Empowerment and Ego - What Makes Us View Them As Good and Bad?

---

I've come across numerous posts, videos, emails, and newsletter articles about empowerment and ego over the past few months. Honestly, I’ve found myself diving deep into this topic. It’s fascinating to see how opinions and perspectives vary widely among different authors. This prompted me to explore further to gain a better understanding of myself. I must admit that I wasn’t as knowledgeable about the key differences as I thought I was, especially considering some people’s views on distinguishing between the two. I was also quite surprised by the depth of emotion that various sources expressed regarding each concept.

Ego is defined as a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance, which is a straightforward definition. However, I was surprised to learn that it also includes other meanings, such as “the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity, as well as a conscious thinking subject.” These additional definitions were unexpected, and I didn't realize how closely the ego is related to self-esteem, self-worth, and self-respect.

This reflection led me to question why the ego has such a bad reputation, especially when its true meaning encompasses our sense of self and our understanding of who we are. After all, we are all striving to become more self-aware, to not only recognize who we truly are but also to fully embrace all aspects of ourselves. Isn’t this also a form of empowerment?

I found this topic confusing, and as someone who thinks directly, I felt compelled to explore it further.

The definition of empowerment is "the process of becoming stronger and more confident, especially in controlling one's life and claiming one's rights." It is also described as a process that enables individuals to act and achieve their desired results. Empowerment combines a sense of personal control and efficacy with a willingness to take action.

In contrast to the concept of empowerment, which is often associated with mandates, accreditation, commanding, fostering, licensing, and entrustment, the related terms for ego seem softer and more practical. Empowerment is frequently connected to the workforce and leadership roles.

By these definitions, ego synonyms appear to be more practical and transformative, while empowerment synonyms seem harsher, more demanding, and less accessible.

When I considered empowerment, I wondered why it is viewed positively when by definition it seems harsh. Yes, I do agree with some points that, once a person becomes empowered, he or she does better at achieving goals set forth, their empowered energy flows forth into others, they collaborate better, and yes, even going forward in life with stronger foundations from which we gain control.

But again, I asked myself: to what extent do we exert control if we are empowered rather than driven by ego? Where is the line between the two? Is it possible that the line is blurred, and we need to embrace ego instead of empowerment? Additionally, why do we need to check our ego but not our sense of empowerment?

I came across several articles discussing the destructiveness of the ego. They highlighted how the ego can lead to a distorted sense of self-importance, which prevents individuals from acknowledging their flaws, accepting criticism, and building healthy relationships. However, it is essential to recognize that we need the ego; it serves as a driving force that boosts our self-confidence, enabling us to pursue our goals without being paralyzed by fear.

The ego can be harmful because it may prevent individuals from empathizing with others, understanding different beliefs and opinions, or recognizing their true self-worth. This observation intrigues me, especially as I have been noticing similar trends in today's society. While I agree that an inflated ego can have negative consequences, it raises the question: what about the potential downsides of empowerment?

The negative effects of empowerment closely resemble those of an overinflated ego. It can lead to overconfidence and arrogance, causing individuals to become convinced of their truth and power. This often results in dismissive behavior towards others. To me, these issues sound surprisingly similar to those associated with an inflated ego, just framed within a different context.

I researched the difference between empowerment and ego, and I found that it largely depends on the process through which we build confidence and strength in our lives. This process is influenced by our personal decisions about what we want (empowerment), provided we don’t lose sight of our deficiencies (ego). If we maintain a balanced perspective, can empowerment and ego be considered similar?

There have been moments in my life when people advised me to embrace my inner power and authentic empowerment. Conversely, I’ve also been told that some individuals don’t like me because of my ego—specifically, my inflated sense of self and my tendency to be too blunt. I view both perspectives as having potential positives and negatives. The positive aspect is that they show empathy and a desire to see me succeed and remain grounded. On the negative side, my directness may clash with societal norms of politeness and tact, leading to the possibility of hurting someone’s feelings due to my perceived hostility.

This brings me back to the question of whether the process of gaining confidence and strength in my life stems from empowerment. I wonder if being direct means I’m not compromising my growth or if I’m simply living my truth.

