My understanding of Skinner is that he believed that behavior was/is _entirely_ determined by environment, that behavior is aimed at avoiding negative consequenses and attaining positive feedback. Or in his terms, behavior responds to reinforcements (the mouse learns to press the button which gives it a food pellet, and learns not to push the button which gives it a shock, etc.).
While people are certainly susceptible to social pressures, Skinner takes this notion _WAY_ too far. There are a multitude of examples which this theory is virtually incapable of explaining. To take just one example, black slaves who tried escape the South to the North certainly received "negative reinforcement" when they were caught, usually in the form of beatings/whippings/mutilation. Pretty strong stuff, on the "reinforcement scale." But there are plenty of examples of slaves attempting to escape multiple times, or of freed slaves risking their skins to help others escape, etc. Its not too hard to think up plenty of other examples.
Furthermore, Max is correct when he states that this "culture" which Skinner refers to could just as easily be a brutal dictatorship as a democracy, there being little if anything to distinguish between the two options, or to make one preferable to the other. In order to do so, you need to invoke some sort of belief in intrinsic human qualities (needs, desires, etc.), which are more compatible with one sort of social arrangement and at odds with another. For instance, if you believe people have a natural desire to participate in decisions which impact their lives, then you would prefer a democratic state to an authoritarian system. But these innate human characteristics are precisely what Skinner rejects when he claims behavior is bases _solely_ upon the rewards and punishments provided by the surrounding environment.
Brett