Self-Poisoning of the Mind

Author(s): Jon Elster

Source: Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, Vol. 365, No. 1538, Rationality and
Emotions (Jan. 27, 2010), pp. 221-226
Published by: The Royal Society
Stable 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 support@jstor.org.

The Royal Society is 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 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PHILOSOPHICAL
TRANSACTIONS

OF
THE ROYAL"fj
W'
SOCIETY MJ

Phil Trans.R. Soc. B (2010) 365,221-226

doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0176

Self-poisoning of the mind

JonElster*
Chairede Rationalitet SciencesSociales,Collgede France

Some
thatindividuals
on theassumption
triestoexplainbehaviour
Rational-choice
optimize.
theory
is subjecttohedonic,
thattheindividual
behaviour
canbe explainedbyassuming
ofirrational
forms
In this
formation.
or adaptivepreference
such as wishful
mechanisms,
thinking
pleasure-seeking
whichmakeher
in the individual,
to psychicmechanisms,
originating
paper,I drawattention
and ofcounteradaptive
worseoff.I firstconsidertheideas of counterwishful
preference
thinking
ofthemindthatoccursthrough
on Proust,theself-poisoning
and then,drawing
formation
heavily
ofamour-propre.
theoperation
wishful
dissonance;
cognitive
thinking;
adaptivepreferences;
Keywords:amour-propre;
reactance;Proust
thatisprooratleastremoves
thediscontent
satisfaction,
In thelongrun,
ducedwhenbeliefsanddesiresdiverge.
ofcourse,one mightbe verybadlyoffactingon beliefs
As a Norwegian
proverb
adoptedon hedonicgrounds.
hasit:pissinginone'spantsgivesbriefwarmth.
Aligningdesireson beliefsis neitherrationalnor
criteriaforproirrational.
There are no rationality
formation
or fortheoutcomeof
cessesofpreference
agentand make herworseoff.I shall draw heavilyon
thatpreferof Marcel Proust,whichprovidemany suchprocesses,
the writings
exceptfortherequirement
At the same time,the
ences be logicallyconsistent.
intothesematters.1
insights
or ofdissoformation
consider
thestan- outcomeofadaptivepreference
forthediscussion,
As background
form
of
can
be
seen
as
a
of
reduction
The
nance
choice(figure
dardmodelofrational
optimizing,
1).
theory
norma- as theymaketheagentbetteroff.
rationalchoice,or rationalaction,is primarily
on one
of desiresand preferences
The alignments
tive.It tellspeoplewhatto do to achievetheiraimsas
wellas possible.It canalsobe usedforexplanatory
pur- anothertendto improvethewelfareof the agent,at
thatpeoplefollowtheprescriptions leastin theshortrun.Someprocessesofbeliefadjustposes,byassuming
whetherthe ment or preference
of the theoryand then determining
adjustmentseem, however,to
As AmosTversky
behav- maketheagentworseoff,notbetter.
to theprescribed
conforms
behaviour
observed
statements once remarked
the preceding
iour.In a fullerexposition,
(in conversation),
theyembodydissoThe puzzleis
ratherthanreduction.
in variousways,butformy nanceproduction
wouldhaveto be qualified
to explainhow theycan arise.Tverskyconjectured
endsherethesenuancesdo notmatter.
orcausalversion thattheymightbe theoutcomeof a 'crossingof the
theexplanatory
Figure1 represents
both wiresin thepleasuremachine',a metaphor
The heavilydrawnlinesrepresent
ofthetheory.
suggesting
relations.
The action, thatthe productionof dissonanceis a biochemical
and optimality
causal relations
on a parwithsomeformsofmentalillis optimalin thelightofthedesiresand phenomenon
forinstance,
drawnlinesrepresent ness. Withoutdenyingthatthismay indeedbe so,
beliefsthatcause it. The lightly
Morespecifisomealternative
relations. I shalloffer
thatare not also optimality
causalrelations
suggestions.
wishful cally,I shalldrawon theFrenchmoralists
(Elster1999,
Thus,thelinefromdesiresto beliefsrepresents
in
ofamour-propre
and otherformsof motivated ch. II.3) to arguefortheimportance
self-deception
thinking,
is
ofthemind.Whileamour-propre
beliefs
to desiresorpre- theself-poisoning
The linefrom
beliefformation.
it
can
that
threatens
itself
an
as
the
reduction
not
such
mechanisms
ferences
emotion,
proanything
represents
thatcan
for- voke strongemotionalreactions.Anything
of cognitivedissonanceor adaptivepreference
emotions.
mation.Dissonancereductionin fact appliesmore bolsteritmayalsoinducestrong
- it can have the effectof aligningbeliefson
of counteradapIn 2, I considerthemechanisms
widely
tive preferenceformation and counterwishful
as we shallsee.
desiresand evenon emotions,
from
The latterhas receivedsomeattention
Althoughaligningone's beliefson one's desiresis thinking.
Mele
of
shorta
form
itdoes embody
2001,
irrational,
philosophers(Pears 1984, pp. 42-44;
intrinsically
fromsocialscientermoptimizing.
Believingthatthe worldis as you ch. 5), but not,to myknowledge,
wouldlikeit to be providessome kindof immediate tists.The formerhas receivedbriefattentionfrom
economists(von Weiszcker1972), but not, to my
Ratherthanreviewing
fromotherquarters.
knowledge,
*jon.elster@college-de-france.fr
I shall suggestsome approachesthat
the literature,
and Proust.
andemotions'. drawon theFrenchmoralists
of12toa ThemeIssue'Rationality
Onecontribution
1. INTRODUCTION

In thispaper,I shall discusswhat Scheler(1972),

of the
inspiredby Nietszche,called 'self-poisoning
mind'.I shallnot limitmyselfto the 'ressentiment'
thatwas Scheler'smain example,but also consider
- belief
mental mechanisms
other counterhedonic
in the
changesthatoriginate
changesor preference

221

Thisjournalis 2010 The RoyalSociety

This content downloaded from 200.31.75.101 on Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:40:58 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

222 J. Elster Self-poisoning

ofthemind
action

desires(preferences)

=z*

beliefs

informations

Figure 1. A model of rationalchoice.

In 3, 1 drawevenmoreextensively
on Proustinmy
of beliefs and,
discussionof the transmutation
of desires.The striking
between
similarity
especially,
theviewsofProustand thoseofNietszcheis probably
due to the factthattheywereboth influenced
by
La Rochedoucauld.
2. COUNTERWISHFUL THINKING AND
COUNTERADPTIVE PREFERENCE
FORMATION
La Fontainewrotethat'Each believesveryeasilywhat
he fearsand whathe hopes'. Believingwhatone hopes,
wishfulthinking,
does at least provideimmediategratification,howeverbad the subsequent consequences.
thinking,
Believing what one fears, counterwishful
seems more perverse,as the belief does not provide
nor produce any instrumental
anykindof gratification
benefits,but only serves to make one miserable. If
thebeliefthatyou cannotobtain causes you to desire
('the grass is always greener'), there is also a net
loss in welfare.We may referto this phenomenonas
counteradaptive
preference
formation.
A mechanismthatmightaccountforboth phenomena is overreaction
to the fearof wishfulthinkingand
of adaptive preferences.Pascal (1991, p. 178/Pense
78) observed that 'The most equitable man in the
world is not permittedto be judge in his own cause:
I know some who, in order not to be entrappedby
thisamour-propre,
have been as unjustas possible by
a counter-bias;the sure way to lose a perfectlyjust
cause was to get it commendedto themby theirnear
kinsfolk'.His Jansenistally Nicole (1857, p. 247)
suggestedthatthe fearof being entrappedby amourproprecould itselfbe due to amour-propre.For some
individuals,the idea that theymightbe the plaything
of self-serving
mental mechanism,owing to amourto theiramour-propre.
propre,mightitselfbe intolerable
With respect to beliefs,amour-propremakes us
believe we are responsible for good outcomes, but
not forbad ones. Someone who suspects and dislikes
this tendencyin himselfmightfall into the opposite
bias, de Montaigne(1991, p. 721) wrote,forinstance,
that 'if I happen to do my job in a praiseworthy
fashion, I attributethat more to my good fortune
that to my ability'. With respect to preferences,
amour-propretends to make us overvaluewhat we

possess and undervaluethe possessionsof others.

Once again,someonewho suspectsand dislikesthis
in himself
tendency
mightfallintotheoppositebias,
to an 'aberration
de Montaigne(1991, p. 720) refers
of his soul' he findshimselfunableto eradicate:'it
the real value of the things
consistsin diminishing
I possess,simplybecause it is I who possessthem,
whatever
to me,
and in overvaluing
thingsareforeign
lackingin me or arenotmine'.
UnlikePascal,Montaignedid notexplicitly
explain
thesecounterhedonic
tendencies
as theresultofleaning
Fora veryexplioverbackwards
todeflect
self-suspicion.
we may turnto
cit description
of thatmechanism,
Proust.
I had long since been prepared, by the strong
impressionmade on my imaginationand my faculty
for emotion by the example of Swann, to believein
the truthof whatI fearedratherthan of whatI should
havewished.And so the comfortbroughtme by Albertine'saffirmations
came near to beingjeopardizedfora
moment, because I was reminded of the story of
Odette. But I told myselfthat,if it was only rightto
allow forthe worst,not onlywhen,in orderto underI had triedto put myselfin
stand Swann's sufferings,
his place, but now, when I myselfwas concerned,in
seekingthe truthas though it referredto some one
else, stillI mustnot, out of crueltyto myself,a soldier
who chooses the post not wherehe can be of mostuse
but where he is most exposed, end in themistakeof
regardingone suppositionas more true than the rest,
simplybecauseit was morepainful.

