“Can I borrow a piece of binder paper?”
“Will you give it back?”
I cannot count the number of times that I have had this conversation—only to point out that the asker wants to keep my binder paper. This problem may sound petty, but when it happens continuously, it becomes frustrating. Soon I hear people asking to “borrow” mechanical pencil lead and some have even gone so far as asking to “borrow” gum.
Why is it so crucial that we borrow things from others, as opposed to simply taking them? Why does society cringe at those who say, “Can I have this?” instead of saying, “Could I borrow this?”
Society and its generalizations about being polite cause us to act this way. It is the same reason many—myself included—add the unnecessary phrase, “Do you mind if…” before every question. We don’t want it to seem like a burden to give something. Giving means losing ownership, and losing ownership is generally not viewed as a good thing unless it’s for a charity. The result is adding unneeded, extra words—like “borrow”—in order to make requests sound simple and polite.
The problem is that while we are simplifying a request, we are simultaneously changing the meaning of what is being said. I rarely hear anyone be so direct as to say, “Could you give me a piece of binder paper?” It is the most straightforward way to make the point, but many argue that it sounds rude.
On the contrary, it all comes down to whether people would like their language to be grammatically correct, while still sounding refined, or overly condensed, with the gratuitous misuse of “polite” words. The latter option may make the speaker sound more polite, but it can also make him or her sound less educated.
People alter their language beyond what should be necessary. They acquire a mindset advocating that every request must be made in a passive, polite way.
In our society, ownership is omnipresent. People own cars. People own cell phones. People own houses. Material possessions equate to social status.
If we could diminish this feeling of ownership and materialism, then there would be no reason for people to feel the need to “borrow” things that cannot be returned in the first place. While this might sound like a collective ownership where everyone owns everything, it does not need to be so.
In the ideal world, people would have possessions, but there would not be such a great emphasis between giving and lending. They would be two different concepts, yet one would not be deemed greater or easier than the other.
People would feel welcome to directly request something and would receive an equally direct response. At a greater level, people would be more generous and giving because they would not feel as attached to the material aspects of life. They would be able to appreciate higher aspects more, such as those related to building and maintaining human relationships.
Some may argue that this hypothetical world will never be because it is human nature to be naturally selfish. However, philosopher Aristotle claimed, “Man is by nature a social animal.” Though we may be selfish, by becoming less attached to the material world, we can discover the personal benefits of helping others.
Unfortunately, the majority of the populace does not mind adding lace and frills to their dialogue to maintain their principles of ownership, so there may never be such a happy, giving society.
If people will not change their views, then they should at least keep one thing in mind. There is no need to beat around the bush with extra words simply to pose a request. If you are in need of binder paper, just ask if I can give you a piece of paper. I will most happily do so.