Dependence on things is not independence. The child who does not need to be told that it is time to go to school has come under the control of more subtle, and more useful, stimuli. The child who has learned what to say and how to behave in getting along with other people is under the control of social contingencies. People who get along together well under the mild contingencies of approval and disapproval are controlled as effectively as (and in many ways more effectively than) the citizens of a police state. Orthodoxy controls through the establishment of rules, but the mystic is no freer because the contingencies which have shaped his behavior are more personal or idiosyncratic. Those who work productively because of the reinforcing value of what they produce are under the sensitive and powerful control of the products. Those who learn in the natural environment are under a form of control as powerful as any control exerted by a teacher.
A person never becomes truly self-reliant. Even though he deals effectively with things, he is necessarily dependent upon those who have taught him to do so. They have selected the things he is dependent upon and determined the kinds and degrees of dependencies. (They cannot, therefore, disclaim responsibility for the results.)
-B. F. Skinner, Beyond Dignity and Freedom
If someone were to be aware of these dependencies and could choose to either embrace or reject them as she saw fit, could that person then be said to be truly self-reliant? Or does that ability to choose imply some sort of meta dependency that has been taught?
Is there a possibility of self-reliance at all or is Skinner merely saying that we are never ‘truly’ self-reliant in that we are never free of our influences?
