By Christine Rosen
Sunday, January 18, 2026
Ideas from the realms of psychology and self-help often
flow into popular culture in surprising ways, and not always to good effect.
The much-heralded self-esteem movement, which unofficially began in 1969 with
the publication of Nathaniel Branden’s book The Psychology of Self-Esteem,
within a decade became a key contributor to what sociologist Christopher Lasch
identified as a “culture of narcissism.” By the late 1970s, this culture was
flourishing in the nation’s educational system, negatively affecting our
politics and poisoning popular culture in the United States by normalizing
behavior that had previously been viewed as pathological. Once narcissism
became acceptably mainstreamed, Lasch predicted, it would be difficult for
those who lead our cultural and political institutions to do anything to combat
it; instead, many would become its most prominent and successful avatars.
The pattern is repeating. One of the most popular
self-help books in recent years is Mel Robbins’s The Let Them Theory.
Published in late 2024, it has sold more than 7 million copies, continues to
sit atop bestseller lists, and has turned its author, Robbins, a motivational
speaker and podcast host, into the celebrity advice-giver of the moment.
Like many popular self-help books, The Let Them Theory
is not groundbreaking; it is a repetitious and anecdote-filled work that serves
up an easily digestible combination of the Serenity Prayer and garden-variety
stoicism. Although she has vehemently denied it, Robbins’s theory was most
likely inspired by a poem by Cassie Phillips, “Let Them,” that went viral in
2022 when Phillips posted it on her Facebook page along with a picture of the
words tattooed on her arm.
Robbins doesn’t credit Phillips (she would likely advise
her to just “let” Robbins make a fortune off her idea). Instead, she mines her
own life and that of her family members to offer advice about not trying to
control the behavior of others and focusing on what one can change in chapters
with titles such as “Shocker: Life Is Stressful” and “Yes, Life Isn’t Fair.” It
is not a surprise that someone who came of age amid the culture of narcissism
Lasch described (Robbins is 57) would subtitle her own book A Life-Changing
Tool That Millions of People Can’t Stop Talking About. But Robbins’s many
fans, who include Oprah Winfrey, have praised her for freeing them from a sense
of unfair and burdensome obligation to fix the problems of others.
However many people claim to have been transformed by
Robbins’s work in their personal lives, the theory seems to have escaped the
lab, and it turns out that the idea that it’s healthier to “let” things happen
is not one that benefits society at scale. At a time of heightened mistrust in
institutions, extreme tribalism in politics, and cultural confusion over what
is reality and what is manipulated AI slop, it’s no wonder people are enticed
by a theory that insists you will be free only if you give up a sense of
control. People already feel, often correctly, that they lack control
over crucial aspects of their lives and are victims of complicated systems that
they are helpless to change. “Let them” gives them an explanatory framework for
accepting what might otherwise be deemed unacceptable.
Consider how many things most Americans think are bad
that nevertheless continue to flourish in contemporary culture. In their
“Striking Findings from 2025,” Pew Research Center notes, “43 percent of U.S.
adults say the fact that sports betting is now legal in much of the country is
a bad thing for society,” and “40 percent think it’s a bad thing for sports.”
Among men under 30, the online gambling industry’s most desirable customers,
the number is even higher: “47 percent say legal sports betting is a bad thing
for society.”
As Charles Fain Lehman argues
in National Affairs, it’s not just online betting and sports gambling
that make Americans uneasy; we believe that a “panoply of vice,” including
widespread drug use and the proliferation and normalization of pornography, is
bad for society. (“A majority of Americans now say marijuana use is
individually and socially harmful,” he notes.) Yet we do little to stop them.
We have “embraced the idea that simply finding something alarming, revolting,
or otherwise unsettling, does not mean that we can use the law to control it,” Lehman
writes. Social media platforms are filled with examples of everyday acts of
anti-social and uncivil behavior meant to spark outrage (and monetize our
attention), yet they do nothing to encourage people to act to prevent them.
Indeed, people who do step in, like New York City subway hero Daniel Penny,
often end up being punished for the attempt. Many recent scandals, such as the
decades-long abuses committed by people like Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey
Epstein, stayed hidden for so long because too many people “let them” rather
than doing something about it.
“Let them” could also describe much of our political
culture on both sides of the aisle. President Donald Trump’s supporters say
“let him” when he indulges his vanity and plasters his name on the Kennedy
Center or the Institute of Peace, and they are unbothered by the many
outrageous conspiracy theories, conflicts of interest, and influence-peddling
that flourish in his ambit. The left also shrugs off widespread fraud and
grift, whether it’s committed nationwide by Black Lives Matter activists or by
Somali welfare cheats in Minnesota. They also repeatedly say “let them” to the
violent rhetoric and behavior of their radical activist wing, with predictably
tragic results.
Self-help peddlers like Robbins are not to blame for all
of this, of course, but the “theory” she promotes reflects something disturbing
about our current cultural moment. Acceptance of vice is not a virtue, and
popular theories that encourage selfish behavior and urge people to disengage
from challenging situations might not be the antidote we need right now. “Let
them” isn’t good advice when we have lost the skill of productive confrontation
and engagement. Younger generations of Americans in particular are comfortable
being outrageously confrontational online but are incapable of holding it
together when challenged in real life. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s
recently appointed and extremely radical housing policy adviser, Cea Weaver,
sounded like Mao in her many activist Zoom calls over the years but began
weeping when confronted in person by a reporter on the street and asked to
explain her earlier statements.
Like many self-help gurus before her, Robbins tells her
readers, “You have the power,” and “You can have the life you’ve always
wanted,” and “No one else can stop you. It’s all on you.” But the idea that
“let them” grants its acolytes power is a lie. Of course, healthy boundaries
are crucial in individual life, but when it comes to being part of a
self-governing citizenry, healthy societies need people who not only have
healthy boundaries themselves, but who are willing to enforce social norms as
well. A healthy democracy, even one such as ours that still values
individualism, requires active and engaged citizens who are willing to work
together to solve problems, not people who passively accept their inability to
effect change. The latter leads to the top-down autocratic socialism
masquerading as the “warmth of collectivism” that people like Mamdani
promote—and to a body politic of therapized sheep who await rescue from gurus
or government. When bad things happen, and social order breaks down, and bad people
do bad things, we shouldn’t “let them.” We should do something about them.
No comments:
Post a Comment