Self Poisoning of the Mind

7/25/2019 Self Poisoning of the Mind

1/7

Self-Poisoning of the MindAuthor(s): Jon ElsterSource: Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, Vol. 365, No. 1538, Rationality andEmotions (Jan. 27, 2010), pp. 221-226Published by: The Royal SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40538192.

Accessed: 26/10/2014 16:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Royal Societyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophical

Transactions: Biological Sciences.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.31.75.101 on Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:40:58 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rslhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40538192?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40538192?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rsl


2/7

PHILOSOPHICAL

TRANSACTIONS

OF

"fj

THE

ROYAL

W'

SOCIETY

MJ

Phil Trans. . Soc.

B

(2010)

365,

221-226

doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0176

Self-poisoning

of the

mind

Jon

Elster*

Chairede Rationalit

t Sciences

ociales,

Collge

e France

Rational-choice

heory

ries

o

explain

ehaviourn the

ssumption

hat ndividuals

ptimize.

ome

forms

f rrational

ehaviouranbe

explained

y ssuming

hat he

ndividuals

subject

o

hedonic,

pleasure-seeking

echanisms,

uch

as wishful

hinking

r

adaptive

reference

ormation.

n

this

paper,

draw ttentiono

psychic

mechanisms,

riginating

n the

ndividual,

hichmakeher

worse ff.

first onsiderhe deas of counterwishful

hinking

nd of

counteradaptivereference

formation

nd

then,

rawing eavily

n

Proust,

he

elf-poisoning

f hemind hat ccurs

hrough

the

operation

f

amour-propre.

Keywords:

mour-propre;

ishful

hinking;daptive

references;

ognitive

issonance;

reactance;

roust

1. INTRODUCTION

In

this

paper,

shall discusswhat Scheler

1972),

inspired y

Nietszche,

alled

self-poisoning

f the

mind'. shall

not

imit

myself

o

the ressentiment'

that

was Scheler's

main

example,

ut also consider

other

counterhedonic

ental

mechanisms

belief

changes

r

preference

hanges

hat

originate

n the

agent

nd make her

worse

ff.

shall draw

heavily

n

the

writings

fMarcel

Proust,

which

providemany

insights

nto

hesematters.1

As

background

or he

discussion,

onsiderhe tan-

dard

model frational

hoice

figure

).

The

theory

f

rationalhoice,

r rational

ction,

s

primarily

orma-

tive. t tells

eople

what o do to achieveheir ims s

well

s

possible.

t can alsobe usedfor

xplanatory

ur-

poses, y

ssuming

hat

eople

ollow

he

prescriptions

of the

theory

nd then

determining

hether he

observed

ehaviour

onforms

o the

prescribed

ehav-

iour.

n a fuller

xposition,

he

preceding

tatements

would

have o be

qualified

n various

ays,

ut

for

my

endshere hese uances

o not

matter.

Figure represents

he

xplanatory

rcausal

ersion

of the

heory.

he

heavily

rawn

ines

represent

oth

causal relations

nd

optimality

elations. he

action,

for

nstance,

s

optimal

n

the

ight

f thedesires

nd

beliefs hat

ause t.

The

lightly

rawn

ines

epresent

causal relationshat renot also optimalityelations.

Thus,

he ine rom esires o

beliefs

epresents

ishful

thinking,elf-deception

nd other orms f motivated

belief

ormation.

he ine

rom eliefso desires

r

pre-

ferences

epresents

echanisms

uch

s thereduction

of

cognitive

issonance

r

adaptive reference

or-

mation.

Dissonance

reduction

n

fact

applies

more

widely

it can

have the effect

f

aligning

eliefs n

desires nd

even

n

emotions,

s we shall ee.

Although

ligning

ne's

beliefs n

one's desires s

intrinsically

rrational,

t does

embody

form

f hort-

term

ptimizing.

elieving

hat he

world s as

you

would

ike t to be

provides

ome

kind f

mmediate

*jon.

[email protected]

One contribution

f

12

to

Theme ssue

Rationality

nd

motions'.

satisfaction,

r t east emoveshe

iscontenthats

pro-

ducedwhen eliefs

nddesires

iverge.

n the

ong

un,

of

ourse,

ne

might

e

very adly

ff

cting

n beliefs

adopted

n hedonic

rounds.

s a

Norwegian roverb

has t:

pissing

n

one's

pants ives

rief armth.

Aligning

esires

n beliefs s

neither ational or

irrational. here are

no

rationality

riteria

or

pro-

cessesof

preference

ormationr for

he outcome f

such

processes,xcept

or he

equirement

hat

refer-

ences be

logically

onsistent.

t the same

time,

he

outcome

f

daptive reference

ormation

r ofdisso-

nance

reduction

an be seen as a

form f

optimizing,

as

they

make he

gent

etter

ff.

The

alignments

f desires nd

preferences

n one

another

endto

improve

he

welfare f the

agent,

t

least

n

the hort

un. ome

processes

fbelief

djust-

ment or

preference

djustment

eem, however,

o

make

he

gent

worse

ff,

otbetter. s Amos

Tversky

once remarked

in

conversation),

hey mbody

isso-

nance

production

ather

han eduction.

he

puzzle

s

to

explain

how

they

an arise.

