(001) Kindness

Witty opening hook goes here - (stating the absence of a hook here is used ironically by there being a lack of said hook in an attempt to return to wit – now explaining the bit, which was already obvious, has caused this dissection to fall into meaninglessness so a launch into the discussion without a little academic Storytime is needed, which, unfortunately, is also kitsch).

Without getting into the weeds yet, stated simply, we are shaped by our interactions with others. It is somewhat of a debate whether our interactions and experiences (nurture) or our genetics (nature) is the primary driver in shaping what we call “ourselves”. On the side of nature, we have major defining items like anxiety, OCD, depression, and various chronic illnesses due to our genetic makeup. For example, my example, I find anxiety a key driver in my creative side. Granted, it has caused me to be incredibly cautious about expressing myself socially, but the attention to small details and my observant mind have helped in another way. It is like balancing the scales of genetic fortune – one debilitating trait tied with another trait that fuels a passion. On the side of nurture, we have stuff like trauma, how our parents raised us, traits of our friends (and what they value), social pressures, and exposure to cultures outside our own. A major player in most nurture-related experiences is how others treat us. Were we expressed love by our parents, or possibly disdain or indifference? Did they treat us with respect, or were they the all-powerful commander of the home? Similarly, how have the ones we idolized treated us and shown compassion? The question of kindness runs deep in how we raise children, build relationships, convince others, change ideals, and, particularly for my discussion, design habitats for fragile humans.

               Often, words stick with us as children, and even a quick remark by someone can stay with us for years. I, for example, was told once that I was chubby by someone I trusted as a friend because I didn’t have a six-pack at the ripe age of seven years. Yet almost every time I look down at my reasonably flat and, at times, athletic belly, I can still hear his voice in the back of my mind calling me names. Another example is when I was asked why I didn’t get a 100% on a calculus midterm instead of the 98% I got. This led to a general sense of petrification when faced with academic failure or not performing well on tests. A is for average, as they say… right?

               Remarks by others may have innocent intentions, if not to hype us up and express our admiration for another. However, the web of complex interactions and interpretations in our minds can quickly skew this praise. I particularly find phrases like “skinny legend,” “academic weapon,” and “fun on the weekends” horrid descriptors for people. We may use them as endearing terms, but the underlying less immediate connotations perpetuate unhealthy habits. That’s why it is so important to be conscious of the words we say to others. A level further than words would be treating people with compassion and empathy through actions and expressions. This discussion is, in part, why I am so terrified of raising a child. That little person may pick up on well-intentioned comments and construe them negatively in their unaware mind. I will be responsible for the ankle biter and how they learn to react to issues they may face in the maddening “outside” world. Will they be able to handle the stresses of life, or will they end up relying elsewhere for respite?

               This can come back to how we treat others in the professional world. We cannot treat our peers and coworkers like children – however, perhaps children should not be treated like children either. Nothing is better than being treated with respect and trusted for our abilities. Further, nothing is better than being treated with kindness. Even if we fail or need guidance, being treated with respect and compassion is critical in that moment of failure. To be talked down to, criticized, or threatened in a time of failure only reinforces that to fail is to be less than someone. Which is, by all standards, incorrect. We sometimes attribute actions and results to personal worth, which is unhealthy, but interactions where we are criticized for failure reinforce negative self-worth. In a situation like this, it is better to talk through the issues and focus on the improvement moving forward, not dwell on the mistake and reprimand.

               Now, if this were something longer, everything previous would be the introduction. The reasoning for showing the identities of kindness is to show that we as people are formed by compassion. However, the note that should be implied is that we are more potently shaped by cruelty. So, minimally, for our own sake, we should want to reduce cruelty in the world.

There was a commencement speech by the Governor of Illinois in 2023 at Northwestern University, and in that speech, he correlated kindness to intelligence. Using this framework, I would like to connect this to the formation of people and, as agents of a collective, society. Cruelty is used to gain power or suppress those who are not like us. It is used by the unintelligent to control others. It can be seen as an easy way out, don’t deal with the consequences of forming connections and push everyone else under. As stated earlier, cruelty and a lack of kindness can critically impact how people are formed. Part of the reason people are cruel is they can’t intellectually break the bonds of evolution and see beyond us V.S. them arguments. Difference is seen as danger. As the governor put it, “In order to be kind, we have to shut down our animal instinct and force our brain to travel a different pathway.” We must understand cruelty is not a valid method of treating other humans and choose compassion.

How we build and plan architecture can cause cruelty. A function of architecture is building conditioned spaces. Those spaces are inhabited by people who are vastly different than us. They have varied needs and identities and frequently “misuse” the space we design for reasons we cannot predict. So, when given the opportunity to reduce cruelty in design, why should we not do so? There seems to be little good reason in modern society to create architecture that purposefully marginalizes certain groups. This issue quickly becomes political.

Gender-neutral bathrooms, accessibility for the differently abled, what types of imagery can/should be displayed in public spaces, and who has access to various essential resources are a few of the issues concerned with cruelty. Outside of what one's political stance may be, if given we want to reduce cruelty and that kindness often reaps favorable results, it seems not a far leap to connect one's desire for kindness to accepting the issues at hand as things to consider. Which, unfortunately, can be an immensely difficult task to make most do. David Foster Wallace, in his winding piece Authority and American Usage, which I was subjected to recently (here would be a footnote marker saying I actually enjoyed the reading contrary to the previous statement), has an interpolation (82-83) in a way proposing his ideas that binary definitions or stances on issues like this are irrational. Obviously, he states this in a significantly more textured way and clearly states that he is an autonomous unit of society making this statement. A key part here is that, unfortunately, no matter how he feels about the matter of Pro-Life or Pro-Choice (which he is discussing in the interpolation only), there are moral constraints when trying to assimilate others into his way of thinking. If you are confused here, go read the interpolation. It’s useful, but bear in mind that perhaps in the last twenty-four years since it was written, there has been an array of moral arguments proposed on the issue of abortion.

This moral dilemma of perhaps knowing what an educated stance would be and how you cannot impose it on others further reinforces the idea that, unfortunately, architecture can be stuck as a social tool constrained by similar moral issues. Particularly, it is also constrained by a function of the democratic process, which can allow minor code laws to juristic cruelty. The example that comes to mind is a local code law that only allowed two kinds of signage indicating bathrooms. Clearly, this minor detail in the law allowed a side of the powers at be to disallow gender-neutral bathrooms in an elementary school. Whether one believes that they should or should not be allowed, one should at least be able to concede to the fact that if prescribing ways of living usually is morally messy, then to prescribe how and where someone can relieve themselves may be flawed.

               This can get sticky quickly and will get sticky for a myriad of reasons. However, it is important to discuss because it illustrates the constraints on creating social architecture, or architecture that reduces cruelty. It can be a dilemma of imposing ideals on others to begin to delegate who has access to what and for what reasons. However, outside of specific examples, if kindness breeds better people and allows us to attribute self-worth outside the reactions to our actions, then maybe a simple answer to this kind of question would be to take the path with less cruelty. Choose options that make more people comfortable in a system that can be frequently exclusionary. Or, in the words of my incredibly intelligent grandmother, now in her prime gossip age – choose kindness.