On the Pursuit of Poverty

I thought the title had a nice ring to it, albeit nonsensical. Do you remember all those times of playing Monopoly, trying to roll the dice so as to miss integral properties, missing the free parking, and the “Go directly to jail: do not pass go; do not collect $200”? Me neither. Who plays Monopoly to lose? I’m not sure if this is relevant, but ‘monopoly’ is an oxymoron: “single-many.” Or is it? “[Only] one has many.”

Monopoly was played frequently enough in my adolescence to sate my appetite for it well into adulthood. But for those who enjoy playing it, myself included, it’s not hard to see why it has such an addictive quality: everyone starts out from the same place, the same amount, both equitably and equally. What a warming sentiment. But soon enough, the stakes and beats per minute run high. Participants often tend to point to the individual player as responsible for their own crushing losses, but the more powerful culprit is gravity and inertia, with their influence over the outcome of each roll of the dice. In other words, physics, also known as “fate,” is mainly responsible for each players’ outcome: crippling rags, or exorbitant wealth. There is little room for in-between, unless a player pulls out before the game finishes. But that isn’t winning, is it?

A smart individual would play with loaded dice, with such a fate dependent on such large, intractable cosmic forces, which becomes a matter of ethical debate. But what is ethics if not a handicap applied to other players so as to prevent them from beginning with as much equity to win?--in other words, loading dice to give oneself a leg up, and creating ambiguous-enough boundaries of ethics (rules) to knock others down a peg at the start. It’s subtle enough that it seems fair, even, giving the impression that winning is based on skill and wise choices instead of playing god with physics and philosophy.

Many people become easily indignant when the concepts of ethics are challenged, which is why ethics works as a ball and chain for those who aren’t willing to play Monopoly at the expense of other players. What’s curious is what would be the outcome of players who all participated with loaded dice? There are still the variables of who goes first, and the order of the deck, unless it was stacked prior. Very quickly, Monopoly has actually become a game of skill and wits, though not in the sense that “skill” is traditionally considered. The best way to ensure that the game is played with as little interference from cosmic forces as possible, but also equitably is that everyone shuffles part of the deck and does their best at loading their dice prior.

As for choosing who goes first?--there are a few potential options. The lowest dice roll, or the highest. If one of these methods is agreed upon, one must cross their fingers that they not only loaded their dice the best, but also picked the highest/lowest numbers, which would also ultimately affect gameplay. Though someone even smarter would bring two loaded dice per number to control for all probable combinations. Another option would be a method along the lines of drawing straws, drawing a card from the deck, etc. However, there is no guarantee the odds haven’t been stacked, and if a third party is brought in, that they aren’t partial. Additionally, there is another possibility of sabotage between players. In spite of all this, the cosmic forces at play have not only been reduced, but taken advantage of, and instead of depending on the hope and expectation that others will abide by a rigorous moral code, one can trust that every other player will likely ardently pursue victory in any way possible.

Such a system reduces unpredictability, but also undermines an intrinsic, psychological need in humans: trust. Playing Monopoly in a cutthroat manner may certainly make for an exciting event, but what if the game did not end with financial dominance and the bankruptcy of others, but rather the death of the players? Trusting that the players will strive for dominance to no end except their own, the game not only becomes about wit and skill, but also physical prowess. That is a much more difficult variable to control for. And once someone wins, at the cost of all the other players’ deaths, then what?

*********

This metaphor ravaged my mind at the wee hours of the morning, rising up before the sun. Monopoly isn’t actually a game; it’s real life: an ugly truth turned into a simplified, polished, board game. Like Jumanji, once started, it has to be finished. And the aforementioned need for trust?--one would be hard-pressed to refute it, with the empirical data that has accounted for different cultural perspectives. And trust isn’t the only need shown to be necessary for human psychological wellness. Trust is a part of one of three basic needs: relatedness, competence, and autonomy, or more understandably put, connection, a feeling of capability, and self-sanctioned decision making (or choice) (Ryan & Deci, 2017).

What standards should we as a collective choose when participating in “Monopoly”? Would a cutthroat method support evolution--only the best survives? Even if so, what is “the best,” especially if dominance is achieved at the expense of psychological wellness? (And yes, both deprivation and active thwarting of the needs has adverse effects on well-being).

