Growing up I heard and believed the adage, ‘tis better to give than to receive.’ Especially considering the neuroscientific aspect of it, the spritz of dopamine, the so-called ‘helpers high’ dousing our brains when donating to others, the homely advice made perfect sense. Pushing our own immediate needs to the side seems to be an absolute consensus in a society painfully bereft of them. It does make sense.
Until it doesn’t. Until we take a moment to study the human instinct to give through the often-hazy lens of self-care, and self-worth.
With few exceptions, it feels good to give to others, whether it’s our time, treasure, or trinkets. It does make us feel good. And it does indeed light up our brain in a way that seems to label the giving almost a selfish act. But recently, for those same selfish reasons, I’ve chiseled away at the socially sacred saying and carved out a new interpretation that had not occurred to me. In a counterintuitive way giving too much can diminish the donation.
Let me explain. Giving something to another person, whether or not they need that thing, or even ask for it — money, food, time, warm socks, no matter — is seen as valuable by our tribe. ‘Good for you,’ we hear, and ‘Good for us’ we feel as if we’ve furthered the well-being of our group. But have we really?
Recently, we’ve given, and given, and given yet more, more, and more, until we stopped to assess. We’re in no danger of living under a bridge, far from it, but we also subscribe to the law of reciprocity, and it seems to us to have been suspended for a time.
In short, and to be as gracious as I know to be, I’ve come to realize that many people today are stranded on a transactional one-way street.
That is, regardless of what we’ve given, nothing comes back, and the realization of this is difficult to accept.
We don’t give with the expectation of return, and we remain happy to help in any way we can. We long ago understood that receiving takes many forms, and we’re grateful for any successes we’ve been honored to assist. But the nagging sense of being taken for granted has become a constant. I now believe I know why. The old saying needs a new translation.
It’s not better to give OR to receive. Both gestures have equal weight. And here’s the curiosity: By devaluing the receiving part of the equation we diminish the giving part as well. Why? Because, when refusing to receive we signal our lack of self-value. And since we diminish our own value, whatever we donate to another arrives from a source of diminished value. Whatever the gift — money, food, time, warm socks, no matter — is devalued by the giver’s own lowered agency and self-worth. Plus, by devaluing the receiving part, we deny givers the opportunity to rise to the higher level of altruism they might aspire to.
As Rumi wrote 800 years ago, ‘This being human is a guest house.’ So, we persist in being our generous selves, even when a ‘crowd of sorrows’ arrives clearing our house ‘for a new delight.’ Will we continue to give, give, and give? Yes, of course. But we’re learning to be a lot more accepting as well. It’s not easy in a culture that values self-sufficiency above all else. But keeping the new equation in mind and sending our new energy out with those warm socks will make a difference as well. ‘Tis as well to receive as to give’ is our new mantra, and it feels a lot better.
