Just happened to have read a section of How We Believe:The Search for God in an Age of Science by Michael Shermer about how gossip is a tool of social control that we use to weigh our social investments in others.
This got me thinking that such an attitude toward gossip is actually quite healthy; it makes a lot of sense. An excerpt:
Morality most likely evolved in these tiny bands of 100 to 200 people as a form of reciprocal altruism, or I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine. But as Lincoln noted, men are not angels. There are cheaters. Individuals defect from social contracts. Reciprocal altruism, in the long run, only works when you know who will cooperate through a complex feedback loop of communication among members of the community. (This also helps to explain why people in big cities can get away with being rude, inconsiderate, and uncooperative-they are anonymous and thus not subject to the normal checks and balances that come with seeing the same people every day.)
Shermer was speaking of the evolution of morality in society tens of thousands of years ago when groups of people were beginning to grow beyond the average of 150 people one knows closely enough to truly know well (a number which has been maintained into current times). There began to be a need for establishing the integrity of others whom we may not know well, or at all. He continues,
In order to play the game of reciprocation you need to know whose back needs scratching and who you will trust to scratch yours. This information is gathered through telling stories about other people, better known as gossip. From an anthropologist's perspective, gossip is a tool of social control through communicating cultural norms, as Jerome Barkow observed: "Reputation is determined by gossip, and the casual conversations of others affect one's relative standing and one's acceptability as a mate or as a partner in social exchange. IN Euro-American society, gossiping may at times be publicly disvalued and disowned, but it remains a favorite pastime, as it no doubt is in all human societies."
It goes on to say that part of the reason we gossip about celebrities is because the media makes them seem like someone close to us, someone we actually know.
It's very interesting stuff. On the other hand, I can see how gossip can easily go awry. Misinformation, misinterpretation, minor details being added or subtracted can lead to the propagation of inaccurate information about a person's social standing and integrity.
The flip side to that argument, though, is that the only person who every really holds the key to the truth is the subject of the gossip. The problem being, that person may find it in their interest to prevent a social ostracism for themselves by denying an allegation that is in fact true.
The saving grace of it all, however, is that one tidbit of gossip that casts a negative light on an otherwise untarnished social record poses no real danger to the overall reputation. The group of 150 or so individuals that know the "gossipee" well can add the gossip to the scale, as it were. If the balance tips in favor of the negative, perhaps there is some credence. If the balance favors the positive, perhaps the harsh rumor was false. Either way we could be mistaken, but statistical analysis would make the odds easier to decipher.
No comments:
Post a Comment