Christians in a therapy culture

These days we live in a culture which takes emotions very seriously.

The old way of not making too much of your feelings (the British 'stiff upper lip') is derided. This outlook has already brought changes and new challenges to our society. Christians need to be aware of the way this ethos is developing.

A search of 300 UK newspapers in 1980 did not find a single reference to the term 'self-esteem'. It found three citations in 1986. By 1990 this figure rose to 103. A decade later in 2000, there were a staggering 3,328 references. Similar figures apply for words like 'trauma', 'stress', 'syndrome' and 'counselling'. A tendency to reinterpret not just major difficulties but also normal experience through the medium of an emotional script is emerging. Along with this goes the inevitable proliferation of psychological labels and therapeutic terms. The tendency is to pathologise or medicalise bad feelings.

Trials which before were seen as a normal part of life, e.g. bereavement, are now seen as requiring specialist counselling. I do not want to denigrate the pain individuals feel, but simply to note the method by which such things are now handled.

Culture of emotionalism

The emphasis that we put on 'feeling good about oneself' is a distinct feature of our contemporary culture. It is underpinned by an outlook that regards the individual self as the central focus of social, moral and cultural preoccupation. For the Christian this cannot but raise questions. It looks suspiciously like Paul's warning that in the last days people will become 'lovers of themselves' (2 Timothy 3.2).

Making positive emotions our goal is an outlook very different from the traditional 'Protestant ethic' which saw hard work, sacrifice and discipline as virtues no matter what we were feeling.

So emotions are now seen as something we need to 'manage'. The ability to 'spontaneously emote' is applauded. Feeling good about oneself is the mark of a self-fulfilled person. But the management of emotions is seen as far too important to be left to the efforts of ordinary people themselves. The appeal to 'attend to your emotional needs' means you need to look for professional counselling.

In our Western world, the acknowledgement of emotional pain acquires meaning through its public display. In this vein we have the rise of 'confessional' TV shows like Jerry Springer, etc. And this exposes one of the main corollaries of popular therapy culture. So often on such programmes the object of the exercise for those taking part is to elicit sympathy from the audience. The individual is not to blame. 'I did what I did because you made me feel bad.' When we switch from a culture of morality to a culture of emotion then individual responsibility goes out of the window. We can always shift the blame to someone else.

Politics of emotionalism

In the past emotion was kept out of politics. It was the cool, clear thinking man who was thought to make the best politician.

But things have changed. With the erosion of all political ideology (post-modernism), politics has become 'managerialism with an emotional face'. It is widely seen that the world is out of control and the nation state can do little to influence its own future. In such a situation politics become meaningless. It is the worldview which Margaret Thatcher described as TINA - There Is No Alternative. People become politically apathetic.

With no cogent manifesto to grip the electorate, politicians have had to look for new ways of engaging the public. Emotional links with the electorate are therefore cultivated. Many people feel like unfortunates and victims in today's world. The politician promotes an image of standing in the same place. In his autobiography recently published, Bill Clinton, the ex-President of the USA, comments on his part in the Lewinski affair. He manages to portray himself as a victim. It wasn't his fault. It was his political enemies who forced him into this error of judgement. It was the fault of his alcoholic stepfather for destroying his self-esteem.

With the rise of emotionalism, politicians have cultivated the use of a therapy approach to social problems too. Treatment programmes for offenders. Counselling for the unemployed and homeless people. Therapeutic intervention in family life. The overall effect would ultimately transform the citizen into a patient.

Targeting privacy

That the therapy culture conveys negative signals about private life is, at first sight, puzzling. Surely it is focused on self and self-discovery? Yet, therapy culture is intensely public and often intolerant of those who prefer to keep their personal feelings private. The castigation of the Royal family, when they desired not to make a public display of emotion over Princess Diana's death, is a case in point.

Privacy and intimacy have little value to an outlook which validates itself through public display of emotion. The striving for self-control is increasingly ridiculed as a dishonest attempt to cover up a variety of emotional problems and diseases (but see Galatians 5.23; Titus 2.6, etc.).

