Self-esteem is commonly defined as a person’s overall evaluation of their own worth. Many popular writers and therapists treat high self-esteem as the central solution to personal and social problems. This essay examines several common claims about self-esteem and highlights their potential weaknesses. A theological perspective is addressed where relevant.
Claim 1: “High self-esteem makes our lives work.”
This claim overstates the benefits of self-esteem. While some confidence can be helpful, there is little evidence that high self-esteem by itself leads to better behavior, mental health, or moral choices. People with high self-esteem can still engage in harmful behaviors such as substance abuse or violence.
In some cases, moderate dissatisfaction with oneself can be motivating. Recognizing personal limits or failures may encourage effort, learning, and growth. Framing life problems as the result of “low self-esteem” risks blaming individuals for difficulties that may be caused by social, economic, biological, or traumatic factors.
This mindset can also reduce compassion. If success is credited to self-esteem, then those who struggle may be seen as responsible for their suffering, making patience and understanding harder to sustain.
From a theological perspective, using God as a tool to boost self-esteem (for example, “God made me because I am wonderful”) risks shifting the focus from humility and responsibility toward self-importance. If self-esteem becomes the highest good, it can displace moral accountability and reverence, effectively placing the self at the center rather than God.
Claim 2: “You only need to decide to love and esteem yourself.”
Self-esteem cannot simply be chosen at will. For most people, it develops gradually through meaningful action, relationships, and contribution to others. Encouraging people to “just love themselves” oversimplifies human psychology and may leave those who cannot do so feeling inadequate or dishonest.
Self-esteem that is disconnected from behavior or concern for others can become self-deception rather than healthy self-respect. Genuine self-respect tends to arise indirectly—through acting responsibly, showing care, and engaging constructively with the world.
From a religious viewpoint, if self-worth is understood as a gift of grace rather than a personal achievement, the emphasis shifts away from self-focus toward gratitude and ethical living. Grace does not eliminate effort, but it does prevent self-esteem from becoming an idol.
Claim 3: “Each person must work hard to be happy.”
While effort can improve well-being, this claim ignores important limits. Happiness is influenced by temperament, biology, life circumstances, and mental health. Treating happiness as purely a personal achievement can lead to blaming unhappy people for conditions they may not control.
Pursuing happiness directly can also be unstable. What brings pleasure or satisfaction often fades, leading to a cycle of constant seeking. In contrast, happiness that emerges as a by-product of doing good for others tends to be more durable. For example, marriage itself does not guarantee happiness, but consistently prioritizing a partner’s well-being can foster deeper and more lasting fulfillment.
Claim 4: “If you feel bad or angry, you should always express it.”
Emotional expression can sometimes be helpful, but it is not universally beneficial. Repeatedly venting anger or resentment may reinforce those emotions rather than reduce them. Whether expression helps depends on timing, method, and context.
Healthy emotional regulation often involves reflection, restraint, and choosing constructive responses—not simply releasing feelings as they arise. Courage is not always shown through expression; it can also be shown through patience and self-control.
Claim 5: “Assertiveness is always necessary.”
Assertiveness can be useful, but treating it as a universal solution is problematic. Some assertive techniques are strategic rather than genuinely respectful and can feel manipulative to others. When assertiveness becomes habitual, it may erode trust and strain relationships.
Not every conflict requires assertion of rights. Sometimes cooperation, silence, or accommodation better serve long-term relationships and moral goals. Constant assertion can resemble passive aggression if it prioritizes winning over understanding.
Claim 6: “You should strive to have full control over your life.”
The desire for control is deeply human, especially in situations of uncertainty or suffering. Psychological research suggests that people often create illusions of control to cope with powerlessness. These illusions can arise naturally and are not always deliberate.
However, believing that one must—or can—control everything is mentally exhausting and can lead to misplaced guilt or blame. People may fault themselves or others for outcomes that were largely unavoidable.
Religious surrender can also function as a subtle form of control if it is used to deny uncertainty or randomness. While trust in God can provide comfort, it becomes problematic if it is used to preserve the feeling that everything is managed and meaningful regardless of evidence. This risks weakening realism and moral responsibility.
The urge for total control is not inherently good simply because it is natural. It can be a source of harm, both personally and socially. Accepting limited control is uncomfortable, but discomfort alone does not justify clinging to illusions—whether natural or supernatural—that shield us from reality.
Conclusion
Self-esteem, happiness, assertiveness, and control are not inherently bad, but treating them as ultimate goals creates distortions. When these concepts are absolutized, they can undermine compassion, responsibility, humility, and realism. A healthier approach emphasizes moral action, concern for others, and acceptance of human limits rather than constant self-evaluation or control.
APPENDIX: HANDING ALL OVER TO GOD IS A FORM OF CONTROL
Syllogism
Premise 1:
Seeking psychological comfort by believing one has control over future outcomes is a form of control-seeking, regardless of whether the control is exercised directly or attributed to another agent.
Premise 2:
Attributing control over one’s future to God in order to reduce anxiety or uncertainty functions psychologically as a belief that control is assured, even when circumstances are chaotic or uncontrollable.
Premise 3:
Beliefs that assure total or guaranteed control discourage acknowledgment of uncertainty and personal fallibility.
Premise 4:
Failure to acknowledge uncertainty and fallibility weakens realistic judgment and increases the risk of self-deception.
Premise 5:
Openly attempting to control one’s life through natural means typically allows for recognition of error and limitation, because failures are experienced directly and cannot be fully denied.
Conclusion:
Therefore, attributing control of one’s future to God as a means of emotional security can constitute a more concealed and potentially more distorting form of control-seeking than openly attempting to manage one’s life through natural means.
Note: This is dangerous for it is hard to recognise.