(Proust1987-1989,III, p. 228; myitalics).

The textis remarkable

andperhapsuniqueinthatit
in
invokesnot onlythesuspicionof wishful
thinking
oneself,but also suspicionofthatsuspicionitself.These

vertiginousdoubts and doubts about doubts are

indeedcharacteristics
ofProustian
jealousy(Grimaldi
1993; Landy2004). For mypurposeshere,however,
I wantonlyto stressthebasiccounterhedonic
mechanism. Suspicionof one's tendencyto believethebest
maycause one to believetheworst.
Anotherpossiblemechanism
forgenerating
counterhedonic
thereduction
phenomenais, surprisingly,
of cognitivedissonance.In Theoryof Cognitive
Dissonance,
Festinger(1957, pp. vi-vii) explainsthe
of
the
origin
theoryas follows:
The fact [. . .] whichpuzzled us was thatfollowingthe
[1934 Indian] earthquake,the vast majorityof the
rumors that were widely circulated predicted even
worsedisastersto come intheverynearfuture.Certainly
thebeliefthathorribledisasterswereaboutto occuris not
a verypleasantbelief,and we may ask ourselveswhy
rumorsthatwere'anxietyprovoking'arose and wereso
widelyaccepted. Finallya possible answeroccurredto
us- an answerthatheldpromiseofhavingrathergeneral
evenworse
application:perhapstheserumorspredicting
disastersto come werenot 'anxietyprovoking'at all but
rather'anxietyjustifying'.
That is,as a resultoftheearthand the
quake these people were alreadyfrightened,
rumorsservedthe functionof givingthem something
to be frightened
about (myitalics).
It is worthwhile mentioning that many of the
post-earthquake rumours involved natural calamities

Phil Trans.R. Soc. B (2010)

This content downloaded from 200.31.75.101 on Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:40:58 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Self-poisoning
ofthemind J.Elster 223

