One of the basic tenets of Alfred Adler’s theory is that most social realities are fictions – and they are either socially useful fictions, or else socially useless (harmful) ones. This “psychology of ‘as-if,’” which Adler adopted from the philosopher Hans Vaihinger, is similar to the post-modern or social constructivist way of thinking, and says that common-sense (or consensual) reality is usually the healthiest basis for an individual’s construction of social reality. The closer to common-sense thinking we remain, the healthier our beliefs tend to be. An over-reliance on “private logic,” in Adler’s view, is a mark of pathology.Continue Reading No, We’re Not “Divided” – Some of Us Are Simply Lost from Social Reality
On the fourth of my trips to Adler’s Vancouver campus last fall, I came before the Canadian border officer, as I had each time before. I was ready for the questions about why I was coming to Canada, and gave the same explanation as previously – that I had been asked to teach a class at our Vancouver campus which was being done primarily by videoconference but required a certain number of in-person sessions to be taught. This time, the officer looked at me with a look of slightly injured pride and asked, “Couldn’t they get a Canadian to do that?”
I have been reminded of that question in the past week as I have read about the response of Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, to the sudden restrictions on travel and immigration imposed by the Trump administration, and in response to the horrific killings of six people at a mosque in Quebec. Each time, he has referred to “Canadians” rather than to “Canada,” in his responses:
To those fleeing persecution, terror and war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength…
Diversity is our strength, and religious tolerance is a value that we, as Canadians, hold dear. Muslim-Canadians are an important part of our national fabric, and these senseless acts have no place in our communities, cities and country.
While Trudeau has garnered praise as an individual leader for his responses, they struck me as very Canadian responses nonetheless. They are also very Adlerian responses, because Alfred Adler and Rudolf Dreikurs emphasized people working together and feeling a part of a community, rather than people trusting to a nationalistic, ethnic, religious, or cultural identity. As Eva Dreikurs Ferguson put it:
Because Adler considered that each human is part of a social community, our sense of self is a function of our social identity. The primary need of all human beings is to feel belonging, to have a place, in the social community. In the infant, that community is the family. As the person moves into an increasingly larger sphere, the social community to which he or she seeks to feel belonging is increasingly broad. The ultimate social community to which an adult seeks to belong is the human species as a whole, as part of an enlarged sense of one’s own humanness. (Dreikurs Ferguson, 1984, p.4).
My experience with Canadians has supported the notion that they take responsibility as people for the society they create, and for its values. They are pragmatic – like when they decided that using pennies was inefficient, and decided to round each cash transaction to the nearest nickel; or when they decided that people can use whatever language they like to conduct business but that they won’t require anyone else to learn that language. They do what works, while respecting people in the process. These are the characteristics they have in mind when they proudly refer to themselves as Canadians.
The attitude carries over even into provincial identity, as in the case of one 94-year old woman riding the SeaBus ferry when I rode it – who introduced herself as “a proud British Columbian!”
Americans, by contrast, look to the entity they have created as “America” to define their values, and to measure and judge the values of others. We talk about “Liberty” and other “American ideals,” but we easily level the charge of being “Un-American” or “Un-patriotic” against those with whom we may disagree. I don’t often hear people describing themselves as “a proud American,” much less “a proud Illinoisan.” We spend a great deal of mental energy and public discourse deciding what “America” means and how we shall treat those who disrespect this nation and its symbols. That is what gives us the peculiar recent scene of an American physically assaulting other Americans who were burning the American flag in constitutionally-protected protest, and being hailed as a “hero” for doing so. This is reminiscent of the story of Barbara Frietchie in Whittier’s poem: “’Shoot, if you must, this old gray head / But spare your country’s flag,’ she said.” We tend as a nation to treat our symbols as being more valuable than our people. That may well be part of what people have in mind when they use the term “ugly American.” We tend to believe that we are “exceptional” just because we were born in the USA. And that makes us exceptionally conceited, in the eyes of many others in the world.
