The Courage to Be Disliked: How to Free Yourself, Change Your Life and Achieve Real Happiness

by Ichiro Kishimi

When we speak of interpersonal relationships, it always seems to be two-person relationships and one’s relationship to a large group that come to mind, but first it is oneself. When one is tied to the desire for recognition, the interpersonal relationship cards will always stay in the hands of other people. Does one entrust the cards of life to another person, or hold onto them oneself?

In the end, were you able to repair your relationship with your father? PHILOSOPHER: Yes, of course. I think so. My father fell ill, and in the last few years of his life, it was necessary for me and my family to take care of him. Then one day, when I was taking care of him as usual, my father said, ‘Thank you.’ I had not known my father possessed such a word in his vocabulary, and I was astonished and felt grateful for all the days that had passed. Through the long years of my caregiving life, I had tried to do whatever I could, that is to say, I had done my best to lead my father to water. And in the end, he drank. I think he did.

The idea of separating tasks is certainly a useful one. You had me completely convinced last time. But it seems like such a lonely way to live. Separating the tasks and lightening the load of one’s interpersonal relations is just the same as cutting one’s connection to other people. And, to top it off, you’re telling me to be disliked by other people? If that’s what you call freedom, then I’ll choose not to be free!

what is the goal of interpersonal relations? PHILOSOPHER: To get straight to the heart of the matter, it is ‘community feeling’.

If other people are our comrades, and we live surrounded by them, we should be able to find in that life our own place of ‘refuge’. Moreover, in doing so, we should begin to have the desire to share with our comrades—to contribute to the community. This sense of others as comrades, this awareness of ‘having one’s own refuge’, is called ‘community feeling’.

he is espousing that community is not merely one of the pre-existing frameworks that the word might bring to mind, but is also inclusive of literally everything; the entire universe, from the past to the future.

Adler himself acknowledged that the community he was espousing was ‘an unattainable ideal’.

But there is another type that must be taken into account. People who are incapable of carrying out the separation of tasks, and who are obsessed with the desire for recognition are also extremely self-centred.

Consider the reality of the desire for recognition. How much do others pay attention to you, and what is their judgement of you? That is to say, how much do they satisfy your desire? People who are obsessed with such a desire for recognition will seem to be looking at other people, while they are actually only looking at themselves. They lack concern for others, and are concerned solely with the ‘I’. Simply put, they are self-centred.

a way of living in which one is constantly troubled by how one is seen by others is a self-centred lifestyle in which one’s sole concern is with the ‘I’. YOUTH: Well now, that is an astounding statement! PHILOSOPHER: Not just you, but all people who are attached to the ‘I’ are self-centred. And that is precisely why it is necessary to make the switch from ‘attachment to self’ to ‘concern for others’.

One needs to think not What will this person give me? but, rather, What can I give to this person? That is commitment to the community.

I must admit, you’re starting to lose me. Let me try to straighten things out a bit. First, at the gateway of interpersonal relations, we’ve got the separation of tasks, and as the goal, there’s community feeling. And you’re saying that community feeling is having ‘a sense of others as comrades’, and ‘an awareness of having one’s own refuge’ within the community. Up to this point, it is something I can understand and accept. But the details still seem a bit far-fetched. For one thing, what do you mean by expanding this thing you call ‘community’ to include the entire universe, and then even the past and the future, and everything from living things to inanimate objects?

Excuse me for saying so, but you’re escaping into abstract theory. The issue we should be addressing here is the sense of belonging, that ‘it’s okay to be here’. And then, with regard to the meaning of this sense of belonging, it is the community we can see that is stronger. You will agree with that, won’t you? For example, if we compare the ‘company’ community with the ‘earth’ community, the sense of belonging of someone who says ‘I am a member of this company’ would be stronger. To borrow your terminology, the distance and depth of the interpersonal relations are completely different. It’s only natural that when we search for a sense of belonging, we will be attracted to the smaller community.

Well, suppose that you, as a student, regarded the community that is ‘school’ as absolute. In other words, school is everything to you, your ‘I’ exists because of school, and no other ‘I’ is possible without it. But naturally, there will be occasions within that community when you run into adversity. It could be getting bullied, or not being able to make friends or keep up with your schoolwork, or not adapting to the system of the school in the first place. That is to say, it’s possible that with regard to the community that is your school, you won’t have that ‘it’s okay to be here’ sense of belonging. YOUTH: Yes, absolutely. That’s quite possible. PHILOSOPHER: When that happens, if you are thinking of school as being everything to you, you will end up without a sense of belonging to anything. And then, you will escape within a smaller community such as your home. You will shut yourself in, and maybe even turn to violence against members of your own family. And by doing such things, you will be attempting to gain a sense of belonging somehow. What I would like you to focus on here, though, is that there is ‘a more separate community’ and, moreover, that there is ‘a larger community’. YOUTH: What does that mean? PHILOSOPHER: That there is a larger world that extends far beyond the confines of the school. And every one of us is a member of that world. If there is no place of refuge in your school, you should find a different refuge outside the walls of the school. You can ch...

Well, maybe in theory, anyway. But it’s hard to break out. The decision to withdraw from school itself isn’t something to be taken lightly. PHILOSOPHER: I am sure you are right—it would not be easy. Therefore, there is a principle of action that I would like you to commit to memory. When we run into difficulties in our interpersonal relations, or when we can no longer see a way out, what we should consider first and foremost is the principle that says ‘listen to the voice of the larger community’. YOUTH: The voice of the larger community? PHILOSOPHER: If it is a school, one does not judge things with the commonsense of the community that is the school, but instead follows the commonsense of a larger community. Now, let’s say it’s your school, and your teacher has been behaving in an authoritarian manner. But the power or authority your teacher wields is nothing more than an aspect of the commonsense that operates only within the small community that is the school. From the standpoint of the community that is ‘human society’, both you and your teacher are equal humans. If unreasonable demands are being thrust on you, it is fine to object to them directly. YOUTH: But, it will be very difficult to object when the teacher is right in front of me. PHILOSOPHER: Not at all. Though this might be termed a ‘you and I’ relationship, if it is one that can break down just because you raise an objection, then it is not the sort of relationship you need to get into in the first place. It...

How does carrying out the separating of tasks connect with good relations? That is to say, how does it connect with building the kind of relations in which we cooperate and act in harmony with each other? Which brings us to the concept of ‘horizontal relationship’.

Whether the circumstances are those of childrearing, or of training junior staff in the workplace, for example, generally speaking there are two approaches that are considered: one is the method of raising by rebuke, and the other is the method of raising by praise.

Physical punishment is out of the question, of course, and rebuking is not accepted, either. One must not praise, and one must not rebuke. That is the standpoint of Adlerian psychology.

the mother who praises the child by saying things like ‘You’re such a good helper!’ or ‘Good job!’ or ‘Well, aren’t you something!’ is unconsciously creating a hierarchical relationship and seeing the child as beneath her. The example of animal training that you just gave is also emblematic of the hierarchical relationship—the vertical relationship—that is behind the praising. When one person praises another, the goal is ‘to manipulate someone who has less ability than you’. It is not done out of gratitude or respect.

One wishes to be praised by someone. Or conversely, one decides to give praise to someone. This is proof that one is seeing all interpersonal relationships as ‘vertical relationships’. This holds true for you, too: it is because you are living in vertical relationships that you want to be praised. Adlerian psychology refutes all manner of vertical relationships, and proposes that all interpersonal relationships be horizontal relationships.

As you may recall from our discussion on the separation of tasks, I brought up the subject of intervention. This is the act of intruding on other people’s tasks. So, why does a person intervene? Here, too, in the background, vertical relationships are at play. It is precisely because one perceives interpersonal relations as vertical, and sees the other party as beneath one, that one intervenes. Through intervention, one tries to lead the other party in the desired direction. One has convinced oneself that one is right, and that the other party is wrong.

But when someone’s suffering right there in front of you, you can’t just leave them be, can you? Would you still say that lending a helping hand is intervention, and then do nothing? PHILOSOPHER: One must not let it go unnoticed. It is necessary to offer assistance that does not turn into intervention. YOUTH: What is the difference between intervention and assistance? PHILOSOPHER: Think back to our discussion of the separation of tasks; to the subject of a child’s schoolwork. As I stated then, this is a task that the child has to resolve himself, not something that parents or teachers can do for him. So, intervention is this kind of intruding on other people’s tasks, and directing them by saying things like, ‘You have to study,’ or ‘Get into that university.’ Whereas, assistance, on the other hand, presupposes the separation of tasks, and also horizontal relationships. Having understood that studying is the child’s task, one considers what one can do for him. Concretely speaking, instead of commanding from above that the child must study, one acts on him in such a way that he can gain the confidence to take care of his own studies and face his tasks on his own. YOUTH: And that action isn’t forced? PHILOSOPHER: No, it’s not. Without forcing, and with the tasks always kept separate, one assists the child to resolve them by his own efforts. It’s the approach of ‘you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink’. He is the one who has to face his tasks, and he is th...

