Each individual has his or her own set of beliefs, which is reflected by his or her knowledge. Therefore if knowledge is selectively presented to a person, their beliefs can be predictable in accordance with this selective knowledge. Society appoints various mediums through which this knowledge is passed to a person and these are what are known as ‘societal influences’ on the individual. These mediums can range to anything from parents and teachers, to the government. Through the use of these agents society is capable of controlling the amount and extent of knowledge an individual is exposed to. I am not attempting to portray society as a specific body of certain figures whose sole aim is to gain control of individuals – it is more complex than that. The power of society is a natural phenomenon - it cannot be clearly defined, as its influence over individuals is more subconsciously undertaken.
An example of allowing only selective knowledge to a group of individuals can be seen when governments put bans on certain books and magazines that are not permitted to be read within that country. This was a common occurrence in Malawi during the totalitarian rule of Dr Kamuzu Banda. ‘Animal Farm’ by George Orwell and ‘Satanic Verses’ by Salman Rushdie are only two of the numerous books that were not allowed within the country to be read by the public. This was because the former book was a reflection of and subsequently an insult to Dr Banda’s own regime of the time. The latter book apparently did not agree with the dictator’s religious beliefs and therefore he decided that no one should have the right to read it. Even magazines were banned, an example being ‘Focus on Africa’ simply because it analysed various countries in Africa, including Malawi and Dr Banda did not want any facts about the country to be exposed to public view. This is evidently an extreme form of control exerted upon people to administer their sources of knowledge. In this case Dr Banda used his position of strong political power in society to limit the amount of knowledge they were exposed to. This would ensure that their beliefs would not adapt to those of certain authors, but always remain entrenched in the same traditional customs that Dr Banda had the ability to control people with.
But is this always the case? One would argue that in economically more developed countries there is more freedom of speech and the individual has many liberties at his/her fingertips. Others say that even all around the world people, no matter how limited their knowledge or education might be, can overpower any external influences with the strength of their innate behaviour/beliefs. It has been proven that morality is a form of instinctive belief – it is just there and always has been there. People argue that morality can only be taught up to a certain extent i.e. parents teaching their children to be kind and helpful towards old people, but then it is the individual’s responsibility to then decide what their own moral beliefs are in accordance with what they are taught. Yet many of us, a lot of the time, automatically act to benefit others in small acts of kindness that seem so ordinary but which we take so much for granted. We are pleased, but not surprised that people usually care for sick relatives, contribute money to help famine victims, or donate blood to hospitals. It seems that these actions, resulting from people’s beliefs, are simply expected. According to sociobiologists, we are biologically driven to those forms of altruism i.e. caring for our families, which improve the survival of our genes. Empathy is also an important component of moral behaviour yet people are as motivated with emotions as reasoned moral principle; perhaps this is where the role of society begins.
Professor of Psychology Celia Kitzinger believes that society plays a large part in controlling the moral behaviour of an individual, not always by the knowledge provided but by the social values it instils within people. She considers that a person will only respond to a stimuli depending on the social situation, because people tend to behave in accordance with socially prescribed roles rather than as individuals.
In a well-known study by Stanley Milgram, subjects were recruited through advertisements for what was described as ‘an experiment in learning’. They were seated in front of a shock machine that could administer up to 450 volts to the ‘learner’, a man strapped into a chair yet hidden from the view of the subject. Each time the ‘learner’ made a mistake the subject had to pull a lever to give him an electric shock, increasing the voltage each time. Actually the lever was a dummy and the ‘learner’ was acting out his response shouting and screaming according to the voltage of the shock given each time. If the subject wanted to stop giving the shocks the experimenter said only ‘the experiment requires you continue’. No threats, incentives, just the order. Ultimately, almost 65% of the subjects delivered the full range of shocks, even pulling the lever marked ‘XXX’.
These people were not sadists but ordinary folks who had reasonable moral beliefs. Virtually all complained to the experimenter and asked permission to stop but when ordered to continue, the majority conformed. As Milgram says:
“With numbing regularity good people were seen to knuckle under the demands of authority and perform actions that were callous and severe”
Although this study did not include a large sample of the population, it nevertheless underlines the extent to which moral behaviour is a social, not an individual issue. When considering the lack of morality of people we often resort to explanations that depend on individual characteristics. However an individual is merely a tool of society. Psychological studies as the one I described above illustrate that it is easy to set up situations in which most of us behave worse than we could have thought possible, out of conformity, fear of what others might think, loss of individual identity to others or obedience to authority.
It is this simple to control behaviour of individuals and consequently society does this incessantly. Society can manipulate in many ways the knowledge it presents to individuals through all channels and also predict how people will interpret this knowledge and respond to it including their moral behaviour. Therefore it has the capability to shape an individual. However even though society has this power one can argue that there are individuals strong enough to stand up to conventional societal doctrines. However these are a minority, as it seems many people appreciate the value of society and will always conform to it. Yet knowledge is transient and perhaps with changing knowledge, our ingrained values and beliefs will also change.
WORD COUNT: 1426
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-
Paul Davies, ‘The Mind of God’ Penguin (1993)
-
Celia Kitzinger, Professor of Psychology at the University of Loughborough, England ‘Born to be good’, Article on Ethics in Psychology.
-
Shems Frielander, ‘When you hear hoofbeats think of a zebra’ Mazda Publishers, California (1992)
