Margaret Atwoodsnovel,The Handmaids Tale, described the horror of the authoritarian regime of Gilead.
There are countless examples of past and present monstrous regimes in the real world.
And they all raise the question of why people didnt just rise up against their rulers.
It’s free, every week, in your inbox.
They argued that human behavior is governed by two complementary, and very different, logics.
This is basically how we get what we want.
But there is also a second logic, the logic of appropriateness.
The idea is backed up by psychological research.
Human social interactionsdepend on our tendency to conformto unwritten rules of appropriate behavior.
Most of us are truthful, polite, dont cheat when playing board games, and follow etiquette.
We are happy to let judges or football referees enforce rules.
Arecent studyshowed we even conform to arbitrary norms.
The logic of appropriateness is self-enforcing we disapprove of, ostracize or report people who lie or cheat.
We need shared systems of rules to cooperate it is easy to see howevolution may have shaped this.
The psychological foundations for this start early.
Children as young as threewill protestif arbitrary rules of a game are violated.
Both logics are required to create and maintain an authoritarian regime.
But personal gain (or survival) alone provides a fragile foundation for an oppressive state.
Regimes therefore supplement rewards and punishments with self-policed norms, rules and conventions.
This can certainly help explain the horrors of Nazi Germany showing its not primarily a matter of individual evil.
Would you rebel?
So how would you or I fare in Gilead?
Indeed, we may feel morally bound to protect the party, nation or religion, whatever its character.
Breaking out of one set of norms requires that we have an available alternative.
How we react to unfairness may also affect our propensity to rebel.
While not proven in the study, it may make such individuals more likely to conform.
Another factor is social circumstances.
