Robust or responsible?
Recently, Lee Hsien Loong spoke about “wokeness”, and he concluded that segment with these statements: “[Wokeness] does not make us a more resilient, cohesive society with a strong sense of solidarity. We must be more robust.” You may view the video clip here: Wokeness movement makes life “very burdensome”: PM Lee (youtube.com) The aim of this blogpost is not to determine if wokeness is “good” or “bad”, nor am I trying to “agree” or “disagree” with Lee. Those are whole other topics of debate. Instead, I want to look at the idea of being “robust,” bearing in mind how people nowadays often emphasise the opposite: “it’s OK (or even good) to be vulnerable.” This high regard for “vulnerability” is one of the results of today’s therapeutic culture*.
In The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education, Kathryn Ecclestone and Dennis Hayes (2019) warns us about the downsides of embracing a therapeutic culture:
“The ability to acknowledge the flaws and weaknesses of being only human resonates both with our everyday perception that we are ‘far from perfect’ and with the therapeutic orthodoxy of ‘love yourself as you are’. Yet, despite its apparent tolerance, powerful and relentless cultural narratives of emotional vulnerability and dysfunction signify a shift from responsible agency…” (Chapter 7, ‘Explaining the Emotional State’)
In essence, the therapeutic culture in today’s world has resulted in “a focus on victimhood” because people may begin seeing themselves as “diminished” human beings who require professional support for many things (Ecclestone and Hayes 2019). We, at Split, can’t really determine if people would definitely start seeing themselves as “diminished” human beings, because there are definitely perfectly good reasons for seeking professional support during occasions of need. Nevertheless, in the context of our work, we fully concur with Ecclestone and Hayes, who argue:
“Happiness, like therapeutic goals for the diminished self, such as getting in touch with your emotional side, building self-esteem and confidence, are the by-products of striving for other things. Once these positive by-products become a central focus … the cry ‘Why am I not happy?’ will have an external object to blame, namely the coach.” (Chapter 7, ‘Explaining the Emotional State’)
In response to attitudes cultivated by the therapeutic culture, there are people (like Lee) who advocate robustness as a much-needed trait to be developed in today’s world. I nevertheless propose that promoting robustness in a general way may invariably encourage victim-blaming or toxic-positivity. A friend once told me, “Sometimes, it’s not that people don’t want to try. It’s because they really cannot find it within themselves to try.” That’s absolutely valid. How can we then speak of robustness to someone who is really hurting at the very present moment? Isn’t that quite an inhumane thing to do?
From Split’s perspective, a better way to move the conversation forward is to look at personal responsibility instead. Such responsibility is simply about putting in the work and effort to discover your current place in society and in life, and knowing, for yourself, what you have to do for yourself to move towards where you want to go. For instance, if you need a break, take it. Own that break, but it’s important not to stop there. We live in a world and a society with causes and effects because of structures in place. It’s important to take up personal responsibility for the effects of our actions as well. Of course, if you think the structures are “bad”, it is then another conversation altogether: knowing that we are merely individuals within a society, how can we continually make personal choices and build networks of relationships so that we can gradually chip at those structures and eventually transform them? It’s still your responsibility to make personal choices and build a pathway forward. In essence, how can we take up personal responsibility to create our own unique places in society?
*Therapeutic culture is a pervasive set of beliefs and practices surrounding mental health. It's characterized by confusing terminology, overdiagnosis, and conflicting ideas about emotional growth and healing. While therapy offers potential benefits, its influence on society can be both positive and negative, shaping how we understand and discuss emotions in our daily lives.
