Cultural Change Through Legislation

[Area54]

In the thread "Gun Control, which side wins?" John Cuthber made this remark  . . . . you can legislate for better gun control, and you can't legislate for "better culture" . . .

I reflected on that and reached the conclusion he was probably mistaken. It would have taken the thread off-topic to discuss there, hence this new thread. I support my doubt with a couple of examples,, both from the UK, both relating to automobile safety.

1. When I got into a car in the UK in the second half of the 60s and put on my seat belt, I automatically apologised to the driver for wearing one, noting that it was not because I thought he was an incompetent driver, but because of the other crazies out there on the roads. That has been unecessary for several decades. The legislation enforcing the use of seat belts is primarily responsible. You can argue that extensive advertising campaigns have contributed, but for me the sequence is this:

Legislation requiring seat belts >> penalties implemented >> behaviour changed >> leads over time to ---attitude change = changed culture

2. Again, in the 60s and 70s, drink driving was commonplace and rarely frowned upon. Not so today. The same sequence of legislation, enforecement, behaviour change, attitude change, culture change, applies.

I am interested in reactions to my general thesis, for or against, and in any telling examples supporting it, or demonstating that the claimed examples are faulty.

[Ten oz]

I agree. More times than not once legislation makes something common culture acclimates. There are exceptions though. During alcohol prohibition in the U.S. culture never really acclimated and eventually prohibition had to be ended. So while legislation  has often changed attitudes in popular culture there is no certainty it always can.

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

I agree. More times than not once legislation makes something common culture acclimates. There are exceptions though. During alcohol prohibition in the U.S. culture never really acclimated and eventually prohibition had to be ended. So while legislation  has often changed attitudes in popular culture there is no certainty it always can.

I support area54's premise but, as you note with the prohibition era, it's clear that a prerequisite for cultural change following introduction of regulations is that the majority agree with it in principle. A law has to have the consensus of the majority in order to be embodied in the behaviour of the population.

[John Cuthber]

My understanding is that, at least in principle, the people decide they want  something new (i.e. there is a change in culture) and they elect a government  which enacts legislation to bring it about.

The culture changes the legislation.

Obviously, the law of unintended consequences will probably make a mess of things.

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

My understanding is that, at least in principle, the people decide they want  something new (i.e. there is a change in culture) and they elect a government  which enacts legislation to bring it about.

The culture changes the legislation.

Obviously, the law of unintended consequences will probably make a mess of things.

How do you think the drink-driving laws and seatbelt became accepted? I'm sure that didn't come from within the population but from academics research; the legislators had the majority   support because people don't want to see people needlessly killed. In reality,  I think, the direction of change  happens both ways with different issues.

[Area54]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

How do you think the drink-driving laws and seatbelt became accepted? I'm sure that didn't come from within the population but from academics research; the legislators had the majority   support because people don't want to see people needlessly killed. In reality,  I think, the direction of change  happens both ways with different issues.

Precisely my reading of it. We know from other situations that when something becomes habitual ones attitude to it is likely to undergo a change. My assertions, with which I think you agree, is that in some instances modifying behaviour, where the change is reluctant, will later lead to a change in attitude towards that behaviour. Teaching children to appreciate certain foods is an example some of you may be familiar with.

So, I would modify your suggestion slightly, that there must be an agreement in principle from the population to one where there is not strong opposition.

[Raider5678]

Law very rarely changes the mindset of the people.

You can't legislate cultural change, I agree with John on that.

Quite often, the law is a result of the cultural change, not the other way around.

 

We outlawed slavery, it existed in other forms for years afterward.

We outlawed racist laws, racism still exists.

We outlawed gender discrimination, it still exists.

 

Outlawing it means that legal obstacles are no longer there(Or are now there) to prevent(or encourage) a particular action on the legislative side of things.

Cultural obstacles is a different thing because that requires a change of mindset, not law.

 

Edited March 25, 2018 by Raider5678

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Law very rarely changes the mindset of the people.

You can't legislate cultural change, I agree with John on that.

Quite often, the law is a result of the cultural change, not the other way around.

The UK laws on drink driving and seatbelts supports Area54's conjecture . It couldn't have come from the population as a whole because, individually, we didn't have the bird's eye view of the problems that a statistician seeks to have by physically collecting data. 

[Area54]

7 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

You can't legislate cultural change, I agree with John on that.

Then how do you explain away my two examples?

EDit: cross posted with String Junky

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

The UK laws on drink driving and seatbelts supports Area54's conjecture . It couldn't have come from the population as a whole because, individually, we didn't have the bird's eye view of the problems that a statistician seeks to have by physically collecting data. 

