.png)
I had a student in one of my classes challenge my assumption that human beings are not innately selfish. She said human beings are innately driven by self-interest, and I agree.
Selfishness has a connotation of negativity, it implies that you’re putting someone down in order to gain something. Self-interest, on the other hand, is more about ensuring that things you do are in your best interest. They benefit you, or as the saying goes “what’s in it for me?”. I don’t think this idea of "what’s in it for me?" is necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I think it’s an essential ingredient to healthy relationships. You should be thinking about what’s in it for you because it will allow you to not have resentment, not burn out, and most importantly it will allow you to be more generous.
Now, I can imagine some readers thinking Well, what about being selfless? Shouldn’t that be the ultimate goal? Shouldn’t we all strive to do things for the sake of doing things, not because we are expecting something in return?.
I think that is a misunderstanding of the idea of self-interest. Self-interest is more about give/take and gain/loss rather than reward or any type of spiritual or moral elation. After all, a compelling argument can be made that being selfless is also an act of self-interest. (You might remember that classic episode of Friends where Phoebe struggles to commit a "selfless good deed".) Nonetheless, I will try to offer some examples that may solidify the idea I am trying to communicate.
Consider this: a wife asks her husband if he could take a break from his work and be with the children while she goes to get her nails done. Husband agrees, and when she leaves, he decides to take the kids out for an hour-long walk in the neighborhood--something that he had been meaning to do, and had always wanted to do in the middle of the day. He acted out of self-interest. Would it have been more noble of him to stay indoors and play with his children? I don’t see why it would be. Did he act selfishly? Again, I don’t think he did. He saw an opportunity to give and he gave, and he also saw an opportunity to take and he took it.
Or consider this: a daughter-in-law asks her mother-in-law to help around the house and to help cook a dish before a large family gathering is about to happen. The mother-in-law comes, helps organize the home, cooks a wonderful rice dish, and everyone has a lovely time. Now, a week later, the same mother-in-law calls her daughter-in-law to take her to a gathering and to also join her there for some company. The daughter-in-law may not want to, and may even dread the idea of hanging out with other middle-aged women, but she agrees to go because on principle -- where there is a give, there should be a take and where there is a take, there should be a give and it doesn’t always have to be on your terms.
To summarize, I believe essential ingredients in relationships are as follows:
Ensure that there is a give and a take.
Understand the importance of acting out of self-interest.
Duty implies that things are not always on your terms. It’s not really a ‘give’ if it’s always on your terms. Giving should feel like a pinch.
If you give, you should feel a sense of entitlement to be able to take. Taking will test the durability of a relationship.
Want to speak to one of our therapists about
the "give and take" in your relationship?
Comments