.png)
Replace activism with responsivism
- Steph Turner
- Jul 20, 2024
- 13 min read
Responsivism is the belief that responding to the needs of opponents or those in position of influential power can produce more favorable results than adversarial alternatives like political activism. Activists generally seek policy changes that are expected to compel legal compliance to their favored needs. Responsivism aims to respond to the needs of everyone.
Replace adversarial activism with engaging responsivism.
Which would likely produce the best results?
Wait for activism to motivate the right changes to improve society.
OR
Respond better to each to each other's needs to improve society.
1. INTRODUCTION | 2. RESOLUTION | 3. ADOPTION |
Need-response answers the baked-in problems of toxic legalism failing our institutions. Responsivism allows you to practice this new profession in your own terms.
We apply responsivism in a set of interactive tools you can use on an individual basis. These let you benefit from the new profession of need-response on a personalized level.
We currently provide each tool as an Excel spreadsheet, to market test this bold alternative. We can then convert these pilot versions into apps.
Responsivism can either complement or potentially replace legalistic activism. Let’s question how well activism delivers.
If activism is the answer, I have four questions for you.
You know the score. As pushback to their inflexible need for self-determination and more, Palestinian militants killed over a thousand Israelis last fall. No law currently exists to respect those needs.
Now tens of thousands of Gazans die at the hands of IDF soldiers, in the name of self-defense. Israelis’ inflexible need for self-determination compels them to push back. Is the activism on each side helping at all?
Both sides insist they face an existential threat from the other side. Both sides exaggerate that threat for political gain. Neither side fully empathizes with the inflexible needs of the other. What about the law?
Activism aims to shape policy in one’s favor. That tends to provoke the defensiveness of the other side? Neither side reach their full potential. Both sides expend great energy trying to hold down the other side. Inn short, activism to shape laws is shortsighted.
Laws cannot compel each side in a conflict to see through the eyes of the other. We generally expect the international rules-based order to mediate such conflicts. Increasingly, we find the “rule of law” taking a back seat to double standards and diplomatic hypocrisies.
Without the preeminence of law, we tend to slide deeper into a morally questionable abyss of might-makes-right. Without shared agreements for how to respect each other’s affected needs, we defer to wars to somehow sort it out.
Laws emerge to impersonally convey needs. They incentivize us to respect each other’s easily overlooked needs. “Do not steal” serves our need to freely access our own property. “Do not slander” serves our need to maintain an unspoiled public image.
We depend on law as a metaphor for our vulnerable needs. When I say, “It’s my free speech right to speak my mind,” I am really saying, “I need to express myself without government retaliation.” With the law on my side, I can skip the vulnerabilities of uncomfortably exposing my specific need.
Apart from the needs they exist to serve, we could care less about such laws. Without the need for accessing property, you could care less about laws prohibiting theft. Apart from the need to receive other’s respect, we scarcely care about prohibitions against slander.
When was the last time you said to someone, “Please don’t steal from me”? Or “I need you to not slander me”? Likely never. We defer to legal codes to convey those needs. But how is that working?
The further we creep from the law’s originating purpose to serve these needs, the further we collectively (and often individually) slip into poor wellness outcomes. Increasing rates of chronic anxiety and major depression suggest we need more than just our laws to address our negatively impacted needs.
The more we ossify the role of law over its original purpose to serve needs, the further we slip into what anankelogy identifies as “toxic legalism”. That refers to established norms and enforced standards that ostensibly serve us but actually harm us in measurable ways.
We can find links between rising rates of chronic anxiety and severe depression with the failing reliability of laws to serve our vulnerable needs. There is no such thing as painful anxiety or debilitating depression apart from unresolved needs. The less responsive we are to each other’s needs, under color of law, the more of us slip into pain-coping addictions and entertain suicide.
Consider the alternative of responsivism for responding directly to the needs those laws fail to fully serve. Then consider how to complement or replace activism for restoring wellness.
Consider these five reasons to prefer responsivism over activism.
Each starts with an originating purposes for law.
Each looks at how we’ve drifted from this original need-responsive purpose.
Each points to how responsivism can restore our crumbling wellness.
Activism seeks to shape laws to compel personal responsibility for how we treat each other. How much responsibility should be individualized or collectivized defers to vacillating politics.
Responsivism recognizes how you resolve more needs the better you balance what you can do for yourself and letting others serve what you cannot provide for yourself.
Originating purpose. The law holds us personally accountable. We rely on written standards to check our selfish behaviors. Without laws, we risk ignoring how our behavior may negatively impact others.
