DISCLAIMER: this op-piece has been rated 18SXSGRPAPLPG-13NC-17OMGWTFBBQ topic may contain vulgar language, sexual themes, a dead zebra and even toilet humor. you have been warned.
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee." - John Donne
Have you ever wondered what life would be like if you were able to live self-sufficiently without the need or dependency on others at all? yes, I know the very thought of such a thing is an impossibility for we humans are social beings after all. perhaps, it's because our own existence is tied to a constant state of lacking, which probably explains why we're always seeking for comfort and assistance from those around us. but still... the prospect of having few to no reliance on others grants such freedom that one normally couldn't afford when bounded by the many social and interpersonal relationships in our everyday life. imagine not having to deal w/ betrayals or treachery; not being heartbroken or having to grief over the death or departure of a beloved, and being able to take whatever risk in life without having to worry abt the repercussions to anyone but yourself...wouldn't life be simpler and a hell lot easier that way?
in economics, the concept of externality is explained as an effect caused by a decision made by a certain party (or parties) on others whose interests were not taken into account during the decision-making process. this effect could be positive (benefits unforeseen to the decision maker/s) or negative (undesired consequences or costs imposed as a result of the decision made). for instance, a productive chemical factory which pollutes may think that it is merely operating to seek profit, but the pollution it generates imposes a cost on other people because of the hazardous environment it creates (the pollution is considered to impose a cost because resources are needed to clean up the chemical wastes, or at least pay for medical bills from illnesses that were contracted as a result of the chemical exposure). similarly, if I were to buy myself a cell phone, while my decision may have been based purely on my desire to be able to communicate other people, at the same time it also benefits other people as they are now able to contact me more easily. in a sense, an externality is like a “spillover” effect, where one’s own decision could “unintentionally” affect others in a negative or positive way. so what does this have to do w/ anything anyway?
well, if you actually give some thought abt it, the idea of building relationships w/ those around us is somewhat comparable to decisions which create externalities. knowing another human being means that attachments, whether it's social or emotional will be built. feelings like love, hate, fear and sorrow develop in other ppl based on the things we do whether we are deliberate to invoke such emotions or not. consider an example of a couple that are deeply in love w/ one another. as lovers, you could say that both serve as emotional support to each other; when one feels depressed, the other will do whatever it takes to cheer or make things right again for his/her beloved. so everything's all good right? but if you look it from another perspective, being in that relationship means that at any time, either one of them will make decisions that will possibly affect the other in negative way. for instance, every time one of them looks at another girl/guy, the other might feel jealous; when one disappears w/o a trace or falls ill, the other becomes worried; if one goes away, the other feels sad. sometimes it can even be sth so trivial that one of them does which makes the other feel terribly upset. you see where I’m going w/ this?
of course, some might quickly point out that it's only obvious that lovers have a relationship which requires a strong commitment, but the point here is to demonstrate that any human relationship create externalities which most of us might us realize. although, one could argue that the major difference between an actual externality in economics and the implications of human relationships is that the former imposes a “real cost” while the latter doesn't, the similarity that both involves one person's decision being able to affect others (whether it's directly or in-directly) cannot be simply ignored. perhaps a clearer and more accurate explanation could be given when we observe the relation between human relationships and politics and how they correlate w/ externality.
VISUAL INTERLUDE
there's something abt this image that doesn't seem quite right...
first off, forget whatever bullshit you've heard abt politics being a science of government and whatnot (yes, it may be one of the definitions provided by the dictionary but just bear w/ me for a moment and ignore those text-book definitions). politics, in essence, is actually the art of using one's own influence over others in a manner w/ enables you to attain specific goals. it doesn’t matter whether it's in the government or corporate scene, as long as you're able to impose your will to affect others' decisions for whatever purpose, you are engaging in politics. now what usually grants a person the ability to influence those around him/her is some form of authority, like holding important positions (e.g. being a manager at a company or a high-ranking government official) but this may not always be the case. someone, who might seem like a nobody to you and me could actually be very powerful as long as he/she is able to influence those in higher positions to do their bidding. simply put, politics is like a game of manipulation where ppl use one another as “tools” for whatever intentions there may be. but the interesting part of it is actually identifying these means of manipulation and how they can even occur in the first place.
