The greasy pole becomes ever more greasy

Two intellectual movements in Western culture have greatly increased the individual’s sensitivity to controlling variables by reinforcing behavior descriptive of such variables and punishing its absence. One of these is the literary movement of self-analysis culminating in the writings of Marcel Proust, as a result of which the reader is led to search for the causes of passing moods, capricious memories, or fragmentary verbal behavior…

The other cultural movement is, of course, psychoanalysis. Freud’s interpretation of revealing slips and other anomalous behavior of everyday life has forced the speaker to react more sensitively to the variables which may be inferred from his behavior and, as we saw in the last chapter, to reject responses which reveal objectionable variables.

B. F. Skinner - Verbal Behavior (1957)


Anyone may disagree with Skinner’s choice of Proust and Freud, but the intellectual movements he identified seem to be real. We have become highly attuned to our passing moods, capricious memories, or fragmentary verbal behavior. We were always sensitive to what our own behaviour reveals to others, but Freud seems to have attuned us to that too. Obsessively attuned in some cases. Not at all attuned in others.

What we identify in ourselves varies wildly of course, but it is reasonable to assume that this movement is far from complete. We see it whenever a public arena is dominated by those who are clearly insensitive to their own behaviour and what it reveals. Some just don’t care of course.

The reputations of major actors on the public stage have become increasingly threadbare as the intellectual movement Skinner identified gains impetus via modern technology. Almost as if modern communication autonomously sifts and identifies public behaviour as inadequate, dishonest, corrupt or simply stupid.

We are all human, shallow and understandable. How does traditional leadership survive that? The answer may be that it cannot survive it.

For example, those paying attention probably realise that Boris Johnson has little to offer beyond Brexit. Keir Starmer has even less and other political leaders nothing at all. Where does that leave us? Possibly in a situation where traditional democratic leadership is becoming impossible, where we are becoming too sensitive to the shallow and understandable nature of human behaviour. As yet there are few good alternatives though.

Does it matter whether Boris survives a no confidence vote? Inspiring confidence is the problem. While the nature of leadership appears to be changing, we are stuck with traditional climbers of the greasy pole. They cannot inspire confidence. Skinner’s two movements may have changed things forever.