Drift from wellness. Western society’s emphasis of individualism easily oversimplifies personal responsibility. Yes, we have personal moral agency to act in ways respectful to the needs of others. But personal moral agency depends heavily upon available options.
You drift from enjoy wellness when prioritizing the individual over the collective, or the collective over the individual. That always painfully restricts wellness. Wellness is psychosocial. You can only maintain wellness when balancing personal rights with social responsibilities.
Drifting into hyper-individualism is a kind of ‘symfunction capture’.
Anankelogy recognizes a zone between wellness and illness, called symfunction. It's where you function at a less-than-optimal level. And it serves as the gateway between full wellness of peakfunction and poor wellness of dysfunction, in three stages.
Slowly shifting from the ideal of taking personal responsibility for one's own actions to objectifying individualism as a kind of panacea.
Your reach your peakfunction when you fully resolve those needs you can address on your own while also receiving support from others to fully resolve those needs requiring others input. You balance personal responsibility with the social responsiveness of others.
Symfunction capture emerges when you allow others to address needs you could address on your own, and when you must opt for alternatives when dependent on others who fail their social responsiveness to you in your moment of vulnerability.
Symfunction creep begins when you must settle for only partially resolving some of your needs, after settling for alternatives or when resigning to others paternalistic interference.
Symfunction strain mounts as more of your needs resign to partial resolution of such alternatives or paternalistic impedance.
Symfunction trap sets in as most of your needs remain not fully resolved after vacillating between what you can but do not do for yourself and putting up with other’s unresponsiveness to your vulnerable needs.
Dysfunction takes over as you must cope with the continual pain of mostly unresolved needs. More of your attention goes to coping with your mounting pain than trying to fully resolve your needs, which would remove the cause of your pain. This often includes vacillating wildly between self-care and insisting on others obeying the rules you depend upon to cope with your pain. To avoid losing any further control, you latch onto overgeneralizing that taking personal responsibility will get you through this. Which distorts the true meaning of logotherapy’s principle of taking responsibility for all of your own reactions.
Restoring wellness. Need-response holds institutions and social entities as equally accountable as individuals. It incentivizes powerful groups to respond faithfully to the needs of vulnerable individuals they impact. It challenges the legitimacy of those who don’t.
Anankelogy sees how we prioritize self-needs and social needs with our psychosocial orientation'.
When sorting out if you or others should address a problem or need, you either habitually favor the imbalance of taking a side against the other option or you routinely favor balance of blending both internal and external means for resolving a need. You’re either oriented as imbalance-over-balance or balance-over-imbalance.
The more you’re balance-over-imbalance oriented, the greater your wellness. And less dependent upon politicized laws.
The more you’re balance-over-imbalance oriented, the worse your wellness. And prone toward toxic legalism’s politicization and legalistic polarization.
Need-response holds us all personally and socially accountable. Which can improve our wellness more than laws alone.
Activism puts impersonal laws over personal needs. Laws impersonally convey your needs. Emotions personally convey your needs. Your intensely irrational emotions react to your painfully unresolved needs, which reasoning can never contain.
Responsivism appreciates how you resolve more needs the more you can drop your guard and let others in to vulnerably relate to the inflexible needs behind each charged emotion.
Originating purpose. The law rationally keeps our emotions in check. We rely on laws to curb our irrational tendencies. Without reasoned standards, we risk emotionally exploiting others or provoking severe psychological or physical harm.
Drift from wellness. Increasingly, we irrationally apply laws to others in ways we refuse to have applied to ourselves. We can convince ourselves we are being reasoned and rational while denying we have any distorting biases.
Drifting into hyperrationality is a kind of ‘symfunction capture’.
Anankelogy recognizes a zone between wellness and illness, called symfunction. It's where you function at a less-than-optimal level. And it serves as the gateway between full wellness of peakfunction and poor wellness of dysfunction, in three stages.
Slowly shifting from full engagement and honest self-disclosure to resolve needs fully to staying guarded with self-protective rationalizations that rarely help you to resolve needs fully.
You reach your peakfunction when you can fully be honest with at least one person, preferably more, who can help you resolve all of your needs. You grant them the freedom to illuminate your blind spots and point out your weak spots for improvement. You never feel you must guard your actions with concocted reasons to avoid scorn.
Symfunction capture emerges when you do not find anyone to reveal your deepest secrets or who will help you process your intense emotions, leaving you stuck unable to fully resolve your needs.
