Understanding deviance and anarchy
The social chaos and anarchy that erupted in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina caught many people by surprise. It is interesting to consider how and why such a dramatic deterioration of society could occur so rapidly in a contemporary American city.
The majority of city residents apparently obeyed the official order to evacuate ahead of the storm. But after Katrina moved inland, marauding bands of people could be seen looting stores and businesses in some areas. Even some police and fire officials, who were supposed to be providing assistance or restoring order, were joining in the mayhem, according to local reports.
Reactions to this event have been varied. Some fault federal and local public officials for failing to rapidly mobilize sufficient manpower to protect property, maintain order, and supply relief in response to this natural disaster.
Many in the international community seemed surprised that so many desperately poor minorities were to be found within a seemingly prosperous American city. Some expressed sympathy for those who were without the financial wherewithal to evacuate ahead of the storm.
Stranded, and without essential resources, who could blame some for taking advantage of the vacuum of authority to help themselves to goods and supplies they needed to survive? In cases where items like guns and ammunition were taken, however, a sympathetic perspective on the activity seemed strangely inappropriate.
Some commentators have assumed that the people who engaged in the looting, including local cops, were basically criminals to begin with. According to this view, good, law abiding citizens would never engage in such illegal acts. There is, however, reason to be skeptical of such claims. Evidence from the social sciences suggests other possible conclusions.
First, it is helpful to understand that we humans have a bias towards attributing a person’s actions to characteristics of the person, rather than characteristics of the situation in which the actions occur. If we see a person displaying deviant behavior, looting, for example, we tend to attribute the behavior to a deviant personality within the looter. Deviance in this context refers to a violation of the norms of a community or society.
Likewise, if we see a person praying in a temple, we are inclined to think of the person as possessing spiritual qualities, or other favorable personality traits. Social psychologists refer to this bias as the fundamental attribution error.
Interestingly, when it comes to judgments about our own behavior, we seem to prefer situational explanations. Why was my coworker late for work? “He is a slacker.” Why was I late for work? “Slow moving traffic on the inbound highway.”
Experiments have demonstrated the existence of this bias quite convincingly. Evidence of the fundamental attribution error has been found among people the world over, although some cultures seem to exhibit a stronger bias than others.
Contrary to this bias, however, there is a substantial body of research in the social sciences demonstrating the power of situations to influence people, for good or for bad. Psychologist Stanley Milgram’s classic experiments showed how normal subjects could be influenced by situational factors to administer seemingly dangerous and potentially lethal electrical shocks to innocent people in compliance with instructions from a sanctioned authority.
Social psychologist Philip Zimbardo conducted a study of criminal behavior that has formed the basis for a theory known as “broken windows.” He planted cars without license plates with their hoods up variously in a wealthy community, and in a poor, distressed neighborhood. Both cars were vandalized when passersby sensed that they had been abandoned. It was suggested that any sign of social disorder in a community would serve as an enticement to others to break the law.
Just as one broken window in a neighborhood can entice others to break more windows, crime feeds on crime, resulting in an increasing spiral of illegal activity. Likewise, according to social learning theorists, people are influenced by the behavior of others they observe around them. Thus, the spectacle of unpunished illegal acts being carried out by a few criminals could influence other typically law-abiding individuals to join in.
New Orleans, like other urban centers, undoubtedly has its share of social problems, including poverty, racial discrimination, and criminality. Nevertheless, conditions leading to the breakdown of social order during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina are not unique to that city. This episode reminds us how fragile is this social order that we take so much for granted. However distasteful it might seem, the potential for lawlessness and anarchy lies within each of us, and in the situations that sometimes exist within our societies.
The majority of city residents apparently obeyed the official order to evacuate ahead of the storm. But after Katrina moved inland, marauding bands of people could be seen looting stores and businesses in some areas. Even some police and fire officials, who were supposed to be providing assistance or restoring order, were joining in the mayhem, according to local reports.
Reactions to this event have been varied. Some fault federal and local public officials for failing to rapidly mobilize sufficient manpower to protect property, maintain order, and supply relief in response to this natural disaster.
Many in the international community seemed surprised that so many desperately poor minorities were to be found within a seemingly prosperous American city. Some expressed sympathy for those who were without the financial wherewithal to evacuate ahead of the storm.
Stranded, and without essential resources, who could blame some for taking advantage of the vacuum of authority to help themselves to goods and supplies they needed to survive? In cases where items like guns and ammunition were taken, however, a sympathetic perspective on the activity seemed strangely inappropriate.
Some commentators have assumed that the people who engaged in the looting, including local cops, were basically criminals to begin with. According to this view, good, law abiding citizens would never engage in such illegal acts. There is, however, reason to be skeptical of such claims. Evidence from the social sciences suggests other possible conclusions.
First, it is helpful to understand that we humans have a bias towards attributing a person’s actions to characteristics of the person, rather than characteristics of the situation in which the actions occur. If we see a person displaying deviant behavior, looting, for example, we tend to attribute the behavior to a deviant personality within the looter. Deviance in this context refers to a violation of the norms of a community or society.
Likewise, if we see a person praying in a temple, we are inclined to think of the person as possessing spiritual qualities, or other favorable personality traits. Social psychologists refer to this bias as the fundamental attribution error.
Interestingly, when it comes to judgments about our own behavior, we seem to prefer situational explanations. Why was my coworker late for work? “He is a slacker.” Why was I late for work? “Slow moving traffic on the inbound highway.”
Experiments have demonstrated the existence of this bias quite convincingly. Evidence of the fundamental attribution error has been found among people the world over, although some cultures seem to exhibit a stronger bias than others.
Contrary to this bias, however, there is a substantial body of research in the social sciences demonstrating the power of situations to influence people, for good or for bad. Psychologist Stanley Milgram’s classic experiments showed how normal subjects could be influenced by situational factors to administer seemingly dangerous and potentially lethal electrical shocks to innocent people in compliance with instructions from a sanctioned authority.
Social psychologist Philip Zimbardo conducted a study of criminal behavior that has formed the basis for a theory known as “broken windows.” He planted cars without license plates with their hoods up variously in a wealthy community, and in a poor, distressed neighborhood. Both cars were vandalized when passersby sensed that they had been abandoned. It was suggested that any sign of social disorder in a community would serve as an enticement to others to break the law.
Just as one broken window in a neighborhood can entice others to break more windows, crime feeds on crime, resulting in an increasing spiral of illegal activity. Likewise, according to social learning theorists, people are influenced by the behavior of others they observe around them. Thus, the spectacle of unpunished illegal acts being carried out by a few criminals could influence other typically law-abiding individuals to join in.
New Orleans, like other urban centers, undoubtedly has its share of social problems, including poverty, racial discrimination, and criminality. Nevertheless, conditions leading to the breakdown of social order during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina are not unique to that city. This episode reminds us how fragile is this social order that we take so much for granted. However distasteful it might seem, the potential for lawlessness and anarchy lies within each of us, and in the situations that sometimes exist within our societies.
posted by Michael | Wednesday, September 28, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home