The Particular Shame of Not Being Grateful Enough

The Particular Shame of Not Being Grateful Enough

Almost no one says it without apologising first.

"I know how this sounds." "This is going to come out wrong." "Please don't take this the wrong way." Then a pause, usually longer than the pause before anything else they've said, and then the sentence. They got the thing. They worked for it, they wanted it accurately, they weren't confused about what they were chasing. And it isn't doing what it was supposed to do.

The apology interests me more than the sentence.

It comes from people who apologise for very little else. They deliver bad news to boards without flinching. They fire people. They say no to things that cost real money. And then, describing their own inner life, they open with a disclaimer, as though what follows might be an offence rather than a fact.

The apology isn't for the feeling. It's for how the feeling will sound.

When you were climbing, dissatisfaction had a name everyone approved of. It was ambition. You could say "this isn't enough" at any dinner table and people would nod, because wanting more is legible when you're below the thing you want. The identical sentence, spoken after arrival, has no name anyone likes. It sounds like ingratitude. Sometimes it sounds like boasting wearing a disguise. Usually both at once, which is why it doesn't get said.

There's a mechanism underneath that's worth naming, because it explains why this particular silence is so durable. Complaint requires standing. And standing, in this case, runs inversely to circumstance. The further you've come, the fewer people can hear you without the thought crossing their mind that they would take your problem in a heartbeat. So the people with the most resources to address the question have the least permission to say it out loud. They can afford the time, the help, the year off. They cannot afford the sentence.

And so it doesn't get said. Not to a colleague, who has an interest in your steadiness. Not to a board, obviously. Often not to a partner, because the partner made trades for this too, and hearing that it wasn't enough is not neutral information for them. Not to friends, who were there when you built it and remember what you said it would give you.

What I notice is that people don't stop having the thought. They just stop offering it. And a thought that gets carried for four years without ever being said out loud starts to feel like a defect rather than a question.

There's a confusion sitting under all of this, and it's not a small one. We've collapsed two things that were never the same.

Gratitude answers one question: was I given more than I was owed? For most people who reach this point, the honest answer is yes, and they know it. They are not ungrateful. They can list what they were given, they can name the luck, they can tell you exactly which decisions weren't theirs and which doors opened for reasons they didn't earn.

Meaning answers a different question: what is this for? And the first answer, however full and honest, leaves the second one completely untouched.

You can be genuinely, unfeignedly grateful and have no idea what any of it is for. Those two states sit together without contradiction. But because gratitude is the socially required response to good fortune, and because required responses tend to expand beyond their job, gratitude gets asked to dissolve the question. It can't. It was never that kind of thing. Asking gratitude to answer "what is this for" is like asking a receipt to tell you whether you needed the thing.

Frankl noticed something similar, in a setting far more extreme than any of ours, and then spent decades watching it repeat in ordinary lives. The emptiness he described didn't arrive in the people whose lives had gone wrong. It arrived in people who had arrived. He didn't read it as a moral failure or a deficiency of appreciation. He read it as information about how human beings are built: that meaning isn't a dividend paid out by achievement, and that having no meaning is a condition you can be in while doing perfectly well by every other measure.

That reading matters, practically, because it takes the shame off the table without taking the question off the table.

The cost of the silence isn't the silence. It's what happens to the question while it's unspoken.

Something you can't say, you also can't examine. So you file it under the nearest heading that has social permission, and there is really only one: tiredness. "I'm tired" is sayable. It's admirable, even. It suggests you've been carrying weight. So the question gets classified as fatigue and treated with rest.

Then rest doesn't work. And now there's a second problem, which is that rest didn't work, and that one also can't be said, because the obvious next thought is that something must be wrong with you specifically.

After that come the interventions at the wrong level. I've watched this sequence more times than any other. The sabbatical. The board seat. The angel investment. The new venture that's a lot like the old venture. The house. The marathon. Each of them is a reasonable thing that a reasonable person would try, each is executed competently, and each works for about six weeks. Then the quiet comes back, unchanged, and now it's carrying evidence: you tried four serious things and none of them moved it.

By that point most people have concluded that the problem is unsolvable, when what's actually happened is that it has never once been stated.

Here's the part I'd want you to take, if you take anything.

The shame is not the obstacle to the question. It's the evidence for it.

You don't feel ashamed of something you invented. Shame arrives when something real is exposed, and the exposure matters. The elaborate apology you'd need to put in front of the sentence, the mental drafting of how to say it so it doesn't sound like what it sounds like, the fact that you've rehearsed it and still not said it — none of that would be necessary for a passing mood. You don't build a defence around nothing.

Which means the preface is doing a peculiar double job. It's protecting you from how you'd be heard. And it's also, quietly, confirming that there's something there worth protecting.

I'm not going to tell you what to do about that, partly because I don't know your situation and partly because the instruction would be the wrong shape. What I'll say is that the first useful move is smaller than people expect, and it isn't an answer. It's saying the sentence once, without the preface, to someone who has no stake in how it turns out.

What I've found is that the second sentence is the one that matters. The first is just the price of admission. Almost nobody gets to the second, because the first costs so much that people stop there and change the subject.

And the question I'd ask isn't the one everyone asks, which is what do you want instead. That one has no answer yet, and pretending it does is how the sabbatical gets booked.

The question is smaller than that. When did you first notice?

Most people can name the day. Not the year. The day. A Sunday afternoon, a photograph, a funeral for someone your age, a calendar for next year open on the screen and full of important things, none of which moved you.

That you can still name it, years later, is worth sitting with for a while before you do anything about it.

If you want to talk, write to me. george@bragadireanu.com

Tell me as much or as little as you want. I read and answer everything myself, usually within a day.

Subscribe to our newsletter

One essay a month, on the question after success. Nothing else.

The Second Summit · Existential coaching for successful leaders who are asking what comes after success. by George Bragadireanu, MCC · You have achieved success. Now What?

Home · The Second Summit Coaching · The Toolkit · About · Contact · Disclaimer · Terms And Conditions · Privacy Policy