AGAINST

BEHAVIORISM
THOMAS SZASZ
A REVIEW OF
B. F. SKINNERS
ABOUT BEHAVIORISM

One of the things that distinguishes persons from ani- But, it may be objected, Skinner has no political or
mals is that, for reasons familiar enough, persons can- military power at his command. How, then, could he
not simply live: they must have, or must feel that they inflict such a grave injury on mankind? The answer
have, some reason for doing so. In other words, men, is as simple as is Skinners mentality. Man qua or-
women, and children must have some sense and sig- ganism is an animal; to destroy it, one must kill it.
nificance in and for their lives. If they do not they Man qua person is the animal that uses language; to
perish. Hence, I believe that those who rob people of destroy him, one must destroy his language. This, it
the meaning and significance they have given their seems to me, is what Skinner is out to accomplish.
lives kill them and should be considered murderers, at Perhaps more than any of his earlier books, About Be-
least metaphorically. B. F. Skinner is such a mur- haviorism makes this crystal clear. It is not really a
derer. Like all mass murderers, he fascinates - es- book at all, but a dictionary: it furnishes us with the
pecially his intended victims. equivalents, in Skinnerese, of ordinary English words.

Psychological Notes No. 5

ISSN 0267-7172 ISBN 1 85637 065 8
An occasional publication of the Libertarian Alliance,
25 Chapter Chambers, Esterbrooke Street, London SW1P 4NN
www.libertarian.co.uk email: admin@libertarian.co.uk
1991: Libertarian Alliance; Thomas Szasz.
This review essay was first published in Libertarian Review, No. 111, December 1974.
Thomas Szasz is the Professor of Psychology at State University, New York, and a member
of the LAs Advisory Council. He is the author of numerous books, including The Myth of
Mental Illness, The Manufacture of Madness, Ceremonial Chemistry: The Ritual Persecution
of Drugs, Addicts and Pushers, and Law, Liberty and Psychiatry.
The views expressed in this publication are those of its author, and not necessarily
those of the Libertarian Alliance, its Committee, Advisory Council or subscribers.
Director: Dr Chris R. Tame
Editorial Director: Brian Micklethwait Webmaster: Dr Sean Gabb

FOR LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY

 2

Simply put, what Skinner is out to do is to destroy than Skinner. Why all the fuss about him, then? Per-
ordinary language and to substitute his own language haps because he is a Harvard professor who is ignor-
for it. It is a sort of one-man Esperanto effort. Skin- ant both of his own sources (for example, Auguste
ner puts it this way: I consider scores, if not hun- Comte) and of the many important critics of scientism
dreds, of mentalistic usage. They are taken from (from John Stuart Mill to Friedrich von Hayek), thus
current writings, but I have not cited the sources. ... making it not only possible but positively respectable
Many of these expressions I translate into behavior. for millions to believe that the drivel between the
That is, indeed, what the whole book is about: trans- covers of his book is both new and good.
lation - from English into behavior. Skinners pride
Skinner loves anatomy and physiology, although, so
at citing what others have said without giving their
far as I can make out, he knows nothing about either.
names is of interest in this connection. I am not ar-
Perhaps this allows him to think tht these disci-
guing with the authors, he explains, as if references
plines can somehow explain everything. How else
served the whole purpose of identifying enemies. It
are we to account for such statements as these: The
seems to me that his not naming names is consistent
human species, like all other species, is the product of
with his general thesis that there are, and should be,
natural selection. Each of its members is an ex-
no individuals. Books without authors are simply a
tremely complex organism, a living system, the sub-
part of Skinners grand design of acts without actors -
ject of anatomy and physiology. What is this, an
his master plan for world conquest.
excerpt from a biology lecture to bright second
What about Skinners own acts, his speaking and graders? No. It is Skinners introduction to his ex-
writing? Is he not an agent and an author? Not re- planation of innate behavior. There is more, much
ally, says Skinner. In the first place, you and I may more, of this. Two more sentences should suffice:
speak and write, but not Skinner; Skinner exhibits
But what is felt or introspectively observed is
verbal behavior, he writes in a chapter titled The
not an important part of the physiology which
Causes of Behavior. Skinner thus disclaims writing
fills the temporal gap in an historical analysis.
in a language, which is asserting a falsehood, or hav-
ing a style, which is asserting a truth. Instead, he The experimental analysis of behaviour is a rig-
claims to be exhibiting a physiological behavior, orous, extensive, and rapidly advancing branch
which is reductionism of the stupidest sort. But this of biology ...
is what he espouses:
For purposes of casual discourse, I see no rea-
REDUCTION
son to avoid such an expression as I have
chosen to discuss ... (though I question the Next, we come to Skinners key concepts: operant
possibility of free choice) ... When it is import- behavior and reinforcement. A positive rein-
ant to be clear about an issue, nothing but a forcer, he explains,
technical vocabulary will suffice. It will often
strengthens any behaviour that produces it: a
seem forced or roundabout. Old ways of speak-
glass of water is positively reinforcing when we
ing are abandoned with regret, and new ones are
are thirsty, and if we then draw and drink a glass
awkward and uncomfortable, but the change
of water, we are more likely to do so again on
must be made.
similar occasions. A negative reinforcer
To what? To Skinnerese. Why? To aggrandize Skin- strengthens any behavior that reduces or termi-
ner. nates it: when we take off a shoe that is pinch-
ing, the reduction of pressure is negatively rein-
forcing, and we are more likely to do so again
IGNORANCE OF SOURCES AND OF CRITICS when a shoe pinches.
Here is another sample of how Skinner sees the world Well, I simply do not understand this, but that may be
and proposes to explain it: because I have not grasped the fine points of Skin-
ners language - excuse me, verbal behavior. Water
A small part of the universe is contained within
relieves thirst. Taking off a tight shoe relieves pain.
the skin of each of us. There is no reason why
Why call one a positive reinforcer and the other a
it should have any special physical status be-
negative reinforcer? I have no sastisfactory answer
cause it lies within this boundary and eventually
to this question. Skinner thinks he does, and I here-
we will hve a complete account of it from anat-
with quote it:
omy and physiology.
The fact that operant conditioning, like all
So what else is new? Physicalism, biologism, reduct-
physiological processes, is a product of natural
ionism, scientism - all have more eloquent spokesmen
 3

