External locus of control vs. internal locus of control
The Locus of Control concept was originally formulated by Julian Rotter (1966). This concept regarding human viewpoints begins with the proposal that some people favor an internal locus of control, while others favor an external locus. For those with an internal perspective, an assumption is made that they have considerable influence over their fate and impact in the world. These men and women believe they are “captains of their ship.” Therefore, they are accountable for the outcomes of their labor. By contrast, those with an external perspective believe that powerful forces operating outside of themselves determine their behavior and labor outcomes. They do not feel accountable for their behavior. Instead, they point to conditions out in the world as the primary determinants of any negative impact. As Flip Wilson, the comedian, proclaimed: “The devil made me do it!”
External forces often control many members of our society. They are required to work to generate income for themselves and/or their family. Other people determine the nature and duration of their work. They are subject to abuse that they can’t readily address themselves. It is quite understandable that these people might feel helpless and experience hopelessness (often leading to depression and sometimes even to suicide).
Push is often prevalent. They are pushed into their behavior—maybe not by the Devil but certainly by forces that can be just as malevolent as the Devil. They might escape from one controlled reality only to find a new reality that requires their accommodation. Many years ago, Lillian Rubin (1992) wrote about their stumbling through multiple repressive settings in her book appropriately called Worlds of Pain. She focused on the difficult, externally controlling setting of working-class residents of Oakland, California. At about the same time, Richard Sennett and Jonathan Cobb (1993) wrote about the hidden injuries of class. It is hard to feel “worthy” or to avoid psychological (and often physical) injury that comes with the absence of any control over your life.
The full story of control for the working class is not quite this simple. Ultimately, they have considerable control over their labor and life. Those in Oakland’s working class often came to this California community searching for a job. They may have found work on the docks of Oakland, where one finds many stacks of shipping containers. Some level of Pull is to be found in their life stories. The Push of economic necessity compelled their decisions.
However, these working-class citizens of Oakland (and those featured in Sennett and Cobb’s book on social class) were ultimately responsible for their working and living conditions. Their often-occurring alcoholism and spousal abuse were under their control. Unlike the slaves throughout history, who were captured and placed in bondage, those in America’s working class are ultimately free—unless there have been threats by employers leading to the loss of freedom on the part of these men and women.
The decisions made by many other workers during the modern era and today during the postmodern era are equally as complex. It is not just a matter of internal vs. external locus of control. Assuming an internal locus of control, some workers feel they are free to frame their work experiences as either positive or negative. As Stephanie Land (2019) notes in Maid (her best-selling book and television series), her happiness might be just as great as the happiness of the people for whom she is working.
It is possible to be just as happy doing the hard work as a maid as doing the stressful work of those who are paying for the maid service (Land, 2019, p. 141):
“Most of my clients had these things—the things I yearned for in those dark nights sitting up along—and they did not seem to enjoy life any more than I did. Most worked long hours, away from the homes they fought so hard to pay for, with even father commutes than mine.”