Tversky

onjectured

that

hey

might

e the outcome

f a

'crossing

f

the

wires n the

pleasure

machine',

metaphor

uggesting

thatthe

production

f dissonance s a biochemical

phenomenon

n a

par

with

omeforms f

mental ll-

ness. Without

enying

hat

this

may

ndeed

be

so,

I shall fferome lternativeuggestions.ore pecifi-

cally,

shall raw

n theFrench

moralists

Elster

999,

ch. I.

3)

to

argue

or he

mportance

f

mour-propre

n

the

elf-poisoning

fthe

mind.While

mour-propre

s

not

tselfn

emotion,

nything

hat hreatens

t an

pro-

voke

strong

motional eactions.

nything

hat can

bolster

t

may

lso

nduce

trong

motions.

In

2,

I consider hemechanismsf

counteradap-

tive

preference

formation and counterwishful

thinking.

he

latter as received

ome ttentionrom

philosophers

Pears

1984,

pp.

42-44;

Mele

2001,

ch.

5),

but

not,

o

myknowledge,

rom ocial

cien-

tists.

The former as

received rief ttention

rom

economistsvonWeiszcker972), butnot,to my

knowledge,

rom

ther

uarters.

ather han

eviewing

the

literature,

shall

suggest

ome

approaches

hat

draw n

theFrench

moralistsnd

Proust.

221

This

ournal

s

2010 The

Royal

ociety

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/7

222

J.

Elster

Self-poisoningf

themind

action

desires

preferences)

=z*

beliefs

informations

igure

1 A

model of rational

hoice.

In

3,

1

draw venmore

xtensively

n Proustn

my

discussion

of

the transmutation

f beliefs

and,

especially,

f desires. he

strikingimilarity

etween

theviews

fProust nd those fNietszches

probablydue to the factthat

they

were both nfluencedy

La Rochedoucauld.

2.

COUNTERWISHFUL

THINKING

AND

COUNTERADPTIVE PREFERENCE

FORMATION

La Fontainewrote hat Each believes

very asily

what

he fears nd whathe

hopes'. Believing

whatone

hopes,

wishful

hinking,

oes at least

provide

mmediate

rat-

ification,

oweverbad the

subsequent consequences.

Believing

what one

fears,

counterwishfulhinking,

seems more

perverse,

s the belief does not

provide

any

kindof

gratification

or

produce

any

nstrumental

benefits,

ut

only

serves to make one miserable.

f

the belief hat

you

cannotobtain

causes

you

to

desire

('the

grass

is

always greener'),

there s also a net

loss in welfare.We

may

refer o this

phenomenon

as

counteradaptivereferenceormation.

A

mechanism

hat

might

ccount

for

both

phenom-

ena is overreactiono the fear of wishful

hinking

nd

of

adaptive preferences.

ascal

(1991,

p.

178/Pense

78)

observed that The most

equitable

man

in

the

world s not

permitted

o be

judge

in

his own cause:

I know

some

who,

in order

not to be

entrapped

by

this

amour-propre,

ave been

as

unjust

as

possibleby

a counter-bias; he sure way to lose a perfectlyust

cause was to

get

t commended o them

by

theirnear

kinsfolk'.His

Jansenist lly

Nicole

(1857,

p.

247)

suggested

hat the fearof

being entrapped y

amour-

propre

ould itself e due to

amour-propre.

or some

individuals,

he idea that

theymight

be the

plaything

of

self-serving

ental

mechanism,

wing

to amour-

propre,might

tself e intolerableo their

mour-propre.

With

respect

to

beliefs,

mour-propre

makes us

believe we are

responsible

for

good

outcomes,

but

not

for

bad ones. Someone who

suspects

and dislikes

this

tendency

n

himself

might

fall nto the

opposite

bias, de

Montaigne

1991,

p.

721)

wrote,

or

nstance,

that 'if I happen to do my job in a praiseworthy

fashion,

attribute hat more to

my good

fortune

that to

my ability'.

With

respect

to

preferences,

amour-propre

ends to make us overvalue what we

Phil Trans.R.

Soc.

B

(2010)

possess

and undervalue he

possessions

f others.

Once

again,

omeone

who

suspects

nd dislikes

his

tendency

n himself

ight

all

nto he

opposite

ias,

de

Montaigne

1991,

p.

720)

referso an

aberration

of his soul' he finds imself nable

to eradicate:it

consists

n

diminishing

he real value

of the

things

I

possess, imply

ecause t is I who

possess

hem,

and novervaluinghateverhingsreforeignome,

lacking

n me or are notmine'.

Unlike

ascal,

Montaigne

id not

explicitlyxplain

these ounterhedonicendenciess the esult

f

eaning

over ackwardsodeflect

elf-suspicion.

or

veryxpli-

cit

description

f

that

mechanism,

e

may

turn o

Proust.

