Sociology > Depression > Building on Lerner: Social reality as just-world hypotheses in equilibrium
| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
07 Jul 2005 12:40:36 PM |
| Object: |
Building on Lerner: Social reality as just-world hypotheses in equilibrium |
Melvin Lerner's concept of just-world hypothesis postulates that, for
his sanity, man must believe world to be just - and that, in order to
explain any given situation, invents ethical or worldly reason why
different people are in the situation that they are in or why things
are as they are. Thus, if the world is to be left alone as is, then it
must be just; and if the world is not just, then it must be changed in
order to be made just. The second attitude is the driving call for
every political movement. The first attitude, besides of course in the
actions of those who accept any given status quo or the values that
made it, we see likewise in Eastern religions that believe karma to be
the source of all things however good or bad. The Christian attitude
that the world is evil (and redemption comes through Christ) is a way
to explain injustice as way of the world - in fact, as something that
people have merited - and in so doing to excuse all injustice in the
world as a result of sin - which explanation of course allows the
person to regain a just-world hypothesis: Namely that injustice of the
world has a cause and, though it is the way of the world, it is
possible for the Christian to find a way to ultimately defeat it
(essentially by defeating the world itself).
I build upon the concept of just-world hypothesis to show the world to
be the product of interactivity of many different people's sets of
just-world hypotheses, resulting in what I call a psycho-ethical
equilibrium: a byproduct of different people's concept of self and
concept of others according to their just-world hypotheses; that places
people at the intersection point of the just-world hypotheses held by
all members involved - that, when altered, leads to changes in either
people's senses of self, senses of others or concept of what makes a
just world - and that of course is changed by alterations in all these
things.
The state of any person in this continuum - as well as their
self-appraisal, their sense of just world and their effect on others -
is an integrative function of factors internal and external. A woman I
know on the Internet ("desnos" on alt.angst) put forth in her graduate
essay that meaning of communication is a function of both the speaker
and the listener: That the beliefs and actions of both contribute in
creating the meaning as it is perceived. I believe the same dynamic to
shape both the just-world hypothesis and, pursuant it, the concept of
self, the concept of others, and ultimately the place one inhabits.
While one set of dogma (seen especially in the business world) wants to
see all factors as being internal - and another set of secular dogma
(seen in sociology departments) wants to see all factors as being
external - I see both dogmas to be fallacious; the first one
discounting external factors and blinding people to them (making them
easy prey to manipulation and depending on them to have a culture of
deliberate ignorance and suppression of insight) - and the second
discounting internal factors and thus blinding people to individuality.
Having seen both dogmas for what they are, I refuse to buy into either
dogma and recognize the reality, and that is: That a world is an
integrative function among many influences, all of which have one or
another origin and all of which result directly or indirectly in
condition of others.
The psycho-ethical equilibrium is constantly in flux, as different
people strive to change their condition; others strive to make the
world reflect their sense of justice; and - the mechanism I choose to
focus on especially - the people's sense of world (and sense of self)
adjust constantly to reflect the reality of their situation and that of
others.
Another source of fluctuation is the influence of people with different
justice views from without the system. Thus, a civilization confronted
with another civilization (if it does not get annihilated, or if it
does not kill off the other completely) is confronted with other
just-world hypotheses, other ideas, other influences, inventions, etc,
all of which reshape both the actual reality and the reality as it is
perceived by the civilization and its citizens.
Indeed the world at any given time - the state of the world at any
given time - is akin to that of an ocean, with changes in reality of
people's condition occasioning changes in people's judicial-ethical
view of people involved - and changes in ethical view of parties
occasioning them to make changes in their (and each other's) condition.
The entire world can be seen as an ever-shifting sea, sometimes calmy
sometimes stormy, whose members wobble up an down, occasioning shifts
in their own condition and in condition of others, and the interplay of
whose actions shapes the equilibrium at any given time: The changes in
which equilibrium result in changes in justice views, self views, and
views of others in people involved.
The observation that brought this concept into focus for me - and one
that gave me a fair amount of consternation and led me to place under
serious doubt the quality of human design rather than simply of "human
nature" or "human condition" - consisted of observing many situations
in which people engaged in bullying, violence or other forms of amoral
destruction of the next person and then invented reasons why the person
deserved to be mistreated; which reasons the other people around
readily gobbled up - and which the people under attack were under
tremendous pressure to either fight off or to succumb under. The
process that I observed in these situation consisted of sense of self
from within (and sense of person from without) followed the change in
the reality of the sitution (indeed in the reality of the treatment),
eventually shifting the entire psycho-ethical equilibrium to a state
reflecting the new reality. Thus, an action that had no moral quality
changed people's sense of the moral worth of the next person or of
themselves. And another dynamic that I observed, consisted of people
repeatedly changing their view of one or another person who was going
up or down in one or antoher respect, with their sense of them changing
depending upon their position.
