Cultural Change Through Legislation

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

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

It didn't grow to have it. Sometimes things surge in popularity after they become law and sometimes things don't. Each case is different I think. I don't think they are uniform reasons why some laws gain or lose support with time. That said I think politeness towards religion and tradition plays a big role. Many people are respectful as they can tolerate being towards those who claim their believes are rooted in faith or patriotism. Sometimes only when push comes do shove do people speak honestly against faith & tradition. I think abortion is a good modern day example. Many Religious people fervently insist is bad and to avoid offending them many people hedge on the issue. If abortion were to be outlawed nationally I believe the hedging would end and the majority consensus would loudly be in favor of making abortion legal. 

[Raider5678]

34 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

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

In the U.S, in order to amend the constitution, it requires a 2/3 vote.

It passed.

[swansont]

3 hours 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.

Majority of the representatives of the voting population. A well-organized group of single-issue voters was behind prohibition, which was enough to sway enough elections. In many elections, the difference between winners and losers is not very big. A 5-10% bloc can get someone elected, piggybacking on the rest of the voters who care about many issues.

13 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

In the U.S, in order to amend the constitution, it requires a 2/3 vote.

It passed.

One need look no further than today's issues to see that the way congress votes does not always reflect the will of the majority. 

[Raider5678]

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

One need look no further than today's issues to see that the way congress votes does not always reflect the will of the majority. 

1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Proposal_and_ratification

 

It requires so much more than Congress to amend the constitution, my friend.

[swansont]

37 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Proposal_and_ratification

 

It requires so much more than Congress to amend the constitution, my friend.

I was responding to your specific mention of 2/3 of the vote. Getting 2/3 of congress to agree (or a majority in 2/3 of the state legislatures) does not mean 2/3 of the people agree.

[CharonY]

41 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Proposal_and_ratification

 

It requires so much more than Congress to amend the constitution, my friend.

I recall that there was a decent article in the Guardian a few years back which summarized some of the historic factors, including the influence of the temperance movement, and its connection with the drinking (effectively, saloon) culture. It also highlights why it ultimately failed, but essentially caused cultural shifts in the relationship to alcohol. I.e. the legislature resulted in a cultural shift, but perhaps not quite the way it was envisioned. But there were reasons, including unfair enforcement, IIRC. May be worthwhile to dig out.  

As a whole, an argument can be made that legislature and cultural shifts interact with each other and neither can be seen in a vacuum. For example, cultural shifts can result in selective enforcement of certain laws, and conversely, public policy can have a guiding hand in shifting cultural norms. There are many examples such as the civil rights act or the 19th amendment, which were heavily contested in their time. Yet, without those legal changes there would be no road for cultural perception of equality. 

Edited March 25, 2018 by CharonY

[Raider5678]

42 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I recall that there was a decent article in the Guardian a few years back which summarized some of the historic factors, including the influence of the temperance movement, and its connection with the drinking (effectively, saloon) culture. It also highlights why it ultimately failed, but essentially caused cultural shifts in the relationship to alcohol. I.e. the legislature resulted in a cultural shift, but perhaps not quite the way it was envisioned. But there were reasons, including unfair enforcement, IIRC. May be worthwhile to dig out.  

2

That kind of stuff interests me.

I think I'll look for it. Tell me if you find it please.

[naitche]

11 hours ago, Area54 said:

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.

 

Legislation seeks to open or limit  environmental conditions. 

If your response does not support those conditions, you risk a personal cost that may out weigh the benefits of ignoring them.

It can create an environmental expectation that those conditions will be upheld,  or reliably hold.

 

You can legislate for better gun control, and you can legislate for better culture but neither will work unless  the environment created by doing so is supported.  

Successful legislation more often either reflects growing support for, or expectation of, specified  conditions, or demonstrates  conditions  that create other or more favourable  expectations.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by naitche

[Area54]

14 minutes ago, naitche said:

 

Legislation seeks to open or limit  environmental conditions. 

If your response does not support those conditions, you risk a personal cost that may out weigh the benefits of ignoring them.

It can create an environmental expectation that those conditions will be upheld,  or reliably hold.

I found these sentences difficult to parse. However, based on what I think you were saying here are some responses:

1. While certainly some legislation "seeks to open or limit  environmental conditions" this is not an end in itself. The objective of the legislation is to change behaviour.

2. As you say ignore the (changed) conditions at your peril. That is, you will experience pressure to modify your behaviour. That is precisely what I am saying, but I sense you intend to disagree. I hope you can clarify.

