Agreements After a Period of Dependence on Assistance

Epigraph

"There is no Wealth but Life"

John Ruskin, Unto This Last, Essay IV, concluding authorial thesis. Contained in Unto This Last and Other Essays on Political Economy, Ward, Lock & Co., 1912. This represents a moral stance within historical political economy, rather than an empirical law of universal prosperity or a rigid instruction manual for dividing living space.

What This Article Is About

There are moments when an adult suddenly finds themselves in the position of a fledgling in need of temporary scaffolding: without someone else's shoulder, they cannot assemble their documents, their suitcase, or their shattered routine. Someone offers a spare room, edits clumsy drafts of business correspondence, navigates foreign streets alongside them, or covers essential groceries. It is generous, decent, and deeply helpful. Yet when the immediate storm subsides and circumstances shift, the scripted role-play of rescuer and rescued often plods on by sheer momentum. The benefactor reflexively inspects every move as though the edge of a cliff were still right there, while the recipient timidly seeks tacit approval just to buy a loaf of bread. Both sense the absurdity, yet both hesitate to speak up, haunted by an unspoken apprehension: alter the baseline rules, and you risk being branded an ungrateful traitor who trampled genuine goodwill.

Let us be clear from the outset: the word "dependence" here refers strictly to practical and financial reliance on another person's resources between two adults. It implies no clinical diagnoses, addiction treatment, legal verdicts, or residential eviction blueprints. We examine how to separate past generosity, actual present need, and future boundaries. Genuine gratitude is not an open-ended deed of guardianship over one's correspondence, and adult self-reliance is not established by theatrically slamming doors or rejecting constructive support. Ancient and classic texts serve here as modest ethical points of reference rather than universal laws; real boundaries are negotiated solely by the participants themselves. If withdrawing assistance poses immediate physical danger or involves required professional care, philosophical musings must yield to competent local action and qualified personnel. Finally, a small voluntary exercise at the end offers a low-stakes framework to test a redefined boundary without the childish illusion of wiping away all hurt or guaranteeing lifelong harmony.

I. A Period of Need Does Not Permanently Define a Person

Consider the familiar scenario of Nina and Oleg. After relocating, Nina stays in Oleg’s spare room for several months. By mutual agreement at the time, Oleg helps her navigate local listings, reviews and dispatches professional inquiries with her, and covers a portion of shared household expenses. In time, Nina secures employment, earns an income, and actively prepares to lease her own room. One might expect a polite bow and a clean handover. Instead, Oleg continues reading her incoming correspondence without asking and firmly advises against sending any reply without his explicit vetting. That assistance was once agreed upon and genuinely useful. Now Nina wants to reclaim basic control over her life, yet dreads that setting a firm boundary will sound like callous ingratitude.

The first step out of this quagmire is a sober audit of facts stripped of dramatic exaggerations. What can Nina handle on her own today? What remains practically beyond her reach? Which of Oleg’s gestures still provide real utility, and which persist without current consent? A steady paycheck does not instantly transform someone into an invincible master of daily logistics. Conversely, the fact that Nina was disoriented yesterday does not relegate her to permanent helplessness. Autonomy returns unevenly: she is fully capable of managing her inbox, yet reviewing a residential tenancy contract may still benefit from an experienced adviser. Concrete specifics prevent sweeping labels of total independence or perpetual incapacity.

Dependence in this narrative is simply the historical fact that one person relied on another’s resources during a specific window, not a psychiatric label or character flaw. It reveals nothing intrinsic about Nina’s soul, nor does it hand Oleg a perpetual scepter of benevolent rule. People encounter vulnerability for countless reasons. Initiating a change does not require assembling a tribunal to certify Nina’s personal rebirth; it merely requires stating what is evident: who hits the buttons, who makes the decisions, and what changes starting today.

Oleg’s frustration is equally understandable without imputing sinister malice to either side. The role of the generous mentor offered structural clarity: he was needed, he solved problems, and he saw tangible results. Having that guidance suddenly waved away can sting personal pride, but an unheeded suggestion does not make Nina an ungrateful monster. She can value past support while charting her own direction. Oleg’s feelings need not be dismissed, but they must be decoupled from an assumed right to manage someone else’s affairs indefinitely. Shifting the dispute from emotional scorekeeping to tangible actions clarifies where guidance was constructive and where it became suffocating oversight.