such as cyclonesand floods amour-propre of the agent. La Rochefoucauld

otherthanearthquakes,
1957,p. 238). If therumourshad simply providedan earlyanalysisof thisphenomenon:
(Festinger
theycould have had a
predictedmoreearthquakes,
The scornforrichesdisplayed
was
bythephilosophers
basisin theriskofaftershocks.
a
rational
By contrast,
a secretdesireto recompense
theirownmeritforthe
beliefin theriskofa cyclonefollowing
an earthquake
injusticeof Fortuneby scorningthoseverybenefits
has no rationalfoundation.
shehaddeniedthem;itwasa private
wayofremaining
Festinger'scase is not an isolatedone because
unsulliedbypoverty;
a deviouspathtowardsthehigh
rumourstendin factto be on thepessimistic
rather
respecttheycouldnotcommandbywealth
than on the optimisticside (Ploux 2003, p. 63).
(Maxim54).
rather
They mostlyexpresscounterwishful
thinking
Before I pursue the further development by
thanwishful
of this
thinking.
Festinger's
explanation
Nietzsche
of this idea, let me note thatLa Rochefouin
seemsto presupposethatthe belief the
tendency
in psychological
rumourcausesa netdecrease
discom- cauld had been anticipated,and in a sense disproved,
fort.The decrease in discomfortcaused by the by Thaes. Accordingto Aristotle{Politics1259 b),
consonancebetweenemotionand beliefmustmore
forhis poverty,
whichwas
[Thaies]was reproached
theincreased
discomfort
causedbyholding
thanoffset
to show thatphilosophy
was of no use.
supposed
a 'notverypleasantbelief.In otherwords,thestateof
Accordingto the story,he knewby his skillin the
beingafraid
fora reasonmustbe lesspainfulthanthe
starswhileit was yetwinterthattherewouldbe a
stateofbeingafraid
forno reason.It is notobviousto
greatharvestof olivesin thecomingyear;so, having
me thatthisis true,nor how one would go about
a littlemoney,he gavedepositsfortheuse of all the
it is true.
whether
determining
in Chiosand Miletus,whichhe hiredat
olive-presses
The beliefin a justworld(Lerner1980), an offa low pricebecauseno one bid againsthim.When
shoot of the cognitivedissonancetheory,also has
theharvest-time
came,and manywerewantedall at
counterhedonic
effects.
To theextentthat
once and of a sudden,he let themout at anyrate
apparently
whichhe pleased,and made a quantityof money.
just,
people assumethatthe worldis fundamentally
to 'blamethevictim',
evenpalpably
Thus he showedthe worldthat philosophers
can
theyaremotivated
is of
innocentvictimssuchas youngmenwho had drawn
easilybe richiftheylike,butthattheirambition
anothersort.
In fact,even
an unluckynumberin thedraftlottery.
those who drew the unluckynumbertended to
In his retellingof the story,de Montaigne (1991,
blamethemselves
(Rubin& Peplau 1973). The self153) explicitlyasserts that when he condemned
p.
blame of rape victims illustratesthe same
Thaies 'was accused of sour grapes
money-making,
phenomenon.Once again,however,it is somewhat like the fox'.
Thaes wanted to 'show the
Although
counterintuitive
that the comfortthese individuals
world' thatthe accusation was unfounded,one could
draw frombelievingthat theirfate is just should
also imagine that he had made a fortunein order to
dominatethe discomfort
producedby theirbelief demonstrateto
himselfthat his philosophywas not
thattheyareto blame.
the productof sour grapes.Not contentwiththinking
Finally,we mighttryto explaincounteradaptive thathe couldhave
acquiredricheshad he wantedto, he
preferenceformationas the result of reactance
have
decided
to actuallyacquirethemto deflect
might
(Brehm1966). Imaginea childwho prefers
toysA,
I returnto thispoint.
self-suspicion.
and C in thatorder.If parentsuggeststhatshe
Nietszche was heavily influenced by La
mightwantto choose A, the suggestion
maycause Rochefoucauld
(Donnellan 1979). His description
herto chooseB. On one interpretation,
of
autonomy
1967,
(Nietszche
1.14) of the 'workshop' in which
choice trumpswelfare.(One should not say that
the transmutation
of values takes place may well have
to welfare,as thatpreference
autonomyis preferred
been inspiredby the Maxims:
itselfwouldsimplybe one aspectof welfare.)It has
been argued,for instance,thatnon-compliance
of
It is a careful,
andwhiscrafty,
lightrumor-mongering
withregardto medicalinstructions
It seemsto me
patients
mightbe
peringfromeverynook and cranny.
thatpeople are lying;a sugarymildnessclingsto
due to reactance(Fogart1997).
into
The ultimateexplanation
of reactanceis probably
everysound. Weaknessis goingto be falsified
.
merit.
And
which
to be foundin the amour-propre
of the agent.In
[.
something
of
.]
powerlessness
does not retaliateis beingfalsified
into 'goodness,'
his analysisof the psychoanalytic
phenomenonof
anxiousbasenessinto 'humility,'
submissionbefore
Lacan (1977, p. 13) refersto 'thatresistresistance,
thoseone hatesto 'obedience'(of course,obedience
ance of amour-propre
, to use the term in all the
to the one who, they say, commandsthis suband which
depthgivento it by La Rochefoucauld,
- theycall himGod). The inoffensiveness
mission
of
is oftenexpressesthus: I can't bear the thought
- cowardiceitself,in whichhe is rich,
the
weak
man
of being freed by anyone other than myself.
his standingat the door,his inevitable
need to wait
I find this explanationmore persuasivethan the
- hereacquiresa good name,like'patience',
around
standardaccount of resistancein terms of the
and is called virtueitself.That incapacity
is
forrevenge
unconscious.
called the lack
desire
forgiveness.

of

for revenge,perhaps even

Therearetwoideas at workin thesentenceI have

I shallmeananychangein beliefs italicized.One is thetransmutation
of cannotdo
By 'transmutation'
that is caused by a threatto the or obtainx' into do notwantto do or to obtain
or preferences
3. TRANSMUTATIONS

Phil. Trans.R. Soc. B (2010)

This content downloaded from 200.31.75.101 on Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:40:58 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