3.I have no idea what the last sentence means, or rather I have about five distinct possible meanings for it. Again, can you clarify.

20 minutes ago, naitche said:

You can legislate for better gun control, and you can legislate for better culture but neither will work unless  the environment created by doing so is supported.  

This is self evident and entirely consistent with what I have been saying. That is why, in order to change behaviour and attitudes, small steps must be taken. Attempting a major cultural change "against the tide" will not work, whereas a small change can and has been seen to do so.

[John Cuthber]

10 hours 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

And, you can see from the graph that the culture was changing before  1967, but there's no "spike" in acceptance at 1967, so the law didn't change the culture.

[swansont]

11 hours ago, CharonY said:

I recall that there was a decent article in the Guardian a few years back which summarized some of the historic factors, including the influence of the temperance movement, and its connection with the drinking (effectively, saloon) culture. It also highlights why it ultimately failed, but essentially caused cultural shifts in the relationship to alcohol. I.e. the legislature resulted in a cultural shift, but perhaps not quite the way it was envisioned. But there were reasons, including unfair enforcement, IIRC. May be worthwhile to dig out.  

As a whole, an argument can be made that legislature and cultural shifts interact with each other and neither can be seen in a vacuum. For example, cultural shifts can result in selective enforcement of certain laws, and conversely, public policy can have a guiding hand in shifting cultural norms. There are many examples such as the civil rights act or the 19th amendment, which were heavily contested in their time. Yet, without those legal changes there would be no road for cultural perception of equality. 

I read Last Call by Daniel Okrent a few years ago. It goes through the political lead-in to prohibition as well as the period and aftermath. 

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

And, you can see from the graph that the culture was changing before  1967, but there's no "spike" in acceptance at 1967, so the law didn't change the culture.

Brown vs the Board of education SCOTUS ruling was handed down in 1954. The famous images we'vs seen of soldiers escorting black children into Little Rock Rock Central High School were taken in 1957. Brown vs the Board of education was the legal precursor for desegregation in the South. Bans on interracial marriage were only still in effect by 1967 in segregated states.Most states stated ending bans when the Military desegregated. The Military was desegregated via executive order 9981 in 1948. The Civil Rights Act was 1964 and the Voting Rights Act was 1965. Public opinion did "spike" significantly during that window of time. Considering the margin of error within polling 4% is a paltry number. Clearly people didn't care about the issue. That 4% doubled and tripled every few years as laws changed and people saw black children needing to be escorted to school on national television and saw the first black officers being commissioned in the Armed Services. In my opinion changing of the laws did impact culture. In the case of desegregation and Civil Rights there were numerous laws passed over a window of a couple decades. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9981

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

 

 

12 hours ago, CharonY said:

As a whole, an argument can be made that legislature and cultural shifts interact with each other and neither can be seen in a vacuum. For example, cultural shifts can result in selective enforcement of certain laws, and conversely, public policy can have a guiding hand in shifting cultural norms. There are many examples such as the civil rights act or the 19th amendment, which were heavily contested in their time. Yet, without those legal changes there would be no road for cultural perception of equality. 

I agree with this completely. They do interact and there doesn't seem to be any absolutes. Sometimes laws have led culture and other times culture has led laws. Both are possible and neither is a given. 

[Raider5678]

48 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Considering the margin of error within polling 4% is a paltry number. 

 

Considering 10.5% of the population was African American at the time, I suggest the margin of error was considerably higher.....

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Area54 said:

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.

I think a culture only changes when it wants to, or is persuaded to, I'd argue that legislation is a result rather than a driver. Your examples highlight my point, seatbelts are an obvious lifesaver and doesn't have any impact on one's daily life unless one's old (set in one's ways) or extremely lazy, the same could be said of drink driving; it's the next generation that drives cultural change not legislation.  

[iNow]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

I'd argue that legislation is a result rather than a driver.

Isn't this a bit like saying that the cream only mixes with the coffee, but the coffee does NOT mix with the cream? It obviously flows both ways, and I suggest the same is true of legislation and culture. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

 It obviously flows both ways, and I suggest the same is true of legislation and culture. 

 

Does it? Cultural change, almost always, leads to legislation, but legislation doesn't always lead to a cultural change.

The American civil war, slavery, seems to be a prime example. 

