Freedom and the Control of Men

Author(s): B. F. SKINNER
Source: The American Scholar, Vol. 25, No. 1 (WINTER, 1955-1956), pp. 47-65
Published by: The Phi Beta Kappa Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41208055 .
Accessed: 28/07/2013 08:39
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Phi Beta Kappa Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
American Scholar.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:39:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Freedomand theControlof Men

B. F. SKINNER

second half of the twentieth century maybe rememberedforitssolutionofa curiousproblem.AlthoughWestern

democracycreatedthe conditionsresponsibleforthe rise of modern science,it is now evidentthatit may neverfullyprofitfrom
'
thatachievement.
The so-called"democraticphilosophy'ofhuman
in conflictwith
behaviorto whichit also gave rise is increasingly
human
affairs.Unless
theapplicationof themethodsof scienceto
thisconflictis somehowresolved,the ultimategoals of democracy
maybe longdeferred.
I
Justas biographersand criticslook for externalinfluencesto
accountforthe traitsand achievements
of the men theystudy,so
scienceultimately
explainsbehaviorin termsof "causes"or conditionswhichlie beyondthe individualhimself.As moreand more
a practicalcorollarybecomes
causal relationsare demonstrated,
it
be
to
resist:
should
difficult
possibleto producebehavioraccordingto plan simplybyarrangingtheproperconditions.Now,among
which mightreasonablybe submittedto a bethe specifications
are these:Let men be happy,informed,
skillhavioraltechnology
ful,well behavedand productive.
This immediatepracticalimplicationof a scienceof behavior
hasa familiarring,foritrecallsthedoctrineofhumanperfectibility
humanism.A scienceofman
and nineteenth-century
ofeighteenth B. F. SKINNER is professorof psychologyat Harvard University.His major field
of interestis the experimentalanalysisof behavior. In addition to technicalbooks
and articles,he has published a Utopian novel, Waiden Two, and a general analysis
of the implicationsof science for human affairscalled Science and Human Behavior.

47

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:39:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AMERICAN SCHOLAR

sharesthe optimismof thatphilosophyand suppliesstrikingsupportfortheworkingfaiththatmen can build a betterworldand,

throughit, bettermen. The supportcomesjust in time,forthere
has been littleoptimismof late amongthosewho speak fromthe
traditionalpointofview.Democracyhas become"realistic,"and it
is onlywithsome embarrassment
thatone admitstodayto perfectionisticor Utopianthinking.
The earliertemperis worthconsidering,
however.Historyrecordsmanyfoolishand unworkableschemesforhumanbetterment,
butalmostall thegreatchangesin ourculturewhichwe nowregard
can be tracedto perfectionistic
as worthwhile
philosophies.Governeconomic
and
follow
social reforms
mental,religious,educational,
a commonpattern.Someonebelievesthata changein a cultural
- forexample,in therulesofevidencein a courtoflaw,in
practice
thecharacterization
of man'srelationto God, in thewaychildren
are taughtto read and write,in permittedratesof interest,or in
- will improvethe conditionof men:
minimalhousingstandards
men to seeksalvationmoreeffecby promoting
justice,permitting
the
tively,increasing literacyof a people,checkingan inflationary
trend,or improvingpublic health and familyrelations,respectively.The underlyinghypothesisis alwaysthe same: thata differentphysicalor culturalenvironment
will makea different
and
betterman.
The scientificstudyof behaviornot only justifiesthe general
patternof such proposals;it promisesnew and betterhypotheses.
The earliestculturalpracticesmusthave originatedin sheeraccidents.Those whichstrengthened
thegroupsurvivedwiththegroup
in a sortofnaturalselection.As soon as menbeganto proposeand
carryout changesin practiceforthesakeofpossibleconsequences,
the evolutionaryprocessmusthave accelerated.The simplepractice of makingchangesmusthave had survivalvalue. A further
accelerationis now to be expected.As laws of behaviorare more
requiredto bring
preciselystated,thechangesin theenvironment
be
more
abouta giveneffect
Conditionswhich
may
clearlyspecified.
wereslightor unlooked
have been neglectedbecause theireffects
formaybe shownto be relevant.New conditionsmayactuallybe
48

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:39:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FREEDOMANDTHE CONTROLOF MEN

