Working Relationships and Compromise

Often, when we talk about relationships we consider our interrelations with other people and perhaps we usually neglect to think about our intrarelations. Sometimes, we have easy, good relationships because the intrarelationship is almost intuitive and requires no effort, in other relationships the intrarelations are difficult and often are the real cause of a relationship to break down. People fail to recognise their need to help others and instead prioritise their personal ambitions.

So, what are intrarelations? These are the decisions we reach that occur outside of communication. Indeed in long term relationships they are discussed, but this is something we only engage with with those closest to us, or when things are not working out. A large part of these decisions are about what we do as people to achieve a balance in our lives. This balance is between our own inner lives and our social lives.

I don’t believe in altruism, the idea of acting for no personal gain. If we do something for the benefit of others we also gain, from fulfilling our needs to play a role socially and be useful, so helping others helps ourselves and our society.

There are things we really want to do and there are things people want to do with us. Sometimes we are really lucky and what we really want to do will also be what our loved ones also want to do; these are often the very best times in our lives. Often we choose something we quite like doing with a group of friends to something we want to do more by ourselves because doing things together socially has it’s own rewards and adds enjoyment. However, most of the time we have to make decisions about whether to do what we want to do or engage in a social activity. Often we prefer to do something involving other people to something by ourselves, because we are social animals and we thrive from social activities. However over time we start to get increasingly niggly about doing the thing at the top of our list that we never seem to get around to doing and start prioritising it. conversely, after some time doing what we really want we may then desire to something we are not terribly keen on, just to be with a particular person or group or to experience something different. So interrelations are perhaps all those decisions about balancing our individual priorities.

Occasionally there are conflicts, we are all different and have different needs. For example introverts tend to need more time by themselves, whilst extroverts need more social time. So, it is easy to understand how an introvert and an extrovert may have conflicts. Having said that some very strong bonds can form between these two opposites, when each party is prepared to listen and compromise and find a way for both of them to be happy.

So in a relationship there needs to be some way of ascertaining what the others persons feelings are. Usually we ask indirectly and gauge the answer, for example “Do you fancy coming to the pub with me tonight?”. Possible answers are:

1- “Yes, I would love to go out with you tonight” [Highly affirmative]

2- “Yes, why not, but I probably shouldn’t stay too long” [Affirmative, but not the others priority]

3- “No, I have other things to do tonight, do you need me to come?” [Negative, but will do so as a favour]

4- “No, I don’t fancy it tonight” [Highly negative]

Another spectrum! , the answers 2 and 3, in effect ask a further question of the other person’s priority in doing the activity and their need for social activity.

Such a system is open to abuse and manipulation and often this causes friction in a relationship. It is easy for the person wanting to go to the pub to encourage the other to join them, however repeatedly forcing the other will eventually go beyond their desire to compromise. Sometimes people will inflict their own personal priority systems on others, for example an extrovert may feel that the introvert would be better off socialising more, rather than staying at home, but this is wrong and dangerous. However there are times, when a person will be better off for doing something that are not inspired themselves to do, but you need to know each other well to do this.

Essentially, a good strong relationship, is where both parties have a healthy balance between their social and private desires.

It is possible to explore wider types of relationships from the standpoint of achieving this balance. When community relationships are explored, as the social net becomes wider, the intra-relationship is at risk of not being maintained by social convention.

Markets

In Wales, as in much of Europe, we used to do most of our everyday trading locally, I was lucky to grow up in such a community. We would know personally our local ‘butcher, baker and candlestick maker’, we would meet and form friendships within our communities as we wandered the market doing our shopping. Traders, would learn what our preferences were, indeed such relationships were good for trade. However this gentle manipulation was appreciated, for example often the butchers recommended cuts, would mean we enjoyed our meat more. The relationship was maintained as the trader wouldn’t want to rip-off or off load bad meat onto a customer, who they would then lose future trade with. Hence mutually supportive relations were established between customers and traders. Often people lament that such economic relationships don’t happen anymore. Indeed, so many of us no longer even have a local butcher, baker or local market. Instead we travel, often long distances,  to large multi-national supermarkets, where we have practically no relationship with the seller of our goods. The effect of this change is that shopping becomes more of a chore and we lose out on social interaction within our communities.

