21.11.2022 Views

Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

explore perspectives on the existence and

We

of various phenomena, from evil to

persistence

to money, in the remainder of this

adolescence

section.

societies and human sciences over time

Different

placed, moved and removed definitions

have

what is considered normal behaviour

about

what is seen as unacceptable, undesirable

and

deviant behaviour. One challenge with

or

“normal” has been that no established

defining

for determining the normal ranges exist

criteria

many sociological phenomena, unlike in

for

study of disease. Researchers in the human

the

have used statistical distributions to

sciences

imprecise lines where normal behaviours

draw

and abnormal, deviant or pathological

end

begin. Others, following Durkheim’s

ones

have focused on social norms to

example,

the distribution of traits and behaviours.

explain

this view, normal is seen as conformity

In

a conventional standard that arises when

to

and “average” behaviours become

repeated

for members of the group to strive

desirable

Another view simply says that normal

towards.

and characteristics are those that humans

traits

evolved through natural selection. When

have

encounter claims made about normal and

we

behaviour, traits or acts, we should keep

deviant

mind that they are made against a backdrop

in

deep disagreement among experts and

of

ideas about normalcy and deviance, however

Yet,

continue to play significant roles in our

tentative,

lives, used to guide our own behaviours

daily

judge those of others. A moral equivalence

or

“normal” with “good” means that the labels

of

“deviant” or “pathological” can

“abnormal”,

stigmatizing and marginalizing effects.

have

how they have been applied in the

Consider

of neurological diversity or sexual

context

orientation.

explore the making of claims regarding

To

let’s look at an example from the

normalcy,

of the Second World War about the

aftermath

capacity to do evil and be evil. What

human

of this capacity is normal for people? Can

level

get better at identifying and predicting for

we

human trait? Events of the war cast serious

this

on many previous beliefs, and researchers

doubts

many disciplines focused on these questions

in

again. Among them was Hannah Arendt

once

based on the war crimes trial of Adolf

who,

coined the term “the banality of

Eichmann,

She, like the rest of the world, may have

evil”.

Eichmann to be a confronting picture of

expected

pathology, but found that rather than

individual

in any obvious way sadistic, demonic or

being

he appeared and acted “terrifyingly

monstrous,

(Arendt 2006).

normal”

about the same time that Arendt wrote these

At

psychologist Stanley Milgram carried

words,

what became the foremost study on how

out

to authority can motivate behaviour

obedience

to one’s personal conscience. It was the

contrary

to Arendt’s eloquent description of evil.

evidence

findings were harrowing: 65% of participants,

The

that they were assisting an experiment on

believing

administered a lethal electrical shock to

learning,

“learner” when instructed to do so by a figure

the

authority. The “learners” in the experiments

of

actors, and were of course unharmed, but the

were

1971 another psychologist, Philip Zimbardo,

In

his famous Stanford Prison experiment,

with

to the evidence for the claim that evil is

added

by larger societal forces, rather than an

unleashed

studies by Milgram and Zimbardo would

The

on to become two of the most famous

go

in psychology. Suspicion stalks

experiments

so these experiments have been subject

fame,

scrutiny for decades, and largely withstood

to

probes into their methods and results.

sceptical

the opening of archives and the

However,

of new material in the past couple of

surfacing

especially regarding the Stanford Prison

years,

have caused new doubts and raised

experiment,

8II. Perspectives

II.1 The trouble with normality

results sent shocks out into the world.

constantly shifting standards.

individual’s wicked heart.

new questions about these conclusions.

1960s. A deep questioning was underway in the

216

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!