Bandura explains how these external forces influence us and our agency: “Personal agency operates within a network of sociostructural influences. In these agentic transactions, people are producers as well as products of social systems.” He adds that while some psychologists in the past have viewed behavior as being automatically controlled by the environment, a more accurate view combines environmental influence, and “agentic action” in one’s environment. This seems more in line with the gospel.

Our environments (and the choices of people around us) make certain values, abilities, or even personal choices more or less likely. For example, I am currently training in a method of family therapy with adolescent and adult offenders (usually at least one family member is on probation) and their families. One of our first major goals with a family is to reduce blame by creating a “family focus” on the problem, rather than assigning blame to individual members (which they’re all SO good at). The relational patterns of interaction in the family make certain behaviors (e.g. punching the principal, or trafficking cocaine) more likely to occur. (As an aside–the therapy works. About half of these adolescents have a huge drop in recidivism. Those who do re-offend usually commit less crimes, which are less severe.)

I have talked many people who seem to use the concept of agency as a way to write other people off. “Well, that kid may have had a hard life, but he is responsible for his actions.” Well, kind of. Yes, we are responsible for our actions, but when we evaluate ourselves and (hopefully not too much) others, we need to be mindful of myriad other factors that are involved.

The “True to the Faith” booklet says: “You are responsible for the decisions you make. You should not blame your circumstances, your family, or your friends if you choose to disobey God’s commandments. You have the ability to choose righteousness and happiness, regardless of your circumstances.” I completely agree – blaming others is not useful. At the same time, I have seen people use this doctrine of not blaming others as a way to blame others. For example, one spouse said about the other (I’m paraphrasing here), “she CHOOSES to be upset and angry and to be afraid and to withdraw from me, so there’s nothing I can do about it.” Of course, she chooses, but he did not realize the powerful influence he was having on her that would make it more likely that she would feel these negative emotions. In other words, when we dismiss others due to their poor choices, we often are blaming them.

Let us not blame others for our actions, and let us not blame others 100% for their actions either. We don’t know what forces have influenced their lives. Many of us also need to stop blaming ourselves for what happens in our lives. In therapy, this is often just as big of a problem as always blaming others.

So, to what extent are we accountable?

“That every many may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.” – D&C 101

I think our “own sins” refers to our individual agency. We will NOT be accountable for the choices our neighbors, friends, parents, family, or community make. Those choices still affect our agency a great deal though. Bandura refers to the choices of others that have control over our lives as “proxy” agency. Some things that come to mind here are the choices of Adam and Eve, baptism for the dead (by proxy), and choices of our parents, spouses, or even church leaders in some cases. We rely on many people to make things happen for us. We are also responsible to make things happen for others. The Atonement is the best example of proxy agency. We cannot overcome the effects of sin and death. We are not agents in this sense. We have to rely on the agency of a Savior.

The other form is “collective” agency. We rely on the community at large to make certain things happen. For example, I do not have the agency to make my graduation happen all by myself. I am only responsible (read: agentic) for what I have control over. I have to try to get others (e.g. advisors, administrators, etc.) to use their agency in my behalf. The church (or even a ward) as a whole is another example of how collective agency is used. What we achieve as a church is “the product not only of the shared intentions, knowledge, and skills” of the members, “but also of the interactive, coordinated, and synergistic dynamics” of our interactions.

Another observation I had on this topic was that I think many of us give up our agency by shunning responsibility. I have seen some people put everything on God in terms of big choices in their lives, while not using their own intellect in the process. In a sense, by ascribing things 100% to God, one is in a sense blaming (read: attributing responsibility) God for what happens, whether good or bad. I think following leaders blindly without thought and prayer is another way we give up our agency. We have a mind and a heart, and God wants us to use both of them. Don’t confuse trusting God with putting the responsibility on him. Perhaps we do this because it is easier or more comfortable to surrender our responsibility.

