The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem
Page 5
To have high self-esteem, then, is to feel confidently appropriate to life, that is, competent and worthy in the sense I have indicated. To have low self-esteem is to feel inappropriate to life; wrong, not about this issue or that, but wrong as a person. To have average self-esteem is to fluctuate between feeling appropriate and inappropriate, right and wrong as a person; and to manifest these inconsistencies in behavior, sometimes acting wisely, sometimes acting foolishly—thereby reinforcing the uncertainty about who one is at one’s core.
The Root of Our Need for Self-Esteem
We saw in the previous chapter that self-esteem is a basic need. But why is this so? We cannot fully understand the meaning of self-esteem apart from understanding what about us as a species gives rise to such a need. (I have the impression that this question has been almost entirely neglected.) This discussion, then, is intended to illuminate further what self-esteem ultimately means.
The question of the efficacy of their consciousness or the worthiness of their beings does not exist for lower animals. But human beings wonder: Can I trust my mind? Am I competent to think? Am I adequate? Am I enough? Am I a good person? Do I have integrity, that is, is there congruence between my ideals and my practice? Am I worthy of respect, love, success, happiness?
Our need for self-esteem is the result of two basic facts, both intrinsic to our species. The first is that we depend for our survival and our successful mastery of the environment on the appropriate use of our consciousness; our life and well-being depend on our ability to think. The second is that the right use of our consciousness is not automatic, is not “wired in” by nature. In the regulating of its activity, there is a crucial element of choice—therefore, of personal responsibility.
Like every other species capable of awareness, we depend for our survival and well-being on the guidance of our distinctive form of consciousness, the form uniquely human, our conceptual faculty—the faculty of abstraction, generalization, and integration: our mind.
* * *
The right use of our consciousness is not automatic, is not “wired in” by nature.
* * *
Our human essence is our ability to reason, which means to grasp relationships. It is on this ability—ultimately—that our life depends. Think of what it took to bring to your table the food you ate today; to produce the clothes you are wearing; to build the home that protects you from the elements; to build the industry in which you earn your living; to give you the experience of a great symphony in your living room; to develop the medicines that restore your health; to create the light by which you may now be reading. All that is the product of mind.
Mind is more than immediate explicit awareness. It is a complex architecture of structures and processes. It includes more than the verbal, linear, analytic processes popularly if misleadingly described sometimes as “left-brain” activity. It includes the totality of mental life, including the subconscious, the intuitive, the symbolic, all that which sometimes is associated with the “right brain.” Mind is all that by means of which we reach out to and apprehend the world.
To learn to grow food, to construct a bridge, to harness electricity, to grasp the healing possibilities of some substance, to allocate resources so as to maximize productivity, to see wealth-producing possibilities where they had not been seen before, to conduct a scientific experiment, to create—all require a process of thought. To respond appropriately to the complaints of a child or a spouse, to recognize that there is a disparity between our behavior and our professed feelings, to discover how to deal with hurt and anger in ways that will heal rather than destroy—all require a process of thought. Even to know when to abandon conscious efforts at problem solving and turn the task over to the subconscious, to know when to allow conscious thinking to stop or when to attend more closely to feelings or intuition (subconscious perceptions or integrations) require a process of thought, a process of rational connection.
* * *
We are the one species that can formulate a vision of what values are worth pursuing—and then pursue the opposite.
* * *
The problem and the challenge is that, although thinking is a necessity of successful existence, we are not programmed to think automatically. We have a choice.
We are not responsible for controlling the activities of our heart, lungs, liver, or kidneys; they are all part of the body’s self-regulating system (although we are beginning to learn that some measure of control of these activities may be possible). Nor are we obliged to supervise the homeostatic processes by which, for instance, a constant temperature is maintained. Nature has designed the organs and systems of our bodies to function automatically in the service of our life without our volitional intervention. But our minds operate differently.
Our minds do not pump knowledge as our hearts pump blood, when and as needed. Our minds do not automatically guide us to act on our best, most rational and informed understanding, even when such understanding would clearly be beneficial. We do not begin to think “instinctively” merely because nonthinking, in a given situation, would be dangerous to us. Consciousness does not “reflexively” expand in the face of the new and unfamiliar; sometimes we contract it instead. Nature has given us an extraordinary responsibility: the option of turning the searchlight of consciousness brighter or dimmer. This is the option of seeking awareness or not bothering to seek it or actively avoiding it. The option of thinking or not thinking. This is the root of our freedom and our responsibility.
We are the one species that can formulate a vision of what values are worth pursuing—and then pursue the opposite. We can decide that a given course of action is rational, moral, and wise—and then suspend consciousness and proceed to do something else. We are able to monitor our behavior and ask if it is consistent with our knowledge, convictions, and ideals—and we are also able to evade asking that question. The option of thinking or not thinking.
