In short, negative thinking is the explanation for why you are unemployed. As a consequence, you must never, ever engage in any negativity at all. You must never complain, you must never talk about structural phenomena, you must never, ever say anything that indicates that you might not be successful. (And the same demand is placed on people, to connect this to the topic, by never, ever looking at the larger issues that explain 'loserhood.')
If what they are ultimately telling people is that the cause for unemployment is actually one's attitude, then naturally the solution is to change your attitude or engage in "magical thinking." The few book reviews and articles on BE's latest have focused on this "magical thinking" that goes on in the transition industry, but as I argue in my paper, it's part of a larger social structural phenom. in which we all participate.
Here's the issue: One of the things that exacerbates the problems for these people is that well-meaning counselors, friends, and family reproduce the tendency to self-blame by offering individualistic solutions and advice.
I.e., when someone says you can feed yourself on food stamps b/c it's not enough money, to respond with tips on how to stretch your budget is, in spite of the well-meaning intentions and concern, actually a way of making the person who's pointing out the problem feel inadequate. IOW, it's saying to that person, "Don't be a bozo. If you only knew how to pinch a penny, then you'd be able to survive on food stamps."
So, if we take this research seriously what do we do. If what you learn from this research is that the advice you dole out is, ultimately, reinscribing the entire system, what's the alternative?
I haven't read BE's book, so I don't know what's she said about it. In my own paper, I didn't offer any answers, though I did offer a series of criticisms at the end directed toward the town conference we held around the issues raised in this research paper and others.
This is a snippet from my research on the topic:
RE-PACKAGING THE SELF
Linda Simmons, the president of Transitions, Inc., is very conscientious about conveying the structural reasons for downsizing and managerial unemployment. She coaches managers about these explanations in both private sessions and group meetings. She encourages clients to read from Transition, Inc.'s library of books and articles, many of which delineate structural analyses of economic change. She does so because she believes that her clients will successfully negotiate the transition if they fully understand the magnitude of the changes in the workplace. <...>
Confronted simultaneously with structural theories that offer absolution and individualistic solutions that reinscribe self-blame, managers often experience feelings of anger, despair, beleaguerment, and defeat. An important focus for counselors is to teach clients how to psychologically manage those feelings. To this end, the constant message is that managers must be vigilant about the image they present to others. They must find ways to creatively expel their anger and despair in order to cultivate a confidant, upbeat image of sure-footed success.
One important forum in which this occurs is the Monday Network, a weekly support group sponsored by Transitions, Inc. Linda serves as moderator, calling on participants to discuss the status of their job search and to "share problems or concerns" with the other members of the group. Participants listen to one another, offer advice, and share job leads and networking contacts. Perhaps most importantly, the support group serves as a venue in which clients learn they are not the only casualties of downsizing. As Shawn explained: "Going to the Monday morning quarterback sessions is great. It reminds me that other quality people are in the same boat. Knowing that helps keep me sane through all this."
During the Monday Network, Linda encourages clients to portray themselves as self-assured and relaxed. She does not allow clients the opportunity to dwell on or complain about their plight, even though they are invited to "share problems and concerns." She actively discourages anyone who criticizes the demise of job security or questions the new rules of work--rules which she and her staff firmly insist are the "way of the future." Linda and the other counselors make it clear that clients should find other, less public outlets for "negative" emotions. The counselors continually remind clients that bemoaning the loss of job security does them absolutely no good. Job security promotes "mediocrity" and "is no longer viable." Counselors also encourage clients to "let go of their anger" toward their former employers, as well as toward the injustices of the structural economic changes that are beyond their control. If they do not, she insists, they will be viewed negatively by prospective employers:
"You will appear to be unable to move on with your life. This is a signal to a potential employer that you are a bad employment risk. In fact, many employers believe that when a manager is angry about downsizing, it's a sign that the potential employee is not a team player and not suited for today's corporate culture."
Re-packaging the self, then, requires a constant monitoring of one's self and one's emotions. While clients may feel angry, depressed, or desperate, they must continually suppress these feelings and replace them with a self-confident demeanor and present an image of success. <...>
Clients at Transitions experience a contradiction. On the one hand, they learn that the demise of the old social contract is a structural phenomenon -- the result of increased global competition, technology, and new management paradigms. They are continually exposed to this message at the agency and more generally through the popular media and business press. It is clear they understand these structural explanations for they are quite capable of articulating them in both private interviews and in group discussions with other clients.
On the other hand, counselors at Transitions also advocates strategies for "managing the transition" by emphasizing the importance of individual transformation. They learn, for example, that job security is an attribute of the individual, a property which emerges from relentless self-development. They learn that success in the job market requires that they relinquish their belief in the reciprocity between loyalty and job security. And, they learn that they must suppress dissatisfaction with the new rules of work if they wish to successfully land a job.
Culture Lab | Pulp Culture Collective http://www.pulpculture.org