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: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 11 2019, @02:11PM (1 child)
I applaud your integrity. It's a pity you can't train others to exhibit the same fortitude.
You are absolutely right that government officials would not get away with half of what they do if people really fought back. But the officials are not idle in their corruption: they are constantly playing a thousand tricks to confuse or mislead or exhaust the public such that nobody ever asks them hard questions. At the end of the day, nothing gets their attention so well as a kick in the pants, which is what so very many of them need.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Saturday October 12 2019, @03:34AM
Are they really? It seems like they're more a bunch of C-students who had good people skills, trying to make their way through a maze of many, many competing priorities and laws one day at a time, rather than according to some grand plan. I'd think that kick in the pants is just one of those many priorities that bubbles up to the top. Hell, I bet some of the smarter, more boring ones would prefer to talk about the nuances of the hard issues than about the latest news cycle fodder.
The only politician who I ever got a sense was trying to actually plan their tenure was Obama, when he started working by getting websites and stuff ready starting on election day+2.