It’s
a lot easier getting into a cultural morass than getting out of one. Getting in
feels effortless; getting out feels like work. Getting in feels like fun; getting
out feels like a slog.
We
got into our current cultural morass when we allowed the 1960s counterculture
to transform traditional American values into a more therapeutically-correct
alternative.
In
the name of mental health we made virtue into vice and vice into virtue.
More
and more people are recognizing this for the folly that it was. Yet, we are still
suffering its effects.
Since
old-style therapy bears a considerable responsibility for the problem, it is fitting
that new therapists, armed with cognitive psychology, have been leading us out
of it.
Any system of classical ethics will grant considerable importance to self-control. The
therapy culture rejected this precept and persuaded far too many people that self-control was the royal road to
mental illness and general uptightness.
Reviewing
Roy Baumeister and John Tierney’s new book on self-control Harvard Professor
Steven Pinker makes the salient point: “ … the very idea of self-control has acquired a
musty Victorian odor. The Google Books Ngram Viewer shows that the phrase rose
in popularity through the 19th century but began to free fall around 1920 and
cratered in the 1960s, the era of doing your own thing, letting it all hang out
and taking a walk on the wild side. Your problem was no longer that you were
profligate or dissolute, but that you were uptight, repressed, neurotic,
obsessive-compulsive or fixated at the anal stage of psychosexual development.”
In other terms, when
you meet someone who is highly disciplined and organized, our culture will tell
you to label him a control freak.
Baumeister
and Tierney entitle their book:
Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength. As Pinker explains,
they base their title’s value judgment on experiments that have shown
self-control to be one of the best predictors of success in life.
You
may know of the famous marshmallow experiment: “In experiments beginning in the
late 1960s, the psychologist Walter Mischel tormented preschoolers with the
agonizing choice of one marshmallow now or two marshmallows 15 minutes from
now. When he followed up decades later, he found that the 4-year-olds who
waited for two marshmallows turned into adults who were better adjusted, were
less likely to abuse drugs, had higher self-esteem, had better relationships,
were better at handling stress, obtained higher degrees and earned more money.”
One
might call it deferred gratification, but it is really a question of
calculating risk versus reward, making a rational decision, and following that decision.
Therapists
have made it more difficult to acquire self-control because of the way they
have defined the problem. They have persuaded us that the mind in engaged in a
permanent struggle between unruly impulses and mental willpower.
Pinker
describes how we have learned to think the problem: “When we fight an urge, it
feels like a strenuous effort, as if there were a homunculus in the head that
physically impinged on a persistent antagonist. We speak of exerting will
power, of forcing ourselves to go to work, of restraining ourselves and of
controlling our temper, as if it were an unruly dog.”
I
will not contest that some people feel what they feel. I will note that this
description of a mental conflict between impulse and willpower comes down to us
from Freud, among others. For most of us it feels like the right way to analyze
the problem.
Beyond
its being a theory, it is also a narrative. And it is designed to undermine your
self-control and your good character.
Ostensibly,
therapy pretends to allow you to gain control of your impulses by understanding
where they come from and what they mean. This is a ruse, a sop to bourgeois
sensibilities.
In
truth, once therapy became a culture its emphasis shifted markedly.
If
you convince people, as Freud and the therapy culture did, that we are engaged
in a futile struggle against powerful impulses, then it is not too difficult to
convince them to give in to their impulses.
Then,
you can explain that those who give their impulses freer reign will be
healthier than those who keep their impulses and emotions bottled up. From talk
shows to the movie of the week, this message is pervasive in our culture.
It
helps if you add that our impulses have only taken on a negative value because
we are trying to control them. Then you will have set people on a permanent
path to self-indulgence.
From
there the therapy culture declares that people with powerful feelings are
superior to those whose feelings are so weak that they are easy to control.
Then,
it is not only morally defensible to launch into intemperate rants; it becomes a sign of superiority.