I

had

long

since been

prepared,

by

the

strong

impression

made on

my imagination

nd

my faculty

for

emotion

by

the

example

of

Swann,

to believen

the

truth

f

what

feared

rather

han

of

what should

have wished. nd so the comfort

rought

me

by

Alber-

tine's ffirmationsame near

to

being eopardized

or

moment,because I was reminded of the storyof

Odette. But

I

told

myself

hat,

f t was

only right

o

allow for he

worst,

ot

only

when,

n order o under-

stand Swann's

sufferings,

had

tried o

put myself

n

his

place,

but

now,

when

I

myself

was

concerned,

n

seeking

the truth s

though

t referred o

some one

else,

still must

not,

out of

cruelty

o

myself,

soldier

who chooses the

post

not wherehe can be of mostuse

but where he is most

exposed,

end in the mistake

f

regarding

ne

supposition

s more true than the

rest,

simply

ecause t was more

ainful.

(Proust

987-1989, II,

p.

228;

my

talics).

The text s remarkablend

perhaps nique

n

that

t

invokes otonly hesuspicion f wishfulhinkingn

oneself,

but

also

suspicion f

that

uspiciontself.

hese

vertiginous

oubts and doubts about doubts are

indeed haracteristicsf Proustian

ealousy

Grimaldi

1993;

Landy

2004).

For

mypurposes

ere, owever,

I want

nly

o stresshe asic ounterhedonicechan-

ism.

Suspicion

f one's

tendency

o believe he best

may

ause one to believe heworst.

Another

ossible

mechanism or

generating

oun-

terhedonic

henomena

s,

surprisingly,

he reduction

of

cognitive

issonance.

n

Theory f Cognitive

Dissonance,

estinger

1957,

pp.

vi-vii)

explains

he

origin

fthe

heory

s follows:

The fact . ] whichpuzzledus was thatfollowinghe

[1934 Indian] earthquake,

the vast

majority

f the

rumors that were

widely

circulated

predicted

even

worsedisasters o come

n

the

very

earfuture.

ertainly

thebelief hat

orrible isasters

ere

bout

o occur s not

a

very leasantbelief,

nd we

may

ask ourselves

why

rumors hatwere

anxiety rovoking'

rose and were o

widely ccepted. Finally

possible

answer ccurred o

us an answer hat eld

promise

f

having

ather

eneral

application: erhaps

hese umors

redicting

venworse

disasters o come werenot

anxiety rovoking'

t all but

rather

anxietyustifying'.

hat

s,

s a result f he arth-

quake

these

people

were

alreadyfrightened,

nd the

rumors erved he function f

giving

hem

something

tobe

frightened

bout

my

talics).

It is worthwhile

mentioning

that

many

of the

post-earthquake

rumours involved natural calamities



4/7

other

han

arthquakes,

uch as

cyclones

nd floods

(Festinger

957,

p.

238).

If the rumours ad

simply

predicted

more

earthquakes,hey

ould have had a

rational

asis n therisk f aftershocks.

y

contrast,

beliefn therisk f a

cyclone ollowing

n

earthquake

has no rational oundation.

Festinger's

ase is not an isolatedone because

rumours end n fact o be on thepessimisticather

than on the

optimistic

ide

(Ploux

2003,

p.

63).

They mostly xpress

ounterwishful

hinking

ather

thanwishful

hinking.estinger'sxplanation

f this

tendency

eems o

presuppose

hat he belief

n

the

rumour auses net ecrease

n

psychological

iscom-

fort.The decrease

n discomfort aused

by

the

consonance

etween motion nd beliefmustmore

than ffset

he ncreased iscomfortaused

byholding

a not

very leasant

elief.

n

other

ords,

he tate f

being

fraid

or

reasonmust e less

painful

han he

state f

being

fraidor

no reason.t is not obvious o

me that his

s

true,

nor how one would

go

about

determininghethert s true.

The belief

n

a

just

world

Lerner

1980),

an off-

shoot

of the

cognitive

issonance

heory,

lso has

apparently

ounterhedonicffects.o theextent hat

people

assume hat he world s

fundamentally

ust,

they

remotivatedo blame he

ictim',

ven

alpably

innocent ictimsuch as

young

men

who had drawn

an

unlucky

umbern the draft

ottery.

n

fact,

ven

those who drew the

unlucky

numbertended to

blame hemselves

Rubin

&

Peplau

1973).

The self-

blame of

rape

victims illustrates

the same

phenomenon.

nce

again,

however,

t is

somewhat

counterintuitivehat the comfort hese ndividuals

draw from

elieving

hat theirfate s

just

should

dominate he discomfort

roducedby

theirbelief

that

hey

reto blame.

Finally,

we

might ry

o

explain ounteradaptive

preference

ormation s the result of reactance

(Brehm 966).

Imagine

childwho

prefersoys

A,

and C in that rder. f

parent uggests

hat he

might

want o choose

A,

the

suggestion ay

cause

her o chooseB. On one

nterpretation,

utonomy

f

choice

trumps

welfare.

One

should not

say

that

autonomy

s

preferred

o

welfare,

s that

preference

itself ould

imply

e one

aspect

of

welfare.)

t has

been

argued,

or

nstance,

hat

non-compliance

f

patients

ith

egard

o medical nstructions

ight

e

due to reactanceFogart 997).

The ultimate

xplanation

f reactances

probably

to be

found

n the

amour-propre

f the

agent.

n

his

analysis

f the

psychoanalytichenomenon

f

resistance,

acan

(1977,

p.

