The Courage to Be Disliked

by Ichiro Kishimi

  YOUTH: A workaholic is? Why is that?

  PHILOSOPHER: People who suffer from stammering are looking at only a part of things but judging the whole. With workaholics, the focus is solely on one specific aspect of life.

  They probably try to justify that by saying, “It’s busy at work, so I don’t have enough time to think about my family.” But this is a life-lie. They are simply trying to avoid their other responsibilities by using work as an excuse. One ought to concern oneself with everything, from household chores and child-rearing to one’s friendships and hobbies and so on. Adler does not recognize ways of living in which certain aspects are unusually dominant.

  YOUTH: Ah . . . That’s exactly the sort of person my father was. It was just: Be a workaholic, bury yourself in your work, and produce results. And then rule over the family on the grounds that you are the breadwinner. He was a very feudalistic person.

  PHILOSOPHER: In a sense, that is a way of living of refusing to acknowledge one’s life tasks. “Work” does not mean having a job at a company. Work in the home, child-rearing, contributing to the local society, hobbies, and all manner of other things are work. Companies and such are just one small part of that. A way of living that acknowledges only company work is one that is lacking in harmony of life.

  YOUTH: It’s exactly as you say! And it’s not as if the family he’s supporting has any say in the matter, either. You can’t argue with your father when he growls with a violent tone of voice, “It’s thanks to me that there’s food on the table.”

  PHILOSOPHER: Such a father has probably been able to recognize his own worth only on the level of acts. He works all those hours, brings in enough money to support a family, and is recognized by society—and, on that basis, he views himself as having greater worth than the other members of his family. For each and every one of us, however, there comes a time when one can no longer serve as the provider. When one gets older and reaches retirement age, for example, one may have no choice but to live off one’s pension or support from one’s children. Even when one is young, injury or poor health can lead to being unable work any longer. On such occasions, those who can accept themselves only on the level of acts are severely damaged.

  YOUTH: You mean those people whose lifestyle is all about work?

  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. People whose lives lack harmony.

  YOUTH: In that case, I think I’m starting to get what you mean by the level of being, which you brought up last time. And I certainly haven’t given much thought to the fact that someday I won’t be able to work any longer or do anything on the level of acts.

  PHILOSOPHER: Does one accept oneself on the level of acts, or on the level of being? This is truly a question that relates to the courage to be happy.

  You Can Be Happy Now

  YOUTH: The courage to be happy. Well, let’s hear what kind of courage that should be.

  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, that is an important point.

  YOUTH: You say that all problems are interpersonal relationship problems. And then you turn that around and say that our happiness is to be found in our interpersonal relations, too. But I still find these aspects hard to accept. Is what human beings call happiness merely something within our good interpersonal relations? That is to say, do our lives exist for such minuscule repose and joy?

  PHILOSOPHER: I have a good idea of the issues you are grappling with. The first time I attended a lecture on Adlerian psychology, the lecturer, Oscar Christensen, who was a disciple of one of Adler’s disciples, made the following statement: “Those who hear my talk today can be happy right now, this very instant. But those who do not will never be able to be happy.”

  YOUTH: Wow! That’s straight from the mouth of a con man. You’re not telling me you fell for that, are you?

  PHILOSOPHER: What is happiness to human beings? This is a subject that has been one of the consistent threads of philosophy since ancient times. I had always regarded psychology as nothing more than a field of philosophy, and as such had very little interest in psychology as a whole. So it was as a student of philosophy that I had concerned myself, in my own way, with the question: What is happiness? I would be remiss if I did not admit to having felt some reluctance on hearing Christensen’s words. However, at the same time that I experienced that reluctance, I realized something. I had given much deep thought to the true character of happiness. I had searched for answers. But I had not always given deep thought to the question: How can one be happy? It occurred to me then that even though I was a student of philosophy, maybe I wasn’t happy.

  YOUTH: I see. So your first encounter with Adlerian psychology began with a feeling of incongruity?

  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right.

  YOUTH: Then, please tell me: Did you eventually become happy?

  PHILOSOPHER: Of course.

  YOUTH: How can you be so sure?

  PHILOSOPHER: For a human being, the greatest unhappiness is not being able to like oneself. Adler came up with an extremely simple answer to address this reality. Namely, that the feeling of “I am beneficial to the community” or “I am of use to someone” is the only thing that can give one a true awareness that one has worth.

  YOUTH: Do you mean the “contribution to others” you mentioned earlier?

  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. And this is an important point: When we speak of contribution to others, it doesn’t matter if the contribution is not a visible one.

  YOUTH: It doesn’t matter if the contribution is not a visible one?

  PHILOSOPHER: You are not the one who decides if your contributions are of use. That is the task of other people, and is not an issue in which you can intervene. In principle, there is not even any way you can know whether you have really made a contribution. That is to say, when we are engaging in this contribution to others, the contribution does not have to be a visible one—all we need is the subjective sense that “I am of use to someone,” or in other words, a feeling of contribution.

  YOUTH: Wait a minute! If that’s the case, then what you are calling happiness is . . .

