970x125
Many people come to therapy wanting to work on a low self-concept or low self-esteem.
There are certainly many side effects of not having a strong self-esteem. We may speak up less at work or in a relationship. We may too easily compromise on our values or authentic wants. We may default into people-pleasing modalities because we feel that we do not have much to offer or add to a thought or conversations.
In short, we may suffer from a deflated ego or sense of self.
From this level, building someone up, or reframing their sense of self, is crucially important. We may suffer from out-of-date or obsolete “data” about ourselves that needs correction. A lot of therapeutic work can help in this way to recover normal ego strength and functioning, and get a better, more accurate view of ourselves.
This can then be turned into strategies for enacting this in the real world. We do deserve that raise. We are entitled to more equity in our relationship. We are “good enough” as a parent, sibling, or child.
When Identity Is Fixed
The trouble arises not in good-enough ego strength, but when we may develop a notion of ourselves that is fixed, rigid, and immutable.
Freud has a powerful statement to this effect: “Whatever you say you are, you are not.” The point here is that often our notion of self or our identity (so prized in modern Western culture) obscures broader parts of ourselves, and can be a defence against these “less desired” parts.
This can have many consequences. The most easily identified is that it denies the fostering of less dominant traits, and thus can counter a natural evolution of self. Think of the famous quote by Whitman: “I contain multitudes.” Often, the over-performance or over-identification with one notion of ourselves can suppress new and interesting parts of ourselves that might actually give us pleasure or make us more interesting.
Identity, thus, often operates as a “scarcity logic.” We think that if we bracket our dominant version or ourselves, we will be “watered down,” and maybe suffer interpersonal or career consequences.
Take a notion of strength vs. vulnerability. Having a strong notion of ourselves as someone with grit and determination may feel threatened by acknowledging a part of ourselves as insecure or vulnerable. The opposite may also be true. Someone who often identifies as empathic, caring, and supportive may feel at odds with anger or aggression in themselves. A scarcity model sees these new parts as subtractive—as taking away from our core identity.
An additive model or “no bad parts” model sees all parts of the self as contributions to an evolving whole, perhaps even better defining or “rounding out” a more dominant identity. After all, someone who is highly empathic also needs to be able to assert themselves, set boundaries, and protect against being taken advantage of.
Preserving a Fixed Identity Can Be Energy-Consuming
Psychoanalyst Adam Phillips argues that another problem with adhering to a fixed or strong notion of identity means that we constantly have to work to protect, perform, and defend that identity. This takes labour and energy, similar to the maintenance of a role in a play. Remaining consistent, in other words, is draining.
Phillips often speaks of this as a “fundamentalist” part of ourselves that can react to threat with anger and violence. Think of the way that people react online to being attacked for the contradictions in their performance as political identities.
Being able to acknowledge self-contradictions in our identities may feel weak or like a defeat, but ultimately can relieve us of the pressure to perform ourselves in all interpersonal situations. Think of the relief possible from being a teacher who doesn’t know an answer or a parent allowing themselves to be ambivalent about their children.
Ultimately, the ability to resist a fixed identity or notion of self can offer us a more truthful version of ourselves and make us more flexible and resilient in interpersonal scenarios.
