The Courage to Be Disliked

by Ichiro Kishimi

  YOUTH: Please give me some time. Just once more, I would like some time to try to figure things out on my own. Our discussion today has given me much to think about. I would like to take it all home and ruminate on it calmly on my own.

  PHILOSOPHER: It takes time to gain a true understanding of community feeling. It would be quite impossible to understand everything about it right here and now. Please return to your home and give it some careful thought, while checking it against everything else we have discussed.

  YOUTH: I will. In any case, it was quite a blow to be told that I never really look at others, and I only have concern for myself. You’re really a dreadful fellow!

  PHILOSOPHER: Ha-ha. You say it in such a happy way.

  YOUTH: Yes, I enjoy it immensely. It hurts, of course. It’s like a sharp pain that shoots through me, as if I were swallowing needles. But still, I enjoy it immensely. It’s habit-forming, having these discussions with you. I realized a little while ago that maybe I don’t just want to take apart your argument—I want you to take apart mine, too.

  PHILOSOPHER: I see. That’s an interesting analysis.

  YOUTH: But don’t forget. I told you that I am going to take apart your argument and bring you to your knees, and I haven’t given up.

  PHILOSOPHER: Thank you. I’ve had a good time, too. Come by whenever you’re ready to pick this back up.

  THE FIFTH NIGHT:

  To Live in Earnest in the Here and Now

  The young man thought to himself, Adlerian psychology is engaged in a thorough inquiry into interpersonal relationships. And the final goal of these interpersonal relationships is community feeling. But is this really enough? Isn’t there something else that I was brought into this world to achieve? What is the meaning of life? Where am I headed, and what sort of life am I trying to lead? The more the young man thought, the more it seemed to him that his own existence had been tiny and insignificant.

  Excessive Self-Consciousness Stifles the Self

  PHILOSOPHER: It’s been awhile, hasn’t it?

  YOUTH: Yes, I last came about a month ago. I have been thinking about the meaning of community feeling since then.

  PHILOSOPHER: So how do you feel about it now?

  YOUTH: Well, community feeling is definitely an attractive idea. The sense of belonging, that “it’s okay to be here,” for example, which we possess as a fundamental desire. I think it is a brilliant insight into our existence as social creatures.

  PHILOSOPHER: It’s a brilliant insight, except . . . ?

  YOUTH: Funny, you caught on right away. That’s right, I still have some issues with it. I’ll say it straight out—I have no idea what you are going on about with your references to the universe and all that, and it ends up reeking of religion from beginning to end. There’s this kind of cultish quality to it all that I just can’t shake.

  PHILOSOPHER: When Adler first proposed the concept of community feeling, there was a great deal of opposition in a similar vein. People said that psychology is supposed to be a science, and here was Adler discussing the issue of worth. That sort of thing isn’t science, they said.

  YOUTH: So in my own way, I tried to figure out why I couldn’t understand what you were talking about, and I’m thinking that the order of things might be the problem. You’re starting off with the universe and inanimate objects, and the past and the future and so on, so I lose track of things. Instead, one should get a firm grasp of the “I.” Next, one should contemplate one-on-one relationships. That is to say, the interpersonal relationships of “you and I.” And once one has done that, the larger community should come into view.

  PHILOSOPHER: I see. That is a good order.

  YOUTH: Now, the first thing I want to ask about is attachment to self. You are saying that one has to stop being attached to the “I” and make the switch to “concern for others.” I am sure it is exactly as you say—concern for others is important, I agree. But no matter what, we worry about ourselves; we look at ourselves all the time.

  PHILOSOPHER: Have you thought about why we worry about ourselves?

  YOUTH: I have. If I were a narcissist, for example—if I were in love with myself and constantly fascinated with myself—maybe that would simplify things. Because your instruction, “Have more concern for others,” is a perfectly sound one. But I am not a self-loving narcissist. I am a self-loathing realist. I hate who I am, and that’s exactly why I look at myself all the time. I don’t have confidence in myself, and that’s why I am excessively self-conscious.

  PHILOSOPHER: At what times do you feel that you are excessively self-conscious?

  YOUTH: Well, at meetings, for example, I have a hard time raising my hand and making myself heard. I think needless things, like If I ask this question, they’ll probably laugh at me, or If the point I want to make is irrelevant, I’ll get ridiculed, and so on, and I just clam up. Truthfully, I falter even when it comes to telling silly jokes in front of people. Every time, my self-consciousness kicks in and puts the brakes on, and it’s as if I’ve been straitjacketed. My self-consciousness won’t allow me to behave in an innocent way. But I don’t even have to ask for your answer. I’m sure it’ll be the same as always: Have courage. But you know, such words are of no use to me. Because this isn’t just a matter of courage.

  PHILOSOPHER: I see. Last time, I gave an overview of community feeling. Today, we will dig deeper.

  YOUTH: And where will that take us?

  PHILOSOPHER: We will probably arrive at the question, What is happiness?

  YOUTH: Oh! So happiness lies beyond community feeling?

  PHILOSOPHER: There is no need to rush the answers. What we need is dialogue.

