Of Affirmation and Abuse

A Discussion with a Friend

A friend approached me during a lull in our Christmas gathering and asked about philosophical counseling and how it might apply to a situation from her past.

Engaging in counseling of any kind is frequently not advised with friends or family, but the issue she wanted to discuss was fairly safe, and this was more just a brief introduction to how one might approach it philosophically (she previously saw professional counselors about the same event).

"So how does this work," she asked.

"It is pretty simple, really. Just tell me about the issue that is on your mind, and how it is affecting you. I'll ask some questions along the way. My goal is to help you engage your own rational capacity to understand the situation better and, perhaps, find a way of working through it."

I enjoy philosophical discussions, but there is a difference (to me) between a philosophical discussion and philosophical counseling. The key distinction is that the counseling scenario focuses on a topic of interest primarily to one of the parties, and the philosopher is acting more as a kind of personal trainer or coach -- but with respect to rationality rather than athletics -- to help the counselee work through the issue. Most people are capable of growing in rationality and solving the issues in which we find ourselves, but external pressures, our passions and conflicting beliefs frequently get in the way and make things confusing. A practical philosopher can help someone analyze an issue with more objectivity while avoiding common thinking and emotional errors.

So she spent the next 10-15 minutes explaining her ongoing feelings of resentment about how she was treated by a supervisor at a prior job. Specifically, the supervisor did not show appreciation for her successes, frequently took credit for her achievements, and treated her in demeaning and abusive ways that prompted her to feel sadness, anger and anxiety about her work and to question her personal worth. It sounded a little like an adult-bullying situation, which is actually quite common.

She related the events with substantial expression, detail and passion. The events remain very real, very present, although they took place years ago. She said she sometimes considers setting up a meeting with the supervisor to "confront him." "I just want to know why did he do those things to me. It was all so confusing."

It is probably not your fault

This prompts an important point. We might do (or be) things that trigger bad people to do bad to us. For example, we might walk through the parking garage at 2:00 AM, or might get drunk at a party, which could lead to unpleasant experiences. These acts aren't prudent, but they also aren't evil. Indeed, some people will go after you because you do well or are good. Yes, we could have avoided the situation had we made different choices, but that doesn't mean that the unfortunate event was our fault. This can be a point of confusion for several reasons, not the least of which is that the people who do bad things to others will often blame their victims.

Another thing to remember is that there are often many different, overlapping factors that contribute to an issue. In philosophical counseling, we are looking specifically at one's beliefs, values, habits and such, how these are influencing their emotional reactions and decisions, and how they are in conflict with each other, the surrounding circumstances, or objective norms. We are looking for the top one or two dynamics, even though we know there may be a lot more.

As she talked I asked a variety of questions, including:

• Do you think he treated other people this way, or just you?
• Do you think that other people experience this kind of treatment at other companies?
• Why do you think he treated you so? Was it something about you or something about him?
• Why was his opinion of you so important to you?

People who feel hurt by others or circumstances often also feel kind of isolated, alone. The purpose of these questions is to remind them that they aren't -- that most people experience these kinds of things (and some much worse). The third question has to do with whether we perceive the issue to be something internal, external or both. The last question turned out to be one the prompted the most introspection and reaction.

We had a very limited amount of time, and were in a noisy environment with many interruptions, so it made things a little difficult. With a little more discussion expressed that she is overly dependent on other people's approval, and that this has been a problem... but then added "what can I do about it?"

And that is the right question to be asking.

Before following that trail, however, it should be noted that her supervisor was probably a sociopath -- someone who lacks empathy, and perceives and treats other people as objects (i.e., either adversaries or tools). I'm not sure of this, but the behavior she described fits. He was at least a bully.

We will all run into sociopaths and bullies, no matter where we go (some sources estimate that as many as 1 in 25 people is a sociopath). You might get away from the one at the current job, but you'll just run into a whole new crop at the next one. They are found in every industry, religion, educational level, etc. Such people are psychological predators, and like any predator, they prey on those who they perceive to be weak. They are usually good at picking their targets, at detecting and leveraging vulnerabilities in others.

Her craving for approval, in this case, was both an issue in and of itself, as well as the button that her boss enjoyed pressing. When I asked her how important social approval was to her, she said very important. She immediately said she knew why, too, and began to talk about her childhood and relationship with her parents, at which point I said, "no no, we don't go there."

I was joking... sort of. Certainly, someone might feel better by talking about such things, at least for a little bit, and there are complete modalities of psychotherapy that basically just allow the person to ramble on in the belief that, in the right environment, the person can basically fix himself. No doubt it works for many situations, and if we can discern how we got into the current mess, it can be useful for avoiding similar errors in the future. However, focusing on past events can also become an excuse or way by which I rationalize my beliefs, telling myself that I am helpless to change because of what others did to me long ago. It can become a point in time, a scene, to which I gravitate repeatedly, reliving those experiences and feelings in an unhealthy way.

Like the person who meditates upon her fear of being buried alive in a box, going back and replaying bad experiences is, itself, unhealthy. The key is to bring the counselee to a point where he or she recognizes this, where he acknowledges that, by returning to and replaying these events, he is only hurting himself further. This recognition alone may not be enough to get one to stop "cold turkey," especially if it has become an ingrained behavior, but voluntarily acknowledging that what I'm doing is irrational and unhealthy, when complemented by good alternatives, is sufficient for most people to resume traveling in the right direction.

What you believe and value is more important than why

The more important question isn't why we have the beliefs, traits and values we have today, though that can be interesting and lead toward longer term solutions with a wider scope. Rather, the important question for the individual dealing with something right now is are these good, right and healthy? Are they helping me become the best person I can be, or are they somehow limiting and harming me (or others)?

If we reflect upon the excellent and practical Aristotelian, virtue-ethics approach to human nature and character, it would be -- it is -- a problem if one is excessively-dependent upon other people's approval (it really makes no difference how that condition came about). But it is also a problem if one has no care for how his actions affect others.

Consider the virtue of courage: If someone has no care or concern for life, and takes absurd risks, he is called reckless and rash. If he has excessive fear, then he is called cowardly. But if he is able to find the medium between these two extremes, we describe such a person as being courageous, brave, or as having fortitude.

When it comes to character, though there are some things that are always wrong and we should never do, virtue is generally found in the middle, between the extremes of excess and privation.

So the question, for one who finds himself near one extreme or the other, is "how do I become more moderate with respect to characteristic X?" In this case, how do I moderate my need for other people's affirmation? If I'm already in a state where I crave affirmation, or am emotionally suffering from a lack thereof or a related conflict, how do I do this? Merely thinking, "I don't need affirmation, I don't need affirmation," probably isn't going to do it. That is right up there with, "don't think about pink elephants," or "don't think about alcohol, stop thinking about alcohol!" (Different people have different struggles in this regard.)

Rather than just saying "stop it," philosophical counseling attempts to help the person see and truly understand, in a deeper way, how certain beliefs, values and habits are irrational and unhealthy, and then also provide practical means of reordering the beliefs and values. This takes some time and effort, though, especially when we aren't fully aware of what our beliefs and values are (which is quite common), and/or they have really taken deep root.

But belief isn't the only thing that matters

Earlier Western philosophers such as Socrates and Plato asserted that erroneous acts are rooted in erroneous belief. People do wrong because we believe wrong. That is certainly true, but not the whole truth. Aristotle modified this to assert that people can know what is the right thing to do -- and many don't get that far -- yet lack the strength of will to carry it out. This and related discussions moved forward through the centuries. By the time we get to Kant's deontology almost 2000 years later, there is a recognition that perhaps the only thing over which we have control (and even that may be limited) is our own will, or our intention. How thing actually turn out when we attempt to implement our will could be another matter entirely.

I agree with most of those from Aristotle forward who recognized that, at our very cores, we are kind of hedonists. That is, when making choices, we choose that which brings us the most pleasure (though not necessarily or only in the physical dimension). This is the explicit dynamic underlying Utilitarianism, which has been probably one of the most influential moral and political philosophies of our time. But even Aristotle noted that we are ultimately motivated by pain and pleasure. As such, the critical factor is that we learn to, in his words, "feel rightly about pain and pleasure" from a young age. Is this not exactly what we see in immature and disordered people? They find pleasure in things that are unhelpful or harmful, and displeasure in things that are actually good! Indeed, part of the goal (and painful difficulty) of parenting is precisely in trying to help the child by various means to find pleasure in the right things (e.g., "in a job well done," in good friendships, in honesty, etc.). Of course, we have a hard enough time sorting these things out for ourselves, let alone exemplifying or teaching them to others (hence the frequent parental mantra, "do as I say, not as I do").

But I digress....

In the case of needing approval, my friend had developed a strong pattern of deriving great pleasure from affirmation, and feeling pain when that was not forthcoming. Like any pleasure, this can have an addicting power over us, and can be very difficult to moderate. However, philosophical counseling holds that, as rational animals, we usually have the ability to recognize errors in our thinking and behaviors, and take steps toward correcting these.

In Logic Based Therapy (LBT), which is a particular mode of philosophical counseling, being overly-dependent on others' approval is a manifestation of Demanding Perfection, which basically means, "it really disturbs me when the world, events and other people don't do what I think they should do." One of the first steps of LBT is to discern what kind of emotional reasoning is implied by (or actually direction) a person's reactions. For example, it could be proposed that the emotional reasoning being employed by my friend is along the lines of:

1. If X does not acknowledge my successes, then he is hurting me, and that makes me very angry.
2. X did not acknowledge my achievements.
3. Therefore, I am hurt and angry.

Once the (implied or actual) emotional reasoning is identified, one inspects for fallacies. This is quite like what one might do in an argument or debate, but with LBT we are looking also for a variety of common positions that are self-destructive. There isn't really anything formally wrong with the argument's structure. It is perfectly valid and sound, as an argument (or syllogism). What is wrong is that it represents a personal position that gives other people disproportionate control over her happiness, motivations and choices. Also, it isn't that my friend is necessarily thinking this and reasoning her way to her response and current state, as much as this is the reasoning that is implied by the sequence of events. But either way -- whether deliberate or accidental -- we can see how this kind of sequence is damaging, and in recognizing it as such, it provides some traction for avoiding it in the future.

Many of our frustrations in life revolve around what others did or did not do, and our want for them to act differently. This can manifest itself in many different ways, and have many different emotional responses. The general LBT suggestion for those who are struggling with Demanding Perfection from the world or others to this is to grow in Metaphysical Security, which is a form of acceptance of reality and life as it really is, warts and all, so that my peace is not dependent upon external events. The person needs to move from believing that he must have other people's approval, to merely preferring it yet being able to function well and be content in its absence. To that end, the counselor might suggest some readings, or even simple practices, to help.

If someone wishes to become skilled at painting, tennis, golf or some other activity, he should study and attempt to copy the actions of experts in those fields; eventually, with time and practice, the skills become natural and effortless, and he even develops his own style of carrying them out. In Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle suggests that the way to become virtuous is to practice virtuous acts. In this case, that means practicing doing things without dependence upon affirmation. To that end, I suggested that she pick some action or project which she would normally do desiring other people's approval, but then do it completely in secret -- telling no one about it -- only for her own satisfaction. Perhaps some kind of anonymous charitable act. And not just once, but a series of these. The goal, of course, is for her to find pleasure in the goodness of the act itself, even though she receives no affirmation for doing so. In this way she both weans herself off of the need for affirmation while training herself to find pleasure in the goodness of the act, itself, and not the affirmation that it brings from certain people. The eventual goal is to be able to extend this personal virtue across one's whole character and arc of action, neither demanding nor ignoring other people's approval, but finding the correct balance.

There are, obviously, other issues to be addressed here (that we didn't get to), not the least of which is dealing with the ongoing feelings of anger about the treatment received. The intensity and frequency of these feelings is likely associated with a dynamic already mentioned, the habit of reliving or practicing events from the past (some people do the same thing, but with respect to future, imagined possibilities). The rational solution here, also encouraged in many religious and spiritual traditions, is to focus on the present moment, and if we are going to return to the past (or look to the future), to do so, insofar as we can, in a positive and moderate way. But that is a separate exercise, and in philosophical counseling we are often dealing with deeply-rooted beliefs and habits that need to be addressed with some gentleness, and not too many at once, or it can easily become overwhelming. It takes time to inspect our beliefs, as well as to reorder them and any associated habits.