Renegotiating involvement begins not with grandiose declarations of absolute sovereignty, but with small, distinct adjustments. Nina manages her own email. Oleg stops glancing at her monitor. Meanwhile, they might still coordinate on apartment viewings. This does not instantly equalize their life experience, nor does it guarantee Nina immunity from future blunders. It simply acknowledges reality: the old baseline is obsolete. Respecting that basic fact allows a calm discussion of subsequent steps, unburdened by the fiction that one party is an eternal parent and the other an eternal ward requiring permission for every breath.

II. Acknowledging the Past Does Not Require an Emotional Balance Sheet

Whenever boundaries are reviewed, both sides are tempted to produce balance sheets of grievances. The helper tallies hours spent, grocery receipts, and derailed weekends; the recipient counters with remembered indignities, walking on eggshells, and obligatory smiles. Some of those historical facts are entirely valid. Yet drawing up a master ledger of who owes what over past months will not by itself clarify what needs to happen tomorrow morning. An emotional tally merely lumps together gratitude, debt, past resentment, and present choices, turning a conversation about a house key into an inquest on the entire relationship.

Distinguishing between types of resources is crucial. If money was lent with an explicit agreement and repayment schedule, it remains a distinct loan with its own parameters. But if Oleg covered past purchases as an outright gift, retroactively recasting it as a debt simply because Nina pushes back is disingenuous. Where prior terms were left vague, that ambiguity should be acknowledged as unclarified history rather than weaponized. We do not issue legal declarations regarding oral agreements here; we merely caution against manipulation. Ambiguous past arrangements cannot serve as an open warrant to dictate present decisions.

Nina can plainly say: "I am deeply grateful for the roof over my head and your initial help, but starting today I handle my work correspondence myself." One statement does not invalidate the other. Oleg is entitled to note that his contribution cost far more energy than she noticed. Nina can register that reality without handing over her passwords out of compensatory guilt. Acknowledging someone's real contribution does not resolve every lingering friction, but it establishes boundaries without erasing genuine help already received.

Waiting for complete emotional alignment and the evaporation of all hurt before making practical adjustments is an exercise in futility. People can feel irritated, awkward, or defensive while still agreeing on a move-out date, key return logistics, and the cessation of unprompted edits. This does not mean emotions are irrelevant; it simply means daily arrangements cannot remain suspended until both achieve total serenity. A concrete step can be implemented now, leaving the processing of hurt feelings for later if both parties wish. A neat set of terms does not automatically manufacture warmth.

If past support came laced with pressure, recognizing the utility of the shelter does not obligate Nina to validate the overreach. A warm roof stands on its own; reading personal messages uninvited stands on its own. The inverse holds true as well: not every clumsy or inconvenient request from Oleg constitutes calculated manipulation. Adult assessment demands observable facts, not a melodrama dividing people into pure victims and cartoonish villains. A renewed understanding can stand upon a complicated past without putting the relationship on trial just to return control of an "enter" key to its proper owner.

III. Future Terms Must Be Evident to Both Sides

In Essay IV of Unto This Last, John Ruskin examines the mechanics of exchange, distinguishing situational leverage from the generation of genuine utility. In the selected passage, he highlights that terms must be transparent to both parties, and that an advantage built upon the other’s ignorance or helplessness is fundamentally flawed. This is Victorian moral political economy—complete with didactic rhetoric and historical assumptions—and cannot be directly mapped onto modern financial systems. Yet for everyday human interactions, it poses a direct question: do both parties actually comprehend what they are agreeing to?

If Oleg casually offers, "Stay another month, no problem," both ought to clarify the ground rules before bags are unpacked again. Is this ongoing hospitality, shared rent and utilities, or an exchange of tasks? What exactly does the arrangement entail? Which decisions remain Nina’s alone? Domestic arrangements need not mimic a legal statute. However, what seems self-evident to one may come as a rude shock to the other, particularly if initial agreements were forged in haste amid acute stress.

Suppose Oleg privately assumes that in exchange for the room, Nina will take over deep cleaning and run his personal errands. If that expectation lives only in his head, Nina’s consent to stay an extra month does not imply consent to serve as unpaid staff. Oleg has every right to propose such terms openly; Nina has every right to assess her bandwidth and accept or decline. Past generosity does not confer a right to bundle hidden demands into basic hospitality. Terms belong on the table prior to agreement, not pulled from a sleeve later with a reproachful sigh that "any grateful person would have known."

