What is it to “be supportive?” What is the value orientation that lies beneath this hollow placeholder for some normative universe?
Is “supportive” insisting that someone fulfill their “potential?” Which potential and/or potential for what? Everyone has multiple “potentialities,” many of which may well be mutually exclusive. Normativity trap one. Even if it makes them unhappy? And how do we define “potential?” Does it or does it not include constraints on consequences for finances or mental health? Normativity trap two.
Or does “supportive” mean assisting above and beyond all else in the defense and reinforcement of decisions already made, inclinations and feelings to be “indulged,” i.e. in the pursuit of happiness? But what is happiness? Are we talking immediate? Long-term? Deep? Shallow? Average/on balance or as a matter of the magnitudes of peaks without reference to the valleys? Normativity trap three.
Really, the very concept of support, like so many (all?) others immediately withers and disintegrates the moment it is moved from the relative darkness of ideal, traditional situations into the daylight of the postmodern, the global and multicultural, the hyperreal.
The question of giving “support” is a pivot around which two parties attempt to adjudicate power and to communicate hidden messages about their relative genres of cultural structure… as the anthropologists discovered long ago.
Thus obviating this post.
And as usual, only the completely ignorant have the luxury of knowledge, while the rest of us stumble about in tremendously humane incoherence.
The totalitarian is the home of all support and of all questions about it. I suppose at the end of the day, the totalitarian is the home of all that is, for there is no greater property of is-ness than the totalizer control of identity and it’s non-identity underbelly, the dictatorship of metaphysics, the dictatorial ruthlesness of properties endowed and/or not endowed as the ontological, of being, of it-ness.