You Have More Choice Than You Think: A Message from a Holocaust Survivor.

Man's Search for Meaning was written by Dr. Viktor Frankl in 1946, just a year after his liberation from the Türkheim concentration camp in 1945. He worked as a psychiatrist in Austria prior to his imprisonment.

The first half of the book details the unimaginable cruelty Frankl and his fellow inmates faced during his three years in camp. It describes how some prisoners lost all hope and became a shell of their former selves, while some managed to maintain their mental fortitude and dignity despite the inhumane nature of their life in camp. The second half draws insights on the resilience human beings can build even in the most horrific circumstances through the pursuit of purpose. It also serves as an introduction to logotherapy, a form of existential therapy created by Frankl, which is based on the idea that human beings are driven by the fundamental desire to find meaning in life. He often quotes Nietzsche in essence of this theory: "He who has a Why to live for, can bear almost any How."

The Holocaust is considered by far one of the worst crimes committed against humanity. It was not only the genocide of the Jewish people, but also the greatest form of psychological torture ever seen. Prisoners in camps were treated in a way that transcended all definitions of evil. This heinous treatment was deliberate, with the intention to strip an inmate of their dignity and destroy every aspect of their psyche. So, how did some, like Frankl, not only survive the tortures of the Holocaust but also manage to transform into a more resilient version of himself— while we fall apart if we burn our morning toast? Are some people doomed to suffer more than others? Or can we choose whether or not we suffer?

These questions can be answered by looking at the three core teachings of the book:

1) The importance of hope and meaning in life.

2) The freedom of choice.

3) Suffering as a catalyst for growth.

This post will be focused on the freedom of choice and resilience aspect.

In one of the most powerful paragraphs from the book, Frankl states:

We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through huts comforting others, giving away their piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.

We can infer from these lines what the stoics have said time and time again in different ways: We cannot choose our external circumstances, but we can always choose how we respond to them. Frankl highlights how the prisoners of the Holocaust could not choose their fate. There was always an air of uncertainty. This is described as a provisional existence in the book. No prisoner knew how long they would be in camp or what had become of their loved ones. They didn't know if they'd survive, or how they'd die if they didn't. From starvation, a rampant illness such as typhus, shot by a Kapo or an SS guard for the smallest error, or execution via a gas chamber. Yet, some found a way to be content, the audacity to maintain dignity and the courage to remain kind. This was not the normal response a human should have had in the face of horror. It was a voluntary choice—  to not let the mistreatment affect your psyche, to not turn selfish when deprived, and to not become depressed when death hovered right above. In simple words, to accept and embrace suffering. The freedom of choice is the one freedom that no man can lose, even as a prisoner of the Holocaust.

Even though conditions such as lack of sleep, insufficient food and various mental stresses may suggest that the inmates were bound to react in certain ways, in the final analysis it becomes clear that the sort of person the prisoner became was the result of an inner decision, and not the result of camp influences alone. Fundamentally, therefore, any man can, even under such circumstances, decide what shall become of him mentally and spiritually.

As said in the excerpt above, we too have a similar choice in any given circumstance. Not the choice to control the circumstance itself but to control how we respond to them, to choose whether or not to suffer.

Quoting Frankl again:

“Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.

Reaction is often immediate and automatic. It is driven by the intensity of our emotions in the moment, past experiences and other things that may have subconsciously influenced us. Response on the other hand is slower, and involves prior reflection and evaluation. Frankl suggests that when we are faced with a complex situation (stimulus), before we respond to it, we must take time to carefully interpret both the situation as well as our potential response. We must ask ourselves if our chosen response is rational and helpful, or if it is irrational and damaging. The way in which we respond to a situation repeatedly influences the meaning our brains make of it. If you respond to your suffering with negativity or complaining, you will become conditioned to see it negatively. As the stoics say, no situation is inherently good or bad. The way you perceive it decides your truth.

Do not think that these considerations are unworldly and too far removed from real life. It is true that only a few people are capable of reaching such high moral standards. Of the prisoners only a few kept their full inner liberty and obtained those values which their suffering afforded, but even one such example is sufficient proof that man's inner strength may raise him above his outward fate. Such men are not only in concentration camps. Everywhere man is confronted with fate, with the chance of achieving something through his own suffering.

The ability to remain rational and respond appropriately in the midst of great suffering is not an impossible skill to master, but only a few manage to do so. This is not because one is fundamentally incapable of it, but because one may simply not have enough self awareness about one's shortcomings. For example, if a person is unaware that they are sensitive, they will believe their feelings to be facts rather than interpretations. In reality, their feelings about a situation may not be the ultimate truth of the situation. Similarly, if someone who thinks in unhelpful ways does not realize that their thinking is unhelpful, they will rationalize the irrational and believe it to be the truth. If a person who has suffered through a lot of trauma concludes that no aspect of their life can be controlled, they will rarely consider participating in areas they do have control in. The only resistance to resilience is the lack of self awareness and accountability. There is truth to the classic psychological theory that our psyche is far too influenced by things that are out of our control, such as the environment we grew up in or the kind of parenting we were subjected to as children. But there comes a point when we must examine our minds, recognize the flaws and modify it. This of course, can be something one voluntarily does out of self interest. But for most of us, it rarely ever happens inorganically. It is only in the face of adversity that we consider to change. The idea being presented here is that once we recognize and transcend our limitations, we too can access the freedom to choose our attitudes.