Clarity must run both ways. Nina should specify her planned departure timeline, contribution to shared living costs, and areas where advice is no longer sought. If she privately hopes Oleg will continue managing her housing search, she must ask directly rather than treating his time as an open utility. A helper is not a mind reader tracking personal developments, and a recipient is not required to trade autonomy for every meal provided. Transparent communication accommodates any answer, including partial agreement: "I accept this part, but let us adjust that one." Silence is not assent, and awkwardness or guilt alone proves neither agreement nor its absence. Specific terms require explicit confirmation.

This is an ethical lens on openness, not a demand to monetize friendship. Generous support can be entirely selfless and require no reciprocal labor. But if reciprocal expectations exist, concealing them beneath altruistic posturing is dishonest. Furthermore, the genuine freedom to decline is vital. If saying "no" immediately triggers threats of eviction or emotional retaliation, no superficial clarity will make the dynamic safe. In such circumstances, resolution requires independent support and conditions that no historical essay can supply.

IV. Sharing Involvement Does Not Mean Splitting Everything Evenly

In the sixth chapter of Galatians (verses 1 to 5), the author places two seemingly contrasting admonitions side by side: to bear one another's burdens, yet also to test one's own work and bear one's own load. This is pastoral counsel addressed to a first-century religious community, not a standard contract with time-tracking sheets. What matters here is the underlying balance: supporting another does not mean absorbing their entire existence, and taking personal responsibility does not require collapsing under a load while refusing all aid.

Following a move, Nina and Oleg are under no obligation to divide ongoing tasks into a rigid fifty-fifty split measured by a stopwatch. Oleg may know the local market thoroughly and offer a few vetted contacts. Nina writes the inquiries and selects the room herself. This asymmetry is not unfair simply because the contributions differ. Equal human dignity does not grant identical experience, skill, or network access. Yet superior competence does not grant the right to seize another’s agency: advising on a neighborhood and deciding where to live occupy entirely separate jurisdictions.

Situations arise where one person temporarily carries more practical weight. This can be acknowledged openly without turning the other into an eternal debtor. A clear timeframe and a review date can be established. If Oleg’s patience or bandwidth runs low, defining that limit upfront is far healthier than harboring resentment. Demanding immediate parity is unnecessary—Nina’s current capacity to return comparable resources must be verified rather than assumed. But neither should an imbalance be treated as permanent. Both the causes of disparity and the means to reduce it evolve as a person regains stability.

Another frequent pitfall is differing definitions of where a task actually ends. Oleg might pass along phone numbers and consider his part complete. Nina might quietly assume he will accompany her to viewings and review the lease. The friction here does not stem from cruelty or ingratitude; they simply envisioned different endpoints. The boundary must be articulated: does involvement end with contact details, a single viewing together, or a final review before signing? Naming the limit does not make the underlying challenge disappear, but it clarifies the precise scope of commitment.

Biblical pastoral ethics and practical domestic coordination operate on distinct planes. The Apostle Paul was not outlining an urban roommate agreement. We take only the fundamental distinction between providing support and supplanting an individual: equal worth does not require uniform contribution where resources differ, but practical aid never justifies perpetual control where an action belongs to its rightful owner.

V. A Helper's Competence Does Not Determine Another's Worth

In section 44 of the Enchiridion, Epictetus dissects the errors of personal conceit with dry stoic precision: concluding that because one is wealthier or more eloquent than another, one is therefore superior as a person is an unwarranted leap; advantages in property concern only property, and eloquence concerns only speech. In Elizabeth Carter’s translation, this distinction guards against false inference. This is Stoic moral philosophy, not a clinical measure of maturity. Yet it provides a sharp instrument for examining assumptions: what genuinely follows from a helper’s experience, and what is merely an unearned entitlement to govern another adult?

Oleg may indeed understand local listings better and spot deceptive terms more quickly. From that fact, exactly one thing follows: his perspective on an advertisement may be useful. It does not follow that Nina cannot determine her own living arrangements. A person may stumble through unfamiliar paperwork while retaining sound judgment about their priorities and lifestyle. The drift from practical expertise to broad control often happens quietly: an adviser clarifies a form, and weeks later presumes to dictate personal associations. That boundary must be redrawn without discrediting the genuine value of the skill.

