Many people have, for one reason or another, learned as children to be over-compliant; that is, to live in ways which were expected of them, or which pleased others, or which were designed not to offend others. These are people who build up what Winnicott called a ‘false self’; that is, a self which is based upon compliance with the wishes of others, rather than being based upon the individual’s own true feelings and instinctive needs. Such an individual ultimately comes to feel that life is pointless and futile, because he is merely adapting to the world rather than experiencing it as a place in which his subjective needs can find fulfillment.
The clincher:
The capacity to be alone thus becomes linked with self-discovery and self-realization; with becoming aware of one’s deepest needs, feelings, and impulses.
The Point: Find some alone time so that you can introspect and get to know your true, non-false, non-others-influenced self – i.e., identify your personal, subjective wants and needs – so that you can get down to the business of going out and individually fulfilling them.
In case you couldn’t tell, I was being sarcastic. I don’t actually think that Storr has identified The Answer. But I think he has done a nice job of pretty naïvely describing the liberal individualist worldview.
I wonder what Storr would have to say about conservative collectivist cultures in Asia and really all over the damn place—would he say that people in China are hopelessly unfulfilled until they find a quiet, lonely place to figure out independently of their families what they want for themselves? If so, would he be right? I suppose it’s possible that he would, but it seems more likely that Storr would be identifying his own (selfish) priorities and wording it in a way that makes it sound like His Answer ought to apply to everyone.
I’m glad I recently read William Deresiewicz’s chapter on adultiness, because otherwise I might’ve been quite sympathetic to Storr’s argument. I’m all about finding some alone time and introspecting and identifying my “true” passions. I am, after all, an individualist. I grew up in Ohio, which I would call the breadbasket of individualism. For me, like for Storr, doing what I personally care about is what I suspect will make me happy and fulfilled. In other words, fuck authority. Fuck “shoulds.” Give me what I want.
But Deresiewicz helped me realize that this worldview is, if not childish, then adolescent-y. To assign that kind of reverence to your feelings and passions is to do what popular music does:
The most important word in popular music today is not “love,” it’s “I.” And the second most important word is “wanna.” Popular music is one giant shout of desire, one great rallying cry for freedom and pleasure. Pop psychology sends us the same signals, and so does advertising. “Trust your feelings,” we are told. “Listen to your heart.” “If it feels good, do it.”
This is not to say that the correct or true Answer lies instead in conservative collectivism. I’m resigned to the fact that I’m hopelessly individualist, and I’m okay with that. But individualism does not have to mean viewing your passions and feelings and desires as sacred objects in need of fulfillment. I can still use my prefrontal cortex (to some extent) to overrule my passions and feelings and desires when they are being dumb, and in fact, if I hope to be adult-y, I probably (ahem) *should.*