In place of this social interaction we have the phenomenon of marketing. Rarely nowadays, do retailers provide for the needs of their customers. Vast amounts of research and study of numbers have been done, simply to find ways of maximising profits. These ways of maximising profits have little to do with satisfying peoples needs and wants, but generally work to increase profits, essentially by manipulation and finding artificial ways of making people feel satisfied with their shopping. Having worked for a supermarket myself, I appreciate how easy it is to become institutionalised and  of serving the commercial needs at the expense of the staff and customers, it is so easy to allow the compromises of the job to become a new normal and accepted.

Romantic Relationships

A desire most people have is to find a partner, someone to share most of their life with. This usually isn’t easy, indeed we invest a lot of time in wishing for such successful fulfilling partnerships. However, like in marketing, a plethora of research has been done and people have found ways to manipulate generalities to increase their success in finding partnerships where the relationship can be exploited to maximise an individuals priorities at the expense of doing things for the other person. However where manipulation doesn’t occur and true compromises are reached is often the recipe for a successful relationship.

It isn’t hard to find people who are game players, who have worked out how to have relationships that satisfy their personal ambitions, to use general rules at the expense of establishing truly mutually beneficial relationships or fulfill their need to support someone else. It isn’t hard either to find doormats either, who only want to make their partner happy at the expense of their personal needs. True fulfilling relationships perhaps does only come from achieving a good balance.

Disc Jockeys

In this age of on demand digital media, the demise of the traditional radio Disc jockey (DJ) has been predicted. There is the idea that we don’t need someone to sit in a studio playing records for us, when we can do it ourselves and choose the music we like. Yet, arguably now is a golden era of the DJ. A good DJ will not merely play records they like, though this   is what they do, they create programmes. Radio programmes are an attempt to collate things we are interested in in interesting ways, they enhance our listening to music. A good DJ achieves this in a number of ways. Firstly curation, a good DJ will spend a lot of time discovering music for themselves and their listeners and becoming highly skilled at this. Indeed searching for music on the internet, or even developing a decent algorithm for  selecting an internet stream isn’t easy, so having a professional helps. The music is then blended together, so pieces of music flow and provide interest and a story through the order in which they are selected. Finally a good DJ will chat with the listener, creating warm feelings and making the whole process of listening a lot more personal. A good DJ does their job for other people, and may even play a piece they don’t like, but feel that their listeners will find it interesting in it’s context. A DJ listens and makes compromises with their audience. Really, the good DJ fulfills their personal needs and their social needs.

In contrast, there continues to be a plethora of commercial radio, which is truly awful. Many radio stations simply use the model of playing the most popular pieces of music of the day and the aim of the game is not to provide good programming, but manipulate their audience in to staying tuned in for the next set of advertisements. It is often so soulless.

Politics

It is perhaps in the arena of party politics, where the this disconnect demonstrating the failure of modern relationships to achieve healthy balances occurs.

The job of a politician is simply to make good decisions. In a democracy, the politicians are elected, so should demonstrate to the electorate that they are good decision makers by making it clear what they base their decision making on.

A politician is also someone whom is interested in politics, so will have personal goals they wish to achieve in helping create the kind of thriving society they want to see. However, they are entering into a relationship with their electors, so compromises are required, to find solutions that work for the community.

Really it doesn’t matter if a politician is of the left or the right-wing as long as they make good decisions and achieve a good balance with their own ideals and the good of the society they serve, for then good decisions are made.

However as the political sphere becomes ever more centralised, the direct relationship with the electors is lost and the role stops being about serving the community. In consequence being a politician becomes more about personal achievements at the expense of social achievements.

