|
happylittlepet -> RE: What is the difference between a slave and a slave? (2/5/2011 12:45:56 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: osf
The traditional accepted definition of a slave was someone used for mostly economic purposes and held in bondage usually against their will who didn't benefit equally in the fruits of their labor.
Many people cannot imagine that someone who is used financially against his/her will, would accept that or would even be able to be happy with that exchange. This is connected to how society 'thinks' about possessions, rights, and how it defines abuse, and 'no benefits'.
The person who is forced according to your definition has 3 choices (maybe more): to build a feeling of resentment and experience stress, to accept the situation and regain happiness, or change the situation in order to regain happiness.
A person forced into slavery might do what a slave is supposed to do, but might still fight it internally. - locus of control remains external and is fought - this might lead to a breaking point -> acceptance of the situation.
A person forced into slavery might find that it agrees with his/her 'nature' and finds it fulfilling. - locus of control becomes internal, then might start to strive for excellence.
A person forced into slavery might accept it because the person understands that not accepting it does not go well with the body/mind trying to find a comfortable stress level. - locus of control becomes internal - then might start to strive for excellence as well.
In today's world, people want to determine their own destiny. Some seek a form and transform to fit that form. Some are aware of what their 'nature' indicates makes them happy, and seek a form in which that nature can be 'itself'.
Some are not aware of what others see in them, and when presented with a form that the other thinks will fit, they find something they didn't know would make them happy.
If in our society it were possible that one could get kidnapped and held against one's will indefinitely, and that this was considered an acceptable practice, it would be also possible that many people could imagine this could happen to them.
Maybe that would normalize this scenario, and people would experience less dissonance because they considered their 'right' to self determination much less as the norm or something they have control over?
With that is mind what is your idea on the differences between that and slave as you think of it?
If your definition is firm, then any relationship entered into on consensual basis does not fit the bill?
How does that work when what is entered into was consensual, but over time starts to fit into the definition?
What to make of a situation that is entered non-consensually, yet where there is no use or unfair exchange?
What about people who consider marriage to be unbreakable, who entered it willingly, but find it has become non-consensual, abusive, and without an equal exchange, but 'cannot' leave because they put in the definition of marriage that it can't be resolved?
I think what you wrote later, in post 23, has to do with this, see below.
What would keep this person bound to their owner?
Which person? The slave in the definition (based on non consent, where force and use are acceptable practices) or 'as you think of it' (you imply that others think of slavery as 'entered consensually, which makes force non-existent, and without use/exploitation')?
What does bound mean? Unable to walk away? Or that this person has decided that it is their choice to be with this owner, either because how much they can give or because of how much they get out of it?
I am contemplating this idea, that person A stays with person B, because person A perceives that what is invested is approximately equal to what is received. Equality perceived can depend on the circumstances, and what is considered an equal exchange can also be adjusted.
What is received might be embedded into what is invested. E.g. person A teaches person B something. What does person A get out of this? Could be something material, could also be the experience of getting to teach and seeing that person B is now able to do activity X much better, independent of for whose benefit activity X will be done.
Now back to:
With that is mind what is your idea on the differences between that and slave as you think of it?
Which to me is linked to:
quote:
ORIGINAL: osf
I don't think anyone is enslaved to another in the sense we speak of.
Which sense is that - the definition you gave? Just making sure I understand what you are saying. Who is we?
It's an enslavement to their own need that causes them to seek another to use that need to their mutual benefit
My question is:
Do you mean enslavement as if addicted (the need controls the person and not the other way around) or as needing food in order to satisfy the hunger experience? If it's the latter then isn't satisfying the need essential for existence? Yet not meeting the need for enslavement is not a threat for existence.
Does affluence affect what I think I need? Do I really know what I need? Am I able to let go of what I think I need?
Does the need for enslavement exist in some people? Or is it a perceived need? Does their level of need change depending on the availability of what they think can satisfy that need?
Let's assume that serving is not a need, but perceived as a need, and that seeking the control of the other is perceived as the solution to satisfy that need. That would not lead to a situation in which the Master has control, as his control depends on a perceived need in the 'slave'. Which then would make it a mutual exchange for a mutual benefit. I am not sure that that can be 'forced'. Unless, he wants her to have that perceived need, which he then utilizes to increase his control, and her need, which then binds her to him.
And I am not convinced that it is possible to determine where the 'need' of the one partner ends, and the 'control/influence' of the other partner beings.
but I'm not of a slave mentality so my knowledge is not first hand, just observation
I remember that you have posted in the past that the 'why' is not important for a slave to understand, just to respond to the Master, preferably without thinking, or something to that extent. I am therefore not convinced anyone knows exactly.
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If I try to deconstruct, I will not find what it is that holds it together.
That makes me think that 'it' cannot be grasped, only experienced. To try to explain it will always fall short, as it's not possible to express an experience in words in order to let someone else 'know' what happened.
Useful topic? Absolutely! Lots of food for thought for me, so thank you!
Edited for a typo.
|
|
|
|
