| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
|
|
<
< | Surveillance, anonymity and obedience |
>
> | Surveillance, anonymity and pro-social behavior |
| | |
|
<
< | -- By ClaireCaton - 21 Nov 2020 |
>
> | -- By ClaireCaton - 21 Nov 2020 - second draft 1 Jan 2021 |
| | |
|
<
< | People are naturally inclined to seek security. The Hobbesian social contract intervenes to ensure security by alienating individual freedoms. By entering into the social contract, people willing to live in a democratic society have accepted a limitation of their freedom in exchange for laws guaranteeing their security and the perpetuation of the social body. People therefore agreed to abide by man-made laws and obedience is necessary to ensure their safety. |
>
> | People are naturally inclined to seek security. The Hobbesian social contract intervenes to ensure security by alienating individual freedoms. By entering into the social contract, people willing to live in a democratic society have virtually accepted a limitation of their freedom in exchange for laws guaranteeing their security. This parable illustrates a theoretical agreement between the people and the state on how the people will be governed. |
| | |
|
<
< | |
>
> | But people likely behave differently when they are on their own than when they are in the public sphere. It goes from the way they dress, the way they talk, to whether they will abide by legal rules. When people find themselves on their own, i.e. when they are not seen by others, they only have to deal with their self-consciousness. But when they are outside of their private sphere, they are facing public judgment. The feeling of shame and fear of being judged and pointed out by others in the social organization could be a wellspring of individual integrity. The guilt at being seen to do what they have symbolically agreed not to do can be a trigger for compliance to social standards. |
| | |
|
<
< | But the social contract is an illustrative narrative, a parable, not
a historical fact, right? Something should be said to indicate that this is a story we tell, not a claim that the people around us have actually consented on some informed basis to the terms on which they are governed. |
>
> | If people comply with the rules only when being watched, then surveillance would be a condition for pro-social-behavior. But self-discipline and individual moral standards should be taken into account to explain people’s behavior and surveillance might only help enhance social compliance from some people. |
| | |
|
<
< | |
>
> | Surveillance through nowadays’ technology seems to be coupled with absence of anonymity. Identity-shielding online and anonymity in general has the power to abet antisocial behavior and lead to a different set of manners than those which would occur in a transparent sphere. Being watched might enhance pro-social behavior (I) and being constantly identifiable prevents feeling of impunity (II). |
| | |
|
<
< | But people likely behave differently when they are on their own than when they are in the public sphere. It goes from the way they dress, the way they talk, to whether they will abide by legal rules. People can find themselves in two different situations: when they are on their own, i.e. when they are not seen by others, they only have to deal with their self-consciousness; when they are outside of their private sphere, i.e. when they are facing public judgment. |
| | |
|
<
< | |
| | |
|
<
< | I'm not sure how the distinction works, or what it has to do with contractarian attitudes about social organization. Are my promises to others not binding on me when I am alone? Or is the point that guilt or shame at being seen to do what I have agreed not to do are the primary sources of personal integrity? It would be good to be clear if the point is important. |
>
> | Section I Surveillance, an enhancer for pro-social behavior |
| | |
|
<
< | |
>
> | Some people can be more inclined to obey rules and standards when they know they are being watched. Daniel Batson’s experiment on moral hypocrisy and pro-social behavior showed that people are more inclined to behave in moral ways when the sense of being observed is activated within them. Anti-social behaviors are more likely to occur when we think of ourselves as unobserved (stealing, raping, murdering). But this shouldn’t mean that it is impossible or harder to act in conformity with moral norms when we think of ourselves as unobserved. Normative social influence can induce people to conform to the group norm to fit in, to feel good, and to be accepted by the group. Even so, our behavior is not only influenced by others and by society, but there is also a dimension where we act in relation to our own moral or religious beliefs. Other reasons for the compliance with social codes should be taken into account. People also accept the state to dictate appropriate behavior when they believe that the institution acts according to a shared moral purpose with citizens. |
| | |
|
>