The more one is praised by another person, the more one forms the belief that one has no ability. Please do your best to remember this.

When receiving praise becomes one’s goal, one is choosing a way of living that is in line with another person’s system of values. Looking at your life until now, aren’t you tired of trying to live up to your parents’ expectations? YOUTH: Um, well, I guess so. PHILOSOPHER: First, do the separation of tasks. Then, while accepting each other’s differences, build equal horizontal relationships. Encouragement is the approach that comes next.

When a friend helps you clean your home, what do you say to him? YOUTH: I say, ‘Thank you.’ PHILOSOPHER: Right. You convey words of gratitude, saying thank you to this partner who has helped you with your work. You might express straightforward delight: ‘I’m glad.’ Or you could convey your thanks by saying, ‘That was a big help.’ This is an approach to encouragement that is based on horizontal relationships. YOUTH: That’s all? PHILOSOPHER: Yes.

The most important thing is to not judge other people. Judgement is a word that comes out of vertical relationships. If one is building horizontal relationships, there will be words of more straightforward gratitude and respect and joy.

It is when one is able to feel I am beneficial to the community that one can have a true sense of one’s worth. This is the answer that would be offered in Adlerian psychology. YOUTH: That I am beneficial to the community? PHILOSOPHER: That one can act on the community; that is to say, on other people, and that one can feel I am of use to someone. Instead of feeling judged by another person as ‘good’, being able to feel, by way of one’s own subjective viewpoint, that I can make contributions to other people. It is at that point that, at last, we can have a true sense of our own worth. Everything we have been discussing about community feeling and encouragement connects here.

We are getting to the heart of the discussion now. Please stick with me a while longer. It is about having concern for others, building horizontal relationships and taking the approach of encouragement. All these things connect to the deep life awareness of ‘I am of use to someone’, and in turn, to your courage to live.

The discussion of community feeling had become more confusing than ever. One must not praise. And one must not rebuke, either. All words that are used to judge other people are words that come out of vertical relationships, and we need to build horizontal relationships. And it is only when one is able to feel that one is of use to someone that one can have a true awareness of one’s worth. There was a major flaw in this logic somewhere. The young man felt it instinctively.

It’s the idea that being of use to someone is what gives one a true awareness of one’s worth. If you put it the other way around, a person who isn’t of any use to others has no worth at all. That’s what you are saying, isn’t it? If one takes that to its logical conclusion then the lives of newborn babies, and of invalids and old people who are bedridden, aren’t worth living either. How could this be?

At this point, you are looking at another person on the level of his acts. In other words, that that person ‘did something’. So, from that point of view, it might seem that bedridden old people are only a nuisance, and are of no use to anyone. So, let’s look at other people not on the ‘level of acts’, but on the ‘level of being’. Without judging whether or not other people did something, one rejoices in their being there, in their very existence, and one calls out to them with words of gratitude.

Suppose your shut-in child helped you wash the dishes after a meal. If you were to say then, ‘Enough of that already—just go to school,’ you would be using the words of such parents who detract from an image of an ideal child. If you were to take such an approach, the child would probably end up even more discouraged. However, if you can say a straightforward ‘thank you’, the child just might feel his own worth, and take a new step forward. YOUTH: That’s just utterly hypocritical! It’s nothing more than the nonsensical talk of a hypocrite. It sounds like the ‘neighbourly love’ that Christians talk about. The community feeling, the horizontal relationships, the gratitude for existence and so on. Who on earth could actually do such things? PHILOSOPHER: With regard to this issue of community feeling, there was a person who asked Adler a similar question. Adler’s reply was the following: ‘Someone has to start. Other people might not be cooperative, but that is not connected to you. My advice is this: you should start. With no regard to whether others are cooperative or not.’ My advice is exactly the same.

