Beyond Freedom and Dignity

“We could solve our problems quickly enough if we could adjust the growth of the world’s population as precisely as we adjust the course of a spaceship, or improve agriculture and industry with some of the confidence with which we accelerate high-energy particles, or move toward a peaceful world with something like the steady progress with which physics has approached absolute zero (even though both remain presumably out of reach).”

Skinner posits that if the study of human behavior was approached from a scientific perspective, it would be easier for society to enact widespread progression. He suggests that human behavior functions similarly to other natural phenomena that can be studied and manipulated via physical sciences. This view is considered controversial because it challenges the concept of free will; many social institutions, like the economy and the justice system, are structured around the idea that humans have free will.

“Autonomous man serves to explain only the things we are not yet able to explain in other ways. His existence depends on our ignorance, and he naturally loses status as we come to know more about behavior.”

“Autonomous man” is another way of phrasing the concept of free will. In general, society holds that human behavior stems from free will. In contrast, Skinner suggests that free will is only cited as the impetus for human behavior because the underlying processes are not yet understood. Thus, free will is a concept that arises from ignorance and is not the true motivator of human behavior.

“No one looks askance at the astronomer when he says that the sun rises or that the stars come out at night, for it would be ridiculous to insist that he should always say that the sun appears over the horizon as the earth turns or that the stars become visible as the atmosphere ceases to refract sunlight.”

Skinner identifies linguistic constraints as an obstacle between science and the general public. Many colloquial phrases are scientifically inaccurate but widely accepted, such as the widely used term “sunrise,” which is not caused by the sun rising, but by the Earth’s rotation. Skinner notes that he will use similar examples in his discussion on human behavior; this prepares readers to correctly interpret terms or phrases that may not be scientifically or linguistically accurate.

“Over the centuries, in erratic ways, men have constructed a world in which they are relatively free of many kinds of threatening or harmful stimuli—extremes of temperature, sources of infection, hard labor, danger, and even those minor aversive stimuli called discomfort.”

Skinner argues that freedom is a function of behaviorism rather than of free will. Behaviorism, or the idea that all behaviors are conditioned, is the foundational premise of Beyond Freedom and Dignity. Skinner notes several negative reinforcers that guide human behavior. The absence or avoidance of these negative reinforcers is regarded as freedom, thus showing that freedom is relative and conditioned rather than absolute and autonomous.

“A government may prevent defection by making life more interesting—by providing bread and circuses and by encouraging sports, gambling, the use of alcohol and other drugs, and various kinds of sexual behavior, where the effect is to keep people within reach of aversive sanctions.”

Skinner implies that immoral behaviors are sometimes the result of government-endorsed positive reinforcers. The passage carries a satirical tone and alludes to ancient Rome via the phrase “bread and circuses.” Skinner criticizes the fact that many governments encourage self-destructive or immoral behaviors.

“We are concerned with what a person ‘deserves,’ or, as the dictionary puts it, what he is ‘rightfully worthy of, or fairly entitled to, or able to claim rightfully by virtue of action done or qualities displayed.’”

The concepts of dignity and deservedness are closely linked. Skinner introduces the idea that behaviorism excludes the concept of deservedness. He implies that deservedness, through the lens of behaviorism, is illogical. If all behaviors are dependent on antecedent circumstances, then no one is deserving of praise.

“Science naturally seeks a fuller explanation of that behavior; its goal is the destruction of mystery.”

Skinner implies that science is at odds with autonomous man, or free will. People attribute unexplained behaviors to free will. If those behaviors are positive, the acting individual is given credit and experiences a sense of dignity. In contrast, a scientific approach would examine the reasons for behaviors. Once those causes are discovered. Skinner posits that the desire to experience dignity prevents some from supporting a technology of human behavior.

“Except when physically restrained, a person is least free or dignified when he is under threat of punishment, and unfortunately most people often are.”

Skinner implies that society obstructs freedom and dignity. People behave in certain ways to avoid punishment, such as by following laws so they are not fined or imprisoned. The threat of punishment negates freedom and prevents people from earning credit for their compliant behaviors.

“The trouble is that when we punish a person for behaving badly, we leave it up to him to discover how to behave well, and he can then get credit for behaving well. But if he behaves well for the reasons we have just examined, it is the environment that must get credit.”

The same logos, or logical argument, is used to refute both dignity and punishment. If behavior is determined, then people deserve neither praise for accepted behaviors nor punishment for undesirable behaviors. Skinner presents behavioral change as a result of environmental circumstances rather than as acts of free will.

“A person is more likely to steal if he has little or nothing of his own, if his education has not prepared him to get and hold a job so that he may buy what he needs, if no jobs are available, if he has not been taught to obey the law, or if he often sees others breaking the law with impunity.”

Skinner explores the environmental factors that may result in criminal behavior. By taking a scientific approach, the underlying causes of behavior, such as socioeconomic status and access to education, can be mitigated to lower crime rates. This view holds that it is more ethical to scientifically manipulate the environment to prevent crime than it is to punish criminals, who may not be responsible for their undesirable behavior.

“It is a surprising fact that those who object most violently to the manipulation of behavior nevertheless make the most vigorous efforts to manipulate minds.”

This is an example of an unsubstantiated claim. Skinner often relies on unsubstantiated or uncited claims to support his positions. In this case, he states that people who oppose manipulation are manipulative; however, he does not provide any specific information—anecdotal or empirical—that would support this.

“When practices are concealed or disguised, countercontrol is made difficult; it is not clear from whom one is to escape or whom one is to attack.”

