Coming from a fine arts background I enjoy the application of the philosophy of aesthetics to pretty much anything. I mean, don’t you want to live in a beautiful world, full of beautiful ideas, and beautiful ways of doing things? I do. So I like this concept of behavioral aesthetics. It may seem a little sticky though. What does it mean, what is beautiful or artful behavior?
Empathy? Compassion? Gratitude? Grace? Humor? Joy?
The list of items that could embody a behavioral aesthetic is potentially infinite. For now, I'll focus on what it means to me. In my mind choosing to live in an artful way is reflected in choosing actions that are thoughtful, intentional, and respectful. It means living mindfully and doing right by yourself and your surroundings. It involves relaxing judgement and considering alternate ways of seeing.
As I think about the potential trajectory of this course and the art of behavior change, I hope to be able to keep these concepts in mind. Personally, I have a bit of a hard time with the idea of behavior change and intervention. Thinking about working to change the behavior of someone else seems like saying, “You’re doing it wrong. I know better than you.” Or curating actions in a covertly manipulative manner, undertaking a form of social puppeteering. I realize this is taking a harsh outlook, but it seems difficult to say that any point of view, behavior, or action is all good or all bad or that what I think is somehow better than what you think. This becomes even more challenging when considering the way individuals behave in the context of environmental issues. These issues are broad and complex. People are emotionally tied to their outlook on these issues. These are the issues where we often want to say, “You’re doing it wrong. I know better than you.”
This is where I know that I need to take a beat. I need to remember that living artfully means helping yourself and others live well and make choices that encourage collective well-being. This is why I want to keep in mind that behavior change need not be subversive, manipulative, or implicit that one knows best. It should not be approached contentiously or cynically. It can be beautiful. It should be artful. It should start small and build into durable, meaningful choices.
To this end, working toward an Art of behavior change, toward interventions that are thoughtful, intentional, and respectful of the participants and outcomes will remain my goal. I understand that this means not assuming that there is any one-size-fits-all approach. It means learning the models and finding the ways in which they complement each other. It means looking beyond what has already been tried and attempting new, creative ways of communicating and inviting participation. It means trying to find the beauty in the way we do things and finding ways to engage others in the pursuit of beauty.
I completely agree that encouraging behavior change through intervention with respect is the preeminent goal of this methodology, but I'm curious about your reasoning that this doesn't or shouldn't come from a place of "what I think is somehow better than what you think". Isn't this the first assumption of behavior change? Where you're trying to amend their current behavior to align with a specific outcome you have in mind. At some point, someone has to make the decision that one outcome is the best outcome or even just better than the others.
ReplyDeleteWhat if the desired behavior change is mutually agreed upon? There are cases within society where we agree that behavior changes should occur, but are difficult to achieve, and thus tools for enacting behavior change are accepted. For example, a greater number of Americans now feel that smoking is unhealthy, a public nuisance, and should be discouraged. Because of this change in public opinion, as a society we accept policies that promote tools for behavior change, like warning labels on cigarette boxes. What if we came together as a society and agreed that we should all be living more sustainably? Would this make behavior change for reduced consumption more ethical and less manipulative? Can we, as a majority, disregard the objections of minority individuals in order to promote the greater good? Beyond passing legislation, are there others means of determining society's will to embrace behavior change strategies?
DeleteIn RE: S. Goto
DeleteI understand the assumption that behavior change necessarily comes from a place of one knowing better, because why would you want to change behavior if you didn’t think you had a better way? What I’m speaking to is the intentional part of the approach. I believe that starting with a positive intention is more fruitful than a negative intention. Coming at behavior change with an attitude of “I know best” feels imbedded with shaming; nobody wants to be told that they are doing something wrong. I think that using this approach could result in negative affective coding of the subject, and could cause the opposite of the intended outcome. Conversely, beginning with a positive stance and providing encouragement for improving a behavior might help to increase confidence around the subject and lead to positive feelings associated with the intended behavior. Yes, this positive approach still implies that there is a better way, but framed with positive intention, it somehow doesn’t feel like there is an implicit value judgment.
Do we think there might be a neutral, productive ground here where it's okay to acknowledge that we might know best about the nature of some environmental problems, some potential behavioral solutions, and about factors that support behavior change, while also being willing to accept our simultaneous role as the humble novice: willing to learn from the innate wisdom of the people with lived experience with whom we're working? To me, being a leader in helping to craft behavioral aesthetics is about becoming comfortable with abiding in these tensions among seemingly conflicting roles -- expert and novice, leader and student.
Delete"Can we, as a majority, disregard the objections of minority individuals in order to promote the greater good?"
ReplyDeleteI don't think so. I feel like this is the type of process that leads to minority populations living in heavily polluted or otherwise environmentally unfriendly areas. Someone ends up with the short stick. It's thought that the majority of the population is better off if the landfill is located there or it is touted as greater good that the waste is dumped over here where it will do the least damage, but those that live in the vicinity are greatly impacted. However, they are the minority so we overlook it. It's not affecting "most" people.
I'm not certain that it's possible to have a completely, mutually agreed upon behavior change and it's certainly not the best decision to err on the side of the majority in all cases but I agree that it is ideal to be thoughtful and respectful when considering something that will affect others.