13)

refers o 'thatresist-

ance of

amour-propre

to use the term

n

all the

depthgiven

o it

by

La

Rochefoucauld,

nd which

is often

xpresses

hus:

I

can't bear the

thought

of

being

freed

by anyone

other

than

myself.

I find this

explanation

more

persuasive

han the

standard ccount of resistance n terms of the

unconscious.

3. TRANSMUTATIONS

By

transmutation'

shallmean

ny

hange

n

beliefs

or

preferences

hat s caused

by

a threat o the

Phil. Trans.R. Soc. B

(2010)

Self-poisoningf

themind

J.

Elster 223

amour-propre

of the

agent.

La Rochefoucauld

provided

n

early nalysis

f this

phenomenon:

The scorn or iches

isplayedy

he

hilosophers

as

a

secret esire o

recompense

heir wnmerit or he

injustice

f Fortune

y scorning

hose

very

enefits

shehad

denied

hem;

twas

private ay

f

emaining

unsullied

ypoverty;

devious

ath

owardshe

high

respecthey ouldnot ommandywealth

(Maxim 4).

Before

I

pursue

the further

development by

Nietzsche of this

dea,

let me note thatLa Rochefou-

cauld had been

anticipated,

nd

in a

sense

disproved,

by

Thaes.

According

o Aristotle

Politics

259

b),

[Thaies]

was

reproached

orhis

poverty,

hichwas

supposed

o show that

philosophy

as of no use.

According

o the

story,

e knew

by

his skill n the

stars

while t was

yet

winter hat herewouldbe a

great

arvest f olives

n

the

coming ear;

o,

having

a little

money,

e

gave

deposits

or heuse of all the

olive-pressesn Chios andMiletus,which e hired t

a low

price

because no one bid

against

im.When

theharvest-time

ame,

nd

many

werewanted ll at

once

and

of

a

sudden,

he let them ut

at

any

rate

whichhe

pleased,

nd

made a

quantity

f

money.

Thus he showed he world that

philosophers

an

easily

e rich f

hey

ike,

utthat heir

mbitions of

anotherort.

In his

retelling

f the

story,

e

Montaigne

(1991,

p.

153)

explicitly

sserts that when he condemned

money-making,

haies 'was accused of sour

grapes

like the fox'.

Although

Thaes wanted to

'show the

world' that the accusation was

unfounded,

ne could

also imaginethat he had made a fortune n order to

demonstrate o

himself

hat his

philosophy

was

not

the

product

ofsour

grapes.

Not contentwith

hinking

thathe couldhave

acquired

richeshad

he wanted

o,

he

might

have decided to

actually cquire

hem

o deflect

self-suspicion.

return o this

point.

Nietszche

was

heavily

influenced

by

La

Rochefoucauld

(Donnellan

1979).

His

description

(Nietszche

1967,

1.14)

of the

'workshop'

in which

the

transmutation

f

values takes

place may

well have

been

inspired y

the Maxims:

It s a

careful,

rafty,ight umor-mongering

ndwhis-

pering

rom

very

ook

and

cranny.

t seems o me

thatpeople are lying; sugarymildness lings o

every

ound. Weaknesss

going

o be falsifiednto

somethingf

merit.

.

]

And

powerlessness

hich

does not retaliates

being

falsifiednto

goodness,'

anxious

baseness nto

humility,'

ubmission efore

those ne hates o

obedience'

of

course,

bedience

to the one

who,

they say,

commands his sub-

mission

they

all

him

God).

The inoffensivenessf

theweakman cowardice

tself,

n which e

is

rich,

his

standing

t the

door,

his nevitable eed to wait

around here

cquires good

name,

ike

patience',

and is called

virtue tself.That

ncapacityor

revenge

s

called the lack

of

desire

for revenge, erhaps

even

forgiveness.

There

re two deas at work

n

the entence have

italicized. ne is thetransmutationf

cannot

o

or obtain

'

into

do notwant o do or to obtain



5/7

224

J.

Elster

Self-poisoningf

themind

x' The other s

the transmutationfthe atter nto

wantnot to do or

not to obtain

x',

that

s,

the trans-

mutation of

passive

negation

into

active

negation

(Elster

1993,

ch.

2).

The

firstmechanism s illustrated

by

the

incapacity

or

revenge

urning

nto the lack of

desire for

revenge,

he second

by

the

lack of desire

for

revenge turning

nto

forgiveness,

hat

is,

the

desire to abstainfrom evenge.Later, I shall suggest

a further ransmutation.

It is

perhaps

not

clear

why

he outcome of these

wo

transmutationshould be

referredo as

self-poisoning

of the

mind. But consider he

following xample.

Peter

is attracted o

Anne,

but she does not

requite

his love.

As a

consequence,

he

ceases to desire her and

per-

suades himself

that she is in fact

positively

undesirable. t is this

downgradingf

what he cannot

have

'sour

grapes')

that onstitutes he

self-poisoning.

If

Peterhad

simply

ontented imselfwith

redirecting

his

desireto anotherwoman

more nclinedto

requite

it,

no

self-poisoning

ould be involved.

We can see that this downgradings unattractive

and

might

nduce all kinds of

ugly

behaviours,

ut is

it counterhedonic?

oes it

necessarily

ave a

negative

impact

on the welfare

f the

agent?

