The Courage to Be Disliked

by Ichiro Kishimi

  PHILOSOPHER: I see. Let’s talk about one of the major premises of Adlerian psychology regarding this matter. Adlerian psychology denies the need to seek recognition from others.

  YOUTH: It denies the desire for recognition?

  PHILOSOPHER: There is no need to be recognized by others. Actually, one must not seek recognition. This point cannot be overstated.

  YOUTH: No way! Isn’t desire for recognition a truly universal desire that motivates all human beings?

  Do Not Live to Satisfy the Expectations of Others

  PHILOSOPHER: Being recognized by others is certainly something to be happy about. But it would be wrong to say that being recognized is absolutely necessary. For what does one seek recognition in the first place? Or, to put it more succinctly, why does one want to be praised by others?

  YOUTH: It’s simple. It’s through being recognized by others that each of us can truly feel we have value. It is through recognition from others that one becomes able to wipe away one’s feelings of inferiority. One learns to have confidence in oneself. Yes, it’s an issue of value. I think you mentioned it last time: that the feeling of inferiority is an issue of value judgment. It’s because I could never get recognition from my parents that I have lived a life tainted by feelings of inferiority.

  PHILOSOPHER: Now let’s consider a familiar setting. For example, let’s say you’ve been picking up litter around your workplace. The thing is, no one seems to notice at all. Or if they do, no one has given you any appreciation for what you’ve done, or even said a single word of thanks. Well, will you keep on picking up litter from now on?

  YOUTH: That’s a difficult situation. I suppose that if no one appreciates what I’m doing, I might stop.

  PHILOSOPHER: Why?

  YOUTH: Picking up litter is for everyone. If I’m rolling up my sleeves and getting it done, but I don’t get a word of thanks? I guess I’d probably lose my motivation.

  PHILOSOPHER: This is the danger of the desire for recognition. Why is it that people seek recognition from others? In many cases, it is due to the influence of reward-and-punishment education.

  YOUTH: Reward-and-punishment education?

  PHILOSOPHER: If one takes appropriate action, one receives praise. If one takes inappropriate action, one receives punishment. Adler was very critical of education by reward and punishment. It leads to mistaken lifestyles in which people think, If no one is going to praise me, I won’t take appropriate action and If no one is going to punish me, I’ll engage in inappropriate actions, too. You already have the goal of wanting to be praised when you start picking up litter. And if you aren’t praised by anyone, you’ll either be indignant or decide that you’ll never do such a thing again. Clearly, there’s something wrong with this situation.

  YOUTH: No! I wish you wouldn’t trivialize things. I’m not arguing about education. Wanting to be recognized by people you like, to be accepted by people close to you, is a normal desire.

  PHILOSOPHER: You are badly mistaken. Look, we are not living to satisfy other people’s expectations.

  YOUTH: What do you mean?

  PHILOSOPHER: You are not living to satisfy other people’s expectations, and neither am I. It is not necessary to satisfy other people’s expectations.

  YOUTH: That is such a self-serving argument! Are you saying one should think only about oneself and live self-righteously?

  PHILOSOPHER: In the teachings of Judaism, one finds a view that goes something like this: If you are not living your life for yourself, then who is going to live it for you? You are living only your own life. When it comes to who you are living it for, of course it’s you. And then, if you are not living your life for yourself, who could there be to live it instead of you? Ultimately, we live thinking about “I.” There is no reason that we must not think that way.

  YOUTH: So you are afflicted by the poison of nihilism, after all. You say that, ultimately, we live thinking about “I”? And that that’s okay? What a wretched way of thinking!

  PHILOSOPHER: It is not nihilism at all. Rather, it’s the opposite. When one seeks recognition from others, and concerns oneself only with how one is judged by others, in the end, one is living other people’s lives.

  YOUTH: What does that mean?

  PHILOSOPHER: Wishing so hard to be recognized will lead to a life of following expectations held by other people who want you to be “this kind of person.” In other words, you throw away who you really are and live other people’s lives. And please remember this: If you are not living to satisfy other people’s expectations, it follows that other people are not living to satisfy your expectations. Someone might not act the way you want him to, but it doesn’t do to get angry. That’s only natural.

  YOUTH: No, it is not! That is an argument that overturns our society from its very foundation. Look, we have the desire for recognition. But in order to receive recognition from others, first we have to recognize others ourselves. It is because one recognizes other people and other systems of values that one is recognized by others. It is through this relationship of mutual recognition that our very society is built. Your argument is an abhorrent, dangerous way of thinking, which will drive human beings into isolation and lead to conflict. It’s a diabolical solicitation to needlessly stir up distrust and doubt.

  PHILOSOPHER: Ha-ha, you certainly have an interesting vocabulary. There’s no need to raise your voice—let’s think about this together. One has to get recognition, or one will suffer. If one doesn’t get recognition from others and from one’s parents, one won’t have confidence. Can such a life be healthy? So one could think, God is watching, so accumulate good deeds. But that and the nihilist view that “there is no God, so all evil deeds are permitted” are two sides of the same coin. Even supposing that God did not exist, and that we could not gain recognition from God, we would still have to live this life. Indeed, it is in order to overcome the nihilism of a godless world that it is necessary to deny recognition from other people.