224 J. Elster Self-poisoning

ofthemind
x' The otheris the transmutation
of the latterinto
wantnot to do or not to obtainx', thatis, the transmutation of passive negation into active negation
(Elster 1993, ch. 2). The firstmechanismis illustrated
by the incapacityforrevengeturninginto the lack of
desire for revenge,the second by the lack of desire
for revenge turning into forgiveness,that is, the
desire to abstain fromrevenge.Later, I shall suggest
a furthertransmutation.
It is perhapsnot clearwhytheoutcomeofthesetwo
transmutations
should be referredto as self-poisoning
ofthemind.But considerthefollowingexample.Peter
is attractedto Anne, but she does not requitehis love.
As a consequence, he ceases to desire her and persuades himself that she is in fact positively
undesirable.It is this downgrading
of what he cannot
have ('sour grapes') thatconstitutesthe self-poisoning.
If Peterhad simplycontentedhimselfwithredirecting
his desireto anotherwoman more inclinedto requite
would be involved.
it, no self-poisoning
We can see that this downgradingis unattractive
and mightinduce all kinds of uglybehaviours,but is
it counterhedonic?Does it necessarilyhave a negative
impact on the welfareof the agent?As we shall see
Proustoffersone examplein whichthe downshortly,
gradingenhanceswelfareand one in whichit detracts
fromit. We can neverthelessmake, I think,a general
argumentfor the claim that downgradingtends to
have counterhedoniceffects.WheneverAnne's name
comes up in conversation,Peteris likelyto reactwith
derogatoryremarksthat have no basis in facts,only
in her rejectionof him. Othersmaynoticehis attitude
and suspect its basis and, as a result,come to dislike
and avoid him. Indirectly,therefore,Peter's reaction
induces a loss of welfare.We shall shortlysee an
example of thismechanismin Proust.
Proustoffersseveralexamplesof the transmutation
of CIcannot have it' into do not want it'. The first
and least consequentialis also the most amusing. It
occurs in the contextof an exchange between Mme
de Gallardon and Oriane, Princessedes Laumes (the
futureDuchesse de Guermantes):
Oriane, don'tbe angrywithme', resumedMme de
whocouldneverrestrain
herself
fromsacriGallardon,
herhighest
socialambitions,
and thehopethat
ficing
she mightone day emergeinto a lightthatwould
dazzletheworld,to theimmediate
and secretsatisfactionofsayingsomething
disagreeable,
'peopledo say
aboutyourM. Swannthathe's thesortof man one
can'thavein thehouse;is thattrue?'
'Why,you,ofall people,oughtto knowthatit'strue',
repliedthePrincessedes Laumes,'foryoumusthave
askedhima hundredtimes,and he's neverbeen to
yourhouseonce'. (I, p. 330.)
The nextepisode occurs at Balbec, wherethe Narratorobserves the behaviourof two bourgeois wives
towardsan old and noble lady:
Whenever
thewivesofthenotaryand themagistrate
saw her in the dining-room
at meal-times
theyput
as
up theirglassesand gaveheran insolentscrutiny,
minuteand distrustful
as ifshe had been somedish
witha pretentious
namebut a suspiciousappearance

which,afterthe negativeresultof a systematicstudy,

must be sent away witha loftywave of the hand and
a grimaceof disgust.
No doubt by thisbehaviourtheymeant only to show
that,iftherewerethingsin theworldwhichtheythemselves lacked- in this instance, certain prerogatives
which the old lady enjoyed,and the privilegeof her
acquaintance- it was not because theycould not, but
becausetheydid notwantto acquirethem.But theyhad
succeeded in convincingthemselvesthat this really
was what theyfelt;and it was the suppressionof all
desire for, of all curiosityas to formsof life which
were unfamiliar,of all hope of pleasing new people
(for which, in the women, had been substituteda
feigned contempt,an artificialbrightness)that had
the awkwardresultofobligingthemto label theirdiscontentsatisfaction,
and lie everlastingly
to themselves,
two
conditionsfortheirbeing unhappy.But everyoneelse
in thehotelwas no doubt behavingin a similarfashion,
form,
though theirbehaviour mighttake a different
and sacrificing,if not to self-importance,
at any rate
to certaininculcatedprinciplesand mentalhabitsthe
thrillingdelightof mixingin a strangekind of life.Of
course, the atmosphereof the microcosmin which
the old lady isolatedherselfwas notpoisonedwithvirulentbitterness,
as was that of the group in which the
wives of the notaryand magistratesat chatteringwith
impotentrage (II, p. 38; myitalics).

In thistext,the transmutation
of cannot' into
do not wantto' is explicitlycited as a cause of poisoning, bitternessand unhappiness.Although,as noted
initially,the alignmentof desireson beliefsis usually
thoughtto induce dissonance reductionand greater
contentmentwith one's fate, here the veryopposite
effectoccurs. The elementof self-deception,of lying
to oneself,maybe responsible.Whereaswishfulthinking maybe freeof self-doubts,self-deceptionrarelyis.
The contrastcould not be greaterwiththefollowing
example, in which the same mechanismis said to be
conductiveto happiness ratherthan to unhappiness.
The episode involves the absurdly self-contented
fatherof the Narrator'sfriendBloch.
M. Bloch senior [. . .] lived in the world of half-truths
where people salute the empty air and arrive at
wrongjudgments.Inexactitude,incompetencedo not
modifytheir assurance; quite the contrary.It is the
propitiousmiracleof amour-proprethat,since fewof
us are in a positionto enjoythesocietyofdistinguished
people, or to formintellectualfriendships,those to
whom theyare denied still believe themselvesto be
the best endowed of men, because the opticsof our
social perspective
make everygrade of societyseem the
bestto himwhooccupiesit,and beholds as less favored
than himself, less fortunate and thereforeto be
pitied,the greatermen whom he names and calumniates withoutknowing,judges and- despises without
understanding them. Even in cases where the
multiplication
of his modestpersonaladvantagesby his
would not sufficeto assure a man the
amour-propre
dose of happiness, superior to that accorded to
others,which is essentialto him, envyis alwaysthere
to make up the balance. It is true that if envy finds
expression in scornful phrases, we must translate
7 have no wish to knowhim' by 7 have no meansof

