Why People Blame Themselves

August 12, 2013


Detail from Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s Netherlandish Proverbs.

In her lead essay for the most recent Boston Review forum, “Beyond Blame,” Barbara Fried points out that the last four decades have been “boom years for blame,” with neoliberal policy increasingly holding the individual solely responsible for his fate. Freedom and dignity have become intertwined with personal responsibility—and blame is our new rallying cry. The growing fragility of our communities and families over the same time period has solidified the notion that one has only oneself to rely on. Former representative and presidential candidate Ron Paul epitomized the spirit of blame in 2011 when he passionately argued in a televised debate that the decision to forego health insurance was a fundamental right of Americans. When the moderator asked him if this would mean that someone without health insurance who was critically injured should die rather than receive government help, audience members could be heard shouting, “Yeah!” Take a risk and succeed, and you are a hero. Take a risk and fail, and you are to blame—even if it costs you your life. Risk and blame are the hallmarks of worthy personhood in contemporary American society.

Blame is clearly implicated in power and inequality, as its attribution favors the powerful. But the puzzling question is why people who do not benefit from a system of blame—that is, most Americans—cling so fiercely to its creed. Seeking an answer, I spent several years researching the American working class, the very people whose homes are underwater and whose college debt goes unpaid. I witnessed how blame was deployed in everyday life to solve problems—to anchor the self, judge worthiness, grant dignity, and make sense of failures. In short, I learned that blame is a strategy to make certain what is uncertain.

Let me share the example of Monica, a 31-year-old working-class woman from the Northeast, who draws upon the ethos of blame to ascribe meaning and progress to a life of failure, flux, and disappointment. After graduating from high school, she found her first job in a nearby toy factory, where she packed dolls for shipping. When that factory closed down, she moved to an electronics factory, where she spent eight hours a day using tweezers to install tiny springs inside of electrical switches. She has since worked as a waitress, a truck driver, a field hand, a telemarketer, and a hospital aide. In her late twenties, after yet another seemingly long-term relationship fell apart, she returned to her parents’ home to live there and to help her father in his logging business.

Monica never envisioned herself having a future. “There was no five year plan,” she told me, laughing. Then she became somber as she described turning to drugs and alcohol to cope with her anxiety and to forget her troubled family relationships. When she finally realized that her life was going nowhere, she got sober. Although she has relapsed a few times and had to stop seeing a therapist because she lost her health insurance, Monica now feels focused and optimistic for the first time in her life. She is beginning college, taking out tens of thousands of dollars in loans in hopes of making a career as an artist. She challenges herself to see the positive aspect of everything that happens to her and believes that happiness is within her control: even when her bike—her sole form of transportation—was stolen last spring, she “was like, that’s all right, I needed to get rid of my mountain bike and get a road bike.” Though she is “just hanging on by a thread all the time financially” and has put relationships on hold, she has faith in her ability to follow the path to a meaningful life—just as long as she stays sober: “Because if I don’t, you know, I could drink and that would mean losing everything.”

As inequality increases in America, many are becoming Monicas. We learn not to expect loyalty from our jobs or permanence from our relationships. We take risks, often without guidance from others and with imperfect knowledge, to try to create lives that feel stable and worthy. And when we fail, we pick up the pieces on our own and start again. When jobs are short-term, families are fragile, institutions are hollow, and trust is in short supply, taking sole responsibility for one’s own fate lends a sense of control and meaning.Blame proves a vital mechanism for coping with the chaos, hopelessness, and insecurity that threatens daily to strip our lives of dignity and order. We numb the ache of betrayal and the hunger for connection by reaching for images of ourselves as masters of own fates.

Self-blame is shored up by a multi-million dollar self-help industry. But its true power lies in its promise that we can will ourselves to happy and successful lives, in its ability to make a virtue out of failure, insecurity, and uncertainty. As another young woman, Kelly, a line cook who has lived on and off in her car, explained, “Life doesn’t owe me any favors. I can have a sense of my own specialness and individuality, but that doesn’t mean that anybody else has to recognize that or help me accomplish my goals.” Those who embrace blame tend to have little empathy for those who cannot pull themselves up by their bootstraps. If I have to go it alone, the logic goes, then everyone else should, too.

As Fried argues, blame is costly, both socially and politically. Blame divides potential communities of solidarity into winners and losers. Even more worrisome, the quest for personal responsibility and the eagerness to blame oneself for failure obscures the larger forces that have weakened our social safety net, our communities, and our families. Doing away with gratuitous blame—directed at others and at ourselves—requires building institutions that restore, carefully and thoughtfully, our collective supply of meaning, trust, and dignity.

Comments

I thought this was a great article. I notice a divide between those who have suffered in life, and in turn are unforgiving towards other people who are suffering similar fates. The thought is that "if I made it out, they can too, and if they can't, they are lazy or weak."
I wonder what our society would be like if we had compassion for those who are struggling. Instead of berating the unmarried, 21-year-old mother of two - I hope that we can offer sympathy. Yes, she might be lazy. Yes, she might be unedecuated and taxing the welfare system. But she might have watched her own mother take drugs, she might have watched her own mother have children from multiple men who all left her. So then, is she someone that we should stick our noses up to? Needless to mention her children, who without intervention (by an organization or just a kind person or relative) will certainly land in the same boat.
This is often the divide between the hard-nosed conservative and the bleeding-heart liberal.
Is there a way that we can offer compassion, without harming ourselves through ridiculously high taxes and ineffective welfare programs?
I think the author makes a fantastic first step at trying to understand the reasoning behind self-blame and blame of others. If we can have compassion and ambition for ourselves, then we can have compassion and ambition for our country.

What a beautifully written (and beautifully thought) comment.  Empathy is so valuable to a successful society and yes, it can even be for self-serving reasons--because we live together we want to live with other successful people.

Corporations should be required to have human resources that offer effective and LEGITIMATE support to employees, and are not just the corporations pathetic hiring/firing/chastising back-stabbing arm.  As employees feel stronger and are actually trusted by corporations, they will take more initiative and pride in their work.... you know, like how it used to be in America in the 1950s!  The worst thing to happen to the USA is libertarians and these people who hate other people.  They need to be taken out of power and shut up. 

About welfare leading to unsustainable taxation:  My view is that we could afford to pay out a good deal more welfare without so much as noticing the cost.  The problem is that the 0.1% and multinational corporations are paying negligible taxes, and receiving enormous amount of welfare.  The government -- until recently the Pentagon, now more NIH, because the cutting edge of the economy has shifted from technology to biology -- takes on enormous investment to produce innovations like the computer, and the Internet, and then gives those over to private interests to exploit.  This is the socialization of risk and privatization of profit.  Then we have the Federal Reserve Bank having doled out by now several or more TRILLIONS of dollars, including $85 Billion per month for some time now and continuing, and all of it going to bail out the banks -- rather than students, mortgagees and others struggling with debt.  The money is there for those who don't need it but control the government.  Such expenditures dwarf anything that might be spent on needy individuals, be they lazy or simply disadvantaged.  Meanwhile gerrymandering has put Republicans in power in the Congress out of proportion to their strength among voters, producing the so-called gridlock -- though in many ways most of the Democrats are not much better.   

Ehhhh....communism-collectivism never dies, does it. Like an evil phoenix

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.