3 Governing Society: We Know Who You Are - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 34
About This Presentation
Title:

3 Governing Society: We Know Who You Are

Description:

3 Governing Society: We Know Who You Are * Huxley v. Orwell Check out this comic adaptation of the introduction to Neil Postman s Amusing Ourselves to Death Can you ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:28
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 35
Provided by: grossmont5
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 3 Governing Society: We Know Who You Are


1
3Governing SocietyWe Know Who You Are
2
Controlling the Behavior of Others
  • One of the key differences between realists and
    idealists is the way they view human nature
  • Idealists tend to believe that humans are
    basically good and care for others
  • Consequently, governments and their leaders
    should be judged by these ideals
  • Realists tend to believe that human beings care
    only about maximizing their own self-interests
    and they expect no more from their leaders

3
Controlling the Behavior of Others
  • The study of how governments need to control
    indidividuals is a realist approach
  • When examining politics, this perspective asks
  • Who benefits?
  • How do they benefit?
  • The answers to these two questions will usually
    provide a solid first step toward unraveling the
    political puzzle
  • Often, the best line is
  • Show me the power.

4
Controlling the Behavior of Others
  • Regardless of the type of government they head,
    it can be argued that all leaders try to maximize
    their self-interests
  • What individual benefits might leaders pursue?
  • Power
  • Wealth
  • Prestige
  • The goals might be selfish or altruistic but the
    concept of leadership benefits is a powerful
    explanatory tool

5
Leadership Benefits
  • The greater the benefits to be gained from the
    leadership position,
  • the more willing people are to take risks to take
    over a leadership position,
  • and the greater lengths leaders will go to to
    hold on to it

6
The Panopticon
  • One of the fundamental mechanisms leaders use to
    control large populations is based on the concept
    of the panopticon
  • This is based on an 18th c. prison design by
    Jeremy Bentham
  • The prisoners could be watched at any time
    but they never know when
    they are being watched

7
The Panopticon
  • The only way to avoid punishment is to police
    their own actions and serve as their own guards
  • Michel Foucault noted that the panoptic control
    of a few guards over hundreds of prisoners is
    similar to how governments control large
    populations

8
The Panopticon
  • Think of they way traffic laws are enforced
  • The vast majority of times there are no police to
    be seen
  • However, there always could be a police officer
    around any bend in the road
  • Through self-policing, a few hundred policemen
    can control thousands of drivers
  • Leaders use this same concept to prevent revolt
    and maintain control

9
Collective Action, Revolution, and the Use of
Force
  • Government is essentially an institutionalized
    mechanism for collective action
  • Revolutions are collective actions with the aim
    of tearing down and replacing the current
    government

10
Collective Action, Revolution, and the Use of
Force
  • Those at the top of the existing social
    hierarchies are driven by self-interest to
    actively oppose any collective effort to
    overthrow the system.
  • They will employ a variety of techniques to
    prevent revolutionary groups from forming

11
Atomization
  • When people are isolated they are kept from
    forming a group that could threaten a leaders
    hold on power
  • At the most extreme, you would want to prevent
    anyone from forming any kind of personal bond
  • The two most important mechanisms leaders use to
    accomplish this are
  • peer policing
  • preference falsification

12
Atomization Peer Policing
  • Peer policing is having people police each other
  • Leaders need to encourage citizens to engage in
    peer policing against potential revolutionaries
  • Leaders might make it a crime to not report
    someone elses efforts to form a revolutionary
    group
  • This works particularly well if people believe
    that government agents will test individuals
    willingness to turn in others

13
Atomization Peer Policing
  • Governments and their leaders can handle
    individual isolated revolutionary actions, but
    mass action may overwhelm the governments
    policing and enforcement mechanisms
  • Peer policing happens in democracies as well as
    in totalitarian states

14
Atomization Preference Falsification
  • Preference falsification is hiding they way you
    truly feel while publicly expressing what those
    in power want to hear from you
  • As long as peoples true feelings are hidden, how
    can potential revolutionaries even know if there
    are others who share their view?

15
Limits on Forceful Control
  • The level of force leaders must use to maintain
    control is related to the level of
    dissatisfaction
  • When dissatisfaction is low, less force is
    necessary
  • When dissatisfaction with unresolved problems
    becomes high enough, desperation may overcome
    fear and force may no longer be enough
  • When pushed too far, people will stand up to a
    bully

16
Legitimacy and Government Control
  • Instead of relying on force, threats, and
    punishments, leaders can maintain control by
    pursuing legitimacy
  • Legitimacy is the voluntary acceptance of
    government
  • Pursuing a path of legitimacy can be an expensive
    long-term proposition
  • It is generally far cheaper in the short-term to
    use force

17
Legitimacy and Government Control
  • There are many ways that governments can achieve
    or lose legitimacy
  • stay in power a long time,
  • get the blessing of a legitimate past leader,
  • convince people that God sent the leaders to rule
  • win popular elections
  • Electoral democracies institutionalize revolt by
    giving citizens the power to keep or replace the
    government

18
Legitimacy and Conflict Within Groups
  • After World War I, researchers believed that
    conflict was something horrible, and that
    conflict should be eradicated
  • Georg Simmel and later Lewis Coser pointed out
    that the complete elimination of conflicts could
    be equally bad because conflict serves
    constructive functions