As we shall see

shortly,

roustoffers ne

example

nwhich he down-

grading

nhanceswelfare nd one in which t

detracts

from t. We can nevertheless

make, think,

general

argument

for the claim

that

downgrading

ends to

have

counterhedonic ffects.WheneverAnne's name

comes

up

in

conversation,

eter s

likely

o

react

with

derogatory

emarks hat

have no basis

in

facts,

only

in

her

rejection

f him.Others

may

notice his attitude

and

suspect

ts basis

and,

as a

result,

ome to dislike

and avoid him.

Indirectly,herefore,

eter's reaction

induces a loss of welfare. We shall

shortly

ee an

example

of thismechanism

n

Proust.

Proustoffers everal

xamples

of

the transmutation

of

CI

cannot have it' into

do not want t'. The first

and least

consequential

s also the most

amusing.

t

occurs in the

contextof an

exchange

between Mme

de Gallardon and

Oriane,

Princessedes Laumes

(the

future uchesse de

Guermantes):

Oriane,

don'tbe

angry

ith

me',

resumedMme de

Gallardon,

ho ouldnever

estrain

erselfromacri-

ficing

er

highest

ocial

mbitions,

nd the

hope

that

she

might

ne

day emerge

nto a

light

hatwould

dazzle heworld,o the mmediatend secret atisfac-

tion f

aying

omethingisagreeable,people

do

say

about

your

M. Swann

hathe's the ort f man one

can'thave

n

the

house;

s

that rue?'

'Why, ou,

f

ll

people, ught

o know hat t's

rue',

replied

hePrincesse es

Laumes,

for

you

must ave

asked

him

hundred

imes,

nd he's never

een

to

your

ouse nce'.

I,

p.

330.)

The next

episode

occurs at

Balbec,

where he Nar-

ratorobserves the behaviour of two

bourgeois

wives

towards n old and noble

lady:

Wheneverhewives fthe

notary

nd the

magistrate

saw her n thedining-roomt meal-timeshey ut

up

their

lasses

nd

gave

her n insolent

crutiny,

s

minute nd

distrustfuls

if

he had been some dish

with

pretentious

amebut a

suspicious ppearance

Phil Trans.

R. Soc.

B

(2010)

which,

fter

he

negative

esult

f

a

systematic

tudy,

must be

sent

away

with

lofty

wave of the hand and

a

grimace

of

disgust.

No doubt

by

this behaviour

hey

meant

only

to show

that,

f here

were

hings

n

theworldwhich

hey

hem-

selves lacked in

this

instance,

certain

prerogatives

which the old

lady enjoyed,

nd the

privilege

f her

acquaintance it was not becausethey ouldnot,but

because

hey

id notwant o

acquire

hem. ut

they

had

succeeded

in

convincing

hemselves hat this

really

was what

they

felt;

nd it was the

suppression

f all

desire

for,

of all

curiosity

s to

formsof life which

were

unfamiliar,

f all

hope

of

pleasing

new

people

(for

which,

in

the

women,

had been

substituted

feigned

contempt,

n

artificial

rightness)

hat had

the awkward esult

fobliging

hem o abel their iscon-

tent

atisfaction,

nd lie

everlastingly

o

themselves,

wo

conditions or heir

eing unhappy.

But

everyone

lse

in

thehotelwas no

doubt

behaving

n

a similar

ashion,

though

their

behaviour

might

ake a different

orm,

and

sacrificing,

f

not to

self-importance,

t

any

rate

to

certain nculcated

principles

nd mentalhabits the

thrilling elight

f

mixing

n

a

strange

ind of ife.Of

course,

the

atmosphere

of

the microcosm

n

which

theold

lady

solatedherselfwas not

oisoned

with iru-

lent

bitterness,

s was that of the

group

in

which the

wives of the

notary

nd

magistrate

at

chattering

ith

impotent

age

II,

p.

38;

my

talics).

In

this

text,

he transmutation f cannot' into

do not want to' is

explicitly

ited as a cause of

poison-

ing,

bitterness nd

unhappiness. Although,

s noted

initially,

he

alignment

f desires on beliefs s

usually

thought

o

induce dissonance reduction nd

greater

contentmentwithone's fate,here the very opposite

effect

ccurs.

The

element of

self-deception,

f

lying

to

oneself,

may

be

responsible.

Whereaswishful hink-

ing may

be free f

self-doubts,

elf-deception

arely

s.

The contrast ould not be

greater

with he

following

example,

n

which the same mechanism s said to be

conductive o

happiness

rather

han

to

unhappiness.

The

episode

involves the

absurdly

self-contented

father f the Narrator's riend loch.

M.

