Self-Esteem Research, Theory, and Practice Toward a Positive ...

252 SELF-ESTEEM RESEARCH, THEORY, AND PRACTICE(Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Although it is not clear how much ambiguityany particular criterion tolerates, it is stated that a given humanquality or characteristic must meet “most” (p. 16) of them to qualify inthis regard, though it is not certain whether that means six or more.Perhaps briefly taking self-esteem through this “test” will help us determinewhether it is possible to argue that this human characteristic meritssuch consideration when defined as a relationship between competenceand worthiness.The first criterion concerns fulfillment: whether a quality fulfills anindividual in a way that is consistent with an Aristotelian view of the“good life.” This indicator is also known as the “deathbed test” (p. 17).The test is that if a person was dying, would the individual be likely towish, in the face of death, that he or she would have spent more timeliving in a particular way (or exhibiting a particular characteristic), if heor she had not done enough of it already in life? It seems to me thatmany self-esteem moments suggest that facing challenges of living in aworthy way over time certainly would be something that one wouldhope to say they had done enough of at the end of a life. If not, it seemsjust as likely that they would wish they had, either of which meets thistest. The second criterion focuses on whether a particular strength orquality is morally valued in its own right. The type of self-esteem thatcomes with acting in a virtuous way and from being worthy in generalcertainly seems relevant in this regard. The third criterion is the stipulationthat a true human strength does not diminish other people in anyway. Of course, it is possible to argue authentic self-esteem qualifies atthis level, because self-esteem only fails such a test when it is defined interms of competence or worthiness alone.The fourth criterion is more difficult to consider because it may beless clear or straightforward than the others. It concerns the degree towhich “Being able to phrase the ‘opposite’ of a putative strength in afelicitous way counts against regarding it as a character strength” (p. 22).This criterion may mean that the opposite of authentic self-esteem needsto be examined for certain types of contradiction. Low self-esteem doesnot have many characteristics that are desirable, at least according to theself-esteem matrix and the DSM IV-TR, so perhaps self-esteem is acceptablein this regard. However, Peterson and Seligman also noted that thisparticular criterion may not be applicable to “bipolar” characteristicsand self-esteem could be seen as one of them because it ranges in positiveand negative ways. Thus, it is not clear whether self-esteem is to beassessed in this way. The fifth criterion is that the characteristic or qualitymust occur in a range of situations or behaviors, much as a traitwould. Self-esteem certainly meets this criterion: We saw in Chapters 3and 5 that self-esteem may be stable, low, unstable, fragile, secure, and so