Reciprocity is not transactional

Awhile back, I posted on corporate life artifacts left in my behavior and thinking that are NOT that useful outside of corporate circles. There were two fundamental aspects, a) urgency to complete, i.e., the result, and b) the transactional nature of all interactions and relationships. While studying more astute thinkers and mystics (Braiding Sweet Grass for example), the notion of reciprocity surfaces with some confusion possible for western logical thinkers honed in corporate world. It’s easy to think ‘transaction’ as an element of reciprocity.

They are different! Even on a philogical basis, they are different. From a spiritual or philosophical perspective they could hardly be more different.

The philology here is striking! Moving back and forth vs driving through. Bi-directional vs unidirectional. I add that transactions seem to carry a ‘winner and a loser’; seldom do we articulate transactions without profit (regardless of how that is constructed). Reciprocity is bi-directional sharing without profit, without a winner or loser – both succeed. – Mutual benefit.

Going back to chasing attitudes and mental models to create behavior changes (Elephant fence example), how we mentally frame our interactions with the world (Mother Earth, animals, plants, or other humans) creates the outcomes and the interaction model. I choose reciprocity moving forward. What do you choose? I vow to continue weeding out transactions not of an economic sale … and to be fully reciprocal in my non-economic interactions – the ones that really matter with Mother Earth and her creatures.

Which would you prefer?

Or this

Images generated by MSFT CoPilot