Comment by atoav

That isn't an accurate summary of what the article says. The part you mentioned is telling about early manegerial sciences trying to fix workplace issues that arose during industrialization. The article itself doesn't offer any stance towards whether that was a good or a bad thing, which it would need to do if it "complains", as you said.

The article is mainly a nuanced perspective on DBT (Dialectic Behavioral Theory) and it focuses on the conundrum of patients finding themselves between finding value in their identity as an victim, the consequenxes it has for them and the condition which contributed to that trauma that remain unaddressed if they do just that:

> People often share a manifesto called the “Emotional Distress Bill of Rights” (subtitled “#RightToBeSuffering”). “I should not be held so personally responsible to take actions to be better,” it says. “Others (and systems) should be held far more accountable for better treatment of me.”

Imagine you live in an ancient society where cannibalism exist. If cannibals tried to eat you and you have a trauma of surviving that, you could go at the problem in two ways: (1) Blame a society that allows cannibalism to exist and try to reshape said society or (2) Focus on yourself and figure out how to move on from the trauma, how to deal with the consequences of said trauma and so on.

Doing the latter without changing the circumstances that lead you becoming victimized can feel like you become complicit in perpetuating the problem (in our example cannibalism).

This, other than the retelling of the origin story of that form of therapy, is probably the main point this article makes.