I suspect there is a political dimension to all this.
Thinkers on the Left (from Rousseau to Marx to Chomsky) have traditionally seen the individual within his or her network of social relations. People are products of their milieu. Change a person's conditions, and you elevate their life.
The Right (from Samuel Smiles to Dr Phil) has traditionally emphasized personal responsibility. Despite one's circumstances, there is nearly always some space to improve one's lot through development of character and perseverance.
This view is not without blame either. There is no space for a slave to educate themselves, and its unlikely you'll enter a program of self-improvement if you're so poor that you're forced to wonder where your next meal is coming from.
My take: the Leftist view can lead to people absolving responsibility for their lives to government, and to believe in conspiracies about capitalists or some other bogeyman trying to keep people down.
And the Right's view can be a bit romantic or unrealistic about the ability of a small slice of society's ability to change, minus some external help.
I believe that most people have more space and scope to achieve their goals. There's a minority though for whom you need to first improve their basic environmental conditions - to give them a helping hand - before you can expect them to pursue matters of human potential.