"The Secret," Wealth, & Success verses Progressives and "The Left"

   The criticism has come from two sources: 1) those who reject the claim that simply thinking & visualizing positive outcomes will automatically lead to those outcomes and 2) those who see a strong "blame the victim" mentality.

   While the first criticism is valid, i.e., that positive thinking & visualizing alone will automatically bring positive outcomes, the second criticism both brings up a good point while completely missing the point: it acknowledges the existence of factors and circumstances that would victimize just about anyone (e.g., civil war, government financed murder hit squads, e.g.,  Janjaweed). However, it generally fails to identify the source of these factors: a lack of liberty and political freedom.

   In a country without the civil mechanisms for the protection of property rights and civil liberties, one's life is going to be made immeasurably harder independent of one's level of optimism. This isn't to say that positive thinking and optimism will not be powerful allies in helping one manage if not outright survive one's horrific situation -- they most certainly will. However, a lack of positive thinking is not the reason why people's lives are difficult under these conditions -- the problem is a State that is inimical to wealth and personal freedom.

   (To be fair, the producers and writers of The Secret, by not explicitly clarifying the conditions under which the principles they espouse can or cannot operate, have unintentionally invited these charges).

Does "The Secret" espouse principles that are inconsistent with Progressive, Liberal Values?

What's interesting is that the strongest criticism seems to come from the progressive left.

For example, Barbara Ehrenreich (author of Bait and Switch: The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream and the influential Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America) starts out with the valid criticism above (see: Barbara's Blog post The Secret of Mass Delusion):

Here’s The Secret, in case you missed it: You can have anything you want simply by visualizing it intensely enough. I don’t have to write this blog, I can simply visualize it already written.

But that's just the warm-up: After that Ms. Ehrenreich gets personal -- starting with this weird out-of-the-blue racial innuendo:

To be fair to Byrne, she does not suggest avoiding nonwhite people; in fact one of the teachers of “the secret” she cites is the African-American motivational speaker Lisa Nichols. The Delta Zeta leaders probably just thought: Why take a chance?

and then this swipe:

Can you really get anything you want through some mysterious “Law of Attraction”? It may not be as easy as it seems. Take the case of Esther Hicks, spirit-channeler, motivational speaker, and co-author of a book entitled The Law of Attraction. Byrne had told Hicks she would have a starring role in the DVD of The Secret, but her face was never shown in the film’s first cut . . . Possibly Hicks was just too fat for the film, or at least too dowdy. It’s hard to judge her weight from a photo in the New York Times, which shows Hicks seated – eyes closed in channeling mode – inside her $1.4 million bus . . .

and then ending with this insult to anyone who would seriously pay attention to the ideas behind the “Law of Attraction:”

The scary thing is that the subscribers to the Law aren’t just a bunch of wistful, isolated, misfits . . .

Catherine Bennett (journalist for the Guardian) also displays unveiled contempt for The Secret and the ideas behind the “Law of Attraction:”

Only an idiot could take The Secret seriously.

And what's one reason why people inspired by The Secret are a bunch of idiots?

The Secret is [ . . . ] a moronic hymn to greed and selfishness . . . [The Secret is a] creed so transparently ugly and stupid that it seems impossible that anyone could take it seriously. Who could really believe that "your thoughts become the things in your life?" (Catherine Bennett, Only an idiot could take The Secret seriously. Yet Cameron seems to be following its tips to the letter, The Guardian, Thursday April 26, 2007)

Courtney E. Martin gives at least a more balanced view:

I have no qualms with the power of positive thinking. There is sound research that confirms that envisioning yourself succeeding has a real impact on your performance, sports being the most prescient example.

But she has a problem with what some people are trying to achieve with positive thinking, i.e., money and wealth:

They are also articulating a dangerous message about conspicuous consumption and distracting people from crippling systemic problems. (Courtney E. Martin, Oprah's 'Secret' Could Be Your Downfall, www.alternet.org)

As stated at the start of this post, Ehrenreich, Bennett, Martin and others make some very valid criticisms of The Secret, e.g., "It doesn't matter if you are born in the Sudan or San Francisco, according to The Secret's catch-all claim; you can always fantasize your way into 'massive wealth' (Courtney E. Martin, www.alternet.org).

However, one gets the sense that something more is at stake, something that strikes at the heart of Liberal, Leftist, and Progressive ideology.

One of the main missions of this blog will be to help foster a discussion about what sort of internal and external circumstances are required for self-actualization. It will try to answer the question: Is "The Left" justified in ridiculing The Secret?

Much has been written about the internal / personality/character / habitual factors that influence success. However, at least so far, there's been little discussion -- little acknowledgment even -- of the external political, cultural, and social factors that make it possible  [for] every human being [..] to transform any weakness or suffering into strength, power, perfect peace, health, and abundance (quoting from The Secret's web site).

In short, this blog will be a cross between the type of principles and "laws" espoused by the teachers and coaches of The Secret and the principles of economic and political liberty and freedom.

The basic thesis (or bias, if you will) of this blog is that there are fundamentally two choices a person can make:

  playing it safe or taking a risk to follow one's dreams.

  . . . but for individuals to even make such a choice at all, they need to live in conditions of political and economic freedom and stability.

Shout !t Out! Tell us what You Th!nk!

Shout !t Out! Results: