We Vote For...

What motivates you? If we get a closer look at the motivators of people, we could sum up to three: money, power and fame. So often, society conditions us to believe that success is about accumulating as much wealth, power, and fame as possible.

So, when one gets interested on a certain thing (like politics), this might be the potent question: What drives him or her? Social scientists often anchor such discourse on Maslow’s theory: the hierarchy of needs. When a certain need is unsatisfied, the person dwells on it.

MONEY. Whatever people lust for, that’s what they seek. A lust for money is greed (foxbusiness.com, 2013). Deprivation of the basic needs like food, clothing and even shelter causes people to lust for money. This is the reason why others resort to illegal trade since they do not want to be hungry or “unsecured” any time. Some people invest on political positions because of wealth. They see government seats as opportunities to become wealthier. And the voters could be bought as well since there are those who lust for money. Any amount could make them fill-in a certain need…to eat or drink, probably.

POWER. It is a neutral tool-one that can be used for good or ill. Power represents your ability to get things done though other people-the more power you have, the more things you can do. Accordingly, there’s nothing morally wrong with consciously seeking to increase your Power, provided you do so while respecting the rights of other people (Kaufman, 2017). 

But what if the one who sought for leadership was deprived of functioning according to his will due to overly strict parents or a domineering wife and circle of friends? Is s/he making this as an opportunity to satisfy an unmet need?

The majority will also feel that the election is the time to allow them to experience power. During the campaign period, politicians will kiss their asses for the votes! People demand. They play their roles in making the politicians become ordinary ones just like them. They make them dance and sing. They take pride when the politicians eat with them or be with their “poor”. They are in power even fleetingly.

FAME. There is a difference between becoming famous because you happen to do something noteworthy that deserves recognition and becoming famous because you actively and desperately seek out fame. If you grew up feeling ignored, neglected, or otherwise unacknowledged, the appeal of fame can be intoxicating. We all need a healthy dose of attention to help mold us into healthy adults, but some don't get that. As a result, they could seek attention from the public that they never received growing up as a form of self-validation.

The definition of success varies depending on who you talk to. Some people equate success with fame, when that isn't necessarily correct. A healthier way to define success is to feel happy and accomplished in what you do and who you are. As people equate success with fame, they also tend to attach their assessment of their own self-worth to public image (Markarian, 2016).

What if the leaders only feed on the thought of being “recognized” than to serve?

As adults, we need to understand how to evaluate our actions based on our needs. This is important since it is also a need for us to become actualized: to reach that level when we now understand and “in control” with our actions based on our motives. We must see the extrinsic and intrinsic motivators so to become better versions of ourselves.

Extrinsic motivation occurs when we are motivated to perform a behavior or engage in an activity to earn a reward or avoid punishment. In this case, you engage in a behavior not because you enjoy it or because you find it satisfying, but in order to get something in return or avoid something unpleasant. While intrinsic motivation involves engaging in a behavior because it is personally rewarding; essentially, performing an activity for its own sake rather than the desire for some external reward. Essentially, the behavior itself is its own reward (Cherry, 2018).

With the election of local and national leaders, we could use this as a gauge in dealing with those who are asking for our votes. We need to see whether they are motivated extrinsically or in an intrinsic manner. By doing so, we could be assured that we are not electing people who are still nursing on their unmet desires and needs.

Corruption, oppression and “epal” are by-products of unmet needs.

(Side note: This is the main reason why education, guiding the children and religious anchorage are good advocacies since we nurture the spirit of the young. Adults sometimes are “made”. They only choose what to learn. Mental health could be addressed as well when we start with nurturing the young. Gaps and deficits are confronted when the people are still able to cope. We have lots of adults who have cringing children inside of them. )

Objects

Lami amo da keyk! This could be overheard among male bystanders as they ogle on a beautiful woman who passes by. There are members of the gay community as well who would exchange antics on the “size” of their catch. Most of the time, they linger on the skin, face value and size… They are objectifying people.

