The Courage To Be Disliked

by Fumitake Koga

  PHILOSOPHER: It certainly does make things more difficult to understand if one takes Adler’s concept of community verbatim and tries to actually imagine it including the universe and inanimate objects. For the time being, suffice it to say that the scope of community is infinite.

  YOUTH: Infinite?

  PHILOSOPHER: Take, for example, a man who, on reaching retirement age and stopping work, quickly loses his vitality and becomes depressed. Abruptly cut off from the company that was his community and bereft of title or profession, he becomes an ‘ordinary nobody’. As he is unable to accept the fact that he is now ‘normal’, he becomes old practically overnight. But all that really happened to the man is that he was cut off from the small community that is his company. Each person belongs to a separate community. And when it comes down to it, all of us belong to the community of the earth, and the community of the universe.

  YOUTH: That’s pure sophistry! To suddenly come out with ‘you belong to the universe’, as if that could give someone a sense of belonging.

  PHILOSOPHER: It’s true, there’s no way one can just imagine the entire universe all of a sudden. Even so, I would like you to gain the awareness that you belong to a separate, larger community that is beyond the one you see in your immediate vicinity—for example, the country or local society in which you live—and that you are contributing in some way within that community.

  YOUTH: Then, what about in a situation like this? Say there’s a guy who’s unmarried, has lost his job and his friends, and who avoids the company of other people and just lives off the money his parents left him. So, he’s basically running away from all the tasks of work, and tasks of friendship and tasks of love. Would you say that even a guy like that belongs to some sort of community?

  PHILOSOPHER: Of course. Say he goes out to buy a loaf of bread. He pays for it with a coin. That coin does not simply go back to the bakers of the bread. It goes to the producers of flour and butter; to the people who deliver those ingredients; to the purveyors of the gasoline used by the delivery vehicles; to people in the oil-producing countries where that fuel comes from, and so on. So, it’s all connected. People are never truly alone or separate from community, and cannot be.

  YOUTH: So, you’re saying I should fantasise more when I buy bread?

  PHILOSOPHER: It is not fantasy. It is fact. The community Adler speaks of goes beyond things we can see, like our households and societies, to include those connections that we cannot see.

  YOUTH: Excuse me for saying so, but you’re escaping into abstract theory. The issue we should be addressing here is the sense of belonging, that ‘it’s okay to be here’. And then, with regard to the meaning of this sense of belonging, it is the community we can see that is stronger. You will agree with that, won’t you? For example, if we compare the ‘company’ community with the ‘earth’ community, the sense of belonging of someone who says ‘I am a member of this company’ would be stronger. To borrow your terminology, the distance and depth of the interpersonal relations are completely different. It’s only natural that when we search for a sense of belonging, we will be attracted to the smaller community.

  PHILOSOPHER: That is a perceptive observation. So, let’s starting thinking about why we should be aware of multiple and larger communities. As I stated earlier, all of us belong to multiple communities. We belong to our households, our schools, our workplaces and the local societies and the countries in which we live. This far you agree with, yes?

  YOUTH: Yes, I do.

  PHILOSOPHER: Well, suppose that you, as a student, regarded the community that is ‘school’ as absolute. In other words, school is everything to you, your ‘I’ exists because of school, and no other ‘I’ is possible without it. But naturally, there will be occasions within that community when you run into adversity. It could be getting bullied, or not being able to make friends or keep up with your schoolwork, or not adapting to the system of the school in the first place. That is to say, it’s possible that with regard to the community that is your school, you won’t have that ‘it’s okay to be here’ sense of belonging.

  YOUTH: Yes, absolutely. That’s quite possible.

  PHILOSOPHER: When that happens, if you are thinking of school as being everything to you, you will end up without a sense of belonging to anything. And then, you will escape within a smaller community such as your home. You will shut yourself in, and maybe even turn to violence against members of your own family. And by doing such things, you will be attempting to gain a sense of belonging somehow. What I would like you to focus on here, though, is that there is ‘a more separate community’ and, moreover, that there is ‘a larger community’.

  YOUTH: What does that mean?

  PHILOSOPHER: That there is a larger world that extends far beyond the confines of the school. And every one of us is a member of that world. If there is no place of refuge in your school, you should find a different refuge outside the walls of the school. You can change schools, and it’s fine to withdraw from school, too. A community that you can break relations with by simply submitting a withdrawal notice is one that you can have only so much connection to, in any case. Once you know how big the world is, you will see that all the hardship you went through in school was a storm in a teacup. The moment you leave the teacup, that raging storm will be gone, and a gentle breeze will greet you in its place.

  YOUTH: Are you saying that as long as you keep yourself shut up inside the teacup, you’ll never stand a chance outside it?

  PHILOSOPHER: Secluding yourself in your room is akin to staying in the teacup, as if you are hunkering down in a small shelter. You might be able to wait out the rain for a short while, but the storm will continue unabated.

  YOUTH: Well, maybe in theory, anyway. But it’s hard to break out. The decision to withdraw from school itself isn’t something to be taken lightly.

