Initiative Cannot Be Born from Orders: 'Contribution as a Universal' Cultivated at Home and Its Manifestation Varying by Context
Take initiative.
Don't just wait for instructions.
Think and act for yourself.
In both education and the workplace, these words are repeated over and over. They sound perfectly correct. However, I have recently begun to feel a strong sense of discomfort with these words.
The reason for this discomfort is simple. Initiative is not something that emerges from being ordered.
People do not become proactive simply because they are told to 'be proactive.' Only when a person has the expectation that when they do something, it will connect to the situation, have meaning, not be trampled upon, and be received in a certain way, can they begin to act on their own.
In other words, at the root of initiative is not enthusiasm or personality, but trust in relationships.
I have come to rethink this through the lens of raising my own children.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Why do I, as a parent raising children, ask this question?
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
To be honest, the starting point comes from a very practical, everyday reality.
I want my children to do a little more around the house.
Before and after meals, cleaning up, preparing, small acts of consideration—these things inevitably lean toward the parent's side. Of course, there are parts that are unavoidable because they are children. But recently, I have become concerned about this not just as a matter of burden, but as a different kind of problem.
It is the discomfort of wondering, Has the home become a place where they are just guests?
Meals appear. Clothes are ready. The bath is drawn. The things they need are prepared before they know it. From a child's perspective, these things 'just exist.' They are part of the environment.
But in reality, behind all of that, there is thinking, choosing, planning, replenishing, caring, and cleaning up.
Nevertheless, these things are hard to see.
No, it's not just that they are hard to see; a convenient society makes it look as if labor has disappeared from the home.
Laundry seems to be finished with the push of a button. For meals, one only sees the finished product placed on the table. This is even more true as eating out, buying pre-made meals, and food delivery increase.
But household labor has not disappeared. It has simply become invisible.
And invisible labor is rarely appreciated. It is also rarely participated in.
I think that is what I am hung up on.
I don't want my children to be obedient. I don't want to force chores on them just for my own convenience.
Rather, I think it is that I don't want them to be people who only consume the home.
I want them to be people who can feel the effort, care, and time of others behind what they receive. If possible, I want them to be people who can stand on the side of supporting that endeavor themselves.
I believe that is why I am asking this question.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
The home is the first place of community.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
The home is the first place where a person encounters community.
Here, children learn at a level deeper than words whether they are merely beings to be cared for, or members who support this space even a little.
That meals are prepared. That clothes are washed. That the space is maintained. That the family's daily life keeps running. Knowing that these things are built upon someone's labor, consideration, and planning. From there, a sense that I am not just a beneficiary, but also a participantsprouts.
What should be nurtured here, I believe, is 'contribution as a universal'.
This is not an ethic of self-sacrifice.
It is not about saying, 'Endure it for the sake of the family.'
It is a more fundamental matter. It is the sense that in any place, one can be not just a mere consumer, but also someone who supports that place.
This is not a matter of ability.
It is not a matter of personality.
It is a matter of a quite fundamental sense that humans belong to a shared world.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Contribution is not born from spontaneity alone
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Here, I must say something that is a bit difficult to express.
Such a sense is not built solely upon complete spontaneity or conviction from the beginning.
The modern era is one that highly values freedom and self-determination. That in itself is important. However, when that idea is brought directly into child-rearing and discipline, it easily gives rise to the strange ideal that 'one only needs to take on what one is personally convinced of.'
But in reality, humans first enter into community through form.
At home, there are times when one is assigned a role in a semi-preemptive manner, such as 'this is your job.'
Carrying the dishes. Bringing in the laundry. Preparing the bath. Looking after a younger sibling.
In a sense, that is semi-compulsory. But I do not think that is immediately a bad thing. Rather, the sequence of having a role first, and understanding the meaning laterbelongs to the essence of education.
Of course, if it ends there, it is just a command.
A sense of contribution will not grow if you only make them do things.
What is decisive is that the act is given meaning and acknowledged within the space.
'That helped.'
'Because of this, the house kept running.'
'Because you did it, everyone was able to move quickly.'
Only when returned with such words does one's act become not mere obedience, but an experience of bearing a part of the community.
Acknowledgment is not just praise in general.
It is the feeling that one's participation is having an effect on the world.
If you miss this, all that remains in the child is the feeling of 'being used again.'
Conversely, if this is present, the role will eventually turn into a sense of ownership.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Much of self-centeredness is not 'individualism' but immaturity
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Thinking about this, the content of what is often called 'individualism' or 'self-centeredness' in modern society also begins to look a little different.
In general, an attitude of thinking only about oneself is often called 'individualistic'.
However, I suspect that a significant portion of this is not individualism in its original sense.
