Philanthropy, empathy, and altruism (whether effective or not) are much celebrated in contemporary culture.  The opposites of these qualities are—and long have been—condemned as destructive.  What this school of thought misses is that the mind possesses and deploys psychological defenses against perceived harm to ourselves by others. 

            Anger is a common expression of threats to one’s self-respect.  Spite—doing the opposite of what you are told to do–is a common response to feeling bossed-about by someone without the authority to do so.  Both defend an aspirational individual autonomy. 

“Schadenfreude”—delight–is a common response to a mishap suffered by a person who treats us as an inferior.  Here “inferior” means in personal qualities or social station, rather than in formal rank.  Contempt is a common response to someone we judge less competent than ourselves.  Contempt doesn’t have to be felt of a person in a superior position.  It is more often directed at those below us.  Perhaps Schadenfreude and Contempt face in opposite directions socially?  Contempt affirms the existing social order; schadenfreude makes it tolerable. 

            Envy is a common response to people who have undeservingly obtained something that we ourselves merit (or at least covet).  That is, most people don’t begrudge Bill Gates and Paul Allen their immense fortunes: they built something important and useful.  Many people distrust Affirmative Action because they see it as rewarding the undeserving. 

All are defenses of the “Self” against attacks, real or imagined.  Self-respect, self-esteem, self-mastery, self-worth, and self-assertion are, to use contemporary jargon, forms of “self-care.”  In this sense, it can be argued that socially-disparaged feelings are actually constructive, even healthy.[1]  This isn’t a new point of view.[2] 

All these feelings are inter-personal, rather than social or political.  That is, they concern individuals, rather than groups.[3]  Are such widespread feelings innate, rather than learned?  Or are some people more vulnerable or more battered than other people?  Hence, more prone to “defend” themselves with these formally “bad” emotions?  Are “good” people just less harmed or better endowed with a thick hide?    

            If many or all of us are vulnerable to such feelings, what is to be done?  Erasmus wrote that “virtue and true freedom of the soul consist of self-governance, controlling one’s baser impulses and passions in the name of a higher principle—namely friendship and community with others.”[4]  He is hardly alone in this view of desirable human behavior.  The prescriptive (“You should…”) literature in most civilizations since the dawn of Time is chock full of such advice.  It’s just that the good advice is apparently hard to take.  Certainly, today in America “friendship and community with others” who hold different views on public matters is hard to come by. 

            Perhaps so much anger, contempt, spite, envy, and delight in the mishaps of others is explained by widespread individual feelings of being attacked in the ability to govern the self? 

---

[1] Krista K. Thomason, Dancing With the Devil: Why Bad Feelings Make Life Good (2023). 

[2] See, for example, the remarks on Satan in Mark Twain, “Concerning the Jews.”  Concerning the Jews – Wikisource, the free online library  Or, if you must have something more high-toned, then Nietzsche’s attack on Christianity as destructive of man’s true nature. 

[3] Although if many individuals share the same feeling about a person or group of persons or an organization or institution, then things can quickly become social or political. 

[4] Quoted in Alexandra Hudson, The Soul of Civility: Timeless Principles to Heal Society and Ourselves (2023).