You will be happier if you take responsibility for yourself?

After taking my petty delights in Carolyn Hax's downfall yesterday, I decided to give a skim to some of her more recent columns. I found this passage in her offering from January 4th.

That's why I think it's harder in the short run to choose celebration over blame -- you have to take responsibility for more of your own bad outcomes. "He's a great guy" becomes, when it doesn't work out: "He really is a great guy, he just doesn't love me," or "I took him for granted, and didn't treat him the way he deserved." It's so much easier to save face with "I thought he was a great guy, but he was just another loser."

Hax argues here that it's easier to find what sucks about a given situation than what's good about it. All good. Here's where she loses me: she also argues that the unhappy person is a victim whereas the happy person takes responsibility for her destiny.

Maybe she's just giving one case, while recognizing, internally, that there are many ways to be unhappy. I hope so.

Because, I have to ask: what about the person who looks at his life, says: I'm kinda fat, I'm awkward, I don't make a lot of money and girls make me nervous. I can't really blame them for not liking me, but man does it suck?

What about that guy? He's not a victim. He's not cursing anyone.

Or what the guy who is an even harder case: I'm not bad looking, I do okay in life, I have friends but I just can't get anyone from friendship to romance. Why? Why? Why? He knows he must be doing something wrong, but he doesn't know what. He's not a victim, but he is a failure.

How can he try a little harder, Carolyn, and find a way to be happy?

Comments

[Jen]

I'm skeptical of the sad sack you describe. I bet he is a victim. I think in your scenario, you've created a straw man. In the particular sentence you write, yes, he's not blaming anyone. But let's take his predicament a little deeper. Underneath his exasperation, I think is a feeling of victimhood.

He just can't get anyone to love him. He feels like a victim, no? He may not have found the person he wants to blame. He may still be searching for the right perpetrator, but he still feels like a victim, doesn't he? Perhaps he blames genetics for just looking okay. Perhaps he blames his mother for never inspiring him to work harder and make more money. Perhaps he blames God for not putting "the one" in front of him. I think his "why? why? why?" is his feeling of victimhood looking for a perp.

Your girl Carolyn would probably tell your sad sack of a friend that he needs to buck up, get out there, seize the opportunity to be alone, blah, blah, blah. Hell, Hax thinks we should all look at meetings as opportunities to leave our desk and scam a free donut. She's not sympathetic to your whining friend, even if he doesn't know quite who to blame, yet. Just because he doesn't know who to blame, doesn't mean he's taking responsibility for his own outcome.

[One Year Monk]

It seems difficult to imagine a person who's never been lucky at love who wouldn't be a little whiny. Most single people are, in fact, a bit whiny. Does that make them victims?

I've known serial monogamists who couldn't string a full year of singleness together since puberty who get seriously, seriously dysfunctional after a week solo.

Does that make them victims?

I know lots of perpetually single people that I would not describe as victims. They are out there. They aren't hermits. They try, but they are failures. They fail and fail and fail.

Which returns me to my question: if there are people out there who fail and fail and fail even though they do everything that people like Hax say they should do-- what does objectivity do for them?

As far as I can tell, it says: this is your lot in life. Not a lot of optimism you can draw from that.

I guess I have to go a step further and say that if you aren't blaming anyone you aren't a victim. I just can't buy your analysis that they are "victims who haven't found anyone to blame." In any given scenario, if you're the sort of person who doesn't blame others and keeps trying, you aren't a victim. The act of trying, no matter what comes out of your mouth, absolves you of victimhood.

Victims say a lot of dumb stuff... true, but saying dumb stuff doesn't make you a victim. Not trying to overcome your difficulties, that's what makes you a victim. You do it because someone else is in your way, and whatever,
but,
in this case,
if you have a person who keeps meeting people, keeps trying, keeps looking and can't get it right, that person is a failure. He's not a victim.

Victims are usually failures, but failures are not always victims.

[Jen]

I don't think it's necessarily the blaming that defines victimhood. I think it's the lack of agency. Of course one can fail and not be a victim. Those people are the ones that get back on the horse, right? Keep trying? It's their sense of agency that distinguishes them from victimhood. But can one be a failure with an overwhelming sense of powerlessness and despair and not be a victim?

You've described a guy who feels completely powerless to achieve the things he wants to achieve. And now, he's sitting around, whining about how powerless he is. What's the difference between him and a victim?

[One Year Monk]

Your definition of victim seems to come down to "people I am not impressed by." This doesn't seem to me to be a useful definition. I'm not persuaded that it isn't more useful to look at the question of where they place fault as central.

Worse, I think your analysis falls prey to two false assumptions.

First) the assumption that everyone ought to pursue love.

Second) the assumption that you should never quit trying to achieve your dreams.

The former is a universal and the latter is very American. Challenging the value of the former is the whole point of this blog, so I'll leave that aside.

The latter, tho... Have you seen MILLION DOLLAR BABY? Remember that side character in the gym? The idiot 90-lb weakling who keeps training to be a fighter, even tho it's hopeless. Because he's a born weakling.

Are you impressed by him? There comes a point in a person's life when the way they show real agency, real control of their destiny, is by quitting and trying to do something else. Sure, it's really admirable to fail and fail and fail and then succeed. But the story that doesn't get told very often is that of the guy that just fails and fails and fails and fails.

Is that 90-lb weakling who won't give up on his dream of being a boxer a hero or an idiot?

I think he's an idiot. Some people just aren't cut out for some things. He'd be better off investing his energy elsewhere.

Similarly, for the guy who can't get anywhere in love, I humbly submit that he's showing more control over his own destiny by giving up on women and putting that time into -- I don't know -- becoming an inventor or learning computer programming, than in girls.