It is time, not to poke fun at my previous posts. I have avoided this topic for a while now. Technically, I posted about this over two years ago on Reddit. Even then, people seemed not to understand what I was referring to. It isn’t really easy to talk about nor to explain. But it is time I did just that.
Unlike the post on Reddit, I’m going to approach this slowly, bit by bit. A little about what I’m talking about before tying it all together. Hopefully by doing this, there is a greater chance you will understand too.
This is a theory I’ve been working on for a while now. I refer to it as the Theory of Handicapping. I consider it to be a viable explanation as to how humans (and possibly all life) behaves. And I consider it to be an explanation as to why we have not witnessed sentient life from outside our tiny sphere we call Earth. And, unfortunately, I consider it to be an explanation as to why we are all doomed to eventually expire. Probably not this generation, but the clock on humanity is running out slowly. This is what I believe, and perhaps my explanation might resonate with others.
The driving force of this theory is in the name, as often is the case with naming things. The idea of handicapping is the idea of purposely limiting one’s self for some reason or other. In sports such as golf, a handicap may be used to balance the game, making it possible for a less skilled player to compete with a player who is much better. In my theory, this is precisely the idea I have in mind.
In life, I find myself in constant competition with those around me. I am in competition for resources and space and even time. As I try to exercise my freedom, pursuing my interests and desires, I am nearly constantly challenged by others as they pursue their own. This is where the Existentialists, such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, are helpful to talk about. For Sartre, he considered us all to be in this competition at all times, fighting to express our freedom and pursue our projects. For Beauvoir, she considered it instead to be a cooperative venture, where individuals had to make space for each other and acknowledge each others’ freedom. Perhaps it is from reading both of these thinkers that my own theory emerges.
On the Sartrean side, the competition is ruthless and unavoidable. Like the myth of the Alpha, I am forced to bully and fight and sometimes even resort to violence to make my way in the world. No one will give me a moment’s rest and I must defend my claim to space and interests. For Sartre, this is simply how freedom works. Those who fight well and out compete others will get to enjoy their projects, while those who do not will simply be forced to follow the projects of others. I imagine Sartre likely felt women were often on the losing side of this game.
On the Beauvoirian side, the competition is a losing endeavor. Only through recognizing each other’s freedom can any of us succeed in our pursuits. But more than that, she suggested we needed to acknowledge each others freedom, even going so far as to sacrifice our own from time to time in order work with others on their projects. That is, for a while I will help you accomplish your projects, and then later you can help me with mine. We work together, cooperatively, so that we both can pursue our respective goals and interests. The only problem comes when our respective pursuits contradict each other; in this situation, it is less clear what to do. Clearly Sartre’s response would be less problematic.
For me, for my theory, it is this very troubling dichotomy that I am trying to address. For me, I think both are correct in their assessment of the situation. We are stuck in both competition and cooperation with each other in our pursuit of our freedom. Much of the time, we must convince others to assist us in our pursuits, because most of our pursuits are not feasible to pursue alone. I might be able to build a house by myself, but it would certainly take a very long time to do; if I had the assistance of others, the process would be much quicker, and likely a better made house would result as well (considering my own lack of proficiencies).
But then it becomes a question of when to stand one’s ground and when to sacrifice. At what points do I fight for my project, working to ensure that it gets achieved? At what points do I submit to the will of others in their own pursuits, helping them to accomplish theirs? Fairness might suggest that we split the difference and help each other out in equal measure. But if you’ve lived in this world for any amount of time, certainly you will have noticed that this definitely does not happen.
I hate to bring it up, as I’ve been avoiding this topic as well, but the recent election in the United States is a great example of the situation I’m talking about. Donald Trump has recently been elected president again, and he did so on a platform suggesting he would take care of the people. He even went so far as to say “whether the women like it or not, I’m going to protect them.” The crazy part of this is how it so clearly flies in the face of his project, completely undermining the project of his own constituents. That said, he was still voted in, so perhaps there are plenty of women who actually want Trump to protect them.
The problem with all of this is that Trump only said what he said to get elected. He hasn’t even entered office yet, and he has already backpedaled on virtually every promise he made during his campaign. Meaning he only said what he said to convince those around him to help him with his project, never having any intention of cooperating and helping others pursue their own projects. This is the Sartrean competition I am talking about; Trump’s strategy for a successful fight was to use deception and lies to convince those around him to help him with his project. He successfully convinced others to sacrifice their own projects for his.
And so, this is the first part of my theory that I need to establish and make clear. In this world, where we all are trying to pursue our desires and interests, individually we have to somehow convince others to allow us to pursue our projects, either through fighting for them or negotiating for them or some other strategy. And perhaps at times we have to sacrifice our pursuit to assist others in their pursuits. At any time in your life when you have been helping others to do the things they wanted to do, this is precisely what you are doing. You are sacrificing your own desires or interests or goals to assist someone else in accomplishing theirs. And if you look really hard at what you are doing, you may come to realize (as I have) that you are more often submitting to others than doing things for yourself.
This is what I will refer to as Handicapping.