Drawing the Line

Throughout the course of history, a myriad of controversial events have occurred (i.e. the genocides in Rwanda and Germany, the “ethnic cleansing” of the Serbs, etc.), and consequentially, many nations have had to face possible intervention on their behalves. The motives for supplying aid to a given nation are complex, context-dependent, and become even more involved when the nation seeking aid is plagued by numerous violations of human rights. At some point, countries and individuals alike must decide where and when they “draw the line” on going to war. In doing so, we must actively define what injustices necessitate intervention and which do not, a process which is heavily influenced by the individual’s ideals and his or her respective society’s ideals.

Because social beliefs largely influence those of the individual, society’s standards play a significant role in defining where an individual draws the line on going to war. Firstly, the individual’s ideals and specific beliefs obviously influence where he or she chooses (or would choose) to intervene on behalf of another. If one feels that an action violates what he or she holds to be right and fair, the individual can then decide whether or not intervention should be considered. However, society’s beliefs and the tenets our social groups hold to be true also influence our motives, producing greater effects than are typically imagined. A recent energy conservation study in California, often considered one of the most liberal and environmentally-conscious states in America, revealed that “descriptive normative beliefs”—that those that are held by a majority of those around us—better predicted actions than any other factor (Nolan p. 913). In actuality, social influence elicited the largest changes in behavior overall, even more so than information that emphasized the benefits of active conservation. However, those surveyed were also more likely to say that their cultural and social beliefs had the least impact on their decision. As such, it is relatively easy for society’s concerns to then develop into the individual’s concerns, often without detection. We are bombarded by our societal beliefs on a daily basis. When we view an outside conflict or issue, we often subscribe to the ideals our social groups (Americans, Southerners, Floridians, UNF students, etc.) have deemed as “appropriate.”

Society’s influence reaches even farther than this, however, in that the issues society characterizes as important are the ones that we allow ourselves to address on a regular basis. Researchers at the University of Amsterdam created an MIP-G (Motivated Information Processing in Groups) model that suggests that social concerns are the driving force behind what type of information individuals “attend to, encode, and retrieve” (De Drue p. 22) whereas the theory of knowledge shapes the extent to which an individual seeks new information to process. It makes logical sense that when society as a whole becomes interested, we as individuals become interested; if society illustrates a legitimate interest, media attention and coverage of the issue increases. The issue often moves to the forefront of the individual’s interests simply because of the increased exposure to the issue at hand. For instance, the recent crazes over the rising price of gas and global warming have illustrated the changes in individuals (i.e. less driving, more carpooling/recycling, drinking tap water instead of bottled water) that can occur as a result of social motivation. Essentially, because society mandates the “important” issues of the time, we are exposed to these issues more and become more concerned with them as a result. The extensive effects of society’s beliefs on an individual’s suggest that the group with which one associates has a huge impact on what situations he or she would actively oppose.

Because society’s ideals and the individual’s ideals are so intertwined, social groups have a huge impact on where one draws the line on going to war; the beliefs our society holds often lapse into our own.

Works Cited

Nolan, Jessica M, et al. "Normative social influence is undertected." Personality and Social Psychilogy Bulletin 34.7 (2008): 913-923. PsycINFO. EBSCO. 20 Oct. 2008.

De Drue, Carsten K.W., Bernard A Nijstad, and Daan Van Knippenberg. "Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making." Personality and Social Psychology Review 12.1 (2008): 22-49. PsycINFO. EBSCO. 20 Oct. 2008.