In sistemul judiciar federal din SUA, multe cauze importante trec prin complete de trei judecatori. Opinia majoritara a acestor comisii este valabila, ceea ce inseamna ca a avea o majoritate este crucial pentru ca o parte sau alta sa obtina deciziile pe care le doresc. Deci, daca doi din trei judecatori sunt numiti de democrati, este sigur sa presupunem ca majoritatea cazurilor vor merge pe drumul lor.
Dar un studiu al comportamentului judiciar al Circuitului District of Columbia a ajuns la o concluzie surprinzatoare: un complet de trei judecatori numiti de GOP a fost de fapt mult mai probabil sa emita o hotarare conservatoare decat un complet de doi membri numiti de GOP si un reprezentant democrat. Doar un singur disident democrat parea sa faca diferenta; aparent dizidentul si-a influentat colegii, demonstrand modul in care diversitatea punctelor de vedere are puterea de a modifica concluziile unui grup.
Acest studiu judecatoresc este printre multele citate de juristul Cass Sunstein in noua sa carte Conformity: The Power of Social Influences, care analizeaza profund cum si de ce indivizii urmeaza adesea opiniile si comportamentele grupurilor carora le apartin.
Partea pozitiva si negativa a conformitatii
Publicitate
X
While the book does warn of the downsides of conformity, Sunstein doesn’t declare that conforming is always harmful to society. On the contrary, he reiterates numerous circumstances when society can benefit from it.
For instance, Sunstein notes how conformity helped encourage public smoking laws. One study found that when public smoking bans were enacted in three California cities, compliance was high, and the cities received few reports of violations. Sunstein believes that the law had an impact not because of the threat of state enforcement, but because “the law suggests that most people believe it is wrong to smoke in public places. And if most people think it is wrong to smoke in public places, would-be smokers are less likely to smoke, in part because they do not want to be criticized or reprimanded.” In other words, the power of a popular law is due partly to conformity.
But conformity also carries with it the power to make human beings ignore their own consciences, sometimes to the point of committing atrocities.
Cartea indica experimentul infam al lui Stanley Milgram, in care participantilor li s-a spus sa livreze o serie de socuri electrice unui alt participant (de fapt, un actor care lucreaza ca confederat al cercetatorului), crescand usor intensitatea de fiecare data. Desi experimentul a fost un siretlic, participantii nu stiau asta. Milgram a descoperit ca toti participantii au fost dispusi sa socheze confederatul la 300 de volti, iar doua treimi au continuat sa administreze socuri la cel mai inalt nivel de tensiune. Participantii au fost pur si simplu dispusi sa aiba incredere in instructor ca ceea ce faceau este in regula.
Ce determina conformitatea
Eveniment special: Reducerea diferentelor
Alaturati-va noua pentru a invata strategii bazate pe cercetare pentru dialog si intelegere
Inregistrati-va aici
Pentru a intelege cum functioneaza conformitatea – de la exemple destul de banale, cum ar fi interdictiile publice de fumat pana la atrocitatile comise in timpul celui de-al Doilea Razboi Mondial – Sunstein il descompune in partile sale componente:
Semnale informationale: Sunstein sugereaza ca participantii la experimentul lui Milgram au fost dispusi. sa urmeze ordinele pentru ca credeau ca experimentatorul este un expert de incredere care ii asigura ca socurile nu provoaca niciun rau de durata. Acesta reprezinta un „semnal informational” – un lot de informatii trimis de un expert de incredere sau de o multime care va poate ajuta sa decideti cum va simtiti sau cum actionati. Semnalele din cadrul grupurilor – persoane in care ii plac, in care ai incredere sau in care admiri – sunt mult mai valoroase decat semnalele informationale din grupurile externe.
Semnale reputationale:S-ar putea sa avem nelamuriri private cu privire la un punct de vedere sau un anumit curs de actiune, dar pentru ca dorim sa ramanem in bunavointa gruparii noastre sociale, ne suprimam disidenta si, in cele din urma, ne cadem la rand. Acest lucru este evident in special in modul in care functioneaza polarizarea retelelor sociale, unde oamenii castiga prestigiu si influenta atunci cand sunt de acord cu partinirile cohortei lor, mai degraba decat li se opun.
Cascade sociale: Sunstein identifica atat semnalele informationale, cat si cele reputationale ca ajutand la producerea cascadelor sociale: „miscari sociale la scara larga in care multi oameni ajung sa gandeasca ceva, sau sa faca ceva, din cauza credintelor sau actiunilor catorva dintre cei care au inceput sa se deplaseze.” El identifica totul, de la succesul romanelor Jane Austen pana la alegerile lui Barack Obama si Donald Trump drept cascade.