> | However, modern technology has rendered surveillance so easy that individuals are not only being watched but they are also identified, thus losing anonymity. The modern society is structured in such a way that there are the equivalent of eyes in our smartphones and eyes in our computers and everywhere we go. States could argue that in order to provide the stability and safety to their citizens, they need their citizens to act in keeping with the laws, and a way to make them do so is to “provide” surveillance and destroy anonymity. Nevertheless, if surveilling people can help inciting the social body to remain disciplined, it need not be a condition for pro-social behavior if we take into consideration individuals’ moral or religious principles. |
| | |
|
<
< | If people comply with the rules only when being watched, then surveillance is a condition for obedience. |
| | |
|
<
< | |
>
> | Section II Anonymity, a gateway to impunity and anti-social behavior |
| | |
|
<
< | But self-governing people are not "obedient." They are principled. I don't steal when people aren't looking. So surveillance is not a condition of my not stealing. Assuming a view of human nature I don't recognize as my own nature, society would be constructed differently than I would want it to be and am living according to my desire that it be. Is that the point of the social contractarianism from which we began? |
>
> | Being unobserved can make us act differently. But how would humans behave if no one knew who they are and if there were no consequences of their uncivil actions? Impunity, this idea of absence of punishment entails absence of fear. It can have greater power to alienate human behavior than simply being unobserved. Freedom from punishment could be an incentive for people to speak their thoughts freely, but also to harm others. An example of this tendency is what happened with “Yik Yak”. |
| | |
|
<
< | |
>
> | “Yik Yak” was an anonymous messaging application that allowed people to post anonymous messages, with pseudonyms, that can be seen by anybody within a 5-mile radius. This application guaranteed impunity from any alleged wrongdoing, or the subsequent judgment associated with them. Feeling of freedom through the idea of being anonymous has led to vulgarity. H.G. Wells’ The Invisible Man can also depict one way we could expect humans to act when they benefit from anonymity. By turning himself invisible, Griffin secured an extensive form of freedom and impunity. Because he was invisible, Griffin did not worry about the consequences of his actions. He uses this freedom to commit anti-social acts, such as killing and burgling. |
| | |
|
>
> | Anonymity on the Internet can reveal the darkest side of human beings. Anonymous threats made against students on “Yik Yak” resulted from the possibility to speak and act without having to take responsibility. Online anonymity and pseudonyms allows people to let out what they really think beneath their social facade. But more disquieting is when anonymity in society is likely to unleash a human desire for impunity. |
| | |
|
<
< | If obedience is the way to social safety, people likely agreed to being watched. But surveillance through nowadays’ technology seems to be coupled with absence of anonymity. Are people willing to sacrifice anonymity in order to be safe?
Is anonymity a hurdle to a peaceful social body? How does it influence our behaviors? Identity-shielding online and anonymity in general has the power to abet antisocial behavior and lead to a different set of manners than those which would occur in a transparent sphere.
Being watched might be a condition for obedience (I) and being constantly identifiable prevents feeling of impunity (II).
How does the pile of rhetorical question help here? It seems to me that this is where the reader would expect answers to be, rather than tendentious questions that assume, as I said above, what appears to be the conclusion.
Section I Surveillance, a condition for compliance with the law and pro-social behaviors
People are more inclined to obey rules and standards when they know they are being watched or recorded.
A study of hand-washing among medical staff found that when the staff knew they were being watched, compliance with hand-washing was 55% greater than when they were not being watched1.
Where is the link here?
Moreover, Daniel Batson’s experiment on moral hypocrisy and pro-social behavior2 showed that there is something about us as social being that encourages us to behave in moral ways when the sense of being observed is activated within us.
Two studies are proof of something about human beings always everywhere?
The simple act of feeling that we are being observed is sufficient to provoke pro-social behavior. When we think of ourselves as unobserved, it is hard to act in conformity with moral norms.
What if this is not the reader's experience? Some religious persons would disagree because the think God sees all. And some Stoic persons, to pick only one example, would identify the meaning of life as directly contrary to this hypothesis. And then there are people, of whom I think I am one, who believe in living by a code which is not suspended because others don't know about it, or observe the degree of my compliance with it. Are all such readers invited to go ashore now?