imagine yourself working at some reputable company. during your starting years, you decide to be on good terms w/ your higher ups, building a good reputation along the way. at the same time, you develop friendship w/ various co-workers, even to the extent of trusting some of them to confide some secrets (which is presumably normal since you’re friends right?). years later, you get promoted to a nice, cushy position in the company. so one day, one of your “friends” decides to ask you if you could “help” him/her get promoted too. so do you agree to help or not? now what some may not realize here is that various people are already using their influences over others to help them achieve their goals. your “friend” is using his/her influence over you (in the form of friendship) to get the promotion he/she needs, and you, if you decide to help that friend, will probably use your influence w/ your higher ups (after years of maintaining good relations w/ them) to help said friend. but so what? even in politics, it’s only normal to help your friends right?
in his essay The Nature of the Firm, British economist Ronald Coase (who coincidently developed the Coase theorem which deals on the problem of externalities and ways of solving it) argued that firms exist because they do not have adequate resources to operate independently. it basically explains why large enterprises consist of various small units which are dependent on one another, why we see company mergers, or why public stocks are issued. because nobody is inherently resource-sufficient to do whatever they want, that’s why they need to pool whatever resources they can get to be able to operate efficiently.
now if you look it from this perspective, you will notice how similar it is to the reason why we get involved in politics. in the corporate world, they call it “networking”. basically, you're using various contacts from your social network to influence specific ppl to help you get what you need. because we are not readily sufficient in whatever resources/means to achieve our goals, we require the assistance of others and this is only guaranteed if you have some sort of influence over them. vying for that much needed job that pays well? w/o at least some brownnosing to your bosses or getting to know the right people, you definitely won't go anywhere (and under certain circumstances, you could possibly even lose your job). in the case of your friend, it pretty much explains why he/she needed your help in getting that promotion in the first place. of course there's nothing truly wrong w/ helping your friends and relatives through politics, but the real concern is, at what costs? is playing the political game really abt gaining advantage w/ no strings attached?
one important trait of externality is that it is reciprocal. consider my earlier example of the pollution-spewing factory. from one perspective, it cannot be denied that the factory imposes a cost on people through the pollution it creates. but if you look it at another way, can you not say that because there were people near the factory, only then the pollution actually became an issue? if there weren’t people nearby who suffered from the pollution, the factory wouldn't really affect anybody right? in other words, the people's mere presence, in a sense, also imposes a cost to the factory at the same time. of course there’s the issue concerning the environment or how this could be solved through property rights but I’m not gonna go tit for tit into that (heh, heh. I said tit). the only focus here is to show the reciprocal nature of externality through the example given.
before I end up digressing even further w/ more economic jargon and bullshit, what I want to prove is that in the game of politics, the same reciprocal nature is also involved amongst its participants. every time you establish a relationship w/ somebody to gain some influence over him/her, that very same person also gains some influence over you. for instance, that person who just helped you obtain something through “backdoor means” could just as easily ask you to return the favor some other time. this is to say that both of you could simply use each other as tools to further your own agendas. but the real issue here is when a conflict of personal interests arise during this process of "asking/returning favors". in the aforementioned company analogy, your friend is asking for your help to get the promotion after being your dedicated companion all this while. so it only makes sense to show some appreciation by helping him/her, right? but what if you realize that your friend is not exactly competent for the job? do you simply refuse the friend's request? keep in mind that due to the fact that both of you have a considerable amount of influence on each other (the reciprocal nature remember?), hence it is not impossible for the friend to use that influence in the form of a threat to coerce you to do his/her bidding. perhaps that friend also happened to be a confidant during your early years at the company and he/she may know some of your dark secrets which could be easily used as blackmail. even if he/she has no dirt on you, slandering and gossips are not uncommon tactics in politics. because everyone has some sort of influence on one another, you can never be sure who's really friend or foe. one minute you’re buddies, and the next thing you know, that so-called "friend" is plotting your downfall just because you decide to refuse a "favor".
allow me to illustrate this in a more detailed scenario. imagine that you have a small business which you started on your own. wanting to expand to make it more profitable, you decide to have several business partners. as I said, firms exist because they cannot survive as small independent units. similarly, having business partners means you have more capital for your business to work w/, while distributing risk to others (so that a possible bankruptcy won't be too hard on you). so it's perfectly reasonable, yes? now let's say, after a while, one of your partners seems to have a personal conflict w/ you (maybe a clash of ideals regarding how the company should be run, personal opinions on politics, general dislike towards your personality after knowing the real you, etc.). regardless of the cause, the main problem is that since he also shares an influence over the business (because of the partnership), he could just as easily threaten you over this dispute using said influence. he could simply pull out of the partnership, maybe try to implicate in you in some sort of scandal involving dubious financial activities in the company, or worse, plot w/ your other partners to turn against you to wrest the majority control of the business itself. sounds far-fetched? not really. *if you've actually been paying attention reading all the way up to this point, I just want to tell you that I have an incredibly large penis*. this scenario of business partners turning on each other is no different than what we see of politicians backstabbing their very own comrades to further their own political interests. just look at what happened to Malaysia's former DPM, Anwar Ibrahim. whether he's truly guilty or not isn't really my concern, but the fact that he was betrayed by some of the very same ppl who were once his allies when he was sacked shows how fucked up politics can be.
