Jennifer Frances Armstrong writes:
If I try to think back to my own situation of needing others’ help, which was a very long time ago, the one element I was always craving — but never actually got — was simple moral support. The one form of academic training that just about undid me in terms of effectively combating any form of abuse was philosophical idealism, which was taught very strongly as a form of moral solipsism that we were all obliged to embrace in order to be properly intellectually trained and psychologically well-adjusted.
I think the issue of moral support is very interesting, so I wanted to discuss it here. I’m very fortunate in having a person who will always provide unwavering support and understanding for me in any situation. That person is my sister. I know that no matter what situation I find myself in, I can share it with her and she will say, “I love you and I’m always 100% on your side, and nothing will change that. You know this, right?” And after that she will offer a very direct and honest opinion about the situation, without mincing words and trying to dance around the issue. If she thinks I’m being a blathering fool, she will inform me about that in great detail and provide many thought-out arguments in support of that opinion. Then, we will talk about the situation for as long as I need and as many times as I need until I find a solution.
It is really great to have somebody who will always tell you their honest opinion and will discuss anything that bothers you at great length.
Many people, however, have a completely misguided understanding of moral support. They think it consists of pandering to your self-esteem with facile asseverations as to how you are right about everything and things will be great with no effort on your part.
Recently, for example, I shared with somebody that I thought I was messing things up in a certain important area of my life. “I think I’m making XYZ mistakes,” I said, “and that always comes back to harm me.”
“Oh no,” the well-wishing moral supporter objected. “You do everything perfectly well. There is absolutely no problem you have here. You are wonderful and everything you do is right.”
I found this to be the opposite of helpful. I felt like my serious concerns were dismissed and I was being shut up.
It seems like people are so terrified of hurting anybody’s feelings that they often resign themselves to completely shallow, superficial relationships. In any profound, honest relationship, there is bound to be rawness of sentiment and even pain. Don’t we rob ourselves of genuine human contact when we see moral support as nothing but a string of platitudes aimed at distancing ourselves from a person who is facing problems?
It is very easy to respond with, “Oh, you are so great and everything is fantastic” whenever a person tries to share what bothers them. But doing that destroys the possibility of a worthwhile relationship, leaving instead a faked connection that has no depth to it.
“You matter enough to me that I am willing to risk angering and antagonizing you with my honesty,” a friend once said. And that’s how I knew he was a real friend to me, not just somebody who wanted to ingratiate himself with me by faking complete acceptance where, in truth, there was nothing but indifference.
Clarissa's Blog 
I don’t like the ego flattery approach to moral support either, because I was brought up (as I’ve mentioned before) in a very military style of schooling system, where sarcasm was one of the main forms of communication teachers used with students. I don’t mind that at all and in many ways I prefer that to earnest and direct forms of communication. There’s no questions I prefer it to having my ego cossetted.
My “feelings” as such are really not all that sensitive. I’m a very rough and tumble person, capable of starting again from scratch at any time. I do tremble at most forms of psychological projection, though. Even excessive empathy can be a form of psychological projection I really do not need. It’s like some vegetables need to be kept very dry to last their longest. Excessive empathy gives me the kind of environment in which I do not thrive.
LikeLike
It’s condescending, too. Why should people think I’m so fragile that I won’t be able to hear a simple “yes, you really messed up here” and not go to pieces?
LikeLike
Boundary issues. Most ppl these days dont know where they end and another begins – and they are right to be cautious in that case!
LikeLike
“Most ppl these days dont know where they end and another begins – and they are right to be cautious in that case!”
-Golden words. A weak personality is terrified of being lost in another, hence the caution.
LikeLike
King Solomon had a lot to say regarding flatterers vs. brothers. They say it is lonely at the top because you don’t know whether to trust anyone. It is easy to imagine that a man of his influence and wealth probably had “yes” men lined up around the block. So when someone cared enough for him to say, “You’re being an asshole!” or something along those lines, he probably really appreciated it. There is NO SUBSTITUTE for the TRUTH! Read the book of Proverbs when you get a chance. In fact, 1 chapter/day (there are 31 chapters) is a good prescription, I think. It’s a worthwhile endeavor…
LikeLike
But, Paul, it’s not a case of inviting ppl to call you an asshole to your face, as these same flaterrers and botherers will generally get around to that as well. It just takes them a bit of time to gather steam.
One of the most typical of my experiences until recently has begun by my informing ppl that I do think differently from any typical westerner because I wasn’t brought up as one.
The typical westerners response to that is, “sure! You’re not like anyone else. You’re a retry special snowflake, certainly. We understand you completely!”
So, I think, “fine, maybe you understand me completely.”. I go on behaving as a wish, but eschewing very, very warm and patronising emotions.
Then suddenly there is a wind change, as the westerner discovers that my attitudes are really not typical of a westerner and that they have been guilty of misreading me for a prolonged period of time.
At this point, they accuse me of having wilfully decieved them and of being “the opposite” to what they had taken me to be.
So, I become liable both for any failure to pay attention in the first instance, along with the fact that the other person has become upset by my behaviour, which I had warned them about.
Flaterrers thus become the harshest -because most baseless – critics.
LikeLike
It is a cruel thing to tell a person that s/he is perfect s/he is not.
LikeLike
PC gone wild. The whole idea behind this way of thinking is born of the assumption that people arent really strong enough to experience failure on multiple levels. We have a situation here in Ottawa that typifies this mentality. The soccer league for children under 10yrs old is no longer going to allow scoring to be charted. It seems they feel that developing their skills will be better if they dont keep score. Lost on them is the fact that you develop those skills for the sole purpose of scoring, but I digress. It seems a certain “type” of individual got a lot of credit for stating that positive, always happy thinking is what makes us better. The reality is that is the furthest thing from the truth, life is a series of adaptations and growth on these different levels can only happen when you adjust to those adaptations.
LikeLike
I couldn’t agree more. Overcoming frustration is one of the greatest factors of human growth, which is what some people tend to forget nowadays.
LikeLike
A lot of the problem with those who avoid facing their frustrations is back to front reasoning and the fact that a phony toughness has gained rhetorical power in Western communities.
Many people start with the estimation, “I’m a decent person, with high self esteem. Therefore, things ought to be easy for me. But if they’re not easy, it’s because someone is making things unnecessarily complex and they have no right to do that. I will teach them a lesson.”
I think if one starts from a position of how things ought to be, rather than setting out to find out how things are, one cannot learn anything new — that is, apart from what one THINKS one already knows. The idea that the “strong” identity is fixed and never alters is part of the attitude of this fake toughness. People like this don’t tolerate complexity, because they choose to believe that anything hard to understand is the result of others “making excuses”.
It’s all very strange, but it’s philosophical idealism at work, once again — the idea that because “I think:” I have high self esteem, the world owes me deference and should present me with no difficulties.
LikeLike