Therefore, we could argue that for the greater good of the social body and for it to remain disciplined, allowing the state to surveil people is preferable and even necessary.
However, modern technology has rendered surveillance so easy that individuals are not only being watched but they are also identified, thus losing anonymity. The modern society is structured in such a way that there are the equivalent of eyes in our smartphones and eyes in our computers and everywhere we go. States could argue that in order to provide the stability and safety to their citizens, they need their citizens to act in keeping with the laws, and a way to make them do so is to “provide” surveillance and destroy anonymity. States can claim that surveillance is required to correct the inclination on the part of human beings to act in anti-social way when being unobserved.
1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16941318/
2. https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/whats-wrong-with-morality-a-social-psychological-perspective/
Why aren't these links?
Section II Anonymity, a gateway to impunity and anti-social behaviors
Being unobserved can make us act differently. But how would humans behave if no one knew who they are and if there were no consequences of their uncivil actions? Impunity, this idea of absence of punishment entails absence of fear. It can have greater power to alienate human behaviors than simply being unobserved. Freedom from punishment could be an incentive for people to speak their thoughts freely, but also to harm others. An example of this tendency is what happened with “Yik Yak”.
“Yik Yak” is a social media smartphone application launched in 2013 and shut down since. It was an anonymous messaging application that allowed people to post anonymous messages, with pseudonyms, that can be seen by anybody within a 5-mile radius. This application guaranteed impunity from any alleged wrongdoing, or the subsequent judgment associated with them. Feeling of freedom through the idea of being anonymous has led to vulgarity. H.G. Wells’ The Invisible Man can also depict one way we could expect humans to act when they benefit from anonymity. By turning himself invisible, Griffin seems to secure an extensive form of freedom and impunity. Because he was invisible, Griffin does not need to worry about the consequences of his actions. He uses this freedom to commit anti-social acts, such as shooting a policeman and burgling.
Anonymity on the Internet has often revealed the darkest side of human beings. Anonymous threats made against students on “Yik Yak” are consequence of being offered the possibility to speak and do things without having to take responsibility. Online anonymity and pseudonyms allows people to let out what they really think beneath their social facade. But more disquieting is when anonymity in society is likely to unleash a human desire for impunity. |
>
> | Nonetheless, anti-social acts resulting from the feeling of impunity are only one of the possible outcomes of the feeling of impunity and should be balanced with other features of human psychology: not everyone acts according to the same moral standards. |
| | Conclusion |
|
<
< | Being watched and identified influence our behaviors. Being totally free from punishment through anonymity can corrupt and alter moral principles, whereas the loss of anonymity might make many people more civil in their behavior and more pro-social in their actions.
But surveillance and absence of anonymity might go far beyond the conditions of the social contract. The idea of constantly monitoring citizens evokes features of totalitarian states. Nowadays, technology generally surveils in the name of providing safety. How much of our identity are we willing to give up in this process? Appropriate balance should be found between protecting anonymity and guaranteeing safety, because surveillance leads to fear, which leads to self-monitoring, which leads to a loss of free speech. We should neither be living in a fishbowl nor wearing the ring of Gyges.
As I have indicated, I think the most important route to improvement is to give more texture and complexity to the social psychology. The treatment of the social contract as an actuality rather than an image is balanced by the image of more or less complete "other direction" as the source of sociality. I refrain from asking whether you really think you would engage in anti-social activity if you felt certain you would not be observed. But I do think that there has to be a way to make your points without requiring readers to agree that this is how social life is held together, either at present in the real world or in their own narrative of social cohesion.
|
>
> | Being watched and identified can influence our behaviors. Being totally free from punishment through anonymity can corrupt and alter moral principles, whereas the loss of anonymity might make some people more civil in their behavior and more pro-social in their actions. However, anonymity shouldn’t be a hurdle to a peaceful social body because self-discipline, moral/religious principles and integrity are not to be neglected in the social psychology. |
| |
|