Psychological unwellness is not a solitary event, only remaining with the individual. No--it affects their perspective, beliefs, thoughts, motivations, choices, actions, and genetic makeup (epigenetics). If that person reproduces, both the nurture-versus-nature arguments withstand: the genes are already predisposed to unwellness, and the parenting style is also affected, which affects the child(ren)’s outlook. Without intervention, this trend continues. So, in the immediate view, a cutthroat participation might seem like it supports human evolution, but with longevity, it actually undermines it.

Now back to that silly, silly title. Though ‘poverty’ was initially intended as financial lack, ‘poverty’ can mean the lack of any need, physical or psychological. But for the sake of rhetoric and understanding, ‘financial poverty’ specifically is used, so, who would pursue financial poverty? In a system that sets monetary ownership as a secondary need (necessary for fulfilling the primary, unavoidable needs for wellness), wouldn’t everyone be pursuing financial gain? Not necessarily dominance, but a robust resource so as to be able to account for satiating need and then some, in case of dire need or emergency?

In the same way that advantage or loss is inaccurately attributed to the individual in Monopoly for players who follow the rules, thrusting themselves at the mercy of grander cosmic forces, so are inaccurate attributions pasted to those participating in life--i.e., everyone. Instead of recognizing this, an ethical, quantitatively-causal relationship is thought to be the driving force behind financial wealth--that is, “X must have worked hard to obtain Z,” or in other words, that input is directly proportional to output.

Without taking a step back to critically analyze such scenarios, cognitive shortcuts are used to assume that the majority of other participants in life-Monopoly are playing ethically, which results in bitter disappointment and affronts when someone is discovered to be using the rules of the universe and human nature to their advantage, especially if done at the expense of others. Therefore, is participating in the system according to artificial ethics (i.e. law) really a pursuit of poverty? Who sets the ethics (makes the rules)? What motivates them to create the ethics they do? Who approves them, and why? Even if unconsciously asked, these questions are a part of the root of any revolution, which can be a collective evolution, albeit a costly one.

*********

I was angry when I woke up this morning and couldn’t fall back asleep. The harder I’ve tried to diversify my income (and therefore the more I’ve made) seems like it’s backfiring. I keep getting hit with financial penalties for small errors, which reinforces an already well-established post-traumatic stress disorder that any imperfection is costly, no matter how small, adding to an already tense hypervigilance. Not only is it mea culpa, but the errors of others is also costly, eroding what precious trust I’ve attempted to cultivate and recoup from a lifetime of emotional bankruptcy. A service I had cancelled prior, over phone, still charged me, sending one account into the red. And because I don’t have any supporting documents, I was not granted a refund, leading me to automatically kick myself that I didn’t piecemeal a trail of evidence for every decision I made; I’ve been trying to reduce this anxious compulsion, but alas it’s only reinforced the one time I didn’t subscribe to it. Additionally, a separate service charged the wrong card, sending my other account further into the red.

Not only am in the most debt I’ve been in in my life, but I’m also making the most money I’ve ever made in my life: $9k a year. Yes, that’s right. Nine. Thousand. The arguments often presented as the reason for a person’s poverty kept cropping up in my mind as I seethed angrily at them. Clearly, I haven’t tried hard enough by going to university and earning my master’s degree. Additionally, I am very lazy because my disabilities have never allowed me to work the arbitrarily-established “full-time” of forty hours a week, so I am very selfish to want to not be in physical and mental duress, not to mention actually have time to enjoy my life. Yes, I am very entitled, and all the hard work and time I have put into volunteering, networking, healing, growing, skill-building, and learning are unmistakably mooching from the system of everyone else’s hard work since I use services such as Food Stamps and Medicaid, and have never been fully financially independent. No doubt I am foolish with my money, since I haven’t invested any of my accrued debt to stocks, bonds, or Certificates of Deposit. What’s a deadbeat such as myself supposed to do? Embezzle? Sell on the black market? Couch surf?

Please tell me, for I haven’t a clue. But since following one’s personal morality and financial reassurance seem to be at such dichotomous odds with each other, I suppose I have inadvertently chosen the pursuit of poverty, so that I may sleep at night with an unladen conscience.

Reference

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic

psychological needs  in motivation, development, and wellness. New

York: Guilford Press