No matter the situation, history or upbringing you are in control of your actions, your attitude, your feelings. Only you are responsible for your own life. This sounds just like a generic motivational quote or video preferred by the “business elite”. Anyway, mainstream psychology aside these statements don’t make much sense. For demonstration, let’s take a stroll through psychological territory and then think about two people in a specific social and economic relation – a landlord and tenant.
Humanistic and cognitive psychology
In psychology we find a certain kind of myopia – psychological analyses rely on pseudo-scientific concepts, individualized examination of behavior and almost complete disregard of systemic issues. Seemingly egalitarian claims that everyone may face issues or mental health problems sound plausible but fall apart under closer scrutiny.
One of the most prominent work of humanistic psychology, the widely read and respected Viktor Frankl’s (1946) Man’s Search For Meaning is illustrative:
I had wanted simply to convey to the reader by way of a concrete example that life holds a potential meaning under any conditions, even the most miserable ones. And I thought that if the point were demonstrated in a situation as extreme as that in a concentration camp, my book might gain a hearing. I therefore felt responsible for writing down what I had gone through, for I thought it might be helpful to people who are prone to despair. (p. 12)
There is nothing in the world, I venture to say, that would so effectively help one to survive even the worst conditions as the knowledge that there is a meaning in one’s life. (p.109)
Viktor Frankl (1946) – Man’s Search For Meaning
Let’s also cite something more “scientific” because even in psychological curricula, when drawbacks of theories are discussed, an oft given problem is the unscientific nature of their foundations. This allegedly does not apply to CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) which is beloved by mainstream psychologists as well as corporate interests. Expectedly, it is a gold mine for hot takes à la “everyone is equal” and “everything is possible”. A representative example might be David Burns (1980) – Feeling Good. The New Mood Therapy:
When you are down on yourself, you might find it helpful to ask what you actually mean when you try to define your true identity with a negative label such as “a fool,” “a sham,” “a stupid dope,” etc. Once you begin to pick these destructive labels apart, you will find they are arbitrary and meaningless. They actually cloud the issue, creating confusion and despair. Once rid of them, you can define and cope with any real problems that exist. (p. 80)
Since only distortion can rob you of self-esteem, this means that nothing in “reality” can take away your sense of worth. As evidence for this, many individuals under conditions of extreme and realistic deprivation do not experience a loss of self-esteem. Indeed, some individuals who were imprisoned by the Nazis during World War II refused to belittle themselves or buy into the persecutions of their captors. They reported an actual enhancement of self-esteem in spite of the miseries they were subjected to, and in some cases described experiences of spiritual awakening. (p. 344)
David Burns (1980) – Feeling Good
In their essence, no serious contradictions arise between the two strands of psychology. Seen from the radical behaviorist leftist perspective, the given accounts are extremely regressive. It is argued that any type of desolation is almost acceptable and one should not lose their self-esteem – one might still be able to turn things around just by thinking more effectively. Moreover, by route of internal analysis, as Thomas Paine (1794) did for the Bible in The Age of Reason, we may wonder what Burns and Frankl had in mind when they said that some prisoners have not lost their self-esteem in concentration camps. Who are these people? Are these the rare ones who survived? What about most of captives who did not? Gee, their awakened “self-esteem” really got them somewhere. We can see that by shifting focus from the material to the psychological one benefits only the ones in power.
A landlord and a tenant
To illustrate the above further, let’s examine at an example where situational differences are quite clear. To help us, we can refer to the Matthew Desmonds (2016) book Evicted. This is a investigative book on the harsh reality of the Milwaukee rental market. The account of a landlord is telling:
Woo had told Sherrena that I was “working on a book about landlords and tenants.” Sherrena agreed to an interview, at the end of which I made my pitch.
Matthew Desmond (2016) – Evicted (p. 288)
“Sherrena, I would love to be kind of like your apprentice,” I said, explaining that my goal was to “walk in [her] shoes as closely as possible.”
Sherrena was all-in. “I’m committed to this,” she said. “You have your person.” She was in love with her work and proud of it too. She wanted people to know “what landlords had to go through,” to share her world with a wider public that rarely stopped to consider it.
Nevertheless, can the things landlords go through really compare to what tenants endure?
After accounting for these expenses, vacancies, and missing payments, Tobin took home roughly $447,000 each year, half of what the alderman had reported. Still, Tobin belonged to the top 1 percent of income earners. Most of his tenants belonged to the bottom 10 percent. (p. 161)
The annual income of the landlord of perhaps the worst trailer park in the fourth-poorest city in America is 30 times that of his tenants working full-time for minimum wage and 55 times the annual income of his tenants receiving welfare or SSI. There are two freedoms at odds with each other: the freedom to profit from rents and the freedom to live in a safe and affordable home. (p. 279)
Matthew Desmond (2016) – Evicted
Let’s say both of our heroes face a similar issue in getting money. The landlord needs to receive money from their tenants who are renting their property and the tenant needs to find money to pay rent. What happens if they fail?
The landlord has a stronger foundation in owned wealth and property, i.e. other houses/apartments. Even if the landlord is indebted, he may sell of some of his wealth or use it as collateral for any loans. Anyway, there is no risk of eviction or homelessness. Furthermore, the landlord has more significant legal help – the possibility to afford legal services, time resources because of the absence of any meaningful work results in a power advantage if any case comes to court.
The tenant, on the other hand, is on shakier ground. He receives money predominantly from labor and social benefits. In the case of insufficient funds, he faces severe consequences – unpaid electricity, water, heating bills, maybe even hunger. Failure to pay rent results in legal action where possibilities to state ones case are restricted. Finally, there is eviction:
When things went her way, however, she could have the eviction squad physically remove tenants within ten days.
Matthew Desmond (2016) – Evicted (p. 91)
All problems are not equal and they can’t be treated similarly. Trying to recover money from tenants in courts while having little to lose and having the law enforcement on your side may be stressful but insignificant in comparison of being on the brink of homelessness.
The depressing thing is that such unequal relations happen daily – between landlords and tenants, employers and employees, policemen and citizens, lenders and borrowers etc. Extreme wealth and power always beget extreme poverty and powerlessness. A system that allows such inequalities makes one doubt that we live in a “democracy” and makes any motivational quote seem like a sick joke.
Radical behaviorist leftist 