Power of Context free essay sample

The Power of Context In Malcolm Gladwell’s â€Å"The Power of Context,† Gladwell states that actions that people commit, whether good or bad, are influenced by the nature of the situation more than their actual intentions. The psychological tendency for our minds to morph mannerisms and behavioral information into character explains the â€Å"context† portion of Gladwell’s theory. Gladwell wanted to prove his theory that by applying his â€Å"Power of Context† theory into the numerous incidents and experiments that were conducted in history. Throughout history, experiments showed that there was a strong correlation between the changes in context with the changes in character. In modern society, people often take impromptu action and abandon their responsibilities as a law-abiding citizen when in a critical situation because the Power of Context states that the human behavior is strongly influenced by its environment. During the 1980s where crime rates were skyrocketing and the subway system was at the brink of closing down, a subway shooting occurred involving a disciplinarian and a law-abiding citizen and four juvenile delinquents. A man named Bernhard Goetz entered the train and sat next to four young black men. These four men were notorious for several crimes, they were the most feared around the area that Goetz lived in; one of the four men, Troy Canty, walked up to Goetz and demanded that Goetz would give him money. Goetz was in a situation where he was about to get robbed and that these four men were not going to stop unless someone stepped up to them and teaches them a lesson and Goetz thought he was the perfect candidate due to his history of being strictly disciplined by his father. Goetz also had a history of being mugged by three people who were also black and subdued one of the attackers after he was robbed. Unfortunately for Goetz the person that was part of the gang that mugged him was released with only a misdemeanor which left Goetz resentful. Gladwell states that Goetz was, â€Å"a man with an authority problem, with a strong sense that the system wasn’t working† (158). Another member of the group, James Ramseur, pointed out to Goetz that he had a weapon in his pocket and Goetz immediately assumed that it was a gun. Goetz then said that he looked up as saw Canty’s eyes, â€Å"eyes were shiny, and he was enjoying himself†¦. He had a big smile on his face† (152). After looking at the mysterious bulge in Ramseur’s pocket and Canty’s eyes Goetz realizes that he was in a kill or be killed situation. Goetz, without hesitation, pulled out his firearm and shot the four young men. The situation now was Goetz had the authority over the four men, he felt empowered by the sense of justice that was flowing through him by putting down the four hoodlums, but in reality Goetz lost his sense of what was right and wrong. Goetz was shrouded by his past and the environment he was in that made him lose his image of being an average citizen. In the 1980s where the subway system was at the brink of closing down, two people, Gunn and Bratton, applied the ‘Broken Windows Theory’ to save the subway system.. Graffiti was a huge factor on why crime was spreading so rapidly in New York City. The sight of a subway car not being maintained gives off a signal to people that the authorities do not care about what goes on in the subway system and Gunn demanded that instead of replacing the old trains, which were constantly vandalized over the years, he wanted to remove the graffiti that was repeatedly painted on the trains. Gunn used this method so that no matter how many times kids tried to put graffiti on the trains that it would worthless and eventually they would cease. After a long and strenuous graffiti cleanup which went over the duration of years, kids began to notice that the subway system began to take action and that trying to continue to vandalize the subway trains would be futile. Bratton on the other hand began to focus on fare-beaters, people who slip through the subway railings without paying, and began to arrest them. Bratton, like Gunn, applied the ‘Broken Window Theory’ and managed to lower crime rates in the subway system and in New York City. Society, before Gunn and Bratton began their experiment, was under the influence of the environment of the subway systems. The authorities had no time to arrest people for minor crimes and since vandalism and fare-beating was such a common practice, people began to feel a sense of anarchy. Regular citizens that stick to the law see most of the populace fare-beating and committing various crimes that they give in to the environment and begin to commit the same crimes as the criminals; therefore, abandoning their responsibilities and roles as model law-abiding citizens. During the 1970s Zimbardo conducted a ‘mock prison’ experiment where he wanted to find out why prisons were such nasty places. In this experiment Zimbardo gathered twenty-five healthy and normal looking people to participate in one of his experiments. At first the prison guards who, â€Å"previously identified themselves as pacifists† (161), became strict and sadistic towards the prisoners. The people that played the role as the prison guards received a sense of authority over the prisoners and felt that they had the right to do whatever they want to the prisoners. The prisoners were very passive about receiving punishment from the guards but later on it became the same case for the prisoners; they slowly began to rebel on the second day of the experiment. The guards forced the prisoners to â€Å"do push-ups, line up against the wall, and perform arbitrary tasks† (161). The prisoners felt that their sense of dignity, humanity, and sanity was stripped away from them as they were performing these tasks. Once a normal, healthy group of people slowly began to lose sight of their identity and morals; furthermore, the people that volunteered to be prisoners and the people that volunteered to be guards slowly began to settle into their roles. Zimbardo called off the experiment, which was supposed to be a two week session, after six days due to multiple signs of breakdowns. After the experiment, the people that volunteered were asked questions about the experiment; one volunteer said that when he was playing the role of a prisoner he lost his inner thoughts and somewhere deep in his heart, his inner prison self emerged and took over. Another volunteer who took the role as a guard stated that he was trying to think of the most creative way to mentally and physically torture the inmates. This experiment shows that society cannot interpret people by their behavior and traits but by the situation and context. The situation of the experiment was so powerful that the volunteers that were mentally and physically healthy turned into something that they thought they would never become. The guards became so lax about torturing prisoners and the prisoners found a reason to rebel; therefore, both the guards and the prisoners believed that it was right to turn away from being a law-abiding citizen into their respective roles. Two Princeton University psychologists, John Darley and Daniel Batson conducted the Good Samaritan experiment to find out whether or not the people who called themselves ‘seminarians’ would stop and help an injured man despite the fact that they had to prepare and present a talk on a given theme of the bible. The experiment produced shocking results; only ten percent of the people that were told that they were late and only sixty-three percent of the people that weren’t late helped the man. People that were told they were late were ostensibly more concerned about preparing the speech than helping the injured man. Even though the seminarians said they are who they are, they literally, as Darley and Batson stated, â€Å"stepped over the victim as he hurried away† (164). In addition, people that were told that they had time a little over half the people went to help the man while the remaining thirty-seven percent of the people ignored the man. This experiment proved that people despite being told the story of the Good Samaritan, only a small handful of people that were told they were late became engrossed at the idea that they had a presentation and that they were late. People are faced with a different situation every day. Whether good or bad it depends on how they interpret it. Gladwell is telling the audience that normal people can often change into people that they never thought of becoming. Law-abiding citizens have their own ways of interpreting the situation and their actions may not always reflect on their everyday behavior. Gladwell emphasizes the relationship between the changes in context with the change in character. His theory states that the nature of character is not determined by their actions or their mentality but by their surroundings. It all depends on the how critical the situation is and how that situation can influence the way people think and act.