“People don’t have the power to change situations. Situations have the power to change people.” When I first read this quote by Ram Mohan, I couldn’t decide if I liked it or not. I believe that through hard work, we can change our situation for the better, but I do agree that situations have the ability to dramatically influence a person’s character and beliefs.
I think that paradigm shifts bring the two parts of the quote together. Situations are the catalysts that bring about change, but people actually implement the new ideas. In turn, these new ideas cause situations to change.
A few weeks ago, my criminology professor showed us this cartoon, which I thought illustrated Mohan’s quote well.
Cartoon courtesy of Philip Zimbardo’s TED Talk: The Psychology of Evil and mutualresponsibility.org
The cartoon illustrates the Stanford Prison experiment, which was conducted by Philip Zimbardo. In experiment, Zimbardo separated student volunteers into two separate groups: prisoners and prison guards. He designed the setting to replicate a prison. Zimbardo’s goal was to see how good people would react in response to evil forces, so he attempted to make the experiment as realistic as possible.
The “prisoners” were treated as real prisoners and the guards had complete authority to do anything they pleased. As a result, the guards who were normal, respectable young men punished the “prisoners” by chaining their legs, repeatedly waking them up throughout the night, and humiliating them. Because of the circumstance in which they were placed, these intelligent young men abandoned their values and became perpetrators of abuse.
One of the most amazing things about the experiment is that the prisoners went along with the guards’ torment. They listened to every single command they were given, no matter how degrading it was.
Additionally, when the prisoners’ parents visited the experiment site and saw how emotionally exhausted their sons seemed, they didn’t challenge the experiment, because they were reluctant to challenge the authority.
After the experiment, Zimbardo concluded that the situation won and humanity lost. The situational forces overwhelmed the guards’ inherent morality, and because of the situation, they changed. They acted in ways that were abnormal, because the circumstances surrounding them changed.
The same is true about paradigms. Our society forms paradigms, or common frameworks of ideas, as a result of the surrounding environment. The students in the experiment discovered their values and formed their character as a result of the environment in which they grew up.
When situations change, paradigms shift. As a society, we are always learning new information. As we discover more and more, our beliefs are constantly shifting because the circumstances surrounding us also transition.
For example, our beliefs surrounding smoking have changed tremendously over time. Until the early twentieth century, people smoked freely because they did not understand the negative side effects caused by tobacco. Smoking was accepted and normal. As we learned more about medicine, and realized the harmful effects of smoking, smoking became less acceptable as smokers attempted to quit. Tobacco companies roared back in the 1950s by promising “healthier smokes”. The public’s attitude shifted yet again.
Currently, because of all the advances in technology and medicine, we know how harmful smoking is to our bodies. Fewer and fewer people smoke cigarettes, and smoking now has a negative connotation. Because of the new knowledge that we have developed, society’s outlook on a once widely accepted practice has shifted. The paradigm has changed because the environment surrounding us has changed. Very similarly, the participants in the Stanford Prison Experiment acted abnormally because the circumstances surrounding them changed.
Paradigms act like people act. When we are placed in a new situation with new knowledge and power, we inevitably alter our behavior. As our culture evolves, and our ideas are tested against developing research, those ideas and values are going to change, leading to paradigm shifts.
Sources:
“A Brief History of Tobacco.” CNN. Cable News Network, 2000. Web. 17 Oct. 2013.
Zimbardo, Philip G. “Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: A Lesson in the Power of Situation.” The Chronicle Review March 30 (2007): n. pag. Web.
Your examples really demonstrated just how easy or hard it can be for a paradigm to change. I think that sometimes underlying themes or mindsets don’t change (like the willingness to listen to authority or maximize utility in the short run and smoke), which makes paradigms easier to change or people easier to exploit.
I like how you connected the ideas of the individual to the over-arching paradigm shifts, “these new ideas cause situations to change.” We are all products of our environment, but that doesn’t mean we necessary neglect our own beliefs. We are just consistently finding ways to incorporate our own beliefs into the common ideas of society.
This was a really good read. I appreciate the connection you made between paradigm shifts to situation changes. Very interesting concept!
It was interesting the way you connected the examples with paradigm shifts, and how the quote fits the examples. I agree with you how the paradigm shift is how the people shift.
I think it’s really interesting that you draw parallels between paradigms and people in this post. I agree that paradigms respond like people to various scenarios, most likely because paradigms are generated by people, and therefore reflect their behavior. Just like you said, the participants of the Stanford Prison Experiment were changed by their environment, and their paradigms were as well.
For better or worse, we’re all a product of our environment, and there is little that someone can do individually to buck the trend. I find it interesting how you connected this with paradigm shifts, as I feel that they fit together very well.