Political polarization has been on the rise over the past few decades. This division has only intensified during Trump’s presidency. In today’s climate, the discussion of our political differences appears nearly impossible. This post will explore how the interplay of beliefs and values shapes our political positions. We will see how our quest for certainty can result in adopting polarized positions. Yet normal conflicts between values undermine our confidence in taking such absolute stances on issues. “True believers” resolve this dilemma by compartmentalizing their conflicting values. Additionally, they seek refuge externally, embracing dogma, cult, and authoritarian leader for their longed-for reassurance. This post will expand upon this rather compact summary for a more complete understanding of polarization.
Our Quest for Meaning and Security
First, our political principles do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they are part of an overall outlook on life that also encompasses culture, society, spirituality, recreation, and occupation. Our various beliefs, attitudes, opinions, and values generally hang together in at least a somewhat coherent fashion. This system helps us make sense of the world around us, anticipate relevant events, and plan accordingly. We rely on it not only to find meaning and purpose, but also to achieve a sense of security.
Beliefs and Values
Here, it is helpful to distinguish between beliefs and values. Our beliefs concern how we see things being, whereas our values are about how we see things should be. Our political positions concern the discrepancy between what is and what should or could be. If the current situation is consistent with our values, we support the status quo. This conservative stance by no means implies complacency – we can be quite vigilant in preserving the current order. And when the present doesn’t measure up to our ideals, we promote change. This can be progressive, in trying something new, or regressive, in going back to the old ways. Through this process, our systems of values and beliefs shape our various political opinions, attitudes, and policies.
Diversity Breeds Insecurity
With the diversity of beliefs and values, how can we be confident in our own? And with severe polarization, we disagree sharply in both our values and our beliefs. This makes for considerable conflict and confusion, thus threatening our sense of security. In the face of this situation, we long for certainty.
Logic and Our Search for Clear-cut Answers
Threats to our security are not just external – they can be internal, as well. Our outlook on life bolsters our sense of security by providing a consistent, straightforward guide for making choices. We generally like clear-cut, logical answers – true or false, right or wrong, good or bad. Logical analysis is custom-designed to deliver the goods, in either-or terms. And when we can all agree on the basic assumptions in a logical argument, we can usually agree on the conclusions. Such are the ingredients of an orderly, productive society.
The Initial Assumptions – Therein Lies the Rub
The main challenge to our societal ideals lies outside the realm of logic – actually, prior to it. Logic does not create something out of nothing. In order to use deductive reasoning, we require some initial statements to apply it to. These premises are basic beliefs which we presume to be true. With no logical proof of their validity, we believe them because they make sense to us and others whose opinions we respect. With polarization, we often disagree on the basic premises underpinning our arguments on a particular policy. Usually these assumptions go unstated, resulting in a stalemate in discussions.
Agreeing on the Facts
Another problem is agreeing on the facts. We’d all like to think that we share the same knowledge base in debating our positions on issues. After all, facts are facts, right? Yet political developments highlight this challenge. For example, Kelly Ann Conway proposed “alternative facts” in justifying the claim that President Trump had record attendance at his inauguration. While hardly an expert in epistemology (i.e., the philosophical study of how we know things), she backed this position by questioning how we can know anything with certainty. More recently, the distinction between anecdotal and scientific knowledge has emerged in the battle against COVID-19. All this highlights the need for consensus regarding “rules of evidence” for determining fact. (I plan to take this up in an upcoming post, with the working title of “Knowledge: Anecdote, Analogy, and Logic”.)
How Logic Speaks to Values – Or Not
Values present an even more daunting challenge to a sense of security that rests on a foundation of certainty. In the world of philosophy, the logical empiricists are rather dismissive of values, or ideals. Purists consider them to be non-sensory phenomena (or nonsense, for short?), and thus unworthy of logical inquiry. (Scott Adams has delivered a rather pithy commentary of their bias in Dilbert.) By embracing the value of objectivity, they appear quite willing to relegate the topic of values to the more subjective ethicists. The resulting separate study of beliefs and values complicates our efforts to understand their interplay in creating polarized political positions. Still, we must proceed.
Values in Conflict – Incidental and Paradoxical
All this goes to say that values do not lend themselves well to logical analysis. While deductive reasoning offers “either-or” conclusions in establishing facts, “both-and” resolutions appear more appropriate to values. This situation is particularly relevant when values are in conflict – as they frequently are. These conflicts may be incidental, arising randomly in specific situations. Yet, quite often certain values are inherently opposed to one another. These include order vs. spontaneity, individual freedom vs. the common good, adventure/risk vs. security, living for today vs. planning for tomorrow, and being-for-self vs. being-for-others. Such polarities in values serve as the basis for much polarization. You can probably recognize how various political controversies involve one or more of these dualities.
The Issue of Paradox
If logic doesn’t solve the problem of conflicting values, where do we turn? Another option is to view our conflicts between values not as problems to be solved, but as paradoxes to be accepted. Here, I might quote from my doctoral dissertation over years ago:
Despite (and perhaps because of) our scientific inventions and discoveries, humans confront paradoxes without adaptive solutions. We are capable of projecting ourselves into the past or future, yet remain tethered to the present. We contemplate the infinite, yet cannot escape our own mortality. We are determined by our histories, yet choose our future. We are our bodies, yet we have bodies. These are all features of the human condition for which science provides no solutions. . . . It is here, where science falls short, that art speaks and perhaps comforts.
Robert Daniel, Ph.D., 1986
An Example of a Paradoxical Duality of Values
A common saying offers some insight into the dilemma posed by one such paradoxical duality: “You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.” This simple statement embodies the tension between enjoying life in the moment and planning for the future. There is one significant flaw with this assertion, in that it considers only a binary choice, with either-or options. It overlooks a middle ground: “You can halve your cake, eat one half now, save the rest for later.” While flawed, the original saying conveys the opposite extremes that characterize polarization. Furthermore, the altered version suggests a “both-and” resolution involving a trade-off between the two ideals.
Political Implications of This Paradox
In politics, this issue plays out in the decision to get immediate relief from deferring payroll taxes or to continue full funding of Social Security for our futures. It also applies to the threat that the extraction of natural resources poses to future pollution of our environment. Our next generation will judge us by how we leave the earth, their inheritance. To listen to Greta Thunberg, we’ve already been indicted (and rightly so, I might add).
Yet another example of polarization comes straight from the political sphere. Here, former presidential candidate Barry Goldwater famously stated: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Ultimate liberty means having no limits, and thus no rules or order. Without restraints, those in power are free to do as they please. As Lord Acton noted in the 19th Century, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Thus, the powerful get their way, creating injustice for others. Goldwater was able to compartmentalize freedom and justice so as not to recognize this inherent conflict. And many other politicians are doing the same with the various paradoxical dilemmas that underlay our political polarization.
Paradox: Where Logic Falls Short
As I suggested through my two examples, polarization arises out of our tendency to view dualities in either-or terms. Deductive logic emphasizes such binary solutions to our problems. This, along with the inductive reasoning of the scientific method, has promoted major technological advances. Yet logic falls short when it comes to paradox, which by definition defies logical solution. We cannot totally have it our way for both savoring the moment and building a nest egg for tomorrow. Nor can we have absolute freedom and total justice in our society. Of course, this also challenges Madison Avenue’s sales pitch that “you can have it all.” So, where does that leave us?
Paradox: A Challenge to Certainty
Our alternative resolution to paradoxes is acceptance. This involves recognizing that we cannot totally attain both ends of polar dualities. Rather than the polarized choice between the two extremes, we can resign ourselves to a trade-off between the two. We can opt for some of both, but not all of either. But just where do we draw the line? Well, this is where ambiguity sets in. As much as we might want definitive answers, these choices are generally a matter of personal preference. (More on this later.) While that might relieve us of the burden of proving ourselves right, it leaves us on shaky ground with our sense of security. No straightforward, clear-cut answers here – only a debate on the relative merits of a proposed policy.
Finding Balance between the Paradoxical Values
I have proposed one basic guideline in my previous post, Muddling down a Middle Path: Wading through the Messiness of Life. Actually, the title aptly summarizes my message, which draws on the Buddhist principle of the Middle Path. The general rule of thumb is that the middle ground works out better than polarized extremes of the spectrum. Simple, no? Well, there is one slight complication: there can be a wide range of healthy, adaptive positions in the middle. This leaves plenty of room for honest differences of opinion.
Balancing Logic and Paradox
Earlier, I expressed regret for how the separate studies of logic and ethics complicate our understanding of political opinions. Instead, I suggest that logical determination of facts and tolerance for conflicting values ideally complement one other to achieve informed political opinions. This integration utilizes both objective and subjective perspectives for a deeper appreciation of our political differences. In doing so, this model views science and the humanities as complementary, rather than opposing forces.
In Praise of Ambiguity and Uncertainty
Political dialogue based upon the above principles support greater tolerance for our differences and less judgmentalism of one other. Thus, we can have honest disagreements without each declaring ourselves right and others wrong. We can broaden our perspective by considering ideas and values other than our own. We can stand in awe of this complex and diverse world, especially since we can’t entirely comprehend it in logical terms. So, why not embrace life’s ambiguities? Indeed, Alan Watts recommends this in The Wisdom of Insecurity, a spiritual book that transcends particular religious traditions. So, what’s not to love?
The Threat to our Sense of Security
There’s just one catch, though. Remember how we addressed our desire for certainty to insure our sense of security, especially in contentious times? Well, conflicting values challenge our having straightforward, clear-cut answers. Do you recall that game of Jenga, involving removal of building blocks from a tower? We can remove only so many select blocks before the structure topples. Well, that illustrates the fears that some have about giving up their right vs. wrong, black-and-white thinking. It is indeed ironic that seeking this internal certainty fosters the polarization that is so divisive to society.While we may seek certainty to reassure our sense of security, the resulting polarization ultimately threatens our actual security.
The True Believer
Seeking certainty for a sense of identity and security is by no means a new concept. In The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (1951), Eric Hoffer coined the term, “true believer.” Since his profile of this phenomenon remains valid, I will borrow his term in discussing seekers of certainty.
The Illusion of Absolute Certainty
This illusion of certainty and security is not achieved without some serious mental gymnastics. True believers commonly deny, rationalize, distort, and suppress evidence contrary to their polarized positions. Yet their really problematic challenge is more internal – that of conflicts among the very values they endorse. I have proposed that we optimally have a balanced trade-off between opposing values. These include law-and-order vs. freedom, individualism vs. the common good, and adventure vs. security. Many true believers view most all these values positively. They even treat them as dogma – absolute ideals, written in stone, never to be violated. Maintaining this illusion, though, requires not seeing them in conflict with one another. Goldwater, for example, was apparently able to achieve this with regard to liberty and justice. Such is the defense mechanism of compartmentalization.
Compartmentalization
Compartmentalization involves erecting internal firewalls between contradictory positions which we hold. We consider each of the opposing sides one at a time, so that we don’t recognize the contradictions. When we delve more deeply into our policies promoting one ideal, we encounter how it limits its complement. For instance, we might promote freedom by allowing business owners to select their customers by whatever standard they choose. When they do so on grounds of race, religion, or gender, this discrimination infringes on justice for these groups. With compartmentalization, each value is addressed independently, allowing sequential coexistence of opposing polarized positions. This defense worked so well for Barry Goldwater, that he didn’t recognize the contradiction within two consecutive sentences.
A Sea of Uncertainty
So far, I have argued that limitations of logic, relativity of conflicting values, and ambiguity of paradoxes all challenge certainty in our convictions. Earlier, I had noted how our choices among various competing values boil down to personal preference. With so many viable options, our decisions can feel rather arbitrary. This only further diminishes our sense of certainty. If we base our security on such certainty, we won’t feel particularly safe. Then, we are likely to look outside ourselves, to rely on external sources for clear-cut answers.
Finding External Sources of Certainty
External sources of doctrine, group, and leader may promise straightforward answers to contentious political issues. These areas correspond to three moral values proposed by psychologist Jonathan Haidt, in his Moral Foundations Theory. Here, he supplemented the usual standards of fairness and harm avoidance with sanctity, group loyalty, and allegiance to authority. Each of these three additions can reassure true believers of certainty in their polarized convictions.
Sanctity Backed by Religious Doctrine
Sanctity involves an ethical code emphasizing purity of thought and action, usually based on religious doctrine. Typically, the dogma affirms the absolute truth of its tenets. These are seen as trumping other values that may conflict with them. The Catholic Church’s claim of papal infallibility is but one example. With such dogma superceding other viewpoints, true believers can rest assured that their values and beliefs are absolute truths.
Loyalty to Group
Loyalty to the group is another external support that enables the illusion of certainty. True believers can achieve a sense of personal identity from being a member of a larger group. The pressure for group conformity, though, discourages the other principle component of individual identity – one’s uniqueness. This is consistent with Hoffer’s notion that mass movements actually discourage self-affirmation. Any sense of uniqueness is shared with the whole group and is in opposition to other groups. This establishes an “us vs. them” mentality, which lies at the heart of polarization. While this solidifies the true believers’ sense of meaning and purpose, it envisions a more hostile world. This ominous perspective likely leads them to hunker down in their polarized beliefs and values. It also leaves them even more dependent upon their external support system.
Allegiance to the Leader
Finally, true believers gravitate toward charismatic leaders who lay claim to having all the answers. They thus obtain their sense of value vicariously, through identifying with their leader. When the Wizard says to pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain, they oblige. No questions asked.
Dogma, Cult, and Authoritarian Leader
The values of sanctity, group loyalty, and allegiance to the leader present a formidable force for polarization. In their extreme versions, they promote rigid dogma, cults, and authoritarian leaders. This combination leaves the true believer almost impervious to influence from sources outside this triad. Logical reasoning seldom penetrates their political polarization – they simply are too well defended. Yet the authoritarian leaders and the proponents of the “us vs. them” dogma are even more resistant to change. They are simply unwilling to give up their power. This leaves the true believer as the weak link in the movement. My upcoming post, Bridging the Great Political Divide, will address the difficult challenge of engaging the true believer.
The Broader Perspective on Polarization
Prior to this last section, we have addressed political polarization primarily on the individual level, in basically psychological terms. It is when we step back and examine it on the larger political scale that we realize the potential for real danger. Then, we see political cults that poses challenges to our democracy. Factions at both poles of the political spectrum get locked into dysfunctional vicious cycle patterns. As I addressed in Vicious Cycle Roles on the Societal and Political Level, a common political pattern involves law-and-order conservatives and bleeding heart liberals clashing on how to handle major groups. Where the former see threats to our way of life, the latter see society’s victims. In a polarized society, there is little room for a nuanced perspective on the group in question. As the saying goes, “You’re either for us or against us.”
Where We Stand Today
We appear to be in one such vortex today, in the shadow of George Floyd’s tragic death. We could characterize the 2020 presidential race as a classic battle between law-and-order and bleeding hearts. That, however, would be a gross simplification – and wrong. On the one hand, Donald Trump’s position is polarized and dogmatic. He panders to his base by promising to quell and “dominate” the unrest and violence. If he has made any distinction between peaceful protesters and anarchists, it was only a passing footnote. He has excused bad cops for their “choking” under pressure and characterized right-wing vigilante militias as patriots. On the other hand, Joe Biden has highlighted the distinction between peaceful protesters and vandals, looters, and rioters. He seeks reform of our imperfect institutions, not their dismantlement. He seeks unification and healing, while Trump pursues division and dominance.
A Statement of Disclosure
I admit that I am not providing “fair and balanced” coverage in focusing on the polarized right. In my defense, I do so because that is where the power is. And as Lord Acton noted, corruption soon follows. Whether that be voter suppression, violations of the Hatch Act, seeking foreign assistance in elections, or other abuses, recent history bears that out. Such violations are not currently so apparent or menacing on the polarized left. Yes, there has been destruction and violence by a left-wing fringe, which warrants punishment. I fear that any harm to life and property, bad as it is, will be overshadowed by the law-and-order measures taken to suppress dissent. I like to think that I would challenge the political left similarly for any abuses comparable to the polarized right’s. When the pendulum of power swings in its direction, I could well be tested.
Behind the Scenes – Conspiracy?
I have my doubts whether the corporate/governmental complex, backed by their Super PACs, special interest lobbyists, and biased think tanks, will give up power willingly. They are just too invested in their pursuit of power, property, prestige, and privilege. Yes, this offers an alternative to the Deep State conspiracy in describing the behind-the-scene power structure. Still, I’d assert that it offers vastly better documentation than QAnon, Alex Jones, Fox Media, Breitbart, and OAN. But don’t take my word for it. Check out Common Cause, Public Citizen, and other lobbying groups serving the public, rather than special interests.
Where to from Here?
Hopefully, I have offered some clarity on the issue of political polarization. The 2020 ballot box has affirmed democracy over polarized dogma, autocratic leadership, and true-believer cult followers. Still, the gains are not written in stone. To paraphrase and extend a famous saying of uncertain origins, “The price of freedom [and justice, for that matter] is eternal vigilance.” There still needs to be major reckoning and healing before we can restore collaborative governance. We may not be able to reach die-hard true believers of the polar extremes, but we might try a fresh approach. Watch for my upcoming post, Bridging the Great Political Divide, where I will introduce “verbal judo.” If nothing else, perhaps we can reach enough independents to attain the critical mass needed for true reform. Stay tuned, keep an open mind, breathe deeply, and hang on for the roller coaster ride of a lifetime.
