The concept of a locus of control is a valuable one when it comes to thinking about the psychology of health, politics, religion and so on. The brainchild of the fantastically named Julian B Rotter, the theory describes loci of control as either being internal, signifying that one believes one's actions and circumstances are generally under one's own control, or external, and beyond one's control. Rotter's I-E scale is one way of measuring one's belief in the internal or external nature of one's locus of control - not the best one, admittedly, as it conflates a number of concepts, so is better described as a measure of one's assessment of societal loci of control.
There is a certain amount of evidence that having an internal locus of control is associated with a more "healthy" psychological state (whatever that means), and in particular with better outcomes in certain areas, such as smoking cessation and academic performance.
On an esoteric level, it is clear that the practice of ceremonial magick relies upon a conception of one's locus of control being internal - leaving aside, for the moment, discussions about the nature of ego-death and the interminable question of spirit guides, augoeides, Holy Guardian Angels and the like. The magician positions themselves as the fulcrum of the universe, and then acts by applying force through whatever method they choose. On this level, one might consider an internalised locus of control as being a factor in the Law of Attraction.
It is perhaps interesting to note the tendency that certain worldviews have on conceptualizing the general locus of control as being external. Indeed, the greater part of the philosophy and science of the historical-conceptual era that in Thelemic jargon is referred to as the "Aeon of Osiris" does exactly this. Consider how the ultimate formulation of Christianity and of materialistic science completely abolish the possibility of an internal locus of control - through the creation of an omnipotent God beyond all human understanding and morality, that punishes and redeems on His whim alone as in Calvinism; or through the models of biological determinism which reduce the human condition to nothing more than the interaction of neurotransmitters. Both are inimical to free will; both tend towards the creation of a kind of learned helplessness as an ultimate outcome.
 |
| "Oh, and we should have nuked the middle east into a desolate wasteland as a response to 9/11... because science." - Satoshi Kanazawa, alleged scientist |
This is never applied evenly throughout society - indeed, one might see many social structures as dividing and classifying individuals into whether or not they are permitted to have an internal locus of control. All systems of oppression could be seen as taking their roots, or at least their justifications, from this fact. Consider the way in which the oft-dubious discipline of evolutionary psychology is practically a byword for misogyny and rape apologia (CW: misogyny and rape apologia, obviously), or the "scientific" racism that produced drapetomania and which still tiptoes around the fringes of scientific respectability - the theme that can be seen as running between all these examples is that people within oppressed groups are seen as not having the same intellectual or social capacity for having an internal locus of control as those of the dominant groups.
It has been noted that there is something of a political divide in the loci of control - those with more typically right-wing views tends to have a more internal locus of control, where as left-wingers tend towards a more external one - though this is by no means a simple relationship. It may be better to think of the difference between personal loci of control ("I am free to act" vs "I am controlled by outside forces") and societal loci of control ("people should be free to act" vs "people should be controlled by outside forces") - in such areas there is often a great degree of doublethink.
Authoritarians of all stripes seek to impose a paradigm upon society whereby the societal locus of control is externalised, whilst social liberals and anti-authoritarians tend towards a more internalised societal locus of control. Equally, self-styled Libertarians tend towards externalising the societal locus of control in much the same way that authoritarians do - creating the paradigm of Market-as-God - whilst at the same time preaching the doctrine of personal internalisation. Consider as an example of this the politician who promotes entrepreneurship and personal responsibility (personal internalisation) whilst implementing policies which lead to a decrease in social mobility and personal economic freedom of the masses (societal externalisation).
Even within the progressive left, which arguably sees as an end goal the internalisation of control, there can be seen some remnants of the externalist viewpoint - mostly as a Shibboleth whereby attempting to advocate for the internalisation of personal loci is seen as elitism and privilege. Indeed, this can often be the case - the well-meaning ally coming up with some preposterous rubbish about self-empowerment that entirely misunderstands the situation is practically a trope. However, this does also possibly point towards one of the reasons that such movements often struggle with significant inertia - the very idea that one might be able to change one's situation is somewhat taboo, and thus a sort of resigned apathy is the inevitable result.
It seems to me that there is a certain amount of reconciliation that needs to be made between the two positions of internal and external loci of control, recognising the external factors which influence one and simultaneously acknowledging one's capacity for action. As for societal loci, I shall end by quoting without comment Aleister Crowley (or Aiwass, or Whatever):
"Do as thou wilt shall be all of the Law." - Liber AL vel Legis, I:40
"Love is the Law, Love under Will." - Liber AL vel Legis, I:57
No comments:
Post a Comment