Phil Trans.R. Soc. B (2010)

This content downloaded from 200.31.75.101 on Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:40:58 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ofthemind J.Elster 225

Self-poisoning
sense.But the
him' That is theintellectual
knowing
emotionalsenseis indeed, haveno wishto know
him'.The speakerknowsthatit is not true,but he
does not,all the same,say it simplyto deceive;he
saysitbecauseitis whathe feels,andthatis sufficient
to bridgethegulfbetweenthem,thatis to saytomake
himhappy.(II, pp. 129-130; myitalics).

aresomewhat
The lastfewsentences
impenetrable.
I findit hardto makesenseofthem.Yet,theoverall
idea of the passage seems clear: the upgradingof
be supone'sownsmalladvantages
may,ifnecessary,
plementedby the downgradingof the greater
advantagesof others,to produce happiness.As
suggestedby the commentson the bourgeoiswives
of Balbec, the lattermechanismmay not by itself
yieldthesameresult.
mechanism
to the downgrading
Proust'sreference
as envyis,however,
Envypreidiosyncratic.
distinctly
of the value of the envied
supposesthe recognition
object,notthedenialofitsvalue.The actiontendency
whatyoucannotget,notto deniofenvyis to destroy
passageshowsthatProustwas
grateit.The following
of
aware of this standardunderstanding
perfectly
in
a
It
occurs
the
envious.
effect
on
of
its
and
envy,
commenton the reactionsinducedby the worldly
Albertine:
friend
successesoftheNarrator's
'successes'in societyexcitedthe envyof
Albertine's
at seeingherreceived
furious
certainspiteful
mothers,
likeone of thefamily
by thebanker'swife,evenby
Andre'smother,neitherof whomtheythemselves
really knew. They thereforewent about telling
commonfriendsof thoseladies and theirown that
both ladies would be veryangryif theyknewthe
facts,whichwerethatAlbertine
repeatedto each of
to whichshe was
thatthe intimacy
themeverything
enabledherto spyout in thehouserashlyadmitted
hold of the other,a thousandlittlesecretswhichit
mustbe infinitely
party
unpleasantto the interested
to havemadepublic.These enviouswomensaid this
so thatit mightbe repeatedand mightgetAlbertine
intotroublewithherpatrons.But,as oftenhappens,
met withno success.The spite
theirmachinations
and their
themwas too apparent,
thatprompted
only
resultwas to make the womenwho had planned them
thanbefore(II, p. 289).
appearrathermorecontemptible

is a self-poisoning
mechanism,
Envy,notoriously,
which exacerbatesratherthan alleviatesthe pang
ofanother'sgreatersuccess
causedbytheperception
The cause,in thiscase, is theperception
or fortune.
by othersthat one is envious.In othercases, the
thisstigthatsheis harbouring
agent'sownperception
to make her
matizedemotionmay be sufficient
unhappy.
I concludethisProustiancatalogueby somecoma character
mentson thecomplexcase ofLegrandin,
whose outwardlyanti-snobattitudehides deep
inwardsnobbery.The Narratorcites his grandmother'ssurpriseat cthe furiousinvectivewhich
at
at thearistocracy,
was alwayslaunching
[Legrandin]
"snobbishness"
and
fashionable
"undoubtedly",
life,
he wouldsay,"thesinofwhichSaintPaul is thinking
when he speaks of the sin for whichthereis no
(I, p. 67). Fromthe context,it seems
forgiveness"'

