Exaction Invoice

Authority has the privilege to coerce concessions beyond what the individual is obliged to give up. When unchecked, authority loses its legitimacy to affect the needs of the less powerful. Need-response can turn illegitimate manipulations into legitimate outcomes.

PROBLEM: Power Differentials

Transactional standard

The less two people personally know each other, the more their interactions tend to become transactional. Each side gives and takes value from the relationship as their position allows.

Each side gives up or gains what they personally seek in value. When one side holds more social influence than the other, much of the exacted value tends to flow in favor of the more influential, or more powerful. The less influential, or powerless side, tends to give up more than intended. Sometimes to simply avoid the displeasure of the more powerful side.

Distorting power differentials

In a more perfect world, each side naturally respects the rights and sanctity of each other. In reality, the "power differential" of one side unduly impacts the other side.

Such imbalance frequently brings trouble. But of a kind often invisible to the law. Anankelogy identifies a power differential where one side impacts the other more than impacted by it.

The Impactor: The relatively more powerful side, who impacts the relation more than impacted by it. Symbolized by the purple of royalty.

The Impactee: The relatively less powerful side, who is impacted by the relation more than impacting it. Symbolized by the green of grassroots.

A resulting problem on each side

We begin on the scientifically sound premise that all needs are inflexible, that they exist equally for all, and no need clashes with other needs. Solving problems is all about properly resolving needs for all involved in a situation, which improves wellness.

In other words, the personal needs of the vulnerable impactee exist as equally important as the personal needs of the powerholder impactor. The exaction invoice addresses a key need for each side.

Adversarial systems ultimately disadvantage both sides.

• The powerholder impactor risks their legitimacy.

• The vulnerable impactee risks their wellbeing.

The exaction invoice conveys the estimated costs the impactor's advantage imposes upon the impactee. But then shifts from the adversarial process of seeking literal compensation to our mutuality process of seeking mutual resolution of each othere's affected needs.

Adversarialism prematurely provokes mutual defensiveness, which compromises our full human potential to affirm each other's inflexible needs. The exaction invoice brings both sides together to address the problem of their unmet needs.

But that unlikely can be done effectively as long as one side holds most or all of the cards.

SOLUTION: Impact Parity

Need-response balances the power differential by incentivizing each side to provide for the key need of the other. Each needs something from the other.

The impactor may improve the impactee's wellness

The impactee requires wellness, which need-response guides the impactor to help resolve.

The impactee could improve the impactor's legitimacy

The impactor requires legitimacy, which need-response guides the impactee to help resolve.

The exaction invoice places both sides on a level playing field. We call this "impact parity".

See how this negates legalistic adversarialism and alienation? See how this optimizes our human potential to mutually empathize and support each other more?

Impact parity enables both sides to respond equally to the other.

• By helping the vulnerable impactor improve their wellness, the impactor earns legitimacy.

• By helping the powerholder impactor to earn legitimacy, the impactee improves their wellness.

Want to read more?

Subscribe to anankelogyfoundation.org to keep reading this exclusive post.

Subscribe Now