yes, yes, I know I’m beating a dead horse here; everyone knows politics has its ugly side but I just feel the need to reiterate that before moving on to my next point. besides, beating dead animals esp. horses (or zebras, whichever works fine) is fun. anyway, now let's tie up everything back to my original argument concerning human relationships and the implications that are similar to externalities. what I've just shown you in my case on politics is that just as much as you're getting the “good stuff” out of knowing somebody, you're also putting yourself in a position where you're very likely getting “the bad stuff” as well. me knowing you, while it gives me an opportunity to love, care, respect, admire or ask assistance from you, also means giving you the opportunity to hate, despise, look-down or take advantage of me. it's a two-way relationship that simply cannot be avoided.
"the world and the way it would be: if cats could use the toilet by themselves"
the thing abt externality is that it could happen to anyone, anywhere at anytime. that guy standing beside you puffing away his cigarette, or that blaring loud music coming from your inconsiderate neighbor's boom box at 1 am; all of these are forms of externality which can actually impose costs to you (cancer from secondhand smoke and noise which prevent you from sleeping or studying). it's even more complicated within the context of human relationships. the "sphere of influence" (the number of ppl affected/implicated from one person's decision) is so hard to measure, you'd actually be surprised to see how one small thing that you do could affect so many ppl that you know in a moment's instant. a married couple for instance, has a sphere of influence that not only involves the husband and wife (and quite possibly their children) but it includes their own respective families, in-laws and to a certain extent, close friends and relatives as well. this means that at any time, a decision made by either the husband or wife would immediately affect those in the sphere of influence (the parents + in-laws) whether it’s intentional or not.
as an example, if I were offered say, the title of ‘Dato’ by some Sultan, and I decide to reject it due to my own personal political/ideological reasons, that decision alone has more repercussions that I'd care to imagine. my in-laws might view me more unfavorably (because I wasted a good opportunity to become a Dato’ for stupid reasons), while my parents might be criticized by others who think that I'm an ingrate for refusing honors that was given to me (because a person's behavior reflects the kind of parenting he/she was given, see?). on the other hand, if I do accept that title, I shouldn't be too surprised if some distant relatives or friends suddenly decide to pop up in front of my door and start asking for favors now they know that I'm a somebody. you see how a single decision (whether to accept that title or not) has implications that could involve so many ppl? now imagine how this would be at a corporate or government level, where the sphere of influence could be so large (so many ppl could get affected in many ways), it's impossible to determine the scale or magnitude of politics that might be involved.
now the solution offered in Coase theorem in regards to the problem of externalities is basically to internalize the costs imposed. what this means is that, from a purely economic perspective, barring the presence of transaction costs, the two parties involved will try to reach a mutual agreement to correct any externalities. using the factory-pollution analogy, the factory, realizing that it imposes a cost on ppl through its pollution, might pay a specified amount of money (which was agreed upon during the agreement) to “internalize” that cost. in other words, the factory is essentially paying money to buy the rights to pollute. sure this may sound weird at first, but Coasian economists argue that the money paid is basically a resource that can be used to clean up any chemical wastes or pay for the medical bills (it's better than the factory just polluting and not being held accountable for it, correct?). and in fact, the Coasian principle of rectifying externalities through cost internalization has been used as a general political tool regarding environmental regulations many times (believe it or not). but back to the main point. unlike in economics where the two parties involved are easily identified, as I said, the sphere of influence from human relationships is too large and unpredictable. we can never tell for sure how many ppl will be affected from a single decision we make, so how do we deal w/ the externalities that come from it?
if Ronald Coase's solution to externalities is to internalize the costs, maybe a slightly similar approach could be used. basically, one way we can internalize the "costs" of human relationships is to limit the number of individuals involved by restricting the sphere of influence. in other words, since we cannot totally avoid implicating others from our decisions, why not limit our own social network to minimize the number of ppl that would be affected? the less ppl you know, the less likely you would affect other ppl and vice versa. simple enough is it not?
