Cultivate the most interesting and practical psychology every day
The social relations between people are diverse. On the one hand, blood and marriage constitute the most basic structure of human society, and in addition, secondary relationships such as geography and karma also enrich society and people. These relationships exist because there is a certain "obligation" or some kind of "bondage" behind it that can maintain its long-term maintenance.
Many people also often deliberately pay attention to the connection between them when interacting with people, such as common characteristics, the same interests, and so on.
However, among the many "bonds" that make up social relations, there is one that can feel elusive, that is, the "debt relationship".
The reason why quotation marks are added is because this relationship is a broad type of relationship represented by money lending, and there will be some other levels of "indebtedness" behind it, such as "indebtedness" in Chinese society.
Smart people rarely lend money to others, and the reason hides the most unbearable truth of human nature, and lending money to others is tantamount to cultivating "enemies", not believing you and seeing.
Of course, among these relationships, the most common is the monetary lending relationship. Why is it that such social relationships can be tricky?
As the famous writer and poet Rabindranath tagore said, "Once a bird has a money bag on its wings, it can no longer fly high." ”
Money, in its inception, existed as a general equivalent. However, with the development of society, its symbolic meaning has become more and more, and more and more people have favored money, so money has slowly become synonymous with power, status and relationships, and its meaning is no longer pure.
So when a person desperately wants to get money, perhaps the motivation behind it is complicated. As the saying goes, "A gentleman loves money and has a way to get it." ”
And once someone covets the symbolic meaning behind money, it is very likely that they will take some abnormal measures. Borrowing money from others can be regarded as one of the more rudimentary of these "abnormal" means, that is, passing on financial relationships to others.
Let's imagine if an individual always has a plan for his own expenses and lives economically within his own spending power, will he be short of money? The answer is no.
Similarly, if a person does not have too much demand for things outside of his ability, will he take the initiative to borrow money from others? The answer is also no.
Therefore, we can roughly understand that those who borrow money are often those who do not consume according to the plan and lead to a deficit on hand, or are too eager for something that they cannot afford to consume.
So when you lend them money, this deficit or the hard life brought about by the desire will be passed on to you, and the conversion of this relationship is nothing more than a creditor relationship between you.
So whether you can protect this creditor's rights relationship within the scope of your ability is the key to the problem, just like some people say, "It is the uncle who owes money, and it is the grandson who borrows the money." "Although it is a bit vulgar, it is not rough.
To put it simply, today's money has long been more than just a currency of ordinary value, but also has a richer symbolic meaning. After borrowing money, whether you can ensure that the bond relationship between you is stable and the other party can return the money to you has become the key to affecting your relationship.
As analyzed above, this kind of lending behavior with money as a material appearance adds a new relationship between people - the bond relationship.
This relationship is not just as simple as it seems on the surface, but has rich connotations. The study of similar relationships is typical in the social sciences, especially in anthropology.
Marcel Mauss, in his book The Gift (aka On Giving), gives many examples—such as the "potlatch" in the Americas, which appeared in the investigation of the famous anthropologist Franz Boas, which was a banquet in which many local rich people gathered together to take out their possessions and collections, or generously give them to others, or simply destroy them in front of everyone.
This kind of behavior shows that wealth does not only have a material meaning, but also a social status meaning: after the "feast of wealth", those who give the most and destroy the most will be admired by everyone and have a higher social status.
Similarly, in modern social life, when a sum of money is lent out, the borrower and the debt convenience have a relationship in addition to the economic relationship at the same time - the borrower has wealth on hand, indicating that its economic conditions are better and its social status is higher.
Being able to help in times of crisis shows that his character is upright and very righteous; in addition to the "indebtedness" of property, this "indebtedness" at the level of "human feelings" will be continued, at least until the money is repaid, the debtor's attitude towards the borrower should be "grateful"... Similar relationships will always exist.
Therefore, based on this "indebtedness" relationship, there will be a "give-receive-give-give" relationship chain in human society, and the mediator is most likely money, or it may be other substances.
As analyzed above, debt relations lead to unequal social relations, which of course presuppose to the fact that both parties are more upright and trustworthy. But we forget that human nature sometimes does not stand the test. Even if the relationship is pure, once it is mixed with interests, it will become no longer the same as before.
When you pour out your help to a friend in distress, from your point of view, you may be the "savior" who generally saves the other party, but for the other party, this meaning is far less obvious than the meaning of the temporary lifting of the economic crisis.
Maybe verbally thank you and remember you in every way, but this money is in the hands of the other party after all, and whether you can return it to you is extremely uncertain.
Money itself may not be the most difficult, when your relationship from the original relationship of not mixed with any interests, to the creditor relationship brought about by the "imbalance", perhaps a lot of interaction will become awkward - if many friends together in the party, one of them is their "creditor", then they are bound to think about it, the probability will be absent; similarly, if you see a friend who owes you money on some occasions, then you will feel unnatural, as if the words will involve the money between each other.
All in all, normal social relationships will be "corroded" by the smell of copper. In the long run, even if there is no contradiction between you, the relationship will become much stranger, and even become an "enemy" is natural.
Property is not easy to come by, and you should also be careful when dealing with money.
- the end - The author | Tommy Edit the | Rain The First Psychological Chief Writer Group | A group of young people who like to look up at the stars 参考资料：vogel, d. l., & wester, s. r. (2003). to seek help or not to seek help: the risks of self-disclosure. journal of counseling psychology, 50(3), 351. WeChat public account: the first psychology