Respecting someone’s right to choose does not require unfounded optimism that every decision will turn out flawlessly. Nina may rent a damp room with loud neighbors and regret it. Oleg has every right to caution her about risks and define the limits of his future involvement; he need not stay silent out of politeness. But flagging a hazard is one thing; using a misstep as a pretext to reinstate total supervision is another. A single error does not prove general incompetence, nor does it justify stripping an adult of subsequent agency.

Self-reliance is not established instantaneously; it develops through trial and error. One day Nina manages a complex matter smoothly; the next she freezes before an unfamiliar bill and asks for input. That isolated request does not erase progress or invalidate her path. It is far clearer to treat it as a situational query rather than a return to full dependence. Oleg remains free to assist or decline. Life is simpler when rare exceptions are not quietly converted into permanent regimes. The helper can set limits without standing guard, while the recipient learns through their own choices.

A Stoic critique of assumed superiority does not suggest passive endurance of disrespect or playing a stone statue amid criticism. Anyone is entitled to reject condescension or withdraw from hostile dynamics without having to prove philosophical detachment. Useful information can be accepted while firmly refusing demeaning evaluations of one’s character. This requires no intellectual triumphs, merely a steady assertion of boundaries. Healthy coordination relies on defined responsibility, not an assumed right of one adult to rank the worth of another.

VI. A New Agreement Requires Verifiable Terms

Vague declarations along the lines of "let us start acting like equal adults" sound noble, but offer little practical utility. Nina needs to know whether her correspondence will be left unread. Oleg needs to know when his apartment will be his own again and which expenses he no longer carries. Without concrete parameters, both walk away feeling understood, only to clash again the next morning. An agreement carries substance only when its terms can be verified: who acts, what is done, within what timeframe, and how unexpected obstacles are handled.

The scenario requires no extensive legal drafts—three or four precise markers are enough. Nina manages her professional affairs independently. Oleg acts as an adviser only upon explicit request. A move-out target and shared living costs are noted on the calendar. Nina makes the final housing choice herself, even if Oleg attends a single viewing. These boundaries do not encompass every facet of personal affection; their specificity simply prevents unexamined assumptions from masquerading as friendship.

Provisions for adjusting these boundaries should be agreed upon beforehand. If Nina cannot move by the targeted date, that delay does not grant a blanket right to remain indefinitely on former terms. Conversely, if Oleg suddenly needs the space, his annoyance does not justify precipitous eviction under the assumption that it carries no risk. A shift in plans calls for renewed discussion, not unilateral abandonment of commitments. We do not define housing law here; contested situations depend on local statutes and require competent local review if disputes stall.

Personal data and correspondence demand strict hygiene. Access granted during an emergency is not an enduring entitlement. Both should clarify which files or information remain necessary to finalize open matters, and which are closed for good. Passing private archives to a third party simply because a helper grows tired and seeks to offload responsibility is unacceptable. Introducing a new helper requires that person’s explicit, informed consent and Nina’s agreement to the role. Mentioning an acquaintance's name is not a handover, and exhaustion does not automatically obligate a third party.

Verifiable terms provide clarity; they are not an excuse for micromanagement or daily progress interrogations. A single checkpoint can help review the agreed task, while openly noting unresolved issues. Commitments must align with actual capacity. If an agreed goal proves unworkable, discuss a realistic adjustment and existing commitments. If separating arrangements involves genuine hazards to health or personal safety, informal notes are inadequate—appropriate competent local support is needed. A practical arrangement serves a narrow function: it provides a platform for the next step, without guaranteeing financial windfalls, housing availability, or enduring warmth.

VII. A Trial Arrangement Allows Adjustment Without Reverting to Old Control

Expecting a new framework to operate flawlessly from day one is unrealistic. Nina may hesitate, unsure if asking a basic question invites interference, while Oleg may reflexively draft responses before being asked. Such friction does not signal failure, nor does it call for despair. It provides raw data for calibration. A trial period makes sense only when tied to a specific scope and timeframe, rather than serving as an open-ended test of whether someone is "ready" for adulthood.