  YOUTH: I don’t care for all this talk about God. Think more straightforwardly and more plainly about the mentality of real, everyday people. What about the desire to be recognized socially, for example? Why does a person want to climb the corporate ladder? Why does a person seek status and fame? It’s the wish to be recognized as somebody important by society as a whole—it’s the desire for recognition.

  PHILOSOPHER: Then, if you get that recognition, would you say that you’ve really found happiness? Do people who have established their social status truly feel happy?

  YOUTH: No, but that’s . . .

  PHILOSOPHER: When trying to be recognized by others, almost all people treat satisfying other people’s expectations as the means to that end. And that is in accordance with the stream of thought of reward-and-punishment education that says one will be praised if one takes appropriate action. If, for example, the main point of your job turns out to be satisfying other people’s expectations, then that job is going to be very hard on you. Because you’ll always be worried about other people looking at you and fear their judgment, and you are repressing your “I-ness.” It might come as a surprise to you, but almost none of my clients who come for counseling are selfish people. Rather, they are suffering trying to meet the expectations of other people, the expectations of their parents and teachers. So, in a good way, they can’t behave in a self-centered fashion.

  YOUTH: So I should be selfish?

  PHILOSOPHER: Do not behave without regard for others. To understand this, it is necessary to understand the idea in Adlerian psychology known as “separation of tasks.”

  YOUTH: Separation of tasks? That’s a new term. Let’s hear about it.

  The youth’s irritation had reached its peak. Deny the desire for recognition? Don’t satisfy other people’s expectations? Live in a more self-centered way? What on earth was this philosopher saying? Isn’t the desire for recognition itself people’s greatest motivator for associating with each other and going about the formation of society? The yo
uth wondered, What if this “separation of tasks” idea doesn’t win me over? I won’t be able to accept this man, or Adler for that matter, for the rest of my life.

  How to Separate Tasks

  PHILOSOPHER: Say there’s a child who has a hard time studying. He doesn’t pay attention in class, doesn’t do his homework, and even leaves his books at school. Now, what would you do if you were his father?

  YOUTH: Well, of course, I would try everything I could think of to get him to apply himself. I’d hire tutors and make him go to a study center, even if I had to pull him by the ear to get him there. I’d say that’s a parent’s duty. And that’s actually how I was raised myself. I wasn’t allowed to eat dinner until the day’s homework was done.

  PHILOSOPHER: Then let me ask another question. Did you learn to enjoy studying as a result of being made to do it in such a heavy-handed manner?

  YOUTH: Unfortunately, I did not. I just took care of my studies for school and for exams in a routine way.

  PHILOSOPHER: I see. All right, I will talk about this from the basic stance of Adlerian psychology. When one is confronted with the task of studying, for instance, in Adlerian psychology we consider it from the perspective of “Whose task is this?”

  YOUTH: Whose task?

  PHILOSOPHER: Whether the child studies or not. Whether he goes out and plays with his friends or not. Essentially this is the child’s task, not the parent’s task.

  YOUTH: Do you mean that it is something the child is supposed to do?

  PHILOSOPHER: Simply put, yes. There would be no point if the parents studied instead of the child, would there?

  YOUTH: Well, no, there wouldn’t.

  PHILOSOPHER: Studying is the child’s task. A parent’s handling of that by commanding the child to study is, in effect, an act of intruding on another person’s task. One is unlikely to avert a collision in this way. We need to think with the perspective of “Whose task is this?” and continually separate one’s own tasks from other people’s tasks.

  YOUTH: How does one go about separating them?

  PHILOSOPHER: One does not intrude on other people’s tasks. That’s all.

  YOUTH: That’s all?

  PHILOSOPHER: In general, all interpersonal relationship troubles are caused by intruding on other people’s tasks, or having one’s own tasks intruded on. Carrying out the separation of tasks is enough to change one’s interpersonal relationships dramatically.

  YOUTH: Hmm. I don’t really get it. In the first place, how can you tell whose task it is? From my point of view, realistically speaking, getting one’s child to study is the duty of the parents. Because almost no child studies just out of enjoyment, and after all is said and done, the parent is the child’s guardian.

  PHILOSOPHER: There is a simple way to tell whose task it is. Think, Who ultimately is going to receive the result brought about by the choice that is made? When the child has made the choice of not studying, ultimately, the result of that decision—not being able to keep up in class or to get into the preferred school, for instance—does not have to be received by the parents. Clearly, it is the child who has to receive it. In other words, studying is the child’s task.

  YOUTH: No, no. You’re completely wrong! The parent, who is more experienced in life and also acts as a guardian, has the responsibility to urge the child to study so such situations do not arise. This is something done for the good of the child and is not an act of intruding. While studying may be the child’s task, getting the child to study is the parent’s task.

