In modern times, the definition of martyr is often that of a person who exaggerates or displays discomfort in order to obtain sympathy or admiration. As a child, a family member would often say to me, "Don't be a martyr" or "No one likes a martyr" when I complained about a tough task or assignment. I got the message, and I still agree, no one likes a person who goes on and on about how tough their life is or the difficult work they do to make life better for others. Instead, people are far more attracted to the graceful giver--a person who quietly does the hard work without a lot of commentary and without looking for sympathy or praise. Yet, do people like the graceful giver because they can simply receive the benefits of the quiet work without helping out?
What's the healthy balance between martyr and graceful giver? When should a person rightly speak up when tasks are too tough and when is it best to do the hard work quietly?
I asked a good friend about this dilemma recently. My friend taught with me and in our teaching world there were definitely a lot of graceful givers who always went beyond the call of duty performing an endless list of tasks that were tough and seemingly too great with regard to their personal time, salaries, and support, and there were martyrs too--people who spoke up when the tasks were too tough letting everyone know the hard work they were doing day after day. What is the healthy balance between the two, and what do we call that?
The healthy balance includes speaking up and advocating for fair working conditions and just salaries. When people continually do more than is humanly respectful and right, they help to set up an intolerable atmosphere--the kind of environment that most people can't keep up with in healthy, positive ways. On the other hand, when people continually lament the hard work that they are doing, people stop listening to that litany of complaints. Those martyrs get tiring fast and provoke all kinds of disrespectful, unsupportive reactions.
We will all choose to be a graceful giver at times--we'll choose to go beyond the call of duty and stretch ourselves because we may truly believe in the people or activities we are working for. When we do this work, we are not looking for sympathy or praise, but instead simply desiring to get the work done to improve someone's life or a situation that impacts many. This kind of giving is often spiritual in nature, and can bring people great satisfaction, meaning, and depth.
We will also be the martyr sometimes--we will go on and on about work that seems to difficult, unsupported, but necessary. We'll choose that work because we believe it is the right thing to do, and we'll want people to know because we feel deeply that the work is very challenging, possibly oppressive, and in need of greater support.
Too often, however, people don't choose that middle path--the path of the advocate who strategically and thoughtfully works with others to make good change. Advocacy has the potential to bring a team together to embrace a common vision, make a plan, and truly improve the quality and quantity of work involved to make promising change.
We can't advocate for too much change at once as that dilutes one's efforts. We also can't be a graceful giver all the time since that would exhaust and discourage us, and we need to lessen or even eliminate our desire to be martyrs since that tires everyone else out and doesn't help a situation.
Honing our skills for strategic, collaborative, positive advocacy seems to be the best path as we consider the investments we make in betterment and service of any kind. What do you think? I'm still thinking about this quandary.