The self-esteem movement gets an "F"

Illustration by C.S. McGuinness

Sometimes, there is great wisdom to be found on the comics pages. 

In a recent cartoon by Norm Feuiti, the eponymous young character Gil observes his collection of honors: a running trophy proclaiming “finisher,” a ribbon exclaiming “19^th place”, a bowling trophy triumphing a “72 average”, and an award recognizing “participant.”  Gil wryly observes, “I know they’re supposed to make me feel good, but really they just remind me of the things I’m not very good at.”

Garry Trudeau, in his well known strip “Doonesbury”, has young, spoiled character Jeff Redfern relocating his trophy collection to his new home.  Jeff observes, “It was so interesting growing up in the middle of the self-esteem movement.”  His dad, Rick, reads out the plaque on one of the trophies, “Most improved trier, second grade.”  Jeff recalls the moment and observes, “I tied with the rest of the class.”

So what’s the problem with the self-esteem movement and why is it dying?  Apparently, the results are in.  Instilled self-esteem, as opposed to earned, just doesn’t work.

Late last year, USA Today ran an article titled “Is narcissism killing innovation in America?” (December 21, 2011). The premise was that the self-esteem movement, by praising aimlessly, was suppressing incentive and achievement.  Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman stated “By any reasonable standard, the change in how America lived between 1918 and 1957 was immensely greater than the change between 1957 and the present”.  While many factors have influenced this outcome, the self-esteem movement, which was quick to laud and loathe to criticize, seems complicit.

The article continues, “Essentially, when children are praised readily and frequently, regardless of their efforts' outcomes, there is no incentive for them to strive for genuine excellence — or even recognize that it can exist.”

Let’s start with a definition.  What is self esteem?  Very simply, it is a sense of well being, of self confidence and contentment, that arises from competence.  This means that when you are very good at something, you feel relaxed and comfortable in your skin.  Self esteem is a good thing.  But here’s where the self esteem movement went awry. Because you must be very good at something to have high self esteem, it cannot be gifted.  It must be earned.

While teachers and parents love and greatly care for their charges and offspring, they cannot instill self-esteem by bestowing inane awards.  The child, him or herself, must actually become good at something in order to develop a sense of self esteem.  In fact, the teacher or parent who attempts to shortcut this process is harming the child. The child must strive, and fail, and learn; then strive and fail, and succeed.  If you protect her from failing, she cannot succeed.

Self esteem is situational.  If you are not a skilled brain surgeon, you would feel uncomfortable (lack self-esteem) if forced into that role.  Likewise, the brain surgeon would be very uneasy asked to rebuild an automatic transmission or erect a skyscraper.  We are all good at certain things and not so much at others.  As Will Rogers famously said, “We are all ignorant, only on different subjects.”

So what is the path to happiness and a fulfilling life?  I think it is a clear choice.  Young people must find those which are their innate talents, which come naturally and are fulfilling.  Then practice and learn and become expert in those skills.  Finally, find a vocation that requires those strengths.

To work at some profession only for the social status that it conveys, or the wages that it pays, is empty and hollow if you doubt yourself every day. It is far more fulfilling to perform a labor of love, to exercise your strengths and feel the power of self-confidence.

Find out what you are good at, develop those skills, and make them your life’s work.  You will be happier, your loved ones will find you more pleasant, and the economy will benefit.  Where’s the downside?