Symfunction creep begins the moment you partially ease some needs from limited awareness of what’s going on, and there is no one to ask to effectively tell you.
Symfunction strain occurs as more and more of your needs cannot fully resolve from a lack of social connections that could help you. You find explanations that help you feel better about it, or keeps unwanted criticism at bay.
Symfunction trap sets in as you rely more and more on rationalizations to fill the void of self-understanding. You drift from acting rationally toward others the more you pack your “reasoning” with confirmation bias. Motivated reasoning then blinds you from how “rational” beliefs fail to serve the need-serving purpose of law.
Dysfunction grips you the more you believe in your own rationalizations. They offer necessary comfort to the mounting pain of your unresolved needs. You remain guarded, not letting anyone get too close, lest they dig up some dirt and hurt you even more. You defend your private world as you isolate your true self from others, and even from yourself.
Restoring wellness. Need-response recognizes how your objective needs exist independent of your subjective experiences of them. Instead of trying to repress your emotional tendencies, as the role of law may do, it nurtures your emotionally charged reactions to be more responsive to needs.
Anankelogy realizes how we interact with others with our ‘vulnerability orientation'.
When vulnerably exposed to criticism, you either habitually raise your guard or you routinely stay open, even if it could hurt, to learn as much as possible to resolve the affected needs. You’re either oriented as rationalizing-over-revealing or revealing-over-rationalizing.
The more you’re revealing-over-rationalizing oriented, the greater your wellness. And less dependent upon impersonal rationalizing laws.
The more you’re rationalizing-over-revealing oriented, the worse your wellness. And prone toward toxic legalism’s rationalized social distancing. This could result from emotional wounds and trauma, reinforcing the false security of alienation.
Need-response guides subjective experiences to serve objective needs. Which can improve our wellness more than laws alone.
Activism builds on coalitions to appeal to as many as possible. This increases the risk of overgeneralizing, of skipping over relevant details, and overlooking your specific needs.
Responsivism understands how you resolve more needs the more thoroughly you process each relevant detail and process more of the nuance in situations impacting your life.
Originating purpose. Laws are kept vague to apply to various situations. We rely on laws to fit a vast array of social situations. We keep our laws intentionally short on specifics, lest too many details prevent their applicability wherever needed.
Drift from wellness. When legalism drifts off into excessive generalizing, it tends to overlook your specific needs. The less your specific needs can resolve, the more pain you will be in—as your body warns of this continuing threat to your ability to fully function
The law’s focus on harm reduction often prioritizes comforting generalizations over necessary specifics. Legalism can suck you into a vicious cycle of endlessly pursuing pain-relief without ever getting to the cause of your pain: unresolved needs.
Drifting into overgeneralizing is a kind of ‘symfunction capture’.
Anankelogy recognizes a zone between wellness and illness, called symfunction. It's where you function at a less-than-optimal level. And it serves as the gateway between full wellness of peakfunction and poor wellness of dysfunction, in three stages.
Slowly shifting from taking a broad scope for attracting widespread support to solidifying generalizations into accepted exaggerations taken as indisputable fact.
You reach your peakfunction when your generalizing is kept provisional, ready to update. When given fresh information, you quickly adjust your views to include it to keep yourself closer to this changing reality. The more details you engage, the more your needs resolve.
Symfunction capture emerges when not updating your generalizations. You then believe or act upon incomplete information. The more nuance you miss, the less you can fully resolve your needs.
Symfunction creep begins with “popular generalizing” accepting oversimplification. Or “popgen” for short, it speaks to the lay version of more critically developed ideas. It tends to be devoid of cumbersome details, to keep it palatable and easier to understand. You cannot fully resolve needs while overlooking relevant minutia.
Symfunction strain occurs when “popgen versions” displace original critical versions. The more you act upon these watered-down popgen versions, the less you can resolve your needs fully. You then feel a mounting strain of your needs warning you how they are not fully resolved.
Symfunction trap sets when “relief-generalizing”, trusting exaggerations to ease needs. You go from recognizing popgen versions as incomplete to trusting generalizations to provide some relief from the emotional pain, as fewer and fewer of your needs can completely resolve.
Dysfunction then traps you with a familiarity bias of generalizing for relief, in ways that ensure your needs never fully resolve. The less your needs resolve while clinging to exaggerations, the more emotional pain persists to warn you of this threat to your limited functioning. You then rely on comforting generalizations, such as “You can’t trust anybody!” and “All pain is bad and must be avoided!” These easily trap you in more grinding pain of unresolved needs.
