SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the When-in-the-course-of-human-events... dept.
Margaret Atwood's novel, The Handmaid's Tale, described the horror of the authoritarian regime of Gilead. In this theocracy, self-preservation was the best people could hope for, being powerless to kick against the system. But her sequel, The Testaments, raises the possibility that individuals, with suitable luck, bravery and cleverness, can fight back.
But can they? There are countless examples of past and present monstrous regimes in the real world. And they all raise the question of why people didn't just rise up against their rulers. Some of us are quick to judge those who conform to such regimes as evil psychopaths – or at least morally inferior to ourselves.
To answer this question, let's start by considering a now classic analysis by American organisational theorist James March and Norwegian political scientist Johan Olsen from 2004.
They argued that human behaviour is governed by two complementary, and very different, "logics". According to the logic of consequence, we choose our actions like a good economist: weighing up the costs and benefits of the alternative options in the light of our personal objectives. This is basically how we get what we want.
But there is also a second logic, the logic of appropriateness. According to this, outcomes, good or bad, are often of secondary importance – we often choose what to do by asking "What is a person like me supposed to do in a situation like this"?
The idea is backed up by psychological research. Human social interactions depend on our tendency to conform to unwritten rules of appropriate behaviour. Most of us are truthful, polite, don't cheat when playing board games and follow etiquette. We are happy to let judges or football referees enforce rules. A recent study showed we even conform to arbitrary norms.
[...] A small number of us, however, would rebel – but not primarily, I suspect, based on differences in individual moral character. Rebels, too, need to harness the logic of appropriateness – they need to find different norms and ideals, shared with fellow members of the resistance, or inspired by history or literature. Breaking out of one set of norms requires that we have an available alternative.
Would you stand up to an oppressive regime or would you conform?
Do you agree with this analysis? What would you do in such situations?
(Score: 4, Disagree) by ilPapa on Friday October 11 2019, @01:58AM (6 children)
The prez is historically unpopular. So unpopular, it's actually unprecedented.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday October 11 2019, @02:36AM
And with any luck soon to be un-Presidented...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Friday October 11 2019, @02:42AM (4 children)
Look at the polls [fivethirtyeight.com]. Trump is tied with Obama, slightly less popular than Reagan, and more popular than Carter at this point in his presidency. Clinton and both Bushes were ahead. But Trump is not the least popular.
(Score: 2) by qzm on Friday October 11 2019, @06:16AM
Dont try and wave reality in front of the signalers, it just riles them up.
The fact that this article needed to lead with a Fictional situation should be enough to let you know that its best to just ignore.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ilPapa on Saturday October 12 2019, @12:44AM (2 children)
The difference is, Trump was never popular. His approval ratings across all polls has averaged in the low to mid-40s from the day he was inaugurated. All of the others at least spend some time out of the red.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Saturday October 12 2019, @08:24AM (1 child)
Oh well, the press has been throwing crap at him from day 1. Look at the recent Bush's 8-year popularity (and he benefited hugely from 9/11). It will be hard from Trump to under-perform that.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Saturday October 12 2019, @02:54PM
Whine, whine, whine.
You are still welcome on my lawn.