Skinner criticizes the implementation of seemingly weak controlling forces, such as permissiveness or dependence on things. He supports his criticism with a chain of logical reasoning: If behavior is determined, and if weak controlling methods are used, behaviors will have less visible causes. When controlling forces are unidentifiable, they are difficult to address. Through this idea, an implicit argument arises—overt methods should be used to control behavior because they are more visible and thus easier to mitigate.

“What is maximized or minimized, or what is ultimately good or bad, are things, not feelings, and men work to achieve them or to avoid them not because of the way they feel but because they are positive or negative reinforcers.”

Skinner stresses the delineation between feelings and reinforcers, which can be easily confused. He posits that feelings are a response to reinforcing effects, with bad feelings succeeding negative reinforcers and good feelings accompanying positive reinforcers. Since behaviors have reinforcing effects, it is behaviors that cause feelings rather than feelings causing behaviors. However, a potential critique is that this assertion ignores that behaviors may be impacted by antecedent emotional states.

“When the control exercised by others is thus evaded or destroyed, only the personal reinforcers are left. The individual turns to immediate gratification, possibly through sex or drugs.”

Skinner stresses the importance of belonging and conforming to controlling organizations, such as a religion or government. He argues that personal reinforcement can only result in immediate gratification and that ethics emerge through organized controllers. This implies that humans are not naturally altruistic but are forced to behave altruistically by group controllers.

“A man who has been alone since birth will have no verbal behavior, will not be aware of himself as a person, will possess no techniques of self-management, and with respect to the world around hm will have only those meager skills which can be acquired in one short lifetime from nonsocial contingencies.”

Skinner stresses the importance of social interactions for human well-being. Since humans need social interactions, they need to conform to the social norms maintained by controllers.

“The social contingencies, or the behaviors they generate, are the ‘ideas’ of a culture; the reinforcers that appear in the contingencies are its ‘values.’”

Skinner connects culture to the contextual concept of behavioral determinism. He provides the framework for how cultures evolve and how they can be intentionally modified.

“A culture, like a species, is selected by its adaptation to an environment: to the extent that it helps its members to get what they need and avoid what is dangerous, it helps them to survive and transmit the culture.”

Skinner uses an analogy, a literary device in which two elements are compared to clarify ideas. In this instance, he presents biological evolution as analogous to cultural evolution. Skinner assumes that readers are familiar with biological evolution, and uses that assumed knowledge to support his discussions on cultural evolution.

“If there is any purpose or direction in the evolution of a culture, it has to do with bringing people under the control of more and more of the consequences of their behavior.”

Skinner suggests that cultures evolve to increasingly control its members. This idea reflects The Ethical Implication of Behavioral Modification and the notion that weak methods of control allow for less visible behavioral contingencies. Skinner is not asserting that cultures become more oppressive over time, but that contingencies become more intentional and visible.

“Beyond interpretation lies practical action. Contingencies are accessible, and as we come to understand the relations between behavior and the environment, we discover new ways of changing behavior.”

Applying a technology of human behavior, according to Skinner, is a sequential process. It first should be used to understand and interpret behavior and behavioral contingencies. This foundational understanding needs to develop before such a technology can be effectively and ethically used to enact widespread change. By using the inclusive pronoun “we,” Skinner encourages readers to feel that, by implementing a technology of behavior, they will have some control over their behavior and culture.

“It may be enough simply to observe a steady increase in the number of people on the earth, in the size and location of nuclear stockpiles, or in the pollution of the environment and the depletion of natural resources; we may then change practices to induce people to have fewer children, spend less on nuclear weapons, stop polluting the environment, and consume resources at a lower rate, respectively.”

Skinner emphasizes The Necessity of a Scientific Approach to Solve Social Problems. In some circumstances, applying a technology of human behavior would be a relatively simple process of observing conditions and adjusting behaviors to avoid negative consequences. Skinner uses a declarative proclamation, implying that this is a common-sense approach.

“Our culture has produced the science and technology it needs to save itself. It has the wealth needed for effective action. It has, to a considerable extent, a concern for its own future. But if it continues to take freedom of dignity, rather than its own survival, as its principal value, then it is possible that some other culture will make a greater contribution to the future.”

Skinner’s assertions reflect a nationalist bias. Skinner states that the United States is uniquely prepared to enact intentional cultural design and warns that, if it does not, another culture will become dominant. In doing so, Skinner implies that the United States’ culture is superior.

“The nomad on horseback in Outer Mongolia and the astronaut in outer space are different people, but, as far as we know, if they had been exchanged at birth, they would have taken each other’s place. (The expression ‘change places’ shows how closely we identify a person’s behavior with the environment in which it occurs.)”

Skinner explores the impact of the environment on behavior. His hypothesis has been repeated by other behaviorists, such as Robert Sapolsky, and demonstrates that there are some insurmountable difficulties in studying the impact of the environment on behavior. It is impossible to know how someone would behave if they had been raised in an entirely different setting. The parenthetical comment reflects the influence language has on perception. In this case, the linguistic bounds seem to support rather than contradict Skinner’s point.

“A great deal goes on inside the skin, and physiology will eventually tell us more about it.”

At the time Skinner wrote this text, not much was known about the physiological or biological factors involved with behavior. Skinner’s prediction that new information would emerge about the physiological influences on behavior has been proven correct. Numerous scientists, including neurologist Robert Sapolsky, have corroborated Skinner’s hypotheses and have found biological causes of behavior.