Against Our Interests
A common phrase in American politics is that certain groups “act against their own interests.” From the left, we hear about white rural activists and voters who support agendas that undermine the social programs that would foster sustainability—we hear this about white women who vote for misogynists who would take away their right to choose—we hear this about Black conservatives who don’t support racial equity policies like affirmative action. Our reactive analysis is often that these groups must be driven by fear, anger, or hate (of the self or the other) more than their own “self-interest.”
Often when we say someone is going against their interests, we mean that their actions seem to cost more than they gain: When our co-worker passes up a promotion again and again, when a friend chooses romantic partners that are “bad for them,” when a family member blows off opportunity after opportunity.
Rather than asking ourselves why people are acting “against their interests,” I think the better question is—Do we understand what their interests are?
More often than not we’re making value judgments based on what we assume someone’s interests should be. In other words, we are measuring someone’s actions by what we expect them to want (or, more likely, what we have learned is important and valuable)—rather than a meaningful understanding of their interests.
Understanding Interests
A common misunderstanding about interests is that they are somewhat universal, like basic human needs. Everyone needs food, water, air, shelter, security, social affirmation—therefore we assume we are all similarly motivated by maximizing our access to these same things. When we perceive people to be limiting or compromising their own access to those things, we say they’re “acting against their interests” (or maybe we just say they’re acting irrationally).
Yet even among our basic human needs, we are not all motivated to meet those needs in the same ways.
Example: Consider a person who has no shelter (a basic need) and is offered housing. In order to obtain that housing they would have to quit drinking and/or give up their dog. Not all people will take the same action, even though we all need shelter. Our interests determine which needs are most salient for us—to have a companion, to cope with our emotional struggles in an accessible way, to have a roof over our heads.
An interest is a desire, goal, or motivating factor in someone’s life—these are the “pros” on our list when making big decisions like which apartment to rent, whether or not to adopt a puppy, or what kind of job to pursue.
Interests might include: having free time, living ethically, being physically or spiritually well, financial comfort/ease, being generous, cleanliness, following certain teachings, attaining skill or knowledge, independence or the ability to “make it on one’s own,” cooperation and/or communal relations, being traditionally successful, being innovative, taking care of family…
Example: Consider being offered a higher paying job with benefits in a profession that you felt was morally or ethically compromising. Your interest might be financial security or abiding an ethical commitment—or you may have an interest in both, but one will outweigh the other.
When it comes to politics, interests aren’t the policies we pick but the why of which policies, systems, or strategies we choose to support or not. We may assume that a pro-life woman is “going against her interests” by voting to ban abortion because this limits her medical choices—but that assumes that her interest is in having the most choice. Her interest might be living out her religious values, preventing medical overreach, or something else altogether. That doesn’t mean she doesn’t want medical choice in general, rather that in this instance the most salient interest (the greatest number of “pros”) lies elsewhere.
Similarly, a rural farmer may seem to be going against her interests when advocating against environmental regulations that would preserve the health of her land, but in that moment her most salient interest may be independence from government oversight.
To that point—interests aren’t constant. Our interests change over time in both the depth of their importance to us and their importance to us in a particular moment in time. Our circumstances and conditions at a given point shape our interests. When we’re young, having adventures and going our own way may be our most salient interests, but we may find that security and interdependence become more important as we get older—that doesn’t mean we stop wanting adventure, rather that with time and circumstance our most salient interests will change.
Getting to Know Interests
When we go into a conflict assuming that everyone’s interests are the same as our own, or that we know what someone’s interests are based on our knowledge of their circumstances, we tend to find their choices mystifying. We’re prone to an ego-driven rush to judgment, assuming that they’re too stupid or too emotionally motivated to make the decisions that are “in their best interests.” Rather than discussing how we can improve conditions for everyone, we end up telling people how they should or shouldn’t feel.
Once we understand that interests are variable across individuals and groups + fluid across circumstance, it’s relatively simple to approach conflicts over interests.
Our interests are often in much less competition than we tend to think. For example, most pro-life and pro-choice supporters both have an interest in the wellbeing of children and mothers—though they disagree about one specific policy, they could work together on improving the lives of children in fostercare, addressing maternal and infant mortality, and expanding access to prenatal care. That isn’t to say that these two groups will do this or won’t conflict. But, where our positions and values may seem fundamentally opposed, we can often be more flexible and have less tension when it comes to acting out our interests.
First, we can ask what someone’s interests are rather than assuming.
If interests are variable and fluid, all we have to do is ask a few questions when a conflict arises. Even if we know someone very well, we shouldn’t analyze their interests on their behalf. Instead, we can ask:
What are the most important factors for you, when making this decision?
