“Behavioral analysis excels at experimental procedures, but it has not properly defined the object of inquiry in my opinion.”
- Noam Chomsky
Mr. Skinner has a bug up his ass.
The bug is called “mentalism“.
Everywhere he turns, he sees the Spectre of mentalism haunting humankind. In academic research and ordinary daily language, in linguistics and sociology, in psychology and physics, in politics and sports… from the earliest glimmerings of the dawn of civilization up to today. He tries in vain to exorcise the ghost, to no avail. In reading his works, one gets the distinct impression that one is witnessing a demented Don Quijote tilting frantically at imaginary windmills.
Skinner argues his position in the manner of a Christian fundamentalist. His strategy to consists in attacking any and all alternative perspectives as superstitious and unfounded… but doesn’t really construct any convincing argument why one may think so.
His main antagonist in this book is what he calls “mentalism”, which basically means the entirety of the long history of philosophy of mind from the ancient Greeks until today.
His reasoning can be summarized as follows: “We cannot see a mind, we cannot weigh it in the lab or measure it in a jar… therefore it doesn’t exist. It’s a fiction. All we can see is behavior, so we need to construct a theory that explains behavior without any reference whatsoever to emotion, instincts, the genetic endowment, mental processes or anything of the kind.”
The solution he comes upon is that human beings are basically machines acted upon by their environment, programmed to respond to stimuli in this or that way. It seems like he is drawing an analogy between the development of behavior in individuals and biological evolution through natural selection.
Natural selection acts upon a species to bring about a physical outcome. The environment acts upon the individual to bring about a range of behaviors, until eventually, there’s only a single behavior that is possible given any particular situation.
For example, when a baby is “hungry” (sorry, I mean “reinforced to eat”), we all know that it does not open its mouth and suck on his mother’s breast… not the first time anyway. What a baby does is try a whole range of different behaviors. It bangs its head against the wall, it flaps its arms like a bird, it poops, it wiggles his toes… until eventually his mom puts the baby to her breast, at which point it rolls it eyes, it licks the nipple, it pees, and finally, after trying all kinds of alternatives, it sucks on the nipple and gets milk and is no longer… well, not “hungry“ (because there is no such thing as feeling hunger, because you cannot weigh “hunger” or dissect it in a lab)… OK how about this. The baby is reinforced to eat again because of all the alternative it tried eating is the only thing that, um, reinforced it eating behavior?
You can see how nonsensical this argument can become once you take it to its logical conclusion. Makes you wonder if Skinner ever met a human being in his life.
In his monumental work “The Myth of the Machine”, Lewis Mumford argued that the 17th century ushered in a mechanistic worldview, heavily influenced by Newtonian physics, which prioritized quantifiable, empirical evidence. This perspective reduced nature, society, and even human thought to deterministic, machine-like processes. Experiences, values, and phenomena that could not be measured or explained through physical laws were dismissed as irrelevant or unscientific. Mumford critiqued this shift, warning that it dehumanized society, suppressing creativity, morality, and the richness of subjective experience in favor of control and efficiency.
This seems to me to be exactly what BF Skinner is doing.
Ironically, for all his condescending denunciations of the dualism in “mentalism”, his own argument rests on a foundation of mind-body dualism. Chomsky points out an inconsistency in the behaviorist framework. Behaviorists readily accept that physical processes (e.g., the development of organs like the eye or the onset of puberty) are genetically programmed. However, when it comes to the mind and its functions, behaviorists reject the idea of inherent structures or predispositions. Instead, they argue that all mental capacities are entirely shaped by environmental input. Chomsky sees this as an ironic form of dualism because it treats the mind as fundamentally different from the rest of the body.
But all of this is more or less irrelevant, because I do not think BF Skinner is really interested in understanding behavior, so much as he is in controlling it.
Chomsky has been outspoken about his belief that behaviorism, and particularly the work of figures like B.F. Skinner, has been embraced by elites and institutions of power because it aligns with their desire to develop tools for social manipulation and control. In his critiques, Chomsky connects the principles of behaviorism to broader political and ideological structures, arguing that its reductionist approach to human behavior serves to justify systems of authority and manipulation.