Reciprocity – Like Water to Fish, Part Three

Bob Fiske

Reciprocity – Like Water to Fish, Part Three

CLICK HERE to go to Part Two.

Engines of Reciprocity.  The value of reciprocity is deeply embedded in our culture and our thinking.  I think we are well aware how intrinsic the engines of marketing and the engines of advertising are to the methods of conducting business on a daily basis. 

The actors in these sectors are hard at work dreaming up new and better ways to promote the idea that your giving away something of value (your money, your credit) will result in an even better return to you.  We need look no further than the advertising in print media, broadcast media, billboards and the Internet to appreciate how omnipresent this “value of exchange” is, and how actively it is being promoted.

Apparently promoting reciprocity—the good deal—works because tons of people respond to Black Friday mania, convert cash to precious metals (or vice versa), own over-priced and over-designed technology, etc., etc, etc.

The Crack in the Fishbowl.  But let’s remember that reciprocity is so ever-present, so woven into our lives that it is like water to fish. We swim in it, just a bunch of fish in a fishbowl.  Strangely, more and more folks are starting to notice the crack in the fishbowl.  They are becoming aware of, and are questioning, reciprocity.

There isn’t so much to go around anymore, and the efforts of the big, the rich or the powerful to keep their tubs full is starting to draw attention—and stimulate outrage.  That is understandable.  The deep value of reciprocity pretty much mandates that we keep our senses tuned to the frequency of detecting “unfair exchanges”.  More and more fish in the school are starting click and clack in distress.

But that is not the end of the story, as I recently recognized.  The imbalances in our society may be a good thing, insofar as they lead us to notice, question, and replace the deep, unquestioned value of reciprocity.

Recapitulation.  We have all been conditioned, not just to strive for payoff, but to hold out for the good deal.  Here are some examples.

I’m going to drag myself out of bed the day after Thanksgiving, and IN RETURN you’re going to give me half-off on all the Christmas presents I need to buy.  Or, I’m going to give four years of my life to this university and accept a debt to lenders, and IN RETURN you’re going to set me up for life.  Or, I’m going to give you all the labor hours I can, and IN RETURN, you’re going to assure me and my family of a secure life.  Or, I’m going to shop at your supermarket, and IN RETURN you’re going to print a number on my receipt that shows me how much I’ve saved (to make me forget how much I spent).  Or, I’m going to give you my vote, and IN RETURN you’re going to give me some promises.

The Hidden Debt.  The good deal is hard to resist.  Even knowing what I do, I will still choose the gas station that has $3.57/gallon over the one that has $3.59/gallon, as if it really matters!

What we are not told (or choose to forget) is that nobody in the United States pays the true cost for anything.  We are taking from Third World labor, irresponsibly mined resources, and the health of the planet without giving back to repay the debt.  The costs have been mounting for two centuries, at least, and the debt that Western civilization has been accruing is knocking at the door.  Reciprocity is a lie because the true costs have been hidden.

This question of unacknowledged debt is key.  Which brings me to my second proposition.  If you take something from someone or somewhere and do not return a fair share, you are a criminal.

We are all criminals because for two centuries we have been taking from the earth (our ultimate bank) and have not replenished what she has given us.  So, before I sit in judgment of someone else, I best remind myself that we ALL share responsibility for creating and maintaining a broken system.

How the System Got Broken.  Long ago, when financial accounting methods and money were being invented, we all bought into the idea we could make everything balance.  What was taken would be matched by what was given, and both parties would be satisfied.

Over time various social experiments tinkered with this.  Different models of exchange were tested.  Along the way, the methods of reciprocity and fairness got refined.  An evolution was underway, and the most widely accepted system would be declared “the winner”.

The capitalist ideology has become dominant.  In this worldview it is presumed that fairness is preserved.  Now, of course, many of us know that fairness is not preserved, but what I’m doing is arguing from the point of view of proponents of capitalism (at least for the moment).

