This is warts n’ all acceptance
of all the things that make up the complexity of the ‘self’, a term we
use when referring to the ‘me’ we understand ourselves to be.
We decide who we are, how our
‘selves’ are constituted, by processing and interpreting the information we
glean from our environment. How do others esteem me? Do they like me?
Does my self-assessment, my own
estimation of my worth, depend on the assessments of others? Or do I accept
that any clanger, rejection, or failure don’t or can’t in themselves define me
in a global sense i.e., my total worth or value.
If we tend to over rely on
others estimation of us, we have reached a stage of ‘needing’ rather than
‘preferring’ that others view us well e.g., likeable, respected, esteemed,
funny, smart.
‘I need you think I’m OK for me
to be OK.’
A student once asked me if he
was a good boy. I asked what he meant and he said I like it when people say I’m
a good boy. I asked him how he knows when he is a good boy and he said when
people ‘tell me I am.’ I asked him when he is most likely to be told he is a
good boy and he replied, ‘when I do something good’ (what others expect me to
do).
‘I can’t disappoint people who
expect me to be good.’
He also said that when he does
things that others disagree with or who may feel aggrieved about something
about him, he thinks he has made them feel that way. I asked him if he thinks
that other people’s feelings, like his mum’s annoyance is caused by him and he
said, ‘yes.’
‘I make my mum mad!’
What has this person learned
about his ‘self?’ He is learning that his worth depends on the assessment of
others. He ‘is’ good or bad depending on others estimation of his worth.
According to REBT (Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy) he accepts his ‘self’
only on condition that he is esteemed well by others. His ‘good’ self exists
only if others say it does!
That he has learned to believe
that he ‘makes’ others sad or annoyed or angry puts him at considerable
psychological risk. He has learned that he is responsible for how others feel
and of course this is an irrational belief. He may become hyper vigilant around
other people’s sensibilities, not wanting to cause any upset or discomfort to
others because he’s responsible for how they feel!
Unconditional self-acceptance
regards the self as a composite of too many qualities, characteristics,
capabilities etc good and bad and so it doesn’t make sense to abstract one from
the many and decide that it defines your you-ness.
‘Today you are You, that is
truer than true. There is no one alive who is Youer than You.’ Dr. Seuss
Alas we tend to do this at times
but we can self-correct e.g., I am likeable even if others may think otherwise,
I am not their opinion of me. So, the warts ‘n all idea means
that our OK - ness remains constant even when as fallible human beings we will
inevitably stuff up.
But for those young folk who
believe their worth is subject to certain conditions e.g., how
others rate them or how well they perform at tasks, then they will benefit from
knowing how they can challenge and change the irrational ideas they may hold to
be true about their ‘selves.’
So how can we help young people
become the best version of their ‘selves,’ one which will serve them well?
- Talk about thinking, feeling,
and behaving, what they are, and how they are each connected to each other.
E.g., if I BELIEVE I’m dumb, I FEEL sad and I WITHDRAW.
- We can have helpful or
unhelpful ideas about ourselves, others, and life in general, our beliefs.
- We can find out what those
beliefs are e.g., ‘if someone doesn’t seem to like me then I am
unlikable.’
- We can begin to change how we
think about ourselves if we learn how to think about our thinking.
Some ideas to teach
unconditional self-acceptance:
- Talk about a bike and its
general composition, wheels, tyres, frame, spokes etc. If a spoke on one wheel
is broken, does it make sense to decide the bike is totally no good and we
should get rid of it? Why or why not? One fault doesn’t make the bike (us)
worthless
- If we aren’t too good at
something, or we didn’t make the soccer team does that mean we are totally
useless, that we are totally no good e.g., using the bike analogy above, one of
our spokes might be a bit wobbly but the bike’s essentially OK (unless we
decide otherwise).
- Place a few dots on a sheet of
paper. Look at the page what do we notice. We might focus readily on the dots.
We may also notice that most of the page is clear of any dots or blemishes.
When we self-down we notice only the blemishes and decide they define us (our
‘self’ page is full of dot blemishes), that we are no good. We might however
look more broadly and decide that the sheet is essentially blemish less.
It isn’t an either/or
proposition, we can’t be totally bad or be totally good, we are just
worthwhile, unconditionally because as Albert Ellis (creator of REBT) says, ‘we
exist.’
If we consider our ‘selves’ in
the context of everything that constitutes our makeup, one fault or failure or
blemish can’t represent the whole. In that sense we are always OK and that’s
what we teach our young charges when we teach Unconditional Self-Acceptance.
PS Unconditionally accepting ourselves doesn’t
mean we elect to remain stagnant and not develop and evolve, to improve
ourselves. It isn’t a license to do nothing or to e.g., break the law because
ultimately ‘I’m OK no matter what.’ It is a healthy attitude of acceptance of
our makeup and to work hard at the things we decide we want to get better at.
Get my drift?
Giulio is an ED.D. candidate at the University
of South Australia. He is a student counsellor in the public school system and
specialises in Rational Emotive Behaviour Education. He is also a consultant to
schools in counselling-based behaviour education systems in school. He is the
author of two self-published teacher/counsellor resources; People and Emotions
and Have a Go Spaghettio! both endorsed by Dr. Albert Ellis, creator of
Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy. He is a member of the International Committee for The Advancement of Rational
Emotive Education.