created,as in the discoveryand synthesisof drugs which affect

behavior.
This is no time,then,to abandonnotionsof progress,improvementor,indeed,humanperfectibility.
The simplefactis thatman
is able, and now as neverbefore,to lifthimselfby his own bootstraps.In achievingcontrolof the worldof whichhe is a part,he
maylearnat lastto controlhimself.
II
Timewornobjectionsto the planned improvement
of cultural
practicesare alreadylosingmuch of theirforce.MarcusAurelius
was probablyrightin advisinghis readersto be contentwith a
haphazardameliorationofmankind."Neverhope to realizePlato's
republic,"he sighed,". . . forwhocan changetheopinionsofmen?
And withouta changeof sentiments
what can you make but reluctantslavesand hypocrites?"
He was thinking,
no doubt,ofconof
control
based
or thethreat
temporary
patterns
upon punishment
ofpunishment
which,as he correctly
observed,breedonlyreluctant
slavesof thosewho submitand hypocritesof thosewho discover
modes of evasion.But we need not share his pessimism,forthe
opinionsofmencan be changed.The techniquesofindoctrination
whichwerebeingdevisedbytheearlyChristianChurchat thevery
timeMarcusAureliuswas writingare relevant,as are some of the
and of advertisingand public relatechniquesof psychotherapy
tions.Other methodssuggestedby recentscientific
analysesleave
littledoubtofthematter.
The studyofhumanbehavioralso answersthecynicalcomplaint
thatthereis a plain "cussedness"in man whichwill alwaysthwart
to improvehim.We are oftentold thatmen do notwantto
efforts
be changed,even forthe better.Try to help them,and theywill
claimedtosee
outwityouand remainhappilywretched.Dostoevsky
he complained,or possomeplan in it. "Out ofsheeringratitude,"
a
will
"man
trick,
play you dirty
just to provethat
siblyboasted,
men are stillmen and not thekeysof a piano. . . . And even ifyou
could provethata man is onlya piano key,he would stilldo some49

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:39:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AMERICAN SCHOLAR

- he would create destructionand

thingout of sheer perversity
chaos- just to gain his point.. . . And if all thiscould in turnbe
analyzedand preventedby predictingthat it would occur,then
man would deliberately
go mad to provehis point."This is a conceivable neuroticreactionto ineptcontrol.A fewmen mayhave
shownit, and manyhave enjoyedDostoevski'sstatementbecause
reis a fundamental
theytendto showit. But thatsuchperversity
action of the human organismto controllingconditionsis sheer
nonsense.
So is theobjectionthatwe haveno wayofknowingwhatchanges
to makeeventhoughwe have thenecessary
techniques.That is one
- a sortofboobytrapleftbehind
ofthegreathoaxesof thecentury
themin theretreatbeforetheadvancingfrontofscience.Scientists
that
there
are
two
of
have
kinds
useful
selves
agreed
unsuspectingly
- and that
about
nature
factsand value judgments
propositions
sciencemustconfineitselfto "whatis," leaving"whatoughtto be"
to others.But withwhatspecialsortofwisdomis thenon-scientist
endowed?Scienceis onlyeffective
knowing,no matterwhoengages
in it.Verbalbehaviorprovesupon analysisto be composedofmany
frompoetryand exhortationto logic
different
typesof utterances,
but theseare notall equallyusefulin talkand factualdescription,
about
cultural
ing
practices.We may classifyusefulpropositions
accordingto the degreesof confidencewithwhichtheymaybe asserted.Sentencesabout naturerangefromhighlyprobable"facts"
to sheerguesses.In general,futureeventsare less likelyto be correctlydescribedthanpast.When a scientisttalksabout a projected
forexample,he mustoftenresortto statements
having
experiment,
of
he
them
likelihood
calls
moderate
a
correct;
being
only
hypotheses.
Designinga new culturalpatternis in manywayslike designing
an experiment.In drawingup a newconstitution,
outlininga new
a religiousdoctrine,or settingup
educationalprogram,modifying
mustbe quite tentative.We
a new fiscalpolicy,manystatements
cannotbe sure thatthe practiceswe specifywill have the consequences we predict,or that the consequenceswill rewardour
This is in thenatureofsuchproposals.They are notvalue
efforts.
50

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:39:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FREEDOMANDTHE CONTROLOF MEN

- theyare guesses.To confuseand delay the improvejudgments

mentof culturalpracticesby quibblingabout thewordimproveis
itselfnot a usefulpractice.Let us agree,to startwith,thathealth
is betterthan illness,wisdombetterthan ignorance,love better
thanhate,and productiveenergybetterthanneuroticsloth.
Anotherfamiliarobjectionis the "politicalproblem."Though
we know what changesto make and how to make them,we still
need to controlcertainrelevantconditions,but thesehave long
since falleninto the hands of selfishmen who are not going to
relinquishthemforsuch purposes.Possiblywe shall be permitted
to develop areas whichat the momentseem unimportant,
but at
the firstsignsof successthe strongmen will move in. This, it is
said, has happened to Christianity,
democracyand communism.
There will alwaysbe men who are fundamentally
selfishand evil,
and in the long run innocentgoodnesscannothave its way.The
onlyevidencehereis historical,and it maybe misleading.Because
of thewayin whichphysicalsciencedeveloped,historycould until
veryrecentlyhave "proved" thatthe unleashingof the energyof
the atomwas quite unlikely,if not impossible.Similarly,because
of the orderin whichprocessesin human behaviorhave become
available forpurposesof control,historymay seem to prove that
powerwill probablybe appropriatedforselfishpurposes.The first
selfishmen.
techniquesto be discoveredfellalmostalwaysto strong,
that
Lord
Acton
to
believe
but he had
led
History
powercorrupts,
probablyneverencounteredabsolutepower,certainlynotin all its
and had no wayofpredictingitseffect.
forms,
historiancould defenda different
An optimistic
conclusion.The
principlethat if thereare not enough men of good will in the
worldthe firststep is to createmoreseemsto be gainingrecognition.The MarshallPlan (as originallyconceived),Point Four, the
- these may
countries
offerof atomic materialsto power-starved
or maynot be whollynew in thehistoryof international
relations,
but theysuggestan increasingawarenessof the powerof governmental good will. They are proposalsto make certainchanges
of men forthe sake of consequenceswhich
in the environments
should be rewardingforall concerned.They do not exemplifya
51