YOUTH: Well, I don’t know. I am alive, right here and now. ‘I’, who is no one else but me, am alive right here. But even so, I don’t really feel that I have worth. PHILOSOPHER: Can you describe in words why you do not feel that you have worth? YOUTH: I suppose it’s what you’ve been referring to as interpersonal relations. From childhood up to the present, I have always been belittled by people around me, especially my parents, as a poor excuse for a little brother. They have never really tried to recognise me for who I am. You say that worth is something one gives to oneself. But that’s just an impracticable theory. For example, at the library where I work, for the most part my job is just sorting the returned books and putting them back on the shelves. It’s routine work that anyone could do once they’ve been taught. If I stopped going to work, my boss would have no trouble finding someone to replace me. I am needed only for the unskilled labour I provide, and it doesn’t actually matter at all if it is ‘I’ who is working there or someone else, or a machine for that matter. No one is requiring ‘this me’ in particular. In such circumstances, would you have confidence in yourself? Would you be able to have a true sense of worth?

This is a very important point. Does one build vertical relationships, or does one build horizontal relationships? This is an issue of lifestyle, and human beings are not so clever as to be able to have different lifestyles available whenever the need arises. In other words, deciding that one is ‘equal to this person’ or ‘in a hierarchical relationship with that person’ does not work.

YOUTH: Do you mean that one has to choose one or the other—vertical relationships or horizontal relationships? PHILOSOPHER: Absolutely, yes. If you are building even one vertical relationship with someone, before you even notice what is happening, you will be treating all your interpersonal relations as vertical.

There are so many ways I could refute that. Think of a company setting, for example. It wouldn’t really be feasible for the director and his new recruits to form relationships as equals, would it? Hierarchical relationships are part of the system of our society, and to ignore that is to ignore the social order. Look, if you heard that a new recruit at your company, who’s only twenty or so, had suddenly started buddying up to the sixty-something director, don’t you think it would sound pretty far-fetched? PHILOSOPHER: It is certainly important to respect one’s elders. In a company structure, it is only natural for there to be different levels of responsibility. I am not telling you to make friends with everyone, or behave as if you are close friends. Rather, what is important is to be equal in consciousness, and to assert that which needs to be asserted. YOUTH: I am not someone who can mouth off to my seniors, and I would never think of trying. My social commonsense would be called into question if I did. PHILOSOPHER: What is ‘senior’? What is this ‘mouthing off’? If one is gauging the atmosphere of a situation and being dependent on vertical relationships, one is engaging in irresponsible acts—one is trying to avoid one’s responsibilities. YOUTH: What is irresponsible about it? PHILOSOPHER: Suppose that as a result of following your boss’s instructions, your work ends in failure. Whose responsibility is it then? YOUTH: Well, that’d be my boss’s responsibility. Because I wa...

Adlerian psychology is engaged in a thorough inquiry into interpersonal relationships. And the final goal of these interpersonal relationships is community feeling. But is this really enough? Isn’t there something else that I was brought into this world to achieve? What is the meaning of life? Where am I headed, and what sort of life am I trying to lead? The more the young man thought, the more it seemed to him that his own existence had been tiny and insignificant.

Self-affirmation is making suggestions to oneself, such as ‘I can do it’ or ‘I am strong’, even when something is simply beyond one’s ability. It is a notion that can bring about a superiority complex, and may even be termed a way of living in which one lies to oneself. With self-acceptance, on the other hand, if one cannot do something, one is simply accepting ‘one’s incapable self’ as is, and moving forward so that one can do whatever one can. It is not a way of lying to oneself. To put it more simply, say you’ve got a score of sixty per cent, but you tell yourself I just happened to get unlucky this time around, and the real me is one hundred per cent. That is self-affirmation. By contrast, if one accepts oneself as one is, as sixty per cent, and thinks to oneself, How should I go about getting closer to one hundred per cent?—that is self-acceptance.

This is also the case with the separation of tasks—one ascertains the things one can change and the things one cannot change. One cannot change what one is born with. But one can, under one’s own power, go about changing what use one makes of that equipment. So, in that case, one simply has to focus on what one can change, rather than on what one cannot. This is what I call self-acceptance.

Resignation has the connotation of seeing clearly with fortitude and acceptance. Having a firm grasp on the truth of things—that is resignation. There is nothing pessimistic about it. YOUTH: A firm grasp on the truth … PHILOSOPHER: Of course, just because one has arrived at affirmative resignation as one’s self-acceptance, it does not automatically follow that one finds community feeling. That is the reality. When one is switching from attachment to self to concern for others, the second key concept—confidence in others—becomes absolutely essential.

