Febod
4th April 2006, 06:25
Hey everyone, I write for a student newspaper on my college campus. Here is an article I just wrote, so please comment, and be honest.
The Politics of Self-Esteem
Self-esteem is a concept to which pop psychology gives much attention, with little clarification. We have all heard of self-esteem, but most only have a vague idea of what it actually is, which is worse than it going unnoticed; it has become trivialized.
We find low self-esteem at the root of a wide range of disorders such as depression, anxiety, drug addiction, and anorexia. But perhaps self-esteem has effects which have even more breadth and depth than originally thought, like in our political views.
Dr. Nathaniel Branden, a pioneer in the psychology of self-esteem, defines it as the disposition to experience oneself as competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and as being worthy of happiness. Thus, self-esteem has two parts: self-efficacy and self-respect. A person with high self-esteem has a sense of confidence in the face of lifes challenges, and has the sense of being worthy of happiness.
One primary component of self-esteem is the concept of self-responsibility, or the ability to take responsibility for our own actions. This does not mean that we must accept responsibility for all problems that arise, but rather it means we accept responsibility for only those issues that are within our control.
Thus, self-responsibility presupposes that we must first mark what is outside of our control, and what is within our control and act accordingly. Low self-esteem is displayed when we repudiate responsibility for issues that are in our control or when we take responsibility for issues that are outside of our control. A common term for this is denialwe deny what we do and do not control.
When we initiate force on others through government, we are trying to control the minds of others, but ultimately, the only mind we have control over is our own. As a result, using government coercion as a means to an end is, at some level, the result of low self-esteem. Similarly, criminals who use force as a means to an end are of low self-esteem. Rapists, murderers, and white-collared criminals are not happy people. There is no difference, in principle, between forcing people directly through traditional criminal acts and forcing people through the institution of government.
Dissenters will protest to say that they do not wish to control the minds of others, only their actions. It is true that the actions of men are controllable: men can be killed, beaten, or imprisoned. However, there is no divorce between thought and action regarding the life of man, for better or worse.
Mans volition is his only means of survival, so to place the threat of force on man would be to stifle his means of survival by making him act against his own judgment. This is equivalent to destroying his capacity to live, like taking away food or oxygen, although be it a slower and less obvious process. When we only wish to control action, we are implying that we wish to control thought. The obstruction of action is the obstruction of thought.
Sure, we do have some control over anothers mind, but only in the loosest meaning of the word control; we only have indirect control over others. If you wish to change someones mind or actions, then use the power of persuasion, not force. Not only is this healthier for you, but its healthier for others as well.
Moreover, if we hold ourselves responsible for matters that are beyond our control, we will inevitably fail our expectations; we will never, ever succeed in controlling those things we cannot control. This is why so many political policies fail, because they wish to control the uncontrollable. Simple.
We do not have control over anothers bank account. We do not have control over the welfare of other nations. We do not control what people put into their bodies. A lapse in self-esteem is at the base of these aspirations.
With all the political debates we see on television, or hear on the radio, or experience in out own lives, we almost never see someone change their political beliefs; if it happens, it usually involves months or years of deep, inner transformation. Perhaps this is due to the fact that our political opinions do not only reflect our thoughts about government, but also the thoughts we have about ourselves.
Thank you.
The Politics of Self-Esteem
Self-esteem is a concept to which pop psychology gives much attention, with little clarification. We have all heard of self-esteem, but most only have a vague idea of what it actually is, which is worse than it going unnoticed; it has become trivialized.
We find low self-esteem at the root of a wide range of disorders such as depression, anxiety, drug addiction, and anorexia. But perhaps self-esteem has effects which have even more breadth and depth than originally thought, like in our political views.
Dr. Nathaniel Branden, a pioneer in the psychology of self-esteem, defines it as the disposition to experience oneself as competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and as being worthy of happiness. Thus, self-esteem has two parts: self-efficacy and self-respect. A person with high self-esteem has a sense of confidence in the face of lifes challenges, and has the sense of being worthy of happiness.
One primary component of self-esteem is the concept of self-responsibility, or the ability to take responsibility for our own actions. This does not mean that we must accept responsibility for all problems that arise, but rather it means we accept responsibility for only those issues that are within our control.
Thus, self-responsibility presupposes that we must first mark what is outside of our control, and what is within our control and act accordingly. Low self-esteem is displayed when we repudiate responsibility for issues that are in our control or when we take responsibility for issues that are outside of our control. A common term for this is denialwe deny what we do and do not control.
When we initiate force on others through government, we are trying to control the minds of others, but ultimately, the only mind we have control over is our own. As a result, using government coercion as a means to an end is, at some level, the result of low self-esteem. Similarly, criminals who use force as a means to an end are of low self-esteem. Rapists, murderers, and white-collared criminals are not happy people. There is no difference, in principle, between forcing people directly through traditional criminal acts and forcing people through the institution of government.
Dissenters will protest to say that they do not wish to control the minds of others, only their actions. It is true that the actions of men are controllable: men can be killed, beaten, or imprisoned. However, there is no divorce between thought and action regarding the life of man, for better or worse.
Mans volition is his only means of survival, so to place the threat of force on man would be to stifle his means of survival by making him act against his own judgment. This is equivalent to destroying his capacity to live, like taking away food or oxygen, although be it a slower and less obvious process. When we only wish to control action, we are implying that we wish to control thought. The obstruction of action is the obstruction of thought.
Sure, we do have some control over anothers mind, but only in the loosest meaning of the word control; we only have indirect control over others. If you wish to change someones mind or actions, then use the power of persuasion, not force. Not only is this healthier for you, but its healthier for others as well.
Moreover, if we hold ourselves responsible for matters that are beyond our control, we will inevitably fail our expectations; we will never, ever succeed in controlling those things we cannot control. This is why so many political policies fail, because they wish to control the uncontrollable. Simple.
We do not have control over anothers bank account. We do not have control over the welfare of other nations. We do not control what people put into their bodies. A lapse in self-esteem is at the base of these aspirations.
With all the political debates we see on television, or hear on the radio, or experience in out own lives, we almost never see someone change their political beliefs; if it happens, it usually involves months or years of deep, inner transformation. Perhaps this is due to the fact that our political opinions do not only reflect our thoughts about government, but also the thoughts we have about ourselves.
Thank you.