![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Social Parasites
Aug. 22nd, 2011 04:12 pmI'm trying to find a way to word this, because...I don't mean to imply, at any point, that I think we should make ourselves cold to the emotions of certain people, or that certain people aren't people at all, or that emotions must have justification in order to be considered "valid."
At what point does someone cross the line between being sensitive and needy, into the realm of unrecoverable social parasite? And are they really unrecoverable?
The casual diagnosis of malignant narcissism is a difficult call for me to make. Generally speaking, my rule is: the moment my help stops being a gift and becomes an obligation instead, it is no longer a gift and the recipient is using me.
That doesn't necessarily mean I stop offering my support, however. There are some forms of social parasitism I actually don't mind that much, given that a person otherwise has a lot to offer. For instance, I know people who absolutely must do things in a certain order, or else they won't be happy at all, and further, require that the people around them participate in their orderliness. Failure to do so will result in great and enduring unhappiness. If it really bothered me to humor this behavior, I wouldn't; however, I'm very flexible about the order in which things get done, as long as they get done. So I usually acquiesce to these kinds of demands, simply because it does me no harm; at worst, it's an annoying inconvenience.
Does that make me an "enabler?" Should I put my foot down and deny this person's eccentricity because it infringes on my right to be a free-thinking, freely-acting human being? If so, to what end?
Certainly, when someone requires something of me that I simply can't reasonably offer, I say no. But I feel very uncomfortable around people who express the opinion that no social parasitism should ever be tolerated, from anyone--begging the question, exactly what constitutes parasitism? Is narcissism a necessary component, or does a simple lack of emotional control or an abnormal assortment of environmental needs count as parasitism? Are people who "just can't deal with" common realities about our society, f.e. those in the autism spectrum, parasites if we cater to their needs, or are they victims if we refuse? Isn't the denial of responsibility for the effects of our actions on others, whatever their predilections, a sort of narcissism in itself?
It seems to me that there is a marked difference between someone with a healthy dose of self-respect, who understands that their actions (or inaction) have consequences, who give what they can to those who need it, but reserve what physical and emotional resources they require for their own well-being, and a bully who uses the idea of the "self-respecting" individual to obscure and excuse intolerance.
On the other hand, I don't think there is a rule set for defining social parasitism, and I'm not sure there ever can be; every person has different tolerances for what courtesies they're willing (and able) to extend to others. An individual with particular requirements who is harmless to me might be incredibly damaging to someone else. That sounds like an overly simple way of putting it, but the nagging stitch in the side of most policies and ethical arguments always does seem to come down to "well it all depends."
Defining our judgement of other people based solely on the what actions might be damaging and which ones are not seems like a backwards way of looking at this issue. It seems a better solution would be for each of us as individuals to consider and develop a good awareness of "how much is too much," and know how and when to tell a person you just can't accommodate them further.
At what point does someone cross the line between being sensitive and needy, into the realm of unrecoverable social parasite? And are they really unrecoverable?
The casual diagnosis of malignant narcissism is a difficult call for me to make. Generally speaking, my rule is: the moment my help stops being a gift and becomes an obligation instead, it is no longer a gift and the recipient is using me.
That doesn't necessarily mean I stop offering my support, however. There are some forms of social parasitism I actually don't mind that much, given that a person otherwise has a lot to offer. For instance, I know people who absolutely must do things in a certain order, or else they won't be happy at all, and further, require that the people around them participate in their orderliness. Failure to do so will result in great and enduring unhappiness. If it really bothered me to humor this behavior, I wouldn't; however, I'm very flexible about the order in which things get done, as long as they get done. So I usually acquiesce to these kinds of demands, simply because it does me no harm; at worst, it's an annoying inconvenience.
Does that make me an "enabler?" Should I put my foot down and deny this person's eccentricity because it infringes on my right to be a free-thinking, freely-acting human being? If so, to what end?
Certainly, when someone requires something of me that I simply can't reasonably offer, I say no. But I feel very uncomfortable around people who express the opinion that no social parasitism should ever be tolerated, from anyone--begging the question, exactly what constitutes parasitism? Is narcissism a necessary component, or does a simple lack of emotional control or an abnormal assortment of environmental needs count as parasitism? Are people who "just can't deal with" common realities about our society, f.e. those in the autism spectrum, parasites if we cater to their needs, or are they victims if we refuse? Isn't the denial of responsibility for the effects of our actions on others, whatever their predilections, a sort of narcissism in itself?
It seems to me that there is a marked difference between someone with a healthy dose of self-respect, who understands that their actions (or inaction) have consequences, who give what they can to those who need it, but reserve what physical and emotional resources they require for their own well-being, and a bully who uses the idea of the "self-respecting" individual to obscure and excuse intolerance.
On the other hand, I don't think there is a rule set for defining social parasitism, and I'm not sure there ever can be; every person has different tolerances for what courtesies they're willing (and able) to extend to others. An individual with particular requirements who is harmless to me might be incredibly damaging to someone else. That sounds like an overly simple way of putting it, but the nagging stitch in the side of most policies and ethical arguments always does seem to come down to "well it all depends."
Defining our judgement of other people based solely on the what actions might be damaging and which ones are not seems like a backwards way of looking at this issue. It seems a better solution would be for each of us as individuals to consider and develop a good awareness of "how much is too much," and know how and when to tell a person you just can't accommodate them further.