Restoring wellness. Need-response identifies your specific needs and theirs. Only by bringing all affected needs to the table can there be enduring peace among you. It raises the higher standard of properly resolving needs by cutting through legalistic generalities with relevant specifics.
Anankelogy appreciates how we each negotiate matters with our ‘relating orientation'.
When navigating something complicated, you either habitually rely on reassuring generalizations or you routinely delve into the nuance of details to resolve the need as best as you can. You’re either oriented as general-over-specifics or specifics-over-general.
The more you’re specifics-over-general oriented, the greater your wellness. And less dependent upon vague laws.
The more you’re specifics-over-general oriented, the worse your wellness. And prone toward toxic legalism’s oversimplifications.
Need-response replaces neglectful overgeneralizing with relevant nuance. Which can improve our wellness more than laws alone.
Activism typically settles for relieving the pain of unresolved needs. Your body then insists with some form or emotional or physical pain to warn you of the persisting threat to your wellbeing.
Responsivism sees how you resolve more needs the longer you endure the associated discomfort of processing a need, long enough to fully remove the threats causing you pain.
Originating purpose. Laws are impersonal to avoid favoritism. We rely on laws to treat everyone impartially. “No one is above the law.” We cannot trust law enforcement if enforcing standards on us but not upon those they personally know.
Drift from wellness. When legalism drifts into a kind of depersonalizing avoidance, you rightly feel objectified. Lawyers, prosecutors and police tend to talk past you. They routinely avoid the most uncomfortable aspects of your situation. It’s not their problem, they could claim.
This cold distance can fuel suspicion on neither side. From this chasm of mutual alienation, both sides can easily suspect the other side will not respect their own vulnerable needs. So legalism tends to engender mutual defensiveness.
Drifting into alienating avoidance is a kind of ‘symfunction capture’.
Anankelogy recognizes a zone between wellness and illness, called symfunction. It's where you function at a less-than-optimal level. And it serves as the gateway between full wellness of peakfunction and poor wellness of dysfunction, in three stages.
Slowly shifting from the ideal of remaining impartial to remaining alienated to avoid the uncomfortable side of addressing needs.
You reach your peakfunction when fully process every painful feeling so you can fully resolve every need. You embrace upfront the sharp pain of your warned needs so you can then remove its cause for pain and enjoy peace.
Symfunction capture emerges when having to bear the anguish of pain longer or more intensely than you feel you capably can. You slide from enduring all discomfort to resolve all needs to avoiding almost every discomfort that leaves your needs unresolved.
Symfunction creep typically begins when you cannot fully resolve those needs that depend on the cooperation of others. These unmet “vulnerable needs” persist to warn you with emotional pain that you cannot fully function.
Symfunction strain mounts as your emotional pain builds to warn you how fewer and fewer of your needs are fully resolving. Your pain warns how your capacity to function steadily declines, until something is done to resolve those needs.
Symfunction trap sets in as you shift from resolving any needs fully to accepting few if any of your needs can resolve fully enough, if at all, to remove its cause for pain.
Dysfunction then traps you as emotional pain builds so intensely that you increasingly prioritize how to ease your pain over addressing the needs causing such pain. You sink deeper into a painful sense of powerlessness, and hopelessness.
Restoring wellness. Need-response incentivizes all sides in a legal situation to engage each other more personally. Each side gets to know how they impact each other’s needs. In the process, each side can more meaningfully resolve their overlooked need for deeper social connections.
Anankelogy recognizes how we each respond to pain with our ‘easement orientation'.
When faced with something uncomfortable, you either habitually avoid that pain or you routinely embrace that pain and work through it to resolve the pain-provoking need to remove its cause for pain. You’re either oriented as relieve-over-resolve or resolve-over-relieve.
The more you’re resolve-over-relieve oriented, the greater your wellness. And less dependent upon laws.
The more you’re relieve-over-resolve oriented, the worse your wellness. And prone toward toxic legalism for relief.
Need-response replaces harmful avoidance with beneficial engagement. Which can improve our wellness more than laws alone.
Activism takes sides against others, to the point of opposing their needs which they cannot change. Both sides incite each other’s defenses. Neither side empathizes much with the unbendable needs of the other.
Responsivism affirms how you resolve more needs the less you provoke other's defensiveness and instead incentivize their cooperation with mutual understanding and respect.
Originating purpose. Laws are punitive to incentivize compliance. We rely on laws to punish wrongdoers. Law enforcement serves as an arm of government with exclusive privilege of force. To compel our compliance to the rules of society.