When
you lose control you will see it as a sign that you feel very strongly that you
are right. You will reject the old way of thinking where it was a sign of weak
willpower, an inability to control yourself.
Building
self-control is like building character. You do it one step at a time. It
requires work and effort, not least because important forces in the culture are
militating against it.
But
it is important to emphasize that once you develop the habits of
self-discipline and self-control, they will not feel like a constant struggle
against an impulse to self-indulgence, but they will feel natural and normal.
Experimenters have tried this out by using college students as subjects. They have taught the students to
exercise self-control in small tasks, the better to allow them to develop the “muscle”
or the habit that will give them greater self-control in larger tasks. They want to make self-control feel familiar and comfortable.
Pinker
summarizes: “Immediately after students engage in a task that requires them to
control their impulses — resisting cookies while hungry, tracking a boring
display while ignoring a comedy video, writing down their thoughts without
thinking about a polar bear or suppressing their emotions while watching the
scene in "Terms of Endearment" in which a dying
Debra Winger says goodbye to her children — they show lapses in a subsequent
task that also requires an exercise of willpower, like solving difficult
puzzles, squeezing a handgrip, stifling sexual or violent thoughts and keeping
their payment for participating in the study rather than immediately blowing it
on Doritos.”
He
continues: “ … self-control, though almost certainly heritable in part, can be
toned up by exercising it. He enrolled students in regimens that required them
to keep track of their eating, exercise regularly, use a mouse with their
weaker hand or (one that really gave them a workout) speak in complete
sentences and without swearing. After several weeks, the students were more
resistant to ego depletion in the lab and showed greater self-control in their
lives. They smoked, drank and snacked less, watched less television, studied
more and washed more dishes.”
And
also: “Build up its strength, the authors suggest, with small but regular
exercises, like tidiness and good posture. Don’t try to tame every bad habit at
once. Watch for symptoms of ego fatigue, because in that recovery period you
are especially likely to blow your stack, [and] your budget ….”
Interesting. I wonder if this philosophy could tie in with the so called increase of ADD. Perhaps not so much an increase in real Attention Deficit, as a what ? manifestation of the 'do your own thing' mind set? If so, the ironic thing there is, we then feed these kids Ritalin to get them under control, and not do so much of their own thing. Hmm..I think it's easy to see the connection between todays behaviors and the 'cultural revolution' of the 60's.
ReplyDeleteAlthough on the flip side of 'control freak', the argument could be made that they aren't highly disciplined and in control of themselves. So they try to control everyone around them. If they can control their environment, then it's more comfortable for them. But I'm rambling out loud.
Thanks for the great article. Certainly helps sharpen the picture of todays culture.
Outstanding post. As a CBT practitioner myself, you have hit the nail on the head. Excellent, just plain excellent.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Katie and George.
ReplyDeleteI think it's fair to say that some people do have a real ADD. Yet, I agree with Katie that the culture must play into it in some way. I am thinking of the importance that people give to "spontaneity," for example. I certainly think its possible to teach and to train children and adults in self-control-- as George does professionally. Of course, the culture needs to come around to understanding the fundamental value of it.
I also agree with Katie that there are some people who do not have very much self control, but who compensate for it by controlling other people. I find that a great idea, worthy of further reflection.
To expand on Katielee4211's idea that those with little-self discipline often become control freaks, we need look no further than the current occupants of the White House. He has used (and may still use) cocaine, smokes, skips out on real work for vacations and golf while telling the public what to do and how to do it. She eats anything and everything she wants while telling us exactly what we can and cannot eat. Al Gore, with his mansions and jets is another, as he tells us to control our 'carbon footprint' while his carbon gluttony runs rampant.
ReplyDeleteAnd then there is Warren Buffett. When people pointed out that Warren the hypocrite was not following the advice that he was happily doling out to America-- that is, pay more taxes, shelter less of his fortune from taxation-- he replied: "Do as I say, not as I do."
ReplyDeleteI believe everyone must look at this.
ReplyDelete