Universal Giving
Fancy getting into a radical thought experiment: what if everyone was a people-pleaser? Imagine a world where universal giving creates collective well-being.
We hear it all the time, don’t we? Well, I’ve definitely heard it sometimes, and enough for it to stick. People pleasing is a bad idea. You’ve got to look after yourself first, so you’re able to look after others. That’s just one of the ways it’s framed. It’s presented as this undeniable truth, a fundamental principle of adulting, of being responsible. And it sounds right, doesn’t it?
And of course, it is right. In this system. In this form of society. Where we’re all in competition with each other, scrambling to get to the top of some invisible hierarchy, clawing our way up to whatever success looks like in the moment.
Of course, in that kind of world, we absolutely must look out for ourselves first. It’s a matter of survival, isn’t it? So yeah, of course, it’s right. It’s the logical conclusion of and the best tactic for the game we’re all forced to play.
But why can’t we play a different game. A nicer one. Take a moment to share a little thought experiment with me…
What if everyone was a 'people pleaser' in the most expansive sense – yes, everyone driven by a desire to ensure the well-being and happiness of others.
And what if the very notion of 'people pleasing' is what we’ve misunderstood all along? We’ve been conditioned to see it as a form of toxic self-erasure, a ceding of our own needs and boundaries to the whims of others. It’s the doormat mentality, the fear of saying no, the desperate need for external validation. That kind of people-pleasing is indeed unsustainable, wherever you are and whatever you’re doing, and it leaves us drained and resentful. But what if we've been confusing that with something else entirely? What if we've been confusing it with a profound, expansive generosity?
An expansion of the self. A recognition that our well-being is deeply intertwined with the well-being of those around us.
History and modern life are dotted with living proof that humans are capable of organising around principles of care and abundance rather than scarcity and competition. Think of the indigenous gift economies that have thrived for centuries, or the modern mutual aid networks that sprang up during the pandemic.
Imagine a world where everyone – yes, everyone - is a people pleaser. Everyone. Not just a few, not just the ones who are naturally inclined, but everyone. Imagine a world where these kinds of systems weren't the exception, but the norm. Imagine it. Really let it sink in. Have a sip of tea. Take a breath. And imagine it for real.
Everyone.
A world where everyone… every single one of us (or even just the significant significant significant majority of us, if I’m honest, because let’s be realistic, a significant majority would be enough to tip the scales)… Imagine that world… where the big most of us are people pleasers. All of us, going round making others happy! What then? What on earth would it be like?
I’ll tell you what… we’d all be pleased.
That’s flippant, I realise. But….I do actually think it’s almost as simple as that. Really. If everyone’s trying to please everyone else, if everyone’s primary motivation is to ensure the well-being and happiness of those around them, then by definition everyone ends up pleased.
I am talking about a world where the act of giving is the norm, not the exception, and the fear of being taken advantage of simply dissolves because the very act of giving can be trusted to be reciprocated not by a few individuals but by the entire collective; even when you are unable to give due to disabilities or illness for instance, you still receive.
This is the concept of a 'gift economy' where goods and services are given without agreement of immediate or future returns, creating a space for social bonds to form and collective well-being to grow. “The gift economy represents a shift from consumption to contribution, transaction to trust, scarcity to abundance and isolation to community.” taken from Sacred Economics: Money, Gift, and Society in the Age of Transition, Charles Eisenstein, 2011.
But you might then say that reciprocity in a 1-1 interaction is a good thing. Isn’t it? I mean…it’s fair, isn’t it? Get back what you give, or the connection is unfair. It’s the basis of so many of our transactions, our relationships, our very sense of justice. A foundational behaviour of society, even. An equal exchange. And I suppose that’s true, in a way. It certainly provides a sense of balance, a clear expectation, an easy assessment. On a one to one basis, one at a time.
Singularly.
Turning every interaction into a ledger, a meticulous calculation of who owes what to whom, a constant score-keeping exercise, an endless imbalance. Which breeds resentment, suspicion, and a perpetual yet arbitrary and subjective measuring of worth, leading to dissatisfaction following dissatisfaction.
Research by behavioural economists like Dan Ariely highlights how introducing monetary or transactional thinking into social relationships can diminish intrinsic motivation and trust. “So we live in two worlds: one characterized by social exchanges and the other characterized by market exchanges. … introducing market norms into social exchanges … violates the social norms and hurts the relationships.” taken from Predictably Irrational, Dan Ariely, 2008.
So, instead, I’m suggesting we all give. All of us. Freely. All the time. Without exception. To anyone. Without constraint or expecting anything in return.
Sounds unsustainable, right? Sounds like you’d be exploited, left, right and centre. But that’s the conditioned responses of a society built on scarcity and competition.
Think about it… just a little…
It’s pretty simple. Very straightforward.
If EVERYONE was willing and free to give no more than they could (in terms of things, skills, time, knowledge, emotional support, a listening ear, a kind word – anything at all) to ANYONE… If we ALL gave to anyone, easily and freely. ALL of us. ALL the time. Then what?
