From Mr D. Solomon, MRPharmS
SIR,—I regard “Onlooker” as required reading every week. As
a counsellor and psychotherapist, I was interested to read “Menace to society”
(PJ, September 23, p432), a
piece on human arrogance, which he defined as “aggressive conceit, insolence,
or the claim to too much unquestionable authority as of right”. He goes
on to point out that very few psychology texts tackle the subject at all —
surprising, since it “must surely be one aspect of personality disorder”.
The diagnosis of such conditions as “personality disorder” is according
to strictly laid down criteria in the standard reference, DSM-V (Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition). These criteria are
constantly changing to accommodate society’s views of what is “normal”:
for example, workaholism is a new addition, previously regarded as some kind
of an ideal in our occidental, materialist culture. Perhaps arrogance will be
recognised as a personality disorder only when it ceases to be accepted as part
of the norm by psychiatrists, and others on “Onlooker’s” list.
I would like to draw a fairly thick line between aggressive arrogance, which
I would regard as sociopathic, and assertiveness, which I regard as necessary
behaviour. I believe that we are all entitled to try to get our needs met, and
I also believe that we do so in the best way we know how to, given our own capabilities
and skills. Assertiveness training involves the acquiring of social skills which
allow a person to state and achieve their needs in a non-manipulative way. Aggressive
arrogance here is seen as just another form of manipulation by those who have
not the capability to get their needs met in a more socially acceptable way.
And what is considered socially acceptable is the crux of the matter.
Different cultures have different ideas as to what is socially acceptable, “normal”,
and what constitutes defensive behaviour. At one extreme, perhaps, is the attitude
seen in wartime, and just after then it was absolutely necessary that “you
just have to pull yourself together and soldier on”. There was no counselling
available, of course, and aggressive, self-denying behaviour was necessarily
the norm. Those who could not cope were occasionally shot as deserters. Many
psychologists see the foundations of our poorly functioning “normal”
British society in the unaddressed horror of the two world wars. At the other
extreme is the concept of Carl Rogers’s “fully functioning person”
or Abe Mazlow’s “self-realised person”. Here the ego is regarded
as little more than a constellation of defensive behaviours, and evolving away
from the position where our actions are largely ruled by unconscious defensive
reactions, and hence towards behaviour according to conscious choice out of
the full range of possible behaviours, is seen as a highly desirable way of
being by the human potential movement. Such people, in my experience, are rarely
aggressive, although they are certainly assertive.
For those interested in obtaining a glimpse of such a state, Carl Rogers’s
book ‘On becoming a person’ (Boston: Houghton Misslin; 1961) is a
classic in the field.
David Solomon
Bolton,
Lancashire