Drift from wellness. When legalism drifts into self-serving hostilities toward each other, it strays from helping us resolve our affected needs. Such “adversarialism” goads us further into mutual defensiveness. Energies we could spend to resolve needs gets wasted on divisively opposing each other.
The judicial system presumes they must mediate the threat we ostensibly present to each other. Little to no effort goes to identifying and solving each other’s affected needs. Law enforcement tends to serve as a hammer of force that treats us as a nail to pound into the pavement of the expected social order.
Drifting into avoidant adversarialism is a kind of ‘symfunction capture’.
Anankelogy recognizes a zone between wellness and illness, called symfunction. It's where you function at a less-than-optimal level. And it serves as the gateway between full wellness of peakfunction and poor wellness of dysfunction, in three stages.
You reach your peakfunction when fully sorting out your differences with others, so you can effectively respond to your own needs while not violating the needs of others. When you can no longer fully resolve all of your needs, you slip into the symfunction of partially resolving your needs, which begins to compromise your wellness.
Symfunction capture emerges when you overreact to others who must dig in their heals to guard what they cannot change. Those championing the rights of the unborn, for example, provoke the defenses of those requiring reproductive healthcare for a painful situation beyond their personal control. Those disregarding the unsung rights of the unborn provoke the defenses of those whose lives center around such sacred principles.
Symfunction creep begins as pressure to comply with laws or any other standard slips into coercion that denies intrinsic motivations for responsiveness.
Symfunction strain occurs as mounting frustration takes hold while you increasingly comply with any social norm that overlooks its impact on your vulnerable needs.
Symfunction trap sets in as mindless compliance to laws neglecting one’s needs gets normalized and enforced, forcing a decision between the two evils: getting into trouble for asserting one’s rights or sinking into despair when your needs can no longer fully resolve.
Dysfunction takes hold when you give up resolving your needs under the tyranny of authorities, who benefit more from their sanctioned coerciveness than from accountably enabling you to resolve your needs so you can fully restore your wellness. You then shift into prioritizing relief from the disturbing increase in your emotional and physical pain.
Restoring wellness. Need-response incentivizes mutual understanding of each other’s inflexible needs. Instead of normalizing hostilities, it holds each other accountable to how we affect each other’s inflexible needs. It’s a win-win approach to mutually resolve needs on all sides.
Anankelogy shows how we each deal with incited differences with our ‘conflict orientation'.
When challenged to take a side, you either habitually stay guarded while you oppose the other side or you routinely stay open to learn what all sides require to resolve their affected needs, even if that’s uncomfortable for a while. You’re either oriented as guarded-over-open or open-over-guarded.
The more you’re open-over-guarded oriented, the greater your wellness. And less inclined to indulge in comforting side-taking.
The more you’re guarded-over-open oriented, the worse your wellness. And prone toward toxic legalism’s punitive emphasis.
Need-response replaces destructive adversarialism with mutual support. Which can improve our wellness more than laws alone.
Who is ready to try the untried? Who is willing to test the waters because they immediately need to solve a problem overlooked by legal systems? Who is able to reprioritize love?
While no one sits above the law, no law sits above the needs it exists to serve. We can change our laws to fit our needs. We cannot change our needs to fit our laws. Laws are flexible. Needs are not.
With these responsive tools, we can replace toxic legalism in these five ways.
We can replace its hyper-individualism with psychosocial balance to improve our wellness.
We can replace its hyperrationality with safer vulnerability to improve our wellness.
We can replace its overgeneralizing with relevant specifics to improve our wellness.
We can replace its alienating avoidance with engagement to improve our wellness.
We can replace its adversarialism with love-inspiring mutuality to improve our wellness.
We can do all these to resolve more of our overlooked needs with the new professional service of need-response, which is applied anankelogy. Need-response presents an alternative to escape the monkey trap of such toxic legalism.
No longer must we vainly hope that simply following better policies will somehow produce better results. No longer shall we remain blind to the oft-overlook fact that they don’t. No longer must we suffer threats simply because they’re permitted by law.
The bottom line is the wellness outcomes of all involved. Not money. Not prestige. Not power. Only the freedom of all to resolve all needs to remove pain and restore wellness. Period.
Just as the monkey refuses to let go of the tasty nut inside the coconut trap, we refuse to let go of the tasty morsel of legalism. We cling tightly to our laws to protect us from threats of violence, instead of dealing with known causes of violence. To maintain social order. To coexist with our many ingrained differences.
