E. The Action Approach

This section heading is the title of a book by George Weinberg (1969). In this book, Weinberg makes an interesting and important point. If you are going to change something about yourself you can do it only if you experiment with the new behavior. In short, change requires practice with the change.

I am fond of quoting a passage from a translation of Spinoza's On The Improvement of the Understanding. It is: "I was unwilling at first to give up a good, bad by reason of its nature but certain of its attainment for a good, good by reason of its nature but uncertain of its attainment." While Spinoza was talking here of God, the principle is a general one. What you have now in the form of your character is bad (bad in the sense that it is not working as you want it to else why would you be trying to change it) but at least you have it, it is certain; but what you are trying to achieve is a different character which will work better (or at least one hopes it will) but it is not clear that you will be able to achieve that new character.

What Reichian mainly does is remove the persistence of your present character; but it does not supply you with a new character. As the impediments to change are lifted by the therapy, you will develop and become comfortable with a new way of "being-in-the-world" in part only by experimenting with the potential changes.

Are you, in your view, too passive? You are not going to become assertive unless you experiment with being assertive. You have to learn, by experience, what being assertive feels like, what ways of being assertive work in the world and which lead to trouble, and how being assertive is going to mesh or conflict with other aspects of your character.

Exactly the same line of thinking would apply to being too assertive at present. You are going to learn by experimentation what it is like to not be assertive.

This same principle applies all across the board. Since the main enemy of life is the superego, violating the superego or the ego ideal will be uncomfortable and anxiety-provoking. You can become accustomed to these new behaviors only by trying them on for size and seeing if they fit.

Footnote 116. The phrase is from the philosopher, Martin Heidegger in Being and Time.

Consider the things that, in the past and habitually, you either did all the time or never did. How about bowling? Perhaps in high school you found that you did not enjoy bowling. Fine, try it again now; you might just like it now. How about ping pong or tennis or checkers or cross word puzzles? I gave some examples of things you might not do and how it won't hurt to try them; but it applies also on the other side. Do you usually see the latest movies? Then try not seeing any movie, even on TV, for six months. Are you very social? Perhaps a weekend rarely passes without you attending at least one and often two social function(s). Fine, try turning down all social engagements for six months and see what happens.

The issue is: to change, take action, try it out. It can't hurt and you might discover that you are not the person you used to be and assumed you still were.

F. Guilt, Valid And Invalid

No single emotion, not even anxiety, has a more pervasive deleterious effect than does guilt (and its cogeners: shame, embarrassment and self-disgust). Thus I have chosen to add a short discussion of the concept of guilt.

Human beings are suckers for guilt. It is built into us by evolution and parents. Guilt is corrosive and non-productive. It only stands in the way of life. Body-based psychotherapy will do nothing, by itself, to remove guilt. However, because guilt is so corrosive an emotion, it is very important that you do the cognitive work to remove guilt from your self-image.

Because humans are suckers for guilt, religion grabbed hold of the emotion to use it for its value in contributing to the power of the church (Becker, 1968). They did this by the simple expedient of inverting the concept of guilt. The church put guilt as an after-the-fact concept. Properly, it is a before-the-fact concept.

Footnote 117. There is empirical evidence that shame is different from guilt and (1) shame is strongly associated with depression, (2) both are differentially linked to the genetic variable of what is called "field-dependence" and "field-independence." For a discussion see Lewis, 1990.

Footnote 118. The Christian Church, following Jewish tradition, made guilt a condition of existence. By reason of being born, you are therefore guilty. The only way out of this guilt is to acknowledge the power of the church to remove the inherent guilt.

The church treated guilt as something that you are (that is, guilty) by reason of you having done something. That is, you did something and therefore now you are guilty. The church treated guilt as something that arises after the act. Once you admit or acknowledge guilt, then you are in the power of the church which put itself forward as the only organization which can remove or remit the guilt.

Properly applied, guilt is a before-the-fact concept. One uses the concept (and emotion) of guilt as a way to make decisions. The simple questions is: if I do this thing am I likely to feel guilty afterwards?

However, put this way -- as a before-the-act concept -- invites another problem. It invites giving power to the worst part of you, to the superego and to the ego ideal. I don't intend that in any way.

The concept of guilt, as I will discuss next, implies not a rigid superego (you may not) or a rigid ego ideal (you must), rather it implies a coherent moral system. For most people a moral system is what has been drilled into them by their parents or by their culture. To challenge one's moral system, I teach my patients to ask two questions (on an ongoing basis): (1) how do I know (that this is wrong or that this is true) and (2) who said so (from where did I get that idea that this act or attitude or conviction is wrong and can I, by my own logic, validate it)?