if some of you are still clueless where I’m going w/ this, the whole reason for this long-winded series of arguments is to simply promote my own belief in the idea of isolationism. seriously speaking, I think our lives might actually be a lot easier if we minded our own business and not get involved w/ anybody else. my observation of politics and comparisons to the economic concept of externality has just proven that, the more ppl that you know, the more likely you’d potentially end up being in a miserable state. even developing strong emotional attachment to someone (as lovers or whatever) can cause you so much grief; trusts could be abused, hearts could be broken, disappointments and whatnot. so why bother? who knows, the world might probably be a better place if everyone just kept to themselves.
of course this is definitely in sharp contrast to our human nature as social sentient beings. as John Donne once said (quoted in the very beginning), "no man's an island". we humans lack various material and emotional needs, which is why we need to depend on each other to fulfill those needs. even I cannot deny this simple fact.. but despite acknowledging this, from what I’ve seen and experienced in my life, there are times when I cannot help but think that at least, I myself would be better off being alone rather than mingle w/ other ppl. the Blues Brothers once sang in one of their tunes, that “Everybody needs somebody”. to me, the real question is: do I need other ppl as much as they need me?
I've always believed that real men should always be able to solve their own problems by themselves. of course, some of you might think this is just another stupid display of machismo but it's actually more than that. it's a matter of pride; how a man must be able to prove his worth to his own self. sure, ppl can have whatever perceptions they want (be it good or bad) abt you, but the most important thing of all is that you have a positive perception of yourself. and being able to sort out your own personal conflicts is a sure way of proving your own worthiness, that you are at least capable of taking care of yourself. this is not to say that I don't need other ppl's help when I'm in trouble, but in all my life, I have never depended on anyone else whenever I had personal problems. not my parents, siblings, relatives, friends or even close buddies. ppl who fall into deep depression because of their “inner demons” usually need some sort of assistance, be it consoling words from friends/family, the care & comfort from loved ones, drugs, alcohol or even professional help (therapy). not me. the “inner demons” are mine and mine alone and no matter what ppl might think or say otherwise, I will always believe that it is a problem that I’m meant to confront and nobody else's business. it's my problem so I should be the one dealing it alone.
I grew up being constantly reminded by my old man “to not be indebted to others”. his simple reasoning is that “nothing’s free in this world” because ppl will almost always expect sth in return in some shape or form. from the way I see it, even if I accept what might seem a simple well-intentioned gesture, I've just allowed myself to be bound to return a favor that could potentially screw me over. it basically reinforces my belief that I need to be more self-dependent above all and not rely on others. and it really doesn't help that I’m still haunted by the memories of my own spoilt childhood, which always made me feel the constant need to prove my own capability to everyone else. dependency on others is like a sign of weakness, as if I'm incapable of taking care of myself. if I can prove that I can survive on my own, why do I even need the presence of others in my life?
ADVERTISEMENT:
note: product has has not been approved by the FDA. results between individuals may vary (so don't be surprised if you end up becoming the end result of a pig + cow mating that was half melted in the microwave)
one could argue that the real reason behind my preference for self-dependence through isolationism is because it makes my take on life a whole lot easier. maybe it's because I'm a just natural-born slacker who's merely shirking my obligations to those important to me, or (to an extent) society as a whole. by not having any attachments to anyone, I'm free from any responsibilities except to myself. no burden at all. people do not cause trouble for me and I cause no trouble for them. simple and easy. or maybe, a part of me simply doesn't want to allow myself to get hurt and therefore decides that the best possible way to deal w/ it is to just shut off from everyone completely. hey, at least it guarantees that nobody can mess me up emotionally, am I not correct? as some would say, “the best offense is a good defense”. a classic case of Hedgehog's Dilemma? hmmm... I'm not entirely sure myself. nevertheless, it does shed some light to as why I can be an extremely anti-social prick at times...
now when I think abt it, this might partially explain my own hostile attitude towards women. what better way to not get emotionally hurt by “nature’s weaker sex” by denying them the opportunity to break my heart in the first place, no? strangely enough, there are times when I do wonder why some of my attempts to repel members of the opposite sex usually result in an opposite effect as intended. whenever I become increasingly antagonistic towards women, for some reason, there will be girls who find my rather “extreme” behavior to be a peculiar subject worthy of being scrutinized. this probably explains why I tend to have more conversations w/ women when I’m more of a chauvinistic scumbag. it’s like these girls are drawn to me like how they're attracted to handbags, shoes, stupid metrosexual-looking male celebrities or whatever the fuck that girls are into these days. how ironic indeed.