Thus, a bully (or set of bullies - this can include anything from a
group of schoolboys to a brutal husband to an entire civilization)
attacks a person or set of persons; whom, after they have been attacked
or wiped off the world, the moral faculty invents a reason to devine as
deserving of what took place. In order to maintain the just-world
hypothesis, the person either must make the situation accord with his
sense of justice and ethics - or else make the sense of what
constitutes just world accord with the reality of the situation. The
latter can be manifest in changes in view of self (when self is
affected); in changes in view of the other person who is affected; or,
if the changes of the person remain unaffected, changes in view of the
reality of the world (changes in the just-world hypothesis).
The truly obnoxious quality consists of the pressure I've seen to see
people who come under injust attack as morally inferior. This is, quite
simply, outrageous; and yet the human design allows such things to take
place! How? Well I've just shown how: Either you believe that the
person is good and the world is injust - a situation that puts you in
the uncomfortable position of having to take action and risk all kinds
of nastiness - or you take the easy way and find out one or another
reason why the person deserves what they're getting! The latter of
which is of course the path taken especially by the moral cowards we've
seen taking the path of the last two decades: A path that combines the
worst of the two to arrive at a mindset peculiarly Eastern in its
passivity and resulting moral cowardice - and peculiarly American in
its soulless (and likewise morally cowardly, some would say
sociopathic) blame-the-victim attitude that is used to maintain
America's pretense of having a principled and just society and the land
of the free the home of the brave in face of vicious injustice and
rampant atrocity.
I refer to the Eastern mindset as being one of moral cowardice,
precisely because it blames the victim for every atrocity and therefore
justifies every wickedness done to the next person under the face of
the sun, allowing the leader to get away with any injustice and leading
to systemic atrocity that manifests in evil social orders such as caste
system, Confucianism and Mongol hordes. The Christian solution ("the
world is evil; humanity must be overcome and replaced with the Holy
Spirit") may be seen as curing the patient by killing him; however
death experience is something that is a part of many a transformation,
both for the better and for the worse. The effect of both religions is
to give people the sense that the world is just in presence of apparent
(and in many cases quite real) injustice. The genius achieved by both
approaches consists of giving people a sense of justice in presence of
injustice, and thus of achieving fuflilment of just-world hypotheses
necessary for stable functioning - and then giving the people the way
to maintain the just-world hypothesis by behaving in ways that each
religion believes to be just and to lead to a world it wants to see.
Which meant that, essentially, the religion bought into the just-world
hypothesis mechanism and took it to the place it wanted to take it.
Whether the world created as a result was in fact just or even better,
is of course another story. But I digress.
In cases of both the change in the situation and the sense of just
world, the situation moves from one psycho-ethical equilibrium to
another; which equilibrium, in order to remain stable, achieves accord
between state of ethics and situation. Through directed action in
pursuit of one's concept of what makes a just world, the person changes
reality of the world changed to reflect his person's just-world
hypothesis and attempts to shift the psycho-ethical equilibrium
deliberately to a level that accords with his sense of justice (after
which all the affected parties have the option either to change back
the reality of the situation to original equilibrium, to change the
view of the participants in order to accommodate the new equilibrium,
or to change their idea of what consitutes a just world). Through
action that changes reality in a manner shorn of justice consideration,
is put a pressure to take the psycho-ethical equilibrium to a level
that justifies the action - and that, in and of itself, would result
once again in either the participants' view of the person involved, or
in their view of the world.
This, of course, can be used to believe human nature amoral or weak or
of sellout quality. Whether or not that be the case, the situation can
be explained from the just-world hypothesis standpoint. Either you make
the world adjust to your sense of justice, or you make your sense of
justice adjust to reality of the world; and the world, once again, in
whatever psycho-ethical equilibrium exists at the time, is an
integrative function of the interactions among the just-world
hypothesis of all participants, with every lasting equilibrium a result
of adjustments (right or wrong) of either people's views of the world,
selves and each other or their reality - and any dischordance leading
to pressure upon both reality of the condition and the beliefs of its
participants. In both cases, the situation moves from one
psycho-ethical equilibrium to another - which equilibrium, in order to
remain stable, achieves accord between reality of situation and view by
participants of themselves and others involved; the lack of which
accord in any direction results in instability.
It is for this reason that it is so difficult for a person or a group
of people at the receiving end of abuse to rise out of such conditions.
Not only the external reality of the situation, but internal reality
must alter: namely the warped sense of self that results from
maintenance of just-world-hypothesis in presence of mistreatment - or
alternatively the warped just-world hypothesis that is the result. In
addition to the preceding, there is also the third factor. To make this
new position permanent, one must furthermore make sure that it accords
with the sum total of other people's just-world hypotheses: Which means
changing the other people's view of self in a manner that's lasting and
permanent and accords with their sense of justice (or changing
pemanently their concept of what is just world).
Which explains, for example, the troubles that faced America's women
and blacks after they got their rights. The brutal domestic situations
of many American women, the far more insidious destruction of women's
self-esteem in the media and in schools that undermine the
self-confidence of most women especially the most talented, the rabid
hatred we hear from around the world and from many (frequently
unexpected) places within America, and the many self-inflicted errors
and foolishness of American women's self-proclaimed leaders (including
some we clearly see here directed, of all people to misdirect such
things, at me, while allowing among them people who mouth their line
but commit hideous crimes from near-murder to pedophilia), are all
manifestation of the equilibrium seeking to remain in place, through
all the mechanisms previously stated, even after the legal situation
changed. We see the previous generation, with its just-world hypotheses
shaped by previous dynamics, seeking to regain the previous situation;
fundamentalists changing the young people's just-world hypotheses to
reflect the original state of affairs; people around the world and
inside America, who see them the way they used to see them, finding one
and a million ways to sabotage them to bring them back where they
wanted them to be; and women's leaders, through manifestation of the
original self-image in their actions and thoughts inflicting stupidity
and error upon themselves, upon those among them who have it within
themselves to have and impart happiness, upon those who have better
ideas than they do, and upon those who would naturally sympathize with
them while bringing into their life treacherous snakes who manipulate
their affections and then go home to brutalize their girlfriends or
molest their kids.
It is for this reason likewise that we see people slip back into old
habits and bad situations once they've been in them. The sense of self
is adjusted to psycho-ethical equilibrium corresponding with these
habits, and often hard work (from introspection onwards, especially if
introspection is done, as it is on alt.angst, in terms of a bad value
system and a malignant psychology) is performed in vain - as, for
example, it was in vain for Michele who prided herself on supposedly
being introspective (and, in case of Bob and David, who also think
themselves oh-so-introspective, only made them more vile). For true,
permanent alteration in psycho-ethical equilibrium, three things must
happen. Change in reality of the situation; change in sense of self;
and change in other people's sense of the person.
Which is why, for any social movement to ultimately succeed, all three
elements must be necessary. It does no good to get rights if your sense
of self (and the world's sense of you) is adjusted to level
corresponding with condition of slavery. The entire psycho-ethical
equlibrium needed to maintain justice hypotheses must be taken to
higher level. And it must be maintained there through deliberate
action, until the equilibrium is regained - only now, rather than
corresponding with state of inferiority, it must exist at a level
corresponding with state of respect-worthiness as reflected in reality;
in sense of self; and in the other's sense of the self.
It should be noted that the latter can be done in many different ways,
from earning respect by proving the selves respect-worthy according to
the other's values to changing the reality of the condition in a way
that likewise accords with the other's values and cannot be justified
by them in taking away. This we are seeing done finally by many black
people who have pursued honest business, professional, military,
priestry, scientific or social service paths: Paths that not only raise
the reality of their condition, but likewise legitimately alter the
world's sense of their value.
A more minor issue consists of the flux between the individual's sense
of self and the world's sense of him. A person whose sense of self is
higher than other people's view of him attracts attack intended to drag
him down to the level of the other's idea; a person whose sense of self
is lower than another's sense of him attracts love to help him rise to
their level. The flux however is not only from outside in; it's also
from inside out. A person's sense of self, beside being either attacked
or supported if it disagrees with the other people's view of him, also
exercises effect on other people's view of him - and ultimately on
themselves. The people involved will have to keep pushing their view
upon the person - to accept a different sense of the other person - to
create a different just-world hypothesis - or have to stand to be
outclassed (hi Bob).
A more salient issue is that we see people earn in estimation, or lose
in estimation, all the time. The case of a society either unjustly
punishing or unjustly rewarding somebody causes moral outrage: In other
words, the person's just-world hypothesis revolting against perceived
injustice. This is of course true with actual injustices (such as for
example the burning of Joan of Arc) and injustices perceived in
relation to the person's just-world hypothesis (such as, for example,
in the mind of the Muslim fundamentalist, Western women working outside
the home). And of course we see people manipulating people's just-world
hypotheses all the time, for one or another set of agendas. We know
this as politics.
Another aspect of politics concerns the individual's place on the
psycho-ethical equlibrium. Essentially, to move up and stay up, a
person has to affect positively his estimation in the minds of others
to a greater extent than he affects it negatively. Given the
back-and-forth nature of flux between reality and sense of reality and
sense of justice, there are many ways to accomplish this. One can
either earn respect and good treatment (and let the reality follow);
one can change the place in reality (and let the people's sense of
reality and justice hypothesis follow); or one can attempt both at
once. The tactic involved depends on the quality of the forces with
which one is dealing. The first tactic can work in the climate of
actual conscientiousness (true conscientiousness) of the population;
the second tactic is the only one that can deal with people who deal in
force (as I've spoken in other situations, the people who speak the
language of strength respect you only if you are strong). In the second
case - in dealing with mindset of might-makes-right - force is in fact
the way of changing the other person's justice hypothesis. With the
mechanism of force mastered, it then becomes possible to put it in
service of actual justice - which has of course been the expressed goal
of Western civilization for centuries on end.
Actions by people to change their condition change either other
people's sense of them, or their sense of the world. When someone who
used to be well-regarded turns to "the dark side," that frequently
occasions a shock: "Were we wrong about this person? Did something
happen that I don't know about? Is something wrong with the world?" A
similar shock can be heard when we see someone who's been
conventionally mistreated gets something that the people buying into
the just-world hypothesis warped by that mistreatment into believing
him evil do not believe him or her to deserve. (We've seen both
dynamics take place here).
Which leads me to speak of perhaps the most significant issue here of
all, and that is: The quality of the just-world hypotheses. Not all
just-world hypotheses are created equal. I see that to be a function of
three variables. The first is actual truthfulness, compassion,
sagacity, fairness, depth and integrity of the hypothesis in relation
to the reality of the world and the fact of human beingness. The second
is the method of its development - whether it started with principle or
was developed through legitimate methods, or else followed from
accident of force and fraud. And the third and perhaps ultimately most
important is the ability of the hypothesis to allow for a better state
of existence: That is, the HEIGHT to whether the entire equilibrium as
it affects oneself and those who stand to be affected by oneself can
rise; the level of life allowed for the entirety of the equilibrium;
the movement (upward or downward) along the scale that is afforded to
people affected and ultimately to the entire system.
With their position - the others' sense of them - their sense of
themselves and the other - and worldview of all involved a constantly
interactive synthesis, the people can be thought to relate like
Leibniz's monads, connecting to one another and to the whole and
through these interactions shaping the reality of each other,
themselves and the world. The reality of their lives, and the reality
of the meaning - the reality-concept - are a shared function of all
parties involved: Of their sense of self; of their sense of each other;
of their condition; and of the meaning and sense of justice that they
assign the world. The reality of the world becomes a shifting sea,
resting on monads of each individual's condition and that are always
struggling to achieve a psycho-ethical equilibrium continuously
reshaping each other through the recombinant flux of their just-world
hypotheses and their sense of themselves and each other, with each
individual unit of consciousness (individual or social) a monad - and
each relation between them a part of the interconnectivity. And through
effect on their lives, on themselves, on each other, and on the world,
is created both the meaning (in terms of world hypotheses) and the
reality of the world in which we live.
Ilya Shambat.
.
|
|
| User: "Anton Vredegoor" |
|
| Title: Re: Building on Lerner: Social reality as just-world hypotheses in equilibrium |
08 Jul 2005 06:21:06 AM |
|
|
wrote:
language of strength respect you only if you are strong). In the second
case - in dealing with mindset of might-makes-right - force is in fact
the way of changing the other person's justice hypothesis. With the
mechanism of force mastered, it then becomes possible to put it in
service of actual justice - which has of course been the expressed goal
of Western civilization for centuries on end.
I disagree with this part. Anyone can pee in the hottub, and peeing in
it yourself too only adds to the discomfort. There is just nothing one
can do directly against people who deliberately mess up the world,
except leaving the party and joining a new one.
The good news is that technological progress is so rapid these days
that it is impossible to oversee all of it. If someone takes something
away from you it might just be your lucky day because it forces you to
find something new, which -because by holding on to something the thing
never changes- might be *better* than what you lost.
Anton
'flirting with danger again'
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