With the rise of hyper-individualism during the decline of religion and other socially engaging institutions, we easily fall back on the rule of law. If you view our system of secular laws as the only game in town, you typically cannot see past it. You can easily overlook the five shortcomings covered above.
Do you literally believe that "no one is above the law"? Properly applied, that means no one's impactful behavior is beyond the scope of law. But you as a person is above the law. Human existence predates any human laws.
Everyone's inflexible needs sit above flexible laws. You cannot change your life's requirement for food to eat and clean air to breathe to fit some legal requirement. Legalism coerces us to fit our needs to serve some law or appease some authority. Wellness then declines.
You don't need anyone's permission to breathe. "The Sabbath was made for humanity," Jesus clarified, "Not the Sabbath for humanity." Needs come first, then laws to serve them.
Need-response, with its responsivism tools, helps us to not be so backwards. You don't exist for human authority; human authority exists for you. Or it lacks legitimacy.
If you experience laws as your last hope for a civilized life, you understandably resist any suggested alternative. The tighter your grip, the less likely you would try something boldly different. Let alone adopt something that could remove your familiar pain and restore you to unfamiliar full wellness.
Familiarity bias—clinging to the unhealthy stuff you know out of fear of the healthier unknown—may have you tightly in its grip. Need-response can inspire you to break free, to live more of the life you've likely been missing under legalism's suffocating grip. Responsivism puts love over law. You can be among the first to adopt this pioneering approach.
You’re invited to observe this new service of need-experience unfold in practice. I shall be its first guinea pig. I will be working with a few others I personally know and who personally know me. Together, we will incentivize our employers to be more responsive to our overlooked needs.
Your needs exist as objective fact. Their needs exist as objective fact. Need-response dares to hold us all accountable to this refreshing reality. No longer can we stay vulnerable to fickle laws. Or to employers who we avoid challenging directly, lest we risk reprisals.
Moreover, need-response gives good cause for all sides to harmoniously come together to address each other’s affected needs. In ways the law can never do. My early attempts to attract my employer to this fresh approach has been positive.
I provide them a preferably alternative to a nasty legal battle, or online smear campaign, or presenteeism of only giving my minimal effort on the job. As they gain my trust as a loyal worker, my improved wellness lets them benefit from my improved productivity.
This pioneering alternative features love. We honor the needs of others as we would have them honor our own. But we make the first generous move, to demonstrate our good faith intent. To apply inspiring words ascribed to Gandhi, we become the change we wish to see in the world, by planting powerful seeds of responsive love.
According to anankelogy, all natural needs sit equal before nature and everyone's needs must fully resolve to realize their full potential. With its mutuality approach, these responsivism tools can nurture far more wellness than adversarial activism.
Wellness Initiative tools
These tools can prepare you for a wellness campaign. Or you can opt to simply use it once.
Personally Responsive – for those close to you, to melt alienation with kindness
Properly Responsive – for colleagues in your life, to respect your overlooked needs
Professionally Responsive – for professionals in your life, to support your wellness
Powerfully Responsive – for authorities over your life, to speak truth to power
Wellness Development tools
These tools establish your credentials as need-responsive enough to resolve needs.
Holistically Responsive – to counter reactive vacillation
Vulnerably Responsive – to counter reactive defensiveness
Specifically Responsive – to counter reactive generalizing
Resiliently Responsive – to counter reactive avoidance
Mutually Responsive – to counter reactive hostilities
Specialized tools
These tools focus on a particular set of needs not effectively addressed elsewhere.
Relationally Responsive – understand why you fall in and out of love
Responsive Innocence [Exoneration] – picking up where innocence lawyers drop the ball
Responsive Interviewing – preparing for a job or similar interview
Responsive Depolarization – understanding the needs behind all sides of a political issue
Your responsiveness to contrasting responsiveness with activism
Your turn. Consider one or more of these options to respond to this need-responsive content.
Check our Engaging Forum to FOLLOW discussions on this post and others. JOIN us as a site member to interact others and create your forum comments.
Explore similar content by clicking on the tags below. Find similar content under this responsivism category.
Share this content with others on social media. Share the link to share the love.
Check out recent posts of interest to you.
Add a rating to let others know how much of a good read this was for you.
Write a comment to give others an independent perspective on this content.
Recommend this on Facebook. Introduce anankelogy to your social media contacts.
Lastly, support us in building this new love-nurturing alternative to our hate-enabling institutions. You can help us spread some love.
Comments