Back when I was an interning student therapist at the Faulk Center in Boca Raton some *mumble mumble* years ago, there was a quote by humanistic psychotherapist and theorist Carl Rogers (1995) hung on the rotunda wall in large, shining, impossible-to miss letters:
“The curious paradox is, when I accept myself, just as I am, then I can change.”
I spent a year passing by that signage so much that the imagery of it is still burned into my brain. As a graduate student and armchair philosopher, this quote would flummox and irritate me; in fact, I can recall having a sermon (in a former [heterosexual] life, I was a lay-minister in my birth-church) on the ‘problematic’ conclusions of such logic! In my mind, unconditional self-acceptance was not only heresy – and I suppose that might in some circles still be true – it was admitting defeat in the pursuit of one’s higher ideals. I couldn’t reconcile this idea of giving myself permission to be imperfect as a gateway to self-development and transcendence. Well, after roughly ten years in the field and a lot personal transformations as a result of that work, I think I’ve parsed it out.
Alfred Adler (another psychotherapist and early theorist) introduced the idea of the ideal self versus the perceived self (Dinkmeyer, et al., 1979). The ideal self is made up of our most favorable imaginings about who we could be if the circumstances were jusssst right; in this framework, our vulnerabilities have been overcome, we’ve developed superiority and mastery over ourselves, and we function in our fullest sense of empowerment . Think Dragon Ball Z and being perpetually in ‘super saiyan’ mode – this IS the final form! The perceived self is who we understand ourselves to be in reaction to our experiential reality. Generally speaking, this does not tend to be a very empowered interpretation of ourselves, particularly when our internalized critics serve as a template for evaluation. Neither the ideal or perceived are or need to be reflections of objective reality. Our internal logic and subjective perceptions drive both what we see and what we think we need to be in order to be happy with ourselves (Dinkmeyer, et al., 1979). In this way, the ideal self functions a lot like Harry Potter’s Mirror of Erised – it shows us what we believe will make us truly happy and content with ourselves.
Side note: I was late to the game on this, but it blew my mind when I learned that ‘erised’ was just ‘desire’ backwards. JK Rowling’s clever-lazy-cleverness is a true artform at times. You’re welcome if this is new to you as well. Enjoy sharing the tidbit at your next cocktail party while discussing the cultural and political implications of Rowling’s work versus her public presence!
Adler proposed that the further apart our ideal and perceived selves are, the more likely we are to feel disempowerment, interpersonal disconnection, and to rely on less-functional solutions to our problems (Dinkmeyer, et al., 1979). This fits so well with Rogers’ sentiment, and becomes clearer when we invert his quote:
“The frustrating reality is, when I cannot accept myself, I am locked in a never-ending struggle.”
When I become fixated on correcting a perceived flaw, I’m doing two things. Firstly, I’m keeping my deficits at the center of my personal universe; everything revolves around these issues, and so my self-concept becomes dependent on them to preserve a cohesive internal world. Change can’t be possible then, because I have to risk everything about myself disintegrating (an existentially terrifying ego thought) in order to let go of those flaws. Secondly, when I fixate on something I have identified as a flaw, I’m withholding a cognitive capacity to flexibly understand my flaws as having a role to play in my successes. So I can be scatter-brained and tangential (thanks ADHD!) – those ‘flaws’ are what can empower me to be a dynamic, flexible and responsive educator. If I’m berating myself constantly for my inability to lead a discussion like my more neurotypical colleagues, I miss out on the gifts my brain gives to my students that they really enjoy. Bereft of self-graciousness, I then move through the world rigidly, pessimistically, and consistently feeling smaller than I need to feel in my own skin. My ideal self becomes further and further away while my perceived self starts to look and function like a personal boogeyman.
It’s only when I can take a step back from my perceptions and immediate reactions to be a mindful observer of myself (in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy we call this ‘cognitive defusion’) that I can understand my personal qualities as having both benefits and liabilities (Hayes & Smith, 2005). Even the things I assume to be my greatest strengths have shadows! Case in point, am I deeply introspective, or am I an overthinker? Yes. Yes, I am. Holding space for the possibility that my most hated features might offer me some of life’s greatest gifts is a birthing ground for transcendence. It allows me to think dialectically; not in an either/or mindset, but rather a yes-and stance. It is that very space where change becomes accessible because everything I am has a good reason for being what it is. Life then, becomes a journey of lovingly leveraging ‘liabilities’ (say that five times fast!) into their optimal strengths while gently course correcting around what we experience as problematic about them. We can also function graciously around our strengths- not expecting them to be a suit of armor to shield us from the world’s hurts, but rather context-bound tools in an eclectic collection that makes up the self as we seek to connect, thrive, and build a meaningful life.
References to learn more about concepts discussed in this post:
Dinkmeyer, D. C., Dinkmeyer, D. C., Sperry, L. (1979). Adlerian counseling and psychotherapy. (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company.
Hayes, S. C. & Smith, S. (2005). Get out of your mind and into your life. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.
Rogers, C. (1995). On becoming a person: A therapist's view of psychotherapy. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.