Our free will pertains to the choice we make about the operation of our consciousness in any given situation—to focus it with the aim of expanding awareness or unfocus it with the aim of avoiding awareness. The choices we make concerning the operations of our consciousness have enormous ramifications for our life in general and our self-esteem in particular.
Consider the impact on our life and on our sense of self entailed by the following options:
Focusing versus nonfocusing.
Thinking versus nonthinking.
Awareness versus unawareness.
Clarity versus obscurity or vagueness.
Respect for reality versus avoidance of reality.
Respect for facts versus indifference to facts.
Respect for truth versus rejection of truth.
Perseverance in the effort to understand versus abandonment of the effort.
Loyalty in action to our professed convictions versus disloyalty—the issue of integrity.
Honesty with self versus dishonesty.
Self-confrontation versus self-avoidance.
Receptivity to new knowledge versus closed-mindedness.
Willingness to see and correct errors versus perseverance in error.
Concern with congruence (consistency) versus disregard of contradictions.
Reason versus irrationalism; respect for logic, consistency, coherence, and evidence versus disregard or defiance of these.
Loyalty to the responsibility of consciousness versus betrayal of that responsibility.
If one wishes to understand what self-esteem depends on, this list is a good place to begin.
No one could seriously suggest that our sense of our competence to cope with the challenge of life or our sense of our goodness could remain unaffected over time by the pattern of our choices in regard to the above options.
* * *
A disservice is done to people if they are offered “feel good” notions of self-esteem that divorce it from questions of consciousness, responsibility, and moral choice.
* * *
The
point is not that our self-esteem “should” be affected by the choices we make but rather that by our natures it must be affected. If we develop habit patterns that cripple or incapacitate us for effective functioning and that cause us to distrust ourselves, it would be irrational to suggest that we “should” go on feeling just as efficacious and worthy as we would feel if our choices had been better. This would imply that our actions have or should have nothing to do with how we feel about ourselves. It is one thing to caution against identifying oneself with a particular behavior; it is another to assert that there should be no connection between self-assessment and behavior. A disservice is done to people if they are offered “feel good” notions of self-esteem that divorce it from questions of consciousness, responsibility, and moral choice. There is great joy in self-esteem, and often joy in the process of building or strengthening it, but this should not obscure the fact that more is required than blowing oneself a kiss in the mirror (or numerous other strategies that have been proposed, of equal profundity).
The level of our self-esteem is not set once and for all in childhood. It can grow as we mature, or it can deteriorate. There are people whose self-esteem was higher at the age of ten than at the age of sixty, and the reverse is also true. Self-esteem can rise and fall and rise again over the course of a lifetime. Mine certainly has.
I can think back over my history and observe changes in the level of my self-esteem that reflect choices I made in the face of particular challenges. I can recall instances when I made choices I am proud of and others I bitterly regret—choices that strengthened my self-esteem and others that lowered it. We all can.
With regard to choices that lower self-esteem, I think of times when (never mind the “reasons”) I was unwilling to see what I saw and know what I knew—times when I needed to raise awareness and instead I lowered it; when I needed to examine my feelings and instead I disowned them; when I needed to announce a truth and instead I clung to silence; when I needed to walk away from a relationship that was harming me and instead I struggled to preserve it; when I needed to stand up for my deepest feelings and assert my deepest needs and instead I waited for a miracle to deliver me.
Any time we have to act, to face a challenge, to make a moral decision, we affect our feelings about ourselves for good or bad—depending on the nature of our response and the mental processes behind it. And if we avoid action and decisions in spite of their obvious necessity, that, too, affects our sense of self.
Our need for self-esteem is the need to know we are functioning as our life and well-being require.
Competence
I have given the name self-efficacy to that experience of basic power or competence that we associate with healthy self-esteem, and self-respect to the experience of dignity and personal worth. While their meaning is clear in a general way, I want to examine them more closely.
First, self-efficacy.
To be efficacious (in the basic, dictionary sense) is to be capable of producing a desired result. Confidence in our basic efficacy is confidence in our ability to learn what we need to learn and do what we need to do in order to achieve our goals, insofar as success depends on our own efforts. Rationally we do not judge our competence, in the sense meant here, by factors outside our control. The experience of self-efficacy does not require omniscience or omnipotence.
Self-efficacy is not the conviction that we can never make an error. It is the conviction that we are able to think, to judge, to know—and to correct our errors. It is trust in our mental processes and abilities.
Self-efficacy is not the certainty that we will be able to master any and every challenge that life presents. It is the conviction that we are capable in principle of learning what we need to learn and that we are committed to doing our rational and conscientious best to master the tasks and challenges entailed by our values.
