Big Brother's Watching You...

Hello all. It's been a ridiculously long time since I wrote last, but things have been going pretty crazy. I recently got promoted at work, and with this new promotion comes access to a whole lot more hours, esp. since we're short-staffed (somewhat) in the position I just got promoted from. So, doing both positions has resulted in averaging 30 hours a week, not to mention taking four classes this quarter. Even though they're excuses, I know, hopefully it makes this post more justified for taking so long!
Anyways, way back when during Winter Break, Dave actually came down for Christmas. We finally had a full house again with all six Zolands running around. As keeping up with tradition, we all decided to stay up late into the night for the final day that Dave was here to not only catch up on old times but also to talk about any ideas or thoughts that we had run into as time had gone on. One of the things that we talked about for a while was external and internal conformity. But, before we get to that part, we have to take a step back further and talk about a certain psych experiment...
A few weeks before Dave had come back, Joey was writing an essay for a class having to do with worker's right and privacy. Apparently, a few decades back, they did an experiment where they built a prison called a Panopticon. The Panopticon was designed so that the jail warden would be able to view any prisoner at any given time through the means of hidden surveillance, if I remember correctly. Whether it was day or night, the warden would be able to look at any given prisoner. The point of the experiment was to monitor people's behavior, as noted by the surveillance. What they found out is that when the prisoners knew that the warden was watching them, they would behave in a certain way that was in line with what the warden wanted, or at least what the prisoner thought that the warden wanted. Yet, when the warden disappeared to the viewing station and was able to monitor them without the prisoners' knowledge, the prisoners tended to act differently than before. Even though this may sound obvious in hindsight, it does have important connotations. After this experiment, the jail itself was labelled as the Panopticon, and the effect where the warden was able to watch people without the other people noticing that they were being watched was labelled at the Panoptic Gaze. This term is the big one that we are going to focus on, but hold onto that thought as we go back to conformity.
Like I mentioned before, Dave, Joe, Jen, and I all started talking about conformity. Of course, it would be somewhat ridiculous to say that all conformity is the same, since there seem to be different circumstances and effects that happen as a result of conformity. So, to make things a bit more easy to understand and just for general categorization purposes, Dave told us that there are typically two ways to define conformity: External Conformity and Internal Conformity. External conformity is a form of conformity where the person does do something that is associated with the group or the goal, yet this change does not take place permanently. Essentially, it is a change that arises due to the presence of a certain stimulus, and once that stimulus disappears, the person's behavior reverts to whatever it was originally. Thus, External conformity is not permanent and can be viewed as the result of some force acting on the person, which can include punishment, violence, or even watching (surprise surprise...)
On the other hand, Internal conformity is a form of conformity that results in a permanent change in behavior to the person that is subject to it. In other words, in the presence of some stimuli, the person's behavior changes regarding a certain situation. Yet, even if the stimulus is no longer present, the person's behavior would be the same, just as if the stimulus were actually there. This form of conformity results in a permanent change in behavior, yet it is important to note that this definition is somewhat misleading, for if another stimulus arises that also causes internal conformity regarding the same subject, the person's previous behavior may change to accommodate the new stimulus. Thus, it is more like it is "permanent" until internal conformity happens once more...
Now, as some of you might already know, this post's title belongs to George Orwell's novel 1984. It is quite a good book, and I would recommend reading it. But, since it is necessary for the next point that I'm going to make, I'll have to give a brief description of some essentials... SPOILER ALERT! (Not really though; this is all found near the beginning of the book) Anyways, one of the central characters found throughout almost all of 1984 is this character named Big Brother. It's not exactly true, but Big Brother himself is the one in charge of the whole government. Through the means of propaganda and what not, Big Brother is known to be the guy in charge, and everyone is meant to love Big Brother. How is this carried out? The three primary methods are through telescreens, the Thought Police, and each other. Telescreens are a nifty device in which not only do they function as a television which everyone has to be tuned into, but they can also see you. So essentially, telescreens are two way mirrors. Every building, wall, and just about any form of public place was said to contain a telescreen, so almost every single act is meant to be monitored by someone. Who are these people monitoring the telescreens, you may ask? Cue the Thought Police, who are essentially the forces that work for Big Brother. The Thought Police are known for getting people to actively follow and love Big Brother typically my means of fear and monitoring the telescreens. Anyone that openly defies Big Brother, or even subconsciously shows that they don't truly love him, such as a momentary twitch, or taken away by the thought police and are either brainwashed to love Big Brother or are killed. Again, these descriptions aren't entirely accurate, but hopefully it gets the point across... Finally, everyone else is meant to keep an eye on each other, for turning in "traitors" is highly rewarded and respected in the society created by Big Brother. Even kids are known for turning in their parents and being greatly praised in society for doing such a "noble" act. Thus, all these forces are important for creating the world present in 1984, and actually greatly relates to my point...
