• Ilya B Shambat
    194
    The leading approach for helping women who have been victims of domestic violence or sexual exploitation has been to teach them to be strong in themselves and to have a high self-esteem.

    I believe that this approach is wrong.

    The main reason is that the self is not the only, nor the best, source of strength. My grandmother was a very strong person. She was not strong in herself; she was strong in Communism.

    I know any number of very strong people among serious Christians. They are not strong in themselves either; they are strong in Christ.

    There are many people of both genders who have found strength in Hinduism or Islam. There are many businessmen and engineers who have found strength in Reagan conservatism. There are many scientists and artists who find strength in their ideal of service to humanity. There are many military people who find strength in national patriotism. There are many people who find strength in family and in parenting. None of these people are weak.

    Whereas many people who believe that they are strong in themselves think that they are the only strong people out there. They are not. There are many ways to be strong, and being strong in oneself is only one possible form of strength – and, given what I have seen in intercultural comparisons, not the best one either.

    As for self-esteem, I have found it to be a Sisyphean labor. There will always be somebody to destroy whatever self-esteem you struggle to obtain. The proponents of the concept see it as being a pre-requisite for successful existence. They are demonstrably wrong. There have been any number of highly successful people who either thought of themselves poorly or not at all. Vladimir Vysotsky, a Soviet bard who has been one of the most highly successful musicians in all of history, wrote, “I have no trust in fate, in myself even less faith.” According to this ideology, he should have been a complete loser. But he became vastly more successful than any self-esteeming American yuppie. His source of strength was the feelings of Russian people, on which he was picking up and to which he was giving voice. And that was a vastly greater source of strength than one's self – a source of strength that made him one of the most successful and highly regarded singers and songwriters of all time.

    An even greater error is the idea that having a high-self esteem is a prerequisite to being a good person. Absolutely wrong. There are many good people who think badly of themselves, and there are many jerks who think of themselves highly. According to most traditional attitudes, self-esteem is a sin. And there have been good people in all of the world's cultures, including ones that have this attitude.

    A related claim is the idea that sex industry is the main source of disrespectful treatment of women. Still more error. Women are treated far worse in places where there is no sex industry than in places where there is. Afghanistan, Congo and Bosnia during the civil war did not have a sex industry. But there have been vast amounts of brutal rapes and murders of women in all three countries. Yes, men who see women as “sex objects” and only that can be jerks. But so can men with Puritanical attitudes. The American Puritans made laws about the size of the stick with which one can beat one's wife. Whereas women in Sweden, Netherlands and San Francisco have more rights and, for the most part, a much better existence.

    Are women in the sex industry being exploited? Certainly many are, and they deserve all the help that they can get. But there are any number of others who know exactly what they are doing, and it is wrong to patronize them by claiming that they are being exploited.

    Returning to the original subject. Can being strong in oneself and having a high self-esteem be a source of strength? Yes. But it is in no way the only possible way to be a strong or a good person. There are strong and good Marxists. There are strong and good Christians. There are strong and good Hindus, Muslims, conservatives, patriots, humanitarians, feminists, empaths, and further down the line. Many of these people are far stronger individuals than most people whose only source of strength is themselves. And teaching strength in self and self-esteem at the expense of such things can in many situations be a completely counter-productive approach.
  • god must be atheist
    225
    Interesting mish-mash of trivia. And some deceptively good points.

    The best point in your essay is the role of the external support for personal strength. I find that to be your original idea, at least I haven't seen it portrayed like you have. Philosophers find strength in logic. Reason. Common sense.

    When you go into the sex trade, I am not sure I can share your sentiments. Domestic violence, etc. That topic deserves a much more in-depth analysis than a simple statement that sex trade practices decrease or diminish brutal abuse.
  • Possibility
    279
    I think this discussion comes down to the meaning of ‘strength’. I agree with @god must be atheist that the role of ‘external’ support in fostering a personal perception of strength is key. The idea that strength has a purely internal source is a misleading one that perpetuates this drive towards independence, autonomy and influence, which is ultimately destructive.

    But this strength is not be found in the ideology or social structure itself - it’s in the connections and relationships it enables us to develop.

    Likewise with the sex trade: the strength the industry provides for women that was missing in Afghanistan, Congo and Bosnia during the civil war, for instance, is not in the role of the industry in wider society (which in many respects seeks to oppress the potential of women in general and inspire men to drive towards independence, autonomy and influence), but in the connections and relationships it enables women to develop within the industry that help them increase awareness and achievement within a social structure which ultimately treats women as objects.

    Domestic violence emerges within a social structure that isolates women from relationships that can increase their sense of strength, but this social structure also perpetuates the false perception that a man’s only source of strength is himself, and that his self-esteem comes from his ability to control his environment as an independent agent. By isolating his environment (his wife and family) from external influences, he attempts to create the illusion that he has maximum independence, autonomy and influence in at least some part of his world.

    If we are to help women and men, humanity or the future of our environment, we need to challenge the idea that our aim is to attain maximum independence, autonomy and influence - as individuals or as groups. The only way we can pretend this is productive is by denying the existence/relevance/value of anything we cannot control.
  • James Banks
    2
    I like to think that "to exist is to trust". If you find something good to trust, you can grow. If your need to trust is fulfilled by trustworthy things, then you don't have to trust untrustworthy things. The need to trust other people can be, "so and so can fix my car" or "so and so fills my emotional needs". If you can find some way to get away from "so and so" (fix your own car, find a new mechanic; or a new way to fill the needs), then that's your way out. Rely on yourself, find a new friend.

    But people aren't solely machines for trusting. When we're oriented toward trust, we're concerned with our own well-being. But reality is something outside ourselves, and when we can focus on that, we get outside of our own neediness, the very thing which got us to seek things to trust. (I think getting beyond trust orientation is a certain kind of trust, perhaps the most complete.)

    This all to back up your point about looking for strength in something other than yourself.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment