The Blame Game: The Amorality of Making Everything Your Fault
Shame is a
powerful tool, one I personally believe is a last resort. Sometimes shame truly
is the best means to get someone to change their behavior, but it can be cruel,
manipulative, and misdirected if used without restriction.
Truth is, you
can shame someone pretty easily even if they logically realize they didn’t do
anything wrong.
However, there
is a philosophy about shame versus blame personality types suggesting that some
personalities have the tendency to “shame” themselves while others have the tendency
to “blame” others.
You’ve
experienced it before, the person who plays the victim, who every time
something goes wrong for them they practice extreme mental gymnastics in how
everyone is to blame but themselves. And you’ve possibly been aware of someone
who tends to assume everything is their fault, who is too hard on themselves,
from the guy who panics over picking up his coworkers’ slack to the woman who
claims being struck only happened because she talked back. Some people take
responsibility for everything.
In all
likelihood, you’ve been both at some point in your life. You’ve probably
foolishly allowed someone to walk all over you, or worked tirelessly to find external solutions to problems caused by your own behavior. Most people fall
somewhere in a spectrum and fluctuate back and forth. But overall, you probably
have a tendency to err on one side or the other.
This isn’t a bad
thing either. Life is full of gray areas and rarely is “who’s at fault” cut in
stone. Trying to figure out both how others screwed us as well as how we messed
up is the foundation of improvement and preventing something from happening
again. It’s how you learn.
But what I find
is, while many people criticize those who play the victim and feel it’s better
to blame yourself, leaning too much in either direction is unhealthy and
useless. An individual needs to, at least momentarily, reassess when something goes wrong to see if she can accurately decide what to do differently when it happens again.
I advise people
that constructive criticism should be fun. It’s probably not going to be your
first time around, and just because one meeting wasn’t that morale boosting, it doesn’t
mean that it wasn’t useful. Overall, you should be striving to be inspired and
high energy after discussing your work, and if you’re constantly leaving upset
and distraught—shamed even—something needs to change.
Most advisors
tend to blame the author. I think this is a pendulum issue; because the vast
majority of new writers pass fault to those around them—"You didn’t understand
it," "You’re just jealous," "You’re not representative of everyone," "You’re a
jerk"—most people would assume that if you’re not having a good time, it’s
because you’re an egomaniac.
But I find that the people first to accuse someone of defensiveness were pretty sensitive themselves. He who insists to ignore everyone else and just listen to him is going to be the one who lectures you on not taking others' opinions (his) well enough.
Despite the horror stories I like to tell here, most criticism
sessions go well and the people who I work with leave feeling energetic and inspired. The drama occurs when dealing with specific people. In about half the cases, I
would say it’s more of an issue of different philosophies and tastes. Writers
who like simplicity, are more literal minded, and I don’t get along intellectually. We can be pleasant of
course, but their foundation of truth differs drastically from mine and it
makes it hard to understand each other. If both of us try to respect the
other’s viewpoint, this doesn’t matter; we can effectively talk things over. The issue arises when one of us is
having a bad day, doesn’t like the way we’ve been spoken to, or allows for
catharsis to eclipse logic, and the other responds with hostility.
Which is a fancy
way of saying, in most cases, both of us are at fault. Or, another
interpretation is, neither of us; sometimes you just aren’t the best fit for
each other, sometimes you unintentionally say something that means something
different to the listener than it meant for you.
Yet sometimes
you are very much the cause of the issue. They’re trying hard to help you and you’re
allowing your emotions to boil over. But, just as frequently, they’re at fault.
They put no effort into respecting you or your opinion, demand for obedience
with no actual authority, and are needlessly antagonistic solely because they
think they can get away with it.
Which brings me
to my point: people like that need to be treated differently than people who
are trying in order to make a successful conversation.
If you’re not
enjoying yourself in your critique sessions, the first step is to consider what
you can change.
You can change
how you react to things, certainly.
You can change
how you approach things too.
But you can also
change your environment, choose not to surround yourself with certain types of
people.
In some
situations, the best solution is to disengage and go about your way. It truly
isn’t that you need to change yourself, but you need to find a place that fits
you, your tastes, and your personality better.
However you can
also run away from things. If the problem is actually in your attitude, you’re likely to find changing locations just transfers the
problem. It’s also sometimes easier and more effective to try to fix something instead
of constantly just attempting to replace it or start over. Most importantly,
finding out what is really wrong is difficult when you keep starting from
scratch rather than tweaking things here or there.
Some people insist
that when you don’t like criticism you should look inward because it’s probably
your fault, but I find that to be dangerous. I know too many kind-hearted
people (not me) who were unfairly torn to shreds in a critique because they were
dealing with assholes and amateurs. For these people who tend to blame
themselves initially, being told that these attacks are their doing is counterproductive. They've already thought about why it happened to them, what they could have done differently, and someone else confirming their fears that they're just "too egotistical" to handle awful critiques exacerbates their lack of assertiveness. It’s far more productive to put shame and blame aside completely and look purely analytically for where things went wrong and what you have control over, regardless of who was "at fault."
So if you don’t
like getting criticized, evaluate the situation accordingly. You’re not a jerk,
they’re not a jerk, things just happened.
When things go
wrong, say to yourself…
I made a
decision based on the information I had at the time. I had my reasons.
Then ask
yourself…
What were those
reasons?
Hindsight is
20-20. Sometimes things make a lot more sense after the moment has passed.
Objectively determining what went wrong without seeking who’s to blame (including
yourself) will give you more experience to make an informed decision next time
around.
If you’re not
use to self-reflecting, this can be difficult to remember what exactly caused
you to get upset and/or why. You need to practice putting yourself in others’
shoes before you’re good at it, while also remembering not to get so
obsessed with other people’s thoughts that you stop respecting your own. It’s
okay to say, “I don’t understand where he was coming from,” and move on if you
can’t figure it out.
It’s not a good
thing to think everything is your fault all of the time. That can lead to
unreasonable insecurity as well as make you a target for jackasses and
manipulation. While the believe that blaming everyone else for your problems
won’t solve anything either, it’s important to realize that you can’t control
everything.
If you liked this post, want to support, contact, stalk, or argue with me, please consider...
Liking Charley Daveler on Facebook
Following What's Worse than Was
