Wednesday, April 15, 2015
The Ku Klux Klan Passed the Requirement Test
Finally I'm talking history.
The Ku Klux Klan is a classic example of how deindividuation works and affects human behaviors. We will be analyzing the KKK under the lens of deindividuation. But first let's take a moment to re-acquaint ourselves with this notorious racist group.
The KKK originated in the South of the US as part of a racist movement against newly-freed African-Americans in the 1860s. Their distinct uniform separates them from the other hate groups. They would carry out extremely violent lynching targeted towards African-Americans on the basis of white supremacy and anti-social mixing.
So deindividuation happened within the KKK and propelled it to action? Yes. The KKK had all the required foundations for deindividuation to take place. Honestly, it really did.
Anonymity: The uniforms with white masks covered their whole faces and made it impossible to distinguish one member from the other. It gave them the chance to go beyond the extreme without being found out and condemned personally.
Diffused responsibility: As it was impossible to tell which member was who, the responsibility associated with crime vaporized. They would always go on lynching trips together as well. If they were caught, the responsibility was everyone's. And we all know how the saying goes, if something belongs to everyone, it belongs to none.
Group size: The KKK, hateful and condemnable as they may be, has got up to 8,000 members by 2012. Yes, it's still around.
Check this out: http://www.kkk.com/
The Ku Klux Klan is a classic example of how deindividuation works and affects human behaviors. We will be analyzing the KKK under the lens of deindividuation. But first let's take a moment to re-acquaint ourselves with this notorious racist group.
The KKK originated in the South of the US as part of a racist movement against newly-freed African-Americans in the 1860s. Their distinct uniform separates them from the other hate groups. They would carry out extremely violent lynching targeted towards African-Americans on the basis of white supremacy and anti-social mixing.
So deindividuation happened within the KKK and propelled it to action? Yes. The KKK had all the required foundations for deindividuation to take place. Honestly, it really did.
Anonymity: The uniforms with white masks covered their whole faces and made it impossible to distinguish one member from the other. It gave them the chance to go beyond the extreme without being found out and condemned personally.
Diffused responsibility: As it was impossible to tell which member was who, the responsibility associated with crime vaporized. They would always go on lynching trips together as well. If they were caught, the responsibility was everyone's. And we all know how the saying goes, if something belongs to everyone, it belongs to none.
Group size: The KKK, hateful and condemnable as they may be, has got up to 8,000 members by 2012. Yes, it's still around.
Check this out: http://www.kkk.com/
In the wrong hands
The power of deindividuation has been proven through the extent of atrocities that its victims are propelled to execute. Yet it is a process that can be initiated by man, too often for the wrong purpose.
But how do they do it?
One of the most effective methods is forming a group to promote group identity and erase self-awareness, or creating and sustaining anonymity. It can be accomplished through alienation, or persuasion.
Alienation occurs when a group of people are brought together, cut off from the outer world and forced to interact strictly within a closed circle. Gradually, these members will forsake their past, their own values, ideology, and adopt the group's belief as their own. This belief, of course, will be imposed by the very same power that has brought them together. In other words, the authority has transformed the people's perception of the norms, and of what is right and wrong into their own perception. In short, they bring people together, then plant their belief in the people's mind.
Persuasion, on the other hand, is the reverse process. It starts with the implantation of a belief. Once people have adopted the same values, they will come together voluntarily. Such was the case of the Japanese soldiers in WWII, whose nationalism brought them together. Thus, it is often accomplished most successfully by the best public speakers who can spark common trust and provoke action, like the case of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi. Once brought together, their self-identity is taken over by the group identity. They the collective awareness as their own awareness. In both cases, the same result is produced: anonymity and group pride is created.
The use of masks or other means to cover oneself has also been noted to have an important effect on creating anonymity. Once covered up, an individual feels the security of being able to blend in and not called on personally. Every member of the group is the same as one another, thus ensuring anonymity, which offers protection from personal consequences. This can be seen in the example of Ku Klux Klan and their white masks.
Deindividuation is a social process that can be created artificially. History has seen its power being used in the wrong way by the wrong hands - discriminating, mobbing, lynching, mass killing and even the wipe-out of a race.
But how do they do it?
One of the most effective methods is forming a group to promote group identity and erase self-awareness, or creating and sustaining anonymity. It can be accomplished through alienation, or persuasion.
Alienation occurs when a group of people are brought together, cut off from the outer world and forced to interact strictly within a closed circle. Gradually, these members will forsake their past, their own values, ideology, and adopt the group's belief as their own. This belief, of course, will be imposed by the very same power that has brought them together. In other words, the authority has transformed the people's perception of the norms, and of what is right and wrong into their own perception. In short, they bring people together, then plant their belief in the people's mind.
Persuasion, on the other hand, is the reverse process. It starts with the implantation of a belief. Once people have adopted the same values, they will come together voluntarily. Such was the case of the Japanese soldiers in WWII, whose nationalism brought them together. Thus, it is often accomplished most successfully by the best public speakers who can spark common trust and provoke action, like the case of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi. Once brought together, their self-identity is taken over by the group identity. They the collective awareness as their own awareness. In both cases, the same result is produced: anonymity and group pride is created.
The use of masks or other means to cover oneself has also been noted to have an important effect on creating anonymity. Once covered up, an individual feels the security of being able to blend in and not called on personally. Every member of the group is the same as one another, thus ensuring anonymity, which offers protection from personal consequences. This can be seen in the example of Ku Klux Klan and their white masks.
Deindividuation is a social process that can be created artificially. History has seen its power being used in the wrong way by the wrong hands - discriminating, mobbing, lynching, mass killing and even the wipe-out of a race.
How real can it be?
Deindividuation? Alright, the foundation makes sense, but is it a real thing? To which extent does it transpire in real life? Like every other social theory, there is no definite answer. However, there have been instances when controlled experiments were carried out to test the validity of this theory.
THE DECISION TO BELIEVE IN THIS THEORY IS COMPLETELY YOURS.
I. Stanley Milgram's Shock Experiment
II. Ed Diener's Halloween Study
"In a clever [Halloween study] conducted years ago by Ed Diener and colleagues, researchers unobtrusively observed over 1,000 kids trick-or-treating. The children were instructed that they could take one–and only one–piece of candy from a bowl inside a house. The researchers surreptitiously watched and recorded what happened next.
As you might expect, free candy is hard to resist. And visiting kids were all too eager to follow the lead of the costumed gluttons who preceded them: 83% took extra candy when the first kid in their group did likewise.
However, under some circumstances, the kids were less likely to break the rules. Namely, when the adult at the door had previously asked the children their names and what street they lived on–stripping them of their anonymity and reminding them of their individuality–candy-theft conformity dropped to 67%."
More information on the experiment
III. Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment
THE DECISION TO BELIEVE IN THIS THEORY IS COMPLETELY YOURS.
I. Stanley Milgram's Shock Experiment
II. Ed Diener's Halloween Study
"In a clever [Halloween study] conducted years ago by Ed Diener and colleagues, researchers unobtrusively observed over 1,000 kids trick-or-treating. The children were instructed that they could take one–and only one–piece of candy from a bowl inside a house. The researchers surreptitiously watched and recorded what happened next.
As you might expect, free candy is hard to resist. And visiting kids were all too eager to follow the lead of the costumed gluttons who preceded them: 83% took extra candy when the first kid in their group did likewise.
However, under some circumstances, the kids were less likely to break the rules. Namely, when the adult at the door had previously asked the children their names and what street they lived on–stripping them of their anonymity and reminding them of their individuality–candy-theft conformity dropped to 67%."
More information on the experiment
III. Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment
Deindividuation - The foundation
I. Overview:
Deindividuation takes place in our every day life - a football fan club riot at a bad game, a fraternity's hazing tradition, or even middle school bullying groups. Its frequent observation is attributed to the commonness of its founding factors of anonymity, diffused responsibility and group size.
II. Anonymity:
The word "anonymity" is derived from French word "anonymité." It refers to the namelessness of an individual and/or the characteristic of being unidentifiable. Anonymity plays a dominant role in producing the deindividuation effect in groups. When an individual blends in with other individuals, he gradually comes to forsake his self-identity and adopt the group identity; his self-awareness diminishes. The group's thoughts become his own thoughts. He finds the safety of being unidentifiable: he is only a puzzle piece of a big picture; no one will call on him personally. Increased anonymity equals decreased identifiability. In other words, anonymity ensures that an individual cannot be found out.
III. Diffused responsibility:
Diffused responsibility, in addition to anonymity, encourages group members to take on tasks they would not imagine doing alone. The function for responsibility can be roughly interpreted in Math as 1/x, where 1 is an individual and x is the number of members in a group. According to basic Math laws, when the numerator is constant, the larger the denominator, the smaller the whole fraction will be. In other words, the more members there are in a group, the less responsibility one individual has to take on. Together with decreased responsibility is a decrease in the need for self-evaluation, which leads to a reduction in internal inhibitions such as embarrassment and shame. In short, diffused responsibility ensures that an individual is not held responsible.
IV. Group size:
The group size acts as an amplifier: it magnifies the effects of anonymity and diffused responsibility. The larger the group size is, the faster and more effectively deindividuation will take place.
V. The uncut thread:
Deindividuation thrives on the basis of anonymity, diffused responsibility and group size. But how accurate is this speculation in real life? After all, it's just a social theory.
But is it?
Deindividuation takes place in our every day life - a football fan club riot at a bad game, a fraternity's hazing tradition, or even middle school bullying groups. Its frequent observation is attributed to the commonness of its founding factors of anonymity, diffused responsibility and group size.
II. Anonymity:
The word "anonymity" is derived from French word "anonymité." It refers to the namelessness of an individual and/or the characteristic of being unidentifiable. Anonymity plays a dominant role in producing the deindividuation effect in groups. When an individual blends in with other individuals, he gradually comes to forsake his self-identity and adopt the group identity; his self-awareness diminishes. The group's thoughts become his own thoughts. He finds the safety of being unidentifiable: he is only a puzzle piece of a big picture; no one will call on him personally. Increased anonymity equals decreased identifiability. In other words, anonymity ensures that an individual cannot be found out.
III. Diffused responsibility:
Diffused responsibility, in addition to anonymity, encourages group members to take on tasks they would not imagine doing alone. The function for responsibility can be roughly interpreted in Math as 1/x, where 1 is an individual and x is the number of members in a group. According to basic Math laws, when the numerator is constant, the larger the denominator, the smaller the whole fraction will be. In other words, the more members there are in a group, the less responsibility one individual has to take on. Together with decreased responsibility is a decrease in the need for self-evaluation, which leads to a reduction in internal inhibitions such as embarrassment and shame. In short, diffused responsibility ensures that an individual is not held responsible.
IV. Group size:
The group size acts as an amplifier: it magnifies the effects of anonymity and diffused responsibility. The larger the group size is, the faster and more effectively deindividuation will take place.
V. The uncut thread:
Deindividuation thrives on the basis of anonymity, diffused responsibility and group size. But how accurate is this speculation in real life? After all, it's just a social theory.
But is it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)