  PHILOSOPHER: I am sure you are right—it would not be easy. Therefore, there is a principle of action that I would like you to commit to memory. When we run into difficulties in our interpersonal relations, or when we can no longer see a way out, what we should consider first and foremost is the principle that says ‘listen to the voice of the larger community’.

  YOUTH: The voice of the larger community?

  PHILOSOPHER: If it is a school, one does not judge things with the commonsense of the community that is the school, but instead follows the commonsense of a larger community. Now, let’s say it’s your school, and your teacher has been behaving in an authoritarian manner. But the power or authority your teacher wields is nothing more than an aspect of the commonsense that operates only within the small community that is the school. From the standpoint of the community that is ‘human society’, both you and your teacher are equal humans. If unreasonable demands are being thrust on you, it is fine to object to them directly.

  YOUTH: But, it will be very difficult to object when the teacher is right in front of me.

  PHILOSOPHER: Not at all. Though this might be termed a ‘you and I’ relationship, if it is one that can break down just because you raise an objection, then it is not the sort of relationship you need to get into in the first place. It is fine to just let go of it. Living in fear of one’s relationships falling apart is an unfree way to live, in which one is living for other people.

  YOUTH: You’re saying to choose freedom at the same time that I have community feeling?

  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, of course. Do not cling to the small community right in front of you. There will always be more ‘you and I’, and more ‘everyone’, and larger communities that exist.

  DO NO TREBUKE OR PRAISE

  YOUTH: Well, all right. But don’t you see? You haven’t touched on the essential point; that is, the course of progression from the separation of tasks to community feeling. So, first, I separate the tasks. I think of my tasks as being up to this point; and everything beyond that is other people’s tasks. I don’t intervene in other people’s tasks, and I draw a line so that other people won’t interve
ne in mine. But how can one build interpersonal relations with this separation of tasks, and arrive in the end at the community feeling that ‘it’s okay to be here’? How does Adlerian psychology advise us to overcome the life tasks of work, friendship and love? It seems like you’re just trying to confuse me with abstract words, without going into any concrete explanation.

  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, you’ve hit on the important point. How does carrying out the separating of tasks connect with good relations? That is to say, how does it connect with building the kind of relations in which we cooperate and act in harmony with each other? Which brings us to the concept of ‘horizontal relationship’.

  YOUTH: Horizontal relationship?

  PHILOSOPHER: Let’s start with an easily understood example, that of the parent–child relationship. Whether the circumstances are those of childrearing, or of training junior staff in the workplace, for example, generally speaking there are two approaches that are considered: one is the method of raising by rebuke, and the other is the method of raising by praise.

  YOUTH: Ah. That is a hotly debated issue.

  PHILOSOPHER: Which one do you think is the better choice? To rebuke or to praise?

  YOUTH: It’s better to raise by praising, of course.

  PHILOSOPHER: Why?

  YOUTH: Take animal training, for example. When teaching animals to do tricks, you can make them obey with a whip. This is the typical ‘raising by rebuke’ way. On the other hand, it’s also possible to get animals to learn tricks by holding up rewards of food or saying kind words. This is ‘raising by praise’. Both ways can lead to the same results—they learn new tricks. But the motivation for moving toward the objective is completely different if the animal is doing it because it will be rebuked or doing it because it wants to be praised. In the latter instance, it will come with a feeling of joy. Rebuke only makes the animal wither. But raising with praise naturally allows it to grow strong and healthy. This seems like an obvious conclusion.

  PHILOSOPHER: Animal training is an interesting example. Now, let’s look at this from the standpoint of Adlerian psychology. In Adlerian psychology, we take the stance that in childrearing, and in all other forms of communication with other people, one must not praise.

  YOUTH: One must not praise?

  PHILOSOPHER: Physical punishment is out of the question, of course, and rebuking is not accepted, either. One must not praise, and one must not rebuke. That is the standpoint of Adlerian psychology.

  YOUTH: But how is that even possible?

  PHILOSOPHER: Consider the reality of the act of praise. For example, suppose I praised a statement you made by saying, ‘Good job!’ Wouldn’t hearing those words seem strange somehow?

  YOUTH: Yes, I guess it would put me in an unpleasant mood.

  PHILOSOPHER: Can you explain why it would feel unpleasant?

  YOUTH: What’s unpleasant is the feeling that from the words ‘Good job!’ one is being talked down to.

  PHILOSOPHER: Exactly. In the act of praise, there is the aspect of it being ‘the passing of judgement by a person of ability on a person of no ability’. A mother praises her child who has helped her prepare dinner, saying, ‘You’re such a good helper!’ But when her husband does the same things, you can be sure she won’t be telling him, ‘You’re such a good helper!’

  YOUTH: Ha-ha, you are right about that.

  PHILOSOPHER: In other words, the mother who praises the child by saying things like ‘You’re such a good helper!’ or ‘Good job!’ or ‘Well, aren’t you something!’ is unconsciously creating a hierarchical relationship and seeing the child as beneath her. The example of animal training that you just gave is also emblematic of the hierarchical relationship—the vertical relationship—that is behind the praising. When one person praises another, the goal is ‘to manipulate someone who has less ability than you’. It is not done out of gratitude or respect.

  YOUTH: So, you’re saying that one praises in order to manipulate?

  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. Whether we praise or rebuke others, the only difference is one of the carrot or the stick, and the background goal is manipulation. The reason that Adlerian psychology is highly critical of reward-and-punishment education is that its intention is to manipulate children.

  YOUTH: No way, you’re wrong there. Because think of it from the standpoint of the child. For children, isn’t being praised by their parents the greatest joy of all? It’s because they want praise that they do their studies. It’s because they want praise that they learn to behave properly. That’s how it was for me when I was a child. How I craved praise from my parents! And even after becoming an adult, it’s been the same way. When your boss praises you, it feels good. That’s how it is for everyone. This has nothing to do with reason—it’s just instinctual emotion!

  PHILOSOPHER: One wishes to be praised by someone. Or conversely, one decides to give praise to someone. This is proof that one is seeing all interpersonal relationships as ‘vertical relationships’. This holds true for you, too: it is because you are living in vertical relationships that you want to be praised. Adlerian psychology refutes all manner of vertical relationships, and proposes that all interpersonal relationships be horizontal relationships. In a sense, this point may be regarded as the fundamental principle of Adlerian psychology.

  YOUTH: Is this something that is conveyed by the words ‘equal but not the same’?

  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. Equal, that is to say, horizontal. For example, there are men who verbally abuse their wives, who do all the housework, with such remarks as, ‘You’re not bringing in any money, so I don’t want to hear it’ or ‘It’s thanks to me that there’s food on the table.’ And I’m sure you’ve heard this one before: ‘You have everything you need, so what are you complaining about?’ It’s perfectly shameful. Such statements of economic superiority or the like have no connection whatsoever to human worth. A company employee and a full-time housewife simply have different workplaces and roles, and are truly ‘equal but not the same’.

  YOUTH: I agree entirely.

  PHILOSOPHER: They are probably afraid that women will grow wise to their situation and start earning more than men do, and that women will start asserting themselves. They see all interpersonal relations as vertical relationships, and they are afraid of being seen by women as beneath them. That is to say, they have intense, hidden feelings of inferiority.

  YOUTH: So, in a sense, they are getting into a superiority complex in which they are trying to make a show of their abilities?

  PHILOSOPHER: So it seems. In the first place, the feeling of inferiority is an awareness that arises within vertical relationships. If one can build horizontal relationships that are ‘equal but not the same’ for all people, there will no longer be any room for inferiority complexes to emerge.

  YOUTH: Hmm. Maybe I do have an awareness of manipulation somewhere in my psyche when I go about praising other people. Laying on the flattery to get in good favour with my boss—that’s definitely manipulation, isn’t it? And it’s the other way around, too. I’ve been manipulated by being praised by others. Funny, I guess that’s just the sort of person I am!

  PHILOSOPHER: Yes; in the sense that you have not been able to break out of vertical relationships, it would seem so.

  YOUTH: This is getting interesting! Please go on!

  THE ENCOURAGEMENT APPROACH

  PHILOSOPHER: As you may recall from our discussion on the separation of tasks, I brought up the subject of intervention. This is the act of intruding on other people’s tasks. So, why does a person intervene? Here, too, in the background, vertical relationships are at play. It is precisely because one perceives interpersonal relations as vertical, and sees the other party as beneath one, that one intervenes. Through intervention, one tries to lead the other party in the desired direction. One has convinced oneself that one is right, and that the other party is wrong. Of course, the intervention here is manipulation, pure and simple. Parents commanding a child to study is a typical example of
this. They might be acting out of the best of intentions from their points of view, but, when it comes down to it, the parents are intruding, and attempting to manipulate the child to go in their desired direction.

  YOUTH: If one can build horizontal relationships, will that intervention disappear?

  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, it will.

  YOUTH: Well, it’s one thing if you’re just talking about a child’s studies. But when someone’s suffering right there in front of you, you can’t just leave them be, can you? Would you still say that lending a helping hand is intervention, and then do nothing?

  PHILOSOPHER: One must not let it go unnoticed. It is necessary to offer assistance that does not turn into intervention.

  YOUTH: What is the difference between intervention and assistance?

  PHILOSOPHER: Think back to our discussion of the separation of tasks; to the subject of a child’s schoolwork. As I stated then, this is a task that the child has to resolve himself, not something that parents or teachers can do for him. So, intervention is this kind of intruding on other people’s tasks, and directing them by saying things like, ‘You have to study,’ or ‘Get into that university.’ Whereas, assistance, on the other hand, presupposes the separation of tasks, and also horizontal relationships. Having understood that studying is the child’s task, one considers what one can do for him. Concretely speaking, instead of commanding from above that the child must study, one acts on him in such a way that he can gain the confidence to take care of his own studies and face his tasks on his own.

  YOUTH: And that action isn’t forced?

  PHILOSOPHER: No, it’s not. Without forcing, and with the tasks always kept separate, one assists the child to resolve them by his own efforts. It’s the approach of ‘you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink’. He is the one who has to face his tasks, and he is the one who makes the resolution.

  YOUTH: So, you neither praise nor rebuke?