1 min read

The accommodater vs. the accommodated

I notice feeling a dualism of roles: The one who accommodates and the one who is accommodated. This is a little like the 'helper'-'helped' relationship described in E-mailing the Lamas from Afar and a little like "the strongest person in our culture is the baby" (Adlerian psychology via The Courage to Be Disliked via Visakan Veerasamy's thread about that book). The full tweet quotes Adler saying that:

The baby rules over the adults with his weakness. And it is because of this weakness that nobody can control him.

In E-mailing the Lamas from Afar, there's this passage:

In western culture, benefitting others means ‘helping’ them, and that help is often most culturally valued when it is at the expense of the helper’s own well-being. This is so deeply ingrained that most of the time we do not notice it, but it is obvious when one looks at the so-called ‘helping professions’. These professions—nurse, teacher, social worker, mother—are almost always poorly compensated. We value them, and yet we accept the fact that such people receive little reward. As anyone who has known a few schoolteachers can attest, people who devote their lives to these activities wind up exhausted and resentful at least as often as they wind up spiritually fulfilled. Who actually wants to be benefitted at such a cost?

I think the accommodater/accommodated dualism is about the intersection of these two ideas. It comes with a sense that the accommodated is weak and must be benefited at the accommodater's cost. The dualism can come with a sense of contempt for the accommodated. It also comes with a fear of being the accommodated and therefore a weakling who costs their accommodater.