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:39:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AMERICAN SCHOLAR

disinterested
but an interestwhich is the interestof
generosity,
and may
We
have
not
everyone.
yetseen Plato's philosopher-king,
not wantto, but the gap betweenreal and Utopiangovernment
is
closing.
Ill
But we are not yet in the clear,fora new and unexpectedobstaclehas arisen.With a worldof theirown makingalmostwithin
reach,men of good will have been seized withdistastefortheir
achievement.They have uneasilyrejectedopportunities
to apply
thetechniquesand findings
ofsciencein theserviceofmen,and as
the importof effective
culturaldesignhas come to be understood,
manyof themhave voicedan outrightrefusalto have anypartin
it. Sciencehas been challengedbeforewhenit has encroachedupon
institutionsalreadyengaged in the controlof human behavior;
but whatare we to makeof benevolentmen,withno specialinterturnagainstthevery
estsof theirown to defend,who nevertheless
meansofreachinglong-dreamed-of
goals?
What is beingrejected,of course,is the scientific
conceptionof
man and his place in nature.So long as the findings
and methods
of scienceare applied to humanaffairs
onlyin a sortof remedial
we
continue
hold
to
patchwork, may
any view of human nature
we like. But as theuse of scienceincreases,we are forcedto accept
the theoreticalstructurewith which sciencerepresentsits facts.
The difficulty
is thatthisstructure
is clearlyat oddswiththetraditional democraticconceptionof man. Everydiscoveryof an event
which has a part in shapinga man's behaviorseemsto leave so
much the less to be creditedto the man himself;and as such exthe contribuplanationsbecome more and more comprehensive,
tion whichmay be claimed by the individualhimselfappearsto
approachzero. Man's vauntedcreativepowers,his originalaccomplishmentsin art,scienceand morals,his capacityto chooseand
our rightto holdhimresponsiblefortheconsequencesofhischoice
- none of theseis conspicuousin thisnew self-portrait.
Man, we
once believed,was freeto expresshimselfin art,musicand literature,to inquire into nature,to seek salvationin his own way.He
5*

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:39:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FREEDOMANDTHE CONTROLOF MEN

could initiateactionand makespontaneousand capriciouschanges

of course.Under the mostextremeduresssome sortof choice remained to him. He could resistany effort
to controlhim,though
it mightcosthimhis life.But scienceinsiststhatactionis initiated
by forcesimpingingupon the individual,and thatcapriceis only
anothernameforbehaviorforwhichwe havenotyetfounda cause.
In attemptingto reconciletheseviews it is importantto note
thatthe traditionaldemocraticconceptionwas not designedas a
sensebut as a philosophyto be used in
descriptionin thescientific
settingup and maintaininga governmental
process.It aroseunder
historicalcircumstances
and servedpoliticalpurposesapart from
whichit cannotbe properlyunderstood.In rallyingmen against
that
it was necessarythatthe individualbe strengthened,
tyranny
he be taughtthathe had rightsand could governhimself.To give
the commonman a new conceptionof his worth,his dignity,and
was oftenthe
his powerto save himself,both here and hereafter,
When
democratic
of
the
revolutionist.
resource
only
principles
wereput intopractice,the same doctrineswereused as a working
formula.This is exemplifiedby the notion of personalresponsimakecertainforms
law. All governments
bilityin Anglo-American
of punishmentcontingentupon certainkinds of acts. In democraticcountriesthese contingenciesare expressedby the notion
of responsiblechoice.But thenotionmayhave no meaningunder
governmental
practicesformulatedin otherwaysand would cerwhichdid not use punishment.
tainlyhave no place in systems
The democraticphilosophyof human natureis determinedby
certainpolitical exigenciesand techniques,not by the goals of
democracy.But exigenciesand techniqueschange; and a concep- is not,
tion whichis not supportedforits accuracyas a likeness
indeed,rootedin factat all maybe expectedto changetoo. No
we judge currentdemocraticpracticesto be,
matterhow effective
how highlywe value themor how long we expectthemto survive,
The
theyare almostcertainlynot the finalformof government.
been
useful
in
human
nature
which
has
of
implementphilosophy
ing themis also almostcertainlynot the last word.The ultimate
achievementof democracymaybe long deferredunlesswe empha53

