Self-Leadership and the Irrationality Dilemma COSP
- Disponibilité
- Texte consultable
- Qualité du texte
- Contrôles automatiques réussis
- Format du texte
- Texte numérique extrait du document
- Type de document
- Ressource pédagogique
- Droits d’usage
- Utilisation autorisée pour ce projet
- Extraits
- 28
page 6
for,” (2003, 7.55).
But, the essential rationality of these parts is demonstrated by the fact that they can be
educated. That is, prolonged contact with the Self expands their perceived options and challenges
their assumptions. A part may learn that anger in response to frustration is unwarranted because
that response does nothing to protect a Self that is always calm and confident. This, in turn, may
lead to it recognizing other possible and, ultimately, to more helpful responses.
6
page 7
ISSUE 60
A publication of the College of Stoic Philosophers
December 2024
Thus, what IFS provides is a model of the human psyche that is fully consistent with
Stoicism while providing an elegant solution to the rationality dilemma. Humans are rational by
nature but, in the case of their parts, that rationality often operates according to a no-longer-useful
model of the world. As a result, we get a wide array of what, from the perspective of an outside
observer, appear to be irrational behaviors. Luckily, we possess a Self, unbound by faulty
assumptions, that is capable of setting these parts right.
Psychic Multiplicity in Stoicism
While students of Stoicism might object that psychic multiplicity violates the philosophy’s
unified theory of the cosmos, there is no reason to believe the IFS model is inconsistent with the
Stoic one. Quite to the contrary, both models are best described as holonic. That is, they posit a
schema in which wholes - such as the cosmos or the human mind - are comprised of parts that
are, in themselves, wholes. This is why an individual can at once be inseparable from Nature and
an autonomous, moral agent. According to Marcus Aurelius, intelligence is, “Singular, not plural….
Even if it seems to be divided,” (2003, p. 154). The mind can be helpfully understood as multiplicate
in nature, even while acknowledging that it is a unified entity.
Indeed, the passions about which the Stoics spoke so regularly sound remarkably similar to
the parts of IFS. Robertson (2010) points out that Stoicism does not recognize a distinction
between cognition and emotion. Rather, thought and emotion are understood to be facets of one
another. Thoughts are associated with certain emotions, and emotions have characteristic thoughts.
This aligns with the IFS model wherein
page 7
the parts can be described as more or less complex
collections of characteristic thoughts and emotions that tend to follow established patterns. The
Stoics further describe the passions as potentially controlling. Indeed, this is what a Stoic seeks to
avoid through education and training. But, this raises the question of what manner of relationship
exists between the passions and the person who harbors them. For the passions to be controlling,
they must be capable of exerting control over something that they are either part of, or that exists
alongside them. To make either concession is to functionally accept a parts-based model of the
human mind.
One possible distinction between the models is that, whereas a Stoic might describe the
passions as being universal and even elemental forces, an IFS practitioner would refer to them as
sub-personalities embodying a previously formulated strategy. In truth, this is a relatively minor
difference. Certainly a Stoic would admit that, while anger is a common human passion, a given
individual will embody that anger in a manner that is idiosyncratic to them. Likewise, an IFS
practitioner would have no qualms with acknowledging that there are archetypal sub-personality
characteristics common to all people. Add to this the concept of a daemon, which maps directly
onto the Self of IFS, and you are clearly left with a multiplicative model of the mind.
Further evidence of the compatibility of the models can be found in the use of aphorism to
train oneself (Robertson, 2010, p. 52). This foundational Stoic practice makes little sense if the
source of the lesson is also the recipient - the rational, cosmic essence of the mind need not
instruct itself on proper functioning. If, however, the daemon is understood to be a teacher seeking
to
page 7
develop the passions through the repetitive invocation of wise sentiments, the practice appears
7
page 8
ISSUE 60
A publication of the College of Stoic Philosophers
December 2024
entirely sensible. As an example, amor fati is intended for the parts that would reject external
realities and seek control where it cannot be found.
Finally, consider these words from Marcus Aurelius:
Four habits of thought to watch for, and erase from your mind when you catch
them. Tell yourself: This thought is unnecessary. This one is destructive to the
people around you. This wouldn’t be what you really think (to say what you
don’t think - the definition of absurdity. And the fourth reason for self-reproach:
that the more divine part of you has been beaten and subdued by the
degraded mortal part... (2003, p. 154)
The ideas expressed here - that one can tell oneself something, think what one does not
really think, and allow the divine part to be beaten by the mortal one - all clearly point to psychic
multiplicity.
Self-Leadership
The subject of self-leadership is a staple of leadership research. It is defined as the
process whereby people influence themselves to achieve the sense of direction and motivation
necessary to perform (Neck et al, 2003; Neck et al, 2006). From a Stoic perspective, this definition
is lacking as it does not stipulate the nature of the process involved in producing that sense of
direction and motivation. It is a definition that leaves too much space for irrational, unethical
motives. Take, for instance, the desire for revenge. Its origin is internal, and it provides the
direction and motivation for subsequent action. Even if the consequences of that action might be
considered positive - say improving your sales numbers, or moving on from a failed
relationship - the potency of the Stoic objection is not diminished. While the outcomes produced
may qualify as preferred
page 8
indifferents, acquiescing to and being led by a desire for revenge, in itself,
constitutes a moral failing. In the examples provided, neither better sales numbers nor a new
relationship can do anything to ameliorate the degradation of character associated with acting out
of such a desire.
An emphasis on securing intended outcomes is understandable when discussing the
leadership of others. If meaningful progress towards the shared goals of a group is not tangibly
demonstrated with enough regularity, the leader will lose influence (Kouzes & Posner, 2011). But,
as far as self-leadership is concerned, this emphasis must be rebalanced. While it is no less
possible to lose influence with yourself, such losses tend to follow, not from a lack of results, but
from a loss of self-respect. Consistently turning away from your rational, virtuous nature and
choosing instead to act out of fear or indolence is how self-respect, and thus the ability to
self-influence, is lost. It does not take many such choices before a person’s best intentions and
most worthwhile goals are met with a defensive response from their parts as they seek to protect
the individual from the disappointment of yet another self-identity threatening broken promise
(Schwartz & Sweezy, 2019). Sincere intentions such as ‘I will start eating better’ or ‘I will be more
patient with others’ are met with refutations and denunciations: ‘No you won’t, and you know it.
That will never work anyway. What’s the difference if you wait until tomorrow to start?’. The
established definition of self-leadership shared above fails to address the quality of the motivation
8
page 9
ISSUE 60
A publication of the College of Stoic Philosophers
December 2024
and the ethicality of its associated direction. For these reasons, it is overly permissive and
inconsistent, failing to distinguish healthy self-leadership from what IFS might term
parts-leadership, wherein an individual relinquishes control to their competing and dysfunctional
parts - a strategy that serves neither the individual, nor their parts.
IFS provides a more exact and Stoically-aligned definition of self-leadership (or
Self-leadership). According to Schwartz (2023a), the state of Self-leadership is one in which the
individual has separated from their many obscuring, warring parts, connecting instead with the
Self, “…something deeper and more foundational… something that spiritual conditions often call
‘soul’ or ‘essence’”(p. 8). Referring to this state as Self-leadership highlights the kind of relationship
that the Self has to the parts. It is one of compassion and acceptance, but also of profound
influence. The Self knows that the parts, despite their failings, are not bad actors to be punished or
mistakes to be fixed. Rather, they are nascent potentials to be developed.
Stoic Parallels
This definition and model align with Stoicism in at least three ways. First, as previously
stated, the Self of IFS parallels the daemon or divine spirit as it exists in humans. Both models,
then, identify a cosmic seed - a connection to all of Nature - that is common to all people. The
state of being self-led in IFS is equivalent, in Stoic terms, to living in accord with Nature. To act
from the Self is to be rational and virtuous. Whereas popular misconceptions of Stoicism suggest
that it counsels the denial, suppression, or rejection of emotions, IFS agrees with the actual
teachings of Stoicism: our
page 9
emotions are no more to be denied than any other reality of our
existence. They are to be honestly recognized and accepted, without ever being put in charge.
The second similarity between the IFS model of self-leadership and the Stoic teachings is
that the relationship between the Self and parts mirrors that sought by the Stoic practitioner and
other people. This is a relationship of compassion and service, of leading by example, and of
refraining from judgement. At this time and in this place, people and parts are who they are. As
with all facets of reality, the only rational response to this is acceptance. The Stoic leader, then,
leads from the inside out. They create an internal world of self-led relationships and allow the
external world to catch up.
Finally, the internal model of IFS mirrors the Stoic model of the cosmos and our place in it.
We are each of us a part of that cosmos existing within that cosmos. To paraphrase Allan Watts
(n.d.), we are apertures through which the universe perceives itself. Each of us is limited and, to
the extent that we live out of alignment with Nature, flawed. But, through us - our struggling with a
unique set of challenges and embodying a personal version of cosmic alignment - the cosmos
bears witness to its own unfolding and, in so doing, develops in complexity and grandeur. This
same dynamic characterizes how our parts exist with respect to our whole psyche. They are each
uniquely limited and challenged. But without these imperfections, we would have no means to
develop. As they align with the Self, their unique role becomes clear. The parts that once
obscured our Self are polished into facets that contribute to its beauty and complexity.
9
page 10
ISSUE 60
A publication of the College of Stoic Philosophers
December 2024
Harmony with the Self
This model offers yet another benefit by providing clear meaning to one of the more obscure
Stoic admonitions, that of living in harmony with oneself. Marcus Aurelius describes three
harmonies that characterize eudaemonia as the Stoics understood it (2003). Among these
harmonies is that of living in harmony with Nature, which consists of behaving rationally. As has
been discussed, the Self is equivalent to the bestowed, cosmic intelligence. Thus, to act from the
Self is to live in accord with Nature.