And I recall very clearly the arguments being used by the general population against the use of seatbelts.The three main ones were:

• I am a good driver so I won't be in an accident.
• If I am in a crash the seatbelt could trap me in the vehicle.
• My uncle Charlie [insert appropriate relationship, individual, etc.] only survived the crash because he was thrown clear. If he had been wearing his seat belt he would be dead.

Edited March 25, 2018 by Area54

[John Cuthber]

6 minutes ago, Area54 said:

And I recall very clearly the arguments being used by the general population against the use of seatbelts.

I remember a lot of people pointing out that the folk advancing those arguments were  fools.

It's rather hard to define what the "culture" of a whole country thinks.

Certainly, the government didn't introduce the legislation  without at least some support from some people in the country.

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Then how do you explain away my two examples?

EDit: cross posted with String Junky

And I recall very clearly the arguments being used by the general population against the use of seatbelts.The three main ones were:

• I am a good driver so I won't be in an accident.
• If I am in a crash the seatbelt could trap me in the vehicle.
• My uncle Charlie [insert appropriate relationship, individual, etc.] only survived the crash because he was thrown clear. If he had been wearing his seat belt he would be dead.

Yes, it wasn't an overnight acceptance by any means. i remember being quite lax on seatbelts in the beginning. It can take up to 50 years before a law becomes sufficiently embodied in a population. Look how how long it's taken for the LGBT community to be accepted to the level it is today.

Edited March 25, 2018 by StringJunky

[Raider5678]

Just now, Area54 said:

Then how do you explain away my two examples?

For the first example, you talked about seat belts being legally required.

You mention the 60s.

Seatbelt wearing wasn't mandatory in the UK for front seat drivers until 1983, and not for everyone in the car until 1989.

20 years is a big difference between your memory of when you apologized for wearing seatbelts, to when it became law. Additionally, you even mentioned bad drivers out there as your excuse for wearing one. I have a suspicion that you weren't one of the only people who thought like that, and that it was a lot more commonplace as the years went on. By the time 1989 came around, enough politicians shared the same viewpoint and it finally became law in 1983/1989.

 

For your second example, you talk about drunk driving and how legislation forced that change.

Drunk driving in the UK became illegal in 1966. But, drunk driving deaths hit an all-time high between 1969 and 1975 with over 35% of automobile accidents were due to alcohol. 

So the legislation in 1966 apparently didn't really deter people for at least 10 years. Then in 1976 anti-drunk driving groups, run by civilians who lost loved ones(I.E. not the government) began massive campaigns against drunk driving. What followed? A massive drop in drunk driving accidents. 

 

So in your first example, the cultural change appears to come long prior to the legislation, due to common sense.

In your second example, the cultural change appears to come long after the legislation, due to civilian campaigns.

 

In neither of your examples does historical dates and statistics show that legislation changed the culture.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

I support area54's premise but, as you note with the prohibition era, it's clear that a prerequisite for cultural change following introduction of regulations is that the majority agree with it in principle. A law has to have the consensus of the majority in order to be embodied in the behaviour of the population.

I do not believe that is true. As we currently see with Climate Change, Gun Control, and many other issues a consensus of the majority can be overcome by fervent minority attitudes. I think level of passion and strength of the exposure platform matter more than initial level of consensus in the majority. 

Quote

 

Americans are warming up to the Republican tax law, according to a new survey, providing Republicans with a potentially significant boost to their 2018 electoral chances.

The survey, from The New York Times and SurveyMonkey, found that 50% of respondents supported the GOP tax law, while 45% did not support it.

That represents a dramatic improvement over the initial popularity of the legislation as it moved through Congress. A poll done from the Times and SurveyMonkey in December found the bill only had 37% approval to 57% disapproval.

http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-gop-tax-law-favorability-approval-trump-2018-2

 

 

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I do not believe that is true. As we currently see with Climate Change, Gun Control, and many other issues a consensus of the majority can be overcome by fervent minority attitudes. I think level of passion and strength of the exposure platform matter more than initial level of consensus in the majority. 

 

But in the long view, many decades even, those positions are not sustainable by the minority. The present gun culture mindset has been around since the 60's.

Edited March 25, 2018 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

But in the long view, many decades even, those positions are not sustainable by the minority. the present gun culture mindset has been around since the 60's.

Interracial marriage was made legal in all states in the U.S. in 1967. At the time laws were changes the overwhelming majority disapproved. Today the overwhelming majority approve. 

http://news.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Interracial marriage was made legal in all states in the U.S. in 1967. At the time laws were changes the overwhelming majority disapproved. Today the overwhelming majority approve. 

http://news.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx

More on topic, more evidence law's don't change the culture.

[Area54]

14 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

For the first example, you talked about seat belts being legally required.

You mention the 60s.

