The desire for approval

You are all caught up in the need for approval. You live thinking about how you can be loved by other people, how you can be recognized by other people. Even the path of the educator, which it would seem you chose yourself, may be a life of “the me that others wish to know” a life that has the objective of being recognized by others. – Ichiro Kishimi

 

Philosopher: Newborns are incapable of living by their own power. It is due to the constant devotion of other people–principally their mothers–that they are eventually able to sustain themselves. We are alive here and now because we had the love of our mother or father, and because there was devotion.

Youth: That’s true. There was an unsurpassably beautiful, selfless love.

Philosopher: But if we change the viewpoint, the love here involves a very troublesome matter that cannot be completely settled with the beautiful bond between parent and child. No matter how much we reign supreme at the center of the world during childhood, we are dependent on our parents to stay alive. Our parents have power over the life of this “me,” and if we are abandoned by our parents, we will die. Children are intelligent enough to understand this. And at some point, they realize: It is because I am loved by my parents that I can go on living.

Youth: Undoubtedly.

Philosopher: And it is exactly at that point in time that children choose their own lifestyles. What kind of place is this world in which they live, what kind of people inhabit it, and what about the children themselves–what kind of people are they? They choose their attitude toward life of their own accord. Do you understand what this fact means?

Youth: No, I don’t.

Philosopher: When we choose our lifestyle, its objective can only be to find out “how I can be loved.” We all choose a “lifestyle for being loved” as a survival strategy that is directly linked to our lives.

Youth: A lifestyle for being loved?

Philosopher: Children are excellent observers. They think about the environment in which they have been placed and take the measure of the personalities and dispositions of their parents. If they have siblings, they surmise the positional relationships between them, take stock of their personalities, and consider which “me” will be loved; and on the basis of all these aspects, they choose their lifestyle. For example, at this point, there are children who choose the lifestyle of the “good child” who obeys his parents. And conversely, there are those who choose the lifestyle of the “bad child,” who opposes, rejects, and rebels against almost everything.

Youth: But why? If they turn into the “bad child,” they won’t stand a chance of being loved, will they?

Philosopher: This is a point that is frequently misunderstood. Children who cry, get angry, and shout in rebellion are not incapable of controlling their emotions. Actually, they control their emotions rather too well, and turn them into action. Because they have the intuition that unless they go that far, they will never gain their parents’ love and attention, and their very lives will be endangered.

Youth: So that’s a survival strategy too!

Philosopher: That’s right. A “lifestyle for being loved” is, in all respects, a self-centered lifestyle of garnering attention from others however possible, and searching out how one can stand, however possible, at the center of the world. But that’s not all. That “how I can be loved,” which is rooted in the survival strategies of your childhood, has probably become a criterion of the lifestyle you have now. 

Youth: What did you say!?

Philosopher: In the truest sense of the word, you still have not achieved self-reliance. You are still stuck in a lifestyle of being someone’s child. If you want to assist in your students’ self-reliance and hope to become a true educator, first you must be self-reliant yourself.

Youth: How can you make such assumptions!? I have entered the teaching profession and I live in that social circle. I have chosen my work of my own accord, I support myself on my own earnings, and I have never asked my parents for money or anything like that. I already am self-reliant!

Philosopher: But you do not love anyone yet.

Youth: Argh!!

Philosopher: Self-reliance is not an economic issue or a work issue. It is an attitude toward life, an issue of lifestyle. At some point, the time will come when you resolve to love someone. That will be when you achieve separation from your childhood lifestyle and achieve true self-reliance. Because it is through loving others that we at last become adults.

Youth: But I am self-reliant! I am not reliant on my parents anymore! Wanting to be loved by them never even crosses my mind! Instead of entering the profession my parents had hoped for, I worked for low pay at the university library, and now I am moving forward on the path of the educator.

Philosopher: You have one sibling, an older brother, am I right?

Youth: Yes. My brother is taking over the printing plant that our father runs.

Philosopher: It seems that following the same path as your family did not sit right with you. The important thing to you was “something different from everyone else.” If you went into the same line of work as your father and brother, you would not be able to garner attention and you would not be able to realize your own worth. But it goes beyond work. From early childhood onward, since your brother was older than you, no matter what you did he had more power and more experience, and you never had the slightest chance of winning. According to Adler, “In general, the youngest child chooses a path that differs completely from the other members of this family.”1

Youth: Then what about my brother? What sort of tendencies does he have?