[swansont]

I think there's an argument to be made for some of these items that the shift in thought is not so much the legislation, but that the ones holding a particular view die out, and the next generation grows up with fewer people holding that view. (which has also been claimed for science paradigms)

It probably doesn't hurt that certain views are no longer buttressed by having them codified into law, but those aren't examples of legislation driving cultural shifts.

[CharonY]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

I read Last Call by Daniel Okrent a few years ago. It goes through the political lead-in to prohibition as well as the period and aftermath. 

Sounds interesting. I still got a "The war on alcohol" by Lisa McGirr on my unread stack. From the blurb it sounds a bit like a grand narrative and the influence of prohibition on politics further on (but also describes how its enforcement was unequal and arguably unjust). 

 

6 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Considering 10.5% of the population was African American at the time, I suggest the margin of error was considerably higher.....

I am not sure how one follows from the other...?

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

I think there's an argument to be made for some of these items that the shift in thought is not so much the legislation, but that the ones holding a particular view die out, and the next generation grows up with fewer people holding that view. (which has also been claimed for science paradigms)

Changing the law is unlikely to result in sudden shifts in societal views.  However, some laws also enact societal change, such as opening the way of certain groups to participate in politics, or improving their ability to accumulate wealth. These in turn gradually change the perception of societal norms of these groups over time. While generational change is a major driver in these scenarios, changing the landscape will likely have an important influence. 

 

[Raider5678]

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I am not sure how one follows from the other...?

 

According to the polls, only 4% of the population supported desegregation.

Yet, 10.5% of the population was African American.

Now, I understand not all African Americans supported it, but surely you're telling me that the combined total of everyone in the U.S. who supported desegregation was less then half the total African American population?

[CharonY]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

According to the polls, only 4% of the population supported desegregation.

Yet, 10.5% of the population was African American.

Now, I understand not all African Americans supported it, but surely you're telling me that the combined total of everyone in the U.S. who supported desegregation was less then half the total African American population?

You have to read things more carefully, the poll was about mixed marriages and not segregation per se. And in the societal climate at that time it was clearly not looked universally favorably even in minority communities. You also have to look at the context. In the wake of enlightenment and modern racial theories segregation and associated measures were often seen as a good or at least a "natural" thing. In this context, race-mixing was arguably one of the most contentious offenses which could isolate individuals from either community they belong to. That being said, among minority communities the acceptance is traditionally higher than that of the dominating group, which often proscribed to some ideal of purity (e.g. codified by the one drop rule in parts of the US until the late 60s).

That all being said, there is certainly a decent likelihood that in the first data point minorities were undersampled, but then the general approval trend seems to be fairly constant over the next periods.

 

[naitche]

18 hours ago, Area54 said:

I found these sentences difficult to parse. However, based on what I think you were saying here are some responses:

1. While certainly some legislation "seeks to open or limit  environmental conditions" this is not an end in itself. The objective of the legislation is to change behaviour.

2. As you say ignore the (changed) conditions at your peril. That is, you will experience pressure to modify your behaviour. That is precisely what I am saying, but I sense you intend to disagree. I hope you can clarify.

3.I have no idea what the last sentence means, or rather I have about five distinct possible meanings for it. Again, can you clarify.

This is self evident and entirely consistent with what I have been saying. That is why, in order to change behaviour and attitudes, small steps must be taken. Attempting a major cultural change "against the tide" will not work, whereas a small change can and has been seen to do so.

No, not well put. I am agreeing with you. Tho' I would argue that changing behaviour does change conditions.

 Most  examples I can think of Legislation changing culture occurs subtly, and more often goes unnoticed. 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by naitche

[Ten oz]

I understand the impulse to be against legislation leading culture. In a democracy it should be the will of the people that moves those who represent them in Govt however that isn't always the case. Sometimes those in power push society and change attitudes from office. It is a two way street and neither street is any larger. It also isn't automatically a good or bad thing. Very recent examples would be Trump here in the U.S. or Brexit in the U.K..Many people who called Trump a lair and believed his policies stupid for most of 2015 and 2016 ended up voting from him and now argue on his behalf. Trump successfully changed the culture within conservatives. In the U.K .Brexit champions continue in office and the process pushes on slowly gaining  support despite never having strong majority favor. 

I think some in this thread are conflating can not with should not. Legislation can change culture but more often than not it shouldn't. Hitler changed the culture all over the global after all. 

[naitche]

At its heart,  its the same question as ; Do we shape the environment or does it shape us? 

Without an environment,  there is no "us", But without us, that space has no definition. We define it.

Edited March 28, 2018 by naitche