that the grandmothermay have thought that

Legrandin'doth protesttoo much'. If so, this
impressionis confirmedlater,when the Narrator
innocentlyasks Legrandinwhetherhe knowsthe
Guermantesfamily.The acuityof the Narrator's
analysisof Legrandin'sresponsejustifies,I hope,
a lengthy
quotation:
I sawin the
[At]thesoundofthewordGuermantes,
middle of each of our friend'sblue eyes a little
brown dimple appear, as thoughtheyhad been
whiletherestof
stabbedbysomeinvisible
pin-point,
his pupils,reactingfromthe shock,receivedand
His fringed
secretedthe azureoverflow.
eyelidsdarkened,and drooped.His mouth,whichhad been
to
and searedwithbitterlines,was thefirst
stiffened
and smiled,whilehiseyesstillseemedfullof
recover,
whose
martyr
pain, likethe eyesof a good-looking
arrows.
with
bristles
body
'No, I do notknowthem',he said,butinsteadofuttera replyin which
ingso simplea pieceofinformation,
therewasso littlethatcouldastonish
me,inthenatural
tonewhichwouldhavebefitted
and conversational
it,
he recitedit witha separatestressupon each word,
bowinghis head, withat once the
leaningforward,
whicha man gives,so as to be believed,
vehemence
statement
to a highlyimprobable
(as thoughthefact
couldbe due
thathe did not knowtheGuermantes
onlyto some strangeaccidentof fortune)and with
unable
himself
the emphasisof a man who,rinding
tokeepsilenceaboutwhatistohima painful
situation,
choosesto proclaimit aloud, so as to convincehis
he is makingis one that
hearersthatthe confession
butis easy,agreeable,
causeshimno embarrassment,
in question,in this
situation
that
the
spontaneous,
withtheGuermantes
case theabsenceofrelations
family,
mightverywellhave beennotforcedupon, but actually
designedby Legrandinhimselfmightarise fromsome

some moralprincipleor mystical

familytradition,
forbadehisseekingtheirsociety.
vowwhichexpressly
'No', he resumed,
byhiswordsthetonein
explaining
whichtheywereuttered.'No, I do not knowthem;
I have neverwishedto knowthem;I have always
made a pointof preserving
completeindependence;
at heart,as youknow,I am a bitofa Radical.People
meI am misarealwayscomingto me aboutit,telling
that I make myself
takenin notgoingto Guermantes^

an old bear.But that'snot

seemill-bred,
uncivilized,
thatcan frighten
the sortof reputation
me; it's too
true![...]'

IfI askedhim,'Do youknowtheGuermantes

family?'
Legrandinthetalkerwouldreply,'No, I havenever
the talker
cared to knowthem'.But unfortunately
whom
to anotherLegrandin,
was now subordinated
hidden in his breast,whom he
he kept carefully
would neverconsciously
exhibit,because thisother
could tell storiesabout our own Legrandinand
whichwouldhaveruinedhis
abouthis snobbishness
for ever; and this otherLegrandinhad
reputation
repliedto me alreadyin thatwoundedlook,thatstifofhistonein uttering
fenedsmile,theunduegravity
thosefewwords,in the thousandarrowsby which
beenstabbed
had instantaneously
ourownLegrandin
and sickened,like a Saint Sebastianof snobbery:
'Oh, how you hurt me! No, I do not knowthe

Phil. Trans.R. Soc. B (2010)

This content downloaded from 200.31.75.101 on Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:40:58 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

226

J. Elster

Self-poisoningof the mind

Do not remindme of the great

Guermantes
family.
sorrow
ofmylife'.Andsincethisother,thisirrepressible, dominant,
despoticLegrandin,ifhe lackedour
shewedan infinitely
Legrandin's
charming
vocabulary,
in expressing
himself,
greater
promptness
bymeansof
what are called 'reflexes',it followedthat,when
Legrandinthe talkerattemptedto silencehim,he
wouldalreadyhavespoken,and it wouldbe useless
forour friendto deplorethe bad impression
which
the revelations
of his alterego musthave caused,
sincehe could do no morenow thanendeavourto
them.(I, pp. 126-127; myitalics.)
mitigate