At any given moment, according to a recent United Nations report, there are approximately 20 million human beings, women, girls, men, and boys, being retained in sexual oppression—sexual exploitation, sexual slavery, and pornography— against their will (Carter, 2017).

The objectification theory (Fredrickson and Roberts, 1997) posits that women often are looked at as objects by society, with a sexual focus being placed on their bodies rather than on their abilities. The ubiquity of these objectification experiences socializes women to internalize an observer perspective upon their body. This process is called self-objectification and occurs when women think about and treat themselves as objects to be regarded and evaluated based upon appearance (Fredrickson and Roberts, 1997; McKinley, 2011).

Although objectification is more directed to women, the concept is now being considered to men and boys as well. We see foreign and local actors investing on their body-sculpting and skin treatments for them to be more “presentable”.

It was mentioned in theconversation.com that if we only think in terms of the first form of objectification, and the consumption of “eye candy”, we are likely to conclude that the sexual objectification of men is a relatively trivial matter. Prevailing physical, political and economic power inequalities are such that in practice a man’s agency is much less likely than a woman’s to be overridden. Consequently, the objectification of men is much less likely to result in sexual violence. To this extent, a double standard might be thought tolerable.

However, in relation to the second form of objectification – where damaging norms and stereotypes are promoted and internalized – it’s difficult to defend the double standard. There seems to be no good reason to think that men are any less suggestible and compliant than women are when it comes to “normalizing” media representations. Young and impressionable men in particular may be as biddable and eager to play along as their female counterparts (Lucas, 2018).

There are those people who collect pornographic materials and their main focus are the parts of the bodies of people. They do not consider that these persons have feelings; that they have spirits and their importance is JUST on that certain part of their bodies!

Objectification and dehumanization represent motivational conundrums because they are phenomena in which people are seen in ways that are fundamentally inaccurate; seeing people as objects, as animals, or not as people. People may be perceived as lacking uniquely human characteristics, and thus likened to animals, or as lacking human nature, and thus likened to inanimate objects.

Both of these forms of dehumanization occur with varying degrees of subtlety, from the explicit uses of derogatory animal metaphors, to stereotypes that ascribe lesser humanness or simpler minds to particular groups, to non-conscious associations between certain humans and nonhumans (Haslam, 2013).

In the behavioral analysis unit of a criminal investigation team, the pornographic materials possession is one of the things that they look for to pin down a serial killer or a murderer. These are evidences that the criminal mind functions on objectifying persons not seeing them as human beings.

The research confluence theory states men with hyper masculinity that also involves psychopathic tendencies have low agreeableness, abuse, hostility towards women, impersonal sexuality combined with sexual permissiveness. When you have a confluence of those two things and violent pornography it may be a contributing factor to violent, abhorrent behavior (Puder, 2019).

It has been hypothesized that ‘high risk’ people who are high on rape tendencies are affected more by pornography and are at higher risk of becoming more sexually aggressive (Malamuth & Huppin, 2005). Among low empathy males attraction to pornography and violence is even greater (Cumberbatch, 2011). In a pornography meta-analysis, Oddone-Paolucci et al. (2000) argued that compared with control groups, in rape prone individuals, pornography may produce a 20-30% increase in the acceptance of rape as normal, in treating people as sex objects, in early age of first intercourse, and in coercive behavior.

With the exposure of the young to multiple sites, there must be filtering actions that the parents and teachers and other advocates on mental health on these facts. The only problem is when we see this as something NOT within our comprehension.

It takes a critical mind to wade and dive into such waters.

This, too, is another avenue when an individual reflects on his/her behavior towards people. Is s/he seeing them as human beings or seeing them as objects which could be dumped, rejected, hurt, pushed-aside, murdered, killed, or dehumanized? It is always an individual’s responsibility to look over his (mental) health.