I guess, my biggest gripe w/ this whole thing on human relationships and externalities is that I truly think it's unfair how one person's decision could easily implicate others. back in high school, I've always hated when the seniors decide to punish the whole batch because of one person's misconduct. I mean, it's not my fault, so why must I be held accountable? why should I suffer for someone else's mistake? if you fuck up on sth, why should it be of any concern to me? sure I may sound like a selfish jerk who only looks out for nobody but himself, but this isn't exactly the case. I do have a bit of compassion for my fellow men and I almost never refuse a friend who's in need. I know the feeling of helplessness and the desperation for assistance, and even if I personally feel that you've done great injustice by getting me involved in your problems, I'm not one who's shy to give a helping hand. sometimes I'm actually surprised how I could end up offering advice or comforting words to close buddies when I'm actually in a much worse shape than they are.
but more importantly, I'm much more concerned abt how I affect other ppl rather than the other way around. I may be a proud person but I'm also not afraid to admit my own flaws. I'm reckless, careless, irresponsible and not to mention extremely headstrong. and it is because of these weaknesses that I think it wouldn't be fair to those close to me to be implicated in any shape or form as a result of my reckless + careless antics. like I said, a man should always deal w/ his own problems, and that means that if I’m gonna somehow fuck up myself, it should never ever affect other ppl in any way. looking back at all of the stupid things I've done in my life, I'm thinking that maybe those who I now hold dear to me would've prolly been better off not knowing me. seriously ppl, if you don't know me well enough, then good for you. you're not really missing anything (well except maybe not being able to engage in some “colorful” banter w/ quite possibly the most charismatic mcp to ever grace the planet, but that’s definitely not sth to look forward to). and to those who are indeed stupid enough to be intrigued to know me, just keep in mind that my ultra-sharp jabs can and will make you either cry or feel the burning urge to kill me, so I strongly suggest that you steer clear away from me while you still can (really, it takes skill to be an asshole like me).
on the flip side of being unattached, not having any strong emotional bonds to anyone does help me cope up w/ whatever emotional strains that life may offer. because I don't trust ppl too much to begin w/, I'm not at all surprised by betrayals or treachery; deaths of friends and family members, while painful as hell deep inside, become emotions that can easily be buried; and as much as I value my friendships highly, not being too close to anyone means no problem w/ partings. no tears or sappy goodbyes, awkward hugs, dramatic farewells or whatever (besides, I've always thought a man should take his leave in silence). of course, some might argue that this is just a form of self-denial, but I prefer to compare it to a situation where you're in an important competition, and by not having your hopes too high, you won't end up being frustrated as much when you lose. in essence, if you don't put too much into sth, you don't risk being disappointed. either way, it's a win-win situation for you.
in any case, I think I've already rambled far too long into this matter (you know, considering the amount of extensive work I actually did to write this piece of crap, this entry could arguably pass for a legit research paper). I suppose in the end, the real shame is that I’m still not able to find a proper way to resolve my dilemma. as much as I want to defend my justification for isolationism, the fact that we humans have been created as creatures that are co-dependent on each other means that there's absolutely no way for me to survive by myself. even in exile, I cannot avoid from harming others as my decision to alienate myself from everyone might actually hurt the feelings of those who do care abt me. regardless of what I do, I'll always somehow drag other ppl into my own personal mess. it's like no matter what, I'm boned.
maybe I should focus more on the benefits of having ppl in my life instead of worrying how they may burden or cause grief to me. as a close friend in high school once told me, “ it is better to have lived and experienced joy and sadness w/ others than to thread a lonely path in life that only ends in misery”. maybe I'm just being too harsh on myself. sooner or later I’ll prolly have no choice but to learn to actually trust and open up to others rather than bottle up my own inner conflicts. perhaps one day, I'll find someone who’s willing enough to share some of the hardships I face in life. but until then, my not-too-distant future seems to be that of your typical lonely hermit living on top of the hill in some secluded mansion (Citizen Kane anyone?). I'll prolly even be a constant object of ridicule for youngsters who simply like to harass me because I'm such a grouchy old fart. of course by then we better have friggin' lightsabers so I can just cut off those punks in the knees whenever they fuck w/ me. yeah, I'm gonna be a great old man indeed.