Bloch senior

. ]

lived

n

the world of half-truths

where

people

salute the

empty

air and arrive at

wrong udgments.

nexactitude,

ncompetence

o not

modify

heir

assurance;

quite

the

contrary.

t is the

propitiousmiracleofamour-proprehat, ince fewof

us are

n

a

position

o

enjoy

he

ociety

f

distinguished

people,

or to form ntellectual

riendships,

hose to

whom

they

are denied still believe

themselves

o be

the best endowed of

men,

because the

optics f

our

social

perspective

ake

every

rade of society

eem the

best o himwho

occupies

t,

and beholds as less favored

than

himself,

ess fortunate and

therefore o be

pitied,

he

greater

men whom he names and calumni-

ates without

knowing, udges

and

despises

without

understanding

them. Even in cases where the

multiplication

f

his modest

ersonal dvantagesby

his

amour-propre

ould not suffice o assure a man the

dose

of

happiness, superior

to that

accorded to

others,which s essentialto him,envy s always here

to make

up

the balance. t is true that if

envy

finds

expression

in

scornful

phrases,

we must

translate

7 have

no wish to knowhim'

by

7 have no means

of



6/7

knowing

im' That s the

ntellectualense.

But the

emotional

ense s

indeed,

have no

wish o know

him'.The

speaker

nows

hat t is not

true,

ut he

does

not,

ll the

same,

ay

t

simply

o

deceive;

he

says

tbecause

t s what e

feels,

nd that

s sufficient

to

bridge

he

gulf

etween

hem,

hat s to

say

omake

him

appy.

II, pp.

129-130;

my

talics).

The lastfew entencesre omewhatmpenetrable.

I find t hard

o make

enseof them.

et,

he

overall

idea of the

passage

seems clear:

the

upgrading

f

one'sown

mall

dvantages ay,

f

necessary,

e

sup-

plemented

by

the

downgrading

f the

greater

advantages

f

others,

o

produce

happiness.

As

suggested

y

the comments

n the

bourgeois

wives

of

Balbec,

the

latter

mechanism

may

not

by

itself

yield

he ameresult.

Proust's eference

o the

downgrading

echanism

as

envy

s,

however,

istinctly

diosyncratic.

nvy re-

supposes

he

recognition

f

the value

of the

envied

object,

ot he

denial f

tsvalue.

The action

endency

ofenvys todestroyhatyoucannot et,notto deni-

grate

t.

The

following

assage

hows hat

roust

was

perfectly

ware

of this

standard

nderstanding

f

envy,

nd

of ts

effectn

the envious.

t occurs

n

a

comment

n the

reactions

nduced

by

the

worldly

successes

f he

Narrator's

riend

lbertine:

Albertine's

successes'

n

society

xcited

he

envy

f

certain

piteful

others,

urioust

seeing

er eceived

likeoneof the

family

y

thebanker's

ife,

ven

by

Andre's

mother,

either

f

whom

hey

hemselves

really

knew.

They

therefore

ent about

telling

common

riendsf those

adies

and their

wn that

both adies

would

be

very ngry

f

they

knew he

facts,whichwere hatAlbertineepeatedo eachof

them

verything

hat

he

ntimacy

o

which he

was

rashly

dmitted

nabled

er o

spy

ut

n thehouse-

hold of

the

other,

thousand

ittle ecrets

which t

must e

infinitelynpleasant

o the

nterested

arty

to

have

made

public.

hese

envious

women

aid this

so that

t

might

e

repeated

nd

might et

Albertine

into rouble

ith er

patrons.

ut,

s often

appens,

their

machinations

et with

no success.

The

spite

that

rompted

hemwas

too

apparent,

nd their

nly

result

was

to make the women

who

had

planned

them

appear

rather

more

ontemptible

han

before

II,

p.

289).

Envy,

otoriously,

s a

self-poisoning

echanism,

whichexacerbates ather han alleviates he pang

caused

by

the

perception

f another's

reater

uccess

or

fortune.

he

cause,

n this

ase,

s the

perception

by

others

hat

one

is

envious.

n other

cases,

the

agent's

wn

perception

hat he

s

harbouring

his

tig-

matized

emotion

may

be

sufficient

o

make

her

unhappy.

I conclude

his

Proustian

atalogue

y

some com-

ments n the

complex

ase

of

Legrandin,

character

whose

outwardly

nti-snob

attitude

hides

deep

inward

snobbery.

he

Narrator

ites

his

grand-

mother's

urprise

t cthe

furious

nvective

which

[Legrandin]

as

always

aunching

t

the

ristocracy,

t

fashionableife, nd "snobbishness""undoubtedly",

he

would

ay,

the inof

which aint

Paul s

thinking

when

he

speaks

of

the sin

for which

there

s no

forgiveness"'

I, p.

67).

Fromthe

context,

t

seems

Phil.

Trans.

R. Soc. B

(2010)

Self-poisoning

f

themind

J.

Elster

225

that

the

grandmother

may

have

thought

that

Legrandin

doth

protest

oo

much'.

If

so,

this

impression

s confirmed

ater,

when

the Narrator

innocently

sks

Legrandin

whether e

knowsthe

Guermantes

amily.

he

acuity

of the

Narrator's

analysis

f

Legrandin's

esponse

ustifies, hope,

a

lengthyuotation:

[At]

he ound fthewordGuermantes,saw nthe

middle

of each

of our

friend's lue

eyes

a little

brown

dimple appear,

as

though

hey

had been

stabbed

y

ome

nvisible

in-point,

hile herest

f

his

pupils,

reacting

rom

he

shock,

received

nd

secreted he

azure overflow.

is

fringed

yelids

ar-

kened,

nd

drooped.