Seatbelt wearing wasn't mandatory in the UK for front seat drivers until 1983, and not for everyone in the car until 1989.

20 years is a big difference between your memory of when you apologized for wearing seatbelts, to when it became law. Additionally, you even mentioned bad drivers out there as your excuse for wearing one. I have a suspicion that you weren't one of the only people who thought like that, and that it was a lot more commonplace as the years went on. By the time 1989 came around, enough politicians shared the same viewpoint and it finally became law in 1983/1989.

Seat belts were required to be fitted to new cars from the early to mid sixties. The government understood that it could not change culture overnight. The requirements were progressively tightened till, as you point out, wearing them in front seats became mandatory in '83. This was followed, a few years later, by compulsory fitting of rear seat belts and a few years after that compulsory wearing of them. This sequence of events supports my contention of cultural change through legislation.

A similar argument applies to the drink driving, that I shall make later, but I just tracked down a feed where I can watch a replay of the Konta-Mertens match.

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Interracial marriage was made legal in all states in the U.S. in 1967. At the time laws were changes the overwhelming majority disapproved. Today the overwhelming majority approve. 

http://news.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx

They supported it eventually because they realised it was ethically correct, just like we did with the drink and seat laws. That statistic of yours supports area54's conjecture.

Edit: Just seen raider's contrary post. 

Edited March 25, 2018 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

They supported it eventually because they realised it was ethically correct, just like we did with the drink and seat laws. That statistic of yours supports area54's conjecture.

Right, but it is an example where "a law has to have the consensus of the majority in order to be embodied in the behavior of the population" didn't apply. Attitudes were strongly opposed  international marriage for hundreds of years from the founding of the country right up until the law was changed yet quickly gained in popularity once the law was changed. There simply aren't any absolutes. Sometimes it requires majority consensus first and other times the majority consensus follows later. 

Edited March 25, 2018 by Ten oz
typo

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Right, but it is an example where "a law has to have the consensus of the majority in order to be embodied in the behavior of the population" didn't apply. Attitudes were strongly opposed  international marriage for hundreds of years from the founding of the country right up until the law was changed yet quickly gained in popularity once the law was changed. There simply aren't any absolutes. Sometimes it requires majority consensus first and other times the majority consensus follows later. 

No, it did attain the consensus of the majority. Collectively, society eventually thinks " Yeah, that's fair" and embodies it. If it doesn't eventually acquire that it will fail.... same with extreme political systems. For something to be accepted long-term it has to fit ethically and equitably.

Edited March 25, 2018 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

No, it did attain the consensus of the majority. Collectively, society eventually thinks " Yeah, that's fair" and embodies it. If it doesn't eventually acquire that it will fail.... same with extreme political systems. For something to be accepted long-term it has to fit ethically and equitably.

The changing of the law pushed society to accept it. Had the law never been changed it is very possible views wouldn't have changed. There is a correlation. 

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The changing of the law pushed society to accept it. Had the law never been changed it is very possible views wouldn't have changed. There is a correlation. 

Yes. I think so

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The changing of the law pushed society to accept it. Had the law never been changed it is very possible views wouldn't have changed. There is a correlation. 

Another example from that era was littering. Lady Bird Johnson as FLOTUS helped push the Keep America Beautiful campaign, and for a generation people changed the way they looked at trash and their environment. I was in grade school then, and I'm still appalled when I see someone littering in public.

[Raider5678]

40 minutes ago, Area54 said:

This sequence of events supports my contention of cultural change through legislation.

 

Why did Prohibition fail?

It had majority consensus, AND it was made the law.

Yet, it ultimately failed and was later repealed.

Explain that then.

 

Why did the war on drugs fail?

It had majority support, AND it was made the law.

Yet, it ultimately failed, and some states have started repealing laws pertaining to it.(I.E. colorado and pot)

Explain that then.

 

 

 

40 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Seat belts were required to be fitted to new cars from the early to mid sixties. The government understood that it could not change culture overnight. The requirements were progressively tightened till, as you point out, wearing them in front seats became mandatory in '83. This was followed, a few years later, by compulsory fitting of rear seat belts and a few years after that compulsory wearing of them.

3

I'm now of the mind that neither of us can really prove our position.

Both of our argument's lie on a position we don't have evidence on. So I'm not going to try and argue this.

Edited March 25, 2018 by Raider5678

[StringJunky]

29 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Why did Prohibition fail?

It had majority consensus, AND it was made the law.

I'm now of the mind that neither of us can really prove our position.

Both of our argument's lie on a position we don't have evidence on. So I'm not going to try and argue this.

The Prohibition bill didn't have majority consensus i.e. support. It couldn''t have done or else it wouldn't have failed.

Edited March 25, 2018 by StringJunky