Human behaviors under the pressure of the social system

Some random thoughts

Introduction

In a paper regarding the future of socialism, Roemer (1994) claimed that socialists’ goals were equality of chance for self-realization, equality of opportunity for political power, and social status. In our current society, the involvement of numerous factors (such as technology, climate change, poverty, and commerce) makes societal challenges more complicated since inequality shows up in both the relationships between individuals and various groups of people. Therefore, the aim of socialists is evidently not as simple as solving the conflict between two people; examining a single in society means taking social status, social mobility, social status, cultural norms, and cultural values into account (Krech et al., 1962). Furthermore, human behavior significantly impacts equality in a community, which is why behavior is crucial to many other fields of science, such as philosophy and artificial intelligence. This literature review will examine the crucial relationship between social behaviors and the societal systems by using the academic setting as an exemplary case. The analysis will explicitly acknowledge the three edges of socialism: the social system, social norms, and social behaviors; then, their relationship will be seen in each individual portion.

---

Discussion

The social system of higher education

In the first place, socialism comprises a sea of theories that are defined to illustrate the existence of social matters, which seem to be large and deep. It is particularly demanding if someone enters the field without prior knowledge about the terms and the grasp of endorsing that one term could have different definitions between social research, and so does “social structure”. This study would like to use one of the most common understandings of social structure or social system. As claimed by Radcliffe-Brown (1940), some anthropologists agree that social structure usually refers to constant social groups such as tribes, clans, and nations; however, Radcliffe-Brown did not only consider social structure as persistent objects. He added social relations (person to person, such as father and son) and social roles (employees and employers, commoners and chief) into consideration for profoundly scientific analysis.

The development from a class into a university in history is a typical sample of a dynamic social structure. Moreover, an actor as a social structure could hold a role in a larger community. In research from Florida (1999), regional economic development and industrial competitiveness. Although the external impact of this social system is worthwhile for contemplation, the internal factors of the academic environments will be the main focus to maintain the simplicity. In a university, many characters will keep the system working efficiently, whereas some of the most prominent positions are undergraduates, Ph.D. students, Professors, Lecturers, and Teaching Assistants. They are all a part of a social network that is constantly interconnected and impacted by one another. For example, a standard lecture consists of a mixture of materials, receiving, transmitting, students, and professors; these components are linked to produce a social system’s functional activity. In addition to social relationships, some social roles are straightforwardly detected; an instance is a differentiation of individuals, such as teachers and students.

A social system always shifts, even if such changes are relatively few (Radcliffe-Brown, 1940). As a result, the relationships between individuals and groups can alter over time, even daily. A community gains new members through immigration or birth while losing others through emigration or death. There are unions and separations. Friends can turn into foes, while foes can reconcile and become friends. Taking university as an examination, the flexibility and adaptability of this intellectual community are evidence of a fact, thus the naturality and obviousness of establishing or taking part in a social structure of a person is a reasonable consequence of the social revolution.

The tendency of social norm

Followed by a review by Legros and Cislaghi (2020), their investigation looked at various evaluations of social norm theory and divided them into two categories: the individual level and the collective level. When looking at social actors from these two angles, it is essential to remember that social norms are the standards, norms, and regulations imposed on a group of people to value particular individuals’ actions (Legros & Cislaghi, 2020). The foundation of societal standards should be the link or the social relationship in, for example, an organization or school; without the connection, the term “social” loses all meaning and becomes more associated with individual behaviors. Inevitably, colleges could also have their social norm, varying between cities or countries. The most traditional standard that could be perceived is the GPA (grade point average), which is split into some thresholds to classify students into talented, good, and bad.

A group may tend to approach a beneficial norm, which is explained by “social equilibrium”, which is a state accepted by the majority of the population (Boyd & Richerson, 2002, p.288). Societal equilibria is a pattern of interaction and replication through time, and the state of society would eventually converge to an unexpected situation. The challenge of guessing a group’s state is due to “cumulative irreversible social change”; in particular, populations are thought to be in a stochastic steady state, passively shifting between several equilibria (Boyd & Richerson, 2002, p.288). According to Widerquist (2009), his analysis named “Natural Justice” convinced the existence of positivity in the community by associating social norms with the social contract, a kind of shared understanding to facilitate individual coordinating activities. Additionally, without being both reliable and effective, no social contract will work (Widerquist, 2009). Social norms could be the ascertainment of rules of integrity at school; no violence, no sexual assault, and no offense should be allowed in the academic environment or the global general.

However, there are also examples of harmful or unhealthy social norms, such as alcohol use, cigarette smoking, and child marriage (Popitz, 2017). Creating societal standards does not require a poll or vocal consensus (Popitz, 2017); undesirable behavior that is not evaluated or punished may be interpreted as appropriate. As a result, if a group of students did not see casting a curse as a sinful deed, they may assume that their actions were harmless and amusing. With this in mind, the concern of when a social norm will change is raised by the absolute and visible negativity of social norms.

Social behaviors

Social behaviors are not just the presentation of a single but a sophisticated and well-articulated model of the social interactions between individuals and their brains (Corradi-Dell’Acqua et al., 2016). Rubenstein (2013) concluded that the majority of animals engage in social activity, and people should be in a better position to comprehend the connections between environments and social behaviors, as well as between the social organization and population processes. In higher education, the difference between the teacher and student roles can lead to various behaviors; specifically, students may exhibit tremendous respect for their lecturers, and both parties should maintain decorum in the classroom.

Because many studies have focused on showing that human actions may converge to social norms (Legros & Cislaghi, 2019), there are few reviews regarding what may happen if someone challenges their social standard or habits. If social behaviors are so prevalent and widely accepted by the population, then those who oppose the standard seem to suffer disadvantages, unfavorable judgments, or even penalties. An example of a dangerous academic environment is the lack of transparency and honesty. Suppose the majority of students believe that cheating on a test is common and harmless, they will likely copy in order to increase their GPA, and those who do not may be disadvantaged as a result. The consequence is that students in this school would graduate with an excellent GPA but little practical expertise.

According to Morris et al. (2015), the social system’s dynamics or the interactions between various social structures (because people might participate in several groups) may cause changes in people’s social norms and behaviors. It is not always true that individuals have to act in a particular manner or that such actions are always in line with the accepted societal norm; a person’s choice to leave these negative situations and become free would significantly contribute to human evolution.

Summary

Overall, human behaviors are firmly under the control of the social system, which is not merely a constant state, but a dynamic structure; the social system and its inner relationship could gradually and eventually create its own standards, called social norms. The formation of this kind of belief in a group is likely to shape each individual actions. The review’s focus on higher education has demonstrated that a university or college may be an exact replica of a social organization, with professors, students, or staff serving as some of the central characters and each having the potential to be given one or more specific functions. These educational institutions’ conditions constantly change over time; in a university with a long history, it is evident that, for example, students may move in or out, and policies may be adjusted. For the question of the point when a formative behavior could be changed, despite the influence of the social system: It is challenging to determine whether or how quickly people change in terms of shape; however, it is possible to create a social organization that will free individuals from the constraints of cognition by changing their behaviors.