His

mouth,

which

had been

stiffened

nd seared

with itter

ines,

was

thefirsto

recover,

nd

smiled,

hile

is

eyes

till eemed

ull f

pain,

ike the

eyes

ofa

good-looking

artyr

hose

body

bristles

ith

rrows.

'No,

do not

know

hem',

e

said,

ut nstead

futter-

ing

o

simple piece

of

nformation,

reply

n

which

there as o ittlehat ould stonish e, n henatural

and conversational

onewhich

wouldhave

befitted

t,

he recited

t with

separate

tress

pon

each

word,

leaning

orward,

owing

is

head,

with t once

the

vehemence

hich

man

gives,

o

as to be

believed,

to a

highlymprobable

tatement

as

though

hefact

thathe

did not

know he Guermantes

ould be

due

only

o some

strange

ccident

f

fortune)

nd with

the

emphasis

f a man

who,

rinding

imself

nable

to

keep

ilence bout

what s

to him

painful

ituation,

chooses

o

proclaim

t

aloud,

so

as to convince

is

hearers

hat he

confession

e is

making

s one

that

causeshimno

embarrassment,

ut s

easy, greeable,

spontaneous,

hat he

situation

n

question,

n this

case

the bsence

f

relations

ith heGuermantes

amily,

might

ery

well

have been

not

orced pon,

but

actually

designed

y Legrandin

imselfmight

rise

from ome

family

radition,

ome

moral

principle

r

mystical

vowwhich

xpressly

orbade

is

eeking

heir

ociety.

'No',

he

resumed,

xplaining

y

his

words he

one n

which

hey

wereuttered.

No,

I do not

know

hem;

I have

neverwished

o

know

hem;

have

always

made a

point

f

preserving

omplete

ndependence;

at

heart,

s

you

know,

am a bitof

Radical.

eople

are

always

oming

o

me about

t,

elling

e am

mis-

taken n

not

going

o

Guermantes^

hat

make

myself

seem

ll-bred,

ncivilized,

n old

bear.But

that's

ot

the sortofreputationhat an frightene; it's too

true

...]'

If asked

im,

Do

you

know

heGuermantes

amily?'

Legrandin

he

talkerwould

reply,

No,

I have

never

cared

to

know hem'.

But

unfortunately

he talker

wasnow subordinated

o another

egrandin,

hom

he

kept

carefully

idden

n his

breast,

whom

he

would never

onsciously

xhibit,

ecause this

other

could

tell stories

bout

our

own

Legrandin

nd

abouthis

snobbishness

hich

wouldhave

ruined

is

reputation

or

ever;

and

this

other

Legrandin

ad

replied

o me

already

n thatwounded

ook,

hat

tif-

fened

mile,

he

undue

gravity

f

his

tone

n

uttering

thosefewwords,n thethousand rrows ywhich

ourown

Legrandin

ad

nstantaneously

een

tabbed

and

sickened,

ike a Saint

Sebastian

f

snobbery:

'Oh,

how

you

hurtme

No,

I do

not know

the



7/7

226

J.

Elster

Self-poisoning f

the mind

Guermantes

amily.

o not

remindme

of the

great

sorrowf

my

ife'.And ince his

ther,

his

rrepressi-

ble, dominant,

espotic egrandin,

f

he lacked ur

Legrandin'sharmingocabulary,

hewed n

nfinitely

greaterromptness

n

expressing

imself,

y

means f

what are called

'reflexes',

t followed

hat,

when

Legrandin

he talker

ttempted

o silence

him,

he

would

lready

ave

poken,

nd it wouldbe useless

for urfriend o

deplore

hebad

impression

hich

the revelationsf his alter

go

musthave

caused,

sincehe could do no morenow than ndeavour

o

mitigate

hem.

I,

pp.

126-127;

my

talics.)

Legrandin's uggestion

hathis absence

of relations

with the Guermanteswas a matterof choice

rather

than of

necessity

llustrates he

simple

transmutation

of

cannot' nto

do not want to'. His furtherlaim

that

people

told

him

that t was a mistakenot to visit

the Guermantes as

if

he could

easily

have done so

suggests

hat he is

subject

to a third

ransmutation,

which o the statement do not want to know them'

adds 'But I couldhave known hemhad I wanted to'.

This is a

self-deceptive

actual

tatement,

ot a matter

of

preference.

t

is as if

Peter,

having

irst een

rejected

by

Anne and then

downgraded

er,

had added thatOf

course could

easily

have married erhad I wanted o'.

I

suspect

that this

oint

transmutationf

preferences

and beliefs s

quite

common.

Hence,

even

though

a

sour

grapes

reaction s not

in

itself

rrational,

t

may

go together

with rrational elief formation.

he

fox

probably

could not have

persuaded

himself

hat he

could have reached

the

grapes by jumping high

enough,

but

in

interpersonal

elations onstraints re

rarely

o hard that

they

cannot be undone

by

a

self-deceptiveewriting

f the

script.All these ransmutationserve obolster heamour-

propre

f the

agent,

i)

The transmutationf cannot

have t' into

do not

want to have it' restores sense

of

agency,

ii)

The

furtherransmutationnto It is not

worthwhile

aving nyway'

ements hewisdom of the

rejection, iii)

The

final transmutationnto could

have had it

had

I

wanted t' weakens

any suspicion

of

sour

grapes.

