Harnessing the Power of Sleepwalking

-- By AliceHenderson - 14 May 2012

The Sociality of Bees

Early in the semester, we touched on a biological similarity that humans share with certain invertebrates- that we are influenced by the minds of others in our species; we think we are conscious decision-makers, but our natural social psychology is not to think independently of our community. We are members of society as are bees in a hive. For this reason, law and politics behave as functions independent of logic; they are tools to control the unconscious impulses that give consent to power. No real policy is discussed in campaigns, and I am typing this paper on a MacBook? Pro.

Some Took To The Streets

Despite sharing these hive-mind qualities with invertebrates, countless individuals have proven that we can grow a spine. In the 18th century,

That would be "nineteenth century."

John Brown’s acts of terrorism escalated tensions in the country that arguably contributed to the Civil War. The positive effects of Martin Luther King’s activism almost exactly a century later are even harder to deny. I’d be willing to bet that Sandra Fluke owns an apple product, but she nevertheless harnessed her revolutionary potential to testify before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on women's health and contraception. As we come upon our current time, though,

Is Ms Fluke not current? I think you wanted a different transition here.

it becomes more difficult if not impossible to evaluate results. There are those among us who have been spurred to action, but 21st century examples of American social protest (i.e. Occupy Wallstreet) appear comparatively impotent, particularly without the perspective that time provides. Yes, Ms. Fluke briefly captured the nation’s attention, but is that all? Can we credit her with any positive change in reproductive rights?

Would that be a fair question? She was dragged into something, not a campaigner seeking to maximize her effect.

Even as beings highly susceptible both to overt and subconscious influence, we are perfectly capable of taking a stand in recognition of injustice. We can act alone. We can coordinate others to act with us. The capacity is clear, but the result will always be uncertain. John Brown and Martin Luther King are national legends who changed the course of history, but others who take to the streets will simply become historical anecdotes.

Staying at Home

Carrie Nation, a figure of the temperance movement and former wife of a severe alcoholic, would enter saloons to throw rocks at liquor bottles and destroy bar counters with a hatchet. As she was motivated by a personal passion to fight alcoholism, rationality played little part in her acts of defiance. Though she desired these things, she did not need to know that others would follow her or that national policy on alcohol consumption would change; she acted on the premise of individual responsibility. Some of us are stopped from literally taking to the streets by our adherence to or need for rationality, our mistaken belief, even, that we are bound to it. I am not Martin Luther King or Carrie Nation, so I will not act outside of the institutionalized processes for change.

I'm not sure what this means. You won't act in their ways, to be sure, but "outside institutionalized process" there are many forms of social action that might well be within your reach and agreeable to your temperament.

There is no certainty or even likelihood that I will see a return on that investment in personal fulfillment, recognition, or actually ameliorating a social injustice.

In class Professor Moglen asked a student if she could imagine herself ever taking to the street, and she answered honestly, “Probably not; I have no personal incentive to do so. I am comfortable.” An element of human nature that ties in with the mentality to behave as those around us and to want the same things as those around us is the inclination toward the status quo. We are creatures of habit, so to literally, physically protest without personal, individual incentive goes against our very nature.

Altering Our Non-Revolutionary Habits

A recent New York Times article discussed consumer marketing as the methods either of inserting new products into existing habit loops or incentivizing new habit loops. The studies that serve as the basis for these marketing techniques show that habit-formation is the brain’s natural desired alternative to actual decision-making as a means of energy conservation. Rats in a maze will receive a cue (the gate opening), begin a routine (sniffing along a path toward the smell of chocolate), and upon finding it, associate the routine with a reward (the chocolate), thus creating a habit loop. As this pattern is established and the behavior is proven to achieve positive results, brain activity decreases dramatically, unless there is a change in placement of the reward. So once a habit is formed, to convince the brain that the exertion of energy is valuable, the reward has to change. For Proctor & Gamble, whose market research was profiled in the Times article, this meant changing the focus of a commercial to sell more Febreze. The ads that focused on eliminating odor didn’t sell the product because with constant exposure, people no longer recognize bad odors in their homes. The ads that brought the product to nine-figure sales showed Febreze as the finishing touch on a cleaning regime, attaching the product to an existing ritual.

If behavioral science really does explain the multimillion-dollar sales of a superfluous cleaning product (and I think Apple would say yes), then maybe it is an underutilized tool for social change. The comfortable American who has grown accustomed to the bad odor of someone else’s injustice may not be convinced to take to the streets, but he can be influenced to make a new behavior a part of his existing rituals. If we were to move the chocolate to a different part of the maze, could we then attach ‘attention to social inequity’ to a habit loop?

I would like to continue editing based on comments to this draft. Thank you.

It seems to me that the line of thought motivating you is very interesting and well worthy of more thought. The existing draft is a useful beginning. At the surface level, the draft could use more coherence. Your idea is apparent in the conclusion, but not in the introduction, which has a metaphorical structure to offer that leads in productive ways, but not, as it happens, to the ideas with which you conclude. So it seems to me that, stylistically, the most valuable step would be to tie the introduction directly to the conclusion.

Substantively, it seems to me that you are over-reliant on the specific form of learning described (extension of existing habit loops through the addition of new behaviors) to parallel what you are trying to discuss, which is learning social consciousness. Perhaps the level of generality should be higher: what's the social psychology of learning social engagement, and how can we modify what we ask of people, or what we teach them, in order to increase their ability and desire to engage?

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, AliceHenderson
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.