When Sheryl Lee Ralph accepted her Emmy Award for portraying Barbara Howard on Abbott Elementary, she concluded her speech with a declaration that reverberated through the audience: “People don’t have to like you. People don’t have to love you. They don’t even have to respect you. But when you look in the mirror, you better love what you see.” The crowd erupted. The moment became iconic, a celebration of self-worth as something independent of external validation, a triumph of inner strength over outside judgment.
Yet for anyone familiar with Barbara Howard’s character, the irony cuts deep. Barbara is a veteran teacher at Abbott Elementary, an underfunded Philadelphia public school where broken copiers, missing supplies, and district neglect are daily realities. She has spent decades navigating a system designed to fail her students, and beneath her pragmatic exterior lies something quieter and more troubling: resignation. Barbara has stopped fighting the school district not because she agrees with their priorities, but because experience has taught her that resistance only leads to disappointment. She has learned, through years of institutional conditioning, that her school belongs at the bottom. Not out of choice, but out of survival.
Ralph’s words echo Eleanor Roosevelt’s famous assertion: “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” It’s an appealing sentiment, one that places the locus of control firmly within the individual. But both statements share a dangerous oversimplification: they assume that everyone possesses equal psychological capacity to resist self-deprecation when disparaging messages are woven into the very fabric of society. In reality, consent is not merely non-consensual. It’s pre-consensual. Internalized inferiority can hijack the mind unconsciously through structural facets of society, often before its intrusion is recognized, much less resisted.
This essay uses Abbott Elementary as a conceptual anchor to explore three mechanisms through which societal institutions unconsciously condition feelings of inferiority: narrative repetition in media and popular culture, institutional expectations in schools and workplaces, and systemic absorption of blame through political and economic structures. After establishing how these mechanisms operate pre-consensually, the essay will demonstrate how resources such as critical consciousness, self-efficacy, and collective identity can help individuals retroactively reclaim agency and resist internalized inferiority. Not by denying the power of these systems, but by recognizing them.
Narrative Repetition: When Stories Become Self-Perception
The first mechanism through which society pre-consensually conditions inferiority operates through narrative repetition: the relentless echo of certain stories, images, and messages until they calcify into perceived truth. Abbott Elementary examines this dynamic when the school’s faculty and students find themselves unable to escape a manipulative advertisement from Legendary Charter Schools. The commercial claims that “traditional public schools are failing” and that “it’s impossible for students to succeed” in these environments. The framing is deliberate: public education is portrayed through a lens of neglect, dysfunction, and inevitable failure.
The response is immediate and damaging. Parents begin transferring their children out. Teachers leave to accept positions with the charter school. Those who remain observe the exodus and internalize its implicit message: everyone else is leaving, so Abbott must truly be inferior. This reflects two psychological principles operating in tandem. First, the illusory truth effect demonstrates that repeated exposure to a claim increases its perceived validity, regardless of actual accuracy (Hasher et al., 1977). The commercial doesn’t need to prove Abbott is failing; it only needs to repeat the assertion until it feels true. Second, social proof (the tendency to adopt beliefs and behaviors based on what others are doing) compounds the effect (Cialdini, 2001). When colleagues and families abandon the school en masse, their behavior becomes evidence validating the narrative.
This is not informed consent to inferiority. This is psychological conditioning disguised as individual choice. The teachers and parents who leave aren’t making decisions in a vacuum; they’re responding to engineered perceptions that exploit fundamental aspects of human cognition. Inferiority doesn’t ask for permission. It infiltrates through repetition until resistance feels irrational.
The same pattern plays out beyond television. A striking real-world parallel emerged in Fiji during the late 1990s. Prior to 1995, Western television was virtually absent from the island, and Fijian cultural standards had historically celebrated larger body types. Weight insecurity was rare. Then American soap operas arrived. Within three years of regular exposure to Western media, 74 percent of adolescent Fijian girls reported feeling “too fat,” and 29.2 percent admitted to inducing vomiting for weight control (Becker et al., 2002).
The shift cannot be explained by conscious choice. These girls did not decide to reject centuries of cultural tradition in favor of three years of imported entertainment. Rather, the mere exposure effect (the psychological tendency to develop preferences for what is familiar) gradually reshaped their self-perception (Zajonc, 1968). When none of the people glorified on screen share your body type, when beauty and happiness and success are consistently embodied by people who look nothing like you, the logical inference becomes that the problem lies within yourself. Internalized inferiority emerges not from explicit messaging, but from the implicit observation that perfection looks different from you. That type of subconscious conditioning bypasses conscious consent entirely.
Contemporary adolescents face an even more insidious version of narrative repetition through social media algorithms. Digital platforms don’t merely reflect cultural values. They actively amplify certain appearances, lifestyles, and behaviors while rendering others invisible (Livingstone, 2021). Feedback loops reward conformity to unspoken norms and punish deviation. This mirrors operant conditioning, where behaviors are shaped through reinforcement and punishment (Skinner, 1953). When a video showcasing a favorite hobby receives minimal engagement while a trend-following post goes viral, adolescents internalize subtle lessons about which aspects of their authentic selves hold value and which should be suppressed.
The constant exposure to seemingly perfect content creators (flawless skin, curated aesthetics, aspirational lifestyles) encourages unrealistic standards, excessive filtering, and profound self-consciousness. Adolescents begin editing their appearances, their interests, their personalities to align with algorithmic preferences. This adaptation is not conscious consent. It is a survival response in an environment where social value is assigned to those who successfully eliminate the parts of themselves deemed inferior. They scroll, and with each swipe, they quietly absorb cues about who they’re allowed to be. The choice was made for them before they even opened the app.
Institutional Expectations: Performing to Prescribed Limits
Beyond repeated narratives, societal structures generate internalized inferiority through expectations, both the performance standards they impose and the stereotypes they perpetuate. The mechanism here is more direct than media messaging, yet equally insidious: institutions communicate what they believe individuals are capable of achieving, and those beliefs become self-fulfilling prophecies.
The Pygmalion effect, first documented by Rosenthal and Jacobson in 1968, demonstrates this dynamic with disturbing clarity. In their study, teachers were told that certain students showed exceptional promise for academic growth, while others did not. In reality, the students were randomly assigned to these categories with no actual differences in ability. By year’s end, the “high potential” students significantly outperformed their peers. The teachers’ expectations had materialized into measurable outcomes. Not through explicit instruction, but through subtle differences in attention, encouragement, and opportunity (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968).
The students absorbed these expectations unconsciously. They picked up on small cues (a teacher’s tone, the difficulty of questions posed to them, the amount of wait time given for answers) and internalized messages about their capabilities. For the students labeled as low-performers, the decision to underachieve didn’t originate with them. It was authored by institutional expectations that they internalized as truth about themselves.
Even when nothing is explicitly stated, individuals become acutely aware of the qualities others assume they possess based on ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics. The psychological burden of this awareness manifests as stereotype threat: the risk of confirming negative stereotypes about one’s group, which paradoxically impairs performance and makes confirmation more likely (Steele & Aronson, 1995). In their seminal study, Steele and Aronson found that when Black students were primed to think about their race before taking a standardized test, their scores dropped significantly compared to when race was not mentioned. The anxiety of potentially validating racist stereotypes fractured their cognitive focus. They didn’t consent to this performance deficit; their mental resources were hijacked by the psychological weight of external expectations.
This dynamic extends beyond academic settings into professional environments, where many institutions demand “professionalism” (often a euphemism for cultural assimilation). Marginalized individuals frequently engage in code-switching, altering speech patterns, dress, behavior, or self-presentation to meet these expectations. This is impression management: the constant modulation of identity to become more palatable to dominant groups (Goffman, 1959).
The psychological cost accumulates over time. The disconnect between authentic identity and performed persona can generate imposter syndrome: the persistent belief that one’s success is fraudulent, that achievement reflects skillful performance of a role rather than genuine competence (Clance & Imes, 1978). For many, the alternative to code-switching isn’t authentic self-expression; it’s unemployment, professional stagnation, or financial instability. Self-rejection becomes a survival mechanism, not a choice. The system doesn’t explicitly demand inferiority. It simply makes clear that certain aspects of identity are professionally unacceptable, and individuals internalize the message that those aspects are inferior.
The insidiousness of institutional expectations lies in their invisibility. They operate through norms, subtle biases, and unspoken standards that individuals absorb without recognizing them as external impositions. By the time someone realizes they’ve been performing to prescribed limits, the performance has often become identity. The consent was never requested because the conditioning occurred pre-consciously, woven into the fabric of daily institutional interaction.
Systemic Absorption of Blame: When Inequality Becomes Personal Failure
Perhaps the most psychologically damaging mechanism through which institutions condition inferiority is the systemic absorption of blame: the process by which structural disadvantages are reframed as personal shortcomings. This inversion maintains institutional power by shifting responsibility from systems to individuals, transforming victims of inequality into architects of their own suffering.
Research demonstrates that people are more likely to justify existing inequality when social systems are portrayed as fundamentally fair and meritocratic (Kay & Jost, 2003). This system justification operates as psychological adaptation: accepting the legitimacy of hierarchical structures reduces cognitive dissonance and provides a sense of order and predictability. Over time, individuals begin interpreting inequality not as evidence of systemic dysfunction, but as natural outcomes of differential merit or effort. What should be recognized as structural injustice gets internalized as personal inadequacy.
The psychological impact of economic inequality provides a particularly stark illustration. Research by Mani and colleagues found that poverty significantly diminishes cognitive function. Not because poor people lack intelligence, but because financial insecurity monopolizes mental resources (Mani et al., 2013). When immediate survival concerns dominate cognition (figuring out how to pay rent, afford groceries, manage debt) the bandwidth required for long-term planning evaporates. The gap between aspiration and perceived possibility narrows until future-oriented goals no longer feel realistic. Critically, this cognitive taxation feels internally generated. People experiencing poverty often interpret their inability to plan ahead or pursue opportunities as personal failure rather than recognizing it as a predictable consequence of resource deprivation designed into economic structures.
This internalization empowers learned helplessness: the psychological state where repeated exposure to uncontrollable negative events leads individuals to believe their efforts are futile (Seligman, 1972). When attempts to escape poverty, secure employment, or improve circumstances consistently fail due to structural barriers, people stop trying. Not out of laziness or lack of ambition, but out of rational adaptation to an environment that has taught them that effort doesn’t matter. The system conditions them to expect failure, then blames them for not trying hard enough.
Barbara Howard embodies this dynamic perfectly. In the pilot episode of Abbott Elementary, Barbara’s younger colleague Janine enthusiastically announces plans to secure district funding for classroom improvements. Her response is immediate and deflating: the school board is “a long line of people that do absolutely nothing,” and teachers should “work with what you got so you don’t get let down.” In Barbara’s framework, it’s better to accept Abbott’s position at the bottom than to challenge authority for resources the school deserves. By counseling acceptance of inequality, she becomes a voice for the very system that has marginalized her school for decades.
But Barbara’s resignation doesn’t stem from apathy or collaboration. It emerges from learned helplessness cultivated over years of institutional disappointment. Every funding request denied, every promised reform abandoned, every appeal to the district that vanished into bureaucratic silence taught her the same lesson: resistance is pointless. Her pragmatism is adaptive. It protects against the psychological damage of repeated hope followed by crushing disappointment. She integrates disappointment as baseline expectation. This is how blame gets systemically absorbed: the forces that have failed her become internalized as her own limitations, as evidence that change is impossible rather than evidence that the system is broken.
The systemic absorption of blame operates at societal scale through political rhetoric that frames inequality as individual responsibility. Neoliberal ideology celebrates “resilience,” “grit,” and “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” while systematically ignoring the structural barriers that make success exponentially harder for marginalized populations (Brown, 2015). When political discourse valorizes meritocracy (the notion that success reflects talent and effort rather than advantage and access) structural injustice gets rebranded as personal failure. Those who struggle internalize the message that their circumstances reflect insufficient merit rather than insufficient opportunity.
This creates a particularly cruel psychological trap. People harmed by systemic inequality absorb responsibility for their own marginalization. They don’t just accept their fate. They internalize it so deeply that it becomes their fault, that challenging the system seems not just futile but irrational. The ability to resist isn’t merely denied; it’s rendered psychologically impossible. Consent becomes irrelevant because the internalization occurs pre-consciously, before individuals recognize they’re being conditioned to blame themselves for structural problems.
The Possibility of Resistance: Reclaiming Agency Through Awareness
The mechanisms outlined above paint a bleak picture: narrative repetition, institutional expectations, and systemic blame absorption conspire to condition inferiority before individuals can consciously consent or resist. Yet framing internalized inferiority as inevitable or insurmountable would replicate the very logic of learned helplessness this essay critiques. While these mechanisms are powerful and pervasive, they are not invincible. Recognizing how they operate is itself a form of resistance, and several psychological resources can help individuals retroactively reclaim agency.
The first and most fundamental resource is critical consciousness, what Paulo Freire termed “conscientization”: the process of developing awareness of sociopolitical contradictions and taking action against oppressive elements of reality (Freire, 1970). Critical consciousness doesn’t eliminate systemic barriers, but it reframes them. Instead of internalizing inequality as personal inadequacy, individuals learn to recognize it as structural design. This cognitive shift is profoundly liberating. Research demonstrates that critical reflection significantly reduces internalized stigma and increases awareness of structural oppression, particularly when facilitated through community dialogue, education, and non-traditional learning spaces (Diemer et al., 2006).
When Barbara Howard eventually joins Janine’s efforts to resist district neglect in later *Abbott Elementary* episodes, it’s not because the school district suddenly becomes competent or fair. It’s because she begins recognizing that acceptance of inferiority serves institutional power, not her students’ interests. The shift from resignation to resistance requires seeing the system clearly. Not as natural or inevitable, but as constructed and therefore changeable.
The second psychological resource is self-efficacy, which Albert Bandura defines as belief in one’s capacity to execute behaviors necessary for success (Bandura, 1997). Bandura identifies four sources for building self-efficacy, two of which are particularly relevant: mastery experiences (personal successes) and vicarious experiences (observing people similar to oneself succeed). Critically, self-efficacy can be cultivated even within unequal systems. When someone accomplishes a goal despite structural barriers, or witnesses someone like them do so, it creates psychological evidence that agency is possible. This doesn’t erase inequality, but it provides cognitive resources for resisting learned helplessness.
The impact of representation matters here. When marginalized individuals see people who share their identities achieving success, it challenges internalized narratives about limitations. Sheryl Lee Ralph’s Emmy win itself functioned this way for many viewers: a Black woman over 60 receiving recognition in an industry that typically marginalizes both identities. The victory didn’t eliminate ageism or racism in Hollywood, but it provided vicarious evidence that success within the system remains possible, which can fuel continued effort and resistance.
The third resource involves reframing failure through what Carol Dweck calls growth mindset: the belief that abilities can be developed through effort and learning (Dweck, 2006). Dweck’s research demonstrates that individuals who interpret failure as feedback rather than permanent judgment of inadequacy are significantly more likely to persevere and improve over time. This directly counters learned helplessness by treating setbacks as temporary and informative rather than definitive proof of incapacity. Critically, growth mindset becomes most powerful when combined with critical consciousness: when individuals recognize that many “failures” result from structural barriers rather than personal deficiency, and that persistence involves both developing skills and challenging systems.
Finally, collective identity provides crucial psychological resources for resistance. Social identity research demonstrates that group membership offers more than belonging. It provides frameworks for understanding oppression and resources for resisting it (Haslam & Reicher, 2006). When individuals derive dignity from collective identity rather than solely individual achievement, it creates something larger to defend. Shared narratives of resistance, cultural traditions of resilience, and communities organized around common struggles all buffer against internalized inferiority by locating value in group membership that systems cannot delegitimize.
