Is self-esteem against the Torah?

If I wanted to, I could stress the importance of self-esteem in avodas Hashem by citing sources. For instance, I could cite Sanhedrin 37a:

THE HOLY ONE, BLESSED BE HE, FASHIONED EVERY MAN IN THE STAMP OP THE FIRST MAN, AND YET NOT ONE OF THEM RESEMBLES HIS FELLOW. THEREFORE EVERY SINGLE PERSON IS OBLIGED TO SAY: THE WORLD WAS CREATED FOR MY SAKE.⁴³

And because of this concept of bishvili nivra haolam, we have an impetus to act appropriately. And I could point to the Mishna in Avos of al tehi rasha bifnei atzmecha, be not wicked in your own eyes, because (as Rambam explains it) this will lead to you acting like a rasha, and argue that this is an example of low self-esteem which can lead to negative consequences. And I am sure I could point to many other such sources, if I spent more than two minutes thinking about it.

What has me thinking about it is the following ridiculous statement at the Daas Torah blog:

I am currently trying to understanding the recent transition from interpersonal relations governed by Torah concepts and the current replacement by secular psychological values and processes. Currently one of the most important psychological concepts is that of self-esteem. Despite the fact that there is no such concept in Torah we have here a call by Rav Reuven Feinstein to institute programs and methodology in yeshivos to fight against the "pandemic of low self-esteem" in our yeshivos. Furthermore he indicates that this secular attribute of self-esteem is critical for spirituality and serving G-d! This widespread and uncritical acceptance in our community of the importance of psychology - not only to be a healthy person but to develop sprituality - is in strong contrast with Rav Dessler (Vol 3 page 360).

Oy. Do you think that most of what is understood as "interpersonal relations governed by Torah concepts" is inherent to the Torah, such that we must hew closely to it and avoid what modern sensibilities tell us is good? It isn't so. Societies evolve, and they have evolved in the past. And in each generation, as they evolved, rabbis might have tied those sensibilities to pesukim, or interpreted gemaras and rishonim and acharonim in various ways to bolster it.

For example, the Mussar movement, which is strongly self-critical, and which Daas Torah is putting up as the example of Torah-based interpersonal relations, by invoking Rav Dessler. The Mussar movement was a revolution, obviously based on earlier Torah works, but not the standard approach. Or Rav Nachman of Breslov's movement, with a focus on mitzvah gedolah lihyot besimcha tamid. He also has sources to rely upon. But these, and other approaches, swelled based in part on the zeitgeist, and turned to classic Jewish sources to present it and explain it as a Torah path. (But they are not really the same approach of Chazal, for example, or of Moshe Rabbenu.)

Given enough time, and some degree of lack of self-awareness and awareness of the process, frum rabbis of  our times will write works deriving a more modern approach to interpersonal relations from Torah sources. They probably have already -- see Rav Reuven Feinstein and Rabbi Dr. Twersky, in the linked Daas Torah post! And then, 200 years from now, if modern psychology evolves further, some other frum blogger, blissfully unaware of the fluidity of the process, will point to today's psychology as the "Torah-true" path, and criticize rabbonim for following the science and psychology of their day.