An Open Society
Yesterday, we pondered: What would a society where people's lives are almost entirely public look like?
Mitka brought up the idea of first impressions. In an open society, we might learn things about people we haven't yet met that would color our impressions of them later. Currently, we first get to know people a little on their terms, and then when we do find out their unusual or embarrassing traits, we can fit them into an already-established context.
I countered that, in an open society, few traits would be viewed as unusual or embarrassing. For example, in our current society, finding out that someone had attempted suicide, even if it was a long time ago, would color our perceptions of them, particularly if we find out before actually meeting them. But imagine that all of a sudden you got a list of all of your acquaintances that had attempted suicide. You'd look at the list, which would maybe have a couple dozen names, and you'd probably see some surprises. At first, you'd rethink your impression of the people you see on the list, but after reading through the whole thing, you'd start to rethink your impression of suicide attempts. The next time you meet someone and find out that they've attempted suicide in the past, but aren't depressed anymore, you'd probably react the same way as if instead they were talking about a serious car accident. In turn, your calm reaction would make it easier for people to talk to you about depression and suicide, coming back full circle to having an open society.
In an open society, we'd destigmatize common behaviors, because we'd know just how common they are, and not just in an abstract sense. We'd actually see the people that engage in these behaviors, and realize that they're just like the rest of us, or, more precisely, that they are us. We'd have a much richer understanding of the human experience.
Another example that came up in the conversation was homosexuality. Hollywood-style films sometimes associate being gay with unrelated traits, such as an interest in fashion, whereas in my experience the distribution of traits and interests of gay people is about the same as that of people as a whole. In fact, there's a series of Youtube videos that parodies this disconnect.
In a more closed society, people's impressions of gay people would be more stereotyped. As a result, finding out that someone is gay would change the way you think about them, since you would now associate them with these stereotypes. On the other hand, in a more open society, you'd know that being gay correlates with little else, and hence finding out that someone is gay wouldn't change your impression of them. This, in turn, would make it easier for people to come out as gay, and would help reinforce the open society.
Of course, an open society wouldn't get rid of all stereotypes: If one race for whatever reason had a higher crime rate than another, you'd still judge people based on race, and if one gender for whatever reason performed better than another at a particular task, you'd still judge people based on gender. In fact, it's possible that in an open society it would be more difficult to ignore information in order to make a less discriminatory decision.
Another point that we made is that it's all well and good to destigmatize personal behaviors, but what about behaviors that hurt others? For example, in an open society, if you knew about all of your acquaintances who have shoplifted, it would destigmatize theft. Certainly, if everyone around you is behaving unethically, you don't want to be the sucker that gets left behind. On the other hand, if everyone around you is behaving ethically, you don't want to be the asshole. So, perhaps there is an advantage to hiding our dark secrets and appearing to be better people than we actually are, in order to encourage others to behave more ethically. On the other hand, perhaps being able to talk openly about actions that we're not proud of would make it easier for us to move forward and act better in the future.
It certainly seems that we're currently headed towards a more open society with Facebook and blogs and all, so I guess we'll find out!
posted by Yasha B.-K. @ 11:43 PM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
The "whatever reason" you mentioned about crime rates between races, and gender abilities do not exist. They exist through racism that puts minorities in poverty, forcing them to commit crimes. And gender bias exists almost solely to further aid the white male agenda.
In my opinion, a completely open society would enlighten everybody to the power plays that racism and sexism truly are. Because there is absolutely zero biological basis for the stereotypes--and even statistics--that support disparity between race and gender, it seems apparent that these disparities would disappear once everybody could see them as a social construct.
I believe we are in agreement. One of the "whatever reasons" is exactly "racism that puts minorities in poverty," and I don't believe that innate traits play a significant role.
Nonetheless, at the moment there are differences in crime rates, so if I notice someone following me, my best estimate of whether or not they intend to rob me is affected by their race and gender. I then have a choice of whether to take an action in my immediate best interest at the expense of perpetuating a cycle of racism, or instead to take a risk in order to support my long-term interest of living in a more fair society.
Alas, gut feelings don't tend to take long-term interests into account, and so one has to consciously compensate.
You've pointed out several problems that a more open society would remedy. However, you seem to have overlooked the benefit of our current society. Namely, each of us can present the version of ourselves that we want the world to see. In private, I think my life can be quite mundane, I'm slovenly when I eat, I swear sometimes, and generally am not too attractive. That changes when I'm around other people -- not only am I better behaved, I think I'm a more exciting person. I believe my point is illustrated by comparing comments on a website which allows anonymous commenting to one which forces people to use their real names (or even just an account name). When people are forced to take ownership for their actions, they act more respectably. You may argue that this would force everyone to act better in an open society, but actually I think it would just lower standards. To paraphrase Shakespeare, life is in a sense a production, and having an open society would remove that aspect of drama.
I was once asked if, should I be offered a crystal ball allowing me to spy on anyone I wanted, would I take it? Perhaps if confronted with this situation I would act differently, but I would like to think I wouldn't take it. There's a certain attractive mystery in secrecy. But more importantly, many people value their privacy. I respect my own and others'.
Also, I disagree with your assertion that social media is making our society more open. It is true that they make it easy to communicate, but we are still able to present a selective version of ourselves, more easily I would argue than in real life. It's also easy to remain anonymous when you want to, as I have taken advantage of in posting this comment.
A final point: even in our current society, all the issues you mentioned are improving, though perhaps slowly. 100 years ago suicide and mental illness were anathema, and the concept of sexual orientation essentially did not exist.
There are cultural reasons that different groups differ in their behaviors, and these both have deep historical roots and are quite durable. An open society may accelerate convergence somewhat, but group differences will still persist at least for many generations. And, as has been celebrated, vive la différence!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home