YOUTH: So, you have to draw the line even with family?
PHILOSOPHER: Actually, with families there is less distance, so it’s all the more necessary to consciously separate the tasks.
YOUTH: That doesn’t make sense. On the one hand, you’re talking about love, and on the other, you’re denying it. If you draw the line between yourself and other people that way, you won’t be able to believe in anyone anymore!
PHILOSOPHER: Look, the act of believing is also the separation of tasks. You believe in your partner; that is your task. But how that person acts with regard to your expectations and trust is other people’s tasks. When you push your wishes without having drawn that line, before you know it you’re engaging in stalker-like intervention. Supposing your partner did not act as you had wished. Would you still be able to believe in that person? Would you still be able to love that person? The task of love that Adler speaks of is comprised of such questions.
YOUTH: That’s difficult! That’s very difficult.
PHILOSOPHER: Of course, it is. But think about it this way: intervening in other people’s tasks and taking on other people’s tasks turns one’s life into something heavy and full of hardship. If you are leading a life of worry and suffering—which stems from interpersonal relationships—first, learn the boundary of ‘from here on, that is not my task’. And discard other people’s tasks. That is the first step toward lightening the load and making life simpler.
HOW TO RID YOURSELF OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP PROBLEMS
YOUTH: I don’t know, it just doesn’t sit right with me.
PHILOSOPHER: Then, let’s envision a scene in which your parents are vehemently opposing your choice of place of employment. They were in fact against it, weren’t they?
YOUTH: Yes, they were. I wouldn’t go so far as saying they were vehemently opposed, but they did make various snide remarks.
PHILOSOPHER: Well, let’s exaggerate it and say they were vehemently opposed. Your father was ranting and raving with emotion, and your mother was protesting your decision with tears in her eyes. They absolutely do not approve of you becoming a librarian, and if you will not take on the family business like your brother has, they may very well disown you. But how to come to terms with the emotion of ‘not approving’ is your parents’ task, not yours. It is not a problem for you to worry about.
YOUTH: Now, wait a minute. Are you saying that it doesn’t matter how sad I make my parents feel?
PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. It doesn’t matter.
YOUTH: You’ve got to be joking! Could there be such a thing as a philosophy that recommends unfilial behaviour?
PHILOSOPHER: All you can do with regard to your own life is choose the best path that you believe in. On the other hand, what kind of judgement do other people pass on that choice? That is the task of other people, and is not a matter you can do anything about.
YOUTH: What another person thinks of you—if they like you or dislike you—that is that person’s task, not mine. Is that what you are saying?
PHILOSOPHER: That is what separating is. You are worried about other people looking at you. You are worried about being judged by other people. That is why you are constantly craving recognition from others. Now, why are you worried about other people looking at you, anyway? Adlerian psychology has an easy answer. You haven’t done the separation of tasks yet. You assume that even things that should be other people’s tasks are your own. Remember the words of the grandmother: ‘You’re the only one who’s worried how you look.’ Her remark drives right to the heart of the separation of tasks. What other people think when they see your face—that is the task of other people, and is not something you have any control over.
YOUTH: As theory, I get it. To my reasoning brain, it does make sense. But my emotions can’t keep up with such a high-handed argument.
PHILOSOPHER: Then, let’s try another tack. Say there’s a man who’s distressed about the interpersonal relationships at the company where he works. He has a completely irrational boss who yells at him at every opportunity. No matter how hard he tries, his boss doesn’t acknowledge his efforts and never even really listens to what he says.
YOUTH: That sounds exactly like my boss.
PHILOSOPHER: But is being acknowledged by your boss ‘work’ that you should think of as top priority? It isn’t your job to be liked by people at the place you work. Your boss doesn’t like you. And his reasons for not liking you are clearly unreasonable. But in that case, there’s no need for you to get cosy with him.
YOUTH: That sounds right, but the person is my boss, right? I won’t get any work done if I’m shunned by my direct superior.