To demonstrate how a cascade can work, he cites a study by sociologist Duncan Watts, in which study participants were asked to rank a group of seventy-two songs from best to worst. A control group was not given any information other than the songs themselves. But eight other subgroups could see how many people had previously downloaded the songs within their subgroup.
Watts a descoperit ca melodiile pe care grupul de control le-a etichetat drept cele mai proaste melodii s-au terminat, in general, in partea de jos, in timp ce cele pe care grupul de control le-a favorizat s-au terminat in general spre partea de sus. Dar pentru majoritatea celorlalte melodii, o explozie de popularitate bazata pe descarcari timpurii a prezis cat de bine s-au descurcat in clasament. Cu alte cuvinte, oamenii au acordat un clasament mai mare cantecelor pe care le-au perceput ca fiind populare in randul grupului lor. Rezultate ca acestea pot explica de ce companiile care comercializeaza anumite produse incearca adesea sa uneasca rotile vanzarilor creand o impresie de popularitate inainte ca produsul sa fie cu adevarat popular.
Cum determina conformitatea polarizarea
The power of conformity and cascades has deep implications for political polarization. Sunstein notes that “like-minded people go to extremes,” and cites three factors for why this happens: “information, corroboration, and social comparison.”
In homogeneous groups, people tend to deal with a limited pool of information. If you are in a social group whose members tend to be opposed to abortion rights, it’s unlikely that you will ever hear any argument in favor of these rights. With your limited information, you are more likely to move in the direction of opposing abortion rights rather than supporting them.
“Much of the time, it is in the interest of the individual to follow the crowd, but in the social interest for individuals to say and do what they think best”
―Cass Sunstein
Corroboration comes into play because people who lack confidence in their views tend to have more moderate opinions. As Sunstein writes, people “who are unsure what they should think tend to moderate their views. It is for this reason that cautious people, not knowing what to do, are likely to choose the midpoint between relevant extremes.” But if you surround yourself with people who share your views, this will end up corroborating your beliefs. In this sort of environment, you will become more confident that you are correct and be more likely to move in an extreme direction.
Social comparison leads us to want to be perceived favorably by members of our group. If our group is strongly in favor of gun control, we will naturally gravitate to that position to win applause from our group.
Astfel, acesti trei factori impreuna demonstreaza modul in care conformitatea excesiva poate determina polarizarea.
Ce putem face pentru a diminua dezavantajele conformitatii
Pentru Sunstein, dezavantajele conformitatii sunt cele mai ingrijoratoare in profesia sa: legea. El crede ca conformitatea poate submina sistemul nostru de guvernare deliberativa, instantele si educatia de licenta si de drept.
Cartea pledeaza in favoarea controalelor si echilibrelor care exista in sistemul federal, unde cascadele pot fi sparte de o Camera si un Senat care sunt adesea in contradictie, de exemplu. El mai sustine ca libertatea de asociere ofera o protectie impotriva influentelor informationale si reputationale care pot determina oamenii sa se conformeze fara a lua in considerare dezavantajele unui punct de vedere sau plan de actiune.
Citing the raft of studies showing that the presence of a dissenting judge on federal panels can significantly change outcomes, Sunstein argues for greater diversity on the federal bench. “My only suggestions are that a high degree of diversity on the federal judiciary is desirable, that the Senate is entitled to pursue diversity, and that without such diversity, judicial panels will inevitably go in unjustified directions,” he writes.
Lastly, Sunstein dives into the debate over affirmative action in higher education. He offers a somewhat nuanced view: Racial diversity—the main topic of many higher education debates—can in some circumstances be important, but is not a cure-all. He ultimately favors “cognitive diversity”—meaning, law school classrooms should have rigorous debates with many points of view represented. To the extent that racial and cultural diversity helps promote those debates, Sunstein appears to be in favor. But he also argues that there are many paths to an ideologically diverse classroom.
In his conclusion, Sunstein again concedes that conformity can sometimes benefit society. “In some settings, conformists strengthen social bonds, whereas dissenters imperil them, or at least introduce tension,” he notes.
Dar in cele din urma, el vine de partea de a sustine ca ne-ar putea folosi putin mai putin conformism.
„De cele mai multe ori, este in interesul individului sa urmareasca multimea, dar in interesul social ca indivizii sa spuna si sa faca ceea ce cred ei mai bine”, scrie el. „Institutiile care functioneaza bine iau masuri pentru a descuraja conformitatea si pentru a promova disidenta, partial pentru a proteja drepturile disidentilor, dar mai ales pentru a proteja interesele lor.”
