RED STRING AND RIGID CHAINS
YOUTH: Well, I’ll save my objections for later. Next, what about the task of friendship?
PHILOSOPHER: This is a friend relationship in a broader sense, away from work, as there is none of the compulsion of the workplace. It is a relationship that is difficult to initiate or deepen.
YOUTH: Ah, you’ve got that right! If there’s a space, like one’s school or workplace, one can still build a relationship. But then it would be a superficial relationship that is limited to that space. To even attempt to initiate a personal friend relationship, or find a friend in a place outside the school or workplace, would be extremely difficult.
PHILOSOPHER: Do you have anyone who you would call a close friend?
YOUTH: I have a friend. But I’m not sure I’d call him a close friend …
PHILOSOPHER: It used to be the same for me. When I was in high school, I did not even try to make friends, and spent my days studying Greek and German, quietly absorbed in reading philosophy books. My mother was worried about me and went to consult my homeroom teacher. And my teacher told her, ‘There’s no need to worry. He’s a person who doesn’t need friends.’ Those words were very encouraging to my mother, and to me as well.
YOUTH: A person who doesn’t need friends? So, in high school you didn’t have a single friend?
PHILOSOPHER: No, I did have one friend. He said, ‘There’s nothing really worth learning at a university,’ and in the end he actually did not enter university. He went into seclusion up in the mountains for several years, and these days I hear he’s working in journalism in Southeast Asia. I haven’t seen him in decades, but I have the feeling that if we got together again, we’d be able to hang out just as we did back then. A lot of people think that the more friends you have the better, but I’m not so sure about that. There’s no value at all in the number of friends or acquaintances you have. And this is a subject that connects with the task of love, but what we should be thinking about is the distance and depth of the relationship.
YOUTH: Will it be possible for me to make close friends?
PHILOSOPHER: Of course it will. If you change, those around you will change too. They will have no choice but to change. Adlerian psychology is a psychology for changing oneself, not a psychology for changing others. Instead of waiting for others to change or waiting for the situation to change, you take the first step forward yourself.
YOUTH: Hmm …
PHILOSOPHER: The fact is that you came like this to visit me in my room. And, in you, I have found a young friend.
YOUTH: I am your friend?
PHILOSOPHER: Yes, because you are. The dialogue going on here is not counselling, and we do not have a work relationship. To me, you are an irreplaceable friend. Don’t you think so?
YOUTH: I’m your … irreplaceable friend? No, I won’t think anything about that right now. Let’s just keep going. What about the last one, the task of love?
PHILOSOPHER: Think of it as divided into two stages: one, what are known as love relationships; and two, relationships with family, in particular parent–child relationships. We have discussed work and friendship, but, of the three tasks, most likely it is the task of love that is the most difficult. When a friend relationship has turned into love, speech and conduct that was permitted between friends may no longer be permitted the moment they become lovers. Specifically, that would mean not permitting socialising with friends of the opposite sex, and in some cases just speaking on the telephone to someone of the opposite sex is enough to arouse jealousy. The distance is that close, and the relationship that deep.
YOUTH: Yes, I suppose it can’t be helped.
PHILOSOPHER: But Adler does not accept restricting one’s partner. If the person seems to be happy, one can frankly celebrate that condition. That is love. Relationships in which people restrict each other eventually fall apart.
YOUTH: Wait, that’s an argument that can only lead to affirming infidelity. Because if one’s partner were happily having an affair, you’re saying that one should celebrate even that.
PHILOSOPHER: No, I am not affirming someone having an affair. Think about it this way: the kind of relationship that feels somehow oppressive and strained when the two people are together cannot be called love, even if there is passion. When one can think, Whenever I am with this person, I can behave very freely, one can really feel love. One can be in a calm and quite natural state, without having feelings of inferiority or being beset with the need to flaunt one’s superiority. That is what real love is like. Restriction, on the other hand, is a manifestation of the mindset of attempting to control one’s partner, and also an idea founded on a sense of distrust. Being in the same space with someone who distrusts you isn’t a natural situation that one can put up with, is it? As Adler says, ‘If two people want to live together on good terms, they must treat each other as equal personalities.’
YOUTH: Okay.
PHILOSOPHER: However, in love relationships and marital relationships, there is the option of separating. So, even a husband and wife who have been together for many years can separate if continuing the relationship becomes distressful. In a parent–child relationship, however, in principle this cannot be done. If romantic love is a relationship connected by red string, then the relationship between parents and children is bound in rigid chains. And a pair of small scissors is all you have. This is the difficulty of the parent–child relationship.
YOUTH: So, what can one do?
PHILOSOPHER: What I can say at this stage is: you must not run away. No matter how distressful the relationship, you must not avoid or put off dealing with it. Even if in the end you’re going to cut it with scissors, first you have to face it. The worst thing to do is to just stand still with the situation as it is. It is fundamentally impossible for a person to live life completely alone, and it is only in social contexts that the person becomes an ‘individual’. That is why in Adlerian psychology, self-reliance as an individual and cooperation within society are put forth as overarching objectives. Then, how can one achieve these objectives? On this point, Adler speaks of surmounting the three tasks of work, friendship and love; the tasks of the interpersonal relationships that a living person has no choice but to confront.
The youth was still struggling to grasp their true meaning.
DON’T FALL FOR THE ‘LIFE-LIE’
YOUTH: Ah, it’s getting confusing again. You said that I see other people as enemies and can’t think of them as comrades, because I’m running away from my life tasks. What was that supposed to mean, anyway?
PHILOSOPHER: Suppose, for instance, that there is a certain Mr A whom you don’t like. Because he has some flaws that are hard to forgive.
YOUTH: Ha-ha, if we’re looking for people I don’t like, there’s no shortage of candidates.
PHILOSOPHER: But it isn’t that you dislike Mr A because you can’t forgive his flaws. You had the goal of taking a dislike to Mr A beforehand, and then started looking for the flaws to satisfy that goal.
YOUTH: That’s ridiculous! Why would I do that?
PHILOSOPHER: So that you could avoid an interpersonal relationship with Mr A.
YOUTH: No way, that’s completely out of the question. It’s obvious that the order of things is backwards. He did something I didn’t like, that’s why. If he hadn’t, I’d have no reason for taking a dislike to him.
PHILOSOPHER: No, you are wrong. It’s easy to see if you think back on the example of separating from a person whom one has been in a love relationship with. In relationships between lovers or married couples, there are times when, after a certain point, one becomes exasperated with everything one’s partner says or does. For instance, she doesn’t care for the way he eats; his slovenly appearance at home fills her with revulsion, and even his snoring sets her off. Even though until a few months ago, none of it had ever bothered her before.
YOUTH: Yes, that sounds familiar.
PHILOSOPHER: The person feels this way because at some sta
ge she has resolved to herself, I want to end this relationship, and she has been looking around for the material with which to end it. The other person hasn’t changed at all. It is her own goal that has changed. Look, people are extremely selfish creatures who are capable of finding any number of flaws and shortcomings in others whenever the mood strikes them. A man of perfect character could come along, and one would have no difficulty in digging up some reason to dislike him. That’s exactly why the world can become a perilous place at any time, and it’s always possible to see everyone as one’s enemies.
YOUTH: So, I am making up flaws in other people just so that I can avoid my life tasks, and more, so I can avoid interpersonal relationships? And I am running away by thinking of other people as my enemies?
PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. Adler indicated the state of coming up with all manner of pretexts in order to avoid the life tasks, and called it the ‘life-lie’.
YOUTH: Okay …
PHILOSOPHER: Yes, it’s a severe term. One shifts one’s responsibility for the situation one is currently in to someone else. One is running away from one’s life tasks by saying that everything is the fault of other people, or the fault of one’s environment. It’s exactly the same as with the story I mentioned earlier about the female student with the fear of blushing. One lies to oneself, and one lies to the people around one, too. When you really think about it, it’s a pretty severe term.
YOUTH: But how can you conclude that I am lying? You don’t know anything about what kind of people I have around me, or what kind of life I lead, do you?
PHILOSOPHER: True, I don’t know anything about your past. Not about your parents, or your elder brother either. I know only one thing.
YOUTH: What’s that?
PHILOSOPHER: The fact that you are the one who decided your lifestyle, and no one else.
YOUTH: Argh!
PHILOSOPHER: If your lifestyle were determined by other people or your environment, it would certainly be possible to shift responsibility. But we choose our lifestyles ourselves. It’s clear where the responsibility lies.
YOUTH: So, you’re out to condemn me. But you’re calling people liars and cowards. And saying that everyone is my responsibility.
PHILOSOPHER: You must not use the power of anger to look away. This is a very important point. Adler never discusses the life tasks or life-lies in terms of good and evil. It is not morals or good and evil that we should be discussing, but the issue of courage.
YOUTH: Courage again!
PHILOSOPHER: Yes. Even if you are avoiding your life tasks and clinging to your life-lies, it isn’t because you are steeped in evil. It is not an issue to be condemned from a moralistic standpoint. It is only an issue of courage.
FROM THE PSYCHOLOGY OF POSSESSION TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PRACTICE
YOUTH: So, in the end what you’re talking about is courage? That reminds me, last time you said that Adlerian psychology is a ‘psychology of courage’.
PHILOSOPHER: I will add to that by saying that Adlerian psychology is not a ‘psychology of possession’, but a ‘psychology of use’.
YOUTH: So, it’s that statement: ‘It’s not what one is born with, but what use one makes of that equipment.’
PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. Thank you for remembering it. Freudian aetiology is a psychology of possession, and eventually arrives at determinism. Adlerian psychology, on the other hand, is a psychology of use, and it is you who decides it.
YOUTH: Adlerian psychology is a psychology of courage, and at the same time it is a psychology of use …
PHILOSOPHER: We humans are not so fragile as to simply be at the mercy of aetiological (cause and effect) traumas. From the standpoint of teleology, we choose our lives and our lifestyles ourselves. We have the power to do that.
YOUTH: But, honestly, I do not have the confidence to overcome my inferiority complex. And you might say that that’s a life-lie, but I probably won’t ever be able to break free from the inferiority complex.
