Skin in the game

Here is Nalini Singh’s response to the blog “Developing a mandate to move away from Economic Growth”.

I am really buzzing on this "skin in the game" idea. So interesting that we live in a get-the-biggest-bang-for-your-buck world, this I'm-going-to-get-the-best-bargain-for-the-lowest-price world, a low-risk-high-reward mindset, one that idealises masculine ideals of personal gain over the feminine mandate of gift/sacrifice - this deodorised, sanitised, air-conditioned, dehumidified, earthquake-proof, processed "life" where we hardly have any skin in the game. Getting eaten by tigers? Oops, we wiped them out. Starving because of a bad winter? Hello, packaged and processed food. Too bored? A million shows on Netflix. Having to commit to a relationship and be accountable, mutual, nurturing and responsive? In comes Tinder.

Having skin in the game would involve risk. And risk means giving a damn about the outcome. It means being relied upon to do our best by something other than ourselves. It would also - importantly - involve care. A deep caring for the welfare of others, and the felt sense of interdependence. Dependence is vulnerable. So maybe all these things - air con, painkillers, processed food - remove a very real and palpable vulnerability and de-couple us from relationships with each other and the natural world, hence sever dependence with certain things (that feel more risky)...and replace them with others (that feel more reliable) – while not demanding any reliability from us in return.

So skin in the game would mean investment. Skin in the game would look like passion - and fear, and love, and intensity. Skin in the game is the opposite of this culture's mandate to be "cool" with "whatever," to just "chill out," current spirituality's dogma to "let things go," to "accept things as they are," Buddhist principles of "non-resistance," and masculine mandates to women to just "relax," to "stop taking things so seriously," to "not care so much (about housework, kids etc.)", to "stop being oversensitive", and to "stop being hysterical" - or have any feelings or needs at all. In other words - to not be human. To not have life / mauri. Skin in the game means putting oneself on the line...being a stakeholder, and, by proxy, being political.

And don't we - in some funny way - always have skin in the game, consciously or not? Aren't we, to some extent, always dependent on life around us to sustain us, therefore - in some way - always at mercy of the elements, other people? I mean, we go mad pretty quickly in complete social isolation - testament to how deeply dependent we are as social animals - and everything is all pretty fragile, once I think about it; the banking and finance system, the Internet, how earthquake proof we are, our need for water. So maybe we could start by recognising that we'll always have skin in the game - like it or not - and if we're going to be so dependent on everything around us, we might as well do our bit to make sure it's in its best shape to nurture us in return.

To receive blog posts via email, go here.