Footing, ease and standing

Footing.
Commonality.
Territory, belonging, ownership.
Territorial pressure.
Security vs insecurity.

Diaspora. Land ownership and access.

Secure footing vs ilinx/vertigo/giddiness – connection to playfulness.
Playfulness as survival mechanism (or adopted attitude that enhances aptitude for life and adaptability).

Giving or sharing enhances perceived value of what is given or shared.
Ability to give and share demonstrates: Footing? Plentitude. Security. Ease.

Lack of ability to give or share demonstrates the opposite = bearings on standing (literally) in social context.

Sweden: High living standards, commonality, law of common access. Security. Footing. An increased curiosity and attraction to ilinx, and it’s manifestation in playfulness, creativity and calculated risk taking. Openness to what lies outside (curiosity), afforded by the greater security, footing and commonality. Tradition of hospitality connected to a sense of honour and being a person of substance.

Reasons Swedes are generally received well abroad (?): 1) Not (being viewed as) coming from a position of need. 2) Being perceived as not having a history of exploitation (i.e. not putting others in a position of need).

Recognition that need distorts/alters human interaction profoundly. Allowing/facilitating social self-sufficiency, thereby enabling voluntary, rather than need-driven, interaction.

From a platform of basic sufficiency and ease; interpreting occasional need as a sign of trust and an opportunity to practice privilege in action, i.e. being in the fortunate position of being able to help, assist or share.

The Enclosures Act vs the Law of Common Access.

Procreative strategy has been proven to be affected by perception of prospects – when people have poorer prospects, they have more children at a younger age. If the fundamental sense of footing, or standing in society, is systematically challenged, it is likely to affect procreative strategy not just on an individual level, but to have potentially wider effects. This would eventually lead to a vicious circle with more and more people who have poor footing, sharing a territory that does not increase physically in size – without the help of aggressive appropriation or exploitation of other territories.

Colonisation yields resources, but not physical ‘home’ territory. The socio-psychological benefits cannot easily replace a sense of footing, or belonging.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: