For a lot of people "self help", particularly from books, has a sort of hippy-dippy new agey touch-feely Aura of Gullibility about it. Some of it IMO is earned, some of it is not. People don't want to embrace what they think of as flaky.
Devout conservative Christians often struggle with the heavy element of eastern mysticism, which they have been taugth all their lives is in some way or other misleading or even dangerous. Less religious people object to the same influence just because it is "religious", although this influence is easing I think now that eastern though is less "mysterious" to the average person on the street, and has some connection beyond shaven-headed, tamborine-wielding Hare Krishnas in airports.
But I think the #1 reason is that much of the self help world runs contrary to the Western attachment to rationalism. It's not a Magic Pill. It requires knowing one's self, and developing the intuitive, and often, doing the counter-intuitive. It is in other words, rather hard on the ego.
People in the West love allopaths because an allopath never asks you to change your habits or learn about cause and effect or take any personal responsibility for anything. He dispenses a pill to counteract the consequences of you living any damn way you please. Hence, the general ambivalence about and even antipathy towards alternative medicine. It's the same with self help vs the alternatives -- self help looks inward and MY GOD WE CAN'T DO THAT. Stick an iPod in your ear or do anything necessary to avoid SILENCE.
--Bob  |