Believing in the good of humanity is a revolutionary act – it means that we don’t need all those managers and CEOs, kings and generals. That we can trust people to govern themselves and make their own decisions.Rutger Bregman
It looks like this pandemic is, for the UK at least, coming to end. In terms of a narrative arc the story of Covid-19 started with people stockpiling toilet roll, hand sanitiser and eggs and ended with confirmation of something we had guessed long ago – that those who create the rules for the little folk rarely stick to them.
People really are shit aren’t they? Left to our own devices social order breaks down and we reveal ourselves to be self-centred, selfish and uncaring.
Except there’s little evidence that’s the case.
Whilst the media has delivered us a daily stream of bad behaviour – with even community street parties being weaponised as deadly super spreader events – the real story of the pandemic has been one of mass cooperation.
It’s not just the traditional media who told us how bad we were. Facebook and Twitter were full of pictures of ‘covidiots’ – a term that came to be used by both anti-lockdowners and the proponents of Zero Covid.
How people truly behave is never revealed by looking at the extremes. True – there have been anti-vaxxers intimidating kids outside schools and disrupting test centres. And there have also been mask fetishists who wear face coverings outside when on their own, alone in cars, even in their social media profiles. These people though are outliers, to be used as totems of idiocy by both sides of the argument that Covid isn’t really a big deal/or is a potential destroyer of humanity.
The vast, the overwhelming, majority of people were in neither of these camps. Most of us took it seriously, cooperated and followed the rules as we wanted to look after each other. The jury is out on whether such severe lockdowns were needed as there is evidence that people were modifying their behaviour before many governments introduced restrictions. Sweden, both praised and vilified for its “light touch” stance during the pandemic adopted a mass cooperation rather than mass restriction approach and is , at best, no worse off because of it.
Also the mathematical models that led to the most drastic restrictions have now been revealed to be exclusively bad scenarios based on the worst of us, never assuming that people would self-regulate their behaviour without enforcement.
Many would argue that this approach was necessary in a pandemic, that we couldn’t take the risk – and there is some merit to point of view. However, this is not a sustainable or even ethical way to form future public or social policy.
How Humans Really Behave
According to Rutger Bregman we have a rather pessimistic view – not of ourselves, but of everyone else. Without rules and leadership we are days away from anarchy. It’s been named “veneer theory” – the idea that just below the surface, our bestial nature is waiting to break out.
His research on over 200,000 years of human history counters this and shows that in reality we are hardwired to be kind, cooperative and caring. He has talked about how during the pandemic we have seen an explosion of cooperation and altruism with people organising stuff from the bottom up.
In his book Humankind he recounts numerous examples from history that show disasters don’t cause us to descend a few rungs on the ladder of civilisation, but often bring out the best in us. The media stories of looting, stockpiling are usually true, but selective – highlighting the behaviour of the outliers.
He writes that during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina we didn’t see New Orleans descend into complete chaos. In fact in seven hundred field tests following disasters since 1963 it’s never every man for himself. Catastrophe brings out the best in people.
As an explainer he quotes from Rebecca Solnit “elite panic comes from powerful people who see all humanity in their own image” and notes that “dictators and despots all too often resort to brute force to prevent scenarios that exist only in their own heads, on the assumption that the average Joe is ruled by self interest, just like them”
Exactly that. The people making the rules assumed the worst of us because that’s how they would behave if they were left to their own devices. And behind closed doors left to their own devices that’s precisely what they did.
This isn’t a lesson just for the politicians – it’s relevant to any of us who work with the public. If your job involves you encouraging someone to take a vaccine, to eat more healthily , to exercise more, to look after their home, to pay their rent or mortgage – there are lots of lessons from the past two years.
People can do good things, and more often than not that’s what they do when things are explained to them. The more we impose top-down rules and directives the more we risk paternalism or even authoritarianism.
If all we did was view how people behave slightly less cynically, maybe we’d create a much more relaxed, healthy and happier world.
7 thoughts on “Can We Really Trust People To Do The Right Thing?”
Reblogged this on Think Different.
See also: the Fundamental Attribution Error.
A good point. That’s EVERYWHERE these days
As always, a great blog post Paul.
On this one though, can I pick up on your use of the word ‘anarchy’ to mean something negative. I think you’ve used to mean ‘chaos’, ‘every person for themselves’, or ‘no rules’, when really it means ‘no rulers’.
Most people who say they are anarchists would also agree with principles of autonomy, lack of hierarchy, mutual aid, voluntary association. These are also the things that you speak about as positives in your post.
Thank you Sam. You’re correct and I’m amending.
Thanks for this thoughtful article. I agree that believing in the good of people is not just correct according to the evidence, but an extremely valuable attribute in any culture and needs to be protected.
I feel like I have learnt (or been reminded of) two key lessons during the pandemic. First, that we all want those around us to feel the way we do and much of human behaviour is aimed at trying to transfer our feelings onto others, be they fear, anger, joy or delight. Secondly, as you have set out here, that how we view ourselves, ultimately, characterises how we view other people. These together make me think that beyond the direct impact of the virus, the polarising nature of our response to it (lockdowns or no lockdowns, rules vs guidance, etc.) and the potential loss of trust in leaders and institutions could have a damaging legacy beyond the pandemic if not addressed now or in a “recovery” period.
I am hopeful that as restrictions ease and numbers of infections reduce that trust and belief in others will be restored or maintained but I don’t think we should take that for granted.
I’m with you. I’m hopeful but none of us can take it for granted and have a part to play