Sunstein suggests a propensity, not an iron law — but one supported by research — and a process in which additional information — perhaps valuable information — is effectively suppressed by the reluctance of those who have it to challenge others or risk ridicule for themselves…that societies function best when they not merely tolerate dissent, but encourage and nurture it.
The Globe and Mail
November 22, 2003
When in doubt, just say no
William Neville
Why Societies Need Dissent
By Cass R. Sunstein
Harvard University Press,
256 pages, $37.95
If it is true, as Eleanor Roosevelt once commented, that when everyone thinks alike, no one's thinking very much, then this has not been a bad year: Indeed, 2003 has been a big year for dissent. On the home front, we have had, or are having, intense debates over matters such as same-sex marriage and decriminalizing pot. Moreover, in countries where free speech is more or less taken for granted (and even in a few where it is barely tolerated), the months preceding, during and following the Iraq war saw substantial public dissent from majority or official positions on the war, whatever those positions were. Whether dissenters were effective, no one could deny that they were vocal, visible and measurable. On Iraq, moreover, one may hypothesize that in an era of instant communication, dissent in one place was fuelled by awareness of dissent being expressed elsewhere in the world.
Cass Sunstein, a distinguished professor of jurisprudence at the University of Chicago, is not, in this new book, focused on these recent events, but what he has to say is nonetheless timely and pertinent. His concern is with the benefits that can result from dissent, in both the public and private spheres, and with the way that certain kinds of group behaviour stifle dissent and adversely affect sound decision-making. Since decisions made for societies affect many people, and can have consequences both far-reaching and unforeseen, Sunstein's subject is an important one.
Much of this book examines the nature and results of extensive social science research about human behaviour — in areas such as law, economics, sociology and psychology — and draws on such real-life examples as the herd and extremist instincts to be found in U.S. courts or the debilitating effects of political correctness on both the left and the right. From these, Sunstein builds a case which focuses on several phenomena. The first of these is the human instinct to conform and to find reassurance in having opinions broadly shared with others. The second involves social cascades — which he describes as large-scale social movements in which many people end up thinking or doing something because of the beliefs or actions of a few early movers. To illustrate: A doctor prescribes a course of treatment, despite certain misgivings; a second doctor, unaware of the first's misgivings, subordinates his own and concurs in the prescribed treatment; a third doctor, with rather greater misgivings, acquiesces in what seems to be the confident judgment of the first two, and so on; for doctor read politician, judge, scientist, manager or, indeed, any expert. The key point is that the more who sign on with their reservations unexpressed, still more will likely sign on with, possibly, even greater unexpressed reservations. Sunstein suggests a propensity, not an iron law — but one supported by research — and a process in which additional information — perhaps valuable information — is effectively suppressed by the reluctance of those who have it to challenge others or risk ridicule for themselves.
He concludes that when multiple or unorthodox views are eliminated by this process, minorities are likely to feel marginalized and less likely to challenge conventional opinion. This not only works against those holding the minority opinion, but also against the majority, which may have been self-deceived by its quest for unanimity. Sunstein, of course, makes no case that all group-induced behaviour is bad and, for example, cites studies suggesting that compliance with traffic laws increases when most people think that most other people are also complying. Yet, two tales he notes — that of the king who had no clothes, and the real world testimony of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr, to the effect that the Bay of Pigs fiasco might have been averted if only one of John F. Kennedy's inner circle (including Schlesinger) had expressed the misgivings a number of them felt — testify to one of the most important phenomena here, the tendency of sensible people to accept questionable evidence when it is offered on authority.
The book has many strengths. Sunstein's language is largely jargon-free, his style is clear and lucid and he makes complex issues intelligible. Indeed, much of it would strike many readers as common sense, with the large bonus that Sunstein provides persuasive reasons for believing what we may know intuitively. There are some tables which might deter some lay readers and his examples arise chiefly out of the American experience. Neither of these, however, gets in the way of following Sunstein's argument or conclusions.
The conclusion Sunstein draws, and would have the reader draw, is that societies function best when they not merely tolerate dissent, but encourage and nurture it. That, of course, is more easily said than done, touching as it does on broader aspects of a society's culture. Yet, that speaks more to the challenge Sunstein throws out than it does to the importance of his subject or the strength of his case. Nonetheless, because the issue will strike some as esoteric, or the case self-evident, Sunstein's book may not get the readership it deserves. That would be a pity, for Sunstein provides a learned, intelligent and lively discussion of an issue of the first importance in societies which assume that real discussion and debate ought to inform public decisions.
William Neville is head of the department of political studies at the University of Manitoba and writes a weekly political column in the Winnipeg Free Press
Brought to you by WikidFranchise.org
Risks: Conformity, Dissent, Ridicule, Social proof: in new situations, you assume others know more so you follow their lead, Wanted: sheep, United States, 20031122 When in
