What is Soup vs. Token?

A while ago I happened across a thought-provoking article by Nora Samaran titled “Two Models of Nurturance (Which One Are You?)”[1], which presents a dichotomous model for explaining how people approach reciprocity in caring for others. In the “soup” type of person, care is freely given to others, with the open invitation for others to contribute what they can - as if we are all making a big pot of soup together. In the “token” type, one exchanges care as they might track their spending of money, keeping a roughly 50/50 split of giving and receiving.

I quickly recognised myself as more of a token-type person. I dislike almost anyone doing almost anything for me, because I see the tokens come flooding forth. And I saw an unfavourable angle of Nora’s article as a result. Despite its best efforts to be scientific, the article is positively biased towards the soup approach, to an extent which I believe is unnecessarily discrediting of token-type people. Here, I would like to present and examine my perspective as a tokener and why I believe the soup style is not as infallible as claimed.

(If you haven’t read the original article, please do so, as I won’t be reiterating it much, and is worth reading just on its own. The link is at the bottom of the page.)

Core Soup Assumption 1 - “Soup Ingredients are Infinite”

From my reading, the argument for the soup approach has two core assumptions. The first assumption is that the ingredients for soup are unlimited: we have enough to make soup, and we are physically/mentally able to make soup. Further, the making of soup is something we are happy to do unconditionally, forever. This is the defining characteristic of the soup-makers - they will generously provide care for those around them no matter the circumstance, striving for a better community for all.

In my experience, this implication of boundless soup-making is not so true. People do have real limits and it varies from one person to the next. The ingredients for soup are finite, and often quite limited. People may not have the energy or emotional capacity to provide care for those around them. And, they generally aren’t happy to continue providing forever at an arbitrarily high ratio of giving to receiving. At some point, people will burn out or see they aren’t getting anything in return, and I think this is perfectly reasonable and human. Part of this limitation might be fundamental to each person, part may be exacerbated by the (modern, Western) society we live in which commodifies everything. The reality is, we can’t pretend we are carefree soup-makers in a vacuum. Some base level expectation of reciprocity may be required.

In this light, the soup approach looks more like a perfect ideal to be worked towards. Which is a valid take, with the strong caveat that we must be accepting of human failure and potential fallback to tokens. The meaning is in the journey itself, and the actions we take daily, not the goal state of soup perfectionism. Nora’s article skirted the limitations of soup-type people in the interaction between soup and token tendencies, but could have gone further. A focus on the practicalities of a soup approach - taking ideology with a grain of salt - could have argued soup more convincingly.

Core Soup Assumption 2 - “Token-type is Based in Selfishness”

The second core assumption which seems to be made in the soup-verus-token model is that a token-type attitude is fundamentally derived from the desire to only receive and hoard resources. Opposing, of course, the soup attitude of free sharing and universal growth.

I believe this assumption to be an unfortunately bad-faith argument against the token approach. Definitely there are people in our world who act selfishly, but it isn’t the whole story. Consider an interesting inversion of the scenario: rather than purposely providing less care towards others such to serve themselves, token-type people may know they cannot provide (or provide as much), and enforce a token system to protect others. Knowing that others probably expect some reciprocity (as discussed in the previous section), controlling the amount of give and take to some degree provides assurance that neither side is overextending. A token person therefore may have a strong sense of fairness and equity motivating their behaviours, rather than selfishness.

Why Am I a Token Person?

Now, why I am, personally, more of a token person? The root reason is I know I struggle to provide as much care to others as they can provide to me. When it comes to relating to others, empathising with others, and caring for others, I’m just not very good at the moment. This can be considered a personal flaw, certainly. Not all of us are cut from the same cloth at the beginning, and that’s ok. This doesn’t mean I purposely treat people like trash, or don’t accept responsibility for my actions towards others, or don’t strive daily to be more caring. What it does mean is I’m very cognisant of the reciprocity expectations we may have, explicitly or implicitly. I would hate for someone to be tirelessly making soup, me doing my best to help, under the assumption that everything is alright, for them to suddenly turn to me and shout, “Hey! Why aren’t you pulling your weight making soup?!” To which, my response is quite plainly that I’m less skilled at making soup. I would much rather receive a tiny, or even nonexistent, quantity of care from others, in balance with what I think I can provide in return, to guarantee fairness. This is why I hate receiving gifts; I equally struggle to give them. I am strongly aware of my limitations, and in combination with my other beliefs, the token approach appears the most rational.

Conclusion

Overall, I think the underpinning vibe of the soup argument is solid: do your best to genuinely care for the humans around you. And with that in mind, perhaps trying to stratify us into soup versus token doesn’t make much difference in the end. We all have some soup-maker and some token-exchanger in us, if we’re honest, and that’s alright. There is not necessarily one correct way to express care.

Reading the original article, thinking through my reaction, and writing this response has been a valuable exercise. Thanks to Nora Samaran for writing the original article, which you should go read if you still haven’t.

References

[1] “Two Models of Nurturance (Which One Are You?)”, Nora Samaran, 2016. https://norasamaran.com/2016/09/30/two-models-of-nurturance-which-one-are-you/