Sacrifice and meaning
Have you ever thought about the choices you didn't make and how they've shaped your life?
Let's explore how in stories, and relationships, we build meaning and commitment based on restricting choices and freedoms and whether this is a universal link.
Meaning and the narrowing of choices
A good story is about specificity and escalation. As a character is presented with a situation, the reader instinctively imagines possible paths that could be taken.
A good writer narrows down the tree of possible paths that the characters can take by being specific about the causes and effects driving the unfolding of the story. A great writer makes these actions more and more meaningful for the unfolding of the story, creating tension and a feeling of escalation toward a resolution.
The escalation is best created when the paths taken are unexpected by the reader. It elicits questions in the mind of the reader and captures their attention. In this way, the writer creates meaning by removing choice and limiting both the freedom of the characters and the imaginative freedom of the reader.
In addition to meaning, the writer creates a feeling of satisfaction. The paradox of choice could play a role here. The more options we have, the more dissatisfied with our choices we are.
With open-ended story alternatives, we could become overwhelmed. We would need to keep track of information that may become irrelevant to the purpose of the story. It feels good when we are led onto a path where there are fewer choices. We need to exercise less effort to get to the reward at the end.
What I find interesting is that this relationship between restriction of choice or freedom and meaning can be found in other areas of life.
In romantic relationships, monogamy is the quintessential example. Whether it is about love or sex, a traditional view of a meaningful relationship is exclusivity. The implied notion is that two persons value the bond between them so much that they decide to restrict their freedoms as a sign of commitment to each other.
Meaning is created by limiting the possible paths that these two human beings could take in the future.
Why does this link exist?
I have a feeling scarcity has something to do with it: the scarcity of the reader's or the writer's time and the scarcity of life's resources in the context of a relationship.
Let's take the case of a story. It takes time to read a good story and it takes much more time to write a good story. The reader assesses whether to continue the story at regular intervals. We drop a book if the level of interestingness does not increase: if there is no escalation.
But in situations where the cost of creating alternative paths is minimal, we love variety and alternatives. We like music bands performing cover songs in a way different from the original. Bands themselves add a twist to a live rendition of their most popular songs.
We see a similar phenomenon in video games. Players can play a storyline-based game more than once and proceed through different story branches. The cost of creating alternative timelines in a game is relatively low compared to the cost of creating the first version of a base world. It allows to extend the life of the game.
Perhaps with AI the time and cost of creating alternative paths in stories would be so minimal that it could become common. Would we lose meaning and interestingness?
My view is that humans are pretty good at creating meaning. We could emphasize interpretations instead of linear storylines and single takeaways.
Just as writers craft their narratives by choosing specific paths for their characters, similar dynamics play out in romantic relationships. Here, the concept of choice, or rather the conscious decision to limit it, takes on a deeply personal dimension.
Scarcity plays an important role here too. The scarcity of resources—be it material, emotional, or psychological—is a driving factor in shaping commitment dynamics. In monogamous relationships, partners choose to invest these scarce resources exclusively in each other, echoing the writer's choice to follow a specific narrative path.
This exclusivity can intensify the relationship. The limited emotional and psychological investments are channeled into nurturing and deepening this singular connection. We chose not to invest this effort in other people with the same intensity.
Meaning is expressed through the actions we refrain from.
Do you think there are other reasons we equate sacrifice of choice and meaning or commitment? Leave your thoughts in the comments.
A rather Western interpretation
Cultural and societal influences significantly shape our understanding and practice of love, echoing the way diverse cultures craft their narratives. Just as stories are told differently in various cultures, with some embracing linear tales and others reveling in complex, multifaceted sagas, so too does the concept of love vary.
In some societies, the idea of love extends beyond the nuclear family, embracing a broader community. This can be seen in many indigenous cultures, where the entire community participates in child-rearing and supports each other, much like the multiple voices that contribute to oral storytelling passed from generation to generation in indigenous cultures.
Here, love is not just an exclusive bond between two individuals but a shared experience that binds the community. This broader definition challenges the notion of scarcity, suggesting that emotional and psychological resources can be communal and abundant, rather than exclusive and limited.
Moreover, in societies where extended families live together or close by, the distribution of love and care is more inclusive, encompassing grandparents, cousins, and even neighbors.
In these cultures, the scarcity of emotional resources is mitigated by the collective support system, allowing love to be expressed and experienced in a multitude of ways. The concept of 'It takes a village to raise a child' is a living reality here, contrasting with the more individualistic approach prevalent in Western societies. This communal approach to relationships and child-rearing challenges the Western emphasis on monogamy and nuclear families, offering an alternative narrative where love and resources are abundant and shared, rather than scarce and confined.
We take for granted that meaning and commitment are proved by sacrifice and restriction of freedom. But this is not a universal law in human societies, and much less so in the animal kingdom.
In mammals, monogamy is rather rare, occurring in only 3–9% of species. This rarity suggests that monogamy is not a biological imperative but rather a social construct, varying significantly across species and societies.
Some cultures embrace forms of polyamory or open relationships, where individuals have the freedom to form intimate connections with more than one partner. These relationships are not seen as diminishing the depth or sincerity of love but are understood as a different expression of it. In such contexts, the emphasis is often on open communication, mutual respect, and the freedom to explore emotional connections without the constraints of exclusivity.
In certain societies, romantic relationships may follow different trajectories and norms. For example, in some cultures, partnerships are formed based on broader considerations such as family alliances, social status, or communal harmony. In these cases, the romantic aspect of the relationship may evolve differently, with emphasis on aspects like partnership, mutual support, and shared goals, rather than the passionate exclusive love emphasized in Western narratives.
To wrap up, the exploration of how the restriction of choice impacts meaning brings us to a nuanced understanding. While in the realms of literature and personal relationships, such restrictions often enhance meaning and depth, this is not a universal truth.
Cultural diversity reveals that meaning thrives not only in scarcity and exclusivity but also in abundance and communal experiences. This challenges the conventional view that meaning arises solely from limitations. It leads us to a broader understanding where we can express meaning and commitments in multiple ways and with a broader set of people.