I thought this book was ok. I've read Neff's other books on self-compassion and have watched some of her talks. I feel like something isn't right about what she's talking about, however, I'm not sure what it is at this point.
In chapter 3 The Benefits of Self-Compassion, she has an exercise on page 27, which is a sample Self-Compassion Scale. I was briefly looking into critiques of Neff's theory and there is some questioning of the validity of this scale. Some of the questions I found questionable as a useful metric for self-compassion. For example one statement says, "When I feel inadequate in some way, I try to remind myself that feelings of inadequacy are shared by most people." My issue with this is that I am seeking validation by comparing myself to what others go through. I'm not sure that's really a good metric for self-compassion. If I feel inadequate, I tell myself that it's ok or I'll ask myself why I feel inadequate and maybe find out what is driving that feeling. Maybe I can do something about it. Maybe I can't. If that's the case, I accept my painful feelings and feel them. I don't tell myself others feel the same way I do. Maybe I'll do a quick google search after the fact to see how common it is as a problem. It's not the first thing I would do to comfort myself. If I bought into the validity of this self-compassion scale, I would have given myself a 1 (almost never) for this statement and believe that I have low self-compassion when in reality I have high self-compassion. I just don't compare myself to others and frankly I don't think that's a necessary component in self-compassion. That's why the other statement, "I try to see my failings as part of the human condition" doesn't make much sense to me either as a metric for self-compassion. The concept of failing is just a judgement. It is not necessarily a fact. Who is to say I failed or not? That's a judgement I am making. I can always see a "failure" as a learning experience. Based on readings I've done on this, the best way to view "failure" is as a learning experience because then you take your ego out of it and focus on your process or maybe realizing that what you were pursuing wasn't right for you. Another way to look at it is when we first learn to walk. If I were a parent seeing my child fall several times, I wouldn't see that as a failure. I would see that as part of the process in learning how to walk. Babies don't have the thinking mind to contend with so they are not judging themselves when they fall. They just keep trying until it happens. They don't see others falling (unless they are twins or around other babies in a daycare) so her premise that we need common humanity is irrelevant. So my point in discussing this is to show how flawed the Self-Compassion Scale is.
In chapter 8 Backdraft, she uses the fire term backdraft as a metaphor on what happens when we open the door to self-compassion. I think I know what she's trying to get at but I just can't connect with this term. The metaphor of shaking a globe ball seems to be a better descriptor. Things get messy but eventually it settles and you can see the beauty of the globe ball. I liked how she acknowledges this although the term isn't intuitive for me. It seems like people think self-improvement is easy but the truth is that it can be difficult to face certain things in ourselves.
I liked in chapter 14 Living Deeply, how she contrasted goals and core values, however, I don't get what her intention was in this section. On page 100 she writes:
• Goals can be achieved. Core values still guide us even after we achieve our goals.
• Goals are destinations. Core values are directions.
• Goals are something we do. Core values are something we are.
• Goals are set. Core values are discovered.
• Goals often come from outside. Core values come from deep within.
She argues that not living in alignment with our core values inevitably leads to suffering. I agree with that but I'm not sure what her motivation was in showcasing the difference between goals and core values. I would argue in her last comparison that goals often come from outside to be a bit misleading. I've created my own goals for myself and they come from deep within. They are deeply satisfying when they are my goals, not dictated by an external force. I get this feeling she is trying to show that goals are less important than core values. I don't think so. Yes they are different but having goals isn't necessarily a bad thing. They can help give our life purpose. To me goals and core values are part of a team and I don't like that she's taking a jab at goals, making them seem inferior to core values.
I liked chapter 20 which deals with self-compassion and anger in relationships. She writes on page 145 that we "need to be safe, connected, validated, heard, included, autonomous, and respected. And our deepest need as human beings is the need to be loved." I think this should have been stated as the main premise of the book. To me self-compassion is what arises when we practice self-awareness and feel safe. To me it doesn't make sense to pursue self-compassion. That arises when we take time for ourselves and listen to what we are feeling and experiencing. We have so much stuff going on internally. If we actually listen to our bodies, we'd learn a lot. At the bottom of page 145 she says, "by having the courage to turn toward and experience our authentic feelings and needs, we can begin to have insight into what is really going on for us. Once we contact the pain and respond with self-compassion, things can start to transform on a deep level."
I liked in chapter 23 on page 167 how she talks about self-appreciation but I also found it questionable. She lists it under self-kindness. She states that "part of being kind to ourselves involves expressing appreciation for our good qualities, just as we would do with a good friend." In a box, the following is written, "Being human includes good as well as bad qualities, so self-appreciation is realistic, not selfish." I'm glad she at least addresses we have "bad qualities" because I don't think it makes sense to appreciate our good qualities and ignore our "bad" qualities. Also from a philosophical perspective, why do we have to label our so-called good qualities as good? Why are we not approaching our qualities in a neutral fashion? I consider myself analytical but that can be a good thing sometimes but also it can be a bad thing sometimes, depending on the situation. I guess from this perspective, I don't see the point of appreciating myself. I've done a lot of reading on self-improvement and other spiritual philosophies and to me it makes sense to be a self-observer and to not make judgements on ourselves. I don't need to label things as good or bad. I can just accept that they exist. Also what we label, "bad" can be something we either just accept or it can be something we seek to improve so then it's no longer "bad."
While writing this review, I think what bothers me about what she is teaching is that self-compassion is something that we cultivate whereas I think it's already there and that there are other skills we need to cultivate to allow self-compassion to arise. Self-compassion is a by-product of living an examined life, of taking the time to listen to our bodies, and feeling our feelings and emotions. I do think that self-compassion can be both actively cultivated or passively cultivated by nurturing other aspects of the self (listening to our bodies, feeling our emotions and accepting the painful ones). I just think her method isn't going to be as effective as what I am suggesting, practicing self-awareness and emotional awareness.
Neff's self-compassion theory is flawed and I strongly think her requiring you to compare yourself to others (common humanity) is irrelevant. I don't think this is necessary. I'm not saying you can't do it (relate to other people's experiences) but I don't think realizing that others "fail" or have negative feelings about themselves is a way to cultivate self-compassion. I think it's irrelevant and unnecessary.
Overall, I find her theory requires more work. It's a flimsy theory when you think about it.