Rather, what we see there is,a state where development has stalled at an infantile stage, without a sufficient understanding of contribution or relationshipsis it not?
Infants organize the world around their own desires.
I want to do this now. I want this now. I need this now.
That in itself is natural. It is expected as a developmental stage.
However, if that stance remains as a fundamental principle even after becoming an adult, what exists there is not individualism as a philosophy.
It is an undifferentiated persistence of the self as a beneficiary.
They understand their own rights. They want their own convenience to be respected. But there is no understanding that they are also on the side that supports the environment.
What exists here is not a mature individual, but a state where one only knows 'rights' and has not developed the sense of bearing responsibility for relationships.
Therefore, the problem is not that we have valued the individual too much.
It is actually the opposite.The understanding of how an individual exists within a community has not been nurtured.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Respect for the individual is not the enemy of community
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
This is a point easily misunderstood, but the very philosophy of valuing the individual is not the enemy of community.
Rather,respect for the individual is the differentiation of community.
In an undifferentiated community, people are easily embedded within roles, atmosphere, and hierarchy. The logic of 'because we are family,' 'because everyone is doing it,' and 'just obey silently' becomes strong. There, individual boundaries, intentions, and limits are disregarded.
From there, the community is reorganized in a direction that acknowledges the dignity, circumstances, and intentions of each person. That was the discovery of the modern individual.
Therefore, respect for the individual is not the collapse of community.
It is the maturation of community.
What is in conflict is not the individual versus the community.
What is in conflict isan undifferentiated community that crushes the individualandan immaturity that uses being an individual as a pretext to refuse participation.
In the former, the individual is erased, and in the latter, the community cannot be established.
What is needed is neither of those.
A higher level of community where one is respected as an individual while still participating as a member of the group.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
The stance toward contribution is universal, but its manifestation is always contextual
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
However, there is one more thing that should be distinguished here.
That is thatcontribution as a universaland its concretemanifestationare separate things.
The stance itself that one can also be on the side that supports the environment can be nurtured quite universally.
However, how that appears always depends on the context.
In one setting, it manifests as speaking up.
In another, it manifests as silence or consideration.
In yet another, it manifests as taking a step back.
If these are confused, discussions about proactivity quickly fall apart.
Whether in education or the workplace, when we talk about 'proactive people,' we tend to assume only those who raise their hands, speak up, or step forward. But that is far too crude.
What is truly important is how that person is participating in the situation, and whether that participation is appropriate for the context.
Speaking up is merely one form of manifestation.
It is the same at home.
It is not only the child who always takes the initiative to say something who is participating in the family. There are children who silently carry dishes after observing their parents, children who read the mood of younger siblings and act first, and children who intentionally step back after seeing the room is chaotic.
That may not be loud, vocal proactivity. But it is a valid manifestation of participation.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
In the workplace, proactivity is often co-opted for exploitation
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Here, we must draw another clear line.
The sense of contribution we want to nurture at home and the 'proactivity' often demanded by companies are not the same.
When 'proactivity,' 'contribution,' and 'ownership' are discussed in a management context, they often function asthe internalization of exploitation.
This is because issues that should fundamentally be about institutional design, staffing, or compensation are offloaded onto the individual's inner self with the phrase, 'Think of it more as your own business.'
Here, proactivity is not freedom.
It becomes a technique of self-mobilization.
Therefore, what we want to nurture in children at home is not an obedience that allows them to be conveniently used by others.
It is the mature sense that one is not just a consumer of a space, but can also be on the side that supports it.
Moreover, where and how to manifest that sense must always be judged by observing the context.
Unconditionally serving even a toxic environment is not a virtue. Taking distance, withholding participation, or even withdrawing can, in some cases, be a form of maturity.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Proactivity is born from trust, not commands
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
In short, proactivity is not a quality closed within the individual.
It isa way of offering oneself to the world that becomes possible within relationships, and at its root liestrust.
The first place where the prototype of that trust can be nurtured is the home.
Whether one can have the sense at home that they are not just a recipient, but also, to some extent, on the supporting side. Whether one can have the experience of being given a role, having that act given meaning, and being acknowledged.
From there,contribution as a universalgrows.
However, how that contribution manifests is always specific and contextual.
Sometimes it means stepping forward, sometimes it means stepping back.
Sometimes it means speaking, sometimes it means staying silent.
Supporting does not always appear with the same face.
Therefore, what we should really be asking is not, 'Be more proactive.'
What we should first ask is,'Is there a relationship where contribution has meaning, is acknowledged, and does not turn into mere exploitation?'.
Proactivity is not something drawn out by commands.
It is something that can only manifest within a community built on trust.
Done