Dear Stu, I had a question come up and I thought about a conversation I had with you some years ago at the Wendy’s tomato protest in Columbus. I had a supervisor once who was nice and normal to me and my coworkers outside of the office—at lunch, drinks, whatever—but in the office, he was just terrible. Rude, impatient, belittling a lot of the new staff especially. He would tell people that he may be tough in the office but he’s super nice “in real life.” Talking to an old work friend I was reminded of what he and a few the others used to say about our boss, some variation of “he needs therapy.” As I think about it I notice that sentiment a lot on social media and stuff about public figures who do all sorts of bad things. I know you have talked about mental health on here and other places and I wondered if you had a take on this. Is what I’m describing what therapy is for? Do you think it would help someone who is generally mean? - Alex W. Dear Alex, What a nice Wendy’s memory! I hope that location has stuck with ethically sourced veggies since those days. Do you dip your fries in your Frosty by the way? I was skeptical about this for many years but then I tried it and realized it was delicious. Thank you for looping me in on these reflections, including the persona of your former boss. For the sake of this response, let’s call him Stewart (sort of the evil twin version of my own name). I have worked for/with people who acted like what you are describing with Stew. I had a restaurant supervisor who was so unpleasant, demanding, and rude to all of us in work hours. But outside of that context, it was like he wanted to be our best friend. We were dealing with a man who assumed others would join him in his happy delineation of work life and “real” life. It is normal to adapt our behaviour to what is appropriate for our context. It makes sense to be more relaxed and less self-conscious among friends and family, to the degree each relationship permits, in contrast to the standards of acceptable conduct in the workplace. I think most of us can accept that. What I strongly oppose is the arbitrary designation of any sphere of life as “not real life.” This happens a lot in the contrast between the workplace and life outside of it. It occurs also online, often to harmful results. In my years on Twitter (X) a culture of abuse and harassment was fostered in no small part by the cordoning off of one’s behaviour and identity from “real life.” Anonymity only further entrenched the sense of separation between real (irl) and online life. Breaking the spheres of life into real or not real can have terrible—and yes, real life—consequences for the people who did not sign up for that distinction. Your boss, the Stew man, and my restaurant manager may be thinking they can be jerks to us on company time because it’s a different sphere of life, and not personal. In fact, it’s all real life, and if you are going to be a jerk of me in any place, at any time of day, I am going to take it personally. And there are going to be consequences. For one, my colleagues and I are not going to dinner with you on Friday! Not only because you are my boss, but because you are mean to me in a way that cannot be put aside just because we are at Dave and Buster’s. Bosses who are awful to others in the workplace do not get a pass because of the rarified environment of the workplace. Nor does acting nicely outside of work balance out the aforementioned awfulness. I zoom further into the heart of your question with the disclaimer that I am not a therapist, and do not want to play at being one. My insights come primarily from years of being treated in therapy and psychiatry, learning and practicing contemporary methodologies, and offering spiritual and pastoral counselling in my various roles as a priest. The most responsible point we should start with is that no one but a doctor or therapist and their patient can know whether they ought to be in therapy at all. Having said that, I personally believe that if one has the opportunity to try therapy and is on the fence, there is likely no harm in at least trying it. Therapy is not solely for those going through a horrible time, or living with a mental illness or addiction. It can help you become well in a holistic way, and it can help you sustain wellness over time through regular self-reflection and objective feedback. *** Speaking only from anecdotal evidence, it feels to me like there are more of us in therapy because of people who have caused us distress or trauma than there are people in therapy because they have caused distress or trauma. Some of us may be actively working in therapy to let go of our sins and failings and move forward, but this is something quite different from personalities who are obstinate in their meanness, who see nothing wrong with it, or as in the case at hand—who see their meanness as inconsequential because it is not “real life,” and thus not personal. This takes us to the crux of the question of whether Disco Stew would benefit from therapy. In terms of addressing Stew’s meanness, a good therapist could help him uncover the roots of his behaviour, perhaps finding a sense of discontentment with himself or his life that is manifesting outwardly. Or there could be some other underlying cause that the Stewanator may not even be conscious of. That can happen to any of us. But here’s the thing, and it’s behind my careful use of “could” with reference to a therapist helping Stew deal with his meanness. It is possible that way too much hope and expectation is placed on the therapeutic process to, if you will, “fix” someone for us. “Wow, that dude needs therapy” may seem a mental health positive, forward thinking insight, but in my opinion, it assumes too much, and it places far too much weight on what therapy can do. Therapy can give you some great tools to empower you to find healing and peace, but it is not a guaranteed fix for one trait or another, not least because we can’t pathologize every vicious behaviour. For Stew and a therapist to make even some meaningful progress with his meanness, Stew would have to actually be open to growth. There would be a need for some vulnerability, and humility. He would have to find some motivation to enter into a prolonged period of mental-emotional heavy lifting. In other words, even for Stew to enter into therapy, he would have to make a virtuous choice, based on the virtuous insight that his behaviour is harming others. Depending on how mean Stew really is, this could be a really tough sell. Because the trouble with a lot of terribly mean people is that their sense of empathy is extremely difficult to access from within or without. They are presumably capable of it, but exercising empathy requires a virtuous choice. It is active. Even if Stew cannot yet say “I am not going to deride that person for a small mistake,” he must be able to say “It is a problem that I feel the need to deride that person; I’d like to figure out why, and make a change.” Without this, I see no way that outside help can be effective. Some people are mean because of family history, trauma, or broken relationships. Some people inherit meanness from their parents. Even if that should describe someone like Stew who is how he is because of those factors, it is still his responsibility to do the virtuous thing and address it. *** I said earlier that we cannot pathologize every vicious behaviour. I mean this also with respect to ideologies and belief systems. Sometimes we look at destructive public figures and say they are crazy or insane. This is not only offensive to those of us with mental illness, but it can also distract from the vicious ideological commitments and behaviours human beings are capable of in their right, sober mind. On the one hand I understand why some folks will look at someone like the current American President and say this is a man who needs therapy. Maybe, for one reason or another, he does. But I don’t believe that every horrible decision or action we make necessarily comes from a place of pain, abandonment, or likewise. Initiating aggressive swells of ICE raids, defunding helplines that support at risk youth—frighteningly, these are not per se the decisions of a sick mind. They are the decisions of a person willfully acting, and inviting others into acting, in vicious, destructive ways. Summarily, Stew 3000 may be be able to work on his meanness in therapy. But we would have to be very cautious about our hopes with that process. The first promising step would be an acknowledgement that there is a problem, and a willingness to do something about it. Regardless, in a just and healthy work culture this should never be the concern of a subordinate, and oftentimes those of us in that position cannot afford to wait for our superior to get better. None of us, regardless of developmental-psychological status, have a right to be cruel. Vicious people, especially in leadership, are not owed endless patience to improve. Yours in missing the Wendy’s bacon mushroom melt, when the store theme was yellow, when you could dine in a veritable sunroom, and when friendly staffers brought round a basket of mints to complete the meal, Stu Thanks for reading Dear Stu! This post is public so feel free to share it. Dear Stu is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Dear Stu at swilsonsmith.substack.com/subscribe
