YOUTH: Well, sure, there are parts of the mind and body that are connected.
PHILOSOPHER: The same holds true for reason and emotion, and the conscious mind and the unconscious mind, as well. A normally cool-headed person doesn’t expect to have a fit of violent emotion and start shouting at someone. We are not struck by emotions that somehow exist independently from us. Each of us is a unified whole.
YOUTH: No, that is not true. It is precisely because we have the ability to view mind and body, reason and emotion, and the conscious and the unconscious mind as clearly separate from each other, that we can gain a correct understanding of people. Isn’t that a given?
PHILOSOPHER: Certainly, it is true that the mind and the body are separate things, that reason and emotion are different, and that both the conscious mind and the unconscious mind exist. That said, however, when one flies into a rage and shouts at another person, it is ‘I as a whole’ who is choosing to shout. One would never think of emotions that somehow exist independently—unrelated to one’s intentions, as it were—as having produced that shouting voice. When one separates the ‘I’ from ‘emotion’ and thinks, It was the emotion that made me do it, or The emotion got the best of me, and I couldn’t help it, such thinking quickly becomes a life-lie.
YOUTH: You’re referring to the time I yelled at that waiter, aren’t you?
PHILOSOPHER: Yes. This view of the human being as ‘I as a whole’, as an indivisible being that cannot be broken down into parts, is referred to as ‘holism’.
YOUTH: Well, that’s fine. But I wasn’t asking you for an academic theory to provide a definition of ‘individual’. Look, if you take Adlerian psychology to its logical conclusion, it’s basically saying ‘I am I, and you are you’ and leading people toward isolation. It’s saying, ‘I won’t interfere with you, so don’t interfere with me either, and we’ll both go on living however we please.’ Please tell me straightforwardly what your awareness is of that point.
PHILOSOPHER: All right. All problems are interpersonal relationship problems. You have an understanding of this basic tenet of Adlerian psychology, correct?
YOUTH: Yes, I do. The idea of non-interference in interpersonal relations, that is to say, the separation of tasks, probably came about as a way to resolve those problems.
PHILOSOPHER: This is something I believe I went over last time—that forming good interpersonal relationships requires a certain degree of distance; while people who get too close end up not even being able to speak to each other, it is not good to get too far apart, either. Please do not think of the separation of tasks as something that is meant to keep other people away; instead, see it as a way of thinking with which to unravel the threads of the complex entanglement of one’s interpersonal relations.
YOUTH: To unravel the threads?
PHILOSOPHER: Exactly. Right now, your threads and other people’s threads are all tangled up in a confused mess, and you are looking at the world while in that condition. Red, blue, brown and green; all the colours mixing together—you think of it as ‘connection’. But it is not.
YOUTH: So, then, what do you think connection is?
PHILOSOPHER: Last time, I spoke of the separation of tasks as a prescription for resolving interpersonal relationship problems. But interpersonal relationships are not something that end just because one has separated the tasks. The separating of tasks is actually the point of departure for interpersonal relations. Today, let’s take the discussion deeper, so as to address how interpersonal relations as a whole are viewed in Adlerian psychology, and consider the kind of relationships we should form with others.
THE GOAL OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS IS A FEELING OF COMMUNITY
YOUTH: Okay, I have a question. Please give me a simple answer that gets straight to the heart of the matter. You said that the separating of tasks is the point of departure for interpersonal relations. Well, what is the goal of interpersonal relations?
PHILOSOPHER: To get straight to the heart of the matter, it is ‘community feeling’.
YOUTH: … Community feeling?
PHILOSOPHER: Yes. This is a key concept in Adlerian psychology, and views on its application have been the subject of much debate. In fact, Adler’s proposal of the concept of community feeling drove many people to part ways with him.
YOUTH: Well, it sounds fascinating to me. What is this concept?
PHILOSOPHER: It was the time before last, I believe, that I brought up the matter of how one sees others; that is, as enemies or as comrades. Now, take that a step deeper. If other people are our comrades, and we live surrounded by them, we should be able to find in that life our own place of ‘refuge’. Moreover, in doing so, we should begin to have the desire to share with our comrades—to contribute to the community. This sense of others as comrades, this awareness of ‘having one’s own refuge’, is called ‘community feeling’.
YOUTH: But what part of this is open to debate? It seems like a completely irrefutable point.
PHILOSOPHER: The issue is community. What does it consist of? When you hear the word ‘community’, what images come to mind?
YOUTH: There are such frameworks as one’s household, school or workplace, or local society.
PHILOSOPHER: When Adler refers to community, he goes beyond the household, school, workplace and local society, and treats it as all-inclusive, covering not only nations and all of humanity, but the entire axis of time from the past to the future—and he includes plants and animals, and even inanimate objects.
YOUTH: Huh?
PHILOSOPHER: In other words, he is espousing that community is not merely one of the pre-existing frameworks that the word might bring to mind, but is also inclusive of literally everything; the entire universe, from the past to the future.
YOUTH: No way. Now you’ve lost me. The universe? Past and future? What on earth are you talking about?
PHILOSOPHER: The majority of those who hear this have similar doubts. This is not something one can comprehend immediately. Adler himself acknowledged that the community he was espousing was ‘an unattainable ideal’.
YOUTH: Ha-ha. Well that’s perplexing, isn’t it? How about the other way around, then? Do you really comprehend and accept this community feeling, or whatever it is, that includes the entire universe?
PHILOSOPHER: I try to. Because I feel that one cannot truly comprehend Adlerian psychology without comprehending this point.
YOUTH: Okay then!
PHILOSOPHER: As I have been saying all along, Adlerian psychology has the view that all problems are interpersonal relationship problems. Interpersonal relations are the source of unhappiness. And the opposite can be said, too—interpersonal relations are the source of happiness.
YOUTH: Indeed.
PHILOSOPHER: Furthermore, community feeling is the most important index for considering a state of interpersonal relations that is happy.
YOUTH: All right. I’d like to hear all about it.
PHILOSOPHER: Community feeling is also referred to as ‘social interest’, that is to say, ‘interest in society’. So, now I have a question for you: do you know what society’s smallest unit is, from the point of view of sociology?
YOUTH: Society’s smallest unit, huh? I’d say the family.
PHILOSOPHER: No, it is ‘you and I’. When there are two people, society emerges in their presence, and community emerges there too. To gain an understanding of the community feeling that Adler speaks of, it is advisable to use ‘you and I’ as the starting point.
YOUTH: And what do you do with that as the starting point?
PHILOSOPHER: You make the switch from attachment to self (self-interest) to concern for others (social interest).
YOUTH: Attachment to self? Concern for others? What’s all that about?
WHY AM I ONLY INTERESTED IN MYSELF?
PHILOSOPHER: Well, let’s consider this concretely. For purposes of clarity, in place of ‘attachment to self’, I will use the word ‘self-centred’. In your view, someone who is
self-centred is what sort of person?
YOUTH: Hmm, I guess the first thing that comes to mind is the kind of person who’s like a tyrant. Someone who’s domineering, has no qualms about being a nuisance to others, and only thinks about things that are to his own advantage. He thinks that the world revolves around him, and he behaves like a dictator who rules by absolute authority and force. He’s the kind of person who creates an enormous amount of trouble for everyone around him. Someone who’s just like Shakespeare’s King Lear, a typical tyrant.
PHILOSOPHER: I see.
YOUTH: On the other hand, he wouldn’t necessarily be a tyrant—one might speak of the sort of person who disturbs the harmony of a group as self-centred, too. He’s someone who can’t operate in a group, and prefers to act alone. He never stops to reflect on his actions, even when he’s late for appointments or fails to keep his promises. In a word, he is an egotist.
PHILOSOPHER: To be sure, that is the kind of image that generally comes to mind when thinking of self-centred people. But there is another type that must be taken into account. People who are incapable of carrying out the separation of tasks, and who are obsessed with the desire for recognition are also extremely self-centred.
YOUTH: Why is that?
PHILOSOPHER: Consider the reality of the desire for recognition. How much do others pay attention to you, and what is their judgement of you? That is to say, how much do they satisfy your desire? People who are obsessed with such a desire for recognition will seem to be looking at other people, while they are actually only looking at themselves. They lack concern for others, and are concerned solely with the ‘I’. Simply put, they are self-centred.
YOUTH: So, would you say that people like me, who fear being judged by others, are self-centred, too? Even though I try so hard to be mindful of others and adjust myself to them?
PHILOSOPHER: Yes. In the sense that you are concerned solely with the ‘I’, you are self-centred. You want to be thought well of by others, and that is why you worry about the way they look at you. That is not concern for others. It is nothing but attachment to self.
YOUTH: But …
PHILOSOPHER: This is something I spoke of last time. The fact that there are people who do not think well of you is proof that you are living in freedom. You might have a sense of something about this that seems self-centred. But I think you have understood this from today’s discussion: a way of living in which one is constantly troubled by how one is seen by others is a self-centred lifestyle in which one’s sole concern is with the ‘I’.
YOUTH: Well now, that is an astounding statement!
PHILOSOPHER: Not just you, but all people who are attached to the ‘I’ are self-centred. And that is precisely why it is necessary to make the switch from ‘attachment to self’ to ‘concern for others’.
YOUTH: Okay, so yes, it is true that I am always looking only at myself; that, I acknowledge. I’m constantly worried about how other people see me, but not about how I see them. If you are saying I am self-centred, there is nothing that I can say to refute that. But, think about it like this: if my life were a feature-length movie, the protagonist would certainly be this ‘I’, wouldn’t it? Is pointing the camera at the protagonist really such a reprehensible thing?
YOU ARE NOT THE CENTRE OF THE WORLD
PHILOSOPHER: Let’s go over things in order. First of all, each of us is a member of a community, and that is where we belong. Feeling that one has one’s own place of refuge within the community; feeling that ‘it’s okay to be here’, and having a sense of belonging—these are basic human desires. Whether it is one’s studies, work or friendships, or one’s love or marriage, all these things are connected to one’s search for places and relationships in which one can feel ‘it’s okay to be here’. Wouldn’t you agree?
