On the Normalisation of Antisocial Behaviour
This is something that has been hypothetically grinding my gears, although I was not affected by it yet: The benefit of having no social circle anywhere. But I see what people are posting online, and it's not looking good, which is why I would agree with the author of this piece.
I don't condemn those who have to opt out spontaneously because of unforeseen events, but those are also not who the author condemns. They speak about those who opt out in the last minute because they changed their mind. And that is only when they will call to notify about their absence, instead of being no-shows and AWOLs. This is just plain antisocial behaviour and cannot be justified anyhow. If you think that you don't want to attend a soirée or a party, that's fine, but give the host or whoever you meant to meet some leeway to plan ahead, rather than pushing them off minutes beforehand.
.jpg) |
| Mikhail Nesterov, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons |
In the end, this will fire back on you too in the long term: The more often you do that, the likelier those affected by your impolite behaviour will break up with you, so that you will finally end up with fewer friends, because you cannot be counted on, you cannot be planned with: You're unforeseeable in your behaviour, which can lead to higher costs, depending on where you dropped out coincidentally. In German, you could call such people “treulose Tomaten”, “unfaithful tomatoes”. It is another stepstone in a tendency within society towards the self alone, an egocentric tendency. There is nothing wrong with taking care of your mental health, it is paramount to personal well-being. but you cannot cast away all your friends in a whim and as you like while expecting of them to tolerate that with nothing in return. To some degree, you have to give something back to them, perhaps stand through a dislikable social event. Life will not always be exclusively what you like; sometimes, you will have to grasp the nettle, or else you may have to consider becoming a hermit, because then, you may very likely fail to live within our society that relies on reciprocal behaviour.
As one last point: The article also reminded me about a piece published in Atlas Obscura, about the time when Лев Толсьтой “ghosted” his wife because he knew that he was going to die. Back then, when I first read it, it reminded me of the behaviour of dogs who retrieve to a lonely place to die; it seemed to me as though they knew that their death could place a heavy mental burden upon their masters and mistresses, a burden they wanted to spare them, so that they abandoned them. This way, you could think that Lew did his wife a favour when he abandoned her to die alone. Софія Толсьтоя didn't think that way. As she wrote in her diary, at the end of the fragmentary remains (which also ended shortly after he disappeared):
«Три дня не писала. В понедельник, в Духов день, у нас была неприятная история. Утром уезжал Эрдели, Маша ехала его провожать до Ясенок. Мне нужно было заслать за бумагами к священнику, метрические свидетельства детей для раздела. Кто-то говорит, что Маша едет провожать жениха до Тулы. Я говорю: «Не может быть». Но спрашиваю Машу ввиду того, что если она едет до Тулы, я пошлю кучера к священнику, если же вернется, то не стану ее беспокоить, ей и так грустно будет, проводив жениха. Приходит Маша. Я спрашиваю: «Ты до Тулы едешь»? Она говорит: «Нет, нет, не еду». А сама поехала.» (12th June, 1910)
She, and the rest of their family, were left unaware of what he did, and while she wrote that he was ill, why he did it. He may have had his reasons, but he told no-one, and left no information about his reasons. This way, he has left his wife worried to death about her husband's whereabouts. I don't doubt that they were in left until death did them part[1], but from my outsider's view, this is deeply disrespectful towards his wife, to do something like this to her, rather than stay at home and die in his bed, in the companionship of his loving family, to also give them the opportunity to lay him to rest, and have a place to grieve. This way, they never learnt about his death and had no place to aggrieve their loss. I have no sympathy for this act, even though I enjoy his literary work.
This leaves us with one conclusion: People need to understand that it will not always work they want it to be; that in order to maintain a social life and connexions, i.e. friendships and other useful relations, they will have to make concessions. It doesn't always have to be a bad experience to attend an event one wished they could have avoided -- it is not foretold that it cannot turn out to be an enjoyable happening! One will not be able to tell unless one went there. There can always be benefits from having gone there, one must just be optimistic. And to be honest, there could be worse things than attending a dislikable event. Jury service, for example; or taking the witness stand in a trial.
Fußnote
«А со вчерашнего дня, с тех пор, как сказал, что не верит любви моей, мне стало серьезно страшно. Но я знаю, отчего он не верит. Мне кажется, я не сумею ни рассказать, ни написать, что я думаю. Всегда, с давних пор, я мечтала о человеке, которого буду любить, как о совершенно целом, новом и чистом человеке. Я воображала себе, и это были детские мечты, с которыми до сих пор трудно расстаться, что этот человек будет всегда у меня на глазах, что я буду знать малейшую его мысль, чувство, что он будет во всю жизнь любить меня одну и, не в пример прочим, мы оба, и он и я, не будем перевешиваться, как все перебесятся и делаются солидными людьми.»
It is the theme that nowadays would be declared a toxic relationship, at least it is a one-sided relationship: The man mistreats his woman by leaving her begging for his love and acknowledgement, whereas the woman desperately sticks to her husband, believing in his love to her. Elsewhere she has spoken approvingly of being married to a "genius":
«Всякий спросит: „Но для чего тебе, ничтожной женщине, нужна была эта умственная или художественная жизнь?“«И на этот вопрос я могу одно ответить: „Я не знаю, но вечно подавлять ее, чтоб материально служить гению, — большое страдание“. Как бы ни любить этого человека, которого люди признали _гением, но вечно_ родить, кормить, шить, заказывать обед, ставить компрессы и клистиры, тупо сидеть молча и ждать требований материальных услуг — это мучительно, а за это ровно ничего, даже простой благодарности не будет, а еще найдется многое, за что будут упрекать. Несла и несу я этот непосильный труд — и устала.«Вся эта тирада на непонимание гениев своими домашними у меня вылилась с досады на Эмерсона и на всех тех, которые со времен Сократа и Ксантиппы писали и сговорили о этом.» (March 13, 1902)
Another sign of a rather toxic relationship: She had not a single bad word to say to or about him, even within the privacy of her own diary. She lauds him as a genius, and for sure she was not wrong about this, but this doesn't justify an overall cold and distanced relationship which he kept with her. We could rumour a dependency of hers towards him and the income he generated through his work, although we cannot tell for sure as for this question, the available paperwork does not allow us to fell definitive statements. Doris Lessing, in the foreword to an English translation of her diaries (Sofia Tolstoya (aut.); Doris Lessing (Ed.); Cathy Porter (trans.) (2010). The Diaries of Sofia Tolstoy. New York City: Harper Perennial. Page 10) And this is not to speak of the views Lew had on women in general, as reflected through his work, to which I would refer you to the following text:
ONO, M. (1988). TOLSTOY'S VIEWS ON MAN AND WOMAN IN HIS WORKS AND LIFE. Japanese Slavic and East European Studies, 9, 21-37.
No comments:
Post a Comment