from the standpoint of Adlerian psychology, the basis of interpersonal relations is not founded on trust but on confidence. YOUTH: And ‘confidence’ in this case is … ? PHILOSOPHER: It is doing without any set conditions whatsoever when believing in others. Even if one does not have sufficient objective grounds for trusting someone, one believes. One believes unconditionally without concerning oneself with such things as security. That is confidence. YOUTH: Believing unconditionally? So, it’s back to your pet notion of neighbourly love? PHILOSOPHER: Of course, if one believes in others without setting any conditions whatsoever, there will be times when one gets taken advantage of. Just like the guarantor of a debt, there are times when one may suffer damages. The attitude of continuing to believe in someone even in such instances is what we call confidence. YOUTH: Only a naïve dimwit would do such a thing! I guess you hold with the doctrine of innate human goodness, while I hold with the doctrine of innate human evilness. Believe unconditionally in complete strangers, and you’ll just get used and abused. PHILOSOPHER: And there are also times when someone deceives you, and you get used that way. But look at it from the standpoint of someone who has been taken advantage of. There are people who will continue to believe in you unconditionally even if you are the one who has taken advantage of them. People who will have confidence in you no matter how they are treated. Would yo...

Adlerian psychology is not saying ‘have confidence in others unconditionally’ on the basis of a moralistic system of values. Unconditional confidence is a means for making your interpersonal relationship with a person better, and for building a horizontal relationship. If you do not have the desire to make your relationship with that person better, then go ahead and sever it. Because carrying out the severing is your task.

First, one accepts one’s irreplaceable ‘this me’ just as it is. That is self-acceptance. Then, one places unconditional confidence in other people. That is confidence in others. You can accept yourself, and you can have confidence in others. So, what are other people to you now? YOUTH: … My comrades? PHILOSOPHER: Exactly. In effect, placing confidence in others is connected to seeing others as comrades. It is because they are one’s comrades that one can have confidence in them. If they were not one’s comrades, one would not be able to reach the level of confidence. And then, having other people as one’s comrades connects to finding refuge in the community one belongs to. So, one can gain the sense of belonging that ‘it’s okay to be here’. YOUTH: In other words, you’re saying that to feel ‘it’s okay to be here’ one has to see others as comrades. And that to see others as comrades, one needs both self-acceptance and confidence in others.

PHILOSOPHER: Of course, community feeling is not something that is attainable with just self-acceptance and confidence in others. It is at this point that the third key concept—contribution to others—becomes necessary.

So, when you say ‘contribute’, you mean to show a spirit of self-sacrifice and to be of service to those around you? PHILOSOPHER: Contribution to others does not connote self-sacrifice. Adler goes so far as to warn that those who sacrifice their own lives for others are people who have conformed to society too much. And please do not forget: we are truly aware of our own worth only when we feel that our existence and behaviour are beneficial to the community, that is to say, when one feels, ‘I am of use to someone.’ Do you remember this? In other words, contribution to others, rather than being about getting rid of the ‘I’ and being of service to someone, is actually something one does in order to be truly aware of the worth of the ‘I’.

Self-acceptance: accepting one’s irreplaceable ‘this me’ just as it is.

Confidence in others: to place unconditional confidence at the base of one’s interpersonal relations, rather than seeding doubt.

If that contribution is supposed to be ‘for other people’, then it would have to be one of bitter self-sacrifice. On the other hand, if that contribution is actually ‘for oneself’, then it’s the height of hypocrisy. This point has to be made utterly clear.

For the sake of convenience, up to this point I have discussed self-acceptance, confidence in others and contribution to others, in that order. However, these three are linked as an indispensable whole, in a sort of circular structure. It is because one accepts oneself just as one is—one self-accepts—that one can have ‘confidence in others’ without the fear of being taken advantage of. And it is because one can place unconditional confidence in others, and feel that people are one’s comrades, that one can engage in ‘contribution to others’. Further, it is because one contributes to others that one can have the deep awareness that ‘I am of use to someone,’ and accept oneself just as one is. One can self-accept. The notes you took down the other day, do you have them with you? YOUTH: Oh, you mean that note on the objectives put forward by Adlerian psychology? I’ve kept it on me ever since that day, of course. Here it is: ‘The two objectives for behaviour: to be self-reliant and to live in harmony with society. The two objectives for the psychology that supports these behaviours: the consciousness that I have the ability and the consciousness that people are my comrades.’ PHILOSOPHER: If you overlap the content of this note with what we have just been discussing, you should be able to gain a deeper understanding. In other words, ‘to be self-reliant’ and ‘the consciousness that I have the ability’ corresponds to our discussion of self-acceptance. And then ‘to live in harmony w...