In that world, where everyone is always willing to give to anyone, one to one transactional reciprocity is either;
a non-thing, because everyone is getting what they need, so their needs are met consistently and effortlessly, and they sense no missing out and have no cause for unfair feelings, and therefore nothing to trigger their need for equal returns, or
reciprocity occurs naturally on a macro scale, in that… if you ask for something you need you will be able to get it because everyone out there is willing to give anything they can to anyone. Not necessarily to the same person from whom they received a thing.
Or both.
Or… perhaps these are simply the same thing said in different ways, two sides of the same beautiful coin.
And, talking of reciprocity happening naturally… to be honest, in nature, reciprocity is precisely what everything does… it’s the whole cycle thing.
This is really how the world works.
The rain gives to the earth, the earth gives to the plants, the plants give to the animals, the animals give back to the earth, enriching it for new life. It’s a constant, effortless flow, a self-sustaining abundance, not a tawdry tit-for-tat transaction.
Ecological studies frequently demonstrate symbiotic relationships where different species benefit from each other without direct, immediate repayment, such as mycorrhizal fungi and plants. In nature, the flow of energy and nutrients is a continuous cycle of giving and receiving, where every element contributes to the health of the whole. “All the trees here, and in every forest that is not too damaged, are connected to each other through underground fungal networks. Trees share water and nutrients through the networks, and also use them to communicate. They send distress signals about drought and disease, for example, or insect attacks, and other trees alter their behavior when they receive these messages.” taken from The Hidden Life of Trees, Peter Wohlleben, 2015.
Now, consider mutual aid networks, like those that sprang up during the pandemic, or historical gift economies. These aren't theoretical utopias; they are real-world examples where communities thrive on collective giving without strict score-keeping. When we expect direct and measurable reciprocity, we cut off this natural, expansive cycle of giving between all humans and we reduce people pleasing to danger and risk.
Imagine if trees only helped trees that had previously given them nutrients! Imagine if the fungus refused to carry messages from trees that hadn’t paid them in some way!
During the COVID-19 pandemic, I was lucky enough to be part of emergency work to support people in my local community and I saw how numerous local mutual aid groups formed (a model that automatically replicated globally), providing food, supplies, medicine, and support to vulnerable community members based on need, not repayment. And many people said to me that they had always wanted to help people more, but they didn’t feel our world left them the time to help. “Mutual aid is a form of political participation in which people take responsibility for caring for one another and changing political conditions, rather than waiting for institutions to do so.” taken from Mutual Aid: Building Solidarity During This Crisis (and the Next), Dean Spade, 2020.
In contrast, if people only give to those from whom they’ve received something, and they also exert an element of control over those exchanges so they give and receive things they feel are of equal value to what they received and gave, then disagreements start, divisions begin, and all kinds of people will feel left out and/or unsatisfied for so many different reasons. Reasons others won’t understand or accept. It’s a recipe for perpetual discontent, for fractured connections, and for a world that constantly feels like it’s running on empty, even when there's more than enough to go around.
But, in a system of universal giving, how do we protect against 'freeloaders'?
The very concept of a 'freeloader' diminishes so close to disappearing it no longer matters or holds weight. If everyone is genuinely committed to giving, the collective abundance ensures needs are met, and the incentive to 'take' without giving dissolves. It's a shift from a scarcity mindset to one of inherent abundance. If you have what you need and/or easy access to it, when others take what they need that’s ok. That’s normal.
The concept of 'universal basic income' (UBI) experiments, while not identical to universal giving, explore how providing a baseline of resources can reduce anxiety and increase community participation, challenging the 'freeloader' stereotype. While some reports suggest recipients use the funds for education, entrepreneurship, and community engagement, the verified findings from Finland’s UBI experiment (2017–2018) show: “The basic income recipients were more satisfied with their lives and experienced less mental strain, depression, sadness and loneliness. They also had a more positive perception of their cognitive abilities, i.e. memory, learning and ability to concentrate.” taken from Finland's UBI Experiment, 2017-2018, published by Kela.
So, how can we start? Begin with small acts of unconditional giving in your daily life. Offer help without expecting anything in return. Cook a meal for a neighbour. Share your skills or resources freely. Support local mutual aid groups. These small steps can help plant the seed for a more universally giving world.
And perhaps that’s where the real conversation begins. The vision of a universally giving world is compelling, but how do we bridge the gap between this beautiful thought experiment, the small steps we can individually take, and the complex reality we inhabit? It forces us to ask tough questions:
What are the practical steps to move from our current competitive mindset to one of collective abundance?
How can individuals start practising this shift without burning out, especially in environments that still operate under scarcity and competition?
What are the difficult questions that arise from thinking about the nature of 'giving' itself—what happens when someone's capacity is depleted, or their giving is unwanted?
And can a concept that thrives on a small scale truly be applied to the vast, intricate systems of a global society, and what role do institutions (governments, businesses) play in either enabling or restricting this kind of abundance-driven model?
Maybe the new world begins with the next time you give without keeping score. And then maybe you could move from personal acts, to community groups, to involvement in policy-level experiments…it’s kind of up to you…