Quid Pro Quo and the Give-and-Take Society

The meanings of common words and phrases often change over time.  This linguistic behavior is widely known, accepted, and appreciated by word lovers.  Power Word #16, quid pro quo, is one of the expressions whose meaning has shifted. 


In the 1530's in England, the phrase was used to indicate the substitution of one medicine for another, both intentionally and accidentally.  By the beginning of the 17th century, quid pro quo was used to mean a substitute but in a more expanded way, something that was given or taken in exchange for something else.  Although today the expression finds itself useful in legal contexts and politics, the word implies numerous equivalent exchanges. Let's explore this idea a bit more.


Definition
Quid pro quo: one thing in return for another; a substitute; something that is given or taken for something else


Part of Speech
A noun; plural form:  quid pro quos or quids pro quo


Origin
1555-1565
Latin, literally something for something


Examples
1.  Because no agreement of quid pro quo existed between organizations, both groups worked independently without sharing vital information.


2.  The evidence came to the attorney in the first place as a quid pro quo from a credible but criminal source and was therefore deemed inadmissible.


3.  David didn't need a quid pro quo to achieve enough votes from the student body; he was a popular candidate with a strong ethos.


4.  Because the unusually large sum of money suddenly deposited into Morrison's bank account looked suspiciously like a quid pro quo, the FBI opened an investigation.


The concept of quid pro quo has both negative and positive connotations, giving it the possibility of ambiguity.  The expression implies indebtedness, that a gift of equal value must be repaid or the consequences of lost faith will ensue, but is that always how giving works?


In light of negative undertones, we must consider what such an attitude says about the nature of giving. How often is our willingness or generosity for giving connected to the notion of what we expect to receive in return?  How difficult do we find it to give freely without encumbrances or attachments, without the concomitant guilt or shame?


Psychologist Brene Brown wrote, "Until we receive with an open heart, we're never really giving with an open heart.  When we attach judgment to receiving help, we knowingly or unknowingly attach judgment to giving help."

On the other hand, quid pro quo enhances human interaction; that is, when we repay someone's kindness willingly, our old brain thinks we're doing it so that we'll feel good about ourselves as well as the receiver.  Face it; it actually does feel good to make other people happy.


Furthermore, is it wrong to want to keep the playing field level, to insure continued help from others or even future cooperation by giving or returning the favor?  Perhaps that question has more than one answer.


I suppose, like everything in life, it's all in how you look at it from where you're standing.  Nevertheless, the point is, when you hear the expression quid quo pro now, perhaps you will give it another thought.  Such is the power of words.