  PHILOSOPHER: Do you see it now? In a word, happiness is the feeling of contribution. That is the definition of happiness.

  YOUTH: But . . . but that’s . . .

  PHILOSOPHER: Is something wrong?

  YOUTH: There’s no way I can accept such a simplistic definition. Look, I’m not forgetting what you told me before. You said that even though on the level of acts, one might not be of use to anyone, on the level of being, every person is of use. But if that’s the case, according to your logic, all human beings would be happy!

  PHILOSOPHER: All human beings can be happy. But it must be understood that this does not mean all human beings are happy. Whether it is on the level of acts or on the level of being, one needs to feel that one is of use to someone. That is to say, one needs a feeling of contribution.

  YOUTH: So you are saying that the reason I am not happy is that I don’t have a feeling of contribution?

  PHILOSOPHER: That is correct.

  YOUTH: Then how can I get a feeling of contribution? By working? Through volunteer activities?

  PHILOSOPHER: Earlier, we were talking about desire for recognition. In response to my statement that one must not seek recognition, you said that desire for recognition is a universal desire.

  YOUTH: Yes, I did. But honestly, I’m still not entirely certain about this point.

  PHILOSOPHER: But I am sure that the reason people seek recognition is clear to you now. People want to like themselves. They want to feel that they have worth. In order to feel that, they want a feeling of contribution that tells them “I am of use to someone.” And they seek recognition from others as an easy means for gaining that feeling of contribution.

  YOUTH: You are saying that desire for recognition is a means for gaining a feeling of contribution?

  PHILOSOPHER: Isn’t it so?

  YOUTH: No way. That contradicts everything you’ve been saying until now. Because isn’t receiving recognition from others supposed to be a
means for gaining a feeling of contribution? And then you say, “Happiness is the feeling of contribution.” If it is, then fulfilling one’s desire for recognition is directly linked with happiness, isn’t it? Ha-ha! At last, you’ve acknowledged the necessity of the desire for recognition.

  PHILOSOPHER: You are forgetting an important issue. If one’s means for gaining a feeling of contribution turns out to be “being recognized by others,” in the long run, one will have no choice but to walk through life in accordance with other people’s wishes. There is no freedom in a feeling of contribution that is gained through the desire for recognition. We are beings who choose freedom while aspiring to happiness.

  YOUTH: So one can have happiness only if one has freedom?

  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. Freedom as an institution may differ depending on the country, the times, or the culture. But freedom in our interpersonal relations is universal.

  YOUTH: There’s no way that you will acknowledge the desire for recognition?

  PHILOSOPHER: If one really has a feeling of contribution, one will no longer have any need for recognition from others. Because one will already have the real awareness that “I am of use to someone,” without needing to go out of one’s way to be acknowledged by others. In other words, a person who is obsessed with the desire for recognition does not have any community feeling yet, and has not managed to engage in self-acceptance, confidence in others, or contribution to others.

  YOUTH: So if one just has community feeling, the desire for recognition will disappear?

  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, it will disappear. There is no need for recognition from others.

  The philosopher’s points could be summed up as follows: People can be truly aware of their worth only when they are able to feel “I am of use to someone.” However, it doesn’t matter if the contribution one makes at such a time is without any visible form. It is enough to have the subjective sense of being of use to someone, that is to say, a feeling of contribution. And then the philosopher arrives at the following conclusion: Happiness is the feeling of contribution. There certainly seemed to be aspects of the truth there. But is that really all that happiness is? Not if it’s the happiness I’m searching for!

  Two Paths Traveled by Those Wanting to Be “Special Beings”

  YOUTH: You still have not answered my question. Maybe I could actually learn to like myself through contribution to others. Maybe I could come to feel that I have worth, that I am not a worthless being. But is that all a person needs to be happy? Having come into this world, I think that unless I am able to accomplish the sort of grand undertaking that future generations will remember me for, unless I can prove myself as “I, who am no one else but me,” I will never find true happiness. You are trying to frame everything within interpersonal relations without saying a thing about self-realizing happiness. If you ask me, that’s nothing but evasion!

  PHILOSOPHER: I’m not really sure what you mean by “self-realizing happiness.” What exactly are you referring to?

  YOUTH: It’s something that is different for each person. I suppose there are those who want to succeed in society and those who have more personal objectives—a researcher endeavoring to develop a wonder drug, for instance, or an artist who strives to create a satisfying body of work.

  PHILOSOPHER: What is it for you?

  YOUTH: I still don’t really know what I am looking for or what I’ll want to do in the future. But I know that I’ve got to do something. There’s no way I’m going to spend the rest of my days working in a university library. When I find a dream that I can devote my life to, and I attain self-realization, that’s when I’ll experience true happiness. My father was someone who buried himself in his work from day to night, and I have no idea if that was happiness to him or not. To my eyes, at least, he seemed forever busy and never happy. That is not the kind of life I want to lead.

  PHILOSOPHER: All right. If you think about this point using children who engage in problem behavior as an example, it might be easier to grasp.

  YOUTH: Problem behavior?

