The Courage to Be Disliked

by Ichiro Kishimi

  YOUTH: Well, I guess that would depend on the situation.

  PHILOSOPHER: No, in every instance, you would find an abundance of evidence that she has been cheating on you.

  YOUTH: Wait? Why is that?

  PHILOSOPHER: Your partner’s casual remarks, her tone when talking to someone on the phone, the times when you can’t reach her . . . As long as you are looking with doubt in your eyes, everything around you will appear to be evidence that she is cheating on you. Even if she is not.

  YOUTH: Hmm.

  PHILOSOPHER: Right now, you are only concerned about the times you were taken advantage of, and nothing else. You focus only on the pain from the wounds you sustained on such occasions. But if you are afraid to have confidence in others, in the long run you will not be able to build deep relationships with anyone.

  YOUTH: Well, I see what you’re getting at—the main objective, which is to build deep relationships. But still, being taken advantage of is scary, and that’s the reality, isn’t it?

  PHILOSOPHER: If it is a shallow relationship, when it falls apart the pain will be slight. And the joy that relationship brings each day will also be slight. It is precisely because one can gain the courage to enter into deeper relationships by having confidence in others that the joy of one’s interpersonal relations can grow, and one’s joy in life can grow, too.

  YOUTH: No! That’s not what I was talking about, you’re changing the subject again. The courage to overcome the fear of being taken advantage of—where does it come from?

  PHILOSOPHER: It comes from self-acceptance. If one can simply accept oneself as one is, and ascertain what one can do and what one cannot, one becomes able to understand that “taking advantage” is the other person’s task, and getting to the core of “confidence in others” becomes less difficult.

  YOUTH: You’re saying that taking advantage of someone is the other person’s task, and one can’t do anything about it? That I should be resigned, in an affirmative way? Your arguments always ignore our emotions. What does one do about all the anger and sadness one feels when one is taken advantage of?

  PHILOSOPHER: When one is sad, one should be sad to one’s heart’s content. It is precisely when one tries to escape the pain and sadness that one gets stuck and ceases to be able to build deep relationships with anyone. Think about it this way. We can believe. And we can doubt. But we are aspiring to see others as our comrades. To believe or to doubt—the choice should be clear.

  The Essence of Work Is a Contribution to the Common Good

  YOUTH: All right. Well, suppose I have managed to attain self-acceptance. And that I have attained confidence in others, too. What kind of changes would there be in me then?

  PHILOSOPHER: First, one accepts one’s irreplaceable “this me” just as it is. That is self-acceptance. Then, one places unconditional confidence in other people. That is confidence in others. You can accept yourself, and you can have confidence in others. So what are other people to you now?

  YOUTH: My comrades?

  PHILOSOPHER: Exactly. In effect, placing confidence in others is connected to seeing others as comrades. It is because they are one’s comrades that one can have confidence in them. If they were not one’s comrades, one would not be able to reach the level of confidence. And then, having other people as one’s comrades connects to finding refuge in the community one belongs to. So one can gain the sense of belonging, that “it’s okay to be here.”

  YOUTH: In other words, you’re saying that to feel “it’s okay to be here,” one has to see others as comrades. And that to see others as comrades, one needs both self-acceptance and confidence in others.

  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. You are grasping this more quickly now. To take it a step farther, one may say that people who think of others as enemies have not attained self-acceptance and do not have enough confidence in others.

  YOUTH: All right. It is true that people seek the sense of belonging, that “it’s okay to be here.” And to get that they need self-acceptance and confidence in others. I have no objection to that. But I don’t know. Can one really gain a sense of belonging just by seeing others as comrades and having confidence in them?

  PHILOSOPHER: Of course, community feeling is not something that is attainable with just self-acceptance and confidence in others. It is at this point that the third key concept—contribution to others—becomes necessary.

  YOUTH: Contribution to others?

  PHILOSOPHER: Is to act, in some way, on one’s comrades. To attempt to contribute. That is “contribution to others.”

  YOUTH: So when you say “contribute,” you mean to show a spirit of self-sacrifice and to be of service to those around you?

  PHILOSOPHER: Contribution to others does not connote self-sacrifice. Adler goes so far as to warn that those who sacrifice their own lives for others are people who have conformed to society too much. And please do not forget: We are truly aware of our own worth only when we feel that our existence and behavior are beneficial to the community, that is to say, when one feels “I am of use to someone.” Do you remember this? In other words, contribution to others, rather than being about getting rid of the “I” and being of service to someone, is actually something one does in order to be truly aware of the worth of the “I.”

  YOUTH: Contributing to others is for oneself?

  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. There is no need to sacrifice the self.

  YOUTH: Uh-oh, your argument is starting to crumble here, isn’t it? You’ve done a wonderful job of digging your own grave. In order to satisfy the “I,” one makes oneself of service to others. Isn’t that the very definition of hypocrisy? I said it before: Your entire argument is hypocritical. It’s a slippery argument. Look, I would rather believe in the villain who is honest about his desires than the good guy who tells a pack of lies.

  PHILOSOPHER: Those are a lot of hasty conclusions. You do not understand community feeling yet.

  YOUTH: Then I wish you would provide concrete examples of what you consider to be contribution to others.

  PHILOSOPHER: The most easily understood contribution to others is probably work. To be in society and join the workforce. Or to do the work of taking care of one’s household. Labor is not a means of earning money. It is through labor that one makes contributions to others and commits to one’s community, and that one truly feels “I am of use to someone” and even comes to accept one’s existential worth.

  YOUTH: You are saying that the essence of work is contribution to others?

  PHILOSOPHER: Making money is a major factor too, of course. It is something akin to that Dostoevsky quote you happened upon: “Money is coined freedom.” But there are people who have so much money that they could never use it all. And many of these people are continually busy with their work. Why do they work? Are they driven by boundless greed? No. They work so they are able to contribute to others, and also to confirm their sense of belonging, their feeling that “it’s okay to be here.” Wealthy people who, on having amassed a great fortune, focus their energies on charitable activities, are doing so in order to attain a sense of their own worth and confirm for themselves that “it’s okay to be here.”

  YOUTH: Hmm, I suppose that is one truth. But . . .

  PHILOSOPHER: But what?

  Self-acceptance: accepting one’s irreplaceable “this me” just as it is. Confidence in others: to place unconditional confidence at the base of one’s interpersonal relations rather than seeding doubt. The young man found these two concepts sufficiently convincing. Contribution to others, however, was something he could not quite grasp. If that contribution is supposed to be “for other people,” then it would have to be one of bitter self-sacrifice. On the other hand, if that contribution is actually “for oneself,” then it’s the height of hypocrisy. This point has to be made utterly clear. In a resolute tone of voice, the young man continued.

  Young People Walk Ahead of Adults

  YOUTH: I will acknowledge that work has aspects of contribution to others
. But the logic that says that officially one is contributing to others when, in actuality, one is doing it for oneself, is nothing other than hypocrisy. How do you explain that?

  PHILOSOPHER: Imagine the following kind of scene. It’s after dinner at home, and there are still dishes left on the table. The children have gone off to their rooms, and the husband is sitting on the sofa watching television. It’s been left to the wife (me) to do the dishes and clear everything up. To make matters worse, the family takes that for granted, and they don’t make the slightest effort to help. In such a situation, normally one would think, Why won’t they give me a hand? or Why do I have to do all the work? Even if I do not hear the words “thank you” from my family while I am cleaning up, I want them to think that I am of use to the family. Instead of thinking about what others can do for me, I want to think about, and put into practice, what I can do for other people. Just by having that feeling of contribution, the reality right in front of me will take on a completely different hue. In fact, if I am grumbling to myself as I wash the dishes, I am probably not much fun to be around, so everyone just wants to keep their distance. On the other hand, if I’m humming away to myself and washing the dishes in good spirits, the children might come and give me a hand. At the very least, I’d be creating an atmosphere in which it is easier for them to offer their help.

  YOUTH: Well, that might be the case in that setting, anyway.

  PHILOSOPHER: Now, how come I have a feeling of contribution in that setting? I have it because I am able to think of the members of my family as comrades. If I cannot do that, inevitably there will be thoughts running through my head like, Why am I the only one doing this? and Why won’t anyone give me a hand? Contribution that is carried out while one is seeing other people as enemies may indeed lead to hypocrisy. But if other people are one’s comrades, that should never happen, regardless of the contributions one makes. You have been fixating on the word “hypocrisy” because you do not understand community feeling yet.

  YOUTH: Okay . . .

  PHILOSOPHER: For the sake of convenience, up to this point I have discussed self-acceptance, confidence in others, and contribution to others, in that order. However, these three are linked as an indispensable whole, in a sort of circular structure. It is because one accepts oneself just as one is—one self-accepts—that one can have “confidence in others” without the fear of being taken advantage of. And it is because one can place unconditional confidence in others, and feel that people are one’s comrades, that one can engage in “contribution to others.” Further, it is because one contributes to others that one can have the deep awareness that “I am of use to someone” and accept oneself just as one is. One can self-accept. The notes you took down the other day, do you have them with you?

  YOUTH: Oh, you mean that note on the objectives put forward by Adlerian psychology? I’ve kept it on me ever since that day, of course. Here it is: “The two objectives for behavior: to be self-reliant and to live in harmony with society. The two objectives for the psychology that supports these behaviors: the consciousness that I have the ability and the consciousness that people are my comrades.”

  PHILOSOPHER: If you overlap the content of this note with what we have just been discussing, you should be able to gain a deeper understanding. In other words, “to be self-reliant” and “the consciousness that I have the ability” correspond to our discussion of self-acceptance. And then “to live in harmony with society” and “the consciousness that people are my comrades” connect to confidence in others and then to contribution to others.

  YOUTH: I see. So the objective of life is community feeling. I think it will be some time before I can get this clear in my head, though.

  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, it probably will. As Adler himself said, “Understanding a human being is no easy matter. Of all the forms of psychology, individual psychology is probably the most difficult to learn and put into practice.”

