been busy doing coronavirus tests earlier this week. Doesn’t want them perceived as an occupying force.

https://twitter.com/JohnCroman/status/1266396459420782599?s=20

Protect and serve. To serve man.

Interesting how they were wary of how it would affect their public image. Being seen as the good helpers in times of coronavirus vs the bad guys ensuring "law and order" being conflicting objectives.

People really want to be acknowledged right now.

We're so isolated that just make contact, to relate makes me too excited to share.

The top is not going to give and that tension is bringing out the worst of us. In that storm there is an excitement, a feeling alive.

Side note:. When we didn't work, and didn't buy a bunch of stuff it brought everything to a halt very quickly.

I love you, stay safe

We also need to help each other not make politics into a religion.

Look what happened when Italy did, with the film The Conformist:

https://youtu.be/cDTwc8n07OA

We are defiled by but not defined by any fucking hierarchy!

Add new comment