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:39:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AMERICAN SCHOLAR

size the real aims ratherthan the verbal devices of democratic

thinking.A philosophywhichhas been appropriateto one set of
politicalexigencieswill defeatits purposeif,underothercircumstances,it preventsus fromapplyingto humanaffairsthe science
of man whichprobablynothingbut democracyitselfcould have
produced.
IV
Perhapsthe mostcrucialpart of our democraticphilosophyto
- or itsreciprocal,
be reconsideredis our attitudetowardfreedom
thecontrolofhumanbehavior.We do notopposeall formsofcontrol because it is "human nature" to do so. The reactionis not
of all men underall conditionsof life.It is an atticharacteristic
tude whichhas been carefullyengineered,in large part by what
we call the "literature"of democracy.Withrespectto somemethods of control(forexample,the threatof force),verylittleengineeringis needed, for the techniquesor theirimmediateconsequences are objectionable.Societyhas suppressedthesemethods
bybrandingthem"wrong,""illegal"or "sinful."But to encourage
theseattitudestowardobjectionableformsof control,it has been
necessaryto disguisethereal natureof certainindispensabletechniques, the commonestexamplesof which are education,moral
discourse,and persuasion.The actual proceduresappear harmless
presenting
opporenough.They consistof supplyinginformation,
tunitiesforaction,pointingout logicalrelationships,
appealingto
and so on. Through a
reason or "enlightenedunderstanding,"
the illusion is fosteredthat
masterfulpiece of misrepresentation,
theseproceduresdo not involvethe controlof behavior;at most,
theyare simplywaysof "gettingsomeoneto changehismind."But
behavioral
analysisnot only revealsthe presenceof well-defined
control
no
less
it
a
kind
of
inexorable,
processes, demonstrates
the
than
more
in
some
bully'sthreatof
ways
though
acceptable,
force.
is acting
Let us supposethatsomeonein whomwe are interested
unwisely he is carelessin the way he deals withhis friends,he
drivestoo fast,or he holdshis golfclub thewrongway.We could
54

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:39:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FREEDOMANDTHE CONTROLOF MEN

probablyhelp him by issuinga series of commands:don't nag,

don't driveover sixty,don't hold yourclub thatway. Much less
objectionablewould be "an appeal to reason."We could showhim
how people are affectedby his treatmentof them,how accident
ratesrise sharplyat higherspeeds,how a particulargrip on the
club alterstheway the ball is struckand correctsa slice. In doing
so we resortto verbalmediatingdeviceswhichemphasizeand sup- thatis,certainrelaofreinforcement"
portcertain"contingencies
- which strengthen
tions betweenbehaviorand its consequences
the behaviorwe wish to set up. The same consequenceswould
possiblyset up the behaviorwithoutour help, and theyeventuallytakecontrolno matterwhichformofhelp we give.The appeal
to reasonhas certainadvantagesover the authoritative
command.
A threatofpunishment,
no matterhowsubtle,generatesemotional
reactionsand tendenciesto escapeor revolt.Perhapsthecontrollee
at beingmade to act in a givenway,but
merely"feelsresentment"
even thatis to be avoided.When we "appeal to reason,"he "feels
freerto do as he pleases."The factis thatwe have exertedlesscontrolthanin usinga threat;sinceotherconditionsmaycontribute
to the result,the effectmaybe delayedor, possiblyin a giveninstance,lacking.But if we have workeda changein his behaviorat
conditions,
all, it is becausewe havealteredrelevantenvironmental
and theprocesseswe have set in motionare just as real and just as
as in the mostauthoritative
inexorable,if not as comprehensive,
coercion.
"Arrangingan opportunityfor action" is anotherexample of
disguisedcontrol.The powerofthenegativeformhas alreadybeen
is
exposedin theanalysisofcensorship.Restrictionof opportunity
Barton
from
harmless.
As
in
far
said
an
as
Perry
Ralph
recognized
article which appeared in the Spring, 1953, Pacific Spectator,
"Whoeverdetermineswhat alternativesshall be made knownto
man controlswhat thatman shall choosefrom.He is deprivedof
freedomin proportionas he is deniedaccessto anyideas,or is confinedto anyrangeofideasshortofthetotalityofrelevantpossibilities." But thereis a positiveside as well. When we presenta relewe increasethe likelihoodthata givenform
vant stateof affairs,
55

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:39:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AMERICAN SCHOLAR