This focus on “America,” at the expense of a focus on “Americans,” is what gives us intolerance masquerading as pride, cruelty masquerading as strength, and slogans masquerading as policy. “Make America great again” and “America first” reflect nothing of our values, actions, or beliefs as Americans. They reflect a poorly defined nationalistic identity (often a white Christian heterosexual national identity) that is seen as the be-all and the end-all – as the source, rather than the goal, of our pride and our efforts. And which, incidentally, is quite vulnerable to being hijacked to serve purposes of power, exclusion, and spite. The hashtag “#MAGA” is too often appended to online expressions of hate, resentment, distrust, disparagement, and distortion.
I think we need to spend more time thinking about what we, as Americans, stand for and believe, and less time talking about what is “good for America” or “true to America.” Those ways of thinking have given us the McCarthy inquisitions and blacklists, wars, suffering, and death. And now those ways of thinking threaten to give the rest of the world a very negative image of our people as a nationalistic, jingoistic, judging, selfish, superiority-seeking group of human beings.
We should not need a giant green statue – weeping or not – to define our attitude toward newcomers to our land. America is what Americans believe, say, and do. “America First” and “America Strong” are meaningless without considering what Americans believe, do and say. We need to look within ourselves, and examine our values toward other human beings – toward our neighbors – whether down the street or across the globe.
Dreikurs Ferguson, E. (1984). Adlerian theory: An introduction. Chicago: Adler University.
I traveled to the Illinois State Capitol this week with a busload of faculty, staff, and students from Adler School of Professional Psychology, for a rally and march in support of SB 10, the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act, which passed the Illinois Senate earlier this year but did not pass in the Illinois House. The hope was that it would be taken up by the House during the veto session, and would overcome the perceived resistance of some religious groups, particularly of traditionally African-American churches. Continue Reading October 22, 2013 Rally for Illinois Marriage Equality
In the latest example of what are becoming all-too-frequent acts of unspeakable horror, homemade bombs killed three people and seriously wounded dozens more at the beloved Boston Marathon this week. The act itself seems to fit the definition of terrorism perfectly: an indiscriminate strike at ordinary, innocent people in a moment of national celebration, forever tainting the memory of the event, and forever changing the lives of thousands or millions of people who had to witness it, even apart from those directly impacted.
Now that (as of the moment) one of the suspected bombers has been killed, and another is still at large, the media have seized upon any story they can find. In doing so, they spoke to the uncle of the suspected bombers, who gave the reporters his unvarnished opinion about the crime (this from an Associated Press story):
Asked what he thought provoked the bombings, Tsarni said: “Being losers, hatred to those who were able to settle themselves. These are the only reasons I can imagine of. Anything else, anything else to do with religion, with Islam, it’s a fraud, it’s a fake.”
I’m ready to rant. I suppose that my participation in the 60th Anniversary celebrations and commencement at the Adler School of Professional Psychology has crystallized my feelings about the current state of our nation and world.
This will definitely be a TL;DR (“too long, didn’t read”) entry if you’re the type of person put off by length. But try to bear with me. Continue Reading The Stupidity of Selfishness
Toward the end of Alfred Adler’s life, he published a book titled Social Interest – A Challenge for Mankind. About thirty years later, his colleague Rudolf Dreikurs published Social Equality: The Challenge of Today. It seems that mankind needs to be reminded of the importance of these two closely related concepts.Continue Reading Social Interest – Still a Challenge for Our Time
On February 24th and 25th, the Child Guidance Center of Adler School of Professional Psychology will be hosting a Positive Discipline program, Teaching Parenting the Positive Discipline Way, at the Adler School of Professional Psychology. Continue Reading Adler Child Guidance Center Parenting Trainer Workshop
Economic decisions can trump ethical ones
Today’s New York Times has a guest column by two management experts who have studied ethical decision-making in business. Their findings suggest that the line of reasoning that fines and penalties should deter unethical behavior is not borne out by research. Instead, these measures seemed to encourage irresponsibility because they led to makng choices solely on the basis of gain or loss, instead of on the basis of right and wrong::
“An economic analysis would predict that the threat of sanctions would increase compliance with the agreement. Instead, participants who faced a potential fine cheated more, not less, than those who faced no sanctions. With no penalty, the situation was construed as an ethical dilemma; the penalty caused individuals to view the decision as a financial one.”