Summary of Part Three.  Marketing and advertising promote the idea of reciprocity every day, and help it become a deep value that is barely noticed.  The system of “fair exchanges” is more and more out of balance.  Some are reaping far more rewards than others.  The result of this is that significant segments of the world-society are recognizing that reciprocity does not necessarily lead to balance and fairness.  The good deal we have been conditioned to seek out may hide important costs.  The spirit of accounting, in which all benefits are matched by costs of equal value has been tinkered with.  Experiments in economic systems produced a dominant form—capitalism—that expertly hides so-called externalized costs.  These are debts we owe to the natural world and to exploited workers who remain beyond the view of our consuming society.

CLICK HERE to go to Part Four.

Information Bear 1

            It was still warm, even though the sun had set half an hour earlier.  The whole “family” was out on the back porch finishing one of Leslie’s outside summertime meals.  I imagine they were sipping glasses of lemonade or some such.  This was about a week after a major event: getting an elby big enough to lift a four-and-a-half kilogram weight.  That was ten pounds, back before David made everyone switch to metric measures.  So, this night’s dinner was something of a celebration, meaning it ended with an unimaginably rich chocolate cake, courtesy of Leslie.

            I can only imagine.  I’m not kidding.  Leslie is dead.  And I’ve never tasted chocolate cake.  Came close, once.

            Anyway, with Roger nearly comatose from overeating, Ishmael diverted the conversation to how elbies could hope to compete with other, more developed sources of work-energy.  David smiled broadly.  This was a question he had waited a long time to answer.

            “People living on the grid don’t appreciate the extent to which technology has determined lifestyle.  Thomas Edison knew he was inventing an industry when he commercialized electricity transmission.  What he may not have realized was that he was dancing to a tune that would be recapitulated in nearly every business sector.  It’s all about mass movement.  Large quantities of information-bearing substances, from cargo to oil to books to contracts to home appliances to cosmetics to entertainment.  These became the substrate on which to grow the knowledge base that defines modern social systems.”

            “What do you mean ‘information-bearing substances’?” Ishmael replied.  He was doing his best to keep up.  “The economy is based on goods and services, isn’t it?”

            “The economy is based on what’s in peoples’ heads.  As the economy has grown it has created a knowledge base of possibilities that swells with every different noticeable distinction.  Take lip gloss, for instance.  A fourteen-year-old girl at the neighborhood drug-store looks at the array of brands, colors, styles and marketing features of a hundred different products called lip gloss.  And to her they’re all different!  She will not confuse ‘creamy peach’ with ‘summer peach’.”

            “Once upon a time,” Leslie chimed in, “a made-up woman used lipstick, and there was only one color.  Red.  Perhaps a few different shades of red, but it was all red.  These days, it takes more than two full store aisles to hold all the different cosmetic products, and a sizeable portion of that is devoted to lip products.”

            “So an information-bearing substance is something like a product line in which each small variation is considered a separate product,” said Marta.

            “I get it.  The more products, the more choices you have to consider.  And choices require information,” said Ishmael.  Then he added, “What does that have to do with my original question?  Adding elby-energy to the mix of energy products expands the menu of choices.  But the other products are already so developed, who would care to use this one?”

            David resumes his argument.  “As I said, the knowledge base that enables the design, production and selection of information-bearing substances exists in peoples’ heads.  The economy is largely intangible, since it’s based on choices that people can be trained to value.  But the knowledge base has become increasingly unstable.  That part of the KB that’s in peoples’ heads is supported by an infrastructure that is narrow, kind of like a mushroom.  At some point it’s all going to fall apart—actually, I think that has already started.  Costs will go sky-high, so to speak, and most of the available choices will simply fall away.  It’s not just cosmetics that will disappear.  Most of the current civilization’s KB will disappear.  It will usher in a time of profound ignorance, another Dark Age.”

            Roger sat up with a start.  There was something on his mind.  He wanted to jump to the punch line so he could ask a new question.  “OK, OK, so we’re creating elby-energy.  And it’s not part of the current KB, so it won’t be lost—”

            “That’s it exactly!”