In a previous blog about dealing with bullies and bullying, I suggested that Melania Trump upgrade her anti-bullying motto from “Be Best” to “Be our Best.” This subtle change emphasizes our ethical striving to treat others with respect. This meaning contrasts with simply pursuing excellence, as would be implied by “Be the Best.” Omitting that one word (i.e., “our” or “the”), besides being ungrammatical, leaves the intent of the initiative somewhat ambiguous. I suspect that this omission may have been in deference to her husband, who would prefer “Be the Best”, while “Be our Best” would be more fitting. Of course, I may be reading way too much into this choice of phrasing. In any event, I made this suggestion in my belief that this modification is consistent with our First Lady’s intent.
A Message Relevant for Both Children and Adults
I recognize that Melania Trump’s campaign focuses primarily on our youth, while I address the issue in terms of adult-to-adult interactions. On her website, she writes that “it is our responsibility as adults to educate and reinforce to [children] that when they are using their voices—whether verbally or online—they must choose their words wisely and speak with respect and compassion.” This message has no less relevance for encouraging mutual respect between adults.
The Importance of Being Good Role Models
I heartily endorse the First Lady’s sentiment. I further affirm that we adults must exemplify this lofty aspiration through our own actions. Otherwise, we are telling our children, “Do as I say, not as I do.” This message will then only confirm our hypocrisy and lead our youth to tune us out. I’d propose that our primary means of encouraging respect in our youngsters is through being good role models. This is just one reason that I am addressing the issue as it plays out in adult interactions.
Where to Start?
I initially undertook this blog to address how we might work on our own tendencies to judge, disparage, taunt, coerce, or otherwise bully others. While I came up with some worthy ideas, I was getting stuck with my writing. I then realized that I was preaching to the choir when there was a more pressing issue at hand: how do we deal with Bullies who are committed to their control of others and have no qualms about exercising it? I came to recognize that by focusing on self-improvement (i.e., “Be our Best”), I was neglecting to address the hard core Bullies who set such poor examples for our youth. And yes, I was ignoring the orange “elephant in the room.” Ironic, isn’t it? I was pulling my punches (figuratively speaking) with the Bully-in-Chief, when I had speculated that our First Lady was doing just that with her “Be Best” slogan.
The Focus of This Post
I thus came to recognize that I must first address the art of coping with the bullying of others. For this, we need a good understanding of the problem to deal with it effectively. Next, we must recognize our own susceptibility to being bullied, so that we can inoculate ourselves against this impact. Then, we can develop a strategy for when and how to respond to such instances. Like a good warrior, we need to choose our battles and develop effective tactics, while also being flexible in responding to circumstances. At that point, we should be ready to deal with the bullying, applying appropriate assertiveness skills that we develop through our insight and practice.
What is our Goal?
We have outlined our approach, yet we have not yet identified what we hope to accomplish in our dealing with Bullies. Are we trying to make them change, such as by being more respectful and less controlling? Are we just trying to avoid the unpleasant business of involvement with them? Or is there another worthy goal?
Are We Trying to Change the Bullies?
Although we are focusing on dealing with Bullies, we probably should give up the idea of reforming them. Except for rather unusual circumstances, Bullies do not want to change. Thus, there are at least three good reasons for not trying to change who they are. First, this endeavor would be disrespecting them if they aren’t interested in changing. One of our chief complaints with them is their coercion, so it would be hypocritical for us to try to make them change. Second, our efforts are doomed to failure as long as they are committed to the Bully role. And third, trying to make them change is likely to encourage resistance, resulting in even more bullying. So, unless Bullies are seeking to change and asking for our help, we are better off pursuing another goal with them.
Are We Seeking to Avoid Conflict with Bullies?
That certainly is an option. And if we can do so without giving anything up, then go for it – it’ll be their loss. Yet in most cases, Bullies use verbal abuse and intimidation to get what they want, and avoiding conflict gives them that by default, usually at our expense. And we lose not just what we surrender to the Bully, but also our access to and comfort in the relevant settings. These may include home, family, work, church, gym, club, or favorite social gathering places. Furthermore, our capitulating to the Bullies’ demands only encourages them to use their heavy-handed approach in the future, whether with us or with others they can intimidate.
So, Where Does That Leave Us?
Our goal in dealing with Bullies is to take better care of ourselves and the people we care for, and not so much about the Bullies themselves. We aim to reclaim control over our lives and to regain and maintain our sense of self-worth. We achieve this through self-assertion and “self-inoculation.” We can develop appropriate strategies, techniques, and skills to stand up to Bullies. This is a challenging task, so it helps us to develop a mindset to neutralize the toxic effects of bullying.
What Is Bullying?
First, we need to define our term, so that we are all on the same page. We can define bullying as any act that is harmful to and coercive of others. This obviously includes not only inflicting physical pain and injury, but also threatening such harm or pain to others or their loved ones. Also included is taking of belongings through physical force or threat, blackmail, or extortion. Imposing involuntary servitude, abusing sexually, and depriving freedom and opportunity are other flagrant examples. Bullying can involve inflicting psychological harm, such as through ridicule, taunting, belittling, name-calling, and sarcasm. Harsh criticism and judgmentalism represent somewhat milder versions of bullying. Bribery appears somewhat of a gray area, as this may involve using one’s power and privilege to corrupt another’s value system.
The Bully Role
These various bullying activities do not occur as isolated events. Rather, they typically cluster together into what we can label as the Bully role. For many of us, this role is just one of several we may use in the normal course of social interaction. We do not particularly identify with the Bully role. Rather, we may employ it on particular occasions, such as when challenged or when highly invested in a particular outcome.
The Bully Personality Style
For some, though, the Bully role is the prominent manner of engaging across a wide variety of interactions. Its principle function is the acquisition of power and dominance. For the sake of brevity, we will refer to those for whom bullying is the primary role as Bullies. This pursuit may be solely for themselves, or it may serve a larger cause, such as a business, a government, a gang, or a family. Whatever the entity, Bullies personally identify with it and benefit from its power grab. While they may play out secondary roles, such as the Rebel, the Victim, and the Savior, Bullies do not particularly identify with these patterns; rather, they play out these styles to manipulate others in their pursuit of dominance. We can essentially summarize the Bullies’ moral code as “might equals right” and “the ends justifies the means,” with the ends being whatever they want.
Understanding Bullying
As my father always counseled me on my yard chores, you can’t get rid of weeds unless you get them by the roots – otherwise, they just keep growing back. In short, the Bully role serves the goals of consolidating one’s own power and control through discrediting and intimidating others. As noted in my previous blog on this subject, bullying is most prevalent in those lacking in their sense of intrinsic self-worth. This is a basic feeling of value in ourselves just as we are, without having to prove ourselves. Our Declaration of Independence refers to this sort of self-worth in affirming that “all [people] are created equal.” Without this foundation, Bullies seek to establish their self-worth through their dominance over others. This approach goes beyond conditional self-esteem, which simply involves proving oneself better than others by virtue of certain attributes or abilities. Rather, Bullies build themselves up by tearing others down. They apparently don’t believe in fair competition – perhaps out of the fear that they might lose. Also, a sense of entitlement is usually involved, as it provides further justification for the will to dominate. More often than not, though, Bullies need no justification, as they seldom consider their personal impact on others. This is typically related to their general lack of empathy for others.
Understanding Ourselves in Interactions with Bullies
Since we are addressing how we cope with bullying, we need to understand our involvement, including how we can get drawn into the web. To paraphrase the Tao Te Ching, knowing others is intelligence, while knowing ourselves is true wisdom. Besides, in our interactions with Bullies, we can only directly control our own actions, not theirs.
Self-Esteem
Much of susceptibility relates back to our self-esteem. Like Bullies, we may lack a strong sense of our intrinsic or basic self-worth. We just don’t feel good enough just the way we are. While Bullies answer this by dominating others, we might look to others for affirmation. Yet we often don’t exercise good judgment as to whom we trust to evaluate our qualities. For example, if we had critical parents, we might look to others of similar temperament for approval. This can leave us particularly vulnerable to the harsh appraisals of Bullies.
Aversion to Conflict
Another factor that makes us susceptible to Bullies is an aversion to conflict. Granted, there are good reasons to avoid or appease Bullies, as they can impose severe constraints or injury for our resistance. Yet if we habitually avoid conflict, we usually sell ourselves out at a much lower threat level. Bullies often are good at detecting fear, and they readily exploit such vulnerability. This interaction pattern cultivates a Victim role that complements the Bully role, as I have addressed in my various vicious cycle articles.
Compassion for Others
Still others of us get drawn into the fray when we observe Bullies preying on Victims. Incensed by their persecution, we readily jump in to rescue the apparently helpless Victims. We tap into our compassion for the underdog, adopting a “caped-crusader” Rescuer role to save them. This expands the interaction to a three-role vicious cycle, which Steven Karpman identified as the Persecutor—Victim—Rescuer cycle. The Rescuer role actual lends stability to this pattern. For an analogy, consider the tripod, a three-legged support for a camera. You don’t see very many bipods (i.e., two-legged supports) around, do you? They simply lack stability. The same goes for vicious cycles. Unfortunately, such stable cyclical patterns actually function to perpetuate the problems rather than resolving them. I have covered this pattern in some detail in my article, Vicious Cycles in Relationships 2.0.
The Morality Police
A further complication of our compassionate concern occurs when our moral outrage at the Bullies overshadows our caring for the Victims. We are particularly vulnerable to this pull to engage with Bullies when we have a keen sense of justice and fair play. We then tend to assume that our ethical code is universal, applying to ourselves and others. While this moral indignation addresses the Bullies’ mistreatment of Victims, it often prioritizes punishing Bullies over redressing the harm inflicted on Victims. Thus, Victims often end up getting lost in the shuffle.
The Plot Thickens
It’s challenging enough to get caught up in a three-role vicious cycle, such as the Bully—Victim—Rescuer cycle. Yet the situation gets even worse when we add taking on secondary roles into the equation. As we will see, that can lead to the formation of an alternate vicious cycle. Now, for the details . . .
The Rescuer as Critic of Bullies
Our interactions with Bullies get more complicated when we play out secondary roles in our repertoire. While the Rescuer may be our primary role, we often undertake a supportive secondary role as Critic toward Bullies, especially when we have a strong moralistic streak. We do so particularly when we pass judgment on their character, rather than just criticizing their actions. The irony of this shift is that the moralistic Critic is similar to the Bully in being an Oppressor role. Perhaps this is where the term “bully pulpit” comes from. Anyhow, we can take only limited consolation in assuring ourselves that it’s a milder form of oppression.
The Bully’s Gambit as Victim/Rebel
The Rescuers’ Critic role provides Bullies the opportunity to play out their own secondary roles to solidify their dominance. They do so by shifting into a secondary role of Victim, claiming that their rights are being violated. Or they might complain how their character is being maligned. Of course, Bullies aren’t comfortable staying in a Victim role, with its implied powerlessness. They tend to shift into a Rebel role, voicing defiance against their detractors. Such underdog messages find a sympathetic audience among those who feel ignored or discounted. They often feel they don’t have a voice, and they enthusiastically endorse someone who can speak for them.
The Victim as Critic of Bullies
Moral judgment can also play out when we identify as Victims oppressed by Bullies. This follows much the same pattern as with Rescuers, with our taking on the Critic role toward Bullies. With this shift our moral outrage emerges, with that energy available for asserting ourselves. Our blaming Bullies serves to deflect the focus from ourselves, providing cover when we feel particularly vulnerable. As with Rescuers assuming the Critic role, Bullies often respond by playing their own Victim and Rebel cards in appealing to their support base.
An Alternative Vicious Cycle
These shifts into secondary roles set up an alternative vicious cycle – the Rescuer/Victim-as-Critic – Bully-as-Victim/Rebel – Bully’s Loyal Followers. You will note that the roles still designate each participant’s primary role identification, in addition to the secondary role at play in this pattern. This labeling emphasizes that the participants remain true to their core identity, even when taking on a contrasting secondary role. For example, even when adopting the Victim role, Bullies do so as a ploy in their pursuit of domination. For simplicity’s sake, though, we can label the pattern a Critic – Rebel – Rebel’s Entourage.
The Contrasting Vicious Cycles
We thus have two contrasting vicious cycles, with an overlap of participants taking on roles in the two patterns. Each pattern puts a different role in a more positive light. The Bully — Victim — Rescuer cycle favors the righteousness of the Rescuer role, whereas the Critic – Rebel – Rebel’s Entourage cycle favors the Rebel. With these contrasting outlooks, is it any wonder that we end up talking past one another? While this presents an abstract profile of a rather complicated process, we need look no further than the current presidential politics for apt examples. I trust that readers will find sufficient examples to bring these abstract concepts to life.
Breaking Free from the Bully’s Web
It is indeed ironic that our moralistic endeavors to thwart the abusive practices of Bullies may actually serve to promote their cause. Yet such is the nature of vicious cycle patterns. I have explored elsewhere the general challenge of breaking free from vicious cycles. Here, though, we will address the specific case of doing so in dealing with Bullies. In this section we will explore how we can change our perspective to be less susceptible to the Bullies’ “hooks.” Later, we will address actual strategies we might practice. Thus, we are pursuing a two-prong approach of experience and action. (My diagramming of vicious cycle patterns lends itself to such an approach.)
Velcro™ and Teflon™
Whichever of these qualities we may possess, (i.e., conditional self-esteem reliant on external validation, conflict avoidance, compassion for ourselves and others, moralistic judgment), they often draw us into conflict with Bullies. We tend to play out these vicious cycle patterns time and again. As much as we might try to disengage, we often find ourselves drawn back in. We are like the side of Velcro™ with the loops, with Bullies having the side with hooks to snag us. We struggle to break free, often to no avail. The previous section outlines our various outlooks that predispose us to getting caught up in conflict with Bullies. Now we can explore other available perspectives that offer some relief, if not liberation, from the Bullies’ torment. By retracting our loops, the Bullies have nothing for their hooks to grab onto. Velcro™ hooks are ineffective at snagging Teflon™ – yet we must figure out how to coat our psychological fabric.
Knowing and Valuing Ourselves
Part of the problem may be that we are trying to change the Bully, with little attention to our role in the pattern. This is only natural, as stated in the gospel verse, that it is easier to spot the splinter in another’s eye than to recognize the beam in our own. After all, we can view others directly from many angles, yet we need a mirror to view our bodies with perspective. Mirrors can also cause distortion, whether they be physical mirrors or the social mirrors that others provide by describing how they see us. For this reason, we need to choose wisely whom we trust to give us feedback. And style points count – candid honesty, not brutal honesty.
Working on Self-Esteem
What is at stake is not only how we see ourselves, but also how we value ourselves. Others contribute to this process not only by describing what they see in us, but also by evaluating us. Bullies are usually quick to recognize our shortcomings – and to let us know about them. We should realize that we have the ability to decide for ourselves to whom we grant the authority of approval and disapproval. This option was recently dramatized in a recent observation by Stephan Pastis in Pearls before Swine. We can give Bullies that power, or we can deny them it.
Using the Challenging Feedback without Assuming Inferiority
Before tuning the Bullies out, we should note that critical feedback can be valuable – even from Bullies. The Tao Te Ching notes that sages consider those who point out their flaws as their cherished teachers. Our adversaries will often tell us what our friends hesitate to mention. We can use that feedback for improving ourselves, even if it was intended to be hurtful. First, though, we need to detoxify the message to make it more palatable.
On Shame and Guilt
Bullies often identify our faults in terms of who we are, with the intent of inducing shame. We have the option, however, of viewing their feedback in terms of our actions – what we did, rather than who we are. While this usually induces guilt, that is not necessarily bad – we can use the feedback for improving our behavior. Keep in mind that it’s easier to change what we do than to change who we are. Furthermore, guilt encourages us to express remorse and make amends, thereby working toward healing any hurt we may have caused others – or ourselves. And as we work at changing our actions, we may well discover that we are gradually changing ourselves.
On Gratitude for the Bullies’ “Presents”
Thus, we should recognize that Bullies may give us valuable presents, however crudely wrapped in shaming and belittling. If we are feeling confident enough in ourselves, we might even thank them for the constructive feedback that we can use to make our actions even more effective! Humility and the ability to acknowledge our shortcomings can be a sign of personal strength, even if Bullies don’t see things that way. Still, a Miranda warning is appropriate here – whatever we say can (and will!) be used against us from the Bullies’ pulpits.
On Being Our Best
In cultivating our sense of self-worth, we need to keep our expectations in order. We don’t need to be the best – it is sufficient to be our best. After all, it’s the best we can do! Besides, except in the rare instance of ties, there is only one first place in any contest. As such, striving to be the best can be a set-up for disappointment. Of course, striving to be the best can motivate us to do better. Still, we need to accept a lesser outcome, and to be content with our personal best. We should realize that all participants in a contest have value. First place holds little significance without others finishing second, third, and so on. Furthermore, the “also-rans” serve to bring out the best performance in the winner. This is true not only for athletic competition, but also for other endeavors.