Philosopher: For the first-born child, and also for the only child, the greatest privilege may be that one had a time in which one monopolized his or her parents’ love.” Later-born children do not have the experience of monopolizing their parents. They always have a rival who is ahead of them, and in many cases, they are placed in competition relationships. Yet the first-born child who has monopolized his or her parents’ love will be forced to come down from that position on the birth of a brother or sister. The first-born child who does not cope with this setback satisfactorily will hope to someday regain that seat of power. Adler refers to this as being a “worshipper of the past” who creates a lifestyle that is conservative, and is pessimistic with regard to the future.

Youth: Then what about the second child? In my case, I am the second child, but also the last-born. What sorts of tendencies does the second child have?

Philosopher: Adler says that a typical second child is instantly recognizable. The second child always has a pacesetter running ahead of him. And at the heart of the second child there lies the feeling of “I want to catch up.” They want to catch up with their elder brother or sister. To catch up, they have to hurry. They are constantly pushing themselves, and planning how to catch up with, overtake, and even triumph over their elder brother or sister. Unlike the conservative first-born child who holds the rule of law in high regard, the second child wishes to overturn even the natural law of birth order. So, second children aim for revolution. Rather than trying to be at peace with the existing powers-that-be as first-born children do, they place worth on overthrowing the powers-that-be.

Youth: What about the only child?

Philosopher: It is true that the only child has no siblings who would become rivals, but in this situation, it is the parents who become the rivals. The child wants so much to have his mother’s love all to himself that he ends up seeing his father as a rival. But the issue that Adler regarded as more problematic here is the situation of psychological anxiety in which the only child is placed.

Youth: Psychological anxiety?

Philosopher: First of all, the child is exposed to the anxiety of always having to look around him in the worry that a younger brother or sister will be born and that his position will be threatened. And beyond that, they place an excessive amount of pressure on their only child. As having more than one child was the norm in Adler’s time, he laid more emphasis on this point. 

Youth: So parents can’t just be devoted to loving their children, right?

Philosopher: Yes. Limitless love so often transforms into a tool for controlling the child. All parents must uphold the clear objective of self-reliance and go about building equal relationships with their children. 

Youth: And then, regardless of what sort of people their parents are the children can’t help but choose a “lifestyle for being loved.” 

Philosopher: That’s right. You are all caught up in the need for approval. You live thinking about how you can be loved by other people, how you can be recognized by other people. Even the path of the educator, which it would seem you chose yourself, may be a life of “the me that others wish to know,” a life that has the objective of being recognized by others.

Youth: Hey, what do you know anyway! I’m just sitting here listening quietly while you go ahead and make up stuff about people’s family relationships, and even try to negate me as an educator!

Philosopher: To be sure, one cannot realize self-reliance by gaining employment Generally speaking, we live controlled by our parents’ love. We choose our lifestyle at a time when we can only crave to be loved by our parents. And further, we grow older and become adults while reinforcing that “lifestyle of being loved.”

To get away from dependency upon being loved, the only thing one can do is love. It is accomplished by loving. Not by waiting to be loved or waiting for destiny, but loving someone of one’s own volition. That is the only way.

 

 

Kishimi, Ichiro and Koga, Fumitake (2019 English). The Courage to Be Happy: Discover the Power of Positive Psychology and Choose Happiness Every Day. New York: Simon & Schuster (pp. 233-242).

* * *

1 From Eckstein & Kaufman (2012):

“Siblings also may exert themselves to become different from one another, a process that has been termed sibling de-identification (Adler, 1928). De-identification refers to the tendency for siblings consciously or unconsciously to define themselves as different from one another in order to produce their own identities within the family and garner their share of parental love and attention. Through de-identification processes, siblings develop distinct attributes and engage in different activities and behaviors in order to establish their unique identities within the family. The more similar the siblings are, the more there is a tendency for de-identification.”

“Many of Adler’s childhood memories revolved around his own older brother:

I remember sitting on a beach bandaged up on account of rickets, with my healthy elder brother sitting opposite me. He could run, jump, and move about quite effortlessly, while for me, movement of any sort was a strain and an effort. Everyone went to great pains to help me and my mother and father did all that was in their power to do.

Adler felt his older brother was the favored one in the family.”

Eckstein, D., & Kaufman, J. A. (2012). The role of birth order in personality: An enduring intellectual legacy of Alfred Adler. Journal of Individual Psychology, 68(1), 60-74.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s