My Pen Mates,
I picked up the first part of this article's title from au courant designations for people of interest; either public officials who need protection, or manhunt targets we need to be protected from. Both ways, the appellation is retroactive to what these individuals have accomplished and are currently perpetuating. It's an earned title that's oddly neutral, despite its ostensibly important word juxtaposition. Strange how wordsmiths come up with these things.
Anyway, that's a glimpse into one of my weird preoccupations: looking into the thought process behind effective message crafting. But this article has to do with external influences which affect people because they were delivered by positive leaders or organizations; providers who achieved high value not by their experience, good fortune, or charisma, but by their willingness to impart their life lessons to improve the awareness of people within their spheres of influence. Sharing is positive whether its active or passive; one does not require a podium to teach, sometimes merely living clean achieves more.
When a group of people, organization, society, or nation do goodwill, it could easily be brushed aside as an imposition. When different cultures and philosophies meet and an attempt to merge is initiated unilaterally, one party is apt to wonder: "What's in it for me?" or more likely: "What are these guys up to?" Presented with opportunity, the cautious reaction is doubt and suspicion. Trust is a rare commodity; but ancient man needed an ally, making it necessary to domesticate the wolf even as it worried about being devoured. Over time, the wild animal becomes a pet and a worthy, loyal companion to its owner. It took generations of cohabitation and almost surely a lot of fits and starts (and most certainly some violence and carnage was involved), but the house dog is regarded as a good companion nowadays. They are not for everyone, but they have come a long ways from their feral relatives and are considered tame and in their own way, helpful.
That's not elevating them to a "high value" designation, but it seems that we've all learned to trust dogs more than we trust people. We set up fences more to keep out people than wildlife; we value self-protection against being violated by another human being more than an attack by a beast. So even with the best of intentions, "foreigners" get sniffed and receive the sideways look, sometimes deservedly so out of self preservation, but oftentimes at the cost of losing an opportunity to improve and be positively impacted.
I'm a believer in human goodness and that intransigent societies devolve for lack of cultural diversity. The receiver can be a giver if an environment allows for dialog and integration. Sadly, history is tarnished with tales of Trojan horses that make it hard to trust outsiders. Yet all of human progress resulted when societies and cultures collaborated and shared resources, manpower, and ideas. When pride, prejudice, or fear prevent people from communicating, positive outcomes are overrun by the easy shelter of isolationism.
So how do we assess value? What sort of vision is required to weigh the benefit of a potential relationship, and in as much as this sounds like prospecting for a potential partner, are nations and cultures subjectable to the same scrutiny as individuals? If so, then it can be as simple as the "honey versus vinegar" simile. The impact provider will be of greater value only to the extent that the subject or object makes itself accessible and palatable. Resistance obviously hinders, but even honey can repel if it's bottled. Ah, the complications of relationships; it can cause endless frustrations even with the best of intentions!
Mon
< Latest