of behaviorwill be emitted.To the extentthatthe probabilityof

action has changed,we have made a definitecontribution.The
teacherof historycontrolsa student'sbehavior(or, if the reader
prefers,"depriveshim of freedom")just as much in presenting
historicalfactsas in suppressingthem.Other conditionswill no
doubtaffect
thestudent,but thecontribution
madeto hisbehavior
the
of
material
fixed
is
and, withinits range,irby
presentation
resistible.
The methodsof education,moraldiscourse,and persuasionare
acceptablenot because theyrecognizethe freedomof the individual or his rightto dissent,but becausetheymakeonlypartialcontributionsto thecontrolof his behavior.The freedomtheyrecognize is freedomfroma morecoerciveformof control.The dissent
whichtheytolerateis the possibleeffectof otherdeterminers
of
action.Since thesesanctionedmethodsare frequently
ineffective,
we have been able to convinceourselvesthattheydo notrepresent
controlat all. When theyshow too much strengthto permitdisguise,we givethemothernamesand suppressthemas energetically
as we suppressthe use of force.Educationgrowntoo powerfulis
while reallyeffective
rejectedas propagandaor "brain-washing,"
is
decried
as
"undue
influence,""demagoguery,""sepersuasion
duction,"and so on.
If we are not to relysolelyupon accidentforthe innovations
whichgiverise to culturalevolution,we mustacceptthe factthat
somekind of controlof humanbehavioris inevitable.We cannot
use good sensein humanaffairs
unlesssomeoneengagesin thedeofenvironmental
conditionswhichaffect
the
signand construction
Environmental
behaviorofmen.
changeshavealwaysbeen theconofculturalpatterns,
and we can hardly
ditionfortheimprovement
methodsof sciencewithoutmakingchanges
use the moreeffective
on a granderscale.We are all controlledby theworldin whichwe
live,and partofthatworldhasbeenand willbe constructed
bymen.
The question is this: Are we to be controlledby accident,by
culturaldesign?
or by ourselvesin effective
tyrants,
The dangerof themisuseofpoweris possiblygreaterthanever.
It is not allayedby disguisingthefacts.We cannotmakewise decisionsif we continueto pretendthathumanbehavioris notcon56

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:39:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FREEDOMANDTHE CONTROLOF MEN

trolled,or if we refuseto engagein controlwhenvaluable results

Such measuresweakenonlyourselves,leavmightbe forthcoming.
ing the strengthof scienceto others.The firststep in a defense
is the fullestpossibleexposureof controllingtechagainsttyranny
in restrictniques.A secondstephasalreadybeen takensuccessfully
we
ing the use of physicalforce.Slowly,and as yet imperfectly,
the
which
in
have workedout an ethicaland governmental
design
man
allowed
use
the
not
to
is
power derivingfromhis
strong
to controlhis fellowmen. He is restrainedby a superior
strength
forcecreatedforthatpurpose- the ethicalpressureof the group,
measures.We tendto
or moreexplicitreligiousand governmental
to relinquishsoverhesitate
we
as
distrust
currently
superiorforces,
police force.But itis only
eigntyin orderto setup an international
have
achievedwhatwe call
thatwe
throughsuch counter-control
tocontroleach
peace- a conditionin whichmenare notpermitted
otherthroughforce.In otherwords,controlitselfmust be controlled.
Sciencehas turnedup dangerousprocessesand materialsbefore.
To use the factsand techniquesof a scienceof man to the fullest
extentwithoutmakingsome monstrousmistakewill be difficult
emotional
and obviouslyperilous.It is no timeforself-deception,
indulgence,or the assumptionof attitudeswhich are no longer
test.He mustkeep his head now,
useful.Man is facinga difficult
or he muststartagain- a long way back.
V
Those who reject the scientific
conceptionof man must,to be
logical,opposethemethodsofscienceas well.The positionis often
supportedby predictinga seriesof dire consequenceswhichare to
followif scienceis not checked.A recentbook by JosephWood
Krutch,The Measure of Man, is in thisvein. Mr. Krutchsees in
the growingscienceof man the threatof an unexampledtyranny
overmen'sminds.If scienceis permittedto have itsway,he insists,
"we mayneverbe able reallyto thinkagain." A controlledculture
will,forexample,lack somevirtueinherentin disorder.We have
emergedfromchaos througha seriesof happyaccidents,but in an
57

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:39:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AMERICAN SCHOLAR

engineeredculture it will be "impossiblefor the unplanned to

eruptagain." But thereis no virtuein theaccidentalcharacterof
an accident,and the diversity
whicharisesfromdisordercan not
be
only
duplicatedby design but vastlyextended.The experimentalmethodis superiorto simple observationjust because it
coverageof thepossibilities.
multiplies"accidents"in a systematic
Technologyoffers
manyfamiliarexamples.We no longerwaitfor
immunityto disease to develop froma seriesof accidentalexposures,nor do we waitfornaturalmutationsin sheepand cotton
to producebetterfibers;but we continueto makeuse ofsuchaccidents when theyoccur, and we certainlydo not preventthem.
Manyof the thingswe value have emergedfromtheclashof ignowise to enrantarmieson darklingplains,but it is not therefore
courageignoranceand darkness.
It is notalwaysdisorderitselfwhichwe are toldwe shallmissbut
certainadmirablequalitiesin menwhichflourishonlyin thepresence of disorder.A man risesabove an unpropitiouschildhoodto
a positionof eminence,and since we cannotgive a plausible acwe attributethe
countoftheactionofso complexan environment,
achievementto some admirablefacultyin the man himself.But
fictions
such"faculties"aresuspiciously
liketheexplanatory
against
whichthehistory
ofsciencewarnsus. We admireLincolnforrising
above a deficientschool system,but it was not necessarilysomethingin himwhichpermittedhim to becomean educatedman in
was certainlyunplanned,
spiteof it. His educationalenvironment
to his mabut it could nevertheless
have made a fullcontribution
of his
ture behavior.He was a rare man, but the circumstances
childhoodwererare too. We do not give FranklinDelano Roosevelt the same creditforbecomingan educatedman withthehelp
of Grotonand Harvard,althoughthe same behavioralprocesses
may have been involved.The foundingof Grotonand Harvard
combinationsof
somewhatreducedthe possibilitythatfortuitous
would erupt to produce other Lincolns. Yet the
circumstances
founderscan hardlybe condemnedfor attackingan admirable
humanquality.
Anotherpredictedconsequenceof a scienceof man is an excs58

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:39:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FREEDOMANDTHE CONTROLOF MEN

- whethergovsive uniformity.
We are told thateffective
control
ernmental,religious,educational,economic or social- will produce a race of men who differfromeach other only through
That would probablybe
relativelyrefractory
geneticdifferences.
bad design,but we mustadmitthatwe are not now pursuinganothercoursefromchoice.In a modernschool,forexample,thereis
usuallya syllabuswhichspecifieswhateverystudentis to learnby
the end of each year.This would be flagrant
ifanyregimentation
one expectedeverystudentto comply.But some will be poor in
particularsubjects,otherswill notstudy,otherswill notremember
whattheyhave been taught,and diversity
is assured.Suppose,howthat
we
such
effective
educationaltechniques
ever,
somedaypossess
thateverystudentwill in factbe put in possessionof all the behaviorspecifiedin a syllabus.At the end of the year,all students
will correctlyanswerall questionson the finalexaminationand
"must all have prizes." Should we reject such a systemon the
groundsthatin makingall studentsexcellentit has made themall
alike?Advocatesof the theoryof a special facultymightcontend
thatan importantadvantageof thepresentsystemis thatthegood
studentlearnsin spite of a systemwhichis so defectivethatit is
currentlyproducingbad studentsas well. But if reallyeffective
techniquesare available,we cannotavoid the problemof design
the statusquo. At whatpoint should educasimplyby preferring
tionbe deliberatelyinefficient?
Such predictionsof the havoc to be wreakedby the application
of scienceto humanaffairsare usuallymade withsurprisingconfidence.They notonlyshowa faithin theorderliness
ofhumanbehavior;theypresupposean establishedbodyof knowledgewiththe
help of whichit can be positivelyassertedthatthechangeswhich
- albeit
scientistsproposeto make will have quite specificresults
not theresultstheyforesee.But thepredictionsmade bythecritics
of sciencemustbe held to be equally fallibleand subjectalso to
empiricaltest.We may be sure thatmanystepsin the scientific
designof culturalpatternswill produceunforeseenconsequences.
But thereis onlyone wayto findout. And the testmustbe made,
forif we cannotadvance in the designof culturalpatternswith
59

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:39:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AMfcCAN SCHOLAR

of the
absolutecertainty,
neithercan we restcompletelyconfident
of
the
status
quo.
superiority
VI
Apartfromtheirpossiblyobjectionableconsequences,scientific
methodsseemto makeno provisionforcertainadmirablequalities
and facultieswhich seem to have flourishedin less explicitly
planned cultures;hence theyare called "degrading"or "lacking
in dignity."(Mr. Krutchhas called the author'sWaiden Two an
"ignobleUtopia.") The conditionedreflexis thecurrentwhipping
in animals,
boy.Becauseconditionedreflexes
maybe demonstrated
theyare spokenofas thoughtheywereexclusivelysubhuman.It is
implied,as we have seen,thatno behavioralprocessesare involved
in educationand moraldiscourseor,at least,thattheprocessesare
exclusivelyhuman. But men do show conditionedreflexes(for
by all instancesof the control
example,when theyare frightened
of human behaviorbecause some instancesengenderfear),and
animalsdo showprocessessimilarto thehumanbehaviorinvolved
in instruction
and moraldiscourse.When Mr. Krutchassertsthat
"
'Conditioning'is achieved by methodswhich by-passor, as it
thoseveryreasoningfacultieswhicheducation
were,short-circuit
proposesto cultivateand exercise,"he is makinga technicalstatementwhichneeds a definitionof termsand a greatdeal of supportingevidence.
If such methodsare called "ignoble"simplybecausetheyleave
no roomforcertainadmirableattributes,
thenperhapsthepractice
of admirationneeds to be examined.We mightsay thatthe child
whoseeducationhas been skillfully
plannedhas been deprivedof
the rightto intellectualheroism.Nothinghas been leftto be admiredin thewayhe acquiresan education.Similarly,we can conceiveofmoraltrainingwhichis so adequate to thedemandsofthe
but to that
culturethatmenwill be good practically
automatically,
extenttheywill be deprivedof the rightto moralheroism,since
we seldomadmireautomaticgoodness.Yet ifwe considerthe end
of moralsratherthan certainvirtuousmeans,is not "automatic
Is it not, forexample,the
goodness"a desirablestateof affairs?
60