selection throws light on the question of what did not write it at all; a locus did. I do not believe
kinds of consequences are reinforcing and why. that, but Skinner evidently does:
The expressions I like Brahms, I love
A person is not an originating agent; he is a
Brahms, and Brahms pleases me, may easily
locus, a point at which many genetic and envi-
be taken to refer to feelings but they can be
ronmental conditions come together in a joint ef-
taken as statements that the music of Brahms is
fect.
reinforcing.
Skinner has an absolutely unbounded love for the idea
Well, I like Brahms, but I do not like Skinner. But do
that there are no individuals, no agents - that there are
not be misled: this is neither an expression of my ill-
only organisms, animals:
feelings toward Skinner nor an act of criticism of his
work. Ill-feelings, as Skinner himself has just ex- The scientific analysis of behavior is controlled
plained, do not exist; so I merely experience Skinner by his genetic and environmental histories rather
as negatively reinforcing. And in view of Skinners than by the person himself as an initiating, crea-
definition of a forceful act, mine is surely not a tive agent.
critical one. Depriving a person of something he
This view leads inexorably to his love affair with the
needs or wants is not a forceful act, he asserts with-
image of every human being as a controlled object,
out any qualifications. Depriving a person of prop-
with no room, or word, for either controlling others
erty or of liberty or even of air are thus not forceful
(e.g., tyranny), or for controlling oneself (e.g. self-dis-
acts. Skinner does not tell us what is a forceful act.
cipline). The feeling of freedom creates some prob-
Although force may not be Skinners forte, he feels lems for this scheme, but Skinner talks his way out of
very confident about being able to explain why it, at least to his own satisfaction. He explains that
people gamble, climb mountains, or invent things:
the important fact is not that we feel free when
All gambling systems are based on variable-ratio we have been positively reinforced, but that we
schedules of reinforcement, although their ef- do not tend to escape or counter-attack. (Italics
fects are usually attributed to feelings ... The Skinners.) Feeling free is an important hall-
same variable-ratio schedule affects those who mark of a kind of control distinguished by the
explore, prospect, invent, conduct scientific re- fact that it does not breed countercontrol.
search, and compose works of art, music, or lit-
It is in the chapter titled The Question of Control
erature ...
that Skinner explains how in the world he is desig-
The irony of it all is that Skinner keeps contrasting ning everyone will be controlled, everyone will feel
himself with Freud whom, in these respects, he re- free, and mirabile visu no one will control! As this is
sembles and imitates. Freud attributed creativity to the capstone in the triumphal arch leading to his Uto-
the repression and sublimation of all sorts of nasty pia, I will quote Skinner rather than try to paraphrase
drives from anality to homosexuality. Skinner at- what he says - for he is after all, quite unparaphras-
tributes them to schedules of reinforcement. Any- able:
thing will do, so long as it reduces the artist to the
The design of human behaviour implies, of
level of robot or rat.
course, control and possibly the question most
often asked of the behaviorists is this: Who is to
control? The question represents the age-old
EVERY HUMAN BEING A CONTROLLED
mistake of looking to the individual rather than
OBJECT
to the world in which he lives. It will not be a
As Skinner warms to his subject, he reveals more and benevolent dictator, a compassionate therapist, a
more about his willingness to do away - in his science devoted teacher, or a public-spirited industrialist
and perhaps elsewhere - with persons qua agents. In who will design a way of life in the interests of
a behavioral analysis, he writes, a person is an or- everyone. We must look instead at the condi-
ganism, a member of the human species, which has tions under which people govern, give help,
acquired a repertoire of behavior. In a word, an ani- teach, and arrange incentive systems in particu-
mal. He then continues: The person who asserts his lar ways. In other words, we must look to the
freedom by saying, I determine what I shall do next, culture as a social environment. Will a culture
is speaking of freedom in or from a current situation: evolve in which no individual will be able to ac-
the I who thus seems to have an option is the product cumulate vast power and use it for his own ag-
of history from which it is not free and which in fact grandizement in ways which are harmful to
determines what it will now do. That takes care of others? Will a culture evolve in which individ-
my personal responsibility for writing this review. I uals are not so much concerned with their own
 4

actualization and fulfillment that they do not quires and possesses ... A much more productive
give serious attention to the future of the cul- view is that verbal behavior is behavior. It has a
ture? These questions, and many others like special character only because it is reinforced by
them, are the questions to be asked rather than its effects on people ...
who will control and to what end. No one steps
Translation: Do not say language if you want to be
outside causal stream. No one really intervenes.
positively reinforced by Dr. Skinner.
No one intervenes. Everyone is an effect. Amen.
Perhaps realizing that much of what he says is an at-
tempt to replace a generally accepted metaphor with a
metaphor of his own choosing. Skinner reinterprets
THE DELIBERATE DESTRUCTION OF
metaphor as well:
LANGUAGE
In verbal behavior one kind of response evoked
But enough is enough. I wrote at the beginning of this
by a merely similar stimulus is called metaphor.
review that human beings cannot live without
meaning; that they either create or destroy meaning; He evidently prefers this to Aristotles definition, ac-
and that, in my opinion, Skinner is, or aspires to be, cording to which we use metaphor when we give
one of the great destroyers of meaning, and, hence, of something a name that rightly belongs to something
man. This is the note on which I now want to elabor- else.
ate and on which I want to end.
Finally, Skinner redefines truth itself. This defini-
Although languages, George Steiner observed in Lan- tion is so revealing of his effort and so repellent in its
guage and Silence, have great reserves of life, these effect (at least on me), that I shall end my series of
reserves are not inexhaustible: quotations with it:
... there comes a breaking point. Use a language The truth of a statement is limited by the
to conveive, organize, and justify Belsen; use it sources of the behavior of the speaker, the con-
to make out specifications for gas ovens; use it trol exerted by the current setting, the effects of
to dehumanize man during twelve years of cal- similar settings in the past, the effects upon the
culated bestiality. Something will happen to it listener leading to precision or to exaggeration
... Something of the lies and sadism will settle in or falsification, and so on.
the marrow of the language.
Honest to God, this is what Skinner says is truth. He
Others - in particular, Orwell - have suggested that does not say what is falsehood. Or what is fakery.
what has happened to the German language under the He does not have to: he displays them.
influence of nazism has happened to other modern
languages under the influence of bureaucatization,
collectivization, and technicization. Skinnerese is ac- SLAVES WITHOUT MASTERS
cordingly just one of the depersonalized, scientistic
These, then, are the reasons why I consider Skinner to
idioms of our age - a member of the family of lan-
be just another megalomaniac destroyer, or would-be
guages for loathing and liquidating man. What distin-
destroyer, of mankind - one of many from Plato to
guishes Skinnerese from its sister languages - such as
Timothy Leary. But Skinner has the distinction, in
legalese, medicalese, or psychoanalyse - is the naive
this company, of being more simple-minded than
but infectious enthusiasm of its author for world-de-
most, and hence being able to advocate a political
struction through the conscious and deliberate de-
system no one has thought of before: namely, one in
struction of language.
which all are ruled and no one rules! Plato envi-
Skinner devotes a whole chapter of About Behavior- sioned a Utopia in which people are perfectly ruled
ism to language. Aptly titled Verbal Behavior, it is by perfect philosopher-kings: here everyone was de-
devoted to the destruction of the idea of language. stroyed qua person, save for the rulers. Lenin, Stalin,
Relatively late in its history, Skinner begins, the and Hitler had their own versions of Utopia: like
human species underwent a remarkable change: its Platos, their Utopias were characterized by the de-
vocal musculature came under operant control. struction, actual or metaphorical, of large classes of
Skinner then explains why he wants to get rid of the mankind; but some individuals were still considered
word language: to be agents. Skinner has gone all of these one better.
He has constructed a world of acts without actors, of
The very difference between language and
conditioning without conditioners, of slaves without
verbal behaviour is an example of a word re-
masters, of politics without politicians, of the good
quiring mentalistic explanation. Language has
life without ethics, of man without language. It is an
the character of a thing, something a person ac-
achievement worthy of a Harvard professor.