In sum, we don’t have the ability to choose anything, in every situation. Often we must rely on others to exercise their agency in our behalf. That is why the choices we make that affect others are SO important. If one should get married, and when. Deciding if and when to have children. How we parent our children. If and how we help the poor and the needy. Whether or not we indulge in whatever our favorite sin may be.

May we have the courage to be accurate in taking responsibility for our choices, and understanding of others who may not have been dealt the same cards in life that we have.

Reference: Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.

If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits. – Bernays

This post begins with the nephew of Freud, a psychoanalyst named Edward Bernays. He is a man that should be known amongst every citizen of the corporate world we live in. Bernays is credited as being the father of modern propaganda. However, since the Germans used the term propaganda Bernays decided that the term “public relations” should be used instead to describe the “engineering of consent” that he and other very powerful people in the establishment would use to control the minds of the masses. In his book Propaganda it reads,

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.”

One of Bernays’ early clients was the tobacco industry where in 1929 he orchestrated a legendary publicity stunt aimed at persuading women to take up ciagrette smoking, because at the time it was unfashionable for women to smoke and was considered unfeminine. The tobacco industry wanted to open up a whole new market. Bernays organized a “women’s rights” march in the New York City Parade where young debutants would light up their “torches of freedom” (in reference to Lady Liberty)

His psychoanalyst colleague A.A. Brill gave him advice about this stunt:

Some women regard cigarettes as symbols of freedom…It is perfectly normal for women to want to smoke cigarettes. Further the first women who smoked probably had an excess of male components and adopted the habit as a masculine act. But today the emancipation of women has suppressed many feminine desires. More women now do the same work as men do…. Cigarettes, which are equated with men, become torches of freedom.

He was successful and it was this very campaign that broke the taboo of women smoking in society and Bernays was paid very well for his services. Not only did it introduce a new gender to the health hazards of smoking, a practice that was in opposition to God’s will and what God was advicing against according to the Doctrine and Covenants many years prior, but Bernays emblazoned into our psyche that a woman that smoked is more emancipated than one who doesn’t. Don’t get me wrong, women’s rights are essential…but by smoking, the women at the time were not emancipating themselves at all. In fact they were no longer subordinating themselves to their husbands and families but were on an imprisoning pathway to addiction and rampant consumerism.

Bernays is also coined as being the propagandist who developed the theory of “mass consumer persuasion”. He has linked our psyche with the idea of “shopping therapy”, that gaining material possessions not only makes us feel good about ourselves but make us feel more “free”. He even had a part in the development of the ladies magazine Cosmopolitan as a way of developing a consumerist culture amongst women in the United States which would entice these women to consume with careful advertising and celebrity endorsements. He helped to develop a consumerist culture that would reinforce the false democracy that he believed in, a democracy where people would be satiated with material wealth and thus take a subordinate role to those who gave them those goods… “their masters.”

Paul Mazer of Lehman Brothers,a man who employed Bernays said:

“We must shift America from a needs to a desires culture. People must be trained to desire. People must want new things before the old have been entirely consumed. We must shape a new mentality in America. Man’s desires must overshadow his needs.”

Our liberties and democracy have been warped into an iatrogenic palliative, a remedy that has ultimately made us sick.

Gordon B. Hinckley has said, “”It is the love of money and the love of those things which money can buy which destroys us. The love of [money] . . . warps our values . . . and fosters selfishness and greed.”

When looking at the logos of companies above I think it is fitting to ask yourself, “Where have their products come from and what are the conditions in which the people have worked to make the products I consume? What extrenalities are the corporations putting upon us and the environment?”

I think you will find, as I have, that I feel guilty every time I buy something I don’t need, but want, that comes from a corporation that I know has been involved with human rights abuses, sweatshop labour, destruction of the environment etc.

If Gordon B. Hinckley is right, then buying products from companies that abuse human rights shows that we love money and the things that money can buy more then we love our fellowmen.

Thomas S. Monson has adviced us… “We must learn to separate need from greed.”