Dealing with our own Worst Critic
Bullies would not be nearly as effective in belittling and intimidating us without their having some inside help. Their harsh judgments of us are only effective when they resonate with critical attitudes that we hold toward ourselves. Perhaps the most powerful antidote for external criticism is taming that “inner critic.” This is not that easy, as the critic runs deeper than our intellect – it lives in our gut. It may have even been installed there before we had words to label it. As such, it resides beyond the reach of mere rational challenge.
“Physician, Heal Thyself” – Through Stories
There is a Sufi saying that states that if you want to change a person’s mind, you engage in a rational discourse, but if you want to touch a person’s heart, you tell a story. (If this was written by someone other than “anonymous,” I have lost that information, and would appreciate input that gives that person credit.) I have shared one of my stories,The Man with a Monkey on his Back, which addresses taming the inner critic. Yet perhaps the most potent stories are our own, particularly when they are works in progress.
Allowing Others to Bear Witness
Our stories are most liberating when we have affirming listeners to bear witness to our testimony. It is important for us to choose our audiences wisely, though. Those who can validate our struggles can help us to “exorcise” our inner critics . And when family and friends are not up to this challenge, there are psychotherapists and counselors. With or without such support, this work can put us largely out of reach of the emotional clutches of scornful Bullies.
Facing Up to Conflict
The tendency to avoid conflict is another trait that gives Bullies control over us. If we don’t take a stand with them, they get what they want from us by default. They further develop their skills at bullying, while our self-care atrophies. This does not necessarily mean engaging with them. Refusing to give ground while not responding can be a potent way of taking a stand.
Conflict in Daily Life
Somewhere in his book, The Act of Creation, Arthur Koestler posed the question of when we ever get immersed in a story that does not have some sort of conflict in it. Indeed, plot is usually based on conflict, whether internal, interpersonal, or natural. So how can we get so captivated by conflict in a novel, when we find conflict so aversive in our own lives? Certainly, the threat to our own life, health, and livelihood can be a key factor. This, however, is usually not the case. More often, the conflict involves how we view and value ourselves. In short, we place our “ego” on the line.
Protecting and Boosting our Egos
“Ego” is shorthand for the conditional and relative form of self-worth. It is largely derived from comparing ourselves with others on the basis of our personal qualities. This measure of self-worth is rather transient. As the saying in sales goes, “you are only as good as your last sale.” So, even when we are on top of the world, our positive self-worth is vulnerable to downturns. Thus, we may not be able to fully enjoy our successes due to worries over possible future failures. And if not that, our concern with the quality of our performance may diminish the intrinsic enjoyment of that activity. The negative impact of our concern with performance is perhaps the reason why the Tao Te Ching poses the question, “Success or failure: which is more destructive?” (quoted from Stephen Mitchell’s 1988 translation of the work).
The Ego as our Vulnerable Point
Thus, our egos make us more susceptible to belittling and shaming. Humiliation often occurs when others note our limitations before we have recognized and admitted them ourselves. And Bullies always seem to be around to expose our shortcomings, thus bringing out our embarrassment and shame.
Humility as an Antidote for Humiliation
We have another option, though – that of practicing humility. We can voluntarily climb down from our pedestal and take our place alongside others on the ground floor. In doing so, we see ourselves struggling with life’s problems and paradoxes, just like everyone else does. Through affirming our intrinsic self-worth, we develop positive regard for all, others as well as ourselves. In this way we can find consolation for our wounds, whether inflicted by Bullies or by the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.” With this grounding, we don’t have as far to fall as we do from atop a pedestal. This outlook thus buffers us from the Bullies’ verbal assault, which they may find frustrating.
Further Benefits of Humility
Humility involves accepting our shortcomings, whereas shame and humiliation discourage us from examining our faults. When these errors are simply mistakes, we can learn from them and correct them. In the case of transgressions, we have the added opportunity to express regret and to make amends. By taking such responsibility for our actions, we usually earn the compassion and respect of others. And having a viable support network offers additional protection against Bullies.
Compassion
We have noted how compassion for ourselves helps blunt the impact of Bullies’ scorn. Yet that compassion, when directed toward the Bullies’ victims, pulls us into conflict with those Bullies. We may find ourselves taking on a Rescuer role of protecting the downtrodden from the Bullies’ abuses. In doing so, we run the risk of taking care of them, when caring for them is called for. This is particularly true when they are capable of fending for themselves. Even when they lack the skills to deal with Bullies effectively, they often can develop those skills. This takes practice, though – and yes, trial-and-error. Our efforts can thwart those attempts. Instead, our moral support and coaching can help them to persist in their efforts. Taking this approach expresses our confidence in their ability to stand up to Bullies. Furthermore, our assuming this back-up role challenges us to recognize our limitations. Here is just another opportunity to practice humility.
For Further Study . . .
In this post, I am devoting considerably less attention to compassion toward others than other complications in dealing with Bullies. In doing so, I am not minimizing the importance of this factor. Rather, I have addressed this matter in considerably more detail in a previous post. I refer interested readers to Caretaker Burnout and Compassion Fatigue for further study.
Moral Judgmentalism
Yet another factor that draws us into conflict with Bullies is our concern with their ethics and morality. While the Rescuer or Victim may be our primary role, we often have developed a prominent secondary role of Critic toward Bullies. Here, we can waste much time and energy with our self-righteous moral indignation at Bullies. Furthermore, this approach is often counterproductive: Bullies can actually exploit criticism against them by playing the Victim card, which enlists support among their followers. Gaining a fresh perspective on judgmentalism can help us deal with Bullies more effectively.
A Code of Absolute Values
One sticking point that keeps us locked in conflict can be an adherence to a code of absolute values and rights. We can view our value system as if it were written in stone – meaning that it is timeless, permanent and applicable to the entire world. Yet what happens when these supposedly absolute values conflict with one another? This should be sufficient to keep us in ongoing turmoil, not just with others from different backgrounds, but also within ourselves.
Values in Conflict
Sometimes these conflicts in values are incidental and depend upon the particular circumstance we are in. Yet there are also particular values that inherently conflict with one another. One example is being vs. becoming (i.e., being fully present in the moment vs. planning for the future). Another is individuality vs. belonging (i.e., being your own person vs. conforming to a group). Yet another is freedom vs. order, as living in an orderly society requires some constraints on freedom. We can refer to such instances as examples of paradox, a topic I have explored in considerable detail in Muddling Down a Middle Path and Living Rationally with Paradox.
Assumption of our Values as Absolute
Even with realizing that at least some of our ethical decisions require reconciliation between competing values, we may still insist that our own moral code applies to others as much as it does to ourselves. In judging others by our own moral standards, we refuse to recognize that others may be committed to value systems in conflict with our own. We will then tend to talk (or SCREAM!) past one another, yet not listen.
Our Values and Nature
Another assumption that sustains our adamant moral judgment of Bullies is an attitude that they are somehow violating a Law of Nature, or at least violating what it means to be human. If we stop to reflect on the rest of the animal kingdom, we will recognize that various species are programmed by their instincts for exercising dominance in matters of food, mating, and territory. We could assert that alpha males (or females) in these species are Bullies, yet we are more likely to excuse them as following the natural order. On the other hand, we can make comparable claims that bonding and cooperation among members of the same species are instinctual and therefore natural. Many, if not most, species demonstrate a balance of competitive and cooperative drives, and homo sapiens is no exception. Our system is less determined by instinct, though, which means that culture plays a greater role in determining this balance between competition and cooperation – hence, our development of social norms, moral codes, and the rule of law.
Our Rights and Social Convention
The fact that social learning plays such a key role in determining our ethics conveys some sense of arbitrariness to our moral codes. While some may interpret this as implying that “anything goes,” a more conservative interpretation is that we need an honest dialogue if we are to sort out our ethical differences. Of course, Bullies are unlikely to pursue this exercise, as it threatens to show their hand. When they do engage in this discussion, we can usually count on hearing lies, half-truths, and various logical fallacies.
Understanding the Bully’s Moral Code
We can essentially summarize the Bully’s moral code as “Might equals right” and “The ends justifies the means,” with the ends being whatever they want. Thus, attempts at discussions ethics with them would simply be an exercise in futility. Recognizing this can save us much time, energy, and aggravation. Our attempts at persuasion are more likely to be effective when we can convince them that it is in their best interest to heed our requests or demands. Since we are typically in a one-down situation with them, it often is necessary to develop alliances to gain leverage.
The Ongoing Struggle to Get and Keep our Rights
While our American Declaration of Independence stipulates certain unalienable rights, they can still be taken away from us. As a variant of an often cited saying states, “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance,” This goes for other rights and values, such as justice, order, security, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of worship. We soon recognize that these rights are not free, but may at times come at a rather dear cost.
Freedom Is Not Free (And Neither Is Justice)
If we are only pursuing these rights for our individual selves, we would not be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. After all, what are liberty and the pursuit of happiness worth to us, if we are dead? Sacrificing life and limb only makes sense if we are going to battle for others who are likely to survive the persecution intact and can appreciate these hard-won rights. The fight for the greater good requires an identity that transcends the individual self. With the potentially high cost of challenging Bullies, we need to assess the potential risks to make an informed decision for our rights. (I refer the readers to the Black Box Warning in this post.)
The Value of Struggle in Appreciating our Rights
We value our rights more when we struggle for them than when they are bestowed upon us. Otherwise, we would take them for granted. Furthermore, we often find a purpose or noble cause for our life, especially when joined with others in a common pursuit.
When the Search for Value Goes Awry
Notice that our Declaration of Independence specifies the pursuit of happiness, not the pursuit of wealth and power, as an unalienable right. Those with flawed identity and value systems are unlikely to appreciate this distinction. For example, we have a tendency in this country to conflate wealth with happiness. (While there certainly is a relationship between the two, they are not identical. The strongest correlation is at the lower income and wealth level, which basically states that misery is associated with poverty, more than happiness being associated with wealth.)
Entitlement and the Material World
Along with the pursuit of wealth often comes a sense of entitlement. In contrast to earning our rights through struggle or experiencing gratitude for others’ support, entitlement lessens our appreciation for our position in life. It also serves as justification for getting our due – even if that derives from our accident of birth. And this inequity in the earth’s treasures is compounded when the rich use unfair advantage in amassing their wealth, which I interpret as a form of bullying. It is indeed tragic that the misguided efforts of some to find happiness for themselves result in oppression and poverty for so many. To paraphrase a biblical proverb (Matthew 19:24): “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a wealthy person to find salvation.” I would add that this is as true for our earthly lives as much as it is for any assumed afterlife.
Compassion for Bullies?
Does the preceding portrayal of Bullies as lost souls call out for caring for them? In answering that, I would suggest a problem with showing compassion for their plight before they recognize the error of their ways. They would likely interpret the concern as pity and feel patronized. They might even call us “do-gooders” or “snowflakes.” And they would have a point. I would suggest that it is condescending to express compassion for them without also holding them accountable for their words and deeds. We still can have compassion for them, although this can be quite difficult in the middle of oppression. And we can still advocate effectively for ourselves while feeling compassionate – Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. have demonstrated that. And the Tao Te Ching reframes the battle of good and evil more in terms of wisdom and ignorance: ‘What is a good man but a bad man’s teacher? And what is a bad man but a good man’s project?” (Stephen Mitchell’s translation, 1988)
What to Do with our Feelings
Addressing how we deal with Bullies would be incomplete without discussing how we handle our feelings. Bullies know just how to push our emotional buttons. We need to decide whether to let them hijack our controls, or whether we take charge of them ourselves. We also need to recognize that emphasizing rationality and reason often leads to suppressing our feelings, when we need to process and integrate them, so we can channel that energy into effective action. Thus, we can use some exploration into how to accomplish this.
Feelings as Motivation to Action
Feelings motivate us to engage in our personal world, in one way or another. In fact, “emotion” and “move” share the same Latin root, movere, to move. Our feelings can be our friends – even our unpleasant ones. Yet they can also work on us, which often turns out to work against us. Still, we can take responsibility for our feelings, so that they can work for us.
Some Background – Where our Feelings Move Us
Our various emotions generally move us in different directions in relation to the object of our concerns – toward, away, or against. The love/caring cluster draws us toward people, to engage with them. The annoyance/anger cluster also pulls us toward others, yet against rather than with them. Depending on the intensity of the anger, it may come out as assertion or aggression. The anxiety/fear cluster moves us away from those people or events which threaten us. Such avoidance, also called the flight response, helps to escape dangerous situations, but may also lead to missing out on opportunities. We can resign ourselves to unconditional surrender, or we can use a strategic retreat to plan out our tactics to engage. The sadness/despair cluster is somewhat an exception to the “moving” aspect of emotions, as such feelings often immobilize us. This allows us the opportunity to grieve over our losses, yet also runs the risk of sinking us into a quagmire of depression.
When Feelings Are in Conflict – or Not
Encountering Bullies usually challenges us with conflicting feelings related to the various events and issues (e.g., finances, work, classes, outings, and social networks) that are jeopardized by the bullying. We may not have conflicting feelings toward the Bullies (e.g., we may totally detest them), but we may find appealing whatever or whoever the Bully is preventing us from pursuing. This is the approach-avoidance conflict. And if this isn’t the case? Then no conflict, no problem, case closed. We can avoid the Bully without giving anything up. Otherwise, and as usually is the case, we have some feelings to sort out.
The Hazard of Acting on Impulse
If we don’t care to process our feelings, then we can always act on impulse – “shoot (our mouth off) first, ask questions later.” The feelings come out raw, not refined. Going off half-cocked usually doesn’t work out so well, as suggested by the common phrase, “impotent rage.” We’ve also heard the phrase, “so mad we can’t see straight,” which can also be applied to other intense feelings. When this occurs, the Bully has succeeded in pushing our buttons. Advantage – Bully. In most cases, we can take the opportunity to settle down and put things into perspective, even if we need to say, “Let me get back to you on that,” or something to that effect.
The Exception: The Fight or Flight Emergency
Of course, there is one situation when acting on impulse or instinct can pay off. That occurs when we encounter life-or-death crisis situations, and speed is of the essence. These are occasions when the fight-or-flight response is called for – immediate action, no equivocating. Fortunately, most encounters with Bullies are not such dire emergencies, and we have the opportunity to deliberate – that is, if we claim it, as Bullies often expect immediate responses.
Refining our Raw Anger
In less critical situations, we have another option – that of sorting through the various feelings evoked by Bullies. With our task of gaining perspective on our interactions with Bullies, addressed earlier in this article, we come to recognize that we run the gamut of attitudes and feelings, from anxiety to hopelessness to anger, and perhaps even a bit of adventure. This exploration can be analogous to forging an alloy of steel from iron and carbon, with the tempering process giving us strength, resiliency, hardness, flexibility, and resistance to corrosion. All these qualities are useful not just in dealing with Bullies, but also in confronting other types of stress of daily life. We are able to harness what is often a destructive force to use it constructively. We can apply this energy, not toward subjugating and vanquishing our adversaries, as Bullies are prone to do, but toward affirming our values and rights.
Making Lemonade and Delving into Life’s Paradoxes
Earlier in this section, we considered various perspectives that help us to view the challenges we face as less foreboding, and perhaps even as opportunities. Yes, it’s the old saying about learning to make lemonade, when life hands you a bowl of lemons. Another way of saying this is by asserting that conflict is not only normal, but healthy, as I proposed at the beginning of my article,Dealing with Conflict in Relationships: the Art of Assertiveness. This thesis basically states that conflict is the medium through which we strike a balance between self-concern and caring for others, and between individuality and belonging, among various other paradoxical dualities. While such an approach defies our striving for simple, straightforward answers to life’s problems, it opens the door to life’s mysteries. All I can say is “Life’s a trip – enjoy the ride.”
Summary: Changing our Perspective
So far we have identified various factors that draw us into conflict with Bullies: an insecure sense of self-worth, vulnerable to insults and intimidation; an aversion to conflict; a compassion for others, with a dose of the caped-crusader syndrome; and moralistic judgmentalism. We have explored alternative attitudes and outlooks which can loosen the grip that these concerns have on us. These perspectives help us to be less emotionally reactive to us less susceptible to the Bullies’ provocations. Hopefully, the rationale for these positions is sufficiently compelling to practice. Yes, they do require practice, as our default settings likely started early, perhaps even before we had words for them. By doing the detective work to recognize where our troubling outlooks originated, we can understand how we became vulnerable to the Bullies’ oppression. This can help us to be more self-accepting, which enables us to envision better stories for ourselves – ones that break the bonds of the oppressive Bullies – both internal and external.
Assertiveness: Putting Self-Acceptance into Action
Thus far, this article has focused on the internal changes which we can cultivate to limit the control that Bullies have over us. Indeed, a healthy self-affirming perspective can inoculate us against the Bullies’ demeaning words and actions. Still, there are situations when Bullies are able to manipulate our environment in a way that unfairly limits our possibilities or causes undue hardship. Such occasions call out for more than just attitude adjustment. A healthy perspective can often save us some grief, but it does not tackle the source of the problem – at least not the external source. Taking action is where “the rubber meets the road.” This is where developing our assertiveness skills and strategies come into play.
Assertion with Bullies
Bullies are not going to stop bullying just because we ask them to. In fact, they are just as likely to take such a request or demand as a challenge and escalate their bullying. So, we have to approach them in a way that they will take seriously, which means being assertive. There are plenty of resources for assertiveness, with my post, Dealing with Conflict in Relationships: the Art of Assertiveness, among them. These works typically recommend steps of stating the problem, describing how it affects us, asserting what we want from the other, and perhaps proposing the incentives for making this change. While this approach is sound for trustworthy relationships, it requires some modification to be effective with Bullies.
