A Dr. B. re-post from our long-ago archives -
"Why do I do all these things for Jim, Dr Bliss, when for the past six months I can't stand his presence and I can't even stand the way he eats? Is it because I feel guilty, or have no self-esteem?"
Guilty? Self-esteem? It's of interest to me how the morality-free zone of psycho-babble in our popular culture can obscure the persistence of the old virtues, even among those who live them.
The language of duty, loyalty, honor, self-sacrifice, endurance, perseverance, reliability, courage, self-reliance - the things Bill Bennet wrote about - has been replaced by a language of "feeling" and "guilt" in some strange and ill-informed distortion of psychoanalytic understandings.
Indeed, "my feelings" appear to have replaced the virtues to the point that "not being true to your feelings" is like a modern-day sin. And yes, I guess it is a sin - if you regard yourself as a god.
But back to my patient. I know her well enough to know that she was raised with the sturdy Mid-Western Presbyterian virtues, internalized them, and lives them. Her kindness and thoughfulness with her husband are driven by character (in the old sense of the word) - not guilt, and surely not, at the moment anyway, by "loving feelings." For her, it would not be so much "guilt" in betraying her character - it would be "failure." And not life failure, but a failure to be who she was built to be.
The point I want to make is not about my patient's psychology, or how she ought to deal with her situation. That's another subject. It's about the pop-psych assumptions that are in the air that would cause a person who "does the right thing" despite her emotions of the moment is somehow afflicted by "guilt" or some other pathology (although guilt is not a pathology), rather than being a mature person whose habits of character are stronger than her emotions.
I sometimes joke that if we were all true to our feelings, we'd all be in jail.
A few take-home points:
- Distrust the elevation of "feeling" over character. It is immature. That is not to say that we should ignore our emotions - it's just that they are not sacred, they are seldom what they seem, and they can be very poor guides to life. Contrary to popular misunderstanding, psychoanalytic thinking does not make emotions sacred: they are just surface data points.
- Guilt is neither a pathology nor a sin. In my experience, guilt is usually well-earned. So-called "neurotic guilt" is a psychological issue for some, but those with plenty of it never know they have it, without therapy.
- "Character" - meaning virtuousness, not personality type - is culturally-defined, and transmitted mainly via family with, one would hope, the support of genetics and of the surrounding culture.
- The only definition of "failure" I have is failure of character. We should feel like a failure when we fail in the virtues that we have been raised on - assuming that they are a worthy set of virtues. When we fail, we should repent, seek forgiveness, beat ourselves up a bit, contemplate our shortcomings, learn, and move forward.
- Despite the prevalence of amoral, pop-psychological language, decent people still live, or struggle to live, according to the time-honored virtues. If they do not - keep your distance and beware, because they are "coming from a different place" and are playing by a different rule-book.