Self-efficacy is deeper than confidence in our specific knowledge and skills, based on past successes and accomplishments, although it is clearly nurtured by them. It is confidence in what made it possible for us to acquire knowledge and skills and to achieve successes. It is confidence in our ability to think, in our consciousness and how we choose to use it. Again, trust in our processes—and, as a consequence, a disposition to expect success for our efforts.
To be lacking in the experience of self-efficacy, to anticipate defeat rather than victory, is to be interrupted or undermined or paralyzed (to varying degrees) in our efforts to cope with the tasks and challenges life presents to us. “Who am I to think? Who am I to master challenges? Who am I to choose—decide—leave the comfort of the familiar—persevere in the face of obstacles—fight for my values?”
* * *
In a world in which the total of human knowledge is doubling about every ten years, our security can rest only on our ability to learn.
* * *
As far as our upbringing is concerned, one of the roots of self-efficacy is a home environment that is sufficiently sane, rational, and predictable as to allow us to believe understanding is possible and that thinking is not futile. As far as our own actions are concerned, one of its roots is the will to efficacy itself—a refusal to surrender to helplessness, persistence in the quest to understand even in the face of difficulties.
The distinction between trust in our processes and trust in some particular area of knowledge is of the highest importance in virtually every sphere of endeavor. In a world in which the total of human knowledge is doubling about every ten years, our security can rest only on our ability to learn. To clarify the distinction I am making, let us consider the following example.
Let us say that a businessman has acquired specific knowledge and a specific set of skills in the field in which he has worked for twenty years. Then he leaves that company and assumes leadership of an entirely different kind of enterprise with different requirements, rules, and problems. If he lacks a healthy sense of self-efficacy, the danger is that he will be overattached to what he already knows and inadequately adaptive to the new context. The consequence is that he will perform poorly and his feelings of inefficacy will be confirmed and reinforced. Alternatively, if he does experience healthy self-efficacy, his security lies less in what he knows than in his confidence in his ability to learn. The consequence is that he is likely to master the new context and perform well, and his feelings of self-efficacy will be confirmed and reinforced.
High-performing salespersons, accountants, engineers, and the like, are often promoted to the position of manager. But the skills needed to be a good manager are different from those needed to be competent in sales, accounting, or engineering. How well the person will do in his or her new job depends in part on the training for the new role provided by the company; but it also will be affected by the level of the individual’s self-efficacy. Low self-efficacy tends to produce discomfort with the new and unfamiliar and overattachment to yesterday’s skills. Higher self-efficacy makes it easier to move up from an earlier level of knowledge and development and to master new knowledge, skills, and challenges. Companies that understand this can build a self-esteem component into their training. They can inspire employees to value the virtues of consciousness, responsibility, curiosity, openness to change, above particular kinds of mastery that may no longer be relevant.
A woman who was promoted to manager consulted me because of feelings of panic about her ability to handle the new opportunity. Among the questions I invited her to explore were the following:
Why were you successful in your previous job?
What specifically did you do in the early months of that job that helped you to develop your skills so effectively?
What attitude of mind did you bring to the new things you had to learn?
As you progressed in the job, what other things did you do?
How did you adapt to changes in job requirements?
What allowed you to be so flexible?
From what you have learned about yourself and your success in your previous job, w
hat insights do you have that you can use in this new position?
What is it in your inner attitudes and processes that could lead you to just as great a success in the future, even though the actual skills required will be different?
What can you do that will assure your success?
What is it about you—about the way your mind works—that will allow you to do it?
Such questions helped her isolate the basic inner sources of her past success as differentiated from particular skills. They focus on process rather than content. They distinguish fundamental efficacy from any of its particular manifestations.
I want to stress again that no one can expect to be equally competent in all areas—and no one needs to be. Our interests, values, and circumstances determine the areas in which we are likely to concentrate.
When I say that self-efficacy pertains to confidence in one’s ability to cope with the basic challenges of life, what do I mean by “basic challenges”? For one, being able to support one’s existence, that is, to earn a living; to take independent care of oneself in the world—assuming the opportunity to do so exists. (Wives and homemakers are not exempt. It does not serve a woman’s interest to have developed no skills by which she can support herself and to be frightened of the marketplace.) For another, being able to function effectively in interactions with other human beings—being capable of giving and receiving benevolence, cooperation, trust, friendship, respect, love; being able to be responsibly self-assertive and to accept the self-assertiveness of others. For yet another, resilience in coping with misfortune and adversity—the opposite of passive surrender to pain; the ability to bounce back and regenerate oneself. Simple fundamentals that define our humanity.