Recently, I’ve noticed that discussions around these themes have been quite frequent. I came across an interesting article by Steve Pavlina, a motivational speaker and personal development guru, titled "How to Build a Stronger Ego" https://stevepavlina.com/blog/2010/01/how-to-build-a-stronger-ego/. This article resonated with me, as he uses the term "ego" not in a negative sense but to describe our identity and sense of self. To clarify, I didn’t accept everything he proposed, but it certainly struck a chord with me. Although I did not take all of what was written in this article to heart, some things did make me think, and I believe that is why he made the post. It is suggested that those reading it take a moment, consider, question, and possibly adjust if necessary. I was struck by his statement that our ego is our character, so when we weaken our ego to almost nothingness, we weaken our character; then we go through life with a weak character and cocoon ourselves within brick walls (I am paraphrasing as well as writing my understanding of the meaning). Two points on his list stood out to me - Service and Acceptance - as ways to build a stronger ego. In my opinion, they are two of the most important tools of enlightenment!

Seems very curious to me that the tools of ego and the tools of empowerment are the very same, yet we would rather embrace empowerment as a positive and allow ego to remain a negative in our lives. He also stated in his article that conscious living is not about living in enlightenment (akin to empowerment) but about living intelligently. This made me think of all of the leaders of the world and how they live, and if you look closely, they through their ego first and then through empowerment. It is quite curious that the tools of ego and the tools of empowerment are essentially the same. However, we tend to embrace empowerment as positive while viewing ego as a negative aspect of our lives. In an article, it was noted that conscious living is not about achieving enlightenment (which is similar to empowerment) but rather about living intelligently. This perspective made me reflect on how world leaders operate; often, they appear to act first from ego and then transition to empowerment.

Consider Elon Musk as an example. At 58 years old, he is currently the world's richest man, serving as the CEO of seven companies with a net worth of $303.7 billion. He is a serial entrepreneur, having first gained wealth through the sale of equity in one business in 1995 before starting another, repeating this process to reach his current status. When I look at his achievements, I realize that he did not attain all of this merely through empowerment. He started with ego—his sense of self-worth—and it was this strong foundation that propelled him forward. Through his experiences, he ultimately learned valuable lessons, leading to the empowerment he exhibits today.

Here's another example, the poorest person in the world currently is Jerome Kerviel, a French rogue trader, who has a debt of 6.3 billion dollars. Here's another example: the poorest person in the world currently is Jerome Kerviel, a French rogue trader who has a debt of $6.3 billion.

In October 2012, Kerviel went to court and was sentenced to three years in prison, with another two years suspended. He was also ordered to repay over $4,211,820,896.53. However, in September 2014, Kerviel was released after serving fewer than five months and took a job at an IT consultancy firm. This situation illustrates the concept of ego, as Kerviel navigated between the conscious and unconscious and engaged in a form of self-testing, leading him to a sense of identity that allowed him to live intelligently before embracing empowerment.

Now, before you say, “Wait, he stole money!” Yes, he did, and his actions stemmed from an inflated ego at that time. But consider this: what if his over-inflated ego played a role only in the initial act of theft and not later when he started working at the IT firm? What if Kerviel’s ego inspired him to publish a book, make a pilgrimage to Rome to discuss capitalism with the Pope, and speak out against the problems in the financial world? Could it be that his transformation was driven by his self-esteem and self-worth? Is Kerviel’s story more about how empowerment can go too far rather than just ego?

Think about this for a moment: banks want to make money and tend to ‘empower’ their employees to achieve that goal. Yet, bank managers and owners often lack awareness of what is happening in the field. This is a case of empowerment at its worst. The ego aspect comes into play because Kerviel’s bosses were aware of his actions and encouraged them as long as they were profitable. Therefore, Kerviel was manipulated by his bosses under the guise of empowerment.

So, I must ask: why is ego typically viewed as negative while empowerment is seen as positive in today’s society? Why do we separate the two—one considered dark and the other light? What if the positive side of ego is actually empowerment?

The ego's role is to feel important; it requires negative experiences to catalyze change. It is part of our shadow side, which we often reject in ourselves and others. When we fail to accept this aspect, we miss out on true empowerment, which is what occurs when the ego identifies something in need of change.

So I ask you: empowerment or ego?

How about a healthy balance of both? Instead of viewing one as positive and the other as negative, what if we recognized the value in both?

The next time you hear someone label another as either egotistical or empowered, take a moment to reflect and consider a different perspective. That person may not be exhibiting an inflated ego; instead, they could simply be demonstrating confidence and strength on their journey toward empowerment. Or, that person is not exhibiting signs of overconfidence, they are engaged in problem-solving in their lives.

After all, aren’t we all striving to be our most authentic selves? By embracing both aspects of our nature, we set ourselves on a path to becoming better human beings.