What is teleology?
Teleology is a philosophy that argues that people do things with a final goal. In the book The Courage to be Disliked, Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga argue that people choose to engage unhealthy behaviors, even if this makes them sad or anxious. According to the authors, people like to hold on to their suffering and would rather keep the status quo than make positive changes.
I started disliking the authors’ approach as soon as I started reading the book. The intentionally provocative assertion that there is no trauma further did not endear the authors to me. Of course there is trauma and of course people are hurting.
Nonetheless, in the midst of that academic discourse, there is insight. The concept of teleology, referring to purpose-driven behavior, is quite useful to understand. As a therapist, I am actually quite aware of the teleology that drives people’s choices. If someone is continuing to engage in a certain behavior, even if that behavior seems unhealthy, a part of that person prefers that behavior to the alternative. Even if the person is saying they want to change, they are simultaneously making the choice to not change.
Social Anxiety as a Way to Avoid Action
The philosopher in Kishimi & Koga’s book uses the example of a person who is too anxious to go out and socialize and argues that the person actually makes himself anxious in order to stay home. The philosopher argues that the person has an underlying goal of wanting to stay at home and that the anxiety is merely a self-serving tool to help him justify his decision. The interpretation feels callous, dismissive and shaming. It seems to invalidate the person’s true distress, both in experiencing the feeling of anxiety and in feeling lonely. However, if we take away the value judgment, there is truth to that interpretation. With one amendment — a part of the person is choosing the anxiety, not the whole person.
IFS and Parts’ Secondary Gains
The framework of Internal Family Systems therapy allows us to ask such questions about intentions and secondary gains without shame or judgment. It also allows us to see how several contradictory things can be true at the same time. A person can both choose to make themselves anxious and suffer from anxiety. A person can both wish to avoid people and wish to be close to them. Through IFS, we can acknowledge, calmly and compassionately, that a part of this person does want to hold on to the anxiety because of the secondary gain of avoiding social interactions. We can do that while at the same time validating and recognizing that another part absolutely does not want the anxiety and is feeling great distress. As we sit with the different parts, we can make sense of the full picture.
In this case, the part that draws in the anxiety is trying to help decrease the overall distress. That part truly believes that being less anxious and going out into the world will result in more suffering — reaching out to people and being mocked, bullied, or rejected will feel much more painful than the dull, chronic anxious energy. The part that wants to go out and meet people finds the anxiety oppressive and overwhelming, but feels trapped in it. Another part of the person might feel deep loneliness and sadness. And there might be a part that feels anger — both at the world and at the self. That angry part might even want to send a passive-aggressive message to others who might be inviting him to go out, rejecting them before they can reject him.
The Misguided Nature of Advice
If I was trying to help someone who reports spending a lot of time alone and feeling too anxious to leave the house, I would not start by teaching skills or strategies. I also wouldn’t start by making assertions or interpretations. I would start with trust, respect, and compassionate curiosity. What this means is that I would know, as the philosopher in The Courage to be Disliked argues, that the person is “choosing” to engage in a certain behavior or to hold on to a certain feeling. So, offering advice or strategies on how to be more socially active would ultimately be misguided. This person would rather suffer the pain of loneliness than face the risk of being rejected, however small. Any strategies that I suggest will not be effective because I’d be essentially telling them to do something they don’t want to do. At best, the person might try whatever social task I suggest — go to a party, attend a social event, or call someone they’ve been too anxious to call, — and soon after revert back to exactly what they were doing prior to taking my suggestion.
People see this often when they give their loved ones good advice and become understandably frustrated. It seems that even when their advice works, the other person still doesn’t follow it or appreciate it. I understand the frustration of course. But I do not find this behavior confusing at all — keeping in mind people’s complex internal systems, the fact that someone would not change based on my advice makes perfect sense to me. It would be much more surprising if they did change. Then I’d truly feel like I’ve missed something.
The Essential Question of Worth
Going back to our example, someone who is seeking my help for their social anxiety while also expressing distress over being lonely is not someone who is looking for pointers on how to take risks that they don’t want to take. My job as a therapist, above all else, is to create safety. It is to help that person face that deep painful question that lives inside all of us: “Am I worthwhile? Am I okay as I am?” The philosopher argues against the Freudian interpretation — seeing our choices as inevitable consequences of our past, but he misses the finer point of nuance.