Why are those things important to you?
Have they always been important to you, or is this circumstance unique? (see bullet 2 below)
What is it about those things that feel good/significant to you?
Second, we can know the depth and context of both our interests.
From a place of known interests, we can look for room to compromise or be flexible. We should also try to understand what about our current circumstances elevates these particular interests.
Example: Consider having a choice between moving in with a partner or getting your own place. The cost of living, aspects of the relationship, and other conditions all shape which of your interests (independence, interdependence, personal space, financial comfort) has the most power/salience.
Which of these interests are dependent on the other person(s)?
For example, having a large home is a priority for you then it may require having partners or housemates to share the rent; acting out your religious values may not require anyone else’s actions (or it may). In other words: can I achieve or acquire this on my own, or do I need something from someone else?
On a scale of 0 - 10, with 0 being not important and 10 being very important, how salient (significant, meaningful) are each of those interests (factors)?
Would those ratings change if X, Y, or Z were different? Why or why not?
For example: Lowering or raising taxes on large corporations may be more or less important, if a large corporation wasn’t the center of a local economy.
Finally, we can be creative and flexible with the conditions to maximize meeting those interests.
When we shape conditions in which people’s needs are met, their interests become more about personal or community desire than about survival or constraint.
For those things that we depend on each other for, where do we feel we can compromise?
For example: Even though independence is important to you, would you be more interested in living together if you had your own work/play/social space where you could be alone? How about if we made sure we spent time with other people?
Is there anything we can change that would remove obstacles to acting in each of our best interests?
For example: If an environmental problem could be solved by a coalition of community groups rather than by a government intervention, might a farmer be more likely to support it?
How can we both/all act in our best interests, or set up the conditions for that to be possible?
When People Go Against Their Interests
All that said, people do sometimes act against their own interests. How do we know that? They say one thing is the most important thing to them, and then they do something that undermines, compromises, or risks that same interest.
People go against their interests for a few reasons:
Two or more of their interests are in direct competition (living out their values and having financial security), and/or
They’re in conflict with themselves or others about what their interests “should be” (they profess social norms but have personal doubts), and/or
They’re motivated by trauma, fear, or other mental/emotional factors that overpower their own analysis, and/or
…a lot of other complicated reasons.
The point being—often we talk about people who “go against their interests” as if we’re smarter than they are because we know how they should act or what they should choose. The reality is that our interests can be mysterious to us, they can be in conflict with our other interests, and are very often in conflict with the interests that dominant culture professes we should have. In sum, being a human is complicated.
Something about leftist politics that rings very true to me is the idea that people are experts in their own experience. Even when people don’t have a perfect analysis for why something is important to them, there are deeply rooted reasons behind their motivations and desires. Our conflicts will be more compassionate, generative, and healthy if we simply ask more questions about the why behind someone’s actions, rather than assuming they’re irrational or wrong-headed.
Discussion 6: Interests: Think of a decision you had to make with other people. What interests were most important to you? How did they differ from others? How did you reconcile those differences?
Opportunities to Learn + Act
Read: Teaching Racial Justice Isn’t Racial Justice by Benjamin Y. Fong
Read: Some solid advice on not attending holidays this year—Want to skip Thanksgiving dinner with family? Advice from an expert negotiator
Donate: Support 2,429 survivors of gender-based violence through Free From’s direct-to-survivors collection
Listen & Support Indigenous podcasts: Red Power Hour, Red Nation Podcast (both for anti-capitalists); While Indigenous (on building indigenous power); All My Relations, Well for Culture, Unreserved (for people who care about health, wellness, relationships); Métis in Space (science fiction, geekdom); This Land (sort of true crime, sort of history, modern colonialism)
Donate and share: Pueblo Action Alliance is collecting winter gear for indigenous communities; details here
Get in a pod (text chat, e-mail chain, video call) with peers and talk about ways you can unsettle in the coming year—unsettling includes proactively disempowering the colonial empire through policy and organization (divesting wealth and control, shifting power to indigenous communities), giving away generational and accumulated wealth toward indigenous communities (through accountable systems either direct donations or local hubs like Resource Generation), supporting land reclamation and stewardship projects, proactively fighting climate catastrophe, etc.
Image description: A green rectangle with the text: “A warrior confronts colonialism with the truth in order to regenerate authenticity and recreate a life worth living and principles worth dying for. The struggle is to restore connections severed by the colonial machine. The victory is an integrated personality, a cohesive community, and the restoration of respectful and harmonious relationships.” ― Taiaiake Alfred, Wasáse: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom