Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought: An Analysis of Social Interaction 9781138318199, 9780429454745

Citation preview

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

The notion of common sense and abiding by its implications is something that, seemingly, everyone agrees is a good way of making behavioral decisions and conducting one’s daily activities. This holds true whether one is a liberal, moderate, or conservative; young or old; and regardless of one’s race and ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. If utilizing common sense is such a good idea, why, then, do so many people seem to violate it? This is just one of many significant questions surrounding the idea of common sense explored and discussed in this book. This volume presents common sense as a ‘paradigm of thought’ and, as such, compares it to other major categories of thought—tradition, faith, enlightened and rational. Combining a balance of practical, everyday approaches (through the use of popular culture references and featured boxes) and academic analysis of core and conceptual methodological issues, Delaney demonstrates:   

the limitations of common sense and its place in everyday social interactions; how we learn about common sense; why common sense is so important.

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought introduces readers to a rich variety of sociological authors and will appeal to students and researchers interested in fields such as: sociology, philosophy, social psychology, cultural studies, communications, and health studies. Tim Delaney is a professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Oswego, USA.

Routledge Studies in Social and Political Thought

For a full list of titles in this series, please visit www.routledge.com/series/ RSSPT.

Social and Political Life in the Era of Digital Media Higher Diversities David Toews Towards a Hermeneutic Theory of Social Practices Between Existential Analytic and Social Theory Dimitri Ginev Experiencing Multiple Realities Alfred Schutz’s Sociology of the Finite Provinces of Meaning Marius I. Bent¸a Human Flourishing, Liberal Theory and the Arts Menachem Mautner Rethinking Liberalism for the 21st Century The Skeptical Radicalism of Judith Shklar Giunia Gatta Norbert Elias and the Analysis of History and Sport Systematizing Figurational Sociology Joannes Van Gestel Progressive Violence Theorizing the War on Terror Michael Blain and Angeline Kearns-Blain Democracy, Dialogue, Memory Expression and Affect Beyond Consensus Edited by Idit Alphandary and Leszek Koczanowicz Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought An Analysis of Social Interaction Tim Delaney

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought An Analysis of Social Interaction

Tim Delaney

First published 2019 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 Tim Delaney The right of Tim Delaney to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-1-138-31819-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-45474-5 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Taylor & Francis Books

Dedicated to those who shine the light on the darkness and attempt to drain the swamp of ignorance.

Contents

List of boxes Preface and Acknowledgments Acknowledgments 1

An Introduction to the Notion of Common Sense

xi xii xiv 1

Introduction 1 It’s a Matter of Common Sense 1 To Purchase, or Not to Purchase: Which Option Is Common Sense? 2 Is the Earth Flat or Round: What Does Common Sense Tell Us? 4 Staring at the Sun: Common Sense Tells Us Not to Do It (Even if There Is a Rare Eclipse) 4 The Study of Common Sense: A Focus on the Everyday Interactions of Individuals 6 Summary 9 2

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought Introduction 10 Paradigms of Thought: How Social Order Should Be Structured 11 Tradition 12 Faith 24 Enlightened, Rational Thought 32 Common Sense 43 Summary 48

10

viii 3

Contents Explaining Common Sense: From the Ancient Greeks to the Early Twentieth Century Introduction 50 Examining Common Sense 52 The Ancient Greeks and Modern Philosophy: Common Sense and Skepticism 52 Ancient Greek Skepticism 54 Modern Philosophy and Skepticism: Rene Descartes and David Hume 55 Thomas Reid and Common Sense 58 G.E. Moore: Refutation of Skepticism and the Promotion of Common Sense 60 Bertrand Russell and Common Sense 61 Thomas Paine and Common Sense 63 Karl Marx, Conflict Theory, and Common Sense 65 Max Weber, Rationality, and Common Sense 66 C. Wright Mills, Situated Actions, and Vocabularies of Motives and Common Sense 68 Symbolic Interactionism, Social Action, and Common Sense 70 William James, Pragmatism, Habits, and Consciousness 70 Charles Horton Cooley, Symbols, Language, and Social Interaction 72 George Herbert Mead, Pragmatism, the Social Act, Gestures, and Language 73 Herbert Blumer, Meanings, Language, Gestures, and Social Action 76 Erving Goffman, the Presentation of Self, and Common Sense 78 Phenomenology and Common Sense 79 Edmund Husserl, the Rudiments of Common Sense 80 Alfred Schutz, the Life-World, Stocks of Knowledge, and Common Sense 83 Peter Berger, the Social Construction of Reality, and Common Sense 85 Ethnomethodology and the Commonsense World 86 Harold Garfinkel, Taken-for-Granted World, Accounts, and the Commonsense World 87 Summary 91

50

Contents 4

Explaining Common Sense: From the Early Twentieth Century to the Postmodern Era

ix 93

Introduction 93 Contemporary Scholarship in the Study of Common Sense 95 Hermeneutic Phenomenology and Common Sense 95 Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) 96 Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900–2002) 97 Paul Ricoeur (1913–2005) 98 Cornelius Castoriadis (1922–1997) 99 Antonio Gramsci and Common Sense 101 Jurgen Habermas and Common Sense 103 Immanuel Wallerstein and Common Sense 104 Anthony Giddens, Structuration Theory, and Common Sense 106 Randall Collins, Interaction Ritual Chains, and Common Sense 108 McDonnell, Bail, and Tavory, Resonance Theory and Common Sense 109 Feminism and Post-Feminism and Common Sense 111 Postmodernism and Common Sense 114 Posthumanism and Transhumanism 117 Postcolonialism 118 Summary 123 5

Leaning About and Adhering to Common Sense Introduction 125 Common Sense is Learned Behavior 125 The Socialization Process: A Critical Aspect of Learning About Common Sense 127 Primary Groups 129 Agents of Socialization 130 Cyber Socialization and Social Media 134 Observation and Personal Experience 136 The Development of Enlightened Rational Thought and Reason 142 Social Theoretical Explanations on How We Learn and Common Sense 143 Social Learning Theory 143 Symbolic Interactionism 144 Subcultural Theory 147 Anomie/Strain Theory 148

125

Differential Association Theory 150 Labeling Theory 151 Control/Social Bond Theory 153 Adhering to Common Sense 154 Common Sense 155 Common, Common Sense 161 Summary 163 6

Violating Common Sense: Uncommon Sense

164

Introduction 164 Impediments to Common Sense 164 Failure to Learn 165 The Lack of a Formal Higher Education 166 Overly Emotional and Irrational Fear 167 Believing in Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstitions, and Other Oddities 169 Ignorance and Stupidity 173 People Doing Dumb and Stupid Things: The Award Goes To … 175 Darwin Awards 175 The Stella Awards 179 Dumb Criminals 182 Not Adhering to Common Sense 188 Uncommon Sense: It’s Bad for Our Health 188 Common, Uncommon Sense 202 Summary 204 7

Can Common Sense Rise as the Prevailing Paradigm of Thought?

206

Introduction 206 Common Sense in Review 206 The Limitations of Common Sense 211 Enlightened, Rational Thought Should be the Prevailing Paradigm of Thought 212 Summary 216 Appendix A “Common, Common Sense” Appendix B “Tim-isms” Appendix C “Common, Uncommon Sense” Bibliography Index

217 222 226 231 248

Boxes

1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1 7.1

Connecting Connecting Connecting Connecting Connecting Connecting Connecting

Common Common Common Common Common Common Common

Sense Sense Sense Sense Sense Sense Sense

and and and and and and and

Popular Popular Popular Popular Popular Popular Popular

Culture Culture Culture Culture Culture Culture Culture

8 47 90 121 162 202 215

Preface

The notion of common sense and abiding by its implications is something that, seemingly, everyone agrees is a good way of making behavioral decisions and conducting one’s daily activities. This holds true whether one is a liberal, moderate, or conservative; young or old; and regardless of one’s race and ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. If utilizing common sense is such a good idea, why, then, do so many people seem to violate it? This is just one of many significant questions surrounding the idea of common sense to be explored and discussed in this book. Philosophers and other social thinkers have pondered the concept of “common sense” for thousands of years and have never quite agreed on its meaning or application. Many people believe that common sense is akin to having the ability to act upon that which is obvious as expressed in such a manner as, “Common sense dictates that …” Or, it may be expressed in a different manner, such as, when someone violates common sense, “I swear, that boy has no common sense whatsoever.” There are those who also believe that aspects of common sense are innate, that is, we are born with certain knowledge on how to react and behave in certain circumstances. The reality is, common sense is not innate; instead, it reflects the knowledge that one has attained through the socialization process, personal experience, observation, and in some cases by reason. These elements are all important in the definition of common sense provided in Chapter 2. While there are a few books written about common sense and how it pertains to specific subject matters such as the origin and design of government; politics; economics; assessing student learning; financial planning and investing; and, a variety of specific topics such as relationships; there is no other book that examines the subject matter of common sense as put forth here. Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought discusses common sense as a “paradigm of thought” and as such, compares it to the other major paradigms of thought—tradition, faith, and enlightened, rational thought. The term “paradigm of thought” is being used here to refer to a set of concepts and practices that establishes a clear or typical archetype or model of thinking and a way of viewing reality for a community of like-minded people and

Preface xiii their associated behavioral patterns—especially in connection with social interaction. Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought also explains the meaning of common sense from the perspective of brilliant social thinkers over a period of thousands of years (from the time of the ancient Greeks to contemporary and postmodern thought); demonstrates how we learn about common sense and explains why we adhere to common sense; describes a number of impediments confronting individuals and interfering with their ability to actually use common sense; and provides a wide variety of examples of people who violate common sense (what is referred to here as “uncommon sense”); suggests why common sense is important; and yet warns that this paradigm of thought is rife with limitations; and concludes with a discussion on whether or not common sense should reign as the prevailing paradigm of thought. Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought is filled with academic analysis that draws on numerous and key theoretical ideals and concepts from the areas of sociology, philosophy, social psychology, and history and then applies them to the concept of common sense. The material presented here provides an extensive summation of theories from a number of social sciences and the humanities in addition to the author’s own view on the topic. The unique perspective of Common Sense provides a significant contribution to the academic study of common sense and becomes a must read for anyone interested in furthering their knowledge of this subject matter. Common Sense is also balanced with a practical, everyday approach to the study of common sense (e.g., through the use of popular culture references and featured boxes). As a result, scholars, social thinkers, and laypersons alike will find this book quite fascinating and it will leave readers with plenty of food for thought about a subject area that most people treat as, well, common sense! With the way the world is today, many would likely agree that common sense is needed now more than ever. Let’s see what you think after reading Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought.

Acknowledgments

Professor Delaney would like to thank the reviewers of this text for their valuable comments, suggestions and support. Special thanks are sent to Professor Tim Madigan (Department Chair of Philosophy at St. John Fisher College) for his review of the first draft of this manuscript, your edits are always welcomed and appreciated! Tim would like to acknowledge all the fine folks at Routledge including Elena Chiu and Emily Briggs; the copyeditor Gail Walsh and everyone else who helped to produce this book.

1

An Introduction to the Notion of Common Sense

Introduction I recently purchased a new car and the finance officer at the dealership asked me if I would like to purchase the extended warranty. My first thoughts were, “No, I do not want an additional cost added to my monthly payments and, this is how ‘they’ get you—with add-on costs.” It was a hassle enough bargaining on a price that the salesperson and I could agree on and now this new additional cost? So, I passed on the “offer.” The finance guy, trying to make a significant point, held up his iPhone and added, “Do you see this? The electronics in your car are essentially equal to 10 of these [smart phones] and if just one major electronic component breaks down it will cost you more than the extended warranty.” Hmm … that is something to consider. He made it sound like it was a matter of common sense to make such a purchase. So, readers, what do you think? Is it “common sense” to purchase an extended warranty for the peace of mind associated with it along with the potential savings of thousands of dollars? Or, is it common sense not to pay the extra money because “everyone knows” that an extended warranty is a “rip-off”? Depending on a variety of factors, but especially based on one’s own experience with a major purchase such as an automobile, applying the notion of common sense could be applicable to either choice. However, if this is true, that two opposite courses of action can be considered a matter of “common sense,” how can either option truly be a matter of common sense? After all, if something is truly an example of “common sense” shouldn’t it be common knowledge for all people?

It’s a Matter of Common Sense The scenario illustrated above in the chapter’s introductory story is meant to introduce us to the complexities of the concept of “common sense.” Common sense would seem to be a straightforward notion and yet, as it will be demonstrated in this chapter and throughout the book, it is anything but commonly understood or properly explained.

2

Introduction to the Notion of Common Sense

To Purchase, or Not to Purchase: Which Option Is Common Sense? Let’s delve further into whether or not a consumer should purchase an extended warranty as a matter of common sense. In the case of purchasing a car, the customer has taken on a large financial cost and just as he or she thinks that all of the bargaining is done—a common-sense thought once the price of the vehicle and the payment plan on the vehicle has been agreed upon—the dealer introduces a potential new cost, the extended (bumper-to-bumper) warranty. And, of course, there is yet another additional cost the dealers like to throw at you, the “undercoating” and/or rustproofing. (Even though my primary residence is in snowy, central New York, nearly everyone immediately rules out purchasing the undercoating and that is what I did.) I decided to do some research. I looked at a large number of websites about the value of purchasing an extended warranty and, for the most part, the results were inconclusive, with some sites recommending it and other sites saying don’t bother with it. So, I decided to ask for the opinions of others about whether to purchase an extended warranty or not and when you want to hear the opinions of others, you turn to social media, and in this case, to Facebook. (If you are on Facebook, or any form of social media, you know people are always willing to give their opinions on a wide variety of topics.) Immediately following my post on Facebook, my friends responded with dozens of comments. Here is a sample of the reasons provided to purchase the extended warranty. Nearly everyone who said purchasing the extended warranty was just good common sense stated that “It gives you peace of mind knowing that your car has bumper-to-bumper coverage.” Another friend wrote, “I calculated the cost of what it covers and what it would cost me out of pocket if I ever needed to get work done and that led me to purchase the warranty.” Quite a few people reported that something happened to their electronics and, because they had the extended warranty, they saved thousands of dollars (and the dealer provided a free rental car while the car was being repaired). All the electronics in a car today make getting the extended warranty a viable option compared to in the past when cars were far simpler in design, and easier to repair. A number of people discussed how they did have a car problem and that the warranty did save them thousands of dollars. One of my friends wrote that dealers have a great deal of wiggle room and that they can reduce the cost of the warranty and therefore suggested that I negotiate for a better price and, if the counter-price seemed more reasonable, to take it. Other Facebook friends posted that it is common sense not to purchase the extended warranty because they were told by family members and friends their entire lives that it was a “rip-off.” In other cases, some reported that they had purchased an extended warranty in the past and came to their own conclusion that it was a rip-off. Another friend provided a link to Consumer

Introduction to the Notion of Common Sense

3

Reports (2014), which advised against purchasing the extended warranty, saying, “the dealer will probably try hard to sell you one, telling you horror stories about the thousands of dollars it can cost to replace an engine or transmission. But the odds are you’ll never need the coverage, and even if you do, the money you’ll save in repairs won’t come close to what you paid for the added warranty.” Consumer Reports also indicated that the median price paid for the coverage was just over $1,200, which is a much lower figure than what the dealer wanted to charge me. The average cost of a new vehicle ($34,000) was also thousands of dollars higher than what I was paying. Thus, I was getting “ripped off” by the dealer’s offer price. Some people said that they had a good personal mechanic or that they were capable of doing mechanical work. (While this may be true, some mechanics cannot do the electronic repairs; and, what if you don’t have access to your own reliable mechanic?) Yet another friend posted that she had purchased the extended, bumper-to-bumper warranty only to find out that her particular car problem was not covered under the warranty. Thus, a bumper-to-bumper warranty doesn’t necessarily mean that the car is covered for all potential problems. Quite a few people said that any reputable car manufacturer should be able to make a new car that is reliable enough not to need costly repairs for the first 80,000– 100,000 miles. Another thing to consider is the type of luck you generally have. If you tend to have good luck with purchases you may opt not to buy the warranty; conversely, if you are unlucky with purchases you may want to purchase it. Many people are like me; if I purchase the extended warranty I will never benefit from it but if I do not purchase it, I will end up spending thousands of dollars out-of-pocket. So, what did I end up doing? I used a slightly different approach from the suggestions described above. Recognizing that the car comes with a three-year/36,000-mile bumper-to-bumper warranty, I decided to employ my own interpretation of common sense by waiting until the three-year period (nearly) expires and ascertain then—based on the overall performance of this particular car—whether or not to purchase an extended warranty. To purchase, or not to purchase, is a relevant topic in many other spheres of life too. For example, is it better to purchase a home and build equity as common sense might seem to imply? Or, does common sense dictate that is it better to rent, bank all the money you save from lower monthly payments and not having to pay property taxes and pay for potentially costly repairs (e.g., window replacement, a new roof, new furnace, a broken water heater or a termite infestation)? One thing that becomes abundantly clear is that the advice people have to offer on whether or not you should purchase an extended warranty is similar to countless other scenarios in life. That is to say, someone’s perspective on a particular situation depends on the knowledge they have attained

4

Introduction to the Notion of Common Sense

through personal experience, observation, and what others have told them. As we shall see in Chapter 2, these are the exact elements that constitute the fundamentals of the definition of “common sense.”

Is the Earth Flat or Round: What Does Common Sense Tell Us? In 2017, I was watching the TV show “The Voyager with Josh Garcia” and, in this particular episode, Josh was in Singapore and tells the viewing audience that Singapore is “an intersection for people and cultures from all corners of the globe.” Presumably, those of us watching the show will concentrate on his idea that people from all over the world come to Singapore with their diverse cultural backgrounds in hand; and, as a sociologist, I can certainly appreciate such a description. However, as a sociologist writing about common sense it struck me as odd that Josh (and other people who do this) used the common expression of “all corners of the globe.” You should ask yourself, from a common-sense perspective, what is wrong with saying, “all corners of the globe”? If you employ enlightened, rational thought, or common sense, you realize that the globe does not, of course, have corners! The globe, like the world itself, is round; it is not a square or rectangle with corners. Thinking about the world with corners, or odder yet, thinking of the world as flat, clearly violates common-sense thinking. After all, if the world were flat, wouldn’t we have found the “end edges” by now? To be flat and not have found the edges would imply the earth has an infinite land mass that no one has yet been able to navigate. Satellite photos and photos taken from the moon and other planets (via space probes) also clearly reveal that the earth is round (like a big blue marble). And yet, there are still a few people in the world who think the world is flat. How can anyone possibly think this with all the empirical evidence that proves that the world is round? Consider, however, the existence of “The Flat Earth Society”—an organization that promotes and initiates discussion on its belief that the earth is flat. Flat Earthers believe that they are victims of oppression of thought from the Globularist majority (Flat Earth Society 2016). Failing to acknowledge that the earth is indeed round would certainly seem to be a violation of common sense (see Chapter 6 for a full discussion on violations of common sense). We can conclude this discussion with a variation of an old adage: The only thing Flat Earthers have to fear, is sphere itself!

Staring at the Sun: Common Sense Tells Us Not to Do It (Even if There Is a Rare Eclipse) Presumably, everyone has been warned, since they were very young, about the dangers of staring at the sun. There are many good reasons why we should not stare at the sun, including the realization that the ultraviolet B rays (UVB) from the sun can give you photokeratitis; which is a burn of the cornea (the clear front surface of the eye). (Note: According to MedicineNet.

Introduction to the Notion of Common Sense

5

com, 2017, the sun is just one possible source of photokeratitis, other sources include snowblindness, suntanning beds, a welder’s arc, photographic flood lamps, lightning, electric sparks, and halogen desk lamps.) The rays can also cause blisters, inflammation, and cancer in your eyes. It is unsafe to look at the sun even through sunglasses and camera filters and especially dangerous through telescopes (if it does not have a solar filter) or binoculars. While there are moments when we might like to look at the sun, most of us manage to avoid doing so, at least beyond a few seconds at any given time. There are times, however, when we are tempted to look at the sun and perhaps the most tempting time is during a solar eclipse. As NASA (1999) states: A total solar eclipse is probably the most spectacular astronomical event that most people will experience in their lives. There is a great deal of interest in watching eclipses, and thousands of astronomers (both amateur and professional) travel around the world to observe and photograph them. A solar eclipse offers students a unique opportunity to see a natural phenomenon that illustrates the basic principles of mathematics and science that are taught through elementary and secondary school. On August 21, 2017, Americans were treated to a rare solar eclipse event which prompted NASA to issue caution and warnings about viewing the event. (Note: A discussion of the August 2017 solar eclipse is discussed in Chapter 2.) NASA cautioned people who planned on watching the eclipse to use approved eclipse glasses (they contain the necessary filters to block the harmful ultraviolet light of the sun). NASA warned that a number of eclipse glasses being sold at stores were not up to industry code and advised that individuals make sure the manufacturer’s name, address, and designated certification ISO 12312–2 code were visible so that consumers could verify the safety of the glasses. NASA also warned that the only time it was safe to look right at the eclipse is when it reaches totality, and the sun passes behind the moon and turns day into night (Griffin 2017). In NASA’s July 21, 2017 official statement, the agency states: It’s common sense not to stare directly at the Sun with your naked eyes or risk damaging your vision, and that advice holds true for a partially eclipsed Sun. But, only with special-purpose solar filters, such as eclipse glasses or a handheld solar viewer, you can safely look directly at the Sun. (NASA 2017b) So there you have it, straight from a group of rocket scientists, staring at the sun violates common sense. And yet, we know that some people will look to the sky to view the eclipse process. Although this next story does not involve people violating common sense by looking at the sun, it is related to the August 2017 solar eclipse. Jean

6

Introduction to the Notion of Common Sense

Nelson-Dean, public information officer for Deschutes National Forest in Oregon, the first state in the path of the eclipse, was concerned that novice visitors to the nation’s public lands for the once-in-a-lifetime event may not possess enough camping common sense. In July 2017, Nelson-Dean warned that the eclipse could not be happening at a worse time: “It’s the peak of fire season. Our emergency responders are going to be spread thin. And the forest is going to be filled with a lot of people who don’t camp very often and might have little experience with the outdoors” (Urness 2017). Nelson-Dean worried that if a wildfire broke out while the roads were clogged with cars and campgrounds filled with people this could complicate fire-fighting and rescue efforts. Another fear among park officials was the potentiality of inexperienced visitors who might want to hike trails but not utilize common-sense hiking skills. The description of “flip-flop-wearing hikers attempting to climb dangerous mountains” was used to underscore the possibility of hikers violating common sense in the forests as they attempt to navigate a path to a great solar eclipse viewing site (Urness 2017). As it turned out, traffic jams and increased hotel rates and camping site rates were the biggest reported problems that arose during the eclipse period and people did not die from staring into the sun and flip-flopwearing hikers did not have to be rescued by park rangers (at least there were no such news stories of such a problem that reached the public). It seems that common sense during the eclipse, at least for the most part, did hold sway.

The Study of Common Sense: A Focus on the Everyday Interactions of Individuals When trying to make a decision in a given situation individuals often attempt to use a common-sense approach. And why not?! After all, that would seem to be a better course of action than violating common sense. But how do we really know when we are employing common sense? As demonstrated above, with the example of whether or not to purchase an extended warranty on a new car, it is not always obviously clear, even if we do utilize a common-sense approach. Having “peace of mind” and potentially saving thousands of dollars does sound like common sense. Then again, the idea that an auto dealership is trying to “rip you off” is considered a matter of common sense by others. Such polar opposites lead us to a number of questions, including: “Which course of action is the true example of utilizing common sense?” and “How is that people can have complete opposite opinions about a specific situation as to what option is in fact a matter of common sense?” These are just two questions of importance in the study of common sense. In the following chapters a number of other questions about the perception of common sense will be addressed, including: “Why do notions of common sense vary from one subculture to the next?” and “Why do they vary from one culture to the next?” We will also address, “Why is that ideas of common sense may vary based on one’s age, intelligence,

Introduction to the Notion of Common Sense

7

geographic location, life circumstances, family background, wealth, and health?” Questions such as these represent the tip of the iceberg of the complexities involved in the domain of common sense and begin to shed light on why we need a thorough examination of the complexities and intricacies involved in this subject matter. Yes, there a few other books about common sense but they tend to pertain to specific subject matters such as the origin and design of government; politics; economics; assessing student learning; financial planning and investing; and, a variety of specific topics such as relationships. No other book examines the subject matter of common sense as put forth here. This book discusses common sense as a paradigm of thought and, as such, compares it to the other major categories of thought—tradition, faith, and enlightened, rational thought; it explains the meaning of common sense from the perspective of brilliant social thinkers over a period of thousands of years (from the time of the ancient Greeks to contemporary thought); demonstrates how we learn about common sense and explains why we adhere to common sense; describes a number of impediments to individuals actually using common sense; and, provides a wide variety of examples of people who violate common sense (what is referred to here as “uncommon sense”); suggests why common sense is important and yet warns that this paradigm of thought is rife with limitations; and, concludes with a discussion on whether or not common sense should reign as the prevailing paradigm of thought. To prepare us for what’s to come in the following chapters it is important to realize that the utilization of common sense is important both for major decisions in life as well as the mundane and ordinary. The study of common sense essentially involves the examination of the micro behaviors of people; that is to say, the everyday behaviors and interactions of individuals. The focus on the everyday interactions of people is important to the study of common sense because it is within this realm that most people come to expect others to behave in a predictable, common-sense manner. Individuals seem to be happy when others use “common sense” as it affords interactants an opportunity to take “short cuts” during social interaction because both parties have a good understanding of, and perhaps experience with, dealing with a specific situation. However, the further removed from our everyday experience a particular situation is, the less useful common sense is. One other important matter to ponder as we prepare to read the following chapters is the most relevant and fundamental question of all, “What is common sense?” Your answer to this question cannot come in the form of an example of common sense, or an example of a violation of common sense, but rather, it requires an answer in definition form. Go ahead, try to define common sense, we can wait. And wait we will, as common sense will be defined and discussed as a paradigm of thought in Chapter 2.

8

Introduction to the Notion of Common Sense Box 1.1 Connecting Common Sense and Popular Culture Learning Common Sense from Popular Culture As a leading sociologist in the study of popular culture, I am certainly a proponent of the value of incorporating elements of popular culture within the context of academic study. In fact, to date, this is the 7th book I have written (or co-authored) that utilizes featured popular culture boxes such as the one used here (and in every chapter in this book). I have also authored numerous popular culture books including Lessons Learned From Popular Culture (co-authored with Tim Madigan) and books on the television shows Seinfeld and The Simpsons as well as a book on shameful behaviors. While few academics have written as much on popular culture as I have, I am certainly not the only person to recognize the value of popular culture. People from around the world—not the “four corners” of the world!—have learned a great deal about American culture by consuming our popular culture. (Note: The meaning of popular culture will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2.) During my trips to Russia, which covers a three-decade period to date, I have long noticed that young Russians immediately want to talk with foreigners (especially Americans) once they hear them speak English. From the time they are young school children, Russians who are likely to attend college or want to expand their life-worlds from beyond their immediate environments, and wish to be a part of the global community, attempt to expand their knowledge of American culture and their proficiency in speaking English. They want to talk about anything American just to practice their English. They realize that the greatest common denominator is popular culture. I have Russian colleagues at Moscow State University that I speak with regularly and they enjoy brushing up on their English-speaking skills. In 2015, I befriended two Russian students at St. Petersburg State University who were relatively proficient in English. We have remained very close friends and have attended a conference and published as co-authors. They attribute their increased proficiency in English to their communications with me and by watching American popular culture TV shows and movies, watching YouTube videos, and listening to American music. The knowledge they have gained from popular culture has not only taught them about our norms, values, and beliefs, it has afforded them an opportunity to understand common sense from the American perspective. Another example of the value of popular culture as a means of learning about common sense (from the American perspective) is provided to us with the story of Bozoma Saint John. On June 6, 2017, Saint John became the Chief Brand Officer at Uber following a wave of controversies which included the resignation of Travis Kalanick, Uber founder and CEO, and a number of safety issues and sexual assaults (as of late July 2017, Uber had fired 20 employees following over 200 investigations for misconduct).

Introduction to the Notion of Common Sense

9

The story of Saint John is quite fascinating. During an interview with Gayle King, which was aired on “CBS This Morning” (June 28, 2017), Saint John explained that she was eager to take on the position of Brand Officer at Uber because she was not afraid of the challenge and because she had the confidence that she would succeed. At the time of hire, Saint John was a marketing executive at Apple Music after joining the company in its acquisition of Beats Music and, prior to that, with PepsiCo—two very popular brands. Saint John told King that her family moved to Colorado Springs, CO, from Ghana, when she was 12 years old. She was always tall for her age and as a native of Ghana she worried about blending in with her new American schoolmates. She pointed out that life is tough enough for an awkward 12-year-old girl but combine that with her distinctive look and accent and she wondered if she would be able to adjust to life in America. Saint John explained that she immediately immersed herself in American popular culture. She watched TV shows and movies and listened to the radio in order to learn how to talk like an American and so that she would have something in common with the other kids to talk about. Saint John said that she realized it was a matter of common sense to learn about popular culture because her taken-for-granted world was quite different from that of her new American classmates. The beauty of possessing popular culture knowledge was the fact that she now had a great deal of common topics to discuss with her peers. This common-sense understanding of popular culture has clearly benefited Bozoma Saint John as she is a star in the American corporate world of marketing.

Summary In this chapter, the notion of common sense was introduced and, while the concept itself seems rather clear, it is often vague and open to the interpretations of those with different perspectives. Oftentimes, what some people may consider as a matter of common sense in a given situation, others will disagree with and offer contradictory views. Attempting to utilize a common-sense approach to everyday interactions is generally considered a good idea, and it is certainly better than purposely violating common sense. Nonetheless, it is difficult to know when we are truly employing common sense. The study of common sense essentially involves the examination of the everyday social interactions of individuals as it is within this realm that most people come to expect others to behave in a predictable, common-sense manner.

2

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

Introduction There was a time when the sun and moon were blocked from the view of our ancient ancestors. Such an event would likely cause great concern and perhaps even panic among those who witnessed such a phenomenon. What happened? Where did the sun go? Why is the full moon darkened? Primitive humans, who learned to outwit faster and stronger animals, were not intelligent enough to explain many simple things (such as eclipses) that occurred in nature. Lacking intellect, ancient people blamed such cosmic occurrences on a variety of sources rather than simple planetary alignments. The Vikings, for example, believed that an eclipse signaled a possible apocalypse and supposed that by making as much noise as possible they could scare it away; the ancient Egyptians are believed to have been so scared of it (they regarded an eclipse as a form of evil) they did not write about it; the ancient Greeks believed that an eclipse signaled that the gods were angry and that it marked the beginning of disasters and destruction; and, the ancient Chinese believed eclipses to be bad omens that were caused by a dragon eating the sun, so the people would chant, beat drums and fire canons to scare the dragon away (Osborne 2015). In general terms, any unusual event that occurred in ancient or medieval times was viewed as an omen from the gods (or God). Various tribes, clans, and cultures around the world and throughout the past eras would enact protocols (e.g., chanting, throwing objects at the sky, or sacrifice) designed to appease the angry gods. Because an eclipse lasts a short period of time (the totality of the eclipse may be as short as a minute or two), any ritualistic behavior performed as an appeasement would appear to be successful. But, as science explains, just because two events occur with one following the other does not imply causation. In this regard, science, with its empirical base, would come to challenge long-held traditional and faith-based thought processes. Given enough time and support, science is capable of explaining life’s mysteries quite rationally. Science has certainly solved the “mystery” of eclipses, as we know that they are easily explained by simple planetary

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

11

alignment. As clarified by NASA (2017a), an eclipse takes place when one heavenly body such as a moon or planet moves into the shadow of another heavenly body: an eclipse of the moon (lunar eclipse) and an eclipse of the sun (solar eclipse). Science has transformed the thought processes of people who once believed eclipses were random, magical, or scary phenomena as they can be very accurately predicted. In fact, eclipses for the next 100 to 200 years can be predicted to within a second according to Fred Espenak, an American astrophysicist and world authority on eclipses (ABC Science 2017). We also know that solar eclipses (where a shadow of the moon partially or fully blocks the sun) can occur two to five times a year, but the majority are partial eclipses. Total solar eclipses occur about once every 18 months, and affect a very limited area. The maximum coverage of a solar disk lasts between 7 and 7.5 minutes. A lunar eclipse (the darkening of a full moon by the shadow of the earth) occur every 6 months, and total lunar eclipses normally come in sets of three, followed by three partial eclipses (Answer.com 2017). On August 21, 2017, the United States was treated to a rare coast-to-coast total solar eclipse that went diagonally across the country, starting in Oregon and ending up in South Carolina. Total eclipses are rare for people to witness due to a number of variables including the realization that the viewing path of the eclipse may not be in one’s geographical area and because the weather can interfere with the viewing of an eclipse that does occur where one resides. The 2017 solar eclipse was the first total solar eclipse to cross the continental United States since 1979 and the first to run from sea to shining sea since 1918 (Krausz 2017). As mentioned in Chapter 1, the 2017 solar eclipse occurred without any significant incidents, that is to say, the gods were not angry at Americans and the world did not end on that date. Science, as a paradigm of thought, had succeeded in keeping the masses calm via enlightened, rational thought and a bit of common-sense advisement.

Paradigms of Thought: How Social Order Should Be Structured The idea of social order and how human behavior should best be shaped and maintained has been a staple characteristic of our existence since the dawn of humanity. Social order itself refers to a particular manner in which humans are expected to behave (both in private and in public) and the way in which the social system of inter-related social structures, institutions, and customs should best be structured. Throughout time and in nearly all social situations people have been expected to abide by some sort of prevailing paradigm of thought that determines their behavior. A paradigm of thought is defined as a set of concepts and practices that establishes a clear or typical archetype or model of thinking and a way of viewing reality for a community of likeminded people and their associated behavioral patterns—especially in connection with social interaction. In some societies, people have very little

12

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

freedom to act as they please apart from the doctrine of the dominant cultural paradigm of thought; in other societies people have relative freedoms and come to think that they are allowed to act upon their “free will.” In either scenario, however, there always exists a domineering paradigm of thought in all societies that attempts to control social behavior in the name of maintaining social order. I argue that there are four established paradigms of thought on how social order should be structured beginning with the earliest humans who were expected to abide by tradition. Maintaining the traditions of a culture remains as a popular paradigm today in many societies either as a primary force or a secondary one. The introduction of faith and spirituality, and later, organized religion, led to the formation of another powerful doctrine of thought. The promotion of enlightened, rational thought (and especially empirical science) in the eighteenth century challenged the reliance on tradition and faith as the primary means to establish social order. The fourth significant paradigm of thought concerning the issue of how humans should behave and interact with others involves the usage of common sense. The utilization of common sense is helpful in many situations. However, as we all know (and as a central theme of this book), people often fail to exercise common sense in many situations. In this chapter, each of the four primary paradigms of thought will be explored. We begin our review with a look at the role of tradition.

Tradition Tradition refers to a way of thinking, behaving, or doing something that has been used by people of a particular group/clan/society over a long period time. It involves passing down elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially via oral communication—or as sociologists would explain, via the socialization process. Tradition, as a paradigm of thought, can be a predominant feature of a culture wherein members of that society will face serious consequences for violating traditional doctrines (e.g., the concept of royalty that dictates merit plays no role in attaining leadership positions but, instead, birth rights are more important); or, it can play a secondary role in cultural expectations of the behavior of its members (e.g., it is traditional to serve turkey at American Thanksgiving celebrations but no one will be arrested or sanctioned by society if they do not adhere to this tradition). Tradition: The First Paradigm of Thought Tradition is likely to be the first paradigm of thought as early humans were devoid of great intellectual contemplation and organized religious doctrines. The human species learned to survive via trial and error, behavioral reinforcement, modeling, observation, and in many cases a great deal of luck. Their quest for daily survival left little or no time for philosophical or spiritual reflection. In fact, humans were barely more advanced than other animal

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

13

species that were also incapable of understanding the meaning of life from a philosophical or religious perspective. The first humans, which (based on the knowledge we have at present) originated in Africa’s Great Rift Valley (an area that includes parts of present-day Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania), traveled in all directions, driven by the constant search for abundant food resources and safe areas to inhabit (Khan Academy 2017). Human beings learned to survive by adapting to their environment (often living in caves as they provided natural protection from predators); developing tools through such processes as hafting (the construction of tools that combined stone heads or points with wooden handles or shafts); and, adhering to the advice of elders that was handed down over the generations by means of oral testimony. Over time, humans would evolve in their development (generally measured in terms of our primary means of subsistence) from hunter-gatherer (wild plants and animals), to pastoral (domesticated livestock), horticultural (cultivation of crops), agrarian (cultivation of crops with assistance from animals and/or machinery), industrial (mechanized manufacturing of goods), and post-industrial (service-oriented work). It could be argued that a certain degree of common sense was also a characteristic of early humans as it should’ve been quite evident that a single man or woman was no physical match for a woolly mammoth or any other large predator. Ancient Traditions As the first paradigm of thought, traditions have existed since the dawn of humanity and prior to written documentation. Traditions abound during the ancient eras and there are far too many to describe here (as tradition is not the focus of this book), but, as a matter of providing examples, let’s take a look at a few. Myths often play a role in establishing traditions and this is certainly true with ancient Egypt. As described by Geraldine Pinch (2004), Egyptian myths are stories about gods and sacred stories that attempt to explain the way the world is; they are also viewed as traditional stories that contain collective knowledge or experience. Myths often take the form of the absurd as they are often “garbled memories of historical events,” “expressions of the subconscious mind,” “symbolic descriptions of the natural world,” or “symbolic statements about the social order” (Pinch 2004:1). Among the significant ancient Egyptian myths that took on a traditional mode of thinking was the “divine order envisage by the Egyptians [that] placed their country at the center of the created world” (Pinch 2004:4). This tradition included the idea that the numerous gods and goddesses created by the Egyptians had all originally lived in Egypt itself from “the beginning of timeless time” (Clark 2000:3). These demigods ruled for several thousand years until they were succeeded by the dynastic kings, or as we know them today as the “Pharaohs” (Clark 2000). Lacking an official holy book such as the Bible or Koran (Quran), the

14

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

cultural and spiritual beliefs of Egyptians were passed down from generation to generation through oral testament and a variety of written and visual sources. “The extent and nature of these sources varied greatly during the 3,500 years that the native Pharaonic culture dominated Egypt” (Pinch 2004:5). The highly diverse present-day Chinese culture is shaped by its old-world traditions (and a Westernized influence). Traditional accounts of early China present the Shang as the second historical dynasty (ca. 1554–1045/1040 B.C.E.), succeeding to the Xia and succeeded by the Zhou (1045/1040–256 B.C.E.). Because no written records of the Xia have yet been discovered, the Shang with its inscriptions on oracle bones and bronze vessels, may currently be regarded as China’s first historical dynasty. (De Bary and Bloom 1999:3) With well over 150,000 fragments of inscribed Shang oracle bones at their disposal, archaeologists have learned a great deal about the ancient traditions of the Chinese. The inscriptions, written in an early Chinese script that scholars have been laboring to decipher since the importance of the oracle bones was first recognized a century ago reveal the existence of an incipient state whose elites dominated a highly stratified society and whose king was able to exercise sovereignty as he issued orders to the officers and populations of various territories under his control. Benefiting from highly developed craft specialization and relying upon an administrative hierarchy, the king and his supporters extracted the agricultural surplus from the dependent peasants and mobilized them for large public works and for warfare. (De Bary and Bloom 1999:4) The dynasty was maintained by the tradition of royal lineage with the title of emperor passed from brother to brother before descending to the next generation, though as the dynasty aged it was passed directly from father to son. Lineage dictated a wide number of prestigious positions within the hierarchal structure. Supported by military might, the upper crust of society (primarily royalty and those associated with royalty) enjoyed the benefits of the Bronze Age while the peasants mostly toiled in labor. This system of social inequality would become tradition for thousands of years. Over the centuries, China’s empire would wax and wane. The attributes and functions of an emperor, as well as his religious nature, changed under the pressures of politics. China was also often the victim of alien peoples who conquered the nation, formed new dynasties, and reorganized the state’s

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

15

military institutions and reconceived the relation of armies to the court (Lewis 2007). Meanwhile, over time and from region to region, the great families modified the ways they reproduced wealth and exerted local influence, as well as the means by which they were drawn into state service. But in one form or another, these features endured across the two millennia of imperial Chinese history. (Lewis 2007:4) Such is the power and influence of tradition as a paradigm of thought. The ancient Greeks are steeped in tradition, much of which is made up of legend, myth, and fact. Because writing arose in Greece only in the 8th century B.C., no accurate records exist detailing Greece’s beginning. And even the words Greece and Greek come from the Latin word Graeci, which is what the Romans, centuries later, called the Greeks … What is certain about Greece’s early history is that northern tribes invaded the land sometime between 2000 and 1000 B.C. (Baker and Baker 1997:12) Life in Greece is believed to have been relatively peaceful during the period between 2000 and 1000 B.C.E. until the eleventh century B.C.E. when the Dorians (a collective term for the northern tribes) transformed Greece to a military-based culture from a relatively cultured society (Baker and Baker 1997). There are many aspects of ancient Greek tradition that still resonate today, including Greek philosophy, Greek sporting events, and Greek superstitions. The history of ancient Greek philosophy is a sequence of events and an academic discipline that occurred from 585 B.C.E. to 529 C.E. (Blackson 2011). “By convention ancient philosophy ends in 529 when the Christian Emperor Justinian prohibited pagans from teaching in the schools” (Blackson 2011:2). Thales (c. 624–545 B.C.E.) of Miletus is traditionally considered to be the “first philosopher” as he proposed a first principle (arche) of the cosmos wherein, among other things, he foretold the solar eclipse of 585 B.C.E. (Blackson 2011; Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2017a). While such a prediction was not a philosophical achievement it marked the ascent of Thales and the naturalists over the older school of thought represented by Hesiod and the theologists (Blackson 2011). The writings and teachings of the ancient Greek philosophers are far too immense to cover here but suffice it to say that the value of Greek philosophy resides primarily in its ability to stimulate abstract thinking in a variety of subjects including ethics, metaphysics, ontology, logic, politics, biology, and rhetoric, and its challenge to dogmatic forms (especially religious dogma) of thinking. This challenge to religious

16

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

dogmatic thinking would help pave the way to rational, enlightened thinking (to be discussed later in this chapter). It would not be an overstatement to suggest that ancient Greek philosophy has influenced a great deal of modern Western culture. As Delaney and Madigan (2015) state, the ancient Greeks loved their sports, especially the competitive character of sporting activities. Sansone (1988) explains, “In a society as competitive as that of the ancient Greeks, it is not surprising that sports, particularly competitive sports, were very popular” (pp. 76–77). The Greek culture, heavily influenced by mythology, infused religious rituals and significance with athletics. Many city-states throughout Greece participated in religious games and festivals. As Freeman (1997) explained, these religious events and festivals “were generally celebrated by athletic contests, dances, and music. Some of the festivals were celebrated within a single city-state and by only one sex, as in the case of honoring local gods. Other festivals, however, were broader in appeal and sometimes were celebrated by all the Greek people” (p. 69). Freeman also acknowledges that there is some debate over the origins of the religious games. Some scholars trace religious games to the great Irish funeral festival, Aonach Tailteann, which may be older than the Olympic Games. Thus, “the Irish claim that it was the inspiration for the Greek Games” (Freeman 1997:69). The Olympics, which, of course, are still played today, are the oldest of the four Panhellenic festivals celebrated by the Greeks. The other three Panhellenic Games were the Pythian Games at Delphi, held in honor of Apollo; the Isthmian Games held in Corinth for Poseidon; and the Games at Nemea, which, like the Olympics, were held in honor of Zeus (Swadling 1980). Bell (1987) argues that the Olympics did not reflect any high ideals of the Hellenes, but rather served as way to keep the Hellenistic world unified. Among the many things that are similar between the Greek sports and the modern world is the idea of valuing sporting contests and honoring athletes with a great deal of praise, adulation, and financial compensation. Among the Greek superstitions, which have their roots in religion or paganism, that still have meaning today are: “The Evil Eye (Mati),” spitting, black cat, Tuesday the 13th, and the expression Piase Kokkino (Greeka 2017). Some ancient Greeks believed that someone could catch the “evil eye,” or matiasma, from another’s jealous compliment or envy. A person who falls victim to the evil eye generally feels bad physically and psychologically. Greeks who believed in this superstition would wear a charm, often blue in color and with an eye painted on it. It was also believed that people with blue eyes were most likely the givers of the matiasma. This tradition has led to modern-day people who attempt to avoid someone giving them the evil eye look. The ancient Greeks believed that spitting chases the devil and misfortune away. This belief explains why someone may spit (often three times) when another person talks about bad news. Spitting may also chase away the mati. It was the Greeks who believed that if a black cat crossed one’s path that they would have bad luck for the rest of the day. The Greeks also created

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

17

the superstition that if someone breaks a glass or mirror they will have seven years of bad luck. While Westerners believe that Friday the 13th is an unlucky day, the Greeks worried about Tuesday the 13th. The expression of piase kokkino is applied when two people say the same thing together at the same time. While today we see this as a “jinx” that is remedied by one buying the other a Coke, the Greeks looked for something red to touch. They did this because they believed piase kokkino was an omen that the two people would get into a fight or argument if they didn’t touch something red (Greeka 2017). Superstitions can be found in all societies and holding such beliefs is certainly not a sign of possessing common sense, let alone rational thought. Many present-day traditions, especially in democratic societies, were influenced by ancient Rome. The Roman Republic created a Constitution that gave rights to both the nobles (patricians) and the commoners (plebeians). The Romans provided a framework for the creation of law (e.g., the Law of the Twelve Tables, the precursor to the development of Roman law) and the development of democratic practices (Danxner 2017). The Law of the Twelve Tables (c. 450 B.C.E.) represents the earliest attempt by the Romans to create a code of laws, a set of laws that consuls would have to enforce. The Romans produced enough statues to eventually fill 12 tablets. The first statue (Table 1.1) set a tradition that holds true today in democratic societies that if a man receives a summons to appear before the magistrate, he must go. If he refuses to show up the law can take him by force if necessary (The History Guide 2009). Property rights and protections from those who would attempt to steal your possessions were among the provisions provided in the Twelve Tables. The Romans also contributed to the history of humankind in many other ways, including language and literature, art, infrastructure (e.g., the creation of roads and irrigation systems, the use of an arch in design, an extensive networks of underground lead pipes for supplying clean water), and cityplanning (e.g., parks, public libraries, and plazas). The Roman Empire was also quite important in the spread of Christianity (Danxner 2017). The creation of a system of roads allowed the Romans an opportunity to expand their trade and transportation. This system of roads also allowed the Romans to move their soldiers more easily. A strong system of roads was an influence on the creation of interstates in the United States and President Dwight D. Eisenhower recognized the need to be able to mobilize the military in the vastness of the land of the nation (Eisenhower signed the bill that authorized the Interstate Highway System in 1956). This quick glance at the positive highlights of ancient Rome and its impact on the tradition of many subsequent cultures is counterbalanced by a significant negative influence as well. Rome was, after all, a warrior state and its vast empire was achieved following a series of warring campaigns (Kelly 2006). The Romans were not the first imperialist people nor would they be the last as many nation states have attempted and succeeded (to some degree) in conquering other, less powerful cultures. As Taylor (2016) explains:

18

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought Throughout the long history of Imperial Rome, the army served as a touchstone of power for the state. The growth of Roman political influence was oftentimes synonymous with the expansion of military strength, and the power of the army became a measure of the state’s vitality. In similar fashion, the evolution of the army reflected the social, political and cultural changes which shaped and reshaped the empire over the course of five-and-a-half centuries. (p. 1)

The tradition of imperialist nations spending a disproportionate amount of money on the military instead of providing other much-needed services (e.g., education, health care, and protections to the environment) to its citizens remains evident today. As the Romans conquered foreign lands they would establish their version of a republic. While today the term “republic” might seem to imply “a degree of popular participation in politics” the word itself comes from the Latin res publica, translated simply as “affairs of state” (Kelly 2006:6). Among the tenets of this republic were a number of beliefs that became traditional forms of social inequality including citizenship based on property qualification and regulated voting rights—all adult male citizens could vote, “but a system of electoral colleges guaranteed that the rich, if united, would always be able to out-vote the poor” (Kelly 2006:7). The antiquated notion of an electoral college still exists in the United States and has helped two Republican presidents (George H. Bush and Donald Trump) in the modern era win an election that was lost by popular vote. On three other occasions men became U.S. presidents without carrying the popular vote: John Quincy Adams (1824) did not win either the electoral college vote or the popular vote (the House of Representatives voted Adams into the White House); Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), won the election by a margin of one electoral vote but lost the popular vote; and Benjamin Harrison (1888) won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote (FactCheck.org 2016). Another aspect of the Roman republic that has stood the test of time is the heavy costs of electioneering and officeholding that all but ensures that the most prominent in government are themselves personally wealthy (Kelly 2006). Further, while the Laws of the Twelve Tables help to set the tone for modern law statues a number of the original Roman laws were cruel, oppressive, and promoted social injustice. For example, Table 4.1 states that “a dreadfully deformed child shall be quickly killed.” Table 4.2 states that “If a father sells his son three times, the son shall be free from his father.” Table 5.1 states that “Females should remain in guardianship even when they attained their majority.” And, in attempt to keep the rich/nobles separate from the commoners, Table 11.1 states that “Marriages should not take place between plebeians and patricians” (The History Guide 2009). At its height (c. 117 C.E.), imperial Rome was the most extensive political and social structure in Western civilization (it controlled over two million

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

19

square miles stretching from the Rhine River to Egypt and from Britain to Asia Minor) (SoftSchools.com 2017). Rome (original name was Roma) was founded by Romulus in 753 B.C.E. The history of Rome began circa 509 B.C. E. when Rome replaced the Etruscan rulers with a republic. The influence of the Etruscans did not immediately disappear as “There is considerable evidence that early Rome was dominated by Etruscans until the Romans sacked Veii in 396 B.C.E.” (New World Encyclopedia 2013). The Roman Republic became the Roman Empire when Gaius Julius Octavius appoints himself “Augustus” (which means the first emperor), thus establishing himself as the first Roman emperor (c. 27 B.C.E.). (Octavius’ mother, Julia, was a sister to Julius Caesar and his father was a Roman senator.) The Western Roman Empire would last nearly 500 years, ending in 410 C.E. with the sacking of Rome by the Goths, and 476 C.E. when the last Roman emperor in the West was deposed. The Eastern Roman Empire (the Byzantine Empire) fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 (the Roman Empire had split into two Empires—the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire—in 395 C.E., with each empire having its own ruler). Traditions of the Middle Ages Following the fall of the Roman Empire, the social life and customs of a wide variety of people from many diverse populations was subject to political changes and continued periods of war. As a result, the middle ages customs were basically an amalgamated mixture of Roman, Germanic and Gallic cultures and customs. This fusion of cultures was basically promoted by Kings and lords like Charlemagne. Customs of middle ages were also influenced by the religious movements like Christianity and Islamism. (Newman 2017) Through the Middle Ages, political entities increasingly lost their power to the growing influence of religious, faith-based power entities and local lords and nobles. The Middle Ages (c. 400 CE – 1500 CE) was also a period of time that saw the rise of feudal kingdoms in Europe and the implementation of the feudal system. Under feudalism, property ownership (primarily land) became the recognized symbol of power. Today, in many societies it seems as though the citizens work to support the government/monarchy and in turn the government is supposed to protect the people. The nobles were the landowners and the peasants worked the land to serve the lords, keeping small amounts of food for themselves. The lords, in turn, were supposed to protect the people from attack by invaders. The idea of centralized laws that were applicable to all persons of a land was replaced by the power and decisions made by local lords (Brown 2017). Under the feudal system the role of women was generally that of second-class citizenry as

20

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

women, like peasants, were not given opportunities to learn and study. They were also expected to work as hard as men but yet were not given a say in most social and political matters (Newman 2017). It has been only relatively recently that women have been given the right to vote and actively participate in politics and still today women are generally not treated equally (e.g., equal pay for equal work) in many social spheres as their male counterparts. It was the custom in the Middle Ages for the family of the bride to provide a dowry (property, money, or gifts) to her husband upon their marriage. Because of the increasing influence of the Church, marriage was expected to be binding for life. For the marriage ceremony, it became tradition that the bride would use cosmetics to make herself look as pretty as possible. The brides were allowed to pluck their hairline but they were not to wear their hair loose. Natural perfumes and flowers were also characteristic of Middle Ages marriage ceremonies. Serving a huge feast at a wedding was also customary. As a general rule, members of the nobility wore elaborate and bright gowns and robes (Newman 2017). We see many of these Middle Ages customs as part of marriage tradition in modern weddings as the bride’s parents are expected to pay for the ceremony (a type of dowry); the marriage vows allude to a lasting relationship (even if it is becoming uncommon for contemporary marriages to last a lifetime); brides (and grooms) dress at their best for the ceremony and spend a great deal of time and money to look and smell pretty; brides have broken from the custom of not wearing their hair down; and, a huge feast is generally provided. As for the general rule that nobles dress in a different manner to the peasants, this remains somewhat true but there are many exceptions to the rule. Modern Traditions Every society has a culture (along with a social structure—the manner in which a society is organized). “Culture may be defined as the shared knowledge, values, norms, and behavioral patterns of a given society that are passed down from one generation to the next, forming a way of life for its members” (Delaney 2012:108). Culture itself can vary based on distinctions between the material aspects of culture (the physical, tangible creations of a society—its clothing style, buildings, automobiles, electronic devices, and so on) and the nonmaterial aspects of culture (language, symbols, beliefs, norms, values, and ideology) and between high culture, popular culture, and folk culture. Every culture is influenced, at least in part, by traditions and customs from the past. A number of the traditions from ancient times and the Middle Ages discussed previously have been already been shown to be relevant in contemporary society. If we look first at nonmaterial culture we realize that most nations of the world have a primary language, or an “official” language, that its people speak, even while other members of that same society may speak another language(s). In China, for example, there are eight major languages and

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

21

several minority languages that are spoken by different ethnic groups. The largest number of Chinese speak Mandarin followed by Cantonese. In Russia, on the other hand, Russian is the only official language at the national level and it is believed that more than four out of five (81%) Russians speak Russian as their first and only language (BBC 2014a). As in China, many college-educated Russians are learning to speak to English. The vast majority of the 10.7 million population of Greece speak Greek, which is the country’s official language. The other languages spoken there are Macedonian, Albanian, and Turkish (BBC 2014b). In the United States, English is the most widely spoken language among Americans but there is no official language in this land of nearly 330 million people (ranking it behind only China at 1.379 billion and India at 1.281 billion). As a British colony, the United States inherited much of its culture as well as language from the United Kingdom. As a land of immigrants, there are many other languages spoken in the United States but the influence of Spain as an imperialist nation of the Americas has led to a great number of Spanish-speaking people (37.45m) living in America. There are six other languages that are spoken by over one million Americans, some variation of Chinese (2.89m), French and French Creole (2.04m), Tagalog (Filipino) (1.61m), Vietnamese (1.39m), Korean (1.11m), and German (1.06m) (World Atlas 2017). Known as a “melting pot” of different cultures (the United States is culturally the most diverse nation in the world), there are a wide variety of influences from different cultural traditions that have influenced the United States in its beliefs, norms, and values. This idea is reflected by the wide variety of foods Americans consume. And yet, Americans have created a nonmaterial and material culture that is unique to other societies and have in turn influenced a great number of other cultures. There is an “American style” of clothing worn that often varies by social status, region, occupation, and climate. These clothing items include wearing jeans, sneakers, baseball caps, cowboy hats and boots and brand clothing such as Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein, and Victoria’s Secret. Foods such as hamburgers, hot dogs, chicken wings, potato chips, macaroni and cheese and meat loaf are “as American as apple pie”—a notion that has come to mean something that is authentically American (Zimmermann 2015). When it comes to the ultimate form on nonmaterial culture—religion— nearly every known religion is practiced in the United States. This is understandable because the nation was founded on the principle and tradition of religious freedom, meaning that people are free to practice any religion they want or not to participate in any form of religion at all. Despite this diversity of religious practice and the notion of religious freedom, nearly 83 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians (Zimmermann 2015) and during certain times of moral panic many of these Christians refuse to adhere to such basic notions as “love thy brother” and “give to the poor” and do not always display tolerance toward diverse others.

22

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

As for material cultural aspects, the United States remains as a leader in the production of consumer products; this despite the realization that many U.S. products are made in foreign markets where labor costs are much lower. Still, we love to produce and consume a wide variety of products, including electronic devices. The practice of consumerism is very much influenced by the tradition of capitalism which is completely dependent upon mass consumption in as many markets as possible in order to succeed. Americans, then, are encouraged to consume and throw away old products. (Environmentalists are trying desperately to change this prevalent American ideology.) Americans love popular culture, generally recognized as the vernacular or people’s culture. Popular culture may be defined as “the items (products) and forms of expression and identity that are frequently encountered or widely accepted, commonly liked or approved, and characteristic of a particular society at a given time” (Delaney 2012:121). Popular culture is determined by the interactions among people in their everyday activities; current clothing and hairstyling; fashions and fads; the use of slang; greeting rituals; and new food items that become a rage. Popular culture also involves aspects of the mass media including television, film, music, cyberspace, sports, fads, advertising, new programming, and print publications. Many forms of American popular culture are spread across the globe, especially film, television, music, and social media (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube). While Americans enjoy nearly all sports played around the world, the most popular sports are Americanmade beginning with professional football (National Football League), followed by Major League Baseball, college football, basketball, auto racing and professional hockey (National Hockey League). Football and baseball are very uniquely American and the general attitude of Americans is that they do not care if the rest of the world enjoys our two most popular sports. Worldwide, the most popular sports are football (soccer) and cricket. Americans do not even acknowledge the word “football” because we use football for our sport and instead refer to “football” as soccer. Cricket is all but unheard of in the United States. In contrast to popular culture, something Americans excel at is high culture. Aspects of high culture are not mass-produced or meant for mass consumption and are generally viewed as belonging to the social elite (even though many people from all socio-economic status levels may enjoy high culture), including the fine arts, opera, theater, and high intellectualism. Such items seldom cross into the pop-culture domain. Consequently, popular culture is often looked down upon as superficial compared to the sophistication of high culture. Nonetheless, the legacy of English imperialism in what is now the United States does include a strong tradition of plays and performances that are second to none. And this is especially true when it comes to New York City’s Broadway, home of world-renowned theater productions and performances. Still, when it comes to high culture, other nations such as

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

23

Russia with its world-respected fine arts (dating back to the tradition of entertaining kings of the Renaissance epoch), especially its ballet, opera, and museums (i.e., the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg) are often viewed as more sophisticated examples of high culture. The history of ballet itself dates back to the Italy of the fifteenth century when wealthy princes hired professional dancers to give luxurious performances that would impress their noble guests. By the seventeenth century, choreographers of Italy, France, and England developed fine dancing performances. Russia, meanwhile, was already rich in national dance folklore and was influenced by European ballet dancing during the reign of Peter the Great. From the early eighteenth century, Russia would become known for its ballet theater (Guarant Info Centre 2017). Folk culture is similar to popular culture because of the mass participation it embodies. It is similar to high culture because it is often manifested in timeless, classic art forms. The development of Russian folk dancing to internationally proclaimed high culture is a classic example of this cross-over effect that folk culture sometimes possesses. Folk culture represents the traditional way of doing things. Folk culture represents a simpler lifestyle that is generally conservative, largely self-sufficient, and often characteristic of rural life. It generally discourages radical innovation and expects group members to conform to traditional modes of behavior adopted by the community. Folk culture is local in orientation and generally noncommercial. In the United States, like many other societies, knitting quilts and making other hand-crafted items are characteristic of traditional, folk culture. While there are many other possible topics that could be covered when describing modern traditions that were passed down from previous generations there is just one more example that will be described here and that involves the celebration of national holidays. As the term “national holiday” would imply, these are days of recognition that have particular meaning to specific societies. There are religious holidays such as Christmas, Hanukkah, and Easter, and there are non-religious, or secular holidays. In the United States, among the most popular secular holidays are: Independence Day (4th of July); Thanksgiving, which dates back to colonial times to celebrate the harvest; President’s Day, which celebrates the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln (traditionally both birthdates were celebrated as separate holidays but the two holidays were combined into one in 1971 under the Uniform Holiday Act, an attempt to create more three-day weekends for the nation’s workers); Labor Day, which celebrates the country’s workforce; Veterans’ Day, which celebrates the contributions of veterans; Memorial Day, which celebrated those who have died in military service; and, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, which celebrates the contributions of the civil rights leader. Like the United States, every nation around the world celebrates national holidays which acknowledge some form of tradition.

24

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

Faith We have learned how tradition plays a significant role in maintaining social order throughout the millennia and across the globe. In heavily traditionbased societies people are expected to behave a certain way in accordance to “the way things have always been.” The ambiguity of which course(s) of action to take when presented with given situations is addressed by simply choosing to do things the way they’ve always been done and not to question why such courses of action have always been done in that manner in the first place. The tradition paradigm of thought, then, is quite conservative by design. The faith-centered paradigm of thought works much in the same manner as tradition in that adherents to a certain faith are taught to choose courses of action that abide by specific belief systems that have long been enacted. Faith: The Second Paradigm of Thought Faith, the second paradigm of thought, involves putting complete trust or having confidence in someone or something. Faith itself does not have to solely involve a belief in spirituality or religion. There are many examples of non-religious and non-spiritual forms of having faith. For example, in sports, a baseball manager may have faith in his pitcher to get the final out of the game even though he is in a bases-loaded jam and appears to be struggling with his command of pitches. Some fans may be yelling at the manager to replace the pitcher because they have lost faith in his ability to pitch effectively in this crucial moment. Other fans may maintain their faith in their pitcher and yell support, “You can do it Kershaw!” When one’s romantic partner goes out for the night or goes on vacation with his or her friends, the other partner will or will not have faith that the romantic partner will maintain fidelity. Relying on someone to pick you up from the airport during a snow storm is dependent upon a certain amount of faith in that person, that person’s driving ability, and that person’s automobile. While faith does not have to involve spirituality or religion it generally does. Spirituality itself does not have to involve religion but most definitions connect the two terms. If we dissect the term “spirituality” without using the word “spiritual” as part of its definition (Note: A golden rule of providing a definition is to never use the word we are defining in its definition and yet many dictionaries define spirituality in such a manner—e.g., pertaining to the spirit, or consisting of spirit) we discover that spirituality involves things other than material aspects of culture; that it involves emotions and emotional feelings as part of a reaction to some phenomenon; or, as a boundary-less dimension of human experience. The idea that spirituality is a “boundary-less dimension of human experience” is provided by Larry Culliford (2011) who wrote an interesting article in Psychology Today about the topic. He points out, as nearly all scientists do, that the concept of “spirituality” is not open to

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

25

normal scientific investigation (in other words, the existence of a deity such as God has not been proven). This idea will be further expanded below. Suffice it to say, spirituality can be experienced by anyone, religious or non-religious, as it involves feelings of awe, contentment, and, yes, a religious experience. For example, sitting on the beach and listening to the waves crash on the shoreline while the sun sets can bring a great sense of spiritual well-being for some people. Nonetheless, it is certainly safe to suggest that faith is strongly connected to religion. Religion Religion is one of the oldest social institutions of human society. It arose out of the human need to explain life’s many mysteries and uncertainties. As described in this chapter’s introductory story, simple-minded people had difficulty explaining straightforward natural phenomena such as eclipses. Lacking the proper intellect to comprehend planetary alignment as a cause of a temporary blockage of the sun or moon, certain community leaders would attempt to infuse a religious-based explanation such as an angry god(s) wanting to punish certain community members for violating some local custom or belief. Generally, some sort of ritualistic behavior (e.g., human sacrifice) would follow and, lo and behold, the sun (or moon) came back in full display, apparently because the gods were now pleased by the human offering of a sacrifice. Clearly, this thought process is flawed as those creating doctrines of religious principles based on a belief of an angry god being responsible for an eclipse were as clueless on how to provide a rational explanation for this natural occurrence as those who were willing to believe such a tale. The irrational linking of a natural phenomenon to the behavior of community members is not restricted to past ancient civilizations. I have come across a number of news stories over the years wherein religious leaders have blamed community members for all sorts of odd things. Here are just a few examples (more examples will be shared later in the book): In 2001, villagers in northeastern Congo hacked to death 200 women suspected of being witches because they were blamed for diseases that had gone untreated since Congo’s war broke out three years earlier (The Post-Standard 2001). Swazi laws and tribal custom dictates specific lifestyles for widows because it is believed that the widow’s grief and bad fortune at losing her husband could rub off on others. Church officials make widows sit at the back of churches away from other worshippers but an incident in 2001 led to widows in Swaziland being forced to sit in the back of public buses (New York Post 2001). In 2004, clerics in Saudi Arabia led worshippers in prayers for rain and blamed the drought on sinfulness, including women who unveil themselves or mingle with men (The Post-Standard 2004). Clearly, there is no empirical link between what clothing women wear (e.g., a veil) and a natural drought; or one widow’s misfortune rubbing off on another; or, a connection between

26

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

diseases being left untreated during a time of war and women somehow being witches because the disease spread. It is certainly true that these stories are extreme examples of irrational forms of religious beliefs; but modern, organized religions also have a number of beliefs that baffle the minds of rational, scientific persons. But before we speak of enlightened, rational thought (our third paradigm of thought), let’s take a closer look at religion, its relation to faith and belief and then its connection to monarchies and royalty. For most people around the world, religion plays a significant role in their lives. And that is a good thing if it helps them positively confront their daily challenges (e.g., trying to cope with an illness or the loss of a loved one). The concern over a faith-based paradigm of thought rests with the realization that many of the things people believe to be true simply are not, as having a belief in something is not the same thing as having knowledge of something. Furthermore, many people dislike or distrust others simply because they have a different belief system than that of what their religion teaches them. Religion is based on aspects of spirituality and a system of beliefs that followers generally abide by without question. As a belief-based entity, religion is often at odds with science because it is an evidence-based entity. As Plato explained long ago, there is a difference between knowledge and science and opinion and religious belief (Lindsay 1943). Science is grounded by a commitment to the empirical testing of theoretical postulates. Religion, on the other hand, is consumed by spirituality and a structure centered on beliefs, and dogmatic beliefs at that. Religious adherents are told to rely on faith and their spiritual beliefs. Beliefs are ideas that people presume to be true, when they may or may not be. Some religious adherents abide by beliefs blindly, even when such beliefs may be detrimental to their own well-being. Abiding by the principle of the “divine rights of kings” during the Middle Ages and accepting the rule of oppressive religious leaders in the contemporary era are examples of people who follow a belief structure even when it is not in their own best interest. Karl Marx used the term false consciousness for the phenomenon of people’s inability to see what lies in their own best interest. In other words, it is often the case that people fail to see the instruments of their own oppression or exploitation even when it is right in front of them, or worse, is the result of their own creation (Delaney 2014a). Monarchies, Royalty, and the Divine Rights of Kings The relevant concern of religion and spirituality here resides with its impact on faith as a paradigm of thought in the maintenance of social order. A faithbased system of social order presents a very specific manner in which people are supposed to behave and gives a very specific reason why we are to obey— because God (or some other entity) commands us to do so. The religious hierarchy uses the fear of upsetting God as a primary way to motivate people into falling in line and to act according to specific doctrines it has set forth.

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

27

As the Catholic Church grew in power throughout Western Europe in the Middle Ages it was initially careful not to challenge too many local and regional customs and traditions. The Church would even adopt many local customs to fit their belief system. For example, it is highly unlikely that Jesus was born in December; scholars have placed the date as March 28, September 11, or even November 11 (Kelemen 2017). (Astronomers, using the star alignment described in the Bible, would place the most likely birth of Jesus at the end of March.) Roman pagans had a weeklong holiday of Saturnalia that involved general lawlessness that concluded with a big celebration on December 25 (when an innocent scapegoat was brutally murdered in hopes of destroying evil forces that might confront the community). In the fourth century C.E., Christianity imported the Saturnalia festival hoping to take the pagan masses in with it. Christian leaders succeeded in converting to Christianity large numbers of these pagans by promising them they could continue to celebrate Saturnalia as Christians. However, because there wasn’t anything intrinsically Christian about Saturnalia, the Christians declared December 25 to be Jesus’ birthday and thus changed the reason for the Roman Christians to celebrate on that date. The first mention of a Nativity feast appears in the Philocalian calendar, a Roman document from 354 C.E., which lists December 25 as the day of Jesus’ birth (Kelemen 2017; Wright, Murphy, and Fitzmyer 1990). As the Middle Ages proceeded, Roman Christians would invade other European nations whose pagan customs involved celebrating the Winter Solstice (i.e., pagans in the British Isles and the Druid Celtic priests) on December 21. As the Christian hierarchy modified the Roman pagan holiday of Saturnalia to a celebration of the birth of Jesus, so too were the British and Irish pagan holidays modified to a celebration of Jesus’ birth on December 25 (BBC 2009). According to The International Commission and Association on Nobility (TICAN) there have been monarchies in existence for over 5,000 years with the earliest documented monarchies existing in Egypt and Sumer (TICAN 2016). Ruled by demigods, pharaohs, czars, emperors, chiefs, kings and occasionally queens, these early monarchies helped to establish the first nation states. In most cases, such rulers were referred to as “royalty.” Throughout history, royal dynasties have dominated countries and empires around the world, having gained their strength from human labor and general oppression. On the one hand, the notion of royalty is a repulsive one as it implies that some people are “better” than others simply because of the family they were born into, the luck of the draw so to speak. Royalty itself refers to an enhanced status of power because of lineage that grants such people (the “royals”) the right of jurisdiction in a supreme manner. A monarchy is a form of government that is run by a royal family who has taken command over people under its jurisdiction. On the other hand, as TICAN (2016) explains (using a significant amount of hyperbole and ignoring many other factors), world history generally indicates that the civilization of any country is built

28

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

by the monarchy. Presumably, this conclusion is drawn as it was the royals that had the vision and means to accomplish potentially great things. During the Middle Ages (and this story is being greatly reduced and simplified as it is not the focus of this book), the Church and monarchs developed a symbiotic relationship as each entity provided support to each other all in the name of taking control over the lives of the peasants. The monarchs allowed the Church to have this relative degree of power and take command of matters of the “afterlife” because the Church helped to keep the people placated. The Church, in turn, would lend support to the absolute rule of the monarchs (here on earth) because they allowed the Church to survive. The ultimate sign of the symbiotic relationship between Church and State (monarchs) was the development of the concept of the “divine rights of kings.” Having already supported the notion of monarchs as “royals,” the Church would also support the idea that royals derived their authority from God, not from their subjects. The “divine” aspect of the “divine rights of kings,” then, referred to God, who gave “rights” to the kings (monarchs) to rule over the people of their kingdom. That God gave rights to royals to rule, combined with the people believing in faith as a legitimate prevailing paradigm of thought, meant that rebellion against the king was both a civil and religious crime. This symbiotic relationship between Church and State further contributed to the powerlessness of the people. Why would people agree to such a one-sided social reality? Among the answers are three relatively simple explanations. First, the people lacked formal education and were not enlightened to alternative forms of life. Second, they lacked the means to do anything about their oppressed state. Third, the concept of “eternal happiness in the afterlife” promised by the Church seemed like a fair trade for 30 or so years of misery (the average life expectancy) on earth. The Anglo-Saxon kings of England claimed the divine rights of kings as early as the seventh century C.E. The monarchs were anointed during a coronation service which outlined their sovereignty over their subjects and reminded them that to disobey the crown was like disobeying God. A document from the reign of Henry II of England (reigned 1154–89), called the Dialogue of the Exchequer, stated that nobody could withstand a royal decree. To this theocratic (God-given) authority, the English monarchy added its feudal authority under the feudal system. The Doomsday [sic] Book, a survey of England undertaken in 1086, made it clear that the king owned all the land in England. All the Anglo-Norman barons took a personal oath of allegiance to the crown, and held their land as vassals. (TICAN 2016) Monarchies would exist throughout the Middle Ages and some still exist today. However, successful attempts to overthrow monarchies (and the concept of the divine rights of kings) or evade their rule—such as the American,

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

29

French, Chinese, and Russian revolutions—are considered turning points in world history (TICAN 2016). The American Revolution, for example, was not only a revolt against British tyrannical rule; it was also a declaration that American citizens are free from the power of faith-based forms of government and the dominance of the faith-based tradition of thought. (It should be noted that, as described below, Russians themselves would disagree with the TICAN assessment about the impact of the Russian Revolution as a major turning point in their history.) Modern Monarchies Monarchies in Europe, as well as in other parts of the world, were disappearing by the eighteenth century. The Crown of Aragon and Crown of Castile, for example, had long disappeared and jointly became the Kingdom of Spain. Other monarchies were modified into enlightened despotism— examples include the absolute monarchies of Prussia (Frederick II the Great) and Russia (Catherine II the Great). At the end of World War I (1918), the Russian, German and Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Turkish crowns ceased to exist. The Russian Empire ended after the Russian Revolution of 1917, which brought the Bolsheviks to power (Fortune 2015; TICAN 2016; Trotsky 1932). The Russian Revolution had far different consequences than the American and French revolutions. In the United States, the Revolution resulted in a representative democracy that still exists today. July 4, the date of the declaration of independence from the rule of Great Britain, is a national holiday and highly celebrated (with parades, cookouts with family and friends, and huge fireworks displays) as the most important American secular holiday (Christmas is generally considered as the most important holiday in the United States). The French Revolution of 1789 also spirited democracy but France still had to survive a number of short-lived regimes following the revolution. In 1958, General Charles de Gaulle, who led the French Resistance against the Nazis, founded France’s current regime, the Fifth Republic (Library of Congress 2017). Like its U.S. democratic counterpart, the French continue to celebrate their Revolution (“the storming of Bastille”) every July 14 with parades, gatherings with friends and family, and huge fireworks displays. Events in Russia following the 1917 Revolution (which was actually a pair of revolutions that took place in March and November with the Gregorian calendar or February and October with the Julian calendar still used in Russia in 1917) would not lead to a democracy or to an annual date of proud celebrations of parades, fireworks, and cookouts with friends and family. While the first revolution had democratic intentions and included members of the existing parliament (which previously was mostly controlled by tsars), it failed in large part due to the lack of a democratic-minded tradition in Russia and because it was led by a group of leaders of the bourgeois liberal parties. The second revolution—the Bolshevik Revolution—led by Vladimir Lenin

30

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

and a communist-structured system of social control instilled a Soviet government, one that would be ruled directly by soldiers, peasants, and workers. Lenin’s coup d’état was met with strong opposition and what followed was a brutal civil war when he launched what came to be known as the “Red Terror” in an effort to secure power at any cost (History Channel 2017a). Instead of becoming a democracy, post-revolutionary Russia was transformed into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1922 and in its final years (ending in 1991) consisted of 15 Soviet Socialist Republics that were dominated by Russian rule (History Channel 2017b; Lovell 2009). Joseph Stalin was the dictator of the USSR from 1928 to 1953 and under his rule the Soviet Union was transformed from a peasant society into an industrial and military power. With the end of the World War II came the development of the USSR’s “Iron Curtain” and the end of several Balkan kingdoms whose royal families were banished and exiled. King Peter II of Yugoslavia, for example, was dethroned by guerrilla leader Marshal Josip Broz Tito, better known as Marshal Tito, who formally abolished the monarchy in November 1945 (Fortune 2015; TICAN 2016; West 1994). Today, Russians do not celebrate the anniversary of the Russian Revolution like Americans and the French celebrate their historic revolutions because of the far more dramatic events that took place following the revolutions. In fact, in 2017, the 100th anniversary of the revolution, Russia acknowledged the revolution with a number of cultural events, academic conferences, museum displays, and documentary films aired on television but Russians did not display revolutionary flags or sing the revolutionary songs, nor did they have fireworks displays. Monarchies have not disappeared completely. Today there are nearly two dozen monarchies and an additional two dozen more sultanates (a state or country that is ruled by a sultan) and emirates (similar to being a satellite of a monarchy, or part of a commonwealth or collection of similar nations). Perhaps the most famous of modern-day monarchies is the United Kingdom which is a “constitutional monarchy” (Commonwealth realm) run by sovereign ruler Queen Elizabeth II (1952–present). As a “constitutional monarch,” Queen Elizabeth acts as head of state within the boundaries of a constitution. She is not an absolute monarch like, for example, King Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia. The role of the monarchy in British politics is mostly symbolic and yet, all British public servants (e.g., police, military, postal carriers) are required to swear an oath of loyalty to “Her Majesty” and British people are not “citizens” they are the Queen’s subjects. Furthermore, the taxpayers of Great Britain subsidize the Queen and the entire royal family for their privileged lifestyles (Warner 2014). Royal aides estimate that the cost of the monarchy was equivalent to 56p per person in 2013 (Milmo 2014). While the list of monarchies, sultanates, and emirates is subject to change, having researched a number of sources, as of this writing, the following nations would qualify as monarchies: Greenland (parliamentary democracy within a constitutional monarchy), Norway (constitutional monarchy),

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

31

Netherlands (constitutional monarchy), Belgium (federal parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy), Luxemburg (constitutional monarchy), Spain (parliamentary monarchy), Morocco (constitutional monarchy), Denmark (constitutional monarchy), Norway (constitutional monarchy), Sweden (constitutional monarchy), Liechtenstein (constitutional monarchy), Monaco (constitutional monarchy), Jordan (constitutional monarchy), Saudi Arabia (monarchy), Bahrain (constitutional monarchy), Oman (monarchy), Thailand (constitutional monarchy), Cambodia (majority democracy under a constitutional monarchy), Malaysia (federal parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch), and Japan (a parliamentary government with a constitutional monarchy) (NPR 2011). Emirate nations under the United Kingdom’s Commonwealth are: Canada, Bahamas, Belize, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, Antigua and Barbuda, St. Lucia, Barbados, St. Vincent & Grenadines, Grenada, Australia, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand. Other emirate nations outside the UK Commonwealth include Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Brunei is a sultanate nation (NPR 2011). Examining a number of BBC reports we find that the following nations are listed as absolute powers: Brunei, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, and Vatican City. While some people might not view the Pope as an example of an absolute monarch, he does rule over the smallest country in the world and has supreme authority over the nation. He also happens to be the religious leader of the Roman Catholic Church. Additionally, from the perspective of the Catholic Church, the Pope answers only to God; thus, his word is absolute. The Vatican and the Pope, then, are the ultimate example of a faith-based paradigm of thought entity. The Pope is not the only religious leader to lead a nation and a religion. Iran, for example, has regularly been led by an ayatollah—a Shiite Muslim religious leader who has attained such a title by demonstrating highly advanced knowledge of Islamic law and religion. Most Westerners first learned of ayatollahs because of the revolutionary Ayatollah Khomeini (1900–1989) who, following the overthrow of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi of Iran (1979) returned from exile and instituted an Islamic republic in Iran. Khomeini’s hard-line faith-based paradigm of thought left him at odds with the West and Iran’s neighboring enemy, Iraq (which is populated mostly by Sunni and Shia Muslims). Sunni and Shiite Muslims have a history of being at odds with one another (e.g., the Iran-Iraq War of 1980–1988) and Khomeini managed to heighten tensions between the two. As an example of Khomeini’s hard-line thought process and ability to get under the skin of Western leaders, in 1989, he issued an edict which ordered Muslims to kill British author, Salman Rushdie, for the novel The Satanic Verses. An ayatollah may also hold the title of President of Iran. This was the case for Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani who died in January 2017. Rafsanjani was often portrayed as a “Machiavellian and often ruthless player in power struggles among Iran’s elite factions” but was protected because of his

32

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

close association with Ayatollah Khomeini (during his childhood Rafsanjani became a disciple of Khomeini’s and earned his respect in a number of ways including having been jailed five times from 1963 to 1978 for his opposition to the shah) (Cowell 2017). While Rafsanjani was president, and himself an ayatollah, he was not the Supreme Leader; that distinction belongs to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (who was appointed as Supreme Leader by Rafsanjani). The two ayatollahs often disagreed over matters but, ultimately, until his death, Rafsanjani’s rule remained intact. At present, Iran is still ruled by an ayatollah and whether he has the title of president and/or Supreme Leader, social order will be maintained via a faith-based paradigm of thought.

Enlightened, Rational Thought Throughout most of human history, tradition and faith have been the two dominant paradigms of thought that have primarily shaped the idea of how social order should be structured. In many instances, the forces of tradition and faith have worked side-by-side as an influence on the design of social structure (e.g., the “divine rights of kings” concept). Although the notion of common sense has likely always existed among people of all eras it was not a strong enough mode of thinking to supersede the power and influence of tradition and faith. Elements of enlightened and rational thought (e.g., discovery and explanation, innovation and invention, and theoretical speculation) have also existed to a certain, limited extent during the reign of tradition and faith (but in most cases, such discoveries represented practical improvements in technique and not the result of intellectual curiosity). Rational and scientific thought allowed humanity to accomplish a number of great feats, for example, the construction of the Great Wall in China, construction of pyramids in Egypt and construction of castles around the world and especially in Europe. But all these accomplishments were possible through the labor of the masses and peasants and were of no direct benefit to them in order to maintain a traditional empire (e.g., the Great Wall), honor gods and goddesses (the pyramids), or to maintain the power of the nobles at the expense of the people (castles). Examples of enlightened thought came as a result of a number of social thinkers during the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries (i.e., Martin Luther, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau) who openly questioned the prevailing sentiments of social order promoted by tradition and faith, and it was their ideas that would help to stimulate the “Age of Enlightenment” in the eighteenth century. Enlightened, Rational Thought: The Third Paradigm of Thought As stated earlier in this chapter, ancient Greek philosophers spearheaded the philosophical idea of challenging dogmatic forms of thinking. The “Dark Ages” (the Middle Ages), for the most part, put a damper on enlightened thinking, and yet, there did exist enough people (e.g., inventors, scientists,

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

33

explorers, tradesmen, and merchants) who utilized rational and calculated thought to further advance humanity; that, in turn, helped to sow the seeds for further enlightened and rational thought. Social thinkers of the middleand late-eighteenth century were especially critical of religious dogmatic thinking, including the concept of “the divine rights of kings.” The idea of some people being ordained—by God, no less—as “royal” and deserving of the right to rule over others (the masses, the peasants), did not sit well with rational-thinking persons. We will begin our brief look at some of the major developments of enlightened, rational thought with Italian Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–1527) and his book The Prince. Machiavelli was born of nobility (but not of wealth) and lived during the height of the Italian Renaissance (1450–1525) and a period of dramatic social changes in Europe. For example, in 1453 the Turks captured Constantinople (now Istanbul) from the Greeks and demonstrated the proficient use of cannons and gunpowder. The eastern Mediterranean became part of the Islamic world and European rulers (which represented a clear challenge to the rule of the Catholic Church in Europe), merchants, and adventurers felt pressure to expand westward and southward beyond the Straits of Gibraltar. In 1458, Johann Gutenberg printed the Bible on his movable type printing press and spearheaded the movement of mass dissemination of the printed word. In 1492, Columbus “discovered” the “New World,” triggering the burst of expansion by imperialist European nations onto the rest of the world. In that same year, the sovereigns of Christian Spain completed their reconquest of the peninsula from Islamic rule and expelled the remaining Moors and Jews (Delaney 2004; Garner 2000). The relevant significance of Machiavelli’s The Prince for our concern here rests with the realization that he described the socio-political world as it was, rather than what people imagined or were taught to believe by the existing paradigms of thought, and challenged the long-held belief of the “divine rights of kings.” Until the Renaissance, most books upheld the general notions of normative behavior, were non-empirical, and did not observe, describe, or analyze actual human behavior. Machiavelli included into his book all the violent, fierce, savage, coercive, and sometimes even compassionate acts that the ruler must implement in order to stay in power. The Prince was based on observations of real people, not just moral ideals. It is for this very reason that The Prince shocked its readers and was widely censored and banned. This is the very type of publication that illustrates modern social science—to write about society as it really is and not as the power elite would say it is, or should be. In an attempt to maintain a firm grip on how the people thought, leaders of the traditional- and faith-based paradigms of thought made sure that mass education was non-existent throughout human history and certainly through the Middle Ages (mass education would not occur until the early twentieth century in most nations and still to this day does not occur in all nations for all people). The Catholic Church took the position that it had the only true

34

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

interpretation of the Bible and that its religious leaders would inform the uneducated masses of its content and implications. Martin Luther (1497– 1546), however, believed that it was the right, even the duty, of all Christians to interpret the Bible themselves. In order for this to happen, the people needed the ability to read, which would require mass education. (This explains why Martin Luther is considered one of the first advocates of mass education.) Luther also promoted the idea that the Bible be translated into in native languages and not just in Latin (Gutenberg’s printing press would help this cause). In 1517, in protest of the Catholic Church, Luther nailed his Ninety-five Theses (also referred to as the Disputation on the Power of Indulgences) to the door of the Catholic Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. This act lit the fires of the Reformation and Protestantism as the rational and enlightened demands made by Luther were considered blasphemous by the Catholic Church. As a priest and professor of theology in Wittenberg, Luther not only wanted the people to be able to read the Bible, he felt that the Church’s practice of accepted indulgences (payment) in order to receive forgiveness from God for committing sins was essentially a payment to get into Heaven that could only be afforded by the wealthy (and thus keeping the poor even further oppressed and alienated from God). After Machiavelli, many social thinkers would make contributions to the study of society and human behavior. Three of the more influential theorists are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Hobbes’ (1588–1679) primary contribution to social thought is his belief that social order was made by human beings and therefore humans could change it (Adams and Sydie 2001). Even under authoritarian rule, Hobbes believes that authority is given by the subjects themselves; that is to say, that only by their consent can the rulers maintain sovereign power. In 1652, Hobbes published his greatest work, Leviathan. In this book he provides a disturbing account of society without government. From his viewpoint, society would be filled with fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. In his brief introduction to Leviathan, Hobbes describes the state as an organism analogous to a large person. (This idea would stimulate future descriptions from such sociologists as Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer who would, in turn, inspire the functionalist school of thought in sociology.) Hobbes demonstrated how each part of the state parallels the function of the parts of the human body. He believed that any description of human action, including morality, must reflect that man is self-serving by nature. Hobbes offers evidence that the state of nature is brutal and that in the absence of the social condition, humans would act solely in selfish and violent manners as a survival mechanism. As a result of this conclusion, Hobbes reasoned that humans must find a way to maintain peace. He believed that people would be willing to give up “individual rights” for the security offered by a peaceful cooperative society. (This idea is much like the justifications and reasoning of American power elites who proposed the “Patriot Act” as a means to help protect the American citizens from potential

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

35

terrorist attacks—give up freedoms for protection.) Hobbes proposed a “social contract” between people and the government. Still worried about his perceived belief that humans are basically selfish and violent, he proposed an authoritarian government that would enforce the social contract by whatever means necessary. He gave this government the name Leviathan (from the Bible), meaning “monster.” Individuals would give up all of their rights to the Leviathan except for the right to self-preservation. The government, according to Hobbes, should grant “commodious living” which would allow all individuals to pursue their selfinterests while at the same time protecting them from each other. Hobbes emphasized the importance of the individual and made them the center of politics. Governments should derive from human beings, and not some divine sense of purpose or birthright (Delaney 2004). Promoting the rights of individuals over that of divine rights of rulers, Hobbes would have been labeled a liberal in his era. With liberalism in mind, it is fitting to shift our attention now to John Locke (1632–1704), considered by many as the father of liberal democratic thought. Locke’s Two Treatises of Government (1690) has been viewed as the classic expression of liberal political ideas. It is read as a defense of individualism and of the natural right of individuals to appropriate private property. It served as an intellectual justification for the British Whig Revolution of 1689 and stated the fundamental principles of the Whigs (Ashcraft 1987). The key elements of Locke’s political theory are natural rights, social contract, government by consent, and the issue of private property. Locke also believed that the people of a society had the right to overthrow the government since a majority created it; they have the right to remove it. This introduces the idea that the government should be accountable to the people. Locke, then, was in favor of a limited government, not an authoritarian one, as Hobbes described. The constitutional and cultural life of the United States was deeply influenced by Locke’s A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689), which argued for the rights of man and the necessity of separating Church and State. Locke states that whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth cannot be prohibited by the magistrate in the Church. Any law created for the public good overrides the Church and any conflict with interpretations of God’s will shall be judged by God alone, not religious zealots. Further, the magistrate ought not to forbid the preaching or profession of any speculative opinions in any Church because they have no matter of relation to the civil rights of the subjects. Thus, Locke treated religion like any other subject; he used an intellectual approach to articulate its role in society. The liberal sentiments of liberty, equality, and brotherhood of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) caused a flurry of interest in eighteenth-century France and helped to stimulate the eventual French Revolution. In 1762, Rousseau published his famous The Social Contract wherein he stated that society could only be accounted for, and justified, as a means for enabling men to advance to a higher level of achievement than could be arrived at in its absence. Society, according to Rousseau, should be regarded as a necessary means for the development of the moral potentialities of humankind. This development

36

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

from primitive to organized societies would provide the foundation for his conception of the necessary elements of social obligations—Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains. Rousseau believed that nature ordained all men equal and that the State’s conformity to natural law involved the maintenance of public order for the happiness of individuals. Interestingly, Rousseau believed that the only human instinct was the desire for self-preservation and that individuals tend to love what conserves it while abhorring that which tends to harm it. With this belief in mind, Rousseau believed that humankind’s attempt at societal order becomes a source of potential conflict, or evil, as man’s earliest or natural condition was as an isolated being where there were no institutions, political or social; no government; no concept of property ownership; and so on. Humans survived, or perished, due to their own personal actions. With social order maintained by a government, man must now agree to created laws (many of which may be viewed as oppressive by some members of society), equally binding all, and assuring the peace and well-being of everyone. Rousseau warned that the very vices that had rendered government necessary rendered the abuse of power inevitable. He therefore believed that the State should have a limited role in societal matters and that its primary function was to protect societal members from outside threat as internal self-concerning individuals. The ideas of social thinkers like Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau emphasized the grand, general, and very abstract systems of ideas that made rational sense. Their work, along with many other thinkers such as Voltaire (born Francois-Marie Arouet; Voltaire was his pen name), Charles Montesquieu, and Rene Descartes would spearhead a new movement of social reasoning known collectively as the “Age of Enlightenment.” The Age of Enlightenment The “Age of Enlightenment,” the collective term used to describe the trends and writings in Europe and the American colonies during the eighteenth century, appeared prior to the French Revolution. The phrase was frequently employed by writers of the period itself, convinced that they were emerging from centuries of darkness and ignorance into a new age of enlightenment by means of reason, science, and a respect for humanity. The Enlightenment was a period of dramatic intellectual development and change in philosophical thought. A number of long-standing ideas and beliefs were being abandoned and replaced during the Enlightenment (Ritzer 2000). The Enlightenment thinkers kept a watchful eye on the social arrangements of society. “Their central interest was the attainment of human and social perfectibility in the here and now rather than in some heavenly future. They considered rational education and scientific understanding of self and society the routes to all human social progress” (Adams and Sydie 2001:11). Progress could be attained because humans hold the capacity for reason. Further, reason should not be constrained by tradition, religion, or sovereign power.

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

37

Notions such as these are clearly liberal (pro-enlightened, rational thought paradigm of thought), opposed to the conservative approach which prefers leaving things as they are (pro-tradition and pro-faith paradigms of thought). The roots of modern sociology can be found in the work of the philosophers and scientists of the Enlightenment, which had its own roots in the scientific discoveries of the seventeenth century. That pivotal century was spearheaded by Galileo’s “heretical” proof that the earth was not the center of the universe (as the Church had taught) and ended with the publication of Sir Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica (a book containing the foundations of mathematics including the basic laws of physics and symbolic logic) (Kornblum 1994). The work of Enlightenment thinkers was not dispassionate inquiry, for they were deeply disturbed by the power of the Church and its secular allies in the monarchy. Freedom of inquiry and diversity of thought were not tolerated, and free-thinkers were often tortured and executed (Garner 2000). The Age of Enlightenment, on the other hand, can most readily be characterized as promoting “liberal individualism” as it was a movement that emphasized the individual’s possession of critical reason, and it was opposed to traditional authority in society and the primacy of religion as the bearers of knowledge (Hadden 1997). According to Seidman (1983), liberalism arose as a reaction against static hierarchical and absolutist order, which suppressed individual freedom. Of the basic assumptions and beliefs of philosophers and intellectuals of this period, perhaps the most important was an abiding belief in the power of human reason. The insistence on the ability of people to act rationally was anathema to Church and State (Hadden 1997). Social thinkers were impressed by Newton’s discovery of universal gravitation. If humanity could so unlock the laws of the universe, God’s own laws, why could it not also discover the laws underlying all of nature and society? Scientists came to assume that through a rigorous use of reason, an unending progress would be possible— progress in knowledge, in technical achievement, and even in moral values. Another core belief of the enlightened thinkers was the idea that knowledge is not innate (an important consideration in our forthcoming discussion on the notion of common sense), but comes only from experience and observation guided by reason. Not surprisingly, the enlightenment thinkers promoted education. Through education, humanity itself could be altered, its nature changed for the better. A great premium was placed on the discovery of truth through the observation of nature, rather than through the study of authoritative sources such as holy books (e.g., Bible and Koran) and societal rulers (e.g., monarchs). It is important to point out that (just like scientists in the contemporary era) most Enlightenment thinkers did not renounce religion completely. The Enlightenment thinkers saw God as a Prime Mover, a motivator of sorts (Garner 2000). Yet they still believed that human aspirations should be centered on improving life on earth and not on the promises of an afterlife. Worldly happiness was placed before religious promises of “salvation” and “eternal happiness.” Still, no social institution was attacked by the

38

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

Enlightenment thinkers with more intensity and ferocity than the Church, with all its wealth, political power, and suppression of the free exercise of reason. The Enlightenment was more than a set of ideas; it implied an attitude, a method of thought. There was a clear desire to explore new ideas and allow for changing values. It is important to note that not all of the social writers that comprised the collectivity of enlightened reason were intellectuals. There were many popularizers engaged in a self-conscious effort to win converts. They were journalists and propagandists as much as true philosophers, and historians often refer to them by the French word philosophes. Science and Technology in the Contemporary Era Social thinkers grounded in the enlightened, rational, and scientific thought paradigm tend to share in a general belief that society is continuously progressing and that technology can assist in the cultural and moral growth of humanity. Progressive thinking and scientific reason are essential elements in this cultural evolution. The Age of Enlightenment was a period in history when social thinkers were convinced that society was emerging from centuries of darkness and ignorance into an age of scientific reason and progress. These thinkers held a firm belief in the power of human reason and the ability of people to act rationally. In fact, one of the basic assumptions of the Age of Enlightenment thinkers was the belief that human reason was capable of great things; they believed that humanity itself could be progressively altered. In the contemporary era, social thinkers, such as sociologists, generally accept the idea and value of continued societal progress and cultural evolution. Enlightened, rational social thinkers equate a belief in progress through science and technology as fairly logical and point out that any alternative belief is not only pessimistic, it is detrimental in efforts to improve society. Continued evolutionary growth and progress in human society are dependent upon technological growth. Since the time of the Industrial Revolution, the human species has witnessed and enjoyed tremendous social improvements due to the benefits of technological growth. And now, as we are now fully entrenched in the twenty-first century, we can clearly see that enlightened, rational thought coupled with science and technology has led to a near infinite number of scientifically driven achievements that have benefited humankind. Examples of these benefits are nearly endless but include such areas as a significant increase in life expectancy and overall quality of life for many due to improvements in the medical profession (e.g., x-ray and MRI machines, pacemakers, DNA fingerprinting, advanced medical treatment protocols and vaccines from once-deadly diseases); a wide variety of material goods (e.g., clothing and houseware products, smoke and CO2 detectors, cordless tools) which make everyday tasks simpler; improvements in travel (e.g., automobiles, trains, subways, airplanes); space travel (but manned and unmanned); improvements in food production (e.g., advanced farming equipment and the ability to grow massive amounts of food); industrial

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

39

improvements (e.g., assembly lines and industrial robots); advancements in communications (e.g., fiber optics, satellites, cellular phones, the Internet and global positioning systems); development of non-fossil fuel energy sources (e.g., solar energy, wind turbines); developments in family planning (e.g., in-vitro fertilization, birth control); and a slew of other everyday products as a result of technological development that we take for granted (e.g., indoor plumbing and a constant power source such as electricity). Essentially, there is no end to the possibilities of technological developments (e.g., retinal implants that will work much as hearing aids operate, wearable technology, virtual reality that becomes far more real, flying cars, transporters, and so on) that will benefit humanity in the future. Cynics of technology and the good it brings to society might point out that a great number of technological inventions have come with associated costs. For example, with electricity and automobiles comes a reliance on burning fossil fuels, which, in turn, harms the environment, which further fuels climate change; the benefits of urbanization is countered by social problems; plastic money is countered by credit/debit card fraud and stolen identities; advancements in industry and transportation has led to the development of war machines capable of destroying the planet; and the current phase of economic development that characterizes the West (the service economy) is, ironically, often lacking in service (e.g., companies that make customers call a phone number that is not connected to a live person until an exhaustive and frustrating electronic menu has been successfully navigated). Progressives would counter that while technology may come with associated costs, it is not the fault of technology itself, but rather, of humans who use technology in a harmful manner. The development of the enlightened, rational thought paradigm has an additional challenge beyond the possibility of people using technology in harmful ways. Enlightened thinkers of every era tend to overestimate both the ability of all people to act rationally and the willingness of all people to accept scientific proof that disproves their long-held beliefs. The result is a backlash against progressive, enlightened, rational thought on the part of those with a negative, conservative reaction to science and enlightened (liberal) thinkers. The Conservative Reaction to Enlightened, Rational Thought While enlightened, rational social thinkers share a general belief that society is continuously progressing, they also realize that there are times of great disruptions (e.g., as a result of the decisions of certain world leaders and a conservative mindset that refuses to break away from tradition- and faith-based forms of thought). Since at least the time of the Greeks, enlightened thinkers have faced the challenges presented by those who possess an allegiance to tradition or faith-based forms of dogmatic thinking.

40

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

In fact, history has shown that whenever a new and seemingly radical movement begins to challenge and change the very core beliefs and values of society, a corresponding conservative backlash will result. The Enlightenment and the French Revolution created such a powerful backlash. The Enlightenment thinkers are generally considered to be the intellectual forebears of the French Revolution (1789–1794), a revolution designed to overthrow a monarchy and give power to the people, the masses. However, proponents of those who represented the interests of the absolute monarchy and the aristocracy wrote against the new and liberal ideas of freedom of thought, reason, civil liberties, religious tolerance, and human rights (Garner 2000). They argued for a return to rigid hierarchies, with fixed status groups, an established religion, and misery for the masses. In other words, the conservative reaction against Enlightenment progressiveness was to evoke going back to a past era that they promoted as being great. Going back to a social system wherein the social order was structured to make things great for the rich and powerful under a past regime would be wonderful, that is to say, if you were among those in the social classes occupied by the monarchy and the aristocracy. However, going back to a past, perceived great era, would not be such a good idea for the majority of the people who were essentially powerless peasants. The conservatives argued that society is not a collection of individuals, but is instead a social unit in its own right, and must be protected from free thought. Some of the most extremely conservative anti-revolutionary philosophers of the Enlightenment era suggested that society should go back to the medievalera style of rule. Louis de Bonald (1754–1840), a man from an ancient noble family, for example, was so disturbed by the revolutionary changes in France that he yearned for a return to the peace and harmony of the Middle Ages. In his view, God was the source of society and therefore, reason, which was so important for the Enlightenment thinkers, was seen as inferior to traditional religious beliefs. Furthermore, de Bonald opposed anything that undermined such traditional institutions as patriarchy, the monogamous family, the monarchy, and the Catholic Church (Ritzer 2000). Conservatives such as de Bonald idealized the medieval past, conveniently forgetting, or not caring about, the misery that the vast majority of people were subjected to throughout their short, labor-filled lives. In the contemporary era, many conservatives of the West (including the United States and the United Kingdom) feel as though the liberal, progressive agenda has threatened social order. They desire a return to an era that no longer exists (or is no longer a rational or equality-based way of doing things), having forever been changed due to technology and enlightened, scientifically driven forms of thinking. However, just as the Enlightenment era had politicians and wealthy people promoting a return to a past era so too, for example, does the contemporary United States. An extremely wealthy man, with absolutely