Morality and the Mob Mentality
We have a very difficult situation in the San Francisco Bay Area right now. A Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) cop shot and killed a 22-year old black father at an Oakland BART station. Bad enough in itself, the man was killed while lying on his stomach and being held by two other police officers. And everything was caught from various angles on videos taken by bystanders with their cell phones. The cop was arrested yesterday and he has been charged with murder.
Before the cop was caught and arrested in Nevada, a mob took to the streets. They jumped on police cars, burned vehicles on the street and smashed store windows. Two very different images emerge from this riot. In the first, we see a young man “dancing” on the hood of a police car:
In the next picture, we see a very different face of the protest, a young man lying on his stomach symbolic of the prone position the young father was in when shot:
A man named Lawrence Kohlberg sought to create a theoretical structure allowing the explanation of the two different behaviors we see above. His Stages of Moral Development was modeled on the approach taken by the cognitive developmental psychologist Jean Piaget. This is a brief outline of his theory of moral development.
Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
- 1. Obedience and punishment orientation
- (How can I avoid punishment?)
- 2. Self-interest orientation
- (What’s in it for me?)
Level 2 (Conventional)
- 3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
- (Social norms)
- (The good boy/good girl attitude)
- 4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
- (Law and order morality)
Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
- 5. Social contract orientation
- 6. Universal ethical principles
- (Principled conscience)
One note of interest in this structure is that people are only able to really comprehend the level one above the level at which they find themselves practicing. They don’t live there, but at least they are aware of it. A person progresses through the stages in order.
In a protest march, most of the protesters are from stages 2 and 6. Stage 6 protesters are there to change the world for the better as they perceive it. They believe first and foremost in a cause.
Stage 2 protestors are there for the excitement. There is no better party in town than a riot! And a party for a person at stage 2 is a hedonistic affair indeed. It may be destructive. It may be violent. But, above all, it will pump some adrenalin!
So, they smash store windows even though no merchant conceivably was involved. They burn citizens’ cars, even though the other citizens are actually in the same situation as the protestors. One of the protestors said before a TV camera, “We have lived in fear for years; now they will live in fear!” They? The merchants and your fellow citizens? Doesn’t matter, the stage 2 has his or her blood up and this is a night to remember!
Now, this is the bad part. You often can’t tell the stage 2’s and the stage 6’s apart until it is too late. The guy lying on his stomach is probably going to be quite perplexed at the destruction on the horizon. He may have even organized this protest. But, now it isn’t a protest…it’s an out of control riot! Before its done, property will be destroyed and over 100 people will be arrested by a bunch of stage 4 police. Fortunately, no one was shot!
Jump in and have your say. Let me know how you think this could have been prevented – or whether you think that is impossible. Have you ever headed off an escalating situation? How did you do it? Do you think Kohlberg was onto something – or totally off the beam?
Pictures from Frederic Larson and Noah Berger for the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Tags: Kohlberg Morality Theorem, Mobs, Morality, Murder, Police, Riots
Wow, that’s a lot to digest, but it does make sense. I’ll give you the perspective I’ve gained from the School of Hard Knocks.
As far as whether the riots could have been prevented, I suppose it would be possible, although extremely difficult. The biggest problem to overcome would be the natural tendency of the Stage 2 mentalities to communicate and co-exist with other Stage 2s. If the only communications they are receiving are from those with like mindsets, then the problem will undoubtedly escalate. However, if you can find a way for some Stage 6s to intervene early in the escalation, I suppose they might be able to influence the Stage 2s in a positive way.
Another way of influencing the Stage 2s might be to quickly and openly acknowledge their position, and take action that makes them feel as though they have been heard. For instance, if the officer had immediately been taken into custody, it might have stemmed the overwhelming emotions the Stage 2s were feeling, and reduced their need to ‘act out’.
When heading off escalating situations I found:
?
1. The most important piece of the process is empathy. You have to be able to understand how the other people are feeling before you can deal with those feelings.
2. Once you know how they are feeling, then you need to figure out what actions would make you feel better if you were in their situation.
3. Once that is done, take those actions if possible. If it’s not possible, remain calm, acknowledge that their feelings are valid, and explain in the most logical way possible why you can’t do what they want to have done.
4. Be prepared to meet resistance, and stay the course, very calmly and logically restating your rationale from various angles until you feel you have stemmed the tide.
5. No matter what happens, do not lose your cool or you will become a part of the escalation.
6. Did I mention that you need to stay calm
I live in India where spontaneous riots are almost daily occurrences. The nearest I can come to answering your question is the motivation for the riot. Usually, simmering anger and discontent due to frequent events of similar nature lead to such situations. In our city, it is often damaging and setting fire to buses and other vehicles that cause accidents in the same place over and over again.
rummuser’s last blog post..Solution Before The Problem.
Interesting post and thanks Conrad. Kohlberg presents a few problems in that his ethical model was rigid and structured in ways that since have surpassed his thought in several ways. First, his student Gilligan challenged the fact that only males served as subjects to create the entire model and then proved it’s not suited to females in several key ways. Kollberg agreed.
Second, there are not the rigid structures for development of the moral mind that he originally thought. These are now surpassed by theorists such as Vygotsky and Gardner – who see that levels of dev. differ for different people – depending on both genes and experience in life.
Just a thought to toss into a very interesting discussion:-)
Ellen Weber’s last blog post..Expect More Memory by Outsourcing Key Facts
Ellen, Ramana and Viki – you are giving me just some of the type of input I was looking for. This is not an easy topic.
Ellen, my acquaintance with Kohlberg came from the 60’s protests and my college experience at the time. It is not surprising that such a structure as his would be surpassed. Still, I thought his was a good dialogue and analysis start where no comprehensive structure was available before (that I am aware of). Thank you for the updates on the work by Vygotsky and Gardner. I will look up some of their work. I was aware of the challenges by Gilligan. It would seem that much of the moral development would reflect the neural plasticity that you write so eloquently about on your own blog. I would strongly encourage new readers here to check out Ellen’s blog at http://brainleadersandlearners.com.
Viki, you are one of the smartest people I know and you’ve learned well from the hard knocks. Give you a system and you have that ability to dig into it and apply it almost immediately in a very common sense way. Both of us will probably find the notes Ellen has added interesting for further study.
And, Ramana, you are our reporter on the street in this instance. Your description of the motivations seem pretty universal and do apply well to what people are saying here. It is a shame that it goes so far awry and becomes so destructive. We will try to keep the communication going on matters like this.
Heartfelt thanks to the three of you.
Did I just hear some reporter from CNN mention THIS post in his reporting of the Oakland riots. I know him, Conrad that is.
GL Hoffman’s last blog post..Don’t Fire Yourself
Conrad, you have handled an exceptionally difficult subject with grace and objectivity, as have your readers.
I’m impressed and humbled.
Mob mentality is toxic and has a life of its own, spreading like wildfire and making it difficult for all concerned to be at their best. Decisions have to be made in a split-second and under very grueling circumstances.
I don’t think that there is an easy answer; this has been going on since time immemorial. I think we can get there, as Viki has suggested, by empathy or compassion, which are heart-infused emotions.
In an ideal society, where all members are playing fair, we would have been taught how to activate our care and concern for the residents of our community, our world.
Marianna’s last blog post..Are You "Souffled?"
Thanks, Marianna! It is a difficult and important subject, but I have to think that a growing community of good will, knowledge, compassion, humility and just an overriding desire for peace is a very good path for us to be on. And, I think you and all the other readers have contributed very nicely to all those things.
Thanks to you and to all of you!