Yet,

the

bolstering

emains

fragile.

For

Legrandin

to

truly ersuade

himself nd others

that

he could have

frequented

he Guermantes had he

wanted

to,

he would

have had to follow he

example

of Thaes: obtain an

invitation,

isit them once and

then never

again.

For

Legrandin,

such a course of

behaviourwould be unthinkable. ad he been invited

by

the Duchesse de

Guermantes,

e

would have

gone

there

gain

and

again,persuading

himself hat he was

yielding

o the attractions f

her

mind,

and her other

virtues,

which

the vile race of snobs could

never

understand'.

I,

p.

127)

The

self-poisoning

ffect f

transmutationss due

largely

to the fact

they

are so obvious to

others.

Legrandinprovides

further

llustration f thismech-

anism. Both the mother

nd the

father

f

the narrator

see

through

im,

the former

eing greatly elighted

whenever she

caught

him

red-handed in the

sin,

which he

continued to call the

unpardonable

sin,

of

snobbery' I, p. 128) and the atter eliberatelytortur-

ing

him'

(I,

p.

131)

with

requests

for nformationhat

his

snobbery

would not allow him

to

give

out.

The

general

dea that

helps

us

understandthese

phenomena

is that the unconscious

s neverwise.

In

some

cases,

as in wishful

hinking,

nconscious

reac-

tions

may

cause

temporary

alleviation

or

gratification.

n

other

ases,

illustrated

y Legrandin's

reflexes hat

give

him

away

before

e can catch

himself,

they may

cause instant nd irreversible

amage.

On

these lines, there is a story (which I have been

unable to

track

down)

told about

Sigmund

Freud,

who was invited o meet a

person,

Dr

X,

who was

pro-

minent

n

the

nternational

ewish

movement.

uring

their

conversation,

Dr X

asked

him,

'Tell me

Dr

Freud,

who is

in

your opinion

the

most

important

Jewish

ersonality

n

theworld

oday?'

Freud

answered

politely, Why,

think hat must be

yourself,

r X'.

WhenDr X

replied,

No,

No',

Freud

asked,

Wouldn't

'No' had been

enough?'

Double

negation

can be

equivalent

o

affirmation.

ENDNOTE

1

Roman numerals n the text refer o the four volumes

of

Proust

(1987-1989).

I

am

using

(and

occasionally

modifying)

he trans-

lations

by

Scott

Moncrieff,

vailable

at

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.

au/p/proust/marcel/.

REFERENCES

Brehm,

J.

1966 A

theoryf sychological

eactance.

ew

York,

NY: Academic Press.

de

Montaigne,

M. 1991 The

complete

essays.

Harmondsworth,

K:

Penguin.

Donnellan,

B. 1979 Nietszche and La Rochefoucauld.

German

Q.

52,

303-318.

(doi: 10.2307/404869)

Elster,

J.

1993

Political

psychology. ambridge,

UK:

CambridgeUniversityress.

Elster,

J.

1999 Alchemies

f

the mind.

Cambridge,

UK:

CambridgeUniversity

ress.

Festinger,

.

1951

A

theory

f ognitive

issonance. alo

Alto,

CA: Stanford

University

ress.

Fogart,

J.

1997 'Reactance

theory

nd

patient

noncompli-

ance'.

Soc. Sei. Med.

8,

1277-1288.

Grimaldi,

N. 1993 La

jalousie:

essai ur

'imaginaire

roustien.

Arles,

France: Actes du Sud.

Lacan,

J.

1977

Ecrits.New

York,

NY: Norton.

Landy,

J.

2004

Philosophy

s

fiction.

Oxford,

UK: Oxford

University

ress.

Lerner,

M. 1980 The

belief

n a

just

world.New

York,

NY:

Plenum.

Mele, . 2001 Self-deceptionnmasked.Princeton,NJ:

Princeton

University

ress.

Nicole,

P.

1857 Essais

de Morale.

Paris,

France: Techener.

Nietszche,

F. 1967

Genealogy f

morals.New

York,

NY:

Vintage.

Pascal,

B. 1991 In Penses

ed.

P.

Sellier),

Paris,

France:

Classiques

Gamier.

Pears,

D. 1984

Motivated

rrationality.

xford,

UK:

Oxford

University

ress.

Ploux,

F.

2003 De bouche oreille.

aris,

France: Aubier.

Proust,

M.

1987-1989

A

la recherchu

temps erdu,

-IV.

Paris,

France: Gallimard

editions

de la

Pliade).

Rubin,

.

&

Peplau,

A. 1973 Belief in a

just

world and

reactions o another's

ot.

J.

Soc. Issues

29,

73-93.

Scheler,

M. 1972

Ressentiment.ew

York,

NY: Schocken

Books.

von

Weiszcker,

. C. 1972 Notes on

endogenous hange

of

tastes.

J.

Econ.

Theory

,

345-372.

Phil.

Trans.R. Soc.

(2010)

This content downloaded from 200.31.75.101 on Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:40:58 PMAll bj t t JSTOR T d C diti

Self Poisoning of the Mind

Documents

Transcript of Self Poisoning of the Mind