19
Legitimacy and Conflict Within Groups
  • When engaged in a conflict with another group,
    self-identification with the group increases and
    support for the leadership increases
  • Intra-group conflict (conflict within the group)
    can serve as a safety valve for letting off
    frustration

20
Cross-cutting Cleavages
  • If there are a variety of conflicts, divisions
    over them do not always coincide
  • People who disagree on one issue may agree on
    others
  • This prevents society from dividing sharply over
    a single issue
  • People will be less hostile toward others on one
    issue if they agree on others

21
Conflict as a Source of Legitimacy
  • Such conflicts facilitate the resolution of the
    underlying cause of disagreement the resolution
    of small issues can keep them from growing into
    large ones
  • They also provide a foundation for developing
    compromises
  • Resolving conflict within the group enhances the
    publics willingness to voluntarily accept the
    group and its structures
  • This enhances the legitimacy of the group and its
    leaders

22
Totalitarianism
  • Totalitarianism Ideology that espouses the
    complete political, economic, and social control
    of people and institutions by a dictatorial,
    single-party regime.
  • Have we always had Totalitarianism?
  • No, this a 20th Century phenomenon why?
  • Technology creates the communication and
    transportation necessary to manage all aspects of
    life
  • Also, growth of ideology as a means of organizing
    a society

23
Popular Totalitarianism?
  • Why would people allow totalitarianism?
  • Their ideological justification comes from the
    state acting on behalf of the people
  • Organize the economy so that all have their needs
    met
  • Totalitarian regimes are generally popular (at
    least at the beginning)

24
Economic Freedom
  • Why might a government want to limit economic
    freedoms?
  • Prevent Exploitation
  • How might this affect the economy of a
    totalitarian regime?
  • Command Economies are not very efficient
  • If limit economic freedoms, must limit political
    freedoms as well (Maoist China)
  • However, can limit political freedom without
    limiting economic freedom (China today)

25
Social Freedoms
  • What kinds of social freedoms might be limited in
    a totalitarian government?
  • enjoy the privacy of your home
  • practice the religion of your choice
  • believing what you wish
  • Why might a government want to limit these
    freedoms?
  • How do they threaten the governments ability to
    rule?

26
Limited Government
  • You are watching television when an "alien" form
    appears on the screen. The alien states that all
    of earth and its inhabitants are now under the
    control of aliens. The alien informs you that all
    forms of communication have been taken over.
  • The alien continues with this statement
    "Americans believe rights are important. The
    United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights
    guarantee many rights. As aliens, we are going to
    take away all of your rights except for one."

27
Which Right Will You Keep?
  • Petition the Government
  • Have a Lawyer
  • Freedom of Speech
  • Freedom of Religion
  • Peaceably Assemble
  • Freedom of the Press
  • Bear Arms
  • Trial By Jury
  • A Speedy and Public Trial
  • Freedom from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

28
Milgram Experiment
  • Milgram puts out a newspaper advertisement
    offering male Americans around the vicinity of
    Yale University to participate in a psychology
    experiment about memory and learning. Upon
    arriving at Yale, the participant is introduced
    to a tall, sharp and stern looking experimenter
    (Milgram) wearing a white lab coat. The
    participant is also introduced to a friendly
    co-participant. Milgram explains that the
    experiment investigates punishment in learning,
    and that one will be the "teacher", and one will
    be the "learner." Rigged lots are drawn to
    determine roles.

29
Milgram Experiment
  • The learner is strapped to a chair, and his arm
    is dotted with electrodes. Milgram instructs the
    teacher to read out word pairs from a list, such
    as "clear" goes with "air", or "dictionary" goes
    with "red". Afterwards, when the teacher says a
    word, the learner must regurgitate the other word
    that goes with the teacher's word. If the learner
    recalls the correct word, we move to the next
    word pair. Otherwise, he is given a voltage
    shock. These shocks increase in amplitude as more
    mistakes are made. However, Milgram says that "no
    permanent tissue damage will occur. Shocks
    start at 15 volts, and grow in 15 volt
    increments.

30
Milgram Experiment
  • The shock generator has 30 switches, each labeled
    with a voltage ranging from 15 through 450 volts,
    and a verbal rating, ranging from "slight shock"
    to "danger severe shock". The final two switches
    are labeled "XXX".

31
Milgram Experiment
The learner responds in the following manner to
the shocks
32
Milgram Experiment
As the participant perceives the learner's pain,
his conscience kicks in, and he begins to object
to continuing the experiment. Milgram responds
to these objections in the following way
Question What percentage of participants would
deliver the full 450 volts?
33
Milgram Experiment
  • Milgram's results were alarming. Of the 40
    teachers he surveyed (the learners were
    confederates of Milgram and were unharmed), 68
    of them ended up delivering the full 450 volt
    treatment. 15 of the 40 ended up convulsing with
    epilepetic laughter. Participants went
    temporarily mad and started tearing their hair
    out. Most amusingly, Milgram actually believed
    that the aforementioned experimental setup was
    the CONTROL case! He did not anticipate that
    subjects would conform at all in these conditions.

34
Huxley v. Orwell
  • Check out this comic adaptation of the
    introduction to Neil Postmans Amusing Ourselves
    to Death
  • Can you think of contemporary examples of both a
    Huxleyan and an Orwellian world?
  • With which should we be more concerned?
  • How about examples from The Cuckoos Nest?
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com