Babies and bathwater: the self-help and self-care industry

There's much that is salutary about Freddie DeBoer's recent post on the "self-care industry." The post's main contribution is to remind us about the way in which self-care philosophies (for lack of a better word) assume away the fact that we have conflicting desires even as they encourage us to prioritize our own desires over those of others.

DeBoer identifies a real problem. We should remember, though, that not all "self-care industry" products commit those same error.

I've just finished reading Jordan Peterson's Twelve Rules for Life. He acknowledges limitations, scarcity, and the fact that people of good will will often disagree. He acknowledges, for example, that married couples may have irreconcilable disagreements and may eventually have to decide whether to make peace or to be right.

Even the self-care approaches that have the problems DeBoer points out have redeeming features. DeBoer's post critiques a poster that illustrates things "you don't need to feel guilty about." Two of those things--"asking for your needs to be met" and "saying no to others"--can potentially contradict each other, as DeBoer argues. He is right to make the argument. Too often, people adopt contradictory memes in such a way as, in DeBoer's words, "to simply pretend that there's no such thing as a conflict between sincere people."

I'll add another way those two statements can be wrong. If you insist too often on "asking for your needs to be met," that's maybe a sign you're focused too much on your own needs and not on others', or it might mean you're in the habit of browbeating, or even bullying, other people to recognize your needs while ignoring theirs. If you "say no to others" too much, maybe you're neglecting an obligation you have to others. Or maybe you're closing yourself off to connection with others.

At the same time, that poster isn't wholly wrong, either, even if we limit our analysis to the two contradictory points. Asking for your needs to be met can be a good thing. Doing so militates against a certain passive aggressive expectation that others be able to read your mind. Saying no to others can be a good thing. Doing so sets boundaries and, well, militates against a certain passive aggressive expectation that others be able to read your mind.

We should also remember that "self-care" is a very broad category. The instances of "self-care" philosophies that DeBoer targets are the more generalized philosophies, of the "you can do better and achieve all your dreams if you follow these simple rules" type. There are also other, more granular and targeted works in the self-care industry, that treat on such subjects "how to eat more healthfully" or "how to stop self-injuring" or "how to deal with panic attacks." 

I'm not writing this blog post to target DeBoer. In fact, I'm glad he wrote that post and as I've said, I agree with him. I'm writing primarily to expand on his argument and note places where it doesn't seem to apply.