  PHILOSOPHER: It’s true that one often hears parents today using the phrase “It’s for your own good.” But they are clearly doing so in order to fulfill their own goals, which could be their appearance in the eyes of society, their need to put on airs, or their desire for control, for example. In other words, it is not “for your own good” but for the parents’. And it is because the child senses this deception that he rebels.

  YOUTH: So even if the child hasn’t been studying at all, you’re saying that, since it’s his task, I should just let him be?

  PHILOSOPHER: One has to pay attention. Adlerian psychology does not recommend the noninterference approach. Noninterference is the attitude of not knowing, and not even being interested in knowing what the child is doing. Instead, it is by knowing what the child is doing that one protects him. If it’s studying that is the issue, one tells the child that that is his task, and one lets him know that one is ready to assist him whenever he has the urge to study. But one must not intrude on the child’s task. When no requests are being made, it does not do to meddle in things.

  YOUTH: Does this go beyond parent-child relationships?

  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, of course. In Adlerian psychology counseling, for instance, we do not think of the client’s changing or not changing as the task of the counselor.

  YOUTH: What are you saying here?

  PHILOSOPHER: As a result of having received counseling, what kind of resolution does the client make? To change his lifestyle, or not. This is the client’s task, and the counselor cannot intervene.

  YOUTH: No way, I can’t accept such an irresponsible attitude!

  PHILOSOPHER: Naturally, one gives all the assistance one possibly can. But beyond that, one doesn’t intrude. Remember the old saying, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” Please think of counseling and all other assistance provided to other people in Adlerian psychology as having that kind of stance. Forcing change while ignoring the person’s intentions will only lead to an intense reaction.

  YOUTH: The counselor does not change the client’s life?

  PHILOSOPHER: You are the only one who can change yourself.

  Discard Other People’s Tasks

  YOUTH: Then, what about with shut-ins, for example? I mean, with someone like my friend. Even then, would you say it’s the separation of tasks, don’t intervene, and it has no connection to the parents?

  PHILOSOPHER: Can he break out of the shut-in situation or not? Or, in what way can he break out of it? In principle, this is a task that the person has to resolve himself. It is not for the parents to intervene. Nevertheless, as they are not complete strangers, some form of assistance is probably needed. At this point, the most important thing is whether the child feels he can consult frankly with his parents when he is experiencing a dilemma, and whether they have been building enough of a trust relationship on a regular basis.

  YOUTH: Then, suppose your own child had shut himself in, what would you do? Please answer this not as a philosopher but as a parent.

  PHILOSOPHER: First, I myself would think, This is the child’s task. I would try not to intervene in his shut-in situation, and I would refrain from focusing too much attention on it. Then I would send a message to him to the effect that I am ready to assist him whenever he is in need. In that way, the child, having sensed a change in his parent, will have no choice but to make it his own task to think about what he should do. He’ll probably come and ask for assistance, and he’ll probably try to work some things out on his own.

  YOUTH: Could you really manage to be so cut and dried if it were your own child who’d become a shut-in?

  PHILOSOPHER: A parent suffering over the relationship with his or her child will tend to think, My child is my life. In other words, the parent is taking on the child’s task as his or her own and is no longer able to think about anything but the child. When at last the parent notices it, the “I” is already gone from his or her life. However, no matter how much of the burden of the child’s task one carries, the child is still an independent individual. Children do not become what their parents want them to become. In their choices of university, place of employment, and partner in marriage, and even in the everyday subtleties of speech and conduct, they do not act according to their parents’ wishes. Naturally, the parents will worry about them, and probably want to intervene at times. But, as I said earlier, other people are not living to satisfy your expectations. Though the child is one’s own, h
e or she is not living to satisfy one’s expectations as a parent.

  YOUTH: So you have to draw the line even with family?

  PHILOSOPHER: Actually, with families there is less distance, so it’s all the more necessary to consciously separate the tasks.

  YOUTH: That doesn’t make sense. On the one hand, you’re talking about love, and on the other, you’re denying it. If you draw the line between yourself and other people that way, you won’t be able to believe in anyone anymore!

  PHILOSOPHER: Look, the act of believing is also the separation of tasks. You believe in your partner; that is your task. But how that person acts with regard to your expectations and trust is other people’s tasks. When you push your wishes without having drawn that line, before you know it you’re engaging in stalker-like intervention. Suppose your partner did not act as you had wished. Would you still be able to believe in that person? Would you still be able to love that person? The task of love that Adler speaks of is composed of such questions.

  YOUTH: That’s difficult! That’s very difficult.

  PHILOSOPHER: Of course it is. But think about it this way: Intervening in other people’s tasks and taking on other people’s tasks turns one’s life into something heavy and full of hardship. If you are leading a life of worry and suffering—which stems from interpersonal relationships—learn the boundary of “From here on, that is not my task.” And discard other people’s tasks. That is the first step toward lightening the load and making life simpler.

  How to Rid Yourself of Interpersonal Relationship Problems

  YOUTH: I don’t know, it just doesn’t sit right with me.

  PHILOSOPHER: Then let’s envision a scene in which your parents are vehemently opposing your choice of place of employment. They were in fact against it, weren’t they?