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=rsl7/25/2019 Self Poisoning of the Mind
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.
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/25/2019 Self Poisoning of the Mind
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/25/2019 Self Poisoning of the Mind
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/25/2019 Self Poisoning of the Mind
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/25/2019 Self Poisoning of the Mind
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/25/2019 Self Poisoning of the Mind
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
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