I've had friendships that operating on the neutral-to-good scale. We can go months without talking, & when I return to make plans with them, there's no emotional debt accrued from how I've neglected the friendship, or failed them. We're just at a neutral baseline, ready to go up.
-
-
Näytä tämä ketju
-
On the other hand, I've been in neutral-to-bad scale friendships. No matter how much energy and generosity I pour into the relationship, there's no getting above the "we're good right now" plateau. There's no banking extra trust or points for later.
Näytä tämä ketju -
And the rough thing with neutral-to-bad friendships is that any disappointment or mistake immediately threatens to pull you into a bad place w/ one another. Even a little one. For me, as someone who feels big confusion when I can't please those around me, it can be devastating.
Näytä tämä ketju -
But it's not just helpful in thinking about friendships. I've really begun to look critically at my ideologies and perspectives and ask "is it possible to be a good & beneficial actor under this matrix of assumptions? or, at best, am I able to hit neutral?"
Näytä tämä ketju -
A lot of social justice rhetoric I hear is formulated using a neutral-to-bad scale. The best you can do is to be currently not fucking up. And even that is a juggling act a lot of the time, when people have different and absolute views of what justice looks like.
Näytä tämä ketju -
Does that make sense? Anyway, I've found this concept really useful in two ways. The first is that I actively seek out friendships and perspectives/frameworks where it is possible to succeed, do right, be good, and feel a sense of both security and possibility.
Näytä tämä ketju -
And the second is that, when I engage in relationships that operate on a neutral-to-bad scale, I prioritize my energy differently. I don't pour myself into grand gestures or co-tranformative work. I hit neutral and do my best to keep it there. If I'm failing hard, I walk away.
Näytä tämä ketju -
That was the thing that really changed when I started thinking about the "neutral-to-bad scale" - I realized that there are some relationships where I'll never be able to make things feel rejuvenated. The best I can do is bring them up to "at least yr not fucking up any longer."
Näytä tämä ketju -
That's it. That's the thought. Know when you're operating on a neutral-to-good scale (which benefits from huge labours of love) and when you're operating on a neutral-to-bad scale (which doesn't; it benefits from being judicious). Prioritize and engage accordingly.
Näytä tämä ketju -
Oh, and I guess: when you're in a relationship that's on a neutral-to-bad scale, ask yourself whether it would be better to exit that relationship, or maybe work together to put it on a neutral-to-good scale (like, couples counselling? friendship reforging?)
Näytä tämä ketju -
In Braiding Sweetgrass, Robin Wall Kimmerer shares how she git her General Ecology students to describe both the negative and positive ways that humans impact their environments. The students were not able to imagine a positive & generative human relationship to the earth.pic.twitter.com/uwJLikLXyH
Näytä tämä ketju -
Much of Braiding Sweetgrass is about this question! What does it mean to live in generous reciprocity and harmony with the earth? To not just "be sustainable," but to go beyond neutral to being a rejuvenating and precious resource for the earth. (Permaculture asks this too!)
Näytä tämä ketju
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.