Workaholism Is a Life-Lie
YOUTH: All right. I readily admit that I do not have the courage to take steps toward self-acceptance or condence in others. But is this really the fault only of the “I”? Isn’t it also actually a problem brought about by other people, who accuse me unreasonably and attack me?
PHILOSOPHER: To be sure, not everyone in the world is a good and virtuous person. One goes through any number of unpleasant experiences in one’s interpersonal relations. But there is something one must not get wrong at this juncture: the fact that, in every instance, it is “that person” who attacks you who has the problem, and it is certainly not the case that everyone is bad. People with neurotic lifestyles tend to sprinkle their speech with such words as “everyone” and “always” and “everything.” “Everyone hates me,” they will say, or “It’s always me who takes a loss,” or “Everything is wrong.” If you think you might be in the habit of using such generalizing statements, you should be careful.
YOUTH: Well, that does sound rather familiar.
PHILOSOPHER: In Adlerian psychology, we think of this as a way of living that is lacking in “harmony of life.” It is a way of living in which one sees only a part of things but judges the whole.
YOUTH: Harmony of life?
PHILOSOPHER: In the teachings of Judaism, one nds the following anecdote: “If there are ten people, one will be someone who criticizes you no matter what you do. This person will come to dislike you, and you will not learn to like him
either. Then, there will be two others who accept everything about you and whom you accept too, and you will become close friends with them. The remaining seven people will be neither of these types.” Now, do you focus on the one person who dislikes you? Do you pay more attention to the two who love you? Or would you focus on the crowd, the other seven? A person who is lacking in harmony of life will see only the one person he dislikes and will make a judgment of the world from that.
YOUTH: Intriguing.
PHILOSOPHER: Some time ago, I participated in a workshop for people who stammer and their families. Do you know anyone who has a stammer?
YOUTH: Yes, there was a student at the school I went to who stuttered. That must be hard to deal with, both for the person who has it and for his family, too.
PHILOSOPHER: Why is stammering hard to deal with? The view in Adlerian psychology is that people who suer from stammering are concerned only about their own way of speaking, and they have feelings of inferiority and see their lives as unbearably hard. And they become too self-conscious as a result and start tripping over their words more and more.
YOUTH: They are concerned only about their own way of speaking?
PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. There are not many people who will laugh at or make fun of someone when he trips over his words now and then. To use the example I just mentioned, it would probably be no more than one person in ten, at most. In any case, with the sort of foolish person who would take such an attitude, it is best to simply sever the relationship. But if one is lacking in harmony of life, one will focus only on that person and end up thinking, Everyone is laughing at me.
YOUTH: But that’s just human nature!
PHILOSOPHER: I have a reading group that meets on a regular basis, and one of the participants has a stammer. It comes out sometimes when it’s his turn to read. But not a single person there is the sort who would laugh at him for that.
Everyone just sits quietly and waits in a quite natural way for the next words to come out. I am sure this is not a phenomenon that is isolated to my reading group. When one’s interpersonal relations do not go well, it cannot be blamed on a stammer or a fear of blushing or anything of the sort. Even though the problem is really that one has not attained self-acceptance or condence in others, or contribution to others, for that matter, one is focusing on only one tiny part of things that simply should not matter and from that trying to form judgments with regard to the entire world. This is a misguided lifestyle that is lacking in harmony of life.
YOUTH: Did you actually convey such a harsh idea to people who suer from stammering?
PHILOSOPHER: Of course. At rst, there were some adverse reactions, but by the end of the three-day workshop, everyone was in deep agreement with it.
YOUTH: It certainly is a fascinating argument. But focusing on people who suer from stammering seems like a rather special example. Could you give me any others?
PHILOSOPHER: Well, another would be the workaholic. This, too, is an example of a person who is clearly lacking in harmony of life.
YOUTH: A workaholic is? Why is that?
PHILOSOPHER: People who suer from stammering are looking at only a part of things but judging the whole. With workaholics, the focus is solely on one specic aspect of life.
They probably try to justify that by saying, “It’s busy at work, so I don’t have enough time to think about my family.” But this is a life-lie. They are simply trying to avoid their other responsibilities by using work as an excuse. One ought
to concern oneself with everything, from household chores and child-rearing to one’s friendships and hobbies and so on. Adler does not recognize ways of living in which certain aspects are unusually dominant.
YOUTH: Ah… That’s exactly the sort of person my father was. It was just: Be a workaholic, bury yourself in your work, and produce results. And then rule over the family on the grounds that you are the breadwinner. He was a very feudalistic person.
PHILOSOPHER: In a sense, that is a way of living of refusing to acknowledge one’s life tasks. “Work” does not mean having a job at a company. Work in the home, child-rearing, contributing to the local society, hobbies, and all manner of other things are work. Companies and such are just one small part of that. A way of living that acknowledges only company work is one that is lacking in harmony of life.
YOUTH: It’s exactly as you say! And it’s not as if the family he’s supporting has any say in the matter, either. You can’t argue with your father when he growls with a violent tone of voice, “It’s thanks to me that there’s food on the table.”
PHILOSOPHER: Such a father has probably been able to recognize his own worth only on the level of acts. He works all those hours, brings in enough money to support a family, and is recognized by society—and, on that basis, he views himself as having greater worth than the other members of his family. For each and every one of us, however, there comes a time when one can no longer serve as the provider. When one gets older and reaches retirement age, for example, one may have no choice but to live o one’s pension or support from one’s children. Even when one is young, injury or poor health can lead to being unable work any longer. On such occasions, those who can accept themselves only on the level of acts are severely damaged.
YOUTH: You mean those people whose lifestyle is all about work?
PHILOSOPHER: Yes. People whose lives lack harmony.
YOUTH: In that case, I think I’m starting to get what you mean by the level of being, which you brought up last time. And I certainly haven’t given much thought to the fact that someday I won’t be able to work any longer or do anything on the level of acts.
PHILOSOPHER: Does one accept oneself on the level of acts, or on the level of being? This is truly a question that relates to the courage to be happy.