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:39:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FREEDOMANDTHE CONTROLOF MEN

avowed goal of religiouseducation?T. H. Huxley answeredthe

question unambiguously:"If some great power would agree to
makeme alwaysthinkwhatis trueand do whatis right,on condition of beinga sortof clockand wound up everymorningbefore
I got out of bed, I shouldclose instantly
withthe offer."Yet Mr.
Krutchquotesthisas thescarcelycrediblepointofviewofa "protomodern"and seems himselfto share T. S. Eliot's contemptfor
". . . systems
so perfect/ That no one will need to be good."
"Having to be good" is an excellentexampleof an expendable
honorific.It is inseparablefroma particularformof ethicaland
moralcontrol.We distinguish
betweenthethingswe have to do to
avoid punishmentand those we want to do for rewardingconsequences.In a culturewhich did not resortto punishmentwe
should never "have" to do anythingexcept with respectto the
punishingcontingencieswhich arise directlyin the physicalenvironment.
And we are movingtowardsucha culture,becausethe
not
ofcontrolthroughpunneurotic, to saypsychotic,
by-products
men to seekalternative
ishmenthave long sinceled compassionate
techniques.Recent researchhas explainedsome of the objectionable resultsof punishmentand has revealedresourcesof at least
It is reasonableto look
equal powerin "positivereinforcement."
forwardto a timewhen man will seldom "have" to do anything,
although he may show interest,energy,imaginationand productivityfarbeyondthe level seen under the presentsystem(exceptforrareeruptionsoftheunplanned).
Whatwe have to do we do witheffort.
We call it "work."There
is no otherway to distinguishbetweenexhaustinglabor and the
possiblyequally energeticbut rewardingactivityof play.It is prewiththelatter.
sumablygood culturaldesignto replacetheformer
But an adjustmentin attitudesis needed.We are muchmorepracticedin admiringthe heroiclabor of a Herculesthan theactivity
educaof one who workswithouthavingto. In a trulyeffective
tionalsystemthestudentmightnot "have to work"at all, but that
teacherwith
is likelyto be receivedbythecontemporary
possibility
an emotionlittleshortofrage.
viewsby agreeing
We cannotreconciletraditionaland scientific
61

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:39:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AMERICAN SCHOLAR

upon whatis tobe admiredor condemned.The questionis whether

anythingis to be so treated.Praiseand blameare culturalpractices
whichhave been adjunctsof the prevailingsystemof controlin
Westerndemocarcy.All peoples do not engage in themforthe
same purposesor to the same extent,nor,of course,are the same
behaviorsalwaysclassifiedin thesame wayas subjectto praiseor
blame. In admiringintellectualand moralheroismand unrewardinglabor,and in rejectinga worldin whichthesewouldbe uncomour own culturalconditioning.
mon,we are simplydemonstrating
By promotingcertaintendenciesto admireand censure,thegroup
of whichwe are a part has arrangedforthe social reinforcement
and punishmentneeded to assurea highlevel of intellectualand
moral industry.Under otherand possiblybettercontrollingsystems,the behaviorwhich we now admire would occur,but not
under thoseconditionswhichmake it admirable,and we should
have no reason to admireit because the culturewould have arrangedforitsmaintenancein otherways.
To thosewho are stimulatedby the glamorousheroismof the
a peacefulworldmaynotbe a betterworld.Othersmay
battlefield,
rejecta worldwithoutsorrow,longingor a senseof guiltbecause
therelevanceofdeeplymovingworksofartwouldbe lost.To many
who have devotedtheirlives to the struggleto be wise and good,
a worldwithoutconfusionand evil mightbe an emptything.A
nostalgicconcernfor the decline of moral heroismhas been a
dominatingthemein the workof Aldous Huxley. In Brave New
Worldhe could see in the applicationof scienceto humanaffairs
on thenotionof the Good (just as GeorgeOrwell,
onlya travesty
in 1984, could foreseenothingbut horror).In a recentissue of
Esquire,Huxleyhas expressedthepointthisway:"We havehad rewe havehad political,industrial,
economicand
ligiousrevolutions,
nationalisticrevolutions.All of them,as our descendantswill dis- trivialby
cover,were but ripples in an ocean of conservatism
revolutiontowardwhichwe are
comparisonwiththepsychological
so rapidlymoving.That will reallybe a revolution.When it is
over,the humanrace will give no furthertrouble."(Footnotefor
the readerof the future:This was not meantas a happyending.
62

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:39:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FREEDOMANDTHE CONTROLOF MEN

