A classical example of this idea (and the origin of the expression "sour grapes") is expressed in the fable The Fox and the Grapes by Aesop (ca. 620–564 BCE). In the story, a fox sees some high-hanging grapes and wishes to eat them. When the fox is unable to think of a way to reach them, he surmises that the grapes are probably not worth eating, as they must not be ripe or that they are sour. This example follows a pattern: one desires something, finds it unattainable, and reduces one's dissonance by criticizing it. - Wikipedia, Cognitive DissonanceWhat's really interesting to me is regarding the role that self-concept plays in dissonance. Meaning one's sense of identity, or one's ego. We all see ourselves as basically good, obviously. We see ourselves as smart, capable and morally decent. These prejudices about our own inherently good nature are occasionally tested by reality. We find ourselves in situations where we freely make bad decisions, or find ourselves incapable of achieving goals that we presuppose are attainable. Reality creeps in and challenges our most basic assumptions about ourselves. In a such a conflict, something has to bend. Either we bend ourselves to accommodate new facts, or we bend the facts to accommodate our ego.
Neat. Anyway, where am I going with this?
Well, I've had a notion for quite a while that I haven't really been able to define, having to do with the proper, human way of thinking. Shortly before I started college, I had something of a brief, accidental out-of-body experience, while trying to get to sleep. For just a moment, I could see myself as if from the ceiling looking down. And I was free to judge myself, both physically and mentally, with all my emotional baggage, insecurities and teenage defensiveness. And it didn't bother me to do so, I felt no dissonance - again, just for a moment. I had a split second of total objective observation of myself.
It wasn't anything grandiose or spiritual, but it was useful and I believe that it had something to do with how I developed afterward. After that, especially during college, I became a lot more honest with myself about what I wanted, and why. It didn't feel self-deprecating at all, because these things that I criticised about myself (even my baser tendencies) weren't really at the core of my identity anymore. My mind had shifted in some way, and I wasn't exclusively centered in the part of me that held desire or judgements. Part of me was now centered in the part of me that objectively analyzes, and that allowed me to analyze myself from inside and out. I didn't need to justify or prove personal values or appetities, they simply were what they were. I could judge them, and reorient myself if I wanted to, but either way it didn't threaten my sense of identity.
In some way, I think this ties into the theory of cognitive dissonance. This is a weapon for fighting crimethink. What I want is to fully understand it so I can spread this special kind of perspective that I found. I don't think it has to do with eliminating dissonance completely. And I'm aware that the experience that I had may have just been the late onset of some child-to-adult development that everyone goes through. But I can think of at least a handful (more like dozens) of individuals I've run across that have their identity riding on things in their external life (I'm thinking of the line in Fight Club about "That wasn't just a bunch of stuff in my apartment, that was me" and "You're not the car you drive, you're not your job, you're not your fucking khakis"). This seems like a useful area of inquiry. What do you guys think?
I think most people have their identity tied into something external, whether it be their marriage, faith, job or something else.
ReplyDeleteNot only do I think that's a widespread reality, I think it's normal and makes sense.
We don't really have a way to understand our self or identity except to compare it to external factors.
I think I'm getting off topic....
The problematic part of this dissonance is that most people seem unable to judge things objectively, you're right.
There are few gays who are capable of considering the question of whether or not gay marriage should be legal, just as there are few people benefiting from tax cuts are capable of objectively considering if the nation is better off without them.
We all put too much stock in what we've come to believe based on the way we choose to live, rather than the way things ought to be.
So yes, it's worthy of inquiry.
"I think most people have their identity tied into something external, whether it be their marriage, faith, job or something else.
ReplyDeleteNot only do I think that's a widespread reality, I think it's normal and makes sense."
In my opinion, you put too much weight on what is normal. What is normal is not as relevant as what is optimal. Ever upward.
A human being should not define themselves based on what they do (husband, parishioner, patent clerk). I'm not saying they shouldn't take commitment to those roles and relationships seriously. I also don't feel qualified to say WHAT a person's identity is, or should be based on, but I can say that ones occupation shouldn't determine who they are.
I guess what I'm saying is that whatever ideas ("I'm a good husband", "I'm a good Christian", "I'm an honest person") a person's identity is tied to, that damages the ability to approach that idea critically and objectively.
When I blurt something stupid that I didn't mean in the company of people I respect and they laugh, it challenges the image I have of myself as an intelligent and respected (approaching perfection?) person. The wrong course is to lash out at my friends. The right course is to remind myself that my existence isn't riding on my intelligence or respect, and certainly not perfection, and that maybe I shouldn't take myself so seriously.
I don't think that necessarily extends to the gay marriage and tax cut folks. Those folks WANT those political objectives acheived, and therefore don't approach the question objectively, since they have no intention of altering their position. Much the same way that you will not approach your faith objectively, since you have no intention of leaving your faith in any event. It's less than 100% rational behavior, but not necessarily dissonance.
What I'm most focused on is each persons introspective ability. The ability to observe and analyze what they do. That's the axis. If you can make a person think this way when judging themselves, eventually the programming will spread outward.
You are correct, I did/do put too much stock in what is normal rather than what is optimal...which is ironic because I had just written that such behavior is part of the problem.
ReplyDeleteMea culpa on that one.
I agree with your assessment that the labels we give ourselves hurt our ability to approach things objectively, but I'm not sure we can really fix that.
I think we CAN make some inroads though.
The reason I think we can't totally fix it is this. We all have a sense of self. We all have (either endowed or learned) an idea about good and bad.
Good things are to be encouraged, bad things should be ended. This is the black and white we learn as kids.
Because we like ourselves, at least insofar as we desire self preservation, we must therefore be good.
If we are good, our beliefs must be good, or else we'd be bad....and we're hardwired to believe that is not the case.
Like I said though, we can make inroads, as you've done and as I like to think I've done on some issues, but it's a problem that I don't think will go away.
It's certainly true that we learn this in black and white as kids, and that we add a little nuance as we grow older.
ReplyDeleteBut I think that little kernel of an idea, that seed that we built ourSELVES around needs to be cracked. The basic assumption that we ourselves are, in simple, general dumb terms, GOOD.
Maybe it's an antiquated system engineered by the process of evolution to support a sense of self preservation, which is sort of what you touched on. Something subconscious and primordial, meant to drive us to survive. Survival being the only value to an animal.
At any rate, we're past that now. We're capable of thinking at a conscious level, and we have more values than self preservation.
I don't think it's enough to just make some inroads. And I don't think it's a futile exercise to try to break this. I think it's just a matter of separating the part of our mind that has needs, and the part of us that observes and analyzes.
Something like that.
Ok fair enough.
ReplyDeleteSo here's the thing then.
How do we do that? And not just individually, but how to we "teach" that?
Even if it could be made as plain to all as it was to you with your out of body moment, I think many wouldn't even recognize it the perspective it provided and would go on as is.
I think the problem is one of motivation. How do we make someone care enough to "inquisition" themselves?
ReplyDeleteSome kind of shaming?
Hi, Dungy..
ReplyDeleteI FINALLY got around to answering your comment on my blog post from back in June:
http://seventhsola.blogspot.com/2011/06/southern-baptists-take-stand.html
My apologies in taking so long. Blessings to you.
Joel
Sola - Not a problem. I posted a response on the post in question. Thanks.
ReplyDelete