  YOUTH: All right, then. So let’s get started!

  Not Self-Affirmation— Self-Acceptance

  PHILOSOPHER: First of all, let’s look at what you were just saying, about your self-consciousness putting the brakes on and not letting you behave in an innocent way. There are probably many people who experience this trouble. So let’s go back to the source again and think about your goal. What could you be trying to gain by putting the brakes on your own innocent behavior?

  YOUTH: It’s the genuine desire to not be laughed at, to not be thought of as a fool.

  PHILOSOPHER: So in other words, you do not have confidence in your innocent self, in yourself just as you are, right? And you stay away from the kind of interpersonal relationship in which you would just be yourself. But I’ll bet that when you’re home alone, you sing out loud and dance to music and speak in a lively voice.

  YOUTH: Ha-ha! It’s almost like you’ve set up a surveillance camera in my room! But yes, it’s true. I can behave freely when I’m alone.

  PHILOSOPHER: Anyone can behave like a king when they’re alone. So this is an issue that should be considered in the context of interpersonal relations. Because it isn’t that you don’t have an innocent self—it is only that you can’t do such things in front of others.

  YOUTH: Well, what should I do then?

  PHILOSOPHER: It’s about community feeling, after all. Concretely speaking, it’s making the switch from attachment to self (self-interest) to concern for others (social interest) and gaining a sense of community feeling. Three things are needed at this point: “self-acceptance,” “confidence in others,” and “contribution to others.”

  YOUTH: Interesting. New keywords, I see. What do they refer to?

  PHILOSOPHER: Let’s start with self-acceptance. On our first night, I brought up that statement of Adler’s: “The important thing is not what one is born with but what use one makes of that equipment.” Do you remember this?

  YOUTH: Yes, of course.

  PHILOSOPHER: We cannot discard the receptacle that is the “I,” and neither can we replace it. The important thing, however, is “what use one makes of that equipment.” One changes one’s way of looking at the “I”—that is to say, one changes how one uses it.

  YOUTH: Does that mean be more positive and have a stronger sense of self-affirmati
on? Think about everything more positively?

  PHILOSOPHER: There is no need to go out of one’s way to be positive and affirm oneself. It’s not self-affirmation that we are concerned with, but self-acceptance.

  YOUTH: Not self-affirmation, but self-acceptance?

  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. There is a clear difference. Self-affirmation is making suggestions to oneself, such as “I can do it” or “I am strong,” even when something is simply beyond one’s ability. It is a notion that can bring about a superiority complex, and may even be termed a way of living in which one lies to oneself. With self-acceptance, on the other hand, if one cannot do something, one is simply accepting “one’s incapable self” as is and moving forward so that one can do whatever one can. It is not a way of lying to oneself. To put it more simply, say you’ve got a score of 60 percent, but you tell yourself, I just happened to get unlucky this time around, and the real me is 100 percent. That is self-affirmation. By contrast, if one accepts oneself as one is, as 60 percent, and thinks to oneself, How should I go about getting closer to 100 percent?—that is self-acceptance.

  YOUTH: So even if you’re only 60 percent, there’s no need to be pessimistic?

  PHILOSOPHER: Of course not. No one is perfect. Do you recall what I said when I was explaining the pursuit of superiority? That all people are in this condition of wanting to improve? Put the other way around, there is no such thing as a 100 percent person. This is something we should actively acknowledge.

  YOUTH: Hmm. What you are saying sounds positive in various respects, but it has a negative ring to it as well.

  PHILOSOPHER: Here I use the term “affirmative resignation.”

  YOUTH: Affirmative resignation?

  PHILOSOPHER: This is also the case with the separation of tasks—one ascertains the things one can change and the things one cannot change. One cannot change what one is born with. But one can, under one’s own power, go about changing what use one makes of that equipment. So in that case, one simply has to focus on what one can change, rather than on what one cannot. This is what I call self-acceptance.

  YOUTH: What one can change, and what one cannot.

  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. Accept what is irreplaceable. Accept “this me” just as it is. And have the courage to change what one can change. That is self-acceptance.

  YOUTH: Hmm. That reminds me of a line that the writer Kurt Vonnegut quoted in one of his books: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.” It’s in the novel Slaughterhouse-Five.

  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, I know it. It is the Serenity Prayer. These words are well known and have been transmitted for many years in Christian societies.

  YOUTH: He even used the word “courage.” I read the book so intently I should know it by heart. But I never noticed this point until now.

  PHILOSOPHER: It’s true. We do not lack ability. We just lack courage. It all comes down to courage.

  The Difference Between Trust and Confidence

  YOUTH: There is something about this “affirmative resignation” that sounds pessimistic. It’s just too bleak if the upshot of all this lengthy discussion is resignation.

  PHILOSOPHER: Is that so? Resignation has the connotation of seeing clearly with fortitude and acceptance. Having a firm grasp on the truth of things—that is resignation. There is nothing pessimistic about it.

  YOUTH: A firm grasp on the truth . . .