Our past does not need to define us and it doesn’t determine our destiny. Childhood abuse or neglect does not have to condemn us to a life of suffering. But that’s not the end of it. Something needs to be done to shift the trajectory. It is in childhood that we first try to answer that question, implicitly and privately, and it is those childhood experiences that give us the original answer. A child who is abused or neglected in one way or another will very likely conclude that he or she is not worthy, or at least is not good enough. That is the crux of it. And holding that answer inside of you is more painful than any reported symptom or behavior.
The Real Secondary Gain
When trying to help someone who is “choosing” to isolate by “making themselves anxious,” I want to be mindful of the purpose of that choice. The purpose is not to find an excuse to stay home; the purpose is to keep that painful “truth” hidden. The part that’s holding on to the anxiety is a part that believes the original answer — “I am worthless.” As long as that part holds that belief, both possible outcomes of taking the risk to get out of the house and interact with people would be negative. An unsuccessful social interaction would be proof that the negative self-view is correct. Of course these people didn’t want me around — I’m worthless! But even a successful social interaction would not help. Even many successful social interactions would not help. Even fame and popularity, even a devoted partner in fact, might not help, if that internal belief doesn’t change. No matter how well things go, the part that believes one is worthless will always be waiting for the other shoe to drop; that part will continue to think that others will eventually ‘figure it out’ and reject them.
So, this is where the smug philosopher and I part ways — it’s not enough to notice that holding on to social anxiety has the purpose to keep one isolated. We then have to have true compassion and understanding for this choice, followed by the necessary work to amend that original erroneous answer that the person is holding and protecting at all costs. In fact, we all have worth and we deserve to give that answer to ourselves. If the primary caregiver figures failed to convey that message, as therapists we help our clients heal and mend the damage. We help our clients see themselves as worthy, just as they are, from the first moment we meet them.
Just a Hallmark Platitude?
Many times, when people hear me tell them that we all have inherent worth and that I have no doubt they are good enough just as they are, they tell me to “cut it out with the Hallmark comments.” I understand that, of course. It does sound like I’m just giving them the “therapist answer.” But, in fact, it is as simple as that. Many authors and philosophers (including Kishimi and Koga) have delved into the question of what makes someone worthwhile, and they all find it impossible to pinpoint a standard of measurement. We have worth just for being. Those of us who were lucky enough to get a more adaptive answer to that question can attest that we did not do anything exceptional to deserve it. The only difference was in our caregivers’ ability to care for us, both physically and emotionally. We feel essentially worthy because we were cared for just enough to pass that threshold from “abuse/neglect” to “good enough parenting.” There is no other special skill, ability, or value that separates the “good enough” from “not good enough.” It’s only in the social communication between parent and child.
All of that is not to say that the majority of the population is fully self-confident. Of course not. The fear of not being good enough rears its head over and over again in most people because there are many social contexts in which we feel we need to compete. As therapists, we recognize this, in both our clients and in ourselves. What I look for is the nature of the foundation. How solid is the foundation of worthiness? If that foundation is shaky, I start there. And then, once the need for a certain choice is no longer there, the person will make a different choice.
The Path to Choice and Real Change
Getting back to teleology, through IFS, we can help parts that have certain agendas, like staying home in order to avoid social discomfort, to give up those agendas if they do not ultimately serve the person. If the person has shifted the internal belief from “I’m worthless” to “I am worthy,” then facing social rejection is no longer as meaningful. Social rejection when you believe you are worthless means that everyone can see your worthlessness and you’re mired in shame. No one in their right mind would take the risk of facing that! Of course a part of you will hold on to the purpose-driven behavior of keeping you too anxious to go out. Social rejection when you believe you are worthy simply means that whoever rejected you is not the right companion for you. It’s just data to inform your daily choices — it has no bearing on your sense of self or your emotional wellbeing. In that case, social anxiety is no longer needed. You can make the choice to go out based on your level of energy and your own opinion on the potential companion.