What is Self-Esteem Anyway?

Albert Ellis, PhD, is the grandfather of cognitive-behavioral therapy and is the father Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy. He recently died at the age of 93. He was a prolific writer and monumental influence in the field of psychology. Having personally known him I can say that he was remarkable man. It was one of the great minds of the 20th century and most likely the 21st century. He was a man who lived by what he taught. In braced our humanity our weaknesses and our strengths. He vigorously refused to allow any of his patients to condemn or down themselves. Not only did he feel that this was unethical behavior but that it was flat wrong logically, empirically and functionally. His understanding of unconditional regard for self and others thus may be his greatest contribution. Ellis thought that much of psychology over focused on the "self." And he felt that the word self-esteem should be thrown out of the language.

He felt the “self-esteem” was often based on very superficial things and was indeed harmful to people. I googled the question “What is self-esteem” and got The National Association of Self Esteem. I my lord! Their definition of self esteem is exactly what the Dr. Ellis railed against. They note that self-esteem is based on the feeling that you're competent and deserving of happiness. Well let's suppose you're not particularly competent, that you in fact have significant deficits then your only conclusion based on the NASE's definition of self esteem is that you really are not deserving of happiness and are not worthwhile.

Ellis argues that any definition of self worth that is based on your actions was likely to fail. We have the tendency to focus on our mistakes and not so much on our successes. Maybe the reason for this that if we didn't focus on mistakes we'd never fix the mistakes. Fixing mistakes aids our survival. But if we are truly to define our self-worth based upon our actions or qualities and we would have to be able to assess every possible action we engaged in, all of our qualities. This of course is not possible to do. But even if you could it is likely that you would find a fairly equal number of mistakes and successes. In other words, we are hardly perfect. Ellis argued that instead of judging our self based upon our actions we should just judge our actions and leave the self out of it. That does not mean you don't take responsibility for your actions it just means you don't beat yourself up if you make a mistake. As soon as you down yourself or lower your value because of mistakes you reduce the chance of correcting mistakes and increase the chance of feeling depressed or anxious. You also move in the opposite direction of achieving your normal goals of love and approval, comfort and success in life.

Another definition of self esteem that Ellis talks about was more of an existential definition. It states that you are worthwhile just because you exist. That one never really worked for me. I need more of a clear definition, one I could get my teeth into. If you judge your actions and leave off judging yourself you will find that your sense of self-worth greatly improves. As a result, you feel more confident and competent.

As for the latter part of the National Association of Self-esteem's definition of 'self-esteem', namely the idea itself self-esteem is connected to the belief that you are deserving of happiness. This idea is also wrong. It is wrong because there is no law out there that says you deserve happiness. Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence was well aware of this fact. That is why he didn't say we have the right to happiness but rather the right to pursue happiness. What is accurate is that humans deserve to pursue happiness. There is no guarantee you're will get it.