How often do you say “no” to things that would interfere with your goals?

---

The post discusses the challenge of saying “no” in relationships, emphasizing its necessity for personal goals. It contrasts human social structures with those of animals, noting that while animals may act instinctively without expectations, humans, driven by complex feelings and desires, engage in relationships where both kindness and selfishness coexist. The narrative highlights that negation can be an art requiring courage and self-prioritization. It concludes that mutualism is vital in human interactions, advocating for a balance between helping others and maintaining one’s own needs, suggesting that negation can be beneficial in fostering healthy relationships.

---

Saying no can be a daunting task for someone. It is very difficult when one is in a relationship. It can be any relation, parents, family or extended family, friends or colleagues. It depends upon how one takes relations and gives weightage to it. Denying is an art; similarly, accepting it is also difficult as it requires more energy and a broad horizon of thought processes.

Human beings are social. Society is a conglomerate of different families and varied individuals. Since the dawn of civilization, humans have understood the necessity of bonding with each other, which later became an institution. The thought process is the path that leads to culture and, ultimately, to civilization.

With the growth in complexities of thoughts, necessities increased, and with that, the interdependence of human beings also increased proportionately. The necessities gave rise to many things including bartering. It later solidified into commerce and trade. The complexities of human nature, amalgamated with desires and a sense of possessions, started giving rise to formalising things, sometimes meticulously. It was necessary to have everything on record to be used as and when required.

Looking at the animal world as a whole, it becomes clear that higher groups are more structured and organised in comparison to lower animal groups. Nevertheless, some of the lower groups of animals, like ants, termites (white ants) and bees, show an organised societal life. Despite being tagged as social animals, they are not seen as dependent on others in the colony. Let us look at it a little deeper.

The society of animals like ants, termites (white ants), and bees are compartmentalised. Bees, for instance, have a queen, drones and worker bees. Their work is clearly defined. It is a eusocial form of society in which the queens and drones have the sole role of producing eggs which become adults after some time, while the worker bees have the sole task of creating a positive environment for the queens and drones to produce progenies. Workers do the job of food procurement, cleaning the cells and tending to the queens. They have no grudges, nor do they expect anything other than doing what is required of them.

In this type of social structure, stratification is well-organised and is controlled by a chemical substance called pheromone. It determines their functions and duties, not their brain. It goes without saying that their brains are not capable of thinking. They can only perceive impulses and react to them. The complexities of thoughts that give rise to desires are absent, making them act mindlessly like slaves.

In the higher groups of animals like birds and mammals, the thought process is not visible; they can perceive emotions and hence show parental care. Birds and mammals produce offspring, nurture them, teach them about the challenges of life and let them go. They do not develop a strong bond like human beings. Adults have the freedom to live their own lives without interference from their parents. They do not even remember or recognise them.

The life of an animal is simple and linear. In the absence of a brain that is devoid of thinking and logic, they do not have any expectations from anyone. Each individual adult animal procures its food, mates and produces their progenies instinctively, without application of mind. So, what makes a human different from other animals?

It is their highly developed brain that makes them different. Humans have sentiments, feelings and a tendency to bond. Their bond is dependent on requirements and necessities. It can be phasic or for a short duration, and even individual-centric. Individuals are at the centre stage of thoughts, followed by family and society in order of preference. Feelings of mine and thine are important factors that fix the priority.

Thinking about the self is intrinsic, but it is not considered good. During ancient times and even in modern times, to a large extent, benevolence, helping others, mutual trust and a feeling of service are considered virtues that decide the quality of a human being. Unlike animals, parental care is at its pinnacle in human beings. Parents not only care for their children but also try to inculcate virtues in their psyche. Truthfulness and trustworthiness are the qualities every individual wants, but do they follow them at the individual level?

Different thought processes, preferences and choices make every individual different. It is a huge motely gathering of people where each individual thinks and acts differently. Broadly speaking, people are grouped into two groups. They are good and bad people. Those who are not good are categorized as bad individuals. The qualities of a good person are not difficult to find, although they are subjective. The thing considered good is necessarily not good for some others in a given situation. Broadly, nevertheless, there is a consensus.

A good one is always ready to help others, kind-hearted, polite and behaved. Many more qualities depend upon individual perception. Along with these virtues, there are negative feelings are also seen in individuals. Human beings are not absolute. Expecting everything good in an individual is futile and impractical.

The deep-rooted values and virtues hinder a person not doing bad to others. They are always ready to help those who are in need and seldom say no to anyone. They are considered a man of Gotham. Seemingly “smart” people try to use such kind-hearted, simple people to fulfil their selfish motives. They use them and then discard them. Some people view such an attitude positively, while others disdain it.

People who are garrulous about their “good qualities” are often not broad-minded. Their narcissistic attitude is the prime cause of not accepting negation. They consider it their personal insult and feel offended. Worse still, they start taming ill feelings for the person to the extent that they conspire against him. This negative trait is derogatory in public and private relationships alike. A narcissist always thinks and talks, keeping himself or herself in an omphalous position. They do not care about others’ feelings and feel that their whims are commands for others. They negate others but can’t take it sportingly.

At times negation is necessary. People who take others for granted, need to taste negation as well. Acceptance is good but negation is equally good. It can act as a medicine to cure many diseases. Asking for a favour with a person going for an important work, for example, is not wise. Feeling offended in case he negates is even more offensive. It wanes the good personality traits.

As has been said earlier, negation is an art. It needs courage and will. Negation sometimes hurts the sentiment of the person seeking a favour. It has to be seen that it does not affect much to him or her while negating. Self-priority is necessary. It becomes all the more important when the seeker is thick-skinned and wants to seek help to fulfil his/her wish at the cost of the giver. One has to choose the choice. It is unwise to ignore one’s own priorities.

A student who is going to take part in an examination should not be expected to carry out other work of others as this will jeopardize his future, nor should others expect it. It is a common occurrence that people often criticize negation, ignoring past good deeds. Selfish behaviour is not liked by others. It is a strong negative trait. Ironically, no one wants to be tagged as negative or selfish. Expecting unreasonable and impractical is a self-centred approach viewed with castigation.

In the light of the above discourse, it is clear that mutualism is the best choice. Every one of us is a blend of good and bad. The tilted balance towards good is considered good, while the opposite is not good. Balance is the most needed thing that keeps harmony. A little adjustment is acceptable to all, but a lopsided attitude is not good for anyone, which is bound to lead to the exploitation of one by another.

Helping the needy is a virtue. It, though, needs to be seen that while doing good to others, the doer is not harmed. It must be mutual. Thus, a negation is sometimes essential. Keeping an open-eyed approach can be the best way.

-END-