Being a member of political party and having done some canvassing for elections (Plaid Cymru), I have become interested in the welfare of the party, rather than the society it aims to serve. These days, party politics is notorious for rules for saying and doing what works to help the party gain votes and win elections, often at the expense of losing sight of improving the economy and society. I was with a candidate who was asked a question on the street and they gave a very grod ‘politicians’ answer of not saying anything. I knew he had good answers, but was concerned about saying something that would be misinterpreted by a potential opponent at the end of a long tiring canvassing session (Remember you have been saying very similar things to lots of people for several hours, so your brain starts turning to cardboard by the end!).

The famous example being Tony Blair’s government, where the government became a slave to focus groups and engineering policy to win elections, rather than doing the right thing. Winning elections became more important than improving the economy. Blair was good at compromising, he was a master at it, he was a failure in my eyes because he didn’t really make any progress his own convictions to improve  society, I don’t even know if he had any, he seemed merely to want to win the game.

I recently read ‘The Greasy Poll’ by Mike Parker who stood for my party in the Ceredigion UK general election of 2015. In this diary of an election from the candidates view, a world was revealed of his words (that there are racists in Ceredigion) being taken out of context by the press (‘he said that all incomers are Nazis!’), which seemed to have led to him failing to win the seat. It seemed to him that ordinary people can’t succeed in politics because they can’t be themselves, for if they are, they are crucified. Perhaps only a slick politician who is very careful to say nothing that could be misinterpreted is successful.

However now we are in the Brexit/Trump era, where people have got fed up with politicians not being honest with their views and opinions, that mavericks such as Trump and Farage get the votes, by appealing to this discontent but just using a different set of words to do it. Instead of the glib “We are going to make things better, don’t listen to the other lot as they want to make things worse!”, this new breed say “The other politicians don’t say anything, so listen to my populist rhetoric of finding scapegoats for our problems instead” What a politician says has become far more important than what they do. It seems we live in a world where a soundbite that resonates is more important than a deed that actually helps improve something. Where are the politicians who have sound personal ambitions and the ability to make decisions that work for the whole of society?

Take the current leaders of the two largest political parties in the UK. On one side we have Jeremy Corbyn, a socialist campaigner, who has thus far failed to convince the population as a whole that he is able to listen and find a workable compromise with those who are socialists. On the other side we have Teresa May, a right-wing authoritarian, who only seems to serve her ideological ambitions and in real terms has yet to do anything to genuinely serve society. She is able to say that she cares, even when she does nothing at all to act on these cares.

It seems that you have to play the game to be proficient at succeeding in the party political game, to rise to senior position where you can actually achieve something, yet by that point they are so distorted by the game to be unable to do anything positive at all. So perhaps all politicians have a broken relationship with the the people in their society. Such politicians do not help society, nor make progress in advancing their individual cause, they only win the game of of politics. In the same way as the ladies man may rack up lots of partners, but never achieve a deep meaningful relationship. An executive business person, may achieve success for their company. career, but not any real tangible benefit to society, or any real achievement, outside of the corporate game.  A popular DJ, may rack up millions of listeners listening to them in the background, whereas the good DJ can seriously touch peoples lives and change people’s thinking with their selection of music.

I wrote last time about what is an achievement. I do just believe that making a real difference to society, or forming a mutually beneficial relationship is an achievement. Whereas winning an artificial game is much no achievement at all, in any game someone has to win and someone has to lose, the winner has not really achieved anything. Perhaps interrelationships are passing fun, but intrarelations are where true success can be achieved.

Advertisements

Roller Derby is not binary

 

If this blog has a theme it is that the world isn’t binary, however much we may wish it to be, everything is more nuanced and requires healthy balances. Roller Derby, by it’s nature can help with this.

I experienced Roller Derby for the first time last weekend. I have been living in a new city recently, so I was keen to explore new things and what was going on in this city.

Immediately upon entering the hall, people were incredibly friendly and welcoming, taking up their time to explain what was going on.

I had no prior knowledge of Roller Derby and a whole day for this sport to reveal itself to me. At first it did simply look like some people pushing each other around a track, yet by the end of the day I had a reasonable knowledge of the rules, could follow what was going on and some appreciation of the array of tactics deployed in the game.