The general idea that helps us understandthese

phenomena is that the unconsciousis neverwise. In
some cases, as in wishfulthinking,unconscious reactions may cause temporary alleviation or
In othercases, illustratedby Legrandin's
gratification.
reflexesthatgivehim awaybeforehe can catchhimself,
theymay cause instantand irreversibledamage. On
these lines, there is a story (which I have been
unable to track down) told about Sigmund Freud,
who was invitedto meet a person,Dr X, who was prominentin the international
Jewishmovement.During
their conversation,Dr X asked him, 'Tell me Dr
Legrandin'ssuggestionthathis absence of relations Freud, who is in your opinion the most important
with the Guermanteswas a matterof choice rather Jewishpersonalityin theworldtoday?'Freud answered
than of necessityillustratesthe simple transmutation politely,'Why, I thinkthat must be yourself,Dr X'.
When Dr X replied,'No, No', Freud asked,'Wouldn't
of cannot' into do not wantto'. His further
claim
thatpeople told him thatit was a mistakenot to visit 'No' had been enough?' Double negation can be
- as ifhe could easilyhave done sothe Guermantes
equivalentto affirmation.
suggeststhat he is subject to a thirdtransmutation,
whichto the statement do not want to know them'
ENDNOTE
adds 'But I could have knownthemhad I wantedto'.
1Roman numeralsin the text referto the four volumes of Proust
This is a self-deceptive
factualstatement,not a matter
ofpreference.
It is as ifPeter,havingfirstbeen rejected (1987-1989). I am using (and occasionallymodifying)the translations by Scott Moncrieff,available at http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.
Anne
and
then
by
downgradedher,had added thatOf
au/p/proust/marcel/.
courseI could easilyhavemarriedherhad I wantedto'.
I suspect that this joint transmutation
of preferences
and beliefsis quite common. Hence, even though a
REFERENCES
sour grapes reactionis not in itselfirrational,it may
reactance.New York,
Brehm,J. 1966 A theory
ofpsychological
go togetherwith irrationalbelief formation.The fox
NY: Academic Press.
de Montaigne, M.
1991
The complete essays.
probablycould not have persuaded himselfthat he
could have reached the grapes by jumping high
Harmondsworth,UK: Penguin.
Donnellan, B. 1979 Nietszche and La Rochefoucauld.
enough,but in interpersonalrelationsconstraintsare
GermanQ. 52, 303-318. (doi: 10.2307/404869)
so
hard
that
cannot
be
undone
a
rarely
they
by
Elster,
J. 1993 Political psychology.Cambridge, UK:
of
the
self-deceptive
rewriting
script.
CambridgeUniversityPress.
All thesetransmutations
serveto bolsterthe amourElster, J. 1999 Alchemiesof the mind. Cambridge, UK:
of cannot
propreofthe agent,(i) The transmutation
CambridgeUniversityPress.
have it' into do not want to have it' restoresa sense
dissonance.Palo Alto,
Festinger,L. 1951 A theory
ofcognitive
of agency,(ii) The further
transmutation
into 'It is not
CA: StanfordUniversityPress.
worthwhile
havinganyway'cementsthewisdomof the
Fogart,J. 1997 'Reactance theoryand patientnoncomplirejection,(iii) The final transmutationinto could
ance'. Soc. Sei. Med. 8, 1277-1288.
have had it had I wanted it' weakensany suspicion of
Grimaldi,N. 1993 La jalousie:essaisurl'imaginaire
proustien.
sour grapes. Yet, the bolsteringremains fragile.For
Arles,France: Actes du Sud.
Legrandinto trulypersuade himselfand othersthat Lacan, J. 1977 Ecrits.New York,NY: Norton.
Landy, J. 2004 Philosophyas fiction.Oxford,UK: Oxford
he could have frequentedthe Guermantes had he
UniversityPress.
wanted to, he would have had to followthe example
M. 1980 The beliefin a just world.New York,NY:
Lerner,
of Thaes: obtain an invitation,visit them once and
Plenum.
then never again. For Legrandin, such a course of
. 2001 Self-deception
unmasked. Princeton, NJ:
behaviourwould be unthinkable.Had he been invited Mele,
PrincetonUniversityPress.
by the Duchesse de Guermantes,he would have gone
Nicole, P. 1857 Essais de Morale. Paris, France: Techener.
thereagain and again,persuadinghimselfthat'he was
Nietszche, F. 1967 Genealogyof morals.New York, NY:
yieldingto the attractionsof her mind, and her other
Vintage.
virtues, which the vile race of snobs could never Pascal, B. 1991 In Penses(ed. P. Sellier), Paris, France:
understand'.(I, p. 127)
Classiques Gamier.
The self-poisoningeffectof transmutations
Pears, D. 1984 Motivatedirrationality.
Oxford,UK: Oxford
is due
UniversityPress.
largely to the fact they are so obvious to others.
Ploux, F. 2003 De bouche oreille.Paris, France: Aubier.
of thismechLegrandinprovidesa furtherillustration
du tempsperdu,I-IV.
anism. Both the motherand the fatherof the narrator Proust,M. 1987-1989 A la recherch
France: Gallimard (editionsde la Pliade).
Paris,
see throughhim, the formerbeing 'greatlydelighted
Rubin, . & Peplau, A. 1973 Belief in a just world and
whenever she caught him red-handed in the sin,
reactionsto another'slot. J. Soc. Issues29, 73-93.
which he continuedto call the unpardonable sin, of
New York, NY: Schocken
Scheler, M. 1972 Ressentiment.
snobbery'(I, p. 128) and thelatterdeliberately'torturBooks.
that von Weiszcker,C. C. 1972 Notes on endogenouschangeof
ing him' (I, p. 131) withrequestsforinformation
his snobberywould not allow him to give out.
tastes.J. Econ. Theory3, 345-372.
Phil. Trans.R. Soc. (2010)

This content downloaded from 200.31.75.101 on Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:40:58 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions