Internalizing personal blame or fatalism both block clients’ growth and mobility.

Evidence

Given the imbalance in power between clients and their agencies, not all clients will respond with hostility to decisions based on these implicit assumptions. … Clients may accept responsibility for their circumstances without reference to the environmental conditions that they experience. Or they may regard their situation as hopeless because their environment is so antagonistic to improvement. Each attitudinal set works against personal movement and growth. — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 1132

Categorization

• XREF: Maps onto the broader literature on how bureaucratic categorization shapes clients’ self-narratives; compare Goffman’s total institutions. — connects to: Clients internalize expected bias, foreclosing direct engagement with the actual cause. — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of…, 848; Isolated clients internalize personal blame for a structural position. — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of…, 858; Prejudice targets cope either by externalizing or internalizing blame (+2 more)
• QUESTION: Do the two attitudinal sets (personal responsibility vs. fatalism) have measurably different downstream effects, or do they converge?

Broader Connections

• Victims can internalize beliefs that actively worsen their own disadvantage. #corroborates (0.90) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1071
• Life-lies manipulate reality and inhibit personal growth. #corroborates (0.85) — Jordan B. Peterson, 12 Rules for Life An Antidote to Chaos, 636
• Prejudice targets cope either by externalizing or internalizing blame #complicates (0.75)