BOOK REVIEW: I'll have what she's having

Bentley et al, (Alex Bentley, Mark Earls and Michael O’Brien (2011) I’ll Have What She’s Having: Mapping social behaviour, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 146, $22.95/£15.95) in this short and accessible text, explore the phenomena surrounding social interaction and influence. Their question is how do we understand copying. More specifically, how do individuals learn from one another, influence one another and to what extent is man a rational independent actor or simply a follower. The discussion begins in the Pleistocene era, when man had to learn how to survive. Here not only do we observe social learning but understand how it was written into the human genes. The authors argue that the same mechanisms within human cognition exist; they have simply evolved from learning how to survive to how to survive within modern society. Therefore the rules of copying no longer simply follow a ‘copy if better’ norm, although this may help us to understand how technological innovations spread [think of the touch screen], but now relate to the creation of social norms. Social norms are often created through marketing communication, promoting a product as the ‘must have’ item, as well as political communication. The so-called ‘movement for change’ around Obama was a form of group think inculcated through the power of the campaign messages.

The power of a social cascade is thus highlighted as the way in which individuals believe they are acting independently but are actually being influenced. Influence in the 21^st Century is likely to be from many sources simultaneously, those who are our friends or whom we follow on social media, the media we read but also the people we spend time with during our day to day lives. Our lives can be described as a rich collage of influences, each being processed and weighed in our minds prior to acceptance or rejection. What is less clear is how cascades start and, in particular, how unintended cascades occur across a society. Why, for example, might parents choose to give their child a name that ends up shared with a third of other children born at the same time? Surely this is not intentional, and may well be innovative in each particular case, or copying someone famous without realising that others would do the same, but why do people independently choose the same innovation? The authors explain four cognitive conditions. When there are few options and few sources of influence a process or rational choice occurs, possibly because the choice is actually a no-brainer. Where there are many options but few sources of influence, so everyone is behaving differently, the decision amounts to nothing but a random guess. If there are few options but many sources of influence this results in directed copying, individuals looking to those who they respect and copying their choice. It is when there are many options and many sources of influence, but yet copying is evidenced and a behaviour appears as the choice of the majority, that we have undirected copying. The challenge is identifying the reasons for the copying, something the authors cannot fully explain.

Political choice is often described as a rational choice, and perhaps following Bentley et al’s schematic there is a reason. Choices tend to be limited, in particular realistic choices for who would be president or party of government, and sources of influence tend to be polarised. However, does this always result in a rational and deliberative choice outcome? Those who are reliant on media with particular partisan biases, or adopt one during a contest, may well fall into directed copying. The choir of voices supporting one party, the UK Sun newspaper’s reporters’ backing of the Conservatives perhaps, can lead to a predisposition to adopt the ideas as your own. There may also be a range of random guesses taking place. While there may not be many similar options, the options may seem very similar and even overwhelming to those who have little political knowledge. Unless there is a clear direction from the media, peers or other respected sources of information, voter choices may amount to little but a random guess once in the ballot box. It is more difficult to consider how undirected copying takes place within a political environment. There may often be many sources of influence, given that most campaigns are dominated by marketing communication. Equally there may be the perception that there are many similar options, or at least an overwhelming choice may exist. Can a combination of influences, from peers, the media, opinion polls, lead to undirected copying? Can we explain the bandwagons that brought Tony Blair or Barack Obama to power in this way? The challenge here is would anyone admit to copying and if not how could we detect such behaviour?

The book is aimed at the expert, though accessible due to its brevity it would be a challenge to newcomers to the topic and offers few signposts to further reading. However, the role of the book is to raise some important and interesting questions about individuality and its limitations. No human would want to think of themselves as having similar thought processes to those associated with sheep or lemmings. Few would ever admit to blind following. Yet we can see in the cases of suicide bombers, rioters on the streets of London, or participants in protests that escalate from peaceful marches to public insurrection, that blind following happens. If Bentley et al explain a significant percentage of human behaviour within their schematic then they demonstrate the amount of power that is held by social influentials. These influentials may be benign figures, or the creators of marketing communication or political propaganda; if it is the latter who predominate in our society we may not like what we find when we map social behaviour.

Choice, or lack of choice?

Defining core values can be a difficult task for a party, often recently the values are attached to the leader as opposed to the broad mass but not so perhaps for Liberal Democrats. Nick Clegg, in declaring himself to be in the contest to be leader set out what the party stands for:

I want the Liberal Democrats to become the gathering point for everyone who wants a different type of politics in Britain. A politics that begins by giving power to people, their families and their communities... We are a nation with a strong sense of fair play and social justice. An instinct to protect the environment for future generations. We are suspicious of arbitrary power, impatient with bureaucracy and wary of government interference. We have always put our faith in the power of ordinary men and women to change our world.

The problem for Nick is that this maps pretty closely to statements by Conservative leader David Cameron, for example:

That's the political programme I will follow, based on my values of family, responsibility and opportunity, and driving forward our political agenda of giving people more freedom and control over their lives

An agenda that also includes the environment, reducing bureaucracy and giving power back does not offer a 'different type of politics', rather it is the same politics managed by a different party and leader. Whether there is space within the marketplace of ideas is questionable currently but it is clear that there is a lack of differentiation and this could be the greatest problem to face the Liberal Democrats. They will have a leader that is largely unknown and offer little that is fundamentally different, while not offering the opportunity for an anti-war protest vote, so on what basis can they steal votes from their opponents?