The private sphere is looked upon as making people emotionally ill. Family relationships are often spoken of as 'toxic'. Some of this drives the seemingly continuous attack upon family life we see in contemporary society.

How did we get here?

We have obviously witnessed the decline of tradition and politics coupled with the decline of religion and shared moral norms over the last 50 years.

Now self is central. Therapeutic culture offers the 'moral' reference points to which individuals appeal to navigate their way through life. But it does so, not by pointing to God's law, nor by providing guidance for the attainment of social solidarity, but by giving guidance concerning 'looking after yourself'. In effect, the therapeutic ethos is an accommodation to moral disorientation and the weakening of solidarity through celebrating the cultivation of self as life's purpose.

The scientific world-view (modernism) appeals to rationality and reason. Ideologies such as communism and socialism, attempt to recast solidarity on a secular foundation. By contrast, the therapeutic culture rejects both the ethos of rationality and solidarity proclaimed by science and faith (this is post-modernism).

The diminished self

Rather than seeing the individual's identity in terms of opportunity and ability, the therapeutic culture casts the individual as someone inherently in need of help. We are people who cannot cope with the 'pressures' and 'traumas' of life. We are vulnerable. How one feels defines the self.

Even though therapy culture would see its goal as self-reconstruction and self-actualisation, the realisation of such goals is predicated on a relationship of dependence on therapeutics. The individual self is defined by its deficits.

In fact the way we see ourselves does affect our ability to cope with the difficulties of life. People are provided with a ready-made therapeutic explanation for their troubles - that in fact they are ill. (Government officials have been shocked to discover that between 1985 and 1996 there has been a 40% increase in the number of British people who consider themselves disabled.) By contrast, notice the way the Christian is encouraged to see himself/herself (2 Timothy 2.3-7; Philippians 2.17).

Professional help may sometimes be needed. But it can leave the individual feeling worthless. In many respects the counsellor acts as a friend - but this is a friend you have to pay for, not a real friend. (A church ought to be a support group of true friends in the adventure of serving not self, but God.)

The myth of self-esteem

Low self-esteem is now associated with virtually every ill that afflicts society - depression, domestic violence, misbehaviour at school, etc. There is no agreed definition of self-esteem, by the way!

'The self-esteem deficit is a cultural myth that is continually promoted by its advocates', says Frank Furedi (Professor of Sociology, University of Kent).

* We should be suspicious of self-esteem as a 'magic bullet' which will solve all problems. The magic bullet idea seems unscientific. Human beings are very complex.

* The self-esteem argument is not born out by research. In 1987 the California legislature set up a task force to investigate the links between low self-esteem and social problems. 'The association between self-esteem and its expected consequences are mixed, insignificant, or absent.'

* The growing disquiet about self-esteem took on real momentum with the school shootings at Columbine in 1999. The killers, it seems, did not suffer from low self-esteem as might be assumed, but from an unhealthy streak of individualism. In fact, some psychologists now argue that high self-esteem is linked to low self-control which in turn can lead to violent behaviour.

The truth is that feelings about oneself are mediated through complex relationships and institutions. Nor are these feelings static. They alter in line with changing events and opportunities. The attempt to treat self-esteem as an independent variable, a 'magic bullet' that determines broad patterns of social behaviour, requires a highly individualistic methodology that overlooks the broad context within which people interact with one another.

The effects on society of this therapy culture are various. There has been the intense desire of minority groups for 'recognition' in some form or other, and the escalating desire to blame others for our problems. We now live in a society which is becoming dominated by 'risk assessment' and claims for financial compensation, not just for physical injury but for emotional damage. In our justice system we are moving towards the principle that an offence is in the eyes of the beholder (rather than being established by evidence) and that the victim must always be believed.

The church is, of course, called to be compassionate. But where it has bought into therapy culture and putting the self, rather than God, at the centre, the results in the long run are bound to be disastrous.

JEB

I am much indebted to Professor Furedi's book, Therapy Culture, Routledge, 2004.