As a spectator it is strange to watch as there is kind of two encounters happening simultaneously, with these two encounters interacting with each other. Basically, each team has a jammer and four blockers. The aim of the game is for the jammer to pass the blockers of the opposing team to score points as they go around the track. ~So the two encounters as the jammer of team A trying to progress in the same area of the track of the jammer of team B. So, whilst there are two fascinating games going on, of the jammer against the blockers, there is also the interactions in the space as the blockers can also assist their own jammer make progress by creating space and pushing the opposing blockers out of the way. There is quite simply an awful lot of strategy going on in real time.

As a team sport, with spectators there is also atmosphere. I don’t think I have ever experienced such a friendly inclusive atmosphere at a sporting occasion. I want to go again, and even learn to skate myself. What the experience did do was really resolve my issues with watching women play sport.

I believe that many heterosexual men have this issue with female sport, yet women do not seem to have the same issue in the same way. The issue is the distraction of being sexually attracted to the participants. However I know many women who go to watch men play sport and quite happy to incorporte their sexual atttraction to the players into their appreciation and enjoyment of the spectacle. I think this presents a really interesting difference in how different genders deal with what I shall call attraction to the unobtainable.

What I mean by ‘attraction to the unobtainable’ is that film stars and famous musicians etc, are separated socially from their audience. You may fall in love with a beautiful talented actress whilst watching a film, (as I also did at the weekend with Alia Bhatt whilst watching the excellent new Shah Rukh Khan film, Dear Zindagi) but you realise that your chances of even meeting the object of your affections are practically zero.

This attraction to the unobtainable is in stark contrast to our social lives, where we meet and interact with people we are attracted to, where there is at least, for a while, the possibility of forming a real relationship with those people.

This is interesting as how we deal with these two very different types of attraction is in itself different. The way we behave is different, how we think about a film star is different to someone in ‘real life’ we talk and interact with.

The essential difference is privacy, we can allow our imaginations to run riot in private. Crudely, we can let tongues hang out and stare longingly at the person on the screen without consequence, in a way we would never do in real life.

The difficulty with watching women in sport is that it falls into the grey area between the two. We can watch an attractive athlete and for a moment be distracted by their beauty, just like ‘attraction to the unobtainable’, and then after the game we may end up talking to that person socially. I think that many men just find this very confusing, it’s neither one or the other, many men, myself included, find this grey area difficult to deal with. It ‘s perhaps like Roller Derby itself, where there are two encounters happening simultaneously and we can mentally switch from watching one jammers encounter to the other. Generally men I believe are poorer at rapidly mentally switching, but it is a very useful skill.

Roller Derby presents this problem as it is still a small, but growing sport. So, there isn’t the opportunity of being lost in the crowd as you can at say say when watching the mens national rugby or football team. Yet, the game itself is absorbing so you do zone out of interacting socially with the people immediately around you to appreciating the sport and the tactical battles going on, yet there are moments when you just notice how attractive some of the participants are, just like watching an attractive actor in a film.

So, perhaps men don’t like watching women play sport because we kind of like to separate watching a game from being attracted to people. It’s not that anyone isn’t capable of mental switching, it’s just that men are not used to it. However men have learnt how to let their feelings for an attractive actress to flow without detracting from being absorbed by the plot of the film and really films are produced to ease the transition between these two aspects, sport doesn’t. As mens sport continues to dominate the main stream media, we don’t get enough practice of this mental switching in the arena of sport. It’s also how we expect the leading lady in a film to be attractive and it is part of how films work, but we don’t expect a sportsperson to be attractive, though some will be, but they may not be the winner. An example is the tennis player Anna Kournikova, who many men were attracted to, but she was never one of the best tennis players n the world. The difference is that to achieve fame as an actress you have to be attractive and be an amazing actor (sadly often being attractive is enough to carve out a lucrative career and very rare is the unattractive but amazingly talented actress) , whereas in sport you have to be good at the sport to be at the top and how attractive you are does not have any influence on it.

Roller Derby is that rare thing, a female dominated team sport, where not only is there the usual mental switching of watching the gender you are attrqacted tio playing nad beign absorbed in the intesity of the game itself, but also the switching between the two encounters of the jammers, which then also interact with other. Watching Roller Derby is as mentally exhausting to watch as it seems to be physically exhausting to play, but I can understand why the game appeals to a male audience! What I learnt was to be ease with watching women playing sport in real life.

The Olympic Games, #TeamGB and women on the telly

The Olympic Games is on in Rio, they are a wonderful televisual feast of sport. I thought I would document some of the reasons I like them.

TeamGB

Having a Great Britain [and Northern Ireland, so really it’s team UK?] team in itself is odd. For almost every sport, there are separate teams for the nations of Wales, Scotland and England. So the Olympics is even more different to sport as usual for people of the British Isles. Some people don’t like this, one reason is because it can mean the highest ranked sports people in a country may miss out on an Olympic spot as the British Olympic committee only funds so many athletes for each sport and this creates frictions between the sporting bodies, even though I think it’s generally done reasonably fairly. For example in one of the Judo classes, there was a real battle between a Welsh lady and and an English lady for the spot and by a narrow point margin the Welsh lady got the opportunity. A second reason is that there is an intense sporting rivalry between the nations of the UK, so team GB, in say the Rugby 7s, is made up of players from all UK nations, but often mainly drawn from the English team. This was really really odd, because the rugby rivalry is so intense, it just seems wrong to put this aside for the Olympics, I did but there has to be representation from all countries for this to work, which doesn’t necessarily produce the best team.   The team is usually the English team with the odd Scot or Welsh person, who will not be used to playing together and may be used to playing in a different style. The Rugby 7s was particularly odd this time, making it’s debut as an Olympic event.

Generally, I don’t like major, well covered sports being at the Olympics, as they get enough coverage and exposure in the media anyway. the Rugby 7s was hugely enjoyable, The ladies final was a hugely high standard and hugely dramatic and in the gentlemans final, my support for Team GB actually only lasted about 2 minutes, as Fiji were just immense and sometimes you just have to stop and applaud such a display of skill.

However for other sports, it’s simply nice to be able to come together to support fellow British and Irish athletes, to forget for two weeks the politics and rivalries within the UK, to enjoy the sport. Major sports like Golf and Football, I don’t approve of Olympic inclusion, because, they are well supported anyway and I regard the Olympics as a vehicle for the promotion of sports that struggle to become a regular part of mass entertainment.

The sheer niceness of it being Team GB, rather than Team Wales, presents three levels of support. Nonetheless, in each competition, I end up supporting someone. I support Welsh athletes first and foremost then the rest of Team GB, but also competitors from all over the world. I just like the sense of the world coming together to appreciate top level sporting competition and the sense that as supporters we are also part of the team, freed from national affiliation, you can enjoy the sport without nationalistic fervour pulling the heartstrings. I don’t know if this is the same for people from other countries that don’t compete under the banner of a union state. Really it’s simply good to see the Union Jack being waved for a positive unifying reason for a change.

The Sport

It’s great to see sports you have interest in, that you wish were higher up the media agenda some involvement in and the top athletes getting world-wide exposure. It is also super to see other sports getting the exposure too, even if I can’t move beyond finding Dressage rather silly. The Olympics is really good for these sports, encouraging new participation and inspiring people with what dedicated humans can achieve.

There is something special about the broadcasting element of having experts in a sport on the telly explaining what is going on to a largely ignorant public. You can watch sports you take zero interest in for four years. what broadcasters do if is give some back story to the events and the individual competitors, so even if you don’t know the sport, you can get involved in witnessing the emotional journeys.