Identifying the Problem
The first step of asserting ourselves with Bullies is stating what the problem is. It is important to focus on the current situation and to specify their actions and speech that we find objectionable. It can be tempting to recite a litany of prior examples, yet this often invites their defense and counter-attack (e.g., “But you . . .”). At least let them ask “When have I ever . . . ?” before offering past examples. Also, focus on their actions, not on who they are. This means resisting the urge to label them. Responding in kind not only escalates tension, but also undermines our personal authority. Even when the Bully disrespects this stance, we still maintain our self-respect.
Resisting the Urge to Attack the Bullies’ Character
It is worthwhile here to address the rationale behind focusing on the Bullies’ speech and actions, rather than on their character. As we have addressed earlier in this article, attacking the character of Bullies is similar to bullying, though, granted, a milder version than their intimidation, threats, or ridicule. As such, it allows them to play a mixed role of Victim and Rebel, allowing them to complain about being maligned or mistreated. With this ploy they appeal to a wide following among others who feel ignored or discounted. Even while playing the Victim role, Bullies stay true to their pursuit of power and domination, and enlisting a sympathetic following serves that cause. Thus, character assassination may play into their hands and actually serve to promote their cause.
“Just the Facts, Ma’am”
Words and deeds are directly verifiable, particularly in this era of social media. They are thus less likely to be in dispute than character, which requires making inferences about values, motivations, and intentions. And what do we base such speculations on? On what we have direct access to – the Bully’s words and deeds! We are generally better off addressing the Bullies’ public behavior and avoiding the inevitable debate about the intentions in their heart that come with character analysis. This leaves us free to explore the impact of their bullying on their Victims, which is the focus of the next step in self-assertion. This focus also sets us up for the following step, which is to make our request or demand for change.
Identifying the Problem’s Impact on Us
The next step involves identifying why the Bullies’ behaviors are problems for us – we need to own our complaints by addressing their impact on us. With their disregard for respect and safety, it would be rather naïve for us to trust Bullies with our personal feelings. This is particularly true for feelings of hurt and anxiety, which Bullies are likely to interpret as weaknesses to exploit. They would have us for lunch – as the main course, not as guests! For this reason, we may prefer to identify their problematic behavior without drawing attention to our feelings. Instead, we might note how the Bullies are interfering with our plans and activities.
Now Is Not the Time to Be Vulnerable
We should note that focusing on our own feelings feeds into the Bully’s offensive posture, whereas addressing their problematic behaviors puts them on the defensive. For this reason, it can be more effective to label their behavior as annoying, irritating, presumptuous, etc., thus addressing our feelings only indirectly, by stating their behavior’s emotional impact. For example, we might share how we find the Bullies’ actions or speech annoying, irritating, demeaning, or simply distracting. Here, we are putting the accent on the quality of their behavior, not on our feelings. Note that we are still addressing their speech and actions, rather than disparaging their character. Also observe that these adjectives present our feelings as being at the fight end of the fight-or-flight responses to threat, thus discouraging them from seeing us as weak. This is not the time to be vulnerable and expose our jugular. Lacking in empathy, Bullies will offer no conciliatory words – unless heavily spiced with sarcasm. This version of stating the Bullies’ impact on us has the added advantage of keeping the focus on their problematic behavior, rather than inviting them to focus on us.
Requesting Change
Much of the advice for identifying the problem also applies to making our request for change: focus on the Bullies’ behavior, not their character; and limit the request to specific current behavior, rather than bringing up past grievances. In addressing behavior, we appeal to their guilt for what they did or didn’t do; in focusing on character, we call for their shame for who they are. They can usually change how they act and speak on the spot, while changing who they are takes a lot longer, even if they wanted to. We need to be specific and focus on how they treat us, not on how they treat everyone. If the Bully role is particularly prominent for them, they’ll get similar feedback from others.
Asking for What We Need and Want
We’re better off focusing our requests on what we need and want, not on what the Bully deserves. Unless we hold some authoritative position, it is not our place to dispense justice or mete out punishment. On the other hand, we have a right to reparation for damages incurred. For our own sake, we should heed the advice of the civil rights song, to “keep our eyes on the prize.” We need to look out for ourselves, rather than trying to makeover, reform, or take down the Bullies. We can ask for compensation for damages, a retraction and cessation of threats, and even an apology.
The Issue of an Apology
We need to limit our expectations to observable speech and action, and not insist on the purity of their intentions, such as sincere remorse. It can be helpful to keep in mind the reputed motto of Eddie Haskell, of Leave It to Beaver fame: “Cleanliness may be next to godliness, but sincerity is next to impossible. That’s why we have etiquette.” Bullies may simply go through the motions of an apology, or they might lace it with a dose of sarcasm. In either case, it is probably better to treat it as an expression of genuine remorse. This actually sets up a dilemma for them – do they accept the one-down position of being interpreted as having made a meaningful apology, or do they blow their cover by admitting their insincerity? It is a “lose—lose” situation for them – with the possible consolation prize that they might learn a lesson from their experience.
Stipulating Consequences
Bullies are hardly inclined to honor our requests or demands just because we ask them to. Their decisions are generally based on their own interests, not according to the needs and wants of others. In considering the consequences, we need to assess our leverage: what do we have as incentives, whether rewards or punishment?
Rewards
In considering rewards, we need to consider what we can offer them that doesn’t cost us much. If we pay a significant price, we are practicing appeasement, which will only encourage further bullying. While we may catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, our intangible rewards may not be all that effective with Bullies. With their having disparaged us, they may not see our respect or concern for them as being of much value. The promise of “warm fuzzies” is hardly a reward for them. Even if secretly desired, Bullies would not admit it, least of all in front of their entourage of supporters. It is much safer for them to continue demanding our subservience.
Punishment
Our threats of negative consequences for continued disrespect and abuse are unlikely to be very effective, either. We may have limited leverage with Bullies, as they often want little more from us than to be the hapless targets of their abuse. In this case, it can be more effective to simply ignoring them while going about our usual business. Their failure to gain our submission would challenge their self-image of dominance, which could discourage them from calling us out the next time. We could show them personal respect by addressing their disrespect toward us in private. We could have to wait for this opportunity, with this delay diminishing the impact of our feedback. Furthermore, this gesture is of doubtful use, as Bullies likely would interpret this as a weak response. Still, it can be an expression of common courtesy that would undercut any future claim of being blindsided when we call them out publicly the next time – they can’t say they weren’t warned. Of course, if there isn’t a next time, then either they heeded our request or the instance had been a one-shot occurrence, not enough cause to embarrass them over.
Follow-through on Incentives
Whether offered rewards for honoring our requests or threatened with punishment for ignoring them, Bullies are unlikely to take such incentives seriously. For them, action speaks louder than words, and they usually need to experience the actual consequences to learn to curb their disrespect and abuse. Bullies are likely to interpret our “warning shots across the bow” as idle threats, at least until they experience a direct hit. Since Bullies often want little more from us than to submit to their dominance, the limited leverage we have is in maintaining our poise and self-respect under fire. This standing our ground and refusal either to submit or to respond in kind undermines their attempt to bolster their self-esteem by lowering ours. Eventually, they may learn to look elsewhere.
Calling in the Cavalry
Individually, we may have limited leverage with Bullies, yet there is strength in numbers. Their belittling, intimidation, and abuse do not occur in a vacuum. Bullies work to project power and control so that their followers will validate their self-worth. Their subjugation of others would serve little purpose without an audience to provide that affirmation. By the same token, as targets of their abuse, we can enhance our leverage with Bullies by recruiting onlookers to our cause. In addition to uniting with others in similar plights, we can often gain the support of self-described independents and neutral observers. We can perhaps best achieve this by refusing to respond to Bullies in kind and by conducting ourselves with resolute dignity. While this style is unlikely to win over the Bullies’ ardent fans, it’s unlikely to incite their ridicule or contempt or to arouse their self-righteous indignation. And there’s a chance of earning some respect among their more tepid followers. Yet our greatest leverage may come from filing a grievance with the appropriate officials, such as the police, court system, employer, or human resource officer. Of course, this only works when Bullies have violated some law, policy, or protocol, and when clear documentation is available. Another important condition is that the official has authority over the Bully. This cannot be taken for granted, as some whistleblowers in our government’s executive branch have found out the hard way.
Brevity, but with Persistence
With assertion with Bullies, brevity tends to works better. Lengthier explanations are more likely to come across as tentative, deferential, and even apologetic. Skillful Bullies know how to exploit this. It is better to save any processing of the interaction for later, after the Bully has honored our request, if at all. In this way, we indicate to the Bully through our actions that we will not tolerate disrespectful or abusive treatment. If Bullies do shed their default role and act respectfully, don’t expect this to last. It can be all too easy for them to slip back into character. If this role has become habitual, they may not even realize it. Like the rest of us, Bullies are rarely one-trial learners. They need reminders to help them remain respectful and nonthreatening toward others. And we need reminders that maintaining our freedom and fair treatment requires eternal vigilance.
Negotiating with Bullies
Bullies’ use of intimidation creates a duress that diminishes our ability to consent. As I addressed in my previous post, Dealing with Conflict in Relationships: The Art of Assertiveness, conflict resolution requires safety and respect. As we have defined bullying, these two qualities are lacking. While I am no lawyer, my understanding is that for a contract to be legally binding, it must be freely entered into by all parties – meaning no undue duress. That being said, there can be a fine line between using leverage and exerting duress – and a blurry one, at that. Thus, negotiation recommends caution, such as clarifying the terms of the agreement and documenting any coercive pressure.
Conditions for Beneficial Negotiation
With these precautions, we still might benefit from some sort of détente with Bullies. We might strike a truce when we are not at risk of physical harm, when we have the leverage to hold them accountable for their part of the bargain, when we are prepared to tolerate their potential retribution, and when we are relatively impervious to their insults and threats. While not optimal, this may allow us to maintain our self-respect and relative comfort without having to abandon our activities and social networks. This measure certainly requires mental discipline and good assertiveness skills – which we can cultivate in part through practicing negotiation.
A Business Transaction, not a Relationship
It is helpful to distinguish two components of negotiations, the transaction and the relationship. While social interactions usually involve both these features, the Bully’s style is predominantly transactional, with little, if any, room for caring or concern for others. In bargaining with Bullies, we need to treat it as a business transaction, not as a relationship. Bullying conveys the Bullies’ basic lack of empathy for others. Any display of concern is typically only a ploy to gain the trust of the other, in order to achieve a more favorable outcome. Thus, it is best for us to “play our hands with our cards close to our vests,” (i.e., keep our feelings, intentions, and tactics to ourselves).
Some Tips for Bargaining
Attempts at discussing ethics with Bullies would simply be an exercise in futility. Recognizing this can save us much time, energy, and aggravation. Our attempts at persuasion are more likely to be effective when we can convince them that it is in their best interest to heed our requests or demands. Since we are typically in a one-down situation with them, we often have little leverage – it is here that developing alliances comes into play.
Holding Bullies Accountable
Bargaining works better in some situations than in others. Obviously, it is better to have leverage than not. If we don’t negotiate out of strength, our agreement may end up only a matter of appeasement. We might ask ourselves what pressure we can exert for Bullies to live up to their side of the agreement. Here, witnesses can play an important role, and how we comport ourselves can sway this informal jury. Also, a contract is enforceable only to the degree that the terms are clear and verifiable. This suggests specifying actions, rather than focusing on attitudes or intentions. It should be noted that some Bullies are notorious weasels who will use any excuse not to honor their agreements. With this in mind, we may want them to demonstrate good faith by honoring their part of the agreement before committing ourselves to our part. Furthermore, we probably should not agree to conditions we cannot readily reverse, if and when they renege on their concessions.
Benefits of Negotiation
Negotiation presents an opportunity to get some of what we want, when we are unable to attain it all. It also presents an opportunity for us to practice our communication and assertiveness skills. Furthermore, we can serve as role-models for others in similar situations. We also make a statement about our self-worth through our willingness to take a stand for ourselves.
R – E – S – P – E – C – T
Our advocating for ourselves is a way of commanding respect for ourselves. Even if this doesn’t make an impression on the Bullies, it may garner support and respect from those witnessing the bargaining, perhaps even among some of their base of support. And if the respect doesn’t come from outside ourselves, we are claiming our self-respect. As noted by Jeff Burns, a former colleague of mine who is no longer with us, respect does not come from others – rather, it is a gift we bestow upon ourselves. And we do so through the manner in which we conduct ourselves.
Practice Makes Better, Though Not Perfect
Having a healthy outlook and a readiness to assert ourselves with Bullies is necessary, but not sufficient, for dealing with Bullies effectively. We also need to develop our communication and negotiation skills for this process. As I stated in my article on conflict, assertiveness is an art, not a science. As such, it requires practice to develop the necessary skills to be effective at it. We can do some role playing with friends and allies, who can also coach us and give us valuable feedback to improve our approach. Also we have the option of a “dress rehearsal” when an actual Bully is being disrespectful, yet when there is nothing significant at stake. Such exercises can serve not only to develop specific assertiveness techniques, but also to desensitize us to the provocations that Bullies use to knock us off-balance.
A Caution about Role Playing
While such exercises can help us develop specific assertiveness techniques, they can also trigger unhealthy emotional reactions. It’s bad enough that Bullies disrupt our equilibrium in their presence, but they don’t have to be present to cause distress. Our planning and practice leads us to worry about anticipated future encounters and to replay distressing past ones . Thus, we could be intensifying the very feelings that disrupt our ability to assert ourselves effectively. Among other potential pitfalls, we could end up coming across aggressively, rather than assertively. The challenge is to prepare for the Bullies’ predictable provocations without traumatizing ourselves in the process. This dilemma calls for us to work at cultivating a healthy mindset, which we addressed in the section, “Breaking Free of the Bullies’ Web,” while simultaneously practicing assertiveness skills.
The Still Eye of the Hurricane
This poses quite a daunting challenge, somewhat akin to staying in the still eye of a hurricane. This is a rather apt metaphor for navigating in vicious cycles, which are practically inevitable when dealing with Bullies. And although the Tao Te Ching does not specifically refer to vicious cycles, it counsels us to stay in the center and let things around us run their course. This counsel suggests a policy of passivity in the face of Bullying, yet this should not be confused with capitulation. Passive resistance can be a powerful force. Gandhi’s campaigns around salt and textiles spearheaded India’s path to independence. The American civil rights movement employed sit-ins and boycotts to challenge segregation.
Achieving Calm amidst Conflict with Bullies
The eye of a hurricane serves as an apt symbol for dealing with Bullies. Still, we are confronted with the challenge of putting this image into practice. Some of us who meditate equate mindfulness with peace, harmony, and unity. From this perspective, conflict is viewed as a disruption, even of the natural order. Cartoonists often caricature this outlook as a yogi sitting on a remote mountaintop, periodically visited by Westerners seeking the meaning of life. A contrasting view affirms that conflict is a normal and healthy part of life, as I presented in Dealing with Conflict in Relationships. Can there two contrasting perspectives be reconciled, and if so, how?
An Alternative View: A Paradox of Being and Doing
One option is to view this dilemma of stillness and activity as yet another of life’s paradoxes, somewhat akin to engagement and detachment, belonging and individuality, and being and doing. As I noted in Muddling down a Middle Path: Wading through the Messiness of Life, these dualities consist of opposing tensions, which we can strive to balance. Two perspectives, previously addressed in this article, can be helpful here. First, we can work to keep our egos out of the equation. And second, we can remind ourselves that we don’t have the corner on the Absolute Truth. Practicing these two outlooks can help us to keep centered while still actively participating in life’s drama.
Questioning our own Outlooks
In applying this to the challenge of dealing with Bullies, we can monitor our thoughts, feelings, and attitudes as we learn and practice assertiveness skills and strategies. For instance, do we see Bullies as our enemies, or perhaps as wounded individuals who can do little better than afflicting others to escape their own pain? And do we view their insults as reflecting on our self-worth, or perhaps as a projection of their own self-doubt and insecurities? These and other challenges to our conventional perspectives can go a long way toward restoring our serenity without surrendering to Bullying.
Navigating Previously Blazed Trails
Fortunately, we don’t have to blaze a new trail in our pursuit. We have at least two disciplines that address both the experience and the activity of their craft – method acting and the martial arts. Both of these disciplines involve a total experiential immersion in their subject and a more detached reflection on their skill set – a melding of subjective and objective, or of being and doing. (My doctoral dissertation involved exploring a similar process in the development of a personal identity.) At this point, I will save this more esoteric detour until a later article, and return to a two examples. The first, the practice of method acting, is presented by Constantin Stanislavski in An Actor Prepares (which, by the way, was required reading in one of my graduate clinical psychology courses). We can apply this approach as we prepare for our role in taking on Bullies – perhaps we can draw inspiration from movies that document the rise and fall of demagogues, such as Citizen Kane or All the King’s Men. The second example, the practice of the martial arts, requires some extrapolation of methods of physical combat to the realm of verbal sparring. I address this application later in this article. And then there is the Buddhist tradition, with Zen and the Art of Archery, followed by applications in other arts. Whichever of these systems we wish to adapt, they can perform the triple functions of cultivating a healthy perspective on conflict, integrating and tempering our feelings, and developing our assertiveness skills.