PHILOSOPHER: That is Adler’s life-lie again. I can’t do my work because I’ve been shunned by my boss. It’s the boss’s fault that my work isn’t going well. The person who says such things is bringing up the existence of the boss as an excuse for the work that doesn’t go well. Much like the female student with the fear of blushing, it’s actually that you need the existence of an awful boss. Because then you can say, if only I didn’t have this boss, I could get more work done.
YOUTH: No, you don’t know my relationship with my boss! I wish you would stop making arbitrary guesses.
PHILOSOPHER: This is a discussion that is concerned with the fundamentals of Adlerian psychology. If you are angry, nothing will sink in. You think, I’ve got that boss, so I can’t work. This is complete aetiology. But it’s really, I don’t want to work, so I’ll create an awful boss, or I don’t want to acknowledge my incapable self, so I’ll create an awful boss. That would be the teleological way of looking at it.
YOUTH: That’s probably how it’d be framed in your stock teleology approach. But, in my case, it’s different.
PHILOSOPHER: Then, supposing you had done the separation of tasks. How would things be? In other words, no matter how much your boss tries to vent his unreasonable anger at you, that is not your task. The unreasonable emotions are tasks for your boss to deal with himself. There is no need to cosy up to him, or to yield to him to the point of bowing down. You should think, What I should do is face my own tasks in my own life without lying.
YOUTH: But, that’s …
PHILOSOPHER: We are all suffering in interpersonal relationships. It might be the relationship with one’s parents or one’s elder brother, and it might be the interpersonal relationships at one’s workplace. Now, last time, you were saying that you wanted some specific steps. This is what I propose. First, one should ask ‘whose task is this?’ Then do the separation of tasks. Calmly delineate up to what point one’s own tasks go, and from what point they become another person’s tasks. And do not intervene in other people’s tasks, or allow even a single person to intervene in one’s own tasks. This is a specific and revolutionary viewpoint that is unique to Adlerian psychology and contains the potential to utterly change one’s interpersonal relationship problems.
YOUTH: Aha. I am starting to see what you meant when you said that the topic of today’s discussion was freedom.
PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. We are trying to talk about freedom now.
CUT THE GORDIAN KNOT
YOUTH: I am sure that if one could understand the separation of tasks and put it into practice, one’s interpersonal relationships would all at once become free. But I still can’t accept it.
PHILOSOPHER: Go on. I’m listening.
YOUTH: I think that, in theory, the separation of tasks is entirely right. What other people think of me, or what sort of judgement they pass on me, is the task of other people, and is not something I can do anything about. And I should just do what I have to do in my life without lying. I’d have no problem if you said this is a life truth—that’s how right I think it is. But, consider this: from an ethical or moral point of view, could it be said to be the right thing to do? That is to say, a way of living that draws boundaries between oneself and others. Because wouldn’t you be brushing other people away and saying ‘That’s intervention!’ whenever they w
ere worried about you and asked how you’re doing? It seems to me that this is something that treads on the goodwill of others.
PHILOSOPHER: Have you heard of the man known as Alexander the Great?
YOUTH: Alexander the Great? Yes, I learned about him in world history.
PHILOSOPHER: He was a Macedonian king, who lived in the fourth century before Christ. When he was advancing on the Persian kingdom of Lydia, he learned of a chariot enshrined in the acropolis. The chariot had been secured tightly to a pillar in the temple by Gordias, the former king, and there was a local legend that said, ‘He who unravels this knot shall be master of Asia.’ It was a tightly wound knot that many men of skill had been certain they could unbind, but no one had succeeded. Now, what do you think Alexander the Great did when he stood before this knot?
YOUTH: Well, didn’t he unravel the legendary knot with ease, and go on to become the ruler of Asia?
PHILOSOPHER: No, that’s not how it happened. As soon as Alexander the Great saw how tight the knot was, he pulled out his sword and sliced it in half with one stroke.
YOUTH: Wow!
