Violating Norms, Re-Socializing Society Dana Williams*

Contemporary Justice Review Vol. 14, No. 2, June 2011, 167–187 Why revolution ain’t easy: violating norms, re-socializing society Dana Williams* Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminal Justice, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, Georgia, USA TaylorGCJR_A_565975.sgm and Francis (Received 8 January 2010; final version received 12 August 2010) 10.1080/10282580.2011.565975Contemporary1028-2580Article2011Taylor1420000002011DanaWilliamsdanawilliams@valdosta.edu & Francis (print)/1477-2248 Justice Review (online) Society is not only structured by major hierarchical institutions, but also by the unwritten rules, called norms, that govern the practice of daily life within those institutions. Peoples’ unreflective observance of these norms helps to perpetuate inequality and domination in society. Norms are transmitted through a process of socialization, by which every member of society is subtly trained to appreciate and follow these norms. While disobeying norms, or deviance, is possible, it is also fraught with problems and challenges. Ultimately, many things prevent the creation of new, anarchistic norms. Still, even with formidable obstacles in their path, anarchists have attempted to re-socialize themselves and others in order to adhere to more egalitarian, horizontal, and cooperative norms. Keywords: social norms; socialization; domination; revolution; deviance; anarchism Introduction Despite the best intentions and efforts of revolutionaries, revolution is difficult and atypical. Even ‘successful’ revolutions seem to eventually relapse into hierarchy. This raises some important questions about the impediments to social revolution. What restrains most members of society from fomenting and joining revolutions, or even having an interest in such rare occurrences? What causes counter-revolutionary tendencies to rear their heads after revolutionary situations emerge? The macro-level changes that accompany revolution – economic, political, and cultural – are important structural considerations. Revolutionaries attempt to change the conditions under which people work and produce, make decisions and cooper- ate, and reflect values and ways of living. While these are all important transforma- tions, it is equally necessary to appreciate how major institutions are also ‘constructed’ by people’s everyday actions. For example, worker self-management is not merely declared by radical unionists, but also enacted by worker’s actions on a day-to-day basis, negotiating tasks, hours, and protocols. Norms are the guidelines that help people execute their roles within organizations, interact with each other, and carry on their lives. Without norms to suggest the most conducive behavior in a given situation, chaos would result. But, what sorts of norms exist and are followed: those that reinforce domination and order-following, or norms that facilitate anti- authoritarianism and mutual aid? Consequently, we ought to appreciate the *Email: [email protected] ISSN 1028-2580 print/ISSN 1477-2248 online © 2011 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/10282580.2011.565975 http://www.informaworld.com 168 D. Williams importance that these ‘taken-for-granted,’ shared understandings have for society and for revolution. Norms would be as integral to a revolutionary society as they are to the perpetuation of hierarchical society. Although they may be roughly understood as social ‘rules,’ this should not be contradictory to anarchism. Rules are based on ideas and understandings, and are not necessarily ‘bad’ according to anarchists if such rules are collectively agreed upon. In all likelihood, anarchists would positively evaluate rules that were collectively and democratically agreed upon; traffic signs are an example, since those rules are not designed to discriminate against anyone who must obey such signs (although one could make a case that such discrimina- tion may still occur). Another example is speaking only during one’s turn in meetings and withholding one’s additional comments until after everyone else in attendance has the opportunity to contribute. Ultimately, people rely heavily upon such guidelines, even if informal, or shared understandings that can enable behavior that is respectful towards others’ individuality. Anarchism – and other justice- oriented, liberatory movements – aims to help restructure society by changing norms. Therefore, for anarchists, it is less important and empowering, and shorter lasting to merely protest and lobby for social change. As Catholic Worker founders and anarchists Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day were fond of saying: ‘we must make the kind of society in which it is easier for people to be good’ (cited in Day 1954, p. 217). Norms reinforcing inequality and hierarchy In The Struggle to be Human, Tifft and Sullivan (1980) write: ‘In reality, the miseries of humankind cannot simply be laid at the statehouse doors of elites or mandarins, for we, our ideas and our constructed relationships, our acceptance of the hierarchy, are the state’ (p. 155). Put differently, we cannot simply blame others for all manner of abuse, violence, and social problems, but we must also consider our own role in perpetuating such things. Appreciating how all of our actions contribute to inequality and the perpetuation of hierarchy is an empowering step to overturning these norms throughout society. Consider a popular, tongue-in-cheek slogan sometimes used by anti-authoritarians: ‘kill the cop inside your head!’. This refers to curbing the very behaviors, ideas, values, or desires that, in other contexts, one might harshly decry. Removing authoritarianism from your own consciousness and actions is clearly a good start. But, authoritarian norms (police-like behavior, in this case) do not merely reside in us as individuals, but within the collective knowledge and practice of a society. Norms can prop-up those ‘miseries of humankind’ just as norms are those very cops loitering in our heads. Thus, this metaphorical ‘cop’ must also be killed within everyone else’s head (or within ‘enough’ people), too, in order to truly change society. Not all norms are synonymous with the practice of law enforcement, though, and norms vary in terms of their revolutionary values. For example, they can be bad – deference to the powerful, husbands ‘speaking for’ their wives, or bullying physically weaker people for personal gain. Or some norms can be good – greetings of various kinds, empathy, or sharing excess possessions. An explicitly anarchist sociology ought to pay attention to the creation and expansion of better norms, thus far only adhered to within certain radical subcultures – orientation towards collectivity, distrust of those in authority, ‘twinkling’ (waggling fingers in agreement) during Contemporary Justice Review 169 meetings, self-organizing into affinity groups prior to protests, or positive advocacy of efforts to foster social change. Norms of these various types saturate our social lives and are almost always invisible to members of a given culture or subculture, except when the norms are transgressed upon. But, what exactly are norms? They include, but not are limited to, laws, conven- tions, morals, mores, folkways, customs, and rules. Norms can be understood by comparison to their etymological cousins: what is ‘normal,’ ‘normative,’ or ‘the norm.’ They refer to the generally taken-for-granted assumptions that guide everyday life. According to Gibbs (1965), a norm is a collective evaluation of behavior in terms of what it ought to be, a collective expectation of what behavior will be, and particular reactions to behavior, including attempts to apply sanctions or induce a particular kind of conduct. There are four noteworthy aspects of norms (Jasso & Opp, 1997) that have bearing on an anarchist critique. Although norms suggest a general uniformity within a society, the following aspects describe the ways in which norms may differ from each other. According to Jasso and Opp (1997), the first aspect of norms is polarity. Do norms encourage or discourage behaviors? This aspect describes the terms in which a norm is socially framed. Prescriptive norms suggest which behaviors people should, must, or ought to do, such as being polite towards others or extending solidarity to those acting upon congruent values. Anarchists follow norms that mandate support for people resisting tyranny. Proscriptive norms indicate behaviors that one should not engage in, such as not interrupting others who are speaking or not treating some people better than others based on status. A hierarchical society is apt to have proscriptive norms controlling a wide range of behaviors, while anarchist society would have these types of norms to the extent that regulated behavior would harm people and other life forms. The more restrictive a society, the more likely proscriptive norms are more plentiful and dominant. The second aspect of norms is conditionality. Do norms hold under all circum- stances? Anarchists argue that people of all social classes, groups, and statuses ought to be unconditionally treated the same. Treatment should not depend upon whether the other person is a neighbor, police officer, coworker, or president. However, in practice, anarchists do conditionally treat people differently – those with hierarchical positions of authority are routinely challenged, while mutual aid is offered to those lacking those same positions. A prominent, unconditional anarchist norm is that each individual ought to have the ultimate right to decide their own

Load more