Women

Generally, I am so pleased that both gentlemen and ladies compete  with equal billing for a change. Womens sport generally plays second fiddle to the men, but there is no real justification for this. Yes, elite men can run faster, jump higher pull harder, throw things further and lift heavier things, but that isn’t really very interesting. There is just as much skill, tactics and drama in sports of both genders and fortunately the broadcasters largely respect this, if only for the Olympics, if only it would happen all the time. It is sad that sometimes, some male broadcasters don’t reveal that they haven’t quite got the equality idea.

Being a heterosexual chap, I actually, much prefer the womens events at the Olympics. So, really, whatever gender you are attracted to you can get behind athletes you are attracted to. The female preference, primarily simple because there are so many really pretty women and I just like athletic competitive women, but also that women suffer a lot less from this ‘don’t show your emotions’ nonsense, that is drilled into us men as children, so as a spectacle, the women show much more how they feel about their performances. Yes, I want the attractive women to do well and feel with them, but it doesn’t stop me appreciating the skill demonstrated.

I know I do find generally seem to find different women attractive to most men. It’s so refreshing for all sorts of women to gain exposure for showing off their skills in the same way as the men. Though it does make me feel frustration that in many other fields it is only ladies who are perceived as attractive by the masses who seem to get to be in the media. We still live in a world where talented television presenters disappear after they reach a certain age, which doesn’t happen to male presenters. Really I just like the message getting out there that you don’t have to be thin, have huge breasts to get exposure.

The Civilised Game

I have been back home in civilisation in Wales for a week or so. I am so pleased to be home and am a lot more happy and relaxed. I think the reason I was unhappy in Surrey, England as it lost the cilvilised game on almost every count, apart from access to cultural events in London.

So, what is the civilised game? It is a game I’ve often played with friends living in different regions of the UK and the rest of the world. The aim of the game is to establish which of two areas is more ‘civilised’ than the other. Points are scored for a region through the identification of aspects of the society that are more ‘civilised’, or represent things that are relatively better in one place compared to another. When playing the civilised game with friends, the shouting out of the phrase “uncivilised country” has become ensconced when a identifying a facet of lack of civilisation.

The game does become rather silly at times, only wierdos like me want good ice cream in the winter, but as a means of a comparative study of cultures, it is useful. It is also a means of measuring how far a society is from achieving it’s own cultural ideals. The game is also an interesting is  interplay between the two protagonists own cultural ideals and how and where they differ from the other ‘player’.

The basis of playing the civilised game is simply identifying things that you find annoying or positive about another culture. For example, I shall compare two English cities I have lived in, if you are from either city, please don’t take offense, I love both cities!

Bristol versus Manchester (B=Bristol is better, M= Manchester is better)

Access to decent bread B
Relative price and quality of beer M
Percentage of income spent on accommodation M
Liklihood of having a nice chat with a random stranger M
Availability of civilised nightlife B
Quality of food M
Ease of being vegetarian B
General prettiness of local ladies [ahem] =
Quality of local music scene M
Quality of local scenery M
Climate =

In this limited example, Manchester is more civilised than Bristol. Sorry Bristol, you do have rubbish chippies though!  It’s kind of like the game ‘Top Trumps’, each place will have a score for each criteria, civilised places will generally win. Uncivilized places will usually have some aspect of quality of life living there that will trump somewhere else. This is what i personally didn’t get about Surrey, it’s the top trump card you don’t want to have. It is subjective, some people love living in Surrey, this is probably largely determined by your upbringing and what the culture you grew up with values highly.

Obviously, Wales scores fairly highly on most of these example criteria. As i get older it seems that civilisation globally is in decline, even in Wales (the local bread shop sells rather poor bread for example). This seems to be a consequence of laissez-faire economics or globalisation. It is the powers of marketing seeking to homogenise the cultures of the world and increase demand for products that can easily be reproduced globally, rather than allowing established local solutions to continue and develop. it seems that the goal of utility, of seeking ways of making life easier for everyone takes a subsidiary role to the market. It is now the big producers powering demand, rather than the local consumer, the multi-national chain displacing the family run business, even when there is no economic efficiency gain from such a change.

Anyway, I’m at home and spared from playing the civilised game with myself.