The Devil Made Me Do It!
The classic technique for evading responsibility is remade for our modern times
A central pillar of modern progressive ideology is the off-boarding of responsibility — the transfer of culpability for one’s actions to an external entity, usually something vague like society or “the system.” We see it in the way that people talk and act. We see it in the arguments that people make. All of a person’s sins are pinned onto a nameless, faceless society and he is somehow magically absolved of them. Philosophy is twisted and contorted to such an extent that people can actually convince themselves that they are not responsible for their own actions. They call themselves helpless victims of some overpowering force or personality. Most people are familiar with the phenomenon, being immersed in the progressive ideology as we are today, but it is still difficult to define and describe. One of the most well-articulated and insightful works on this topic is contained in the book “Life at the Bottom” by Theodore Dalrymple.
Dr. Dalrymple (it’s a pen name) is actually a medical doctor who practiced for years in “a busy general hospital in a British slum, and also a nearby prison.” He interacted with thousands of patients from the British “underclass,” as he calls it, in their various circumstances of duress. Through his long stint of observations, he began to notice patterns and tendencies in the lives, attitudes, and worldviews of his patients. Eventually, the disconnect between the way that the elites talk about the poor and what he actually observed about the poor led him to write about his observations. In the face of such drastic discontinuities, he had to set the record straight.
Dalrymple came to different conclusions from those reached by the theories of the liberal elites. His first-hand knowledge led him to reject the common arguments of economic determinism or genetic determinism as causes of the poverty around him. He was able to reject any racial arguments because the majority of the British underclass is white, yet it exhibits identical patterns to those of the lower class in other countries where race complicates the analysis. He even rejects the usual conservative explanation of the welfare state as the cause for the especially noxious and persistent form of poverty present today. He describes that factor as “overemphasized.” So what is the true cause of the chronic poverty in the underclass? In short, bad philosophy.
Dalrymple notices that the philosophy which proceeds from the mouths of his patients is a modern, nihilistic, Marxist kind of philosophy which did not used to be in the cannon of the poor. In the past, the nexus of this kind of thinking was the academic class. The British intelligentsia who had the means to afford luxury beliefs would promulgate their clever philosophical evasions to justify their hedonistic desires. They would claim that the family structure is an outdated relic inherited from the dark ages and that enlightened man should not have to bear these obsolete shackles that proscribe his carnal impulses and desires. They would say that man is a product of his environment and thereby excuse himself from the responsibility of controlling his misanthropic tendencies such as fighting or drug use. The elites would never actually believe these philosophies wholeheartedly, but they would articulate them when convenient. Of course, they would at other times acknowledge the importance of the family structure for their own children or impress upon their progeny the dissipative effects of uncouth or addictive behaviors.
Unfortunately, the underclass did not seem to catch onto the subtleties and the nuance of the elites. Rather than a gimmick to justify some taboo behavior, the poor adopted the deviant beliefs wholeheartedly and without reservation or qualification. According to Dalrymple,
most of the social pathology exhibited by the underclass has its origins in ideas that have filtered down from the intelligentsia.
And while the elites tempered and moderated the impacts of their beliefs,
their ideas were adopted both literally and wholesale in the lowest and most vulnerable social class.
The circumstance illustrates the responsibility of those in positions of power and influence — who have both the knowledge and ability to know better — to avoid disingenuous language and behaviors. Dalrymple gives the scathing conclusion,
[I]t is important to remember that, if blame is to be apportioned, it is the intellectuals who deserve most of it. They should have known better but always preferred to avert their gaze. They considered the purity of their ideas to be more important than the actual consequences of their ideas. I know of no egotism more profound.
Chief among these pathological beliefs is the conception that a person is not responsible for his actions. Dalrymple describes his experience serving the poor with the words,
I am struck by the very small part in [their stories] which they ascribe to their own efforts, choices, and actions. … they experience themselves as putty in the hands of fate.
He goes on to talk about how prisoners describe themselves as, for example, unlucky. They talk about their deviant behavior as if its a medical condition. Violent abusers and burglars will say things like “my head just went” or “my trouble came upon me” equating their bad behavior with a seizure or a fit of epilepsy. Criminals would demand that the doctor diagnose the cause of their bad behavior, and until the diagnosis is forthcoming and some cure or medicine prescribed, they consider themselves free to continue their behavior without reproach. Others mentally separate their actions from themselves, thereby retaining the ability to consider themselves “good” apart from all of their heinous acts. They use language like, “The guy who steals the cars, that’s not really ‘me’.” Some subjects claim to be highly suggestible as if they can’t help it when other people lead them astray. Dalrymple then asks them if they have ever been led astray into the study of mathematics or French, to which the deviant responds with laughter. The jig is up, and they acknowledge that these excuses are mainly subterfuge. Yet, whether or not they are being genuine in their explanations, the victim narrative is always present.