Abbott Elementary illustrates this beautifully when Legendary Charter Schools attempts to purchase Abbott. The teachers organize a school festival to gather petition signatures and rally community support. The event becomes a celebration of collective identity: students, families, teachers, and community members united in defending their school against privatization. They succeed in blocking the purchase, not through individual heroism, but through organized collective action. The victory doesn’t erase structural inequality or fix district neglect, but it demonstrates that community resistance can defeat institutional power. More importantly, it transforms how people see themselves: not as passive victims of inevitable decline, but as agents capable of protecting what they value.
These psychological resources (critical consciousness, self-efficacy, growth mindset, and collective identity) don’t eliminate the mechanisms that condition inferiority. Narrative repetition, institutional expectations, and systemic blame absorption continue operating at societal scale. But these resources can help individuals recognize conditioning when it occurs and resist internalizing the messages institutions broadcast. The resistance isn’t about denying that systemic inequality exists or pretending that positive thinking overcomes structural barriers. It’s about refusing to accept that those barriers reflect personal inadequacy rather than systemic design.
Conclusion: Consent as Social Privilege
Eleanor Roosevelt’s assertion that “no one can make you feel inferior without your consent” contains a kernel of truth, but it mistakes the nature of consent. Consent implies choice exercised with full awareness of alternatives. But when inferiority is conditioned through mechanisms that operate pre-consciously (through media narratives absorbed before critical thinking develops, through institutional expectations internalized as children, through economic systems that fracture cognition before resistance can form) the notion of meaningful consent becomes incoherent.
Consent is not universally accessible. It is, fundamentally, a social privilege. Those whose identities are affirmed by dominant narratives, whose capabilities are assumed by institutions, whose struggles are attributed to systems rather than personal failings, these individuals possess psychological resources for resisting messages of inferiority that marginalized people often lack. The ability to look in the mirror and love what you see, as Sheryl Lee Ralph proclaimed, depends enormously on whether the mirror itself has been constructed to reflect or distort.
This doesn’t mean internalized inferiority is inevitable or insurmountable. Barbara Howard’s character arc across Abbott Elementary demonstrates the possibility of moving from resignation to resistance, from learned helplessness to renewed agency. But that transformation requires resources: critical consciousness to recognize conditioning, self-efficacy to believe change is possible, frameworks for reinterpreting failure, and communities that provide collective strength. These resources must be deliberately cultivated. They don’t emerge automatically simply because someone decides to reject inferiority.
The deeper truth is this: when the world makes you feel inferior, it has often already taken your consent. The messages are embedded before you recognize them as messages. The expectations are internalized before you understand they’re external impositions. The blame is absorbed before you realize it was never yours to carry. Fighting this doesn’t begin with individual will or self-affirmation, though both matter. It begins with recognizing that feelings of inferiority are often not organic self-assessments but engineered perceptions designed to maintain hierarchical structures.
If internalized inferiority is constructed (built through repeated narratives, institutional practices, and systemic blame-shifting) then it can be deconstructed. Not easily, not individually, not by simply deciding to feel differently. But through collective recognition of how these mechanisms operate, through building communities that affirm alternative narratives, through developing critical consciousness that locates the problem in systems rather than selves. The architecture of inferiority was built by human institutions. And like any human construction, it can be dismantled through awareness, through solidarity, through refusing to consent to messages we never agreed to receive.
References
- Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York: W.W. Norton.
- Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226-244.
- Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York: Basic Books.
- Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299.
- Ferenczi, S. (1949). Confusion of the tongues between the adults and the child: The language of tenderness and of passion. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 30, 225-230.
- Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
- Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348-362.
- hooks, b. (2004). We real cool: Black men and masculinity. New York: Routledge.
- Jenkins, B. (Director). (2016). Moonlight [Film]. A24.
- Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551-558.
- Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674-697.
- Pachankis, J. E. (2007). The psychological implications of concealing a stigma: A cognitive-affective-behavioral model. Psychological Bulletin, 133(2), 328-345.
- Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Ryan, C., Russell, S. T., Huebner, D., Diaz, R., & Sanchez, J. (2010). Family acceptance in adolescence and the health of LGBT young adults. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 23(4), 205-213.
- Sharkey, P. (2018). Uneasy peace: The great crime decline, the renewal of city life, and the next war on violence. New York: W.W. Norton.