PHILOSOPHER: Why don’t you think so?
YOUTH: Maybe what you are saying is right. Actually, I’m sure it is, and courage really is what I am lacking. I can accept the life-lie as well. I am scared of interacting with people. I don’t want to get hurt in interpersonal relationships, and I want to put off my life tasks. That’s why I have all these excuses ready. Yes, it’s exactly as you say. But isn’t what you are talking about a kind of spiritualism? All you’re really saying is, ‘You’ve lost your courage, you’ve got to pluck up your courage.’ It’s no different from the silly instructor who thinks he’s giving you advice when he comes up and slaps you on the shoulder and says, ‘Cheer up.’ Even though the reason I’m not doing well is because I can’t just cheer up!
PHILOSOPHER: So, what you are saying is that you would like me to suggest some specific steps?
YOUTH: Yes, please. I am a human being. I am not a machine. I’ve been told that I’m all out of courage, but I can’t just get a refill of courage as if I were filling up my tank with fuel.
PHILOSOPHER: All right. But we’ve gone quite late again tonight, so let’s continue this next time.
YOUTH: You aren’t running away from it, right?
PHILOSOPHER: Of course not. Next time, we will probably discuss freedom.
YOUTH: Not courage?
PHILOSOPHER: Yes, it will be a discussion of freedom, which is essential when talking about courage. Please give some thought to the matter of what freedom is.
YOUTH: What freedom is … Fine. I am looking forward to next time.
Two anguished weeks later, the youth paid another visit to the philosopher’s study. What is freedom? Why can’t people be free? Why can’t I be free? What is the true nature of whatever it is that is constraining me? The assignment he had been given was weighing heavily on him, but it seemed impossible to find a convincing answer. The more he thought about it, the more the youth began to notice his own lack of freedom.
DENY THE DESIRE FOR RECOGNITION
YOUTH: So, you said that today we would discuss freedom.
PHILOSOPHER: Yes. Did you have any time to think about what freedom is?
YOUTH: Yes, actually. I thought about it at great length.
PHILOSOPHER: And did you arrive at any conclusions?
YOUTH: Well, I couldn’t find any answers. But I did find this—it’s not my own idea, but something I came across at the library, a line from a novel by Dostoevsky: ‘Money is coined freedom.’ What do you think? Isn’t ‘coined freedom’ a rather refreshing term? But seriously, I was fascinated to find this one line that drove right to the heart of this thing called money.
PHILOSOPHER: I see. Certainly, if one were to speak in a very general sense of the true nature of that which is brought about by money, one might say that is freedom. It is an astute observation, to be sure. But you wouldn’t go so far as to say ‘freedom therefore is money’, would you?
YOUTH: It’s exactly as you say. There probably is freedom that can be gained by way of money. And I’m sure that freedom is greater than we imagine. Because, in reality, all the necessities of life are dealt with through financial transactions. Does it follow, then, that if one possesses great wealth, one can be free? I don’t believe that is the case; I would certainly like to believe that it is not the case, and that human values and human happiness cannot be bought with money.
PHILOSOPHER: Well, say for the moment that you have obtained financial freedom. And then, though you have gained great wealth, you have not found happiness. At that time, what problems and privations would remain for you?
YOUTH: It would be the interpersonal relationships you have been mentioning. I have thought deeply about this matter. For instance, you might be blessed by great wealth, but not have anyone who loves you; you have no comrades whom you could call friends, and you are not liked by anyone. This is a great misfortune. Another thing I can’t get out of my head is the word ‘bonds’. Every one of us is tangled up and writhing in these strings that we call bonds. Ha
ving to be attached to a person you don’t even care for, for example, or to always watch out for your awful boss’s mood swings. Imagine, if you could be released from such petty interpersonal relationships, how easy things would be! But no one can really do such a thing. Wherever we go, we are surrounded by other people, and we are social individuals, who exist in our relations to other people. No matter what we do, we cannot escape the strong rope of our interpersonal relationships. I see now that Adler’s statement, ‘All problems are interpersonal relationship problems,’ is a great insight.
PHILOSOPHER: It is a crucial point. Let’s dig a little deeper. What is it about our interpersonal relationships that is robbing us of our freedom?
YOUTH: Last time, you spoke about whether one thinks of other people as enemies or as comrades. You said that if one becomes able to see others as one’s comrades, one’s way of looking at the world should change as well. That certainly makes sense. I felt quite convinced the other day when I left here. But, then what happened? I gave the matter some careful thought, and I noticed that there are aspects of interpersonal relationships that can’t be completely explained.
PHILOSOPHER: Like what?
YOUTH: The most obvious one is the existence of parents. I could never think of parents as enemies. During my childhood, especially, they were my greatest guardians who raised and protected me. In that regard, I am sincerely grateful. Still, my parents were strict people. I told you about this last time, that they always compared me to my older brother and refused to recognise me. And they have constantly made comments about my life, saying I should study more, not make friends with people like this or that, get into this university at the very least, get this kind of job, and so on. Their demands put a lot of pressure on me, and were certainly bonds.
The Courage To Be Disliked Page 8