Limiting choice doesn't win elections!

The Conservative party seem to have a problem, well several actually, but I note three of importance. Firstly, they are behind in the polls; secondly, the news agenda is most interested in possible splits between left and right, modernisers and traditionalists; thirdly, the only policy that hits the main news is their pledge to stick to Labour spending plans.

The problem therefore is that public perceptions of the party, leading to lower scores in the polls, are likely to be driven by an impression of division and lack of direction and that they have no original policies. While there is currently an online initiative to consult which is gathering pace (see here), this is ignored as it is not entertaining news.

Perhaps the pledge to stick to Labour public spending plans, which to an extent undermines their open consultation, is an attempt to capture the agenda but this is flawed. It worked for Labour in in the run-up to 1997, but because the Major government was in disarray and there was a need to reassure the floating voters that a Labour government would not incur and economic collapse; in this instance fine. But Labour's record on the economy is Brown's strength, providing this lack of choice will give people the choice between a tried and tested brand and an unknown alternative, but for the same price (or risk if you like). The choice will be Labour.

While it is not for me to comment on which policies the Conservative Party should or should not lead on, they need to talk about those things the public are concerned about but offer a more attractive alternative to Labour not more of the same. This is the only way any party can steal the ground from a party of government that have not yet lost the support of the public completely. Maybe they need to do more research, maybe they need to consult more widely, but it seems that if this is all they can offer then a snap election would present an open goal for Brown.

Plus ca change or spot the difference

Gordon Brown has, as really was expected, become Labour Party leader and so Prime Minister without a contest. His acceptance speech, the main points of which are illustrated using the soundbites extracted for his website, indicates in some ways a new direction but essentially a continuation of the New Labour mission. With the below photo, he states:

I am truly humbled that so many of my colleagues have nominated me for the leadership of the Labour Party and I formally accept the nomination, the responsibility it brings, and the opportunity to serve the people of Britain. I will strive to earn your trust. To earn your trust in our schools, in our hospitals, in our public services, and to respond to your concerns. To earn your trust in our schools, in our hospitals, in our public services, and to respond to your concerns. And by listening and learning, I want to become a voice for communities far beyond Westminster, to become a voice for the parent, the patient and the public, whom public services must exist to serve.

As a contrast, compare these words to the following:

It is an honour to lead this Party. I accept it with humility, with excitement and with a profound sense of the responsibility upon me. You have put your trust in me and I vow to you I shall repay that trust with unstinting service and dedication to our Party and our country... The task of national renewal is to provide opportunity and security in this world of change... On the economy, we replace the choice between the crude freemarket and the command economy with a new partnership between Government and industry, workers and managers... On education, that we do provide choice and demand standards from the teachers and schools, but run our education system so that all children get that choice and those standards, not just the privileged few... On welfare, that we do not want people living in dependency on state handouts, but will create a modern welfare system that has people at work not on benefit... There is much to be done, but much has been done. It was done by individuals of will and principle, working together for change.

This is Blair's acceptance speech, delivered almost thirteen years ago on 21 July 1994, the priorities are the same but trust is not the key issue but features, as does the humility interestingly Blair also talked of socialist values. So essentially more of the same but more listening perhaps? It seems there are key phrases that belong in the modern leadership acceptance speech, and if this was not sufficiently evidenced by the above how about these lines:

It's a huge privilege and honour and a great responsibility to take on this job. I will do it with everything I have to the best of my ability for my party and my country... this country faces huge challenges... The challenge of economic competitiveness... reform our public services... the quality of life... having social action to ensure social justice, and a stronger society... At the heart of what I believe are two simple principles, trusting people, and sharing responsibility

This was David Cameron on accepting the Conservative leadership, he follows the same rules it seems!

Mmmm, choices, choices

Newbury's question the council candidates continues to thrive, yesterdays question was from Julian Waghorn, a 61-year-old retired financial analyst, and asked “What is your policy on council tax? Will you keep it tagged to inflation or below? And how do we know you will stick to your promise"; so what were the diverse answers?

Emma Webster (Conservative) “Our pledge is to keep council tax at or below inflation and our track record of delivery over the last two years demonstrates our commitment to this pledge.”

Denise Gaines (Liberal Democrats) “We are going to keep it at or below inflation for the four years. We are promising to do it and we keep our promises."

Grahame Murphy (Labour) “We would try to give best value for money, but not make any promises about reducing it"

Spot the difference? Me neither! Given that Newbury is currently a close contest between the Conservatives representing 27 wards and the Liberal Democrats representing 24, where is the choice here? If council tax is the the key issue for a voter like Mr Waghorn, and gaining a choice over the future cost of living in Newbury is a motivating factor for voting, what is the point? What happened to the Liberal Democrat council tax reform, was it edited out or has it been scrapped? Why is this down to a simple, far too similar, set of answers; but if we offer incentives more might vote - I remain sceptical on this evidence!

I am sad (well sort of) that I will be in Prague and not enjoying the excitement that is results night, though apparently results night could be elongated and a drawn out event due to the various new methods of voting and the long process of counting and verifying postal votes. Wouldn't it be great if there was a record turnout, a nation-wide excitement about the result, but it will not happen - why is that? Next post on Monday, when we know the result, how will all the gimmicks to improve turnout have worked? Well I find it interesting!