  PHILOSOPHER: Of course, just because one has arrived at affirmative resignation as one’s self-acceptance, it does not automatically follow that one finds community feeling. That is the reality. When one is switching from attachment to self to concern for others, the second key concept—confidence in others—becomes absolutely essential.

  YOUTH: Confidence in others. In other words, believing in others?

  PHILOSOPHER: Here, I will consider the words “believing in others” in the context of distinguishing trust from confidence. First, when we speak of trust, we are referring to something that comes with set conditions. We refer to it as credit. For example, when one wants to borrow money from a bank, one has to have some kind of security. The bank calculates the amount of the loan based on the value of that security, and says, “We will lend you this much.” The attitude of “We will lend it to you on the condition that you will pay it back” or “We will lend you as much as you are able to pay back” is not one of having confidence in someone. It is trust.

  YOUTH: Well, that’s how bank financing works, I guess.

  PHILOSOPHER: By contrast, from the standpoint of Adlerian psychology, the basis of interpersonal relations is founded not on trust but on confidence.

  YOUTH: And “confidence” in this case is . . . ?

  PHILOSOPHER: It is doing without any set conditions whatsoever when believing in others. Even if one does not have sufficient objective grounds for trusting someone, one believes. One believes unconditionally without concerning oneself with such things as security. That is confidence.

  YOUTH: Believing unconditionally? So it’s back to your pet notion of neighborly love?

  PHILOSOPHER: Of course, if one believes in others without setting any conditions whatsoever, there will be times when one gets taken advantage of. Just like the guarantor of a debt, there are times when one may suffer damages. The attitude of continuing to believe in someone even in such instances is what we call confidence.

  YOUTH: Only a naïve dimwit would do such a thing! I guess you hold with the doctrine of innate human goodness, while I hold with the doctrine of innate human evilness. Believe unconditionally in complete strangers, and you’ll just get used and abused.

  PHILOSOPHER: And there are also times when someone deceives you, and you get used that way. But look at it from the standpoint of someone who has been taken advantage of. There are people who will continue to believe in you unconditionally even if you are the one who has taken advantage of them. People who will have confidence in you no matter how they are treated. Would you be able to betray such a person again and again?

  YOUTH: Um, no. Well, it would be . . .

  PHILOSOPHER: I am sure it would be quite difficult for you to do such a thing.

  YOUTH: After all that, are you saying one has to appeal to the emotions? To keep on holding the faith, like a saint, and act on the conscience of the other person? You’re telling me that morals don’t matter to Adler, but isn’t that exactly what we’re talking about here?

  PHILOSOPHER: No, it is not. What would you say is the opposite of confidence?

  YOUTH: An antonym of confidence? Uh . . .

  PHILOSOPHER: It is doubt. Suppose you have placed “doubt” at the foundation of your interpersonal relations. That you live your life doubting other people—doubting your friends and even your family and those you love. What sort of relationship could possibly arise from that? The other person will detect the doubt in your eyes in an instant. He or she will have an instinctive understanding that “this person does not have confidence in me.” Do you think one would be able to build some kind of positive relationship from that point? It is precisely because we lay a foundation of unconditional confidence that it is possible for us to build a deep relationship.

  YOUTH: Okay, I guess.

  PHILOSOPHER: The way to understand Adlerian psychology is simple. Right now, you are thinking, If I were to have confidence in someone unconditionally, I would just get taken advantage of. However, you are not the one who decides whether or not to take advantage. That is the other person’s task. All you need to do is think, What should I do? If you are telling yourself, I’ll give it to him if he isn’t going take advantage of me, it is just a relationship of trust that is based on security or conditions.

  YOUTH: So one separates tasks there, too?

  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. As I have stated repeatedly, carrying out the separation of tasks returns life to an astonishingly simple form. But while the principle of the separation of tasks is easy to grasp, put
ting it into practice is difficult. I recognize that.

  YOUTH: Then you are telling me to keep on having confidence in everyone, to keep on believing in all other people even when they deceive me, and just go on being a naïve fool? That’s not philosophy or psychology or anything of the sort—it’s just the preaching of a zealot!

  PHILOSOPHER: I reject that definitively. Adlerian psychology is not saying “have confidence in others unconditionally” on the basis of a moralistic system of values. Unconditional confidence is a means for making your interpersonal relationship with a person better and for building a horizontal relationship. If you do not have the desire to make your relationship with that person better, then go ahead and sever it. Because carrying out the severing is your task.

  YOUTH: Then what if I’ve placed unconditional confidence in a friend in order to make our relationship better? I’ve jumped through all sorts of hoops for this friend, gladly satisfied any requests for money, and been unstinting with my time and efforts in his regard. But even in such cases, there are times when one is taken advantage of. For example, if one were horribly taken advantage of by a person one has believed in completely, wouldn’t that experience lead one to a lifestyle with an “other people are my enemies” outlook?

  PHILOSOPHER: It seems that you have not yet gained an understanding of the goal of confidence. Suppose, for example, that you are in a love relationship, but you are having doubts about your partner and you think to yourself, I’ll bet she’s cheating on me. And you start making desperate efforts in search of evidence to prove that. What do you think would happen as a result?