PHILOSOPHER: Then, it is said that he declared, ‘Destiny is not something brought about by legend, but by clearing away with one’s own sword.’ He had no use for the power of legend, and would forge his destiny with his sword. As you know, he then proceeded to become the great conqueror of all the territories of what is now the Middle East and western Asia. This is the famous anecdote known as the Gordian knot. And so, such intricate knots—the bonds in our interpersonal relationships—are not to be unravelled by conventional methods, but must be severed by some completely new approach. Whenever I explain the separation of tasks, I always remember the Gordian knot.
YOUTH: Well, I don’t mean to contradict you, but not everyone can become Alexander the Great. Isn’t it precisely because there was no one else who could have cut the knot that the anecdote portraying it as a heroic deed is still conveyed to this day? It’s exactly the same with the separation of tasks. Even though one knows one can just cut through something with one’s sword, one might find it rather difficult. Because when one presses forward with the separation of tasks, in the end one will have to cut ties with people. One will drive people into isolation. The separation of tasks you speak of completely ignores human emotion! How could one possibly build good interpersonal relationships with that?
PHILOSOPHER: One can build them. The separation of tasks is not the final objective for interpersonal relationships. Rather, it is the gateway.
YOUTH: The gateway?
PHILOSOPHER: For instance, when reading a book, if one brings one’s face too close to it, one cannot see anything. In the same way, forming good interpersonal relationships requires a certain degree of distance. When the distance gets too small and people become stuck together, it becomes impossible to even speak to each other. But the distance must not be too great, either. Parents who scold their children too much become mentally very distant. When this happens, the child can no longer even consult the parents, and the parents can no longer give the proper assistance. One should be ready to lend a hand when needed, but not encroach on the person’s territory. It is important to maintain this kind of moderate distance.
YOUTH: Is distance necessary even in the kind of relationship that parents and children have?
PHILOSOPHER: Of course. Earlier, you said that the separation of tasks is something that treads on the other person’s goodwill. That is a notion that is tied to reward. It’s the idea that when another person does something for you, you have to do something in return—even if that person does not want anything. Rather than responding to the goodwill, it is just being tied to reward. No matter what sort of appeal the other person might make, you are the only one who decides what you should do.
YOUTH: Reward is at the root of what I am calling ‘ties’?
PHILOSOPHER: Yes. When reward is at the base of an interpersonal relationship, there’s a feeling that wells up in one that says, ‘I gave this much, so you should give me that much back.’ This is a notion that is quite different from separation of tasks, of course. We must not seek reward, and we must not be tied to it.
YOUTH: Hmm.
PHILOSOPHER: However, there are certainly situations in which it would be easier to intervene in the tasks of another person without doing any separation of tasks. For instance, in a child-raising situation, when a child is having a hard time tying his shoes. For the busy mother, it is certainly faster to tie them than to wait for him to do it himself. But that is an intervention, and it is taking the child’s task away from him. And as a result of repeating that intervention, the child will cease to learn anything, and will lose the courage to face his life tasks. As Adler says, ‘Children who have not been taught to confront challenges will try to avoid all challenges.’
YOUTH: But that is such a dry way of thinking.
PHILOSOPHER: When Alexander the Great cut the Gordian knot, there were probably those who felt the same way; that the unravelling of the knot by hand had meaning, and that it was a mistake to cut it with a sword; that Alexander had misunderstood the meaning of the oracle’s words. In Adlerian psychology, there are aspects that are antithetical to normal social thinking. It denies aetiology, denies trauma and adopts teleology. It treats people’s problems as interpersonal relationship problems. And the not-seeking of recognition and the separation of tasks, too, are probably antithetical to normal social thinking.
YOUTH: It’s impossible! I can’t do it!
PHILOSOPHER: Why?
The youth was devastated by the separation of tasks that the philosopher had begun describing. When one thought of all one’s problems as being in one’s interpersonal relationships, the separation of tasks was effective. Just by having this viewpoint, the world would become quite simple. But there was no flesh and blood in it. It gave off no sense of one’s warmth as a person. Could anyone accept such a philosophy? The youth rose from his chair and pleaded loudly.
