When reading popular psychology and self-help books one often encounters that the aim of the writer is to help the readers 'to get it right'. What this means varies from book to book: it can be about becoming self-confident, more creative, less anxious, making better relationship choices, being less of a slacker, and so on.
The success of these works relies in their capacity to make people believe that they can actually offer them what they (often mistakenly) think they need. As with all simple solutions, these ones are also bullshit. But their popularity lies exactly in this. They do not do the careful analysis needed for proper treatment, they do not adjust for individual differences, and they do not tell their readers that what they seek is not achievable, or that for moral reasons they shouldn't achieve it. Although this might often be the case.
The idea behind this claim is always one of the following: (1) that everyone, independently of personal differences has the same potential to be (x) - substitute the desired trait in question in place of x; (2) that there is a norm of behavior and of feeling which everyone should aim to achieve - say, there is a norm of being social enough, of not being anxious, of being a happy person for most of the time, etc.
These assumptions then get coupled up with (3) the illusion of there being one more-or-less complicated recipe. You only have to think through it. And don't think too hard! God forbid, that you should actually think hard and long. The book isn't gonna sell if it can't be read on the train or in the evening before going to sleep. Also, it won't be popular if you have to think in a way that you aren't used to.
We can point out the following problems with the above: regarding (1), it can and should be admitted that there are individual differences both in emotions, in the reactions people have, in their interpersonal relations and skills, and in a host of other important personal qualities. Why then assume that (1) is true? Because it makes readers believe that they don't have to accept themselves, or work hard on realizing what would make them happy. Instead, they are led to believe that it is fine to want to live in the same way that others do or popular stereotypes suggest. These books do not make people reflective and make them think about whether their preferences are the ones they should stick to. They just affirm that they are, and they can actually be fulfilled, by everyone, in the same way.
The problem with (2) is similar. It suggests that it would be normal for everyone to have the same feelings towards the same things. We all should like funny series. We all should like dancing. We all should appreciate deep thoughts. We all should find poetry a bit dull and outdated, except if it is really easy to understand and is about love or emotional suffering. But why would this be true? Is there any harm in having very different preferences in social matters? If one co-worker is happy being silent, thinking about his own affairs, should she adjust herself to the preferences of the talkative people? Don't get me wrong, I'm one of the talkative, community seeking ones. And I can also see reasons for fostering community centered activities. They help exercise abilities which work well only in groups (like reasoning and planning), they help a lot for the more socially inclined people, the more insecure people can get reassured, and interaction also fosters a sense of community and leads to commitment. But does this mean that only these things matter or these things can only be achieved in one way? Of course not.
I'm not going to waste much effort on (3). Any person of a more mature frame of mind knows that there are no magical overall solutions. The interesting thing about life is exactly the multitude of little social-engineering tasks we are faced with. And of course if we don't like to bother with these we can devise good strategies on how to get into the sorts of situations we are comfortable with. But how you can do that while still getting good results for yourself will have to be figured out by you.
No comments:
Post a Comment