As I have a very small child I seem to watch a lot of children's programming*.  One theme which seems to constantly reappear is that a child should be "happy with who he is". In some ways this is unobjectionable, as children should not aspire to nothing but following every trend or chase after popularity, but, in another way, I find this, and the self-esteem fetish form which it derives, a very dangerous trend.

Now, I am hardly suggesting that children should be taught that they are always wrong, or that they should be forced to place fitting in above all other values. There is definitely some value in being comfortable in one's skin, and having the confidence to stand by one's convictions in the face of opposition is clearly valuable, but I disagree that they are values in and of themselves.

The value of independence and confidence comes from having earned that right. If you are going to stand by your convictions, you need to be doing so because you are sure they are right. Just standing by convictions regardless of whether they are right or wrong is not valuable, it is stupidity. And, in some ways that is what these children's shows seem to be promoting, confidence in oneself regardless of whether one merits that much confidence.

The other problem I have is that such a movement seems to promote an excess of complacency, of being satisfied with whatever exists. Thinking back, most of the best things in my life came about precisely because I was not happy with myself. Dissatisfaction is a spur to change, which makes me think this drumbeat of being happy with oneself may actually harm more than help, by removing the impetus to better oneself.

It is a commonplace of economic theory that economic action is driven by dissatisfaction. In fact, there exists a theoretical "vegetative state", wherein all actors are sufficiently satisfied with their situation that nothing they can do will bring enough benefit for them to do it. In this theoretical state, all economic rules cease to work, as there is no impetus for anyone to do anything. There is a second condition, a "steady state", wherein the current economic activity provides such satisfaction that any change would not improve it, resulting in a stagnant system where things will not change unless acted on by an outside force**.

I see the self esteem movement, and the resultant slogans in children's programming as aimed at reaching one or the other of these states. Either a situation where one will continue in the same course forever, or, even worse, a situation where one will do absolutely nothing. It is, after all, the logical conclusion of being happy with whatever life throws at you.

Of course most of those telling children to be happy with who they are do not have any such intents. They have never really thought about the logical outcome of being happy with whatever one happens to be, they simply want children to "feel good". But their intentions don't matter, the outcomes do. And the logic of being satisfied with whatever one happens to be leads logically to inertia, to a resistance to change.

Perhaps a simple illustration will help.

When those filled with good intentions say "be happy with who you are", they are not just saying it to the tortured sensitive child tormented by bullies (definitely who they imagine listening), they are also saying it to those same bullies, and to the budding sociopath designing bombs in his notebook. Doubtless, in their minds, the message is that the tortured young artist, abused by bullies, should stand firm and follow his dreams, ending up in a cafe in Soho reading poetry to his boyfriend, or some similar message of counter cultural liberation.

But if the logic of self esteem works there, it works for the bully too. If the bullied are to stand firm, so are the bullies. If the abused are to be satisfied with what they are, so are the abusers. And, at this point, the message of "love yourself" ends up saying "go ahead and beat up that kid, you can't help yourself."

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with the self esteem movement. Not just the pressure toward inertia, and an unmerited confidence in one's own correctness, the biggest problem is that it takes the status quo and elevates it to a moral right. The older systems may seem harsh, but by saying "you have value to the degree you abide by these standards" prior systems forced order on society, and allowed some children to say "I am doing right, you are doing wrong". By making the self esteem of all children the sole good we end up removing all ethical guideposts. Maybe the bully's self esteem rests on beating up others, so who are we to stop him? Is that not the logical outcome of saying that nothing matters but the feelings of each child? That the child with the most excessive demands will win?

As with so many of the movements which attempt to substitute psychology for morality, this one ends up destroying the very concept of right and wrong, and, as with any system which eliminates morality, the strong and brutal end up getting the most from it. It may be based on good intentions, but the end result is anarchy.

And, as I have said so often, if the nation ever falls, it will be because of an excess of good deeds.

----------------------------------------------

* At some point I will probably write about the fears I have heard voiced over the bilingual children's programs such as "Dora the Explorer" and "Diego". As one who grew up hearing English, Russian and Ukranian, as well as regularly hearing Spanish on both "the Electric Company" and "Villa Alegre", I tend to think such fears are a bit overblown, but they are interesting as a symptom of the general anti-Spanish backlash caused by our chaotic immigration system. But that is a future post.

** The specific nomenclature may be wrong. And various economists may have named it differently. I am working form a rather hazy memory of the terms used in Human Action, and it has been a while since I read it last. However, the terms themselves do not matter so much as the two concepts they illustrate. An excess of satisfaction can easily turn into total inertia. If I misused the terminology, it really does not change that point.

-----------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

Though I feel I have said that final quote many times, I actually can find it in only two other blog posts, "More Unintended Consequences" and "Consequences". I could swear I said it more than that, but perhaps it was only in comments on articles.

POSTSCRIPT PART 2

I am not crazy. Well at least this topic doesn't prove I am crazy. I did say the same thing twice in earlier posts, with slightly different wording. It appears in both "Private Versus Public Racism" and "The State Versus Universities". (apparently whenever the word "versus" is used, so is this quote.)

I know this doesn't matter to anyone but me, however it is nice to discover my memory is not yet failing.

ADDENDUM

I realized after I wrote this that one of my comments may appear homophobic to those prone to seeing homophobia in everything. Then again, those prone to find homophobia in everything really don't need a good reason, do they?*
 
In reality, my intent was to mock the liberals' habit of adopting a condescending, patronizing attitude towards gay men. They tend to say things such as "He was the nicest, most interesting gay man." It always struck me that most of what the left says about homosexuals sounds as if they were talking about pets or children.

Most of the time I think that liberals really have a rather negative stereotype of homosexuals (and most minorities), but adopt a patronizing attitude so they can feel they are enlightened. The success of "Will and Grace", which for the most part consisted of laughing at the "safe" gay man Will and the "flamboyantly" gay man Jack, was pretty much the gay version of "Amos and Andy" (though less funny). That the left, for the most part, thought it was liberating rather than patronizing shows a lot about the left's attitude toward homosexuals.

(Then again, the fact that flamboyant gay men in the media adopt such a camp attitude does not really help their cause. When the most prominent men from Paul Lynde all the way through the Quear Eye** cast have adopted a catty queen persona, it is hard for the homosexual activists to claim to the public at large that gays are just like everyone else.)

------------------------------------------

* A friend and I used to amuse ourselves by playing on PC sensibilities. We would go to bars and tell off-color jokes about homosexuals. Sooner or later a patron, most often a girl in her twenties, or a woman in her late forties, would begin to lecture us about telling "insensitive" gay jokes. We would wait a while, then let the PC accuser realize that my friend was gay. Watching their efforts to atone for such non-PC behavior was more entertaining than you can imagine.

** I had to spell the word Quear, as TH's filters would not let me use a perfectly good word. I hate to quibble, but quear had a perfectly good meaning before being co-opted by the gay movement. In addition, how can TH really ban a word that appears daily in TV guide?