  YOUTH: That’s exactly right! Even if the theories are convincing, it’s hard to put them into practice.

  PHILOSOPHER: It is even said that to truly understand Adlerian psychology and apply it to actually changing one’s way of living, one needs “half the number of years one has lived.” In other words, if you were to start studying it at the age of forty, it would take another twenty years, until you turned sixty. If you were to start studying at the age of twenty, it would take ten years, until you turned thirty. You are still young. Starting at such an early stage in life means that you might be able to change more quickly. In the sense that you can change quickly, you are walking ahead of the adults of the world. To go about changing yourself and making a new world, in a way you are ahead of me, too. It is okay to lose your way or lose focus. Do not be dependent on vertical relationships or be afraid of being disliked, and just make your way forward freely. If all the adults could see that young people were walking ahead of them, I am sure the world would change dramatically.

  YOUTH: I am walking ahead of you?

  PHILOSOPHER: You certainly are. We walk on the same ground, and you are moving on ahead of me.

  YOUTH: Ha-ha. You’re the first person I’ve ever met who would say such a thing to someone young enough to be his son.

  PHILOSOPHER: I would like more and more young people to learn about Adler’s thought. And I would like more adults to learn about it, too. Because people can change, regardless of their ages.

  Workaholism Is a Life-Lie

  YOUTH: All right. I readily admit that I do not have the courage to take steps toward self-acceptance or confidence in others. But is this really the fault only of the “I”? Isn’t it also actually a problem brought about by other people, who accuse me unreasonably and attack me?

  PHILOSOPHER: To be sure, not everyone in the world is a good and virtuous person. One goes through any number of unpleasant experiences in one’s interpersonal relations. But there is something one must not get wrong at this juncture: the fact that, in every instance, it is “that person” who attacks you who has the problem, and it is certainly not the case that everyone is bad. People with neurotic lifestyles tend to sprinkle their speech with such words as “everyone” and “always” and “everything.” “Everyone hates me,” they will say, or “It’s always me who takes a loss,” or “Everything is wrong.” If you think you might be in the habit of using such generalizing statements, you should be careful.

  YOUTH: Well, that does sound rather familiar.

  PHILOSOPHER: In Adlerian psychology, we think of this as a way of living that is lacking in “harmony of life.” It is a way of living in which one sees only a part of things but judges the whole.

  YOUTH: Harmony of life?

  PHILOSOPHER: In the teachings of Judaism, one finds the following anecdote: “If there are ten people, one will be someone who criticizes you no matter what you do. This person will come to dislike you, and you will not learn to like him either. Then, there will be two others who accept everything about you and whom you accept too, and you will become close friends with them. The remaining seven people will be neither of these types.” Now, do you focus on the one person who dislikes you? Do you pay more attention to the two who love you? Or would you focus on the crowd, the other seven? A person who is lacking in harmony of life will see only the one person he dislikes and will make a judgment of the world from that.

  YOUTH: Intriguing.

  PHILOSOPHER: Some time ago, I participated in a workshop for people who stammer and their families. Do you know anyone who has a stammer?

  YOUTH: Yes, there was a student at the school I went to who stuttered. That must be hard to deal with, both for the person who has it and for his family, too.

  PHILOSOPHER: Why is stammering hard to deal with? The view in Adlerian psychology is that people who suffer from stammering are concerned only about their own way of speaking, and they have feelings of inferiority and see their lives as unbearably hard. And they become too self-conscious as a result and start tripping over their words more and more.<
br />
  YOUTH: They are concerned only about their own way of speaking?

  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. There are not many people who will laugh at or make fun of someone when he trips over his words now and then. To use the example I just mentioned, it would probably be no more than one person in ten, at most. In any case, with the sort of foolish person who would take such an attitude, it is best to simply sever the relationship. But if one is lacking in harmony of life, one will focus only on that person and end up thinking, Everyone is laughing at me.

  YOUTH: But that’s just human nature!

  PHILOSOPHER: I have a reading group that meets on a regular basis, and one of the participants has a stammer. It comes out sometimes when it’s his turn to read. But not a single person there is the sort who would laugh at him for that. Everyone just sits quietly and waits in a quite natural way for the next words to come out. I am sure this is not a phenomenon that is isolated to my reading group. When one’s interpersonal relations do not go well, it cannot be blamed on a stammer or a fear of blushing or anything of the sort. Even though the problem is really that one has not attained self-acceptance or confidence in others, or contribution to others, for that matter, one is focusing on only one tiny part of things that simply should not matter and from that trying to form judgments with regard to the entire world. This is a misguided lifestyle that is lacking in harmony of life.

  YOUTH: Did you actually convey such a harsh idea to people who suffer from stammering?

  PHILOSOPHER: Of course. At first, there were some adverse reactions, but by the end of the three-day workshop, everyone was in deep agreement with it.

  YOUTH: It certainly is a fascinating argument. But focusing on people who suffer from stammering seems like a rather special example. Could you give me any others?

  PHILOSOPHER: Well, another would be the workaholic. This, too, is an example of a person who is clearly lacking in harmony of life.