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