As you have probably already guessed, the point of bringing up 1984 is because it is a great example of the powers of external conformity. The three stimuli that cause external conformity of behavior are the telescreens, the thought police, and even everyone else. All these stimuli cause people to act in a way that is consistent with what Big Brother wants, which is openly following his orders and loving him. Whether it is in the workplace or just even in the house, everything is meant to be monitored and acceptable by Big Brother. It is possible that because of this, people are not able to "be themselves." Thus, all of these things are great examples of how powerful external conformity can truly be, and hopefully a little clearer as to how external conformity may become present...
But, hold on a second! You may be wondering if these people every do truly love Big Brother. It's something that they are all raised in and are taught to know. Big Brother is essentially meant to be their life, and any deviancy would result in death. Thus, people's behaviors may become permanently accustomed to loving Big Brother. In other words, is it possible that such external conformity, if it is even, can lead to internal conformity? Honestly, it's really hard to tell in this example. Lots of the people portrayed in the book are shown to whole-heartedly love Big Brother, but it's hard to tell if they truly believe that, or if they believe that simply because they are acting that way in order to survive. Of course, this is only the portrayal of a book and not real life, but it seems quite possible to be realistic. Also, even if the book is fictional, the point it makes is still applicable to the point I am trying to make.

(Note: I stopped writing here since this post was so long haha. I'm writing again another night, so hopefully I don't repeat myself since I reread what I wrote, but if I do, I apologize in advance!)

So, what is the point I am trying to make, you might ask? Well, it's a little bit hard to state, but essentially the biggest distinction I am trying to make is the difference between what causes external and internal conformity and how the two conformities differ. As we saw in the 1984 example, Big Brother makes use of external forces, such as coercion, in order to get people to act a certain way. Yet, if the coercion Big Brother enforces disappears, then people would return to their behavior as if Big Brother were not present in the first place (possibly; let's just assume for now that it's external conformity, even though I might talk about this later). So, it seems as if force may not be the best way to keep behavioral changes present... Thus, it all goes back to internal conformity if one wants a behavior to become relatively permanent in another. But the million dollar question is: What causes internal conformity in the first place?
Honest to goodness, I find this a very difficult question to answer, and I doubt that there really is some clear cut form of answer. But, there do seem to be certain trends present that show when internal conformity is more likely to present as compared to cases when it shall not be. This next part is going to be strictly from opinion, but in order for internal conformity to be present, some factor that resounds personally with a person has to be present, and the probability of internal conformity caused by another person is dependent upon how strong those people's friendship is. This isn't too helpful, since I haven't really defined what is personal or what bonds really are, but it gives us a good place to start running...
First off, factors that resound personally are aspects or qualities of a person that they hold in very high regard, so to speak. It's really quite hard to explain, but some factors seem to be held with more importance than other people. For example, one person may hold friends as a very important factor, whereas other people may view ethics as a very important factor. I'm not saying that there's only one factor that people highly believe in, but that there are a variety of these factors in people, but it is not always so clearcut and defined. Of course, these are things that are typically learned by watching people's behavior and what not, and probably aren't factors that can be recognized immediately. But, for internal conformity to occur, some change has to be brought about with an effect to one of these factors. Again, it's something very hard to explain, but let's say that one person holds their future in very high regards. If they encounter a sign that says they're eternally damned, they may catch note of this and question what they have to do in order to be saved (aka hint where I'm going to go at the end of this entry haha). Yet, if someone else encounters that exact same sign, and holds their future in the same high regard, they may just totally dismiss it. Why would two such cases seem to be present over the same stimulus?
This is where the second point comes in: The effects of causing internal conformity from one person to another is directly related to how strong the bond between the two is. This is again, something quite hard to describe, but let's think about two different situations here... In the first situation, one person going down a typical street is yelled at by a religious fanatic who claims that eternal damnation awaits all of those that don't believe. In the second situation, one person is having lunch with one of their closest friends who mentions their religious beliefs and their perspectives on salvation and damnation... Which situation seems more likely to cause the person to actually re-evaluate their beliefs and possibly change their behavior (relatively) permanently, thus going for the same goal that both people in each scenario had in mind? I would argue the second one is as compared to the first, even if both are going for the same desired effect. Of course, this doesn't mean that scenario two is a surefire way to get people to believe something, nor does scenario one have no chance of working at all, for I believe there is evidence for both points being present, but just that internal conformity seems to be more likely in certain situations than others. Thus, that is why I argue that internal conformity seems to be more possible when the stimulus comes from somewhere close and personal as opposed to impersonal and distant.
By now, some of you may be pointing out that "Hey, you said external stimuli also result in external conformity, but internal conformity also relies on external stimuli; what gives?" And yes, that is a point I have to admit I did not originally have in mind when I began writing this post. As you can clearly see from the length of this entry, I've been giving it a lot of thought while writing, and in fact one of my friends brought this point up as well. Thus, it seems that both forms of conformity do have to come from some outside source (of course, change wouldn't really happen if this were the case, right..?), yet how that stimulus is presented may be the key... For external conformity, stimuli are presented that the person is not really free to escape from normally. In other words, it is something that is pressed upon them, yet may not be noticed until it is reacted against (This thought comes a great deal from Durkheim, which will probably make for a post later or something haha). Of course, there is still the possibility that these stimuli can cause internal conformity, but that is still debatable. Either way, I'll argue that even if forced stimuli can cause internal conformity, the chance is very rare. In internal conformity, the stimuli are presented to the person, but are not forced per se. In most cases, the person is able to escape from the stimuli somehow, whether it be by physically leaving or by changing the subject of conversation. Again, the main factor of separation for what seems to be more likely to cause internal conformity over external conformity depends on whether or not the stimulus is forced (i.e. panoptic gaze), aka some form of coercion (kinda sorta...).
All in all, why is internal conformity so important? Essentially, if a positive outcome can be achieved, yet the person may not be aware of it, or has trouble dealing with it. Thus, how would be the best way to help this person? If you see they have a problem and just openly call them out on it, they make become defensive and burrow themselves further in their activities, essentially reinforcing the very problem you are trying to help people deal with. Yet, the closer you are to the person, and the more gentle you present such a problem, the more likely you are to affect the person's behavior in a positive way and thus cause the help you are initially intending. Of course, I have an interest in this as seen by my studying of psychology and a hope of being able to help people. Thus, there is a whole lot more to write on this, but hopefully this should be a good start.
Final points being final, I shall leave you with a point of reflection... This point is more intended for my Valley readers, but it is still a good point for all to consider. Anyways, one of the most common things that was purported at Valley is that God is always watching you. This is meant to be a form of comfort for some, but also as a form of responsibility. Interesting, it is somewhat a form of the Panoptic gaze, albeit not exactly. But, the main point of recognition is that God always watching is like a coercive external conformity. It is purported in Christianity that there is no escaping the eye of God. Some people use this as a means of becoming responsible, yet it raises a truly interesting question: Do people conform internally or externally to Christianity if this factor is always present? In other words, do people spend all of their lives following Christianity due to the avoidance of judgment and damnation or out of loving relationship with God, which is what the goal of Christianity is typically presented as? I don't know if there really is a clear answer to this, and also I don't believe it's really that black and white (probably a combination of both, I would argue), but this whole point of God having the equivalent of a panoptic gaze is quite a curious one. Whether it's beneficial or detrimental is really something I cannot say, but it does leave a great question to be pondered and discussed. And so my faithful readers, if you have made it this far, I thank you greatly for dealing with this monstrous post, and I leave you with this food for thought. Thank you and farewell.