13 July 2022
The promise, at the end of the last blog, was to resume work with a discussion of the preconditions of purpose i.e., what factors facilitate or prevent people from identifying and pursuing their own purpose?
“Purpose, n. 1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; goal; aim…3. Determination; resolution...from Latin...to put forward, propose” (Morris, 1975, p. 1062).
Scanning last week’s blog, the only precedent, in this history of blogging, appeared in a short series, Choosing Victimhood (20 January – 3 February 2021). Having and holding to purpose is the antithesis of victimhood. To conceptualize one’s self as a victim is to be at a low ebb in relationship to agency—the capacity to choose and act in your own interest. And so, we approach the spectre underlying so many internal Western conflicts: selflessness versus selfishness.
In recovery from addiction, and in recovery from enabling, this issue frequently surfaces as people admit to not feeling right about their self perception of selfishness. For example, those who have loved ones in active addiction feel cruel telling their loved one that she is no longer welcome on their property when she is using. This, despite the fact that that loved one shows up at any time of day or night, unannounced, unwelcome, and often happy to argue—incoherently. Vestiges of our Christian past, and vestiges of the wokeness embraced by most universities and governments, tell us to put interest in our own lives after the interests of others. In psychology, this plays into boundary roles.
Per Walsh (2000), there are three types of boundaries we can establish: rigid, flexible, and fluid. Walsh (2000, pp. 80-81) stated that those with “...rigid boundaries tend to be intolerant of ambiguity, to have a high internal locus of control, to value predictable behaviour, and to be controlling, confrontational, and guarded.” We’ve all met this guy. (Too often in my own mirror.)
People with flexible boundaries are described as desirable, autonomous but adaptable, arbitrative, and open, while those with fluid boundaries are undesirable, tolerant of ambiguity with a high external locus of control, needing to be liked by others, impulsive, ambivalent, and prone to interpersonal withdrawal. Let’s unpack this so we can better understand the parts and the composition of these ideas.
If you have an internal locus of control, you believe you have a fair bit of sway over your own life, so you tend to take responsibility for it—one of the hallmarks of adulthood. Per Heinström (2010), “When they face a new and unpredictable situation, they trust their ability to influence it, and so the unknown appears less threatening…” In summary, that internal locus of control seems to come with and/or foster resilience and mental toughness, allowing people to function at a high level.
However, those with rigid boundaries are described, above, as having a high internal locus of control, by which can be read too high i.e., those folks may believe they have control over more aspects of life than is possible. On the other side of this locus (or place) are those with fluid boundaries. These folks have an external locus of control meaning they feel that life happens to them i.e., they tend to reject their role as agents, creating their own lives, because the causal factors of life’s events are external. It is not a large step to view yourself as a victim with such a mindset.
And if you are a helpless victim, what is the point of purpose? That is, if you believe you cannot positively impact your own trajectory, purpose has become superfluous, as have direction and goals. If this were as far as it went, victimhood would still seem a sad waste of a glorious opportunity, but it goes further. Fast.
If you accept that the nature of the human mind is to find causes, and if you embrace victimhood, then you’re soon in hot pursuit of a target on which to locate the cause of your failures. Add to this the factors discussed above, namely that, by definition, looking outside of the self for a cause of one’s own journey, is a type of selflessness (probably reflecting insufficient ego strength). Is there justification for the claim that selflessness is well paired with a weak ego?
There are at least three ideas in current circulation that support that premise. First, is Duckworth’s (2016) research indicating that talent pales next to passion + perseverance = grit. Second is Dweck’s (2016) contention that we are able to choose either a growth mindset or a fixed mindset. The relationships between Dweck and Duckworth’s research deserves a book of its own but one key is that fear, insecurity, and self-doubt prevent growth.
Thirdly, Kaufmann’s (2020, p. 12) revision of Maslow’s hierarchy tells the reader that unsatisfied needs serve no one well. “Any person, at any point in time, could become dominated by safety needs and would likely act in a predictable fashion in accordance with fundamental principles of human nature. When safety needs are thwarted, we lose trust in others and regard people with suspicion. We can very easily turn to destructive routes in order to regain safety…” (bold emphasis added).
It probably doesn’t much matter—psychologically—if you blame your mother, your teachers, or market economies for your unhappy locus. What does matter is that this external causal search is mired in resentment and hatred in compensation for all those other people you perceive as living lives of unfairly gained success. It is a desperate, fear-filled place where one feels alone, orphaned, and cheated. But, unfortunately, the turn to external sources of blame, as above, fosters victimhood consisting of a lowered sense of agency. A turn inward, however, asking how I contributed to where I am, fosters a focus on self and the nature of the world.
selfhood n. 1. The state of having a distinct identity: individuality.
selfish adj. 1. Concerned chiefly or only with oneself, without regard for the well-being of others; egoistic” (both definitions, Morris, 1975, p. 1177).
Selfhood is included, above, in contrast to victimhood. And it is with these two in mind, that I will challenge the second definition. If selfhood is the condition of being individual or unique, what part of concern for one’s uniqueness necessitates a lack of regard for others? I have tremendous respect for Morris et al. (1975) and have used them faithfully for nearly half a century. They, no less than you or I, dear reader, were positioned in history—at a time when the altruistic Christian legacy held more sway than it does today. As such, I accept their definition of selfhood but reject their definition of selfishness as anything more than an interest in one’s own life.
And immediately upon reviewing those words, I can hear more etymologically learned people arguing that associations shape meaning as much as their roots. I like roots, I like radical i.e., digging into the roots, research so I will hold with selfishness as a concern with oneself, possibly one’s own individuality.
At the top of this blog the research question posed was what factors facilitate or prevent people from identifying and pursuing their own purpose?
If our social values direct people away from a concern with their own well-being, isn’t this a factor preventing people from identifying their own individuality and thus from discovering their own purpose? Obviously, this is now a rhetorical question as this blog has focused on building reasons why an interest in one’s own life is actually an empirically supported virtue to be pursued and admired to as great an extent as possible. I recently read a good distinction, which is here amended, between the shades of selfishness: self-interest, selfishness, self-care is taking as much as one needs; greed is taking more (Melemis, 2015). Per my understanding, a healthy interest in one’s self and life is the natural means to actualization, the reaching of one’s fullest potential. In a parallel vein of reasoning, the closer we become to realizing the self, the more care we demonstrate for the world and others. Odd that. Or is it?
Dan Chalykoff is working toward an M.Ed. in Counselling Psychology and accreditation in Professional Addiction Studies. He writes these blogs to increase (and share) his own evolving understandings of ideas. Since 2017, he has facilitated two voluntary weekly group meetings of SMART Recovery. Please email him (danchalykoff@hotmail.com) to be added to or removed from the Bcc’d emailing list.
References
Dweck, C. S. (2016). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Ballantine Books.
Heinström, J. (2010). From fear to flow. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/internal-locus#:~:text=People%20with%20an%20internal%20locus,less%20threatening%20(ibid.).
Kaufman, S. B. (2020). Transcend: The new science of self-actualization. TarcherPerigee Books.
Melemis, S. M. (2015). Relapse prevention and the five rules of recovery. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 88, pp. 325-332.
Morris, W. (Ed.) (1975). The Heritage illustrated dictionary of the English language. American Heritage Publishing Co, Inc.
Walsh, J. (2000). Recognizing and managing boundary issues in case management. Case Management Journals Vol 2:2.
Comments