This is relevant to everyday decisions in business as well as the overall way of thinking about safety and responsibility. On the one hand,, it suggests that deregulation should not lead to any increase in unethical behavior, because fines and penalties don’t act as deterrents. On the other hand, it also suggests that the “invisible hand” of the market would not serve as much of a deterrent to unsafe or unethical behavior, either. The argument that companies would not knowingly risk expensive disasters because they would hurt the bottom line doesn’t seem to have been borne out by last year’s BP oil spill. Instead, it suggested that a combination of accepting risk and diffusion of responsibility among the contractors did indeed lead to cutting corners and trying to save a few dollars in profit, leading to the disaster we all saw.
Diffusion of responsibility is the concept that was described in the social psychology research that followed the murder of Kitty Genovese, a New York resident, in the 1960’s. Researchers used it to explain why none of the witnesses called police or tried to intervene: everyone assumed that it was someone else’s responsibility. As we hear about BP suing its contractors over the explosion and spill, I’m reminded of the theory. No doubt, the attorneys who litigate the case will want to turn that psychological theory into a financial reality by establishing that BP had a right to expect its contractors to act responsibly, but was not responsible for ensuring that they did.
So what are we to do if neither the threat of fines nor the threat of economic losses seems to deter irresponsible or unethical behavior? Are we doomed to endure more Enrons and Deepwater Horizons? Perhaps the idea of social interest, Alfred Adler’s central concept, can help. Being aware of the effect of our behavior on others, and of having a responsibility to contribute to the common good as a central purpose of life, will help us to serve as responsible consumers, investors, leaders, and neighbors.
You may also know this as the Golden Rule.
I was asked to be a part of an Adler School of Professional Psychology Student Government event that took place yesterday and today at the school. Six faculty members were asked to talk about a case (taken from the DSM-IV Casebook) using six different theoretical viewpoints. The theories presented were cognitive-behavioral therapy, trauma-focused therapy, Adlerian theory, Theodore Millon’s bio-psycho-social theory, psychodynamic theory, and family systems theory. The fictitious case used was called “A Child is Crying,” and it described a 15-year old girl who had been the target of abuse, and who became depressed, withdrawn, and said she was hearing the voice of a child crying.
I was honored to be asked to present the Adlerian viewpoint – after all, it is the Adler School, and there were three other Adlerian faculty members in the audience. I talked about what could be inferred about the girl’s views of life, herself, and other people, and the possible meaning and purpose of her behaviors. Looking at the same case from six different viewpoints was a great opportunity for us to help students to learn more about the skill of case conceptualization, which is the basis for treatment planning. Hopefully, the students thought so too, and found the presentation valuable. It was a very enjoyable experience for me.
Counseling and psychotherapy are often used interchangeably, which can be confusing to people seeking help. Most of us who work in the field tend to use the two terms a little differently. Counseling is usually used to refer to getting help for less severe problems or for situational issues. Psychotherapy is usually used to describe a process that relies more on the relationship between therapist and client to lead to deeper or more lasting changes.
One way to look at it is that psychotherapy is treatment for a disorder. In that situation, there are symptoms that are interfering with a person’s overall functioning, and therapy is designed to relieve the symptoms and improve functioning. Counseling, on the other hand, is intended to foster personal growth, help a person make a decision, assist with future planning (for example, about a career decision), or attain greater happiness. It may also help a person to figure out how to resolve a troublesome situation, such as a workplace problem or an unhappy relationship.Continue Reading Is it Counseling or Psychotherapy?