Up to 1956 men had been admired,if at all, eitherforcausing

- )
troubleor alleviatingit.Therefore
It will be a long timebeforetheworldcan dispensewithheroes
and hence withthe culturalpracticeof admiringheroism,but we
move in thatdirectionwheneverwe act to preventwar, famine,
pestilenceand disaster.It will be a longtimebeforemanwill never
need to submitto punishingenvironments
or engagein exhausting
labor, but we move in that directionwheneverwe make food,
shelter,clothingand labor-savingdevicesmore readilyavailable.
We maymournthepassingofheroesbut not theconditionswhich
make forheroism.We can spare the self-madesaintor sage as we
spare the laundresson the river'sbank strugglingagainstfearful
odds to achievecleanliness.
VII
The twogreatdangersin moderndemocraticthinkingare illustratedin a paper by formerSecretary
of StateDean Acheson.'Tor
a long timenow," writesMr. Acheson,"we have gone along with
some well-tested
principlesof conduct: That it was betterto tell
the truththan falsehoods;. . . thatdutieswereolder thanand as
fundamental
as rights;that,as JusticeHolmes put it,themode by
whichthe inevitablecame to pass was effort;thatto perpetratea
harmwaswrongno matterhowmanyjoined in it ... and so on. ...
Our institutions
are foundedon the assumptionthatmostpeople
followtheseprinciplesmostof the timebecausetheywantto,and
the institutionswork prettywell when this assumptionis true.
More recently,
however,brightpeople have been foolingwiththe
machineryin the human head and theyhave discoveredquite a
lot. . . . Hitlerintroducednew refinements
[as theresultofwhich]
a wholepeople have been utterlyconfusedand corrupted.Unhappilyneitherthe possessionof thisknowledgenor the desireto use
it was confinedto Hitler. . . . Othersdip fromthissame devil's
cauldron."
The firstdangerousnotion in this passage is thatmostpeople
followdemocraticprinciplesof conduct"because theywant to."
This does not accountfordemocracyor anyotherformof govern63

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:39:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AMERICAN SCHOLAR

mentifwe havenotexplainedwhypeople wantto behavein given

ways.Althoughit is temptingto assumethatit is humannatureto
believe in democraticprinciples,we mustnot overlookthe "cul' which
tural engineering1
produced and continuesto maintain
democraticpractices.If we neglectthe conditionswhichproduce
democraticbehavior,it is uselessto tryto maintaina democratic
And we cannotexpectto exporta democratic
formofgovernment.
formof government
if we do not also provideforthe
successfully
culturalpracticeswhichwill sustainit. Our forebearsdid not discover the essentialnatureof man; theyevolveda patternof behavior which workedremarkablywell under the circumstances.
The "set of principles"expressedin thatpatternis not the only
truesetor necessarily
thebest.Mr. Achesonhas presumablylisted
the mostunassailableitems;some of themare probablybeyond
- may need re- concerningdutyand effort
question,but others
visionas theworldchanges.
- threatto the democracywhichMr.
The second- and greater
Achesonis defendingis his assumptionthat knowledgeis necessarilyon theside ofevil. All theadmirablethingshe mentionsare
attributedto the innate goodnessof man, all the detestableto
"foolingwith the machineryin the human head." This is reminiscentof the position,takenby otherinstitutions
engagedin the
are
forms
of
certain
that
controlof men,
knowledge in themselves
evil. But how out of place in a democraticphilosophy!Have we
come thisfaronlyto concludethatwell-intentioned
people cannot
without
men
of
behavior
the
becomingtyrantsor thatinstudy
formedmen cannotshowgood will?Let us foronce have strength
and goodwill on thesameside.
VIII
Far frombeinga threatto the traditionof Westerndemocracy,
the growthof a scienceof man is a consistentand probablyinevitablepart of it. In turningto the externalconditionswhich
shape and maintainthe behaviorof men, while questioningthe
realityof inner qualities and facultiesto whichhuman achievementswere once attributed,we turnfromthe ill-defined
and re64

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:39:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FREEDOMANDTHE CONTROLOF MEN

mote to the observableand manipulable.Though it is a painful

consequences,forit not only setshigher
step,it has far-reaching
standardsof human welfarebut showsus how to meet them.A
changein a theoryof humannaturecannotchangethe facts.The
of man in science,art,literature,music and morals
achievements
will surviveany interpretation
we place upon them.The uniqueview. Man,
nessof the individualis unchallengedin the scientific
in short,will remainman. (There will be muchto admireforthose
who are so inclined.Possiblythe noblestachievementto which
man can aspire,even accordingto presentstandards,is to accept
himselfforwhathe is, as thatis revealedto him by the methods
whichhe devisedand testedon a partoftheworldin whichhe had
onlya smallpersonalstake.)
If Westerndemocracydoes not lose sightof theaimsofhumanitarianaction,it will welcomethe almostfabuloussupportof its
own science of man and will strengthenitselfand play an importantrole in buildinga betterworldforeveryone.But ifit cannot put its "democraticphilosophy"into proper historicalper- if,underthe controlof attitudesand emotionswhichit
spective
generatedforotherpurposes,it now rejectsthe help of science
thenit mustbe preparedfordefeat.For if we continueto insist
thatsciencehas nothingto offerbut a new and morehorribleform
we may produce just such a resultby allowing the
of tyranny,
of scienceto fall into the hands of despots.And if,with
strength
luck,it were to fall insteadto men of good will in otherpolitical
it would be perhapsa moreignominiousdefeat;for
communities,
ofdemocraticprinciples,be
we shouldthen,througha miscarriage
forcedto leave to othersthenextstepin man'slongstruggleto controlnatureand himself.

65

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:39:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions