12.2.2

Loading...

Do curso por University of Pennsylvania

Social Norms, Social Change II

137 classificações

University of Pennsylvania

Social Norms, Social Change II

137 classificações

This course is Part 2 of the Social Norms, Social Change series. In this course, we will examine social change, the tools we may use to enact change, and put into practice all we have learned in Part 1. See Social Norms, Social Change Part I at this link: https://coursera.org/learn/norms This course covers scripts and schemas, the cognitive structures in which social expectations are embedded, and their relationship with social norms. The course then examines the essentials of norm abandonment, including the relations between personal beliefs and social expectations. We will also evaluate existing intervention strategies, including legal reforms, information campaigns, economic incentives, and group deliberations. Finally, we look at a variety of tools policy makers may use to effect change, highlight the role of trendsetters in social change, and explore the conditions under which they can be successful. The course is a joint Penn-UNICEF project." Please see the following link for a 30% discount on the book that accompanies this course: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/9780190622053/?cc=us&lang=en&promocode=AAFLYG6

Na lição

Trendsetters and Social Change

This module covers trendsetters and their relations to social change. Who are trendsetters? What are their characteristics? How can we identify them? And how can we use them to bring about positive social change. This module also discusses the role of soap operas and edutainment in bringing about social change, how fictional characters and groups can act as trendsetters, and comparative advantages of edutainment interventions over traditional interventions.

Introduction1:18

Conheça os instrutores

Cristina Bicchieri
S. J. Patterson Harvie Professor of Social Thought and Comparative Ethics
Department of Philosophy

[MUSIC]

Individuals who are willing to break from tradition,

beyond a low level of sensitivity to a particular norm,

should also be relatively insensitive to general pressures of conformity and

be autonomous in their decision making.

To identify such individuals,

one must first overcome the hurdles of defining and operationalize autonomy.

There are several psychological definitions of autonomy that are useful

when attempting to identify a potential trendsetter.

But, even these operation definitions of autonomy are not

all predictive of the same kind of trendsetter.

One primary distinction that has been made between two different forms of autonomy

is reactive and reflective autonomy.

Or the distinction between the freedom from the governance of others and

the freedom to self-govern respectively.

Many of the proposed ways to measure autonomy tend to tap

into one of these two definitions.

Measurements that tap into reactive autonomy appear to assess an independent

form of autonomy, manifested in agency and interpersonal separation.

While measurements that tap into reflective autonomy

represent an interdependent form of autonomy, strongly and

positively interpersonal in nature.

These two forms of autonomy are only loosely associated in individuals.

Individuals who score high on measurement of reflective autonomy tend

to be extroverted, assertive, altruistic and open to new values.

While individuals who score high on reactive autonomy tend to be

somewhat disagreeable and introverted, though, assertive.

Both types of autonomous people tend to be agentic and willing to deviate

to from customary behaviors if given adequate reasons for doing so.

One would imagine that people will score high on reflective autonomy, that is,

who tend to be independently motivated, yet positively interpersonal,

are more likely to be central in a particular social network.

While the people who score high on reactive autonomy, and

therefore who tend to be independent and

solitary, are more likely to be peripheral members of the social network.

In general, people would more likely be influenced by the actions

of reflectively autonomous agents.

If they are central in their social network,

their actions would be more readily observable and their likeable

personalities would make people more willing to listen to and follow them.

That said, these likely more central autonomous individuals,

would also be subject to a greater number of potential social sanctions

than social epithelial and autonomous individuals.

Often, people who are at the center of a network and

occupy a leading position, are prototypical.

In the sense that they embody the norms and values of their community.

In this respect, it is the reactive autonomous and

less central individuals who will be more likely to deviate on their own.

Studies often point out that trend setters are more likely to be

fringe members of society.

That said, this fringe behavior will not have much influence

until it is adopted by more central and integrated members of society.

The case may be different for powerful people who could, to a point,

be subject to fewer sanctions for a variety of reasons.

One being the fear of retaliation that the powerful can exact on the less powerful.

An example of a reflectively autonomous agent was the wife of a village leader,

who after being convinced of the merits of exclusive breast feeding,

decided to reject feeding her newborn water and instead breast feed.

Here, the leader's wife was autonomous, in that she was sufficiently uninfluenced

by the pressures of conformity to feed their child water instead of colostrum.

And was reflectively so, because she deviated, at least in part, for

the benefit of her peers.

In addition, being in a position of power, she knew her behavior

would be especially scrutinized by other villagers, but

also possibly used as a model for changing their own behavior.

Indeed, after the villagers saw how her child did not become sick,

as they had anticipated, they began to reconsider

early breast milk as a viable food for newborns.

However, it is important to acknowledge that they're being in a position of power

and at the center of a network made their action much more visible and

more subject at least in principle to potential sanctions.

But their powerful position also mitigated the risk of criticism.

Trendsetter perception of risk is another crucial element

we will explore in the next lecture.

>> Child marriage is a local phenomenon, and the agents of change,

not least adolescence girls and boys and

their parents, have to come from the local community.

Some of the girls from the adolescent girls groups supported by UNICEF became

trendsetters and role models by personally intervening to stop child marriages.

Religious leaders, caste leaders, community leaders, teachers and

health workers, also have important roles to play to set new trends and

to be agents of change.

>> There have been people who have broadly come out and declared in Sudan that's,

we've stopped cutting in our family, we are not cutting our children.

In fact, one of the things that's been done in the is the idea of.

Well known people who come out and openly say, that we declare for

not cutting girls.

And we might call them trendsetters because they are the face of

the new movement not to cut girls.

Explore nosso catálogo

Registre-se gratuitamente e obtenha recomendações, atualizações e ofertas personalizadas.

O Coursera proporciona acesso universal à melhor educação do mundo fazendo parcerias com as melhores universidades e organizações para oferecer cursos on-line.

© 2018 Coursera Inc. Todos os direitos reservados.

Baixar na App Store

Baixar no Google Play