DESIRE FOR RECOGNITION MAKES YOU UNFREE
YOUTH: Look, I have been dissatisfied for ages. The adults of the world tell the young people, ‘Do something you like to do.’ And they do it with smiles on their faces as if they might actually be understanding people; as if they were on the side of the young. But it’s all lip service that only comes out because those young people are complete strangers to them, and the relationship is one that is completely without any kind of responsibility. Then, parents and teachers tell us, ‘Get into that school,’ or ‘Look for a stable occupation,’ and this concrete and uninteresting instruction is not merely an intervention. It’s actually that they are trying to fulfil their responsibilities. It’s precisely because we are closely connected to them and they are seriously concerned about our future, that they can’t say irresponsible things like ‘Do something you like.’ I’m sure you’d put on that understanding face too, and say to me, ‘Please do something you like.’ But, I won’t believe such a comment from another person! It’s an extremely irresponsible comment, as if one were just brushing a caterpillar off one’s shoulder. And if the world crushed that caterpillar, you would say, ‘It’s not my task,’ and walk away nonchalantly. What separation of tasks, you monster!
PHILOSOPHER: Oh goodness, you’re getting all bent out of shape. So, what you are saying, in other words, is that you want someone to intervene to some extent? That you want another person to decide your path?
YOUTH: Sure, maybe I do! It’s like this: it’s not so difficult to judge what others expect of one, or what kind of role is being demanded of one. Living as one likes, on the other hand, is extremely difficult. What does one want? What does one want to become, and what kind of life does one want to lead? One doesn’t always get such a concrete idea of things. It would be a grave mistake to think that everyone has clear-cut dreams and objectives. Don’t you know that?
PHILOSOPHER: Maybe it is easier to live in such a way as to satisfy other people’s expectations. Because one is entrusting one’s ow
n life to them. For example, one runs along the tracks that one’s parents have laid out. Even if there are a lot of things one might object to, one will not lose one’s way as long as one stays on those rails. But if one is deciding one’s path oneself, it’s only natural that one will get lost at times. One comes up against the wall of ‘how one should live’.
YOUTH: That is what I am looking for recognition from others for. You were talking about God earlier, and if we were still living in an era when God was something people believed in, I suppose that ‘God is watching’ might serve as a criterion for self-discipline. If one were recognised by God, maybe one didn’t need recognition from others. But that era ended a long time ago. And, in that case, one has no choice but to discipline oneself on the basis that other people are watching. To aspire to be recognised by others and live an honest life. Other people’s eyes are my guide.
PHILOSOPHER: Does one choose recognition from others, or does one choose a path of freedom without recognition? It’s an important question—let’s think about it together. To live one’s life trying to gauge other people’s feelings and being worried about how they look at you. To live in such a way that other’s wishes are granted. There may indeed be signposts to guide you this way, but it is a very unfree way to live. Now, why are you choosing such an unfree way to live? You are using the term ‘desire for recognition’, but what you are really saying is that you don’t want to be disliked by anyone.
YOUTH: Who does? There’s no one anywhere who’d go so far as to actually want to be disliked.
PHILOSOPHER: Exactly. It is true that there is no person who wishes to be disliked. But look at it this way: what should one do to not be disliked by anyone? There is only one answer: it is to constantly gauge other people’s feelings, while swearing loyalty to all of them. If there are ten people, one must swear loyalty to all ten. When one does that, for the time being one will have succeeded in not being disliked by anyone. But at this point, there is a great contradiction looming. One swears loyalty to all ten people out of the single-minded desire to not be disliked. This is like a politician who has fallen into populism and begun to make impossible promises and accept responsibilities that are beyond him. Naturally, his lies will come to light before long. He will lose people’s trust, and turn his own life into one of greater suffering. And, of course, the stress of continual lying has all kinds of consequences. Please grasp this point. If one is living in a such a way as to satisfy other people’s expectations, and one is entrusting one’s own life to others, that is a way of living in which one is lying to oneself, and continuing that lying to include the people around one.
The Courage To Be Disliked Page 10