  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. First of all, we human beings have a universal desire that is referred to as “pursuit of superiority.” Do you recall our discussion of this?

  YOUTH: Yes. Simply put, it’s a term that indicates “hoping to improve” and “pursuing an ideal state.”

  PHILOSOPHER: There are many children who, in their early stages, try to be especially good. In particular, they obey their parents, comport themselves in a socially acceptable manner, apply themselves assiduously to their studies and in sports, and excel in extracurricular activities as well. In this way, they try to get their parents to acknowledge them. However, when being especially good does not work out—their studies or sports don’t go well, for example—they do an about-face and try to be especially bad.

  YOUTH: Why do they do that?

  PHILOSOPHER: Whether they are trying to be especially good, or trying to be especially bad, the goal is the same: to attract the attention of other people, get out of the “normal” condition and become a “special being.” That is their only goal.

  YOUTH: Hmm. All right, please go on.

  PHILOSOPHER: In any case, whether it is one’s studies or one’s participation in sports, either way one needs to make a constant effort if one is to produce any kind of significant results. But the children who try to be especially bad—that is to say, the ones who engage in problem behavior—are endeavoring to attract the attention of other people even as they continue to avoid any such healthy effort. In Adlerian psychology, this is referred to as the “pursuit of easy superiority.” Take, for example, the problem child who disrupts lessons by throwing erasers or speaking in a loud voice. He is certain to get the attention of his friends and teachers. Even if it is something that is limited to that place, he will probably succeed in becoming a special being. But that is a pursuit of easy superiority, and it is an unhealthy attitude.

  YOUTH: So children who commit delinquent acts are engaging in the pursuit of easy superiority, too?

  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, they are. All types of problem behavior, from refusing to attend school, to wrist cutting, to underage drinking and smoking, and so on, are forms of the pursuit of easy superiority. And your shut-in friend, whom you told me about at the beginning, is engaging in it, too. When a child engages in problem behavior, his parents and other adults rebuke him. Being rebuked, more than anything else, puts stress on the child. But even if it is in the form of rebuke, the child wants his parents’ attention. He wants to be a special being, and the form that attention takes doesn’t matter. So in a sense, it is only natural that he does not stop engaging in problem behavior, no matter how harshly he is rebuked.

  YOUTH: It’s because of their rebuking that he doesn’t stop the problem behavior?

  PHILOSOPHER: Exactly. Because the parents and other adults are giving him attention through the act of rebuking.

  YOUTH: But previously, you spoke of the goal of problem behavior as being revenge on the parents, right? Does that connect with this in some way?

  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. “Revenge” and “pursuit of easy superiority” are easily linked. One makes trouble for another person while trying at the same time to be “special.”

  The Courage to Be Normal

  YOUTH: But how . . . ? It would be impossible for all human beings to be especially good, or anything like that, wouldn’t it? No matter what, people have their strengths and weaknesses, and there will always be differences. There’s only a handful of geniuses in the world, and not everyone is cut out to be an honors student. So for all the losers, there’s nothing for it besides being especially bad.

  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, it’s that Socratic paradox, that no one desires evil. Because to children who engage in problem behavior, even violent acts and theft are accomplishments of “good.”

  YOUTH: But that’s horrible! That’s a line of reasoning with no way out.

  PHILOSOPHER: What Adlerian psychology emphasizes at this juncture are the words
“the courage to be normal.”

  YOUTH: The courage to be normal?

  PHILOSOPHER: Why is it necessary to be special? Probably because one cannot accept one’s normal self. And it is precisely for this reason that when being especially good becomes a lost cause, one makes the huge leap to being especially bad—the opposite extreme. But is being normal, being ordinary, really such a bad thing? Is it something inferior? Or, in truth, isn’t everybody normal? It is necessary to think this through to its logical conclusion.

  YOUTH: So are you saying that I should be normal?

  PHILOSOPHER: Self-acceptance is the vital first step. If you are able to possess the courage to be normal, your way of looking at the world will change dramatically.

  YOUTH: But . . .

  PHILOSOPHER: You are probably rejecting normality because you equate being normal with being incapable. Being normal is not being incapable. One does not need to flaunt one’s superiority.

  YOUTH: Fine, I acknowledge the danger of aiming to be special. But does one really need to make the deliberate choice to be normal? If I pass my time in this world in an utterly humdrum way, if I lead a pointless life without leaving any record or memory of my existence whatsoever, am I to just be satisfied with my lot, because that’s the sort of human being I am? You’ve got to be joking. I’d abandon such a life in a second!

  PHILOSOPHER: You want to be special, no matter what?

  YOUTH: No! Look, accepting what you call “normal” would lead to me having to affirm my idle self! It would just be saying, “This is all I am capable of and that’s fine.” I refuse to accept such an idle way of life. Do you think that Napoleon or Alexander the Great or Einstein or Martin Luther King accepted “normal”? And how about Socrates and Plato? Not a chance! More than likely, they all lived their lives while carrying the torch of a great ideal or objective. Another Napoleon could never emerge with your line of reasoning. You are trying to rid the world of geniuses!