YOUTH: Ah, yes, I do! That’s it exactly!
PHILOSOPHER: And the protagonist in one’s life is the ‘I’. There is nothing wrong with the train of thought up to this point. But the ‘I’ does not rule the centre of the world. While the ‘I’ is life’s protagonist, it is never more than a member of the community and a part of the whole.
YOUTH: A part of the whole?
PHILOSOPHER: People who have concern only for themselves think that they are at the centre of the world. To such people, others are merely ‘people who will do something for me’. They half-genuinely believe that everyone else exists to serve them, and should give precedence to their feelings.
YOUTH: Just like a prince or a princess.
PHILOSOPHER: Yes, exactly. They make a leap from being ‘life’s protagonist’ to becoming ‘the world’s protagonist’. For this reason, whenever they come into contact with another person, all they can think is, What will this person give me? However—and this is something that does not hold true for princes and princesses—this expectation is not going to be satisfied on every occasion. Because other people are not living to satisfy your expectations.
YOUTH: Indeed.
PHILOSOPHER: Then, when those expectations are not satisfied, they become deeply disillusioned and feel as if they have been horribly insulted. And they become resentful, and think, That person didn’t do anything for me; That person let me down; That person isn’t my comrade anymore. He’s my enemy. People who hold the belief that they are the centre of the world always end up losing their comrades before long.
YOUTH: That’s strange. Didn’t you say that we are living in a subjective world? As long as the world is a subjective space, I am the only one who can be at its centre. I won’t let anyone else be there.
PHILOSOPHER: I think that when you speak of ‘the world’, what you have in mind is something like a map of the world.
YOUTH: A map of the world? What are you talking about?
PHILOSOPHER: For example, on the map of the world used in France, the Americas are located on the left side, and Asia on the right. Europe and France are depicted at the centre of the map, of course. The map of the world used in China, on the other hand, shows the Americas on the right side, and Europe on the left. French people who see the Chinese map of the world will most likely experience a difficult-to-describe sense of incongruity, as if they have been driven unjustly to the fringes, or cut out of the world arbitrarily.
YOUTH: Yes, I see your point.
PHILOSOPHER: But what happens when a globe is used to represent the world? Because with a globe, you can look at the world with France at the centre, or China, or Brazil for that matter. Every place is central, and no place is, at the same time. The globe may be dotted with an infinite number of centres, in accordance with the viewer’s location and angle of view. That is the nature of a globe.
YOUTH: Hmm, that is true.
PHILOSOPHER: Think of what I said earlier—that you are not the centre of the world — as being the same thing. You are a part of a community, not its centre.
YOUTH: I am not the centre of the world. Our world is a globe, not a map that has been cut out on a plane. Well, I can understand that in theory, anyway. But why do I have to be aware of the fact that I’m not the centre of the world?
PHILOSOPHER: Now we will go back to where we started. All of us are searching for the sense of belonging that ‘it’s okay to be here’. In Adlerian psychology, however, a sense of belonging is something that one can attain only by making an active commitment to the community of one’s own accord, and not simply by being here.
YOUTH: By making an active commitment? What does one do, exactly?
PHILOSOPHER: One faces one’s life tasks. In other words, one takes steps forward on one’s own, without avoiding the tasks of the interpersonal relations of work, friendship and love. If you are ‘the centre of the world’, you will have no thoughts whatsoever regarding commitment to the community; because everyone else is ‘someone who will do something for me’, and there is no need for you to do things yourself. But you are not the centre of the world, and neither am I. One has to stand on one’s own two feet, and take one’s own steps forward wit
h the tasks of interpersonal relations. One needs to think not What will this person give me? but, rather, What can I give to this person? That is commitment to the community.
YOUTH: It is because one gives something that one can find one’s refuge?
PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. A sense of belonging is something that one acquires through one’s own efforts—it is not something one is endowed with at birth. Community feeling is the much-debated key concept of Adlerian psychology.
It was certainly a concept that the young man found difficult to accept at first. And naturally, it upset him to be told he was self-centred. But what he found harder to accept than anything else was the incredible extent of that community, which included the universe and inanimate objects. What were Adler and this philosopher talking about, anyway? With a bewildered expression, the young man slowly opened his mouth to speak.
LISTEN TO THE VOICE OF A LARGER COMMUNITY
YOUTH: I must admit, you’re starting to lose me. Let me try to straighten things out a bit. First, at the gateway of interpersonal relations, we’ve got the separation of tasks, and as the goal, there’s community feeling. And you’re saying that community feeling is having ‘a sense of others as comrades’, and ‘an awareness of having one’s own refuge’ within the community. Up to this point, it is something I can understand and accept. But the details still seem a bit far-fetched. For one thing, what do you mean by expanding this thing you call ‘community’ to include the entire universe, and then even the past and the future, and everything from living things to inanimate objects?
The Courage To Be Disliked Page 12