does self-sabotage exist?
and a brief theory on the history of "self" in america during the 20th century to now.
self-love, self-confidence, self-trust, self-sabotage, self-improvement.
what is the use of “self” in each of these words? i believe that the answer can sometimes reveal itself in history. while many of these words have existed for centuries, their use over time declined up until the last 50 years.
without a great amount of research, i believe that the return of these words coincides with positive psychology and the human potential movement, where there was a strong re-emphasis on “self” over others.
since the 1980s, huge cultural changes have happened in the united states. businesses started union-busting, people were more open with non-christian belief systems, and there was a larger reaction against the ‘company man’ / platonic family culture that boomed so well from the 40s to the 60s but declined with the economy in the 70s.
without the overarching religious and business-centered culture of old america, people started looking for new ways of discovering one’s own identity.
it’s easy to see this trend during the 60s, where hinduism and buddhism picked up in the u.s. as a niche alternative to traditional christian lifestyles.
in the world of psychology, researchers tried to find the best methods of self-improvement through therapy. in the non-academic world, self-improvement books, seminars, and cults quickly spread.
the overall theme of positive psychology and the human potential movement is that we are able to access our best selves by turning more inwardly than ever before.
the unconscious and subconscious layers of the mind became hugely relevant to the average self-improvement seeker. neuro-linguistic programming helped a person understand how their memories and experiences are linked to identity.
in short, people began to discover—or maybe rediscover—the nature of self. even on the conservative side of america, ideologues like ayn rand attempted to reclaim selfishness as the “concern with one’s own interests” in reaction to the culture of christian altruism during her time:
If it is true that what I mean by “selfishness” is not what is meant conventionally, then this is one of the worst indictments of altruism: it means that altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others. (Rand, “The Virtue of Selfishness”)
what is self?
self is the conscious mind’s collective experience of its own conscious mind, internal behaviors, and external behaviors—and its beliefs about the subconscious mind.
self is the spirit in a funhouse mirror, where you can bend the mirror in any way and make the self distorted in any which way you want.
in words like self-love, self-respect, self-sabotage, we are making ourselves separate, as if our self were trapped in this bent up mirror that we see in front of us.
self-love: what is it to love myself? which part of me is loving the self then? self-love-self?
self-respect: who is respecting my self?
do you see how such simple-looking words are actually kind of confusing when you break it down?
i’m sorry that there’s no easier way for me to explain this concept. and i bet after several dozen analogies and examples i might be able to finally clear up what this all means, but i’ll only give it one more try for now.
what we talk about when we’re talking about self-sabotage
take Mary for example: when Mary is approaching concepts like “self-sabotage”, she is assuming that there is this primary part of her, herself (Mary), and a separate, unknown part within her that is committing to sabotage. “i am sabotaging myself.”
this other part must not be Mary, because it only operates against her in every way possible. how can this be?
how could there be something that lives inside us, that doesn’t identify with anything that we want, and only want to ruin us from the inside out?
like a foreign spy, it’s apparently hiding in our conscious and subconscious minds, finding ways to undermine us and keep us from what we truly want. but how does it have so much control?
well, it’s because it’s just another part of Mary. it’s not separate, it’s a part of the whole of Mary’s self.
just like the heart is made of four main compartments, we are a collection of parts that make up the whole self.
but if we understand victim mentality, we’ll understand that the self versus other approach of self-sabotage can make sense so long as Mary doesn’t assume responsibility over her self.
as long as she is controlled by an unknown other, she can simply feel bad about herself and worry about the next “self-sabotaging” event.
coaches and therapists might mention self-sabotage in marketing speech a lot because it’s a very quick way of communicating to someone’s victim mentality (i have no control over myself, and my lack of confidence is sabotaging me).
it’s only after you pay into the sessions that the coach and therapist remind you that you’re solely responsible for your thoughts and actions, and you have the responsibility to work with all these parts of your self to align it with your current goals and dreams.
and then they’ll tell you that these parts of you are not here to sabotage, but are here to help you, but have done so in ways that are outdated, illogical, or ass-backwards.
“self-sabotage” reels in the clients, but the truth that all parts of our selves are trying to work with you is what keeps the clients coming. because you didn’t need to pay a bunch of cash to reconfirm your lack of confidence.
you needed a new perspective to become unstuck, and “self-sabotage” is not that new perspective.
relax on the self-stuff, focus on the thoughts, behaviors, and feelings.
to focus on these words like self-improvement and self-sabotage is to stare at the forest without seeing the trees.
we’re overwhelmed by what we need to do with the self, because self becomes this huge, unknown entity that we don’t have control over. we have 50 years of new age books that have overthought what the self is.
and then we try respecting it, improving it, loving it, and yet we still don’t have these feelings our selves.
what we can do instead is identify the thoughts, behaviors, and feelings that we don’t like, and understand that it’s a part of us that just needs updating, like programs in a computer.
they’re trying to help, but just like Microsoft Word 1997, it’s doing the job in ways that are 28 years out-of-date; it’s understandable why you might have thought that it’s working against you.
we need to allow ourselves to understand that our self is doing the best it can with what it was given over the years, accept that it’s our responsibility to help update parts of our self to work even better, and embrace this part of us as us.
one thought, one behavior, one feeling at a time. personal development is a slow process that moves inch by inch until trickles become a waterfall of breakthroughs and transformation.
thanks for reading,
—dom