Treating guilt this way, as a before the fact issue, the church (and parents) loose(s) much of its (their) power. Here is how it works.

First, we distinguish two types of guilt: (1) guilt as a guide to action, and (2) actual guilt. Our objective in this work is to potentiate guilt as a guide to action and diminish actual guilt to the point of unimportance.

Actual guilt does exist, but only if there were four things present when you did something about which you feel guilty:

1. you had knowledge at the time that there was a moral issue involved

2. you had a moral code that dealt with the issue

3. you had actual near-equal-cost alternatives and you were cognitively aware of those alternatives.

4. In the light of your moral code, your knowledge, and your recognition of realistic alternative courses of action, you choose to deliberately violate your own moral code.

Before examining each of those four issues, keep in mind that we are here addressing past actions about which you have some guilt. Guilt is a non-productive emotion. Guilt eats at your self-esteem as the quotes from Bergler and Horney make clear. The goal is to diminish or, hopefully, eliminate guilt for past actions as a part of your psychological makeup.

Considering each of the four issues:

1. Knowledge Of A Moral Issue

Guilt most frequently arises in retrospect. Looking back at something we did or failed to do, we feel guilt. But at the time of the action or inaction, there was no thought of there being a moral issue involved. Retrospective guilt is never valid. Note here that I am not talking about the legal concept of guilt; I am addressing only the personal (and emotional) issue of guilt.

In order for one to have or be in a condition where guilt is an appropriate concept (and thus an appropriate emotion) there has to have been a moral issue involved in the action or inaction and, further, you had to have knowledge at that time that there was a moral issue involved. To say again, most guilt arises in retrospect. We look backward at something we did or did not do and applying today's moral code -- a moral code that was different or not present at the time -- we judge ourselves guilty.

2. The Presence Of A Moral Code

Next, you had to have had a moral code at the time that, to a grater or lesser degree, dealt with the situation. Many people — for all I know most people — have only the glimmerings of an extensive or coherent moral code. On the contrary, most people seem to have only a loose aggregate of moral (normative) statements that they use as a substitute for a coherent moral code:

You should be kind to others. Why?

Well, you should, that's all. It's the right way to be. Prove that to me.

I can't. It's just right, that's all.

Most guilt over past actions arises out of situations for which the person had no moral code as such at the time. Thus they look at the end result, judge the end result to be bad, and then say to themselves things like "I knew better" or "I knew I was being stupid" or "I knew I was doing something I shouldn't do." There are a host of cognitive errors in that type of thinking but we are looking here at only one: the presence (then, not now) of a moral code.

A bad result is not an indication of a moral lapse. Knowledge that one should not have done something or that one was acting stupidly does not substitute for an issue of morality. To live is to make mistakes. To live is to get bad outcomes of some actions or inactions. Most guilt for past bad outcomes amounts to: "if only... ." An example may help.

You were driving badly and wrecked your father's car.

You knew you were supposed to be careful and instead you were talking with your friends while you were driving and not watching the road.

Because of your accident your father was without a car for a month (he had to take the bus to work) and the insurance premiums were increased to the point where it was difficult to afford them.

"If only" you had done what you were supposed to do and paid attention to your driving, it never would have happened. All correct. If you had not been inattentive to the road, then you likely would not have had the accident. But where is the guilt?

As a teenager your values placed friends above careful driving. In your talking you were not violating your value system, you were following it. Your values there resulted in a bad outcome and that constitutes an error; it does not constitute a basis for guilt. Guilt, properly considered, is a moral issue and you were not driving immorally.

3. Knowledge Of Realistic Alternatives Of Action

At the time of the action or inaction you had to have knowledge of realistic alternatives available to you. By 'realistic alternatives' I mean that the alternative(s) is (are) in fact (not in theory) capable of being done and that the personal or monetary cost of the alternative(s) was (were) roughly comparable.

Suppose I know that Bobby stole a car. My moral code indicates that I should report that knowledge to the police. I also believe — based on what knowledge is available to me — that if I report Bobby that he or his buddies will physically retaliate and probably seriously hurt me. Thus to report or not to report are not equal cost alternatives. The cost of reporting is too high.

The proper concept of guilt requires that there be both reasonable alternatives and that you have (or had) knowledge of those alternatives. Guilt is not a function of outcome; it is a function of possibilities and knowledge of them.