One primary factor in their continued practice of playing the part of a helpless victim of circumstance is the willing reception by the people on the other side of the table. The subjects — prisoners, abused spouses, etc. — use the same language as the modern social workers and care givers. These members of the elite class who condescend to help the underclass, bring with them the enlightened philosophies of their academic circles. In fact, Dalrymple cites this as an exacerbating factor saying,
[T]here is now a much enlarged constituency for liberal views: the legions of helpers and carers, social workers and therapists, whose incomes and careers depend crucially on the supposed incapacity of large numbers of people to fend for themselves or behave reasonably. Without the supposed powerlessness of drug addicts, burglars, and others in the face of their own undesirable inclinations, there would be nothing for the professional redeemers to do. … Indeed, the tangible advantages to the wrongdoer of appearing helpless are now so great that he needs little encouragement to do so.
A subset of this class of helpers with which I take special exception is the class of Christians. Many Christians have taken up the cause of the liberal atheists in the name of helping the poor. They take a shallow, ancillary reading of the Bible and say that Jesus came to help the weak, the poor, and the helpless. The adoption of this view is an attempt at injecting meaning and purpose into their lives more than a sincere submission to the God of the Scriptures. They are filled with talk of grace and forgiveness, ready to excuse any wrongdoing or unhealthy behavior. They either do not know or do not care that they are not actually acting in the best interest of their patients. They follow closely the footsteps of their atheistic counterparts. Dalrymple, in a scathing description of their attitudes, said,
Let millions suffer so long as he can retain his sense of his own righteousness and moral superiority. Indeed, if millions suffer they are additional compassion fodder for him, and the more of their pain will he so generously feel.
If Dalrymple is right and this attitude of calling criminals victims is wrong, perhaps Christians should examine more closely the teachings of Jesus on the subject. Jesus himself addresses the attitude of helplessness and the practice of claiming victim status. Certainly, Jesus ministers to the poor and helpless. He ate with sinners and tax collectors: the rejects and outcasts of society. But you will always find that the sinners are repenting when they join Jesus for a meal. Jesus never leaves people in a state of sin, living a life without regard to God’s laws. After he healed the crippled man by the pool at Bethesda, for example, he later found the man and told him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you.” He does not treat people as helpless victims of their circumstances. He orders them to be holy. Speaking to his disciples directly about this disingenuous argument of helplessness to circumstances, he uses the strongest language possible,
And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.
Some people will make an argument like, “I hate stealing, but my hand can’t help it.” Jesus calls this bluff head on. You might say that you can’t help your impulses or addictions. You might even believe it sometimes. Jesus does not take that excuse. You say your hand causes you to sin? That you can’t help it? Jesus says, “Then cut it off.” Given the alternatives, you will find that you do, in fact, have the internal fortitude to control your hand. It’s the same with the violent offenders in Dalrymple’s prison. They tell him that they cannot control their tempers around their girlfriends, yet they never seem to have trouble controlling themselves in the face of a sufficiently strong opposing force.
All of these bad philosophies have discarded the critical belief in personal agency. Individual agency is a hallmark of the Christian faith. God calls individuals, and He desires an individual relationship with each of us. Individual agency is a critical ingredient of the American Dream. This is a country where each person can pursue their own passions and realize their own potential. Their futures are not determined by their birth state. Individual agency is a crucial ingredient for upward mobility as well. Regardless of your financial status, you have the ability to improve your conditions through personal life choices. Advancing a philosophy that does not believe in individual agency is like pulling up the ladder between classes. Classes become castes where each person’s future is determined at birth and the poor are doomed to remain so. Dalrymple’s observation about the poor having bad philosophy makes perfect sense. Why after so much effort and so many resources spent does the fight against poverty make negative progress? It is because the philosophy that accompanies the resources is one that promotes chronic poverty. Yet the purveyors of that philosophy persist with the same attitude, “Let millions suffer so long as I can retain my sense of self-righteousness and moral superiority.”
In the past, people would use similar arguments: the classic angel and devil on the shoulders whispering into your ears. They would export the responsibility for their bad decisions and place them on the devil. Regardless of the devil’s role in temptation, it is your choice. The buck stops with you, so to speak. If today’s arguments are more sophisticated and complex than the classic “the devil made me do it,” they are not essentially different in substance or veracity. Let’s stop lying to ourselves and each other and begin to actually help the wrongdoer learn how to strengthen his moral character rather than being complicit in his self-destruction.