Strategy Counts
While self-assertion is perhaps the primary method for challenging Bullies, we need to use it wisely. Strategy counts, not just in physical conflict such as wars, but also in verbal disagreements. We can apply some strategies from battles to our dealing with Bullies. Another source of guidance is gambling. As Kenny Rogers noted in “The Gambler,” we need to learn to play our cards right, to “know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em, know when to walk away, know when to run.” This perspective suggests the importance of doing a cost-benefit analysis, and one that recognizes that costs cannot be determined ahead of time, but only estimated. Since some Bullies can be quite ruthless and vindictive, we need to exercise caution in those cases. For this reason, I am including a “black box” warning that such assertive moves can be hazardous to our health and well-being.
When Bullies gives us openings through their abusive words and actions, we may be tempted to resolve a backlog of grievances all in one fell blow. It’s understandable that we would want to resolve an ongoing tension once and for all, but that’s not how it works. We humans are creatures of habit, such that one-trial learning is the exception, not the rule. We can pretty much count on having to revisit an issue again – and again. Bringing up past instances may build a case for our complaints, but it often develops cognitive overload – too much information to process effectively. Furthermore, Bullies are more likely to become defensive, or even redouble their abusive actions in the face of a full frontal challenge. An effective strategy requires patience and perseverance. Not to worry – there likely will be future opportunities to make our case, one skirmish at a time. And if by some fluke there aren’t any further instances, then the issue has in effect been resolved.
Wait for an Attack, but Be Prepared
When we understand that Bullies’ abuse is a matter of when, not just if, we often experience chronic stress, wondering when the other shoe will fall. It is quite natural to want relief as our tension mounts, such that we are tempted to call out the Bully, out of the blue. While this proactive move might give us some advantage in planning out our strategy, it opens us up to counterattack. (Our president apparently takes great pride in his skill as a counter-puncher.) Well-practiced Bullies can challenge this move by asking what they were just doing for us to bring this up. They can challenge our courage by asking why we hadn’t mentioned this before. Or they may accuse us of being overly sensitive and suggest that we just get over it. These charges are more easily deflected when we can focus on the Bullies’ current behavior as evidence of their disrespect and intimidation.
Applying Martial Arts to Verbal Confrontation
Principles of physical combat, particularly the martial arts, can be applied to verbal confrontations with Bullies. Occupying the higher ground offers an advantage, and in verbal disputes this means adhering to higher ethical principles, such as showing respect to others. This may make little difference to the Bullies themselves, who might view such self-restraint as weakness. On the other hand, this approach can earn respect from bystanders and potential allies, while diffusing opposition from the Bullies’ loyal followers.
The Best Offense is a Good Defense
Martial arts practitioners also recognize the advantage afforded by a defensive posture, with the recognition that we become off-balance when in attack mode. The Tao Te Ching cautions against making the first move and notes that it is often advantageous to give ground rather than trying to take it. This is consistent with a key principle of martial arts, which is to take the adversaries’ momentum and use it against them. Since a key goal in dealing with Bullies is simply to stand our ground, we offer Bullies no momentum to use against us. When we veer off course, such as with the primary goal of knocking the Bully down a peg or two, we can lose our balance and become more vulnerable to attack. Thus, when we are emotionally balanced and grounded, we are better able to stand our ground and to deflect the Bullies’ attacks.
“The Pen Is Mightier than the Sword”
Martial arts strategies are addressed primarily in terms of physical combat, yet the same principles apply to verbal jousting. It probably requires as much skill, if not more, to be effective in verbal sparring. The saying that “the pen is mightier than the sword” applies just as well to the spoken word as to the written word. Speech is generally more potent in its immediacy and nonverbal components, yet has the additional challenge of “thinking on our feet.” Thus, we need to be knowledgeable about the particular issues at stake when Bullies assert their entitlements and discredit the rights of others.
Taking our Arguments to Others
Since Bullies themselves are generally not swayed by logical discourse, attempts to reason with them are often futile. Yet they do not hold all the keys to power, and we can make our appeals to others who have authority. Take demagogues in government, for example. In a democracy with free speech and free press, the citizenry serves as the judge and jury when elections roll around. In this case, our oratorical skills may influence Bullies only indirectly, through compelling arguments to their constituents. In dictatorships, though, such leverage is usually lacking.
A Web of Bullying in the Real World
Of course, in the real world, the situation is not so cut and dried. Bullies and their cronies may be able to stack the deck through various backdoor strategies, such as voter suppression, gerrymandering, dark money political contributions, and political dirty tricks. All of this should serve as a reminder that liberty, and all our other rights, require eternal vigilance. This insight suggests the need for a comprehensive war strategy, rather than ad hoc battle plans for skirmishes.
The Power of Symbolism
Although we are promoting verbal skills, we are not focused narrowly on logical reasoning. Bullies certainly don’t. Their language is more that of action and emotion than of thought. Those who depend on the fervent loyalty of their base are adept at using evocative images and symbols and emotionally-charged terms to sway their following.
Wall vs. Bridge
President Trump has been highly effective in using the symbol of a wall to drive home his “us vs. them” message of division. Logical arguments go only so far in countering such campaigns. As chance (or fate? karma?) has it, the graphic images of 9 minutes and 47 seconds of George Floyd’s strangulation under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer trumped his message. In contrast to Trump’s wall, the public outrage built a bridge that connected Americans across a racial divide.
Assertiveness Skills for Dealing with Bullies 1.0
It would be a monumental task to develop an assertiveness skills training manual for dealing with Bullies – there just are too many situations to cover. I know some must be out there, so I’m not going to reinvent the wheel. Still, I’m not aware of any such program based on a perspective of paradoxical conflict of values, as I have outlined on my website. Logic is not the Bullies’ strength, nor is tolerance for ambiguity. I would affirm that Bullies tend to be dogmatic in their beliefs and values, with their generally assuming black-or-white, all-or-none positions on issues. Within this frame of reference, though, it should not be too difficult to challenge Bullies by presenting situations in which their supposedly universal and absolute values are in conflict with one another. We have touched on some of these perspectives in the previous section on breaking free from the clutches of Bullies.
OK, an Example of Such a Conflict
Perhaps an example will illustrate this process. First, we want to posit that it is quite natural for parents to want what’s best for their children. For the affluent and well-connected, this might involve financial support and pulling strings (e.g., college legacy admissions for children of alumni) to get their children into prestigious colleges. Or it might involve setting up a trust and other financial arrangements so that their children’s inheritance is not significantly reduced by estate taxes upon their deaths. If we step back and examine these measures on a social or cultural level, we can recognize how the passing of wealth and privilege from one generation to the next plays a major role in perpetuating the disparity of opportunity between different socio-economic, racial, and ethnic groups. This is reflected in the dramatic contrast in savings between blacks and whites. What began as the cruel yoke of slavery, and then morphed into the discrimination posed by segregation, Jim Crow laws, and redlining in real estate and finance, can now be perpetuated through apparently innocent and subtle mechanisms supporting white privilege. I doubt that this example would cause any Bullies or their followers to lose sleep, yet it highlights the complexity of an issue for those privileged whites who endorse a social justice ethic. Still, we can seek out and find comparable examples of conflicting values relevant to Bullies and their followers.
A Call to Arms (Metaphorically Speaking)
I might challenge interested readers to identify specific values, beliefs, attitudes, or expectations espoused by Bullies they have known, whether in person or in the media. Then, consider the possible conflicts among these various features. Next, imagine how you might counter such messages in addressing the Bullies’ own value system. Finally, you might articulate your insight to others – perhaps in a letter to the editor of the local paper, in the case of an overbearing politician. This challenge provides the readers with an opportunity to practice applying the martial arts verbally, by using the adversaries’ momentum against them. I grant that this assignment would be a real challenge, but one that can help us in applying this model to actual real-life situations.
If you decide to take up this challenge, it might be helpful to review my two articles related to inherently opposing values,Living Rationally with Paradox and Muddling down a Middle Path. I imagine that some might accuse me of sheer laziness in palming this task off onto my readers. I would counter that such an assignment makes this article more of an interactive exercise, thus enhancing its educative potential for the participants. Besides, I don’t want to get too much of a head start on others pursuing this quest. Well, at least that’s my rationalization. At any rate, I’d welcome receiving such examples, that I might post on my website. Perhaps this has the possibility of developing some sort of workbook. At your request, I can either give you credit for your examples or preserve your anonymity. If you choose the latter, keep in mind that I would be getting credit for your contribution by default. You can be comforted by my assurance that plagiarism, not imitation, is the highest form of flattery.
Maintaining our Inner Balance
Keeping our poise in the presence of Bullies who have disrespected and intimidated us is a real challenge. They have a knack for pushing our buttons, such that we may get “so mad we can’t see straight.” Or we may fall under the spell of some other discombobulating feelings. This is where our practice at tolerating tension comes into play. With sufficient practice, we can find that stillness in the eye of the storm. We can learn to temper and channel our emotions so that they work for us, not on us.
Practicing Self-care
As we covered in “Breaking Free of the Bully’s Web,” we can cultivate a positive perspective on our challenges and ourselves. Enhancing self-esteem, facing conflict, having compassion for self and others, and being less judgmental all require ongoing effort. It is all too easy to fall back into old habits. Practicing meditation helps quiet the emotional storm, whether caused by real-time bullying, past memories, or worries about the future. Focusing our attention on the “here and now” can help with this.
Processing our Feelings
We can use supportive friends and allies as sounding boards. They can help us process our feelings, as I have addressed in Baring your Soul, Bearing your Feelings. On the other hand, avoiding conflict and numbing our feelings with addictions and distractions interfere with this process. While a strategic retreat can help prepare us for the Bully’s next move, we should avoid making it an unconditional surrender.
Choosing our Battles
We don’t have to confront every single Bully who insults, threatens or harms us, any more than an army engages the enemy at every opportunity. Bill Amend has aptly illustrated this point in Fox Trot, as well as commenting on our tendency for knee-jerk reactions to provocations. We can choose our battles, based on the criteria of what we have at stake, of our chances of prevailing, and of the severity and likelihood of a negative outcome. To accomplish this, we need to stifle our initial reflex.
Insult or Injury?
We should choose to go into battle when we have something tangible at stake, rather than it simply being an affront to our ego. The phrase “insult or injury?” can be a helpful mantra for asking ourselves if we are responding to a tangible loss or injury, or if we are reacting to an insult. If it is mainly an insult, this suggests that we are allowing Bullies to judge our worthiness by how they treat us. In this case, simply ignoring the insult may command more respect that addressing it. If a bystander would judge us harshly for not defending ourselves from a spurious insult, would we really value their opinion?
The Larger Social Context
We should recognize that it would be folly to ignore the larger social context of bullying. We are likely not alone in enduring the oppression of any single Bully. If they have practiced the Bully role sufficiently such that it defines who they are, then they probably have had numerous victims over the course of their career. And unless they are the occasional “lone wolf” Bullies, then they probably have their cadres of supporters. It appears rather unlikely that we will make any in-roads with hard-core Bullies, especially on our own. We stand a better chance at eroding away their power base of supporters, particularly if we run a smart, coordinated campaign with our allies.
The Bully’s Victim-Rebel Ploy
We have mainly addressed bullying in a narrow sense, as the interaction between Bullies and those they oppress — with one key exception. In this particular case, witnesses to the bullying assume a Rescuer role, supporting the oppressed and harshly criticizing the Bullies. Thus, a Bully-Victim-Rescuer vicious cycle has been established. Bullies often respond to this development with a “shape-shifter” maneuver, by complaining about being ganged up on. In assuming this secondary role of Rebel-Victim, Bullies are able to build a base of support, drawing from those who have felt disenfranchised, yet lacking in their own voice to address their grievances.
A Specific Example of this Dynamic Process
I recognize that this is only an abstract skeleton of real-life interactions, so I’ll provide an example to put some flesh on those lifeless bones. In introducing his presidential candidacy, Donald Trump blamed illegal Mexican immigrants for the plight of struggling average American workers. We can characterize his condemnation of an entire class of people for the offenses of a minority as an instance of bullying. This resulted in the wrath and censure of more progressive Americans for his unfairly casting a broad net of suspicion and disparagement over the Hispanic community. Their response allowed him to cast himself as a maligned Victim of the Washington elite establishment, whom he also blamed for neglecting average Americans in favor of special interests, including Hispanics. He thus cultivated a base of support among primarily white American workers, who had seen little improvement in wages in decades, while investors and their benefactors, the corporate executives, prospered. Thus, he achieved a Robin Hood-like Rebel status as champion for the little guy, while actually deflecting attention away from the corporate complex responsible for the historically inequitable distribution of wealth.
Finding a Receptive Audience
I recognize that those committed members of Trump’s base will take exception to this example. I am probably guilty of preaching to the choir, but I hope to appeal also to those who may describe themselves as undecided, independents, or neutral. There are sufficient similar examples to the one above to establish a recurrent pattern, though the cast of characters may vary (e.g., Muslims, the Chinese, the BLM movement). I admit that I have been short on details regarding the issue of the expanding income disparity between the working class and the investor/executive class. For this, I refer the readers to Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, who has been quite compelling in filling in the economic details, through his Inequality Media website, as well as his Economic Policy Institute.
Understanding the Bully’s Committed Followers
The dramatic arts do a good job of portraying the fervor that demagogues can stir up in their supporters. Willie Stark in All the King’s Men rallies his fellow “hicks” to his cause by playing the “victim-rebel” card against the political elite (He could use the h-word because he identified with it himself). Charles Foster Kane in Citizen Kane holds a similar sway over his true believers.
A Real-life Example
Yet we don’t need to refer to fictional works to help us understand this dynamic process. President Trump plays out his Victim-Rebel role to stir up outrage among his base. By proclaiming that the Establishment victimizes him and his followers, he stirs up their outrage as Victims. Then, by posing as the Rebel who can stand up to the system, he energizes their commitment to the cause and strengthens their identity vicariously. It is indeed ironic that he employs a Victim Role to consolidate his power, but that is not uncommon among Bullies. Wolves in sheep’s clothing can be quite adept at pulling the wool over their followers’ eyes, as they lead the sheep to the slaughter. Unfortunately, with the COVID-19 pandemic, this metaphor strikes too close to home.
What NOT to Do
It should be fairly obvious that disrespecting and disparaging the Bullies’ followers will only entrench them in the Bullies’ camp. As I have counseled a time or two, focus on their words and deeds, not on their character. Hilary Clinton’s off-hand labeling of Trump supporters as “deplorables” did much to derail her presidential campaign. Whether on its own or as a part of a broader contempt for the Trump followers, it may well have cost her the election.
An Alternative Approach
Instead, it’s probably more effective to explore with the followers their core values behind the support of their candidate. As we listen to their stories, we might notice how we share many of the same values. This is often the case even when we have reached quite different conclusions about putting them into practice. Next, we might probe for other values we suspect we have in common. Then, we might relate how we ourselves grapple with conflicts between these various values that we share with them.
Exposing the Trade-offs between Values
The above discussion prepares us to address the inherent conflicts within certain pairs of values. These include individuality vs. belonging, freedom vs. order, living in the moment vs. planning ahead, and adventure vs. security. Now all this is rather heady philosophical stuff, as I have addressed in Muddling Down a Middle Path. Yet Bill Waterston illustrates these paradoxes in Calvin and Hobbes, linked above, in quite down-to-earth terms. demonstrating how they are basic aspects of the human condition. I find them helpful for appreciating the practical implications of these basic aspects of the human condition. Hopefully, by sharing our own struggles with competing values, we might discourage the Bully’s fan base from a simplistic either/or, all-or-none, black-or-white value system that supports an “us vs. them” political mentality.
Keeping an Open Mind
Yet, there is a huge catch. If we want Bullies’ followers to be receptive to our perspective, we must demonstrate an openness to theirs. This does not mean abandoning our values or principles, by any means. Rather, we simply recognize that they are striking a balance between conflicting values in a different place on the continuum than we do. We also need to appreciate that there is no logical reasoning that establishes exactly where that optimal balance is. (I still adhere to a principle of the Middle Path. This states that positions toward the center of the continuum are more adaptive than those at the extremes.)
The Leap from Values to Policies
The above discussion has laid the groundwork for transitioning from values to policy. In other words, how do we translate our values into policy and action? Here is where having some factual information comes in handy. Having data to establish the nature of the problems, such as climate change, wealth inequality, or the national debt, can then help to define the issues. With this discussion, we can address whether their candidate’s positions on issues actually further their values.
Practicing Verbal Judo
By incorporating the base’s values into our discussions and identifying inconsistencies with their candidate’s positions and actions, we are engaging in a form of verbal judo, which I have introduced earlier in this article. Yet, this thought bears repeating: we need to be receptive to perspectives other than our own. If we are not, how can we expect to learn anything? Even if we do not bridge the gap between our views and those of the Bullies’ followers, we will have at least promoted civility – in ourselves, and perhaps in our adversaries.
Caveats about this Approach
This proposed approach to dealing with the Bullies’ support base probably comes across as idealistic and unrealistic. Perhaps it is better suited to those who are on the fence. I do not expect this approach to convert the ardent “true believers.” Their fear of and contempt for others shuts them off from recognizing their common humanity. This applies even when those others actually share similar issues and concerns. Rather than writing them off as “deplorables,” perhaps the best we can do is to commiserate with them. We can appreciate how their sense of alienation, powerlessness, and insecurity interferes with fulfilling their own American dreams. Note that I’m not recommending saying this to them in those terms. Nor am I endorsing their blindly following a demagogue as a valid solution to their plight.
Not All about Trump
The thrust of this article is on bullying, not President Trump. True, he’s so vain, he’d probably think this is all about him. That is, if he’d even bother to read it. I have simply used him as a classic example of systemic bullying, mainly because he serves so well as a readily available example. His public record saves me the trouble of compiling clinical case material and disguising it to protect confidentiality. There are plenty of others like him, including the mini-Trumps in Congress who enable his authoritarian style. In many instances, I am leaving it to the reader to connect the dots between the ideas in this article and examples readily available in the public domain.
Defining Ourselves through Identification and Dissent
Even though this article focuses on dealing with Bullies, the coverage is much broader, expanding to address our very identity. How we deal with Bullies can play a key role in defining our personal identities. Who we are is determined not just by whom and what we endorse, but also by whom and what we oppose. While the former identifies our qualities shared with others (e.g., religion, political affiliation, club membership, profession or trade, etc.), the latter declares what makes us different. And it is these differences which make us unique. Can we really say that we have individual identities if we don’t have unique qualities? Saying “yes” to ourselves sometimes requires us to say “no” to others. Otherwise, we would be “all things to all people,” – except maybe to ourselves. Without the willingness and ability to oppose others, we would simply be conformists. And with their incessant pressure for us to comply with their demands, Bullies pose an acid test to our individuality.
Beyond Tribalism
There is one qualification to the above characterization: we do not claim our individual identities when we always say “yes” to our allies and “no” to our adversaries. All we do is establish our tribal identity in an “us” vs. “them” polarization. We’ve all seen how well that is working in American politics. Instead, we need to use our own judgment to decide whether we actually agree with our friends. Bullies aren’t just limited to our adversaries – our allies can also pressure us to make decisions that may not be in our best interests. We also need to be open-minded toward those with whom we disagree. Without this, we’d fall into the Critic role – a milder form of bullying. Just because we disagree shouldn’t make them our enemies. In fact, we might learn something different from them, whereas our allies are likely just to teach us more of the same.
Epilogue
I hope that this perspective on dealing with Bullies is helpful. It’s not essential to buy into the whole package to do this introspective work – you can order a la carte, if you like. The various perspectives that are presented here do tend to hang together, though – you’ll find them interwoven throughout my website. They make up a sort of entrée.
No Rules, Just Guidelines
Readers will notice that this article proposes guidelines and suggestions, not hard-and-fast rules. The latter approach would be contrary to a basic theme of this perspective, that we are all responsible for finding our own way, though hopefully with support. This outlook is based not only on the absence of a comprehensive code of absolute, universal values for guidance, but also on the contradiction of many of these values in paradoxical polarities. (Did I mention my article, Muddling down a Middle Path: Wading through the Messiness of Life?)
Timeless Truth
Furthermore, you will note that I have cited few references to lend authority to my assertions. In fact, my most frequent reference has been to Lao-tzu’s Tao Te Ching, an ancient (yet timeless) book of Chinese proverbs. I encourage readers to read this short work for themselves, and I recommend readers to Stephen Mitchell’s 1988 work, which is as much interpretation as translation.
The Issue of Scientific Truth
With regard to the absence of scientific references, I recall a Sufi tale in which the sage is challenged by a skeptic for his lack of authoritative references in his arguments – to which the sage responded by suggesting that the reliance on such authorities implies a lack of confidence in one’s own convictions. While I hope that my readers find my various ideas compelling, I am by no means refuting scientific findings. Though my ideas are empically-based (i.e., derived from my own experiences), they lack the “evidence-based” certification that validates their Ultimate Truth. (Yes, I am being ironic, if not somewhat sarcastic.)
A Call for Scientific Review
I welcome feedback from psychologists and other mental health professionals that presents scientific studies that either support or refute the ideas presented here. And for those areas without conclusive relevant research, there may be a master’s thesis, doctoral dissertation, or scientific study to be mined. The challenge is to construct a research design that “operationalizes” the relevant factors in terms of dependent and independent variables. If I have lost you on this last point, then good – you have some appreciation for why I haven’t pursued academic psychology.
Happy Trails
In the meantime, I am trusting that you will evaluate my ideas on the basis of their relevance, reasonableness, and fit with your own experience. Readers have the right to disagree. I only ask that you do so thoughtfully and respectfully – for your sake as much as for mine. This would involve resisting two opposing tendencies. First would be a fault-finding dismissal based on a close-minded adherence to your preconceived notions. Second, and just as problematic, would be a total, unquestioning buy-in, so that you can apply the suggestions without questioning or critical thinking. I hope that you find a middle ground between these two extremes, so that you can continue exploring these matters in a spirit of curiosity, adventure, and awe. And if you like, keep me informed on your progress with this quest.
The issue of narcissism has been in the news a lot lately, though not necessarily identified as such. Its current prominence in the Republican primary race has turned “politics as usual” on its head. Narcissism has become the “elephant in the room” which candidates have been reluctant to acknowledge, largely out of fear of being trumpled [sic]. Politicos have been scrambling about trying to figure out how to deal with it, as it has become a HUGE problem for them.
In order to deal effectively with the problem, we must first understand what it is and how it operates. Reacting instinctively or by knee-jerk reflex often only feeds into the problem. For this reason, it is important to recognize the social context of this issue and how we can unwittingly get drawn into its force field. Only by recognizing our vulnerabilities can we avoid this trap. This is where the application of my vicious cycle model can offer some valuable insight.
Narcissists and Self-Esteem
Perhaps the hallmark of the Narcissist is the excessive need for approval and admiration. The status seeking only demonstrates how much the self-esteem of the Narcissist requires the continuing affirmation of others to remain intact. For the Narcissist, self-esteem is conditional in nature, which means that it is based on the person having particular valued qualities upon which the self-esteem rests. This value is typically determined relative to other people, such that the Narcissist needs to be better than others, whether that be wealthier, smarter, stronger, more confident, more stylish, more elegant, more discerning, more attractive, etc. Conditional self-worth requires continuing reinforcement, with the Narcissist being like the salesman who is “only as good as his last sale.” The standards for excellence tend to be rather exorbitant, such that Narcissists never feel they are quite good enough. Second place just won’t cut it. In her classic book, The Drama of the Gifted Child, Alice Miller addressed the roots of this condition in childhood, wherein children have learned that they must be perfect to earn the approval of their parents or other caretakers, with this legacy continuing on into adulthood (hence, the alternate title, Prisoners of Childhood).
Even with the adulation of others, Narcissists often feel like imposters, not actually deserving of the affirmation they receive, although they would never admit this. Thus, they fear being exposed and have difficulty acknowledging any shortcomings that might tarnish their self-image. That famous line from The Wizard of Oz, “Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain,” applies to them. Any exposure of that “little man” may foster defensiveness, denial and retribution.
The Narcissist’s excessive reliance on conditional self-esteem is likely due to poverty in intrinsic self-esteem – our core conviction in our basic self-worth, just the way we are. This acceptance usually applies equally well to others as to oneself, with the folksy saying, “God don’t make no junk,” expressing this outlook in rather down-to-earth terms. The value that “all men [and women] are created equal” expressed in our Declaration of Independence refers to our intrinsic self-worth, in contrast to the “better than” criterion upon which conditional self-esteem rests. The irony of the Narcissists is that while their expressed self-confidence suggests a rock solid foundation, their self-esteem rests on the loose sands of conditional self-worth.
Narcissism and the Paradox of Individuality and Belonging
The distinction between conditional and intrinsic self-esteem has profound implications for how we resolve the paradox of individuality and belonging, which I have addressed in Muddling down the Middle Path: Wading through the Messiness of Life, and for which I have referred to Calvin and Hobbes for dramatization of the “flake vs. drip” dilemma. Those relying upon conditional self-esteem usually emphasize individuality, claiming credit for being self-made men and women, perhaps giving only lip service to others in acknowledging their contributions to the Narcissists’ successes. Narcissists can easily adopt the mantra, “I did it my way” from Paul Anka’s song popularized by Frank Sinatra, with a footnote that regrets have been “too few to mention.” William Ernest Henley’s poem, “Invictus” provides another apt motto: “I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.”
In contrast to the Narcissist’s emphasis on individuality, those with a healthy dose of intrinsic self-worth gravitate more toward the middle of the individuality—belonging spectrum. This stance recognizes that one’s achievements have not occurred in a vacuum, but rest upon the previous and current contributions of others. With identity so interwoven with the fabric of the environment, the idea of a distinct individual identity might be considered an illusion (as suggested by the Buddhist concept of “interbeing” developed by Thich Nhat Hanh). Such a perspective should not be taken as favoring belonging over individuality, as those with intrinsic self-worth are usually quite willing and able to express their individuality by declaring their own positions on issues of consequence when in conflict with others.
Narcissism and Relating to Others
The Narcissists’ emphasis on conditional self-esteem leads them to relate to others competitively, as their self-esteem hinges on their perceived superiority to others. This often escalates to an “us versus them” mentality, with this conflict providing the drama with which to draw further attention to the Narcissists. When they form alliances, these tend to be transient. Narcissists are not to be trusted, as they will break these alliances when no longer self-serving, either going their own way or forming new alliances. For the Narcissists, competition invariably trumps cooperation, even when it may not appear so on the surface.
In contrast to the Narcissists, those embodying intrinsic self-esteem typically extend the same respect to others that they have for themselves. Since they are comfortable with themselves as they are, they do not feel threatened by others who demonstrate qualities comparable or even superior to their own. Since they are comfortable with their own outlooks on life, they do not feel threatened by positions other than their own – in fact, they usually welcome diversity with the understanding that it broadens their horizons and enriches their understanding of themselves and the world around them. Thus, their sense of belonging, even with others different from themselves, allows them to relate to others cooperatively. Still, their confidence in their values and convictions allows them to disagree with others, respecting them as worthy adversaries, not inferior people.
The Vicious Cycle Patterns Involving Narcissists
Narcissism does not operate in a vacuum, but depends upon a social context for its existence and expression. There are relatively stable interaction patterns which serve to maintain its expression, even though the results are frequently rather dysfunctional for all involved. These qualities fit the pattern of vicious cycles, which I have explored in depth in my page, Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships 2.0. Of particular relevance is the Critic – Victim/Rebel – Rescuer cycle, derived from Steven Karpman’s Drama Triangle, described in Games Alcoholics Play, by Claude Steiner. At different times the Narcissist may play out the roles of the Critic and the Rescuer, while at other times the Narcissist role is a variant of the Victim/Rebel role. In this latter scenario, the supporting cast includes an Entourage of Admirers (a variant of the Rescuer role), as well as Critics.
The Narcissist Role in Relation to Its Adversaries
Since the Narcissist role is oriented toward enhancing conditional self-worth, it requires either a quest to surmount or others to best: in competition, there can’t be winners without losers, and for the winner, the more losers the better. Competitors may find themselves the Victims of Narcissists when they are seeking the same objective for which there can be only one winner. And whether the challenge is a project or a contest, Narcissists need someone to hold responsible for the inevitable setbacks, mistakes, and failures. Here, the Narcissists shift into the Critic mode to blame their designated scapegoats: the buck stops there. The scapegoats fit into the Victim role when they are subordinates or the disenfranchised who lack the authority or skills to challenge the blame assigned to them, and thus pose little threat to the Narcissists. Other frequent targets of the Narcissists are their detractors, who generally fall into the Critic role. Narcissists often seek to neutralize the negative feedback through a counterattack aimed at discrediting their Critics. They may use various logical fallacies and emotionally-charged distortions to keep these adversaries off balance. With their penchant for the competitive mode of interaction, they are often quite practiced and skillful at these verbal skills, such that they hold a distinct advantage over those whose nature is more collaborative.
The Narcissist Role in Relation to Its Supporters
Narcissists are also rather practiced in playing to their supporters, who represent a variation of the Rescuer role described in the earlier webpage on vicious cycles. With their intense need for affirmation, Narcissists require a whole Entourage of allies, sidekicks, posses, and loyal fans who profess unconditional loyalty to their leaders. Narcissists may acquire trophy wives or boy toys who enhance their status while accepting their own subordinate positions. Their fans not only accept the Narcissists’ projection of blame onto others for their own shortcomings, but often admire the panache with which this feat is accomplished. In return, Narcissists provide their fans with an opportunity to live vicariously through their successes and conquests.
Predisposing Vulnerabilities for Vicious Cycle Interactions
There are certain qualities and shortcomings that predispose individuals toward assuming vicious cycle roles with Narcissists, whether or not they seek out this interaction. Those lacking in both intrinsic and conditional self-esteem are susceptible to the gravitational pulls of either the Critic role or the Admirer role in the Narcissists’ Entourage. Narcissists have a knack for pulling vulnerable individuals into their orbit, whether that be in opposition or in affirmation. Imbalances along the Individuality – Belonging continuum also increases susceptibility to the roles complementary to the Narcissist. Critics tend to occupy positions toward the individuality pole, whereas the Entourage of Admirers is generally situated toward the belonging pole.
The Pull of the Critic Role
The Critic role compensates for a lack of intrinsic self-worth by fostering conditional self-worth, as their pointing out the negative qualities of others allows them to feel superior by comparison. Like the Narcissist, the Critic role emphasizes individuality and self-righteous superiority in passing judgment on others different from oneself. Yet because Critics often lacks the Narcissists’ conditional self-worth (or at least not to the same grandiose level), they are often reluctant to express their own individuality by advocating for their own causes or positions – such actions would risk the censure of others, thus jeopardizing their tenuous sense of self-worth. Individuals who value order and predictability for their sense of security and well-being often gravitate toward the Critic role in relation to Narcissists, who tend to play by their own set of rules. Constrained by their own sense of propriety, Critics may harbor resentment or even envy for the Narcissists’ blatant disregard for basic civility (which is sometimes disparaged as political correctness). These negative feelings only serve to intensify the force field drawing them into adversarial engagement.
The Pull of the Entourage Roles
Individuals lacking in both intrinsic and conditional self-worth may find themselves drawn into orbit around the Narcissist in a supportive rather than a critical manner. The various roles within the Narcissists’ Entourage (e.g., sidekicks, posses, and the fans) compensate for their deficits in intrinsic self-worth, though in a manner quite different from the Critic role: individuals derive a vicarious identity and sense of self-worth through their association with their idol. These individuals tend toward the belonging end of the individuality – belonging continuum: they prefer to fit in rather than stand out, which lends itself to conformity. Like many Critics, they are reluctant to express their own individuality and risk censure. When they do express criticism, it usually involves parroting the Narcissists’ complaints about their Critics. These features predispose these individuals to be attracted to dynamic personalities who express out loud but they harbor in silence. They function like planets captured in orbit by the gravitational pull of the sun, with their visibility provided only by their reflecting the light emanating from the sun. This Entourage of Admirers is highly protective and supportive of their sun god, particularly since their own sense of self-worth is inextricably tied to the reputation of the Narcissist around whom they circle. Expressing their misgivings or reservations about their idol can be rather risky, as it could provoke the idol to eject them from their orbit, although it is rather doubtful that the Narcissist would even notice them.
Resisting the Force Field of Narcissists
Now that we have some understanding of the dynamic processes involved in narcissism, particularly in the social context of vicious cycle patterns, we can now work at putting this insight into practice. Through our exploration of the vicious cycle patterns, we come to the realization that all parties involved lose out where it really counts – in terms of their own personal well-being. This includes the Narcissists, who must constantly feed their insatiable conditional self-worth with the adulation of their followers and buffer it from the scathing reviews of their critics. When we come to realize that ultimately everyone loses in such interactions, we are less likely to lose our perspective and get pulled into the fray. To paraphrase a proverb from the Tao Te Ching, those who understand how the system works can have compassion for each participant in it. Such compassion can serve as an antidote to the anger, envy, resentment, and hurt which fuels the melodramatic force field surrounding Narcissists.
Another aspect to address is that deficits in self-esteem increase the susceptibility to being drawn into the vicious cycle patterns, regardless of the particular roles to which we gravitate. As addressed throughout this article, intrinsic self-esteem is the more important one to address. This quality runs much deeper than verbal attitudes, such that affirmations will only take us so far. Counseling and psychotherapy can be of significant benefit. My article, “How Can I Like Myself Better?”: An Inquiry into Self-Esteem, explores this topic in more detail and provides more suggestions for this work.
Escaping the Particular Dysfunctional Roles
When members of the Entourage discover the “little man behind the curtain” projecting the larger-than-life image of their hero, they can begin to recognize the humanity of their idols, the shortcomings as well as the strengths. They can then reclaim for themselves the power that they had signed over to their heroes. This challenges them to define their own positions rather than swallow “hook, line, and sinker” the messages of their leaders. Then they face the challenge of taking a standing for their own convictions, which brings with it the risk of being shot down by others who favor the Critic role.
Those cast in the Victim role by Narcissists often face strong messages assaulting their self-worth, both conditional and intrinsic. By recognizing how projecting such badness or inadequacy onto others is used to shield the Narcissists’ vulnerable ego, the targets of these attacks can gain some consolation by considering the source. When victims understand that those caustic remarks say much more about the shaky foundation of the Narcissists’ self-worth than they say about their intended targets, they can come to realize that they do not need to take those messages so personally. This frees up their attention for other important matters, such as the self-empowerment that comes from defining their own qualities and values and finding their own voices in expressing them.
Individuals who find themselves in competition with Narcissists often experience strong pulls drawing them into the Victim and Critic roles. With Narcissists’ heavy reliance on conditional self-esteem for their self-worth, competition creates an intense force field around them that attracts or repels even individuals who are not normally predisposed to the Critic, Victim, or Entourage roles. Of course, such pulls could be avoided by electing not to compete with Narcissists. Yet when the competition taps into one’s strong convictions, throwing in the cards is tantamount to letting the Narcissist win by default. Staying in the game requires both interpersonal skills and strategies to outmaneuver the Narcissist and internal skills for managing the intense feelings that the Narcissist is so adept at evoking. One particular challenge is to stand one’s ground while not demonizing are or disparaging the Narcissists personally, as this invites them to play the victim card. Calling out their behavior generally works better than assailing their character. The competition can be particularly challenging for individuals who are more accustomed to cooperative or collaborative interactions, in which case the Narcissist had home court advantage. A healthy dose of intrinsic self-esteem can go a long way toward neutralizing the charged accusations which the Narcissist is prone to lob at adversaries.
When Narcissists come to recognize the tyrannical demands of their conditional self-esteem and its detrimental impact on their relationships, they can begin the work of liberating themselves from this bondage. Unfortunately, such insight usually hits home only after major blows to the ego when their houses of cards collapse. They tend to be fixated on conquest and are likely to view a more collaborative style as a sign of weakness. For that reason, they are likely to be rather critical of the concept of intrinsic self-esteem. In their driven quest for ultimate success, they are prone to self-destruction, like Icarus, who came crashing down to earth after flying too close to the sun. Only then might they question their lifestyles and consider other ways of being. This is likely to be an uphill battle, as their sense of humiliation is likely to trump the humility required for cultivating healthy intrinsic self-worth. Redemption is possible, though, and would likely also require a shift to the center on the continuum of individuality versus belonging.
Know Thyself
Perhaps the most important lesson from this exploration is what we might learn about ourselves, which poses a greater challenge than what we might learn about others. Here we can refer to the biblical passage in which Jesus states that seeing the mote or splinter in another’s eye comes much easier than recognizing the beam in our own. In taking our own inventory of how we might enact these various vicious cycle roles, we can seek candid feedback from our trusted friends. We might also realize that those qualities that we despise in others are often ones we possess, yet deny, in ourselves. When we recognize this, we might even experience gratitude for the lessons our adversaries can teach us, but this requires humility. In the service of this self-exploration, we can work at cultivating our intrinsic self-worth by accepting ourselves for where we’re currently at, with humility being helpful on this front, as well. At the same time, we can work at extending this acceptance to others as they are.
Note that these practices in acceptance of self and others do not imply complacency or prevent our work at achieving personal growth. Another proverb from the Tao Te Ching, that “a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step,” teaches us to begin with where we are. We can work on goals such as cultivating compassion for ourselves and others, countering judgmentalism toward ourselves and others, taking the risk of opening up to others to allow their compassion for us (even if this means risking rejection), standing our ground with others who threaten our boundaries or attempt to impose their will and perspective on us, and learning to tolerate the inevitable disappointments and losses in life. This touches upon the paradox of being and becoming, which recognizes that personal change come easier when we accept ourselves for the way we are now.
For years, cognitive behaviorism has been the self-proclaimed leader in psychotherapy, citing numerous studies to back that claim. That approach has touted its superior effectiveness in treating a variety of mental disorders. Its list of “evidence-based” applications has grown so broad that you’d think it’d cure all that ails you. Like other movements, it has tended to overreach its utility by trying to be all things to all people. In the words of a folksy adage, “When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.”
Putting Cognitive Behaviorism in Perspective
We can gain perspective, though, by placing cognitive behaviorism in its historical and cultural context. In doing so, we can better appreciate both its promises and its limitations in resolving particular problems of living. This exploration will allow cognitive behaviorism to assume its rightful place among other approaches to life’s adversities. We can then see this therapeutic model as but one set of tools in the tool chest. This perspective will then allow us to apply its strategies and techniques to the appropriate situations. Likewise, we can expect to find that other therapeutic approaches are more relevant for other circumstances.
The Broader Historical Context
Cognitive behaviorism is, first of all, a product of Western civilization. As such, it inherited a perspective that evolved out of the Renaissance and the later Industrial Revolution. This orientation ushered in a philosophical inquiry into how we know anything with any certainty. This laid the groundwork for logical empiricism as the basis of the scientific method. That particular ideology viewed the application of logic to observable data as the basic path to knowledge. Within psychology, the school of behaviorism embraced that philosophy to guide its research and practice. This is a rather abbreviated outline of a centuries-long process, and the following sections will flesh this out.
The Rise of the Scientific Perspective
With the Renaissance and the later Industrial Revolution, Western culture shifted from a faith-based to a science-based view of reality. In doing so, our civilization has exhibited a bias toward the scientific objectivity that has fostered unprecedented advances in science and technology over the past 500 years. This perspective questioned the assumptions of the older world view, including the belief in an omniscient and omnipotent Being running the show. It even called into question the reality of our own existence. In the 17th Century, Rene Descartes proposed a logical proof of our existence, declaring, “cogito, ergo sum.” (“I think, therefore I am”). Later philosophical thought gave primacy to the objective perspective by viewing rationality as the arbiter of factual certainty.
Toward Logical Empiricism
Philosophical inquiry became focused on understanding the path to knowledge (i.e., epistemology, as it is known in philosophy). Thus, it is more of a philosophy of science, rather than a broader philosophy of life. Within this movement arose branches of rationalism, empiricism, and skepticism, all embracing objective perspectives on reality. Logical empiricism took this outlook on knowing to its natural conclusion. This school views knowledge as being accrued through applying principles of logic to shared sensory experience. Thus, private personal experiences are not to be trusted, as they cannot be validated by others. Well, so much for introspection! And metaphysical constructs? Logical empiricists considered these non-sensory (and perhaps nonsense?), and thus unworthy subjects for philosophical or scientific analysis.
The Emergence of Psychology as a Scientific Discipline
During the Industrial Age, psychology emerged from its philosophical roots to proclaim its legitimacy as a scientific pursuit. In 1879, Wilhelm Wundt established the first psychological laboratory, in Leipzig, Germany. He and his followers pursued the methodical study of human experience, including sensations, thoughts, feelings, and memories. Subsequent psychological research further developed an experimental approach to the pursuit of knowledge. This trend culminated with the American Psychological Association adopted the Scientist-Practitioner model in 1949. They thus formalized science as the basis of applied psychologists’ practice. This meant that scientific research was to provide the foundation for clinical psychologists providing psychotherapy and psychological assessment.
Experimental Research vs. Case Study
Thus, the methodology of experimental psychology came to overshadow the more subjective case study approach. In the process, the objectively-oriented psychologists viewed the insights attained from case studies as mere anecdotal evidence. At best, psychologists viewed these as a source of hypotheses to be tested in more formal experiments. In this way, objective data replaced clinical intuitions as the gold standard for psychological knowledge. Psychotherapy came to be viewed as an application of scientific knowledge, rather than a healing art. Psychologists devised controlled experimental designs to establish that a particular therapeutic approach meets the “evidence-based” standard for efficacy. This emphasis on objectivity has largely relegated the more subjective exploration of the complexities of the human condition to the arts and humanities.
The Rise of Behaviorism in Psychology
From within the broad discipline of psychology emerged the school of behaviorism, with its more stringent research standards. This branch found guidance through its strict adherence to the tenets of the logical empiricism. In particular, it viewed knowledge as accruing through applying principles of logic to shared sensory experience. According to this standard, the earlier introspective methods of Wundt and Tichener were dismissed as objectively unverifiable. That is, the researchers could record, but not validate, their subjects’ report of private experiences. (This is by definition, because if it could be verified, the experience would no longer be considered private).
The Black Box of Private Experience
The strict behaviorists proclaimed that data without external validation was neither reliable nor meaningful. They considered the mind as a “black box,” concealing its contents and providing no real explanations. The behaviorists considered only the subjects’ observable behaviors legitimate targets for investigation. This methodology excluded private experience (i.e., thoughts, feelings, sensations, memories, and associations) from study. Within this constraint, behavioral psychology adopted a cause-and-effect analysis of the relationship between the environment and the behavior. In learning theory, behaviorists view behaviors as conditioned responses to external stimulus situations and reinforcement histories. Note how all these factors can be witnessed directly and consensually validated.
Enter the Cognitive Behaviorists
The cognitive behaviorists, though, reintroduced one type of private experience, cognitions, as a legitimate object of inquiry. They challenged the behaviorists’ suspicions about the validity of private experience by assuming that their subjects were reporting the truth. The “truth,” though, had one major qualification. That is, cognitive behaviorists assumed the subjects’ were reporting their own truths. These were descriptions of their own private thoughts and beliefs, even if not objectively true. Thus, cognitive behaviorists could count their subjects’ self-report of experiences as publicly verifiable, even if their experiences weren’t.
Irrational Personal Truths
In fact, the cognitive behaviorist based their therapy on the discrepancy between their clients’ personal truths and objective reality. With public consensus defining this reality, beliefs contrary to this shared reality were considered irrational. Therapists adopting this approach proposed that their clients’ irrational beliefs were causing them emotional distress. Thus, cognitive behaviorists opened up the “black box” of the mind to rediscover the inner life that had been ignored or rejected as irrelevant. In doing so, they fudged on the strict empiricism of the radical behaviorists and the earlier logical empiricists. They still retained an objective bias by focusing on the issue of rationality in their clients’ beliefs, rather than paying comparable attention to the more subjective memories, emotions, sensations, or perceptions.
Objectivity over Subjectivity
Even with its acceptance of private experiences as a legitimate object of study, cognitive behaviorism remained true to logical empiricism’s vision of knowledge. That is, it viewed knowledge as being attained through applying logic to shared sensory experience. In assuming this approach, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was extending the challenge that the Age of Reason had posed to the Age of Faith from the broad cultural level down to the individual level. In this case, rather than challenging the dogmas of religion, as Copernicus and Galileo had done in displacing the earth from the center of the universe, cognitive behaviorists were analyzing and challenging the idiosyncratic belief systems of the various individuals seeking their aid and counsel.
Humans Viewed as “Naive Scientists”
An early pioneer in cognitive behaviorism, George Kelly, presented a view of individuals as “naive scientists” who develop and test the validity of their belief systems about their world. This tenet served as a foundation for the cognitive behavioral therapies later developed by Aaron Beck, Albert Ellis, and others. Counselors and therapists using this approach judged the validity of their clients’ beliefs by the same standards of logical empiricism that they used in their own scientific research.
Cognitive Behaviorism and Freudian Psychoanalysis
A contextual review of cognitive behaviorism would be incomplete without reference to Freudian psychoanalysis. This earlier model of psychotherapy had upset Victorian sensibilities by addressing human sexuality as central to the human condition. Behaviorism did not challenge Freudian theory for its emphasis on sexuality per se. Rather, it challenged its use of various metaphysical constructs (e.g., libido, the Oedipus complex, the death instinct, the unconscious). Behaviorists argued that these concepts were so removed from sensory experience that they could be neither proven nor refuted. Thus, behaviorism did not actually disprove Freudian psychodynamics. Rather. it moved to dismiss the case on procedural grounds. Namely, behaviorists argued that the intangible Freudian concepts lacked the observability required by logical empiricism. In this way, cognitive behaviorism was able to dismiss the animal nature in humans without “getting its hands dirty.”
The Problem of Emotional Distress
That still left the realm of the emotions to address. since clients were seeking therapy, not to correct their irrational beliefs, but rather to alleviate their emotional pain and suffering. While the Freudian psychodynamic model views distressing emotions as a manifestation of frustrated instinctual drives, cognitive behaviorism considers these feelings more as byproducts of irrational belief systems.
Beyond Cognitive Behaviorism
Behaviorism has since evolved beyond the pure cognitive behavioral model in what has been characterized as the “third wave” of behaviorism. These newer approaches have delved further into the “black box” of the mind. Marsha Linehan’s dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT), Stephen Hayes’ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), and Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) have all expanded their scope beyond the narrow focus on thoughts through the analytic lens of rationality.
An Eastern Influence
These behavioral schools have drawn upon Eastern influences in developing the practice of mindfulness as cornerstones of their approaches. DBT and ACT have also deviated from behaviorism’s logical empirical foundations by addressing values and emotions. For example, they have espoused a paradoxical juxtaposition of acceptance of the current situation and commitment to change. Both of these approaches seek to cultivate a tolerance for normal suffering by incorporating the Buddhist principles of the Four Noble Truths into their perspective and practice. This contrasts with CBT’s reliance upon logical analysis to temper, if not eliminate, the negative emotions associated with the irrational beliefs.
Venturing into Subjectivity
With ACT, the challenges to the clients’ dysfunctional outlooks on life are conveyed not just through the objective lens of logic, but also through the subjectivity of analogy and metaphor. With such significant departures from the philosophical underpinnings of behaviorism, this “third wave” of behaviorism actually appears to be more of a hybrid of behavioral and experiential approaches to psychology, rather than simply an evolved behaviorism.
The Further Modification of Behaviorism
Even with these deviations from behavioral orthodoxy, the cognitive behavioral establishment has not declared these “third wave” approaches heretical. Rather, traditional cognitive behaviorists have tolerated the reformed schools and even introduced mindfulness techniques into their own practice. Traditional CBT has tended to import the techniques without incorporating the underlying principles that have supported these practices through the centuries. Such modifications strike me as akin to morphing an elephant’s trunk onto a horse: there just doesn’t appear to be a smooth integration.
An Alternative Perspective: The Way of Paradox
Now, where am I going with this review? What’s my angle? You might note my domain name is roguepsychologist, and wonder what I am up to. And you would be quite right! By placing a school of thought within a cultural context, we recognize its relativity. It takes its place among various perspectives. We can then compare the perspectives, thus revealing their limitations as well as their strengths. Such is my strategy in challenging the position of cognitive behaviorism as the prevailing model of psychotherapy.
When Life’s Paradoxes Cause Distress
While CBT provides a valid approach to alleviating distress resulting from unrealistic expectations and other irrational beliefs, this approach does not appear relevant for reconciling oneself to the inherent paradoxes of the human condition. And I would not be exerting such energy in my challenge if I did not have an alternative perspective to set forth. And in doing so, I would pose the following questions: What if the structure of our reality were not logical and rational? What if it were paradoxical, instead? And if so, how might we engage in its structure, not in the most reasonable way, but in the most enriching manner?
Beyond the Familiar Ground of Cognitive Behaviorism
I grant that the “third wave” of behaviorism has blazed a trail into this frontier (from the behavioral perspective, that is), leaving behind the familiar path of logical empiricism. Yet while this is foreign territory to the behaviorists, it is homeland for others who are steeped in experiential and humanistic traditions, particularly existentialism. I must also acknowledge that I have been relatively unfamiliar with the intricacies of these “third wave” schools, such that I was going about reinventing the wheel according to my specifications, with their ideas perhaps having some influence in the background.
Approaching Paradox from an Experiential Perspective
The “third wave” of behaviorism has thus approached the integration of behavior and experience from a behavioral perspective. In contrast, I have ventured out from a more humanistic and existential outlook for my synthesis. The tracks are parallel and at times crossing, though coming from different directions.
In developing my ideas, I cannot identify all the works that have influenced my formulations. I have attempted to give credit where credit is due, yet the linkages are not always that clear. Some of them are no doubt locked away in my own “black box.” On this website, I have aimed not so much at introducing new material. (I’ve looked everywhere under the sun, to no avail.) Rather, I seek to integrate behavioral and experiential aspects of life. Furthermore, I attempt to integrate psychological and philosophical material as a coherent whole. Hopefully, I can do so in a compelling and engaging manner.
Philosophers Calvin and Hobbes
With that being said, I want to credit the 20th/21st Century philosophers Calvin and Hobbes, as interpreted by Bill Watterson. (They are not to be confused with John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes of earlier times). Through their fumbling meanderings, they often exemplify the human struggle with the various paradoxes of life. Similar to the DBT and ACT approaches, they grapple with the paradox of being and becoming. Here, the challenge is the simultaneous acceptance of the current situation and the commitment to change. Calvin and Hobbes also explore other paradoxical dualities, such as order and freedom, security and excitement, and individuality and belonging. You can find links to these works in my web posts – but you’ll have to look for them!
How often do you stop to reflect on your place in the world and the social roles you play out on this stage? If you are like most, it’s not that often. You may follow the adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” This approach is in direct contrast to the Socratic dictum that “the unexamined life is not worth living” and his admonition to “know thyself.” Here, we find an example of contradictory advice, which I propose is a direct result of our living in a paradoxical world. As we discover in other writings on this site, we don’t need to be paralyzed by such situations. Instead, we can adopt a middle ground between the two opposing positions, in exploring not only how these social roles limit us, but also considering other available options.
Getting to Know Thyself
In exploring our usual styles of relating to others, it is important to remember that we are not the roles that we assume, even if we play them rather frequently or habitually. We may find that we alternate between various roles according to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Still, we do “volunteer” for certain roles because they fulfill our particular wants and needs. Many of these roles evolve out of how we resolve various paradoxes of life for ourselves (e.g., order vs. freedom, belonging vs. individuality, security vs. excitement, being vs. becoming, and using vs. relating). It is quite unlikely that we have come to a deliberate choice out of our contemplating these paradoxes and the meaning of life. Rather, the resolution is usually implied in how we interact with others. And even if these roles were a product of conscious choice, we have likely practiced them sufficiently that they have become a matter of habit, with our no longer being aware of them. They then operate as implicit assumptions, acting behind the scenes to guide our interactions with others. As long as these assumptions go unstated, they are quite difficult to challenge. Only when we identify them, do we consider that there are other options. Tagging these “ways of being in the world” with labels gives us the focus to assess their usefulness and to consider other available options.
Social Roles – How to Define Them?
There is nothing magical or absolute about the labels and definitions for these social roles. It is more a matter of creating them, rather than discovering them. Just as we can cut a cake into different numbers of pieces of different shapes and sizes, so too can we construct the various roles from the array of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that we experience and express. Even with this arbitrary quality, these labels provide useful “handles” for understanding ourselves. You will find that various therapists, counselors, life coaches, and self-anointed gurus differ widely in labeling and defining the common personality styles and roles. This is not haphazard. Rather, these categories are outgrowths of their perspectives on life. So, too, is it with my outlook. In particular, I make note of the differing styles we adopt and practice in wading through the “messiness” of living in a paradoxical universe. Furthermore, these roles do not occur in isolation – rather, they get expressed in our social relations. These habitual roles interact with others’ styles, often resulting in getting stuck in frustrating relationship patterns, which I have addressed as vicious cycles. Having labels and descriptions for these can help one escape from such ruts. While these labels can be a quite useful shorthand to describe common patterns, we should keep in mind that they are not things in and of themselves. Here, we want to keep in mind Alfred Korzybski’s adage, “Don’t confuse the map with the territory.”
Social Roles as Styles of Dealing with Life’s Paradoxes
In this approach, we will be defining our social roles in functional terms, according to the particular purpose toward which we are applying them. First, we define these roles according to varying tendencies for resolving life’s paradoxes: Do we seek out order and predictability, or do we reserve the freedom of keeping our options open? Do we prefer comfort and security, or do we pursue adventure and excitement? Do we live in the moment, appreciating things as they are, or do we focus on pursuing goals for improvement and fulfilling a purpose? Do we approach life and relationships in a practical sense of working together to achieve specific goals, or do we focus on relating to one another on a deeper emotional level? Do we collaborate openly with others by “laying one’s cards face up on the table,” or do we pursue our private agenda in “keeping our cards close to our vest”? Do we seek out a sense of belonging with others, or do we pursue our unique identity, “marching to the beat of a different drummer”? All of these questions tap into the paradoxes of life, for which there are no “one-size-fits-all” answers. Of course, these dualities are not forced choices between two extremes, but are two ends of a continuum, with the more adaptive approaches lying somewhere in the middle, as I discussed in my article, Muddling down a Middle Path: Wading through the Messiness of Life.
Getting Stuck in Vicious Cycle Roles
These paradoxes that shape our lives are no mere matter of philosophical debate. They get played out on the social stage on a daily basis. We find others to play out the scenes with roles that complement our own – though often not in a good way. Over time, these patterns become habitual, with little thought given to them, and even less consideration to what we can do differently. Thus, we get stuck in ruts which often bring out the worst in us, as I have discussed in my article, Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships 2.0.
Other posts involve exploring specific roles that have evolved out of my study of styles of resolving paradoxes and how these styles interact in vicious cycle patterns. Two such posts, Escaping the Victim Role and Caretaker Burnout and Compassion Fatigue, discuss specific unhealthy roles in vicious cycles and provide suggestions for breaking free from them. Future posts are in the works for transcending the Oppressor and the Rebel roles. Note that the goal of such projects is not to eliminate these roles, but to modify them to healthier versions. By offering adaptive solutions to problems and conflicts, the constructive versions allow us to venture beyond the vicious cycles and move on to other activities and social roles. The strategies and techniques specific to each social role supplement the more general tips given for escaping vicious cycle patterns, which were outlined in the Vicious Cycle article noted above.
Clusters of Related Social Roles
As I noted before, there is nothing absolute about these patterns, and thus we might look at clusters of patterns that function in much the same manner in vicious cycles. One such grouping, which I label the Oppressor cluster, encompasses the Critic, Perfectionist, Snoop, Bully, and Authoritarian roles. These represent variations on the Persecutor role identified by Steven Karpman, cited in the book, Games Alcoholics Play, by Claude Steiner. Another grouping, which I refer to as the Victim cluster, encompasses the Victim, Dependent, People Pleaser, and Martyr roles, which are versions of the Victim role in Karpman’s model. I also have identified the Rebel cluster as a variant of the Victim cluster, which encompasses the Individualist, Libertarian, Free Spirit, and Sneak social roles. I have adopted the Rescuer role in Karpman’s model as the foundation of another cluster, which also includes the Caretaker and Enabler roles. These clusters tend to complement one another in two-role and three-role vicious cycles, with Karpman’s Persecutor – Victim – Rescuer model serving as the prototype. (For a cultural and political application of this model, see my article, Vicious Cycle Roles on the Societal and Political Level.)
[whohit]the roles we assume – which ones do you play?[/whohit]
Cognitive behaviorism has generally been recognized as the current prevailing model being applied to life’s problems. It has achieved such dominance that many assume this perspective as the preferred approach for understanding human experience and behavior. Indeed, some are so deeply embedded in this worldview that they don’t even consider other possibilities. This website proposes an existential model that provides a more relevant perspective from which to address certain aspects of the human condition, particularly those related to the paradoxical aspects of life. In particular, it draws on the distinctions between objectivity and subjectivity and between problem and paradox.
The Rise of Objectivity in Western Culture
Ever since Descartes rested the proof of one’s existence on one’s ability to reason (i.e., “Cogito, ergo sum.”), Western culture has exhibited a bias toward the objective perspective. Indeed, reflective awareness, the ability to step back and reflect on our involvement with the world and the people around us, gives us the impression of a separate identity in a way that subjective immersion in the “here and now” does not present. In this way, the Western worldview has come to view objective experience as a true and accurate representation of the world out there, whereas it tends to view subjective experience as idiosyncratic perceptions, colored and perhaps distorted by the biases of the individual. Hence, we often speak of objective reality and subjective experience.
The Barren Landscape of Objectivity
While the rise of objectivity in Western culture has fostered unprecedented advances in science and technology over the past 500 years, Yet such progress has come at a high cost. In becoming increasingly embedded in civilization, we have fallen out of harmony with nature.– a modern version of expulsion from paradise for eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Perhaps this development is a recapitulation of the biblical creation story. While this may not represent an orthodox interpretation of the biblical creation story, you might say? If you’re looking for a conventional perspective, what are you doing at the Rogue Psychologist website?
The experience (or some would say illusion) of separateness fosters alienation. Our relationships with others have become more objectified, with a greater tendency to use one another, rather than relating to each other. This distinction was highlights by Martin Buber’s contrast between I-It and I-Thou relationships, respectively. In the reductionism that is an inherent aspect of the pursuit of objective or abstract knowledge, we have lost touch with our rich subjective experience. When we process our experiences, particularly in recalling the past and in anticipating the future, our mental activities often involve cognitions (i.e. thoughts and interpretations), more so than sensations. The pursuit of knowledge might be compared to searching for the bedrock of objective knowledge by scraping away the cover of dirt, including the very topsoil upon which terrestrial life depends. Is it any wonder that in this barren psychic landscape, alienated souls have forsaken a lifelong quest for meaning and settled for drug-induced trips whose durations are measured in hours, or even minutes? In their classic, “Is That All There Is?”, made famous by Peggy Lee, songwriters Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller responded to the “feeling that something was missing” with the refrain, “If that’s all there is, my friends, then let’s keep dancing. Let’s break out the booze and have a ball, if that’s all there is.”
Psychology’s Pursuit of Objective Knowledge
Psychology has largely followed this reductionist path through its emphasis on the scientist-practitioner model, in an attempt to emulate the rigors of the natural sciences in order to attain cultural legitimacy. Controlled experiments are designed to demonstrate the cause-and-effect relationships between various abstract factors, yet case studies that retain the complexities of relations are often dismissed as mere anecdotal evidence. Thus, the exploration of the intricate complexities of the human condition has been largely relegated to the arts and humanities.
The goal of this website is not the overthrow of objectivity and rationality, but rather the elevation of subjectivity to a comparable status, side-by-side with objectivity, so that we can explore how the two modes complement one another, like yin and yang. I propose that the interplay of subjective and objective perspectives on reality can point to a transcendent reality. Indeed, I undertook such an exploration in my doctoral dissertation nearly 30 years ago, when I examined the interplay of subjective and objective experience in the development of healthy selfhood. I plan to utilize this website as a means of expanding this pursuit to developing a broader understanding of the human condition – granted, a rather ambitious, if not grandiose, endeavor. In this pursuit, I am proposing paradox as a key element of the human condition, and perhaps in the makeup of the universe (Did I mention grandiose?).
Solving Problems or Embracing Paradox
When we encounter problems, our natural inclination is to look for a solution, typically using logic and reason to analyze the situation. On a cultural level, Western civilization has made remarkable advances in science and technology in applying the scientific method and the philosophy of science known as logical empiricism. But what if the dilemma we face has no rational solution? Here, we enter the realm of paradox. I cite an excerpt from my doctoral dissertation:
“Despite (and perhaps because of) our scientific inventions and discoveries, humans confront paradoxes without adaptive solutions. We are capable of projecting ourselves into the past or future, yet remain tethered to the present. We contemplate the infinite, yet cannot escape our own mortality. We are determined by our histories, yet choose our future. We are our bodies, yet we have bodies. These are all features of the human condition for which science provides no solutions. . . . It is here, where science falls short, that art speaks and perhaps comforts.” (R. Daniel, 1986)
Many are reluctant to cross that threshold into the realm of paradox, not realizing that they already live in that realm on a daily basis. Some who seek definitive, authoritative solutions are put off when they discover that these chapters in the book of life do not have definitive answers in the back of the book. Others have felt muddled and confused when presented with paradoxical phenomena from advanced disciplines. Koans (e.g., “What is the sound of one hand clapping?”) are familiar paradoxes in the Zen Buddhist tradition. In the field of physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the observation that light acts like both a particle and a wave are two frequently cited paradoxes. While such examples demonstrate the depth and breadth of paradox in the fabric of reality as we know it, they have little apparent relevance for daily life.
Paradoxes of Nature, Paradoxes of Daily Life
While I am intrigued by such examples, particularly when they point to a confluence of science and spirituality (cf. The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra and The Quantum and the Lotus by Matthieu Ricard and Trinh Xuan Thuan), I prefer to focus on paradox as it manifests itself in daily life. One of the more familiar of these paradoxes is that “you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.” While this saying can be taken quite literally, it also points to the choice between living in the moment and building for the future, or between being and becoming. Various other paradoxes permeate the human experience of daily life, as will be explored on this site. Rather than sharing vignettes from my clinical practice to illustrate such paradoxes, I prefer to cite literary examples, such as those hidden in plain sight in the comic strips of the daily newspaper. These speak to the universality of such experiences, whereas clinical case studies might be construed as deviant, if not pathological, variations of the human condition. When possible, I will provide links to the particular comic strips that illustrate the inherent paradoxes of daily life. I trust that the authors will see these citations as attempts to illuminate the profound insights in works that are often passed over as amusing diversions.
Coming Attractions
Initially, I will be submitting articles and presentations that I have authored over the past 20 years or so. One of my early submissions was taken from my PowerPoint presentation, entitled “Living Rationally in a Paradoxical Universe: Maintaining Sanity in a Crazy World, Or Trying to Fit a Square Peg into a Round Hole?” I will follow this up with other PowerPoint presentations, some of my self-help articles, and my stories and parables. I will also commit some more of my current thinking to print, with this hopefully being an ever-evolving process. I also plan to share some of my own personal experiences that have helped to shape my worldview. I eventually plan to translate my doctoral dissertation into a more vernacular language and style. My perspective has involved over time, so I will likely do some revising and updating of these works. Yet I may also leave some of these works much as I first wrote them, inviting input from blogs, perhaps to make this website more of a living document and less of a static production. I plan to pose questions to stimulate further thought among my readership, rather than suggesting that I have the definitive last word. I invite readers to share similar themes and patterns from their own perspectives, as I expect there to be a certain resonance among various traditions. Hopefully, such a process can use multiple perspectives to develop a sort of depth perception. I only ask that you respect the integrity of the outlook presented on this website, rather than attempting to subsume this orientation under your own favorite theory or model. I am seeking to establish a dialectical process in order to develop greater understanding and meaning in life. This includes the Hegelian sense of dialectics, in which a new synthesis evolves from the interaction of thesis and antithesis. Note that I am using cognitive behaviorism as the conventional wisdom or thesis to which paradoxical existentialism provides a counterpoint or antithesis. (Hence, my claim to my role as a rogue psychologist.) It would be ingenuous for me to take this stance, unless I were willing to allow the same freedom of “loyal opposition” among my readers. Feedback from others can be helpful for uncovering implicit assumptions in my perspective, which I welcome (I think!). I just ask that you strive to keep your feedback constructive and that you keep open to considering your own particular assumptions and biases. I might suggest that you take a “Jeopardy” approach, in making your observation in the form of a question, which frequently does more to illuminate issues than does criticism, constructive or otherwise.
Playing with Paradox
Much of this exploration will be undertaken in a playful manner, as I find much of academic psychology to be rather dry and boring. (I will provide references for the various ideas expressed in this website, for those who want to pursue such lines of thinking anymore serious manner.) The exploration of paradox would be lacking without the use of humor – indeed, paradox is perhaps the prime ingredient for humor. Whereas reason and logic can be useful tools, they do not provide much guidance when we are looking at issues of meaning and purpose. I address this issue in a PowerPoint presentation, entitled, “Living Rationally in a Paradoxical Universe: Maintaining Sanity in a Crazy World, Or Trying to Fit a Square Peg into a Round Hole?” This provides much of the basic framework for my explorations of the paradoxical universe on this website. This will also lead into another favorite theme of mine, which I first addressed in a self-help article about 20 years ago, entitled “Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships: Tips on How To Stop Spinning Your Wheels.” I will also post several of my therapeutic stories, including “The Man with a Monkey on His Back,” about being our own worst critic, “The Eskimo Who Lost His Art and Soul,” on the importance of being true to ourselves rather than selling out, and my Uncle Lester’s story of “The Quicksand Beds of Carumba Flats,” with implications on how to deal with stress, whether our own or that of others. I value storytelling for imparting wisdom, and I paraphrase a Sufi saying, to the effect that “If you want to change a person’s mind, you give a lecture or a discourse, but if you want to touch a person’s heart, you tell a story.”
I had intended to initiate my website on my birthdate of July 20, or Il Venti Luglio in Italian, otherwise known as “Lunatic’s Feast Day,” but was not able to get everything together so quickly, as there was a gestation process with which to contend. I will still mark this day as the inception for this endeavor, as I find its spirit resonating with the following myth set in the Middle Ages:
Have you ever wondered how craziness has gotten associated with the moon? We will probably never know for sure, as both lunacy and lunar have their common root in the same Latin word. One compelling candidate for the association has been carried on in the Tuscan feast of Il Venti Lugio (The 20th of July), otherwise known as the Lunatic’s Feast Day. This is an obscure Italian festival with its origins in the Tuscan hill towns during the Middle Ages. When the peasants observed a lunar eclipse during a severe drought and heat wave, mass hysteria broke out. They interpreted the copperish color of the partial eclipse of the moon, distorted by the shimmering heat waves of the evening air, as the moon catching on fire. Then, during the total eclipse phase, they assumed that it had become consumed. Many interpreted this development as a sign that the Apocalypse was near at hand. Relieved when the moon reappeared intact a couple of hours later, a spontaneous celebration broke out for the rest of the night. The next day a cool, soaking rain began that lasted for two whole weeks, thus breaking the drought. This served as the basis of the Church feast of Il Venti Lugio each July 20th, in which lunacy was celebrated as a prelude to regeneration and renewal. By the 17th Century the celebration had taken on a raucous pagan character, resulting in the Church officials denouncing the event and persecuting its participants during what later became known as the Tuscan Inquisition. Even though eight women were tried and drowned as sorceresses, secret societies maintained the tradition into the 20th century. Then, on this date in 1969, Neal Armstrong took “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,” with the first ever moonwalk. This heralded the revival of the festival, which now celebrates the mysterious synchronicities in nature and human experience.
Some have questioned the veracity of this account, but then, there are always those who contend that the lunar landing was an elaborate hoax. Besides, I recall Hugh Livingstone, the Eskimo sculptor in my story, The Eskimo Who Lost his Art and Soul, telling me, “Don’t confuse truth with fact.” And if anyone you tell about this feast day questions its authenticity, you can tell them that you know it’s true because you saw it on the internet.
[whohit]beyond rationality and into the realm of paradox[/whohit]