Suppose they agree that Oleg reviews drafts only when Nina explicitly forwards them. A week later, Oleg notices an open tab, spots an error, and edits the text right before sending. What matters is the action and its direct result: an intervention occurred without consent. Lengthy psychological analyses of underlying authoritarian traits are unhelpful. Oleg might acknowledge the overstep, or argue the mistake risked severe consequences. The appropriate discussion concerns the specific risk and how to flag it without commandeering the keyboard.

The reverse can also occur: Nina might panic and attempt to offload tasks previously assigned to herself. Oleg need not lash out or recount past favors; he can calmly reference the agreed scope and state what he will and will not handle. Nina need not interpret a firm refusal as abandonment, and Oleg need not deliver moral lectures to justify his limits. Calibration must target the specific action rather than turning into an audit of personal maturity.

At times, adjustment reveals an impasse: no common ground exists. Oleg may refuse to step down from the mentor role, or his proposed constraints may prove stifling to Nina. In that case, recognizing the dead end, winding down shared activities, and seeking external resources is the honest path. This may lead to distance or the dissolution of the relationship, a possibility that should be faced squarely. Preserving a bond at all costs makes little sense. If interactions escalate into threats or intimidation, diplomatic exercises must cease—personal safety overrides conversational strategy and cannot be resolved with paper notes.

The freedom to make mistakes and adjust differs fundamentally from indefinitely delaying agreed changes. If private correspondence continues to be inspected under the guise of "we are just adjusting," the agreement is effectively ignored; the motives for this remain unknown. If a departure date slips continuously, the underlying causes and available terms for an extension must be addressed. Focus on observable actions rather than stated intentions. Avoid treating every minor misstep as a conspiracy to reimpose servitude; acknowledge the lapse, set aside assumptions about intent, and determine how to proceed. Practicality is proven by action, not polished rhetoric.

VIII. A Renewed Dynamic Can Acknowledge Past Help While Retaining Choice

Once the immediate transition settles, the tone of interaction may shift. Daily friction recedes, shared topics evolve, and assistance transitions from a mandatory routine to occasional, voluntary visits. For some, this space feels like a painful loss of closeness; for others, it offers relief and the possibility of interaction free from simmering resentment. Neither emotional reaction determines the permanent trajectory of the relationship. It is sensible to evaluate what is currently sustainable without demanding the intensity of past chapters.

In our narrative, Nina eventually settles into her own place and continues meeting Oleg for coffee. Oleg maintains an interest in her progress without demanding operational reports. Nina might seek his perspective occasionally, while retaining the freedom to act otherwise. This is one possible outcome, not an obligatory happy ending. They may just as easily discover that without shared logistical crises, they share little common ground, and drift apart. Gratitude for past support remains valid even if a sustained friendship does not emerge. Thankfulness is not a lifelong social retainer.

In the final pages of his essay, John Ruskin evaluates wealth by the scope of human life and the fulfillment of capacities, rather than accumulated capital. Applied here, the criterion is straightforward: does an arrangement make individuals more capable and less constrained? A clear understanding does not eliminate hardship or guarantee contentment. At times, its most honest outcome is acknowledging that past assistance is exhausted. Offloading responsibility cannot be masked as a moral lesson designed to build another's character. The strain of transition must be recognized, alongside the reality that unpaid resources have run dry and excessive oversight has become intolerable.

Should circumstances change and Nina face renewed difficulties, both remain free to discuss fresh support. Yet any future help must not revert by default to former hierarchical patterns. It requires defining the task, resources, and timeline anew. Adult life is rarely linear; periods of stability can be interrupted by fresh instability. This does not justify questioning someone's fundamental competence. Respecting facts is enough, without inferring that a request for assistance requires surrendering personal autonomy.

Moving past a period of dependence does not require grand theatrics or burning bridges. It centers on an unvarnished audit of actions, aligning interactions with present reality. The past remains, but it stops dictating future terms. Need is real, but it does not summon another's resources out of thin air. An adviser’s competence remains useful, but it ceases to measure another person’s dignity. Within that space lies room for a direct proposal and an honest response. While this will not untangle every human complication, it allows a constructive step forward, avoiding the twin traps of perpetual subservience to gratitude and petulant denial of past help.

Setting personal limits on one’s own involvement requires no external permission. New shared conditions require an explicit response from the other party; silence does not constitute acceptance. Existing commitments are addressed on their own merits, and shifting a date creates no new resources on its own. Where necessary care is involved, a genuine, safe transition is required: verified consent and capacity of the incoming helper, clear role definitions, viable conditions, and strictly minimal personal data shared solely for the specific task.

