Compassion

New York Times writer Tara Parker-Pope on self-compassion:

The research suggests that giving ourselves a break and accepting our imperfections may be the first step toward better health. People who score high on tests of self-compassion have less depression and anxiety, and tend to be happier and more optimistic. Preliminary data suggest that self-compassion can even influence how much we eat and may help some people lose weight.

This idea does seem at odds with the advice dispensed by many doctors and self-help books, which suggest that willpower and self-discipline are the keys to better health. But Kristin Neff, a pioneer in the field, says self-compassion is not to be confused with self-indulgence or lower standards.

This being the Times, this thoroughly caveated claim nevertheless returned suspicion and denial in the comments:

This sounds like it could quickly morph into another version of the everybody’s a winner self-esteem movement.

NO ONE in the world hates me more than I hate myself.

That said, a serious question: if we don’t hold ourselves to high performance standards, how can we, ethically and morally, expect others to meet those standards?

Oh good grief! Americans think so highly of themselves as it is.

and perhaps most eloquently,

I understand her point though don’t agree with it. I may be quite logical at a cognitive level if I self-loath, and quite logical at a reptilian-brain level if I still engage in survival rather than suicidal behaviours. It’s an unhappy tension at times, but at least it’s a familiar neighbourhood.

But these complaints are all either irrelevant or address themselves to questions the piece already answered. I suspect that they are what R. A. Wilson would call “robot responses”: post hoc rationalizations for reactive emotions. There are a lot of reasons why one wouldn’t agree with the philosophy espoused in the piece, but after reading The National Review for many years, one particular reason springs immediately to mind.

To a psyche fixed in the psychodynamics of childhood, the admonition to practice “self-compassion” will be misinterpreted one way and then the other, because its meaning is outside the range of possible ideas; indeed, it’s not possible to phrase the suggestion in a syntax that parses for such a person.

“How can I be fair with myself? I’m not the one responsible for the judgment!”

If one’s raison d’etre is to preserve for oneself, by any means necessary, the role of the metaphysically-secure dependent, then one will accept the judgments and imprecations that came with that role, and imagine that an honest evaluation of the self can come from nowhere else.

The foundation of self-compassion is knowing what can reasonably be expected of a person. If you find this idea challenging, start by asking yourself — with fearless honesty — what you can reasonably expect of others. This is a rewarding pastime in itself, because it leads to stressing out less over how others act. But if you have a sense of fairness, you will also eventually find it hard not to apply the same standard to yourself, and that’s where the real dividend is: shrugging off the part of our pain and shame that isn’t just useless and unproductive, but based in non-reality.

This isn’t a trivial exercise in navel gazing. Only after we are fair to ourselves can we confront the social forces that profit from our primitive imprinting.

Advertisement