The second harmony concerns other people and the embodying of human nature. Namely, it
consists of behaving virtuously as only humans are capable of, and of comporting oneself in a
prosocial manner since humans are meant to work together and to rely on one another. The eight
resources of the Self that IFS identifies are clearly prosocial and virtuous.
Finally, there is the admonition to live in harmony with one’s individual or personal nature. Of
the three, this one is the least clearly explained by either the original Stoic texts or the
interpretations that followed. Indeed, if one attempted to interpret this tenet through the lens of a
singular psyche, it would be entirely reasonable to dismiss it as self-evident and circular. Whether it
be making consequential life decisions, deciding whether to take an unethical shortcut, or engaging
in prolonged internal conflict, anything a singular self does would, by definition, be consistent with
its nature since that nature could only reasonably be described in terms of the choices associated
with it.
This brings us full circle to the irrationality dilemma. It is unreasonable to claim that a
singular self is rational by nature if
page 10
that self consistently behaves in irrational ways. The concept of
the Self clears this up. To live in harmony with one’s individual or personal nature is to live from
one’s individual apportionment of Nature - that is, with one’s Self in the lead. The state of
Self-leadership is one in which the parts are brought into purposeful alignment and, thereby, made
capable of constructive contribution. An additional harmony is to be found in the clarity of purpose
that characterizes the state of self-leadership. Nature is teleological. Therefore, so too is the Self.
The researchers cited previously are correct in identifying motivation and direction as
essential elements of self-leadership. But, for such leadership to be sound, these elements must be
preceded and grounded by a certain quality of being. Otherwise, it is all too easy to confuse
teleological Self-leadership with dysfunctional leadership-by-the-parts.
The Steps to Self-Leadership
Practicing self-leadership begins with prosoche. Schwartz identifies mindfulness as both a
way to access and a consequence of connecting with the Self (2023). Clearly, effective
management of one’s internal state requires an awareness of that state that is best achieved
through mindful attention. The rational character of prosoche, however, provides a second crucial
element. Awareness and acceptance are often enough to accelerate the metabolism of emotion.
That is, noticing, allowing for, and paying attention to anger, for instance, will result in that anger
dissipating more quickly than it would if ignored or suppressed. But, as we learned from our initial
definition, Self-leadership requires more than simply an effective response to one’s emotions. The
10
page 11
ISSUE 60
A publication of the College of Stoic Philosophers
December 2024
equanimity produced by such a response is merely the foundation to which direction and motivation
must be added if performance is to be produced. These additional elements are accounted for by
the rational character of prosoche. Self-leadership requires the simultaneous awareness of one’s
state and maintaining of one’s vision, and the practice of prosoche accounts for both.
Just as with effective other-focused leadership, self-leadership must embrace the way things
are. Denying reality is both a demonstration of fear and a reliable way to decrease the quality of
your decisions. Self-leadership does not require the suppression of parts, but the alignment of
those parts. For such alignment to manifest, the parts must first be made to feel welcomed. Just as
with the members of a group, parts who feel safe and welcomed will look for opportunities to
contribute.
Socrates, the Stoic Sage, and Final Remarks
There are several remaining points worth making as they will provide an alternative, and
hopefully illuminating, interpretation of concepts over which there has historically been some
contention. The first of these relates to Socratic intellectualism.
Socrates’ famously denied weakness of will: “…no one ever does wrong willingly and
always acts in accordance with what they believe to be right” (Sellars, 2006, p. 47). In other words,
when people know better, they do better. While early Stoics seem to have agreed with this
sentiment, over time Stoicism came to understand philosophy as techne - that is, theoretical
knowledge must be consciously practiced and applied if the individual is to train themselves to
behave properly. This, of course, raises the irrationality objection at the core of this
page 11
paper. Namely,
one would expect a by-nature-rational animal to naturally recognize and apply better knowledge as
it was acquired. And yet, this position was abandoned by later Stoics who perceived it as untenable
given how people, in actuality, conduct themselves. Yet, the IFS interpretation of Stoicism can
synthesize both positions. Namely, while the parts are resistant to change - or, rather, to being
changed - the self is curious, flexible, and responsive. Thus, knowledge does translate into
behavior provided the person is engaged in self-leadership. The practical training component that
Stoics identify as an essential complement to the study of theory is equally preserved, albeit
modified. It is not that we, as singular minds, struggle to apply new knowledge, but that we struggle
to overcome the resistance of our parts so that our Self can do what comes naturally: translate new
knowledge into different behaviors. In a more general sense, then, Stoic training may be less
analogous to dying a cloth than it is to removing the stubborn stains from one.
A second point follows from this and relates to the ideal towards which students of Stoicism
are instructed to orient themselves - that of the Sage. The contention on this issue has revolved
around the question of whether anyone has achieved the status of being a Sage, or whether it is
purely an ideal used to guide those on the path (Sellars, 2006, p. 38). If the IFS model does indeed
map onto Stoicism in the ways outlined here, it suggests something critical about the nature of the
Sage and of making progress towards that state. Namely, such progress does not consist of
climbing a mountain to reach some new height or of adding capabilities to supplement an otherwise
insufficient existence; the path to the Stoic Sage travels