What This Means in Practice

If you choose to test this, select a single, low-stakes routine task that another person currently handles for you, even though you are fully capable of doing it yourself. Alternatively, if you are the one providing help, identify one area where your involvement has outlived its necessity. Separate past contributions from current obligations and the immediate request. Leave the ledger of grievances aside and avoid using this exercise to evaluate the other person’s character.

Define the action plainly: who is responsible, whether input is requested, what scope of help is agreed upon, and on what date you will review the arrangement. Allow space for partial agreement or refusal without demanding an immediate cessation of awkwardness. If personal documents or correspondence are involved, restrict access strictly to the task at hand. If handing over a role to a new person, ensure that person has explicitly consented and possesses the capacity to assist, rather than relying on unconfirmed assumptions. Remember: this exercise is not designed for situations where halting necessary care introduces danger or where legal intervention is required.

After completing this single trial, assess the concrete result. Did prior supervisory habits reassert themselves uninvited? Did an unagreed expectation emerge? Were issues adjusted without accusations of bad faith? This voluntary exercise offers no guarantees of permanent harmony, absolute trust, or complete autonomy across all domains. Its modest purpose is to make one specific arrangement clearer, ensuring past involvement no longer quietly controls what was never offered for management.

Key Quotation

"both are the better for the exchange"

John Ruskin, Unto This Last, Essay IV; drawn from the author’s illustration of exchanging grain for a tool. This represents a narrow illustrative example within a Victorian economic treatise, not an empirical guarantee of mutual benefit in every life transaction, nor an instruction to reduce friendship to a balance sheet.

Connections Between Traditions

Comparison	Common Question and Limit
Ruskin ↔ Visibility of Terms	Whether parties understand the actual cost and nature of a proposal before agreeing. Nineteenth-century moral economics does not substitute for modern contract or property law.
Galatians 6 ↔ Distribution of Involvement	Mutual burden-bearing must coexist with individual responsibility for one's own work. Pastoral counsel to an early religious community does not supply a rigid domestic timetable.
Epictetus 44 ↔ Helper Competence	Preeminence in wealth or eloquence does not make one person superior to another. A Stoic critique of logical fallacies is not a clinical assessment of interpersonal dynamics.
Ruskin ↔ Galatians 6	Regard for human life cannot be reduced to the mere accumulation or accounting of material resources. Moral critique of markets and apostolic exhortation rest on entirely different premises.
Epictetus 44 ↔ Authorial Role Redefinition	The practical value of advice can be appreciated without relinquishing personal sovereignty to the adviser. The modern renegotiation of interpersonal roles is an editorial framework, not an ancient dogma.

These five comparisons draw upon three distinct historical sources without suggesting an artificial consensus among ancient authors regarding the management of shared households.

Primary Sources

• John Ruskin. Unto This Last, Essay IV: Ad Valorem. Part II of Unto This Last and Other Essays on Political Economy. Ward, Lock & Co., London, Melbourne and Toronto, 1912, Gutenberg 36541. Title data, table of contents, essay boundaries, and selected passages on exchange and life have been verified. Other works in the volume do not serve as independent grounds for citation; dated social views are not endorsed.
• Galatians 6:1–5. Updated World English Bible, eBible.org. The selected passage is examined within the context of the chapter. Christian pastoral instruction, not a modern legal contract.
• Epictetus. Enchiridion, §44. Translated by Elizabeth Carter, Internet Classics Archive. Translation attribution and the selected section with immediate context have been verified; the exact underlying print edition is unknown.

Tags

assistance, agreement, autonomy, gratitude, need, resource, transition, promise, choice, consent, past, relationships, competence, dignity, advice, information, correspondence, terms, exchange, reciprocity, responsibility, limit, role, Ruskin, Epictetus, Galatians, stoicism, Christianity, practice, United Wisdom

About the Authors

Andrey Zarinsh — author and founder of the United Wisdom project. Explores themes of inner transformation, the unity of traditions, intercultural dialogue, and contemporary spiritual discipline. Instagram: @andrey.zarinsh

Maria Evilkut — co-author at United Wisdom. Alongside research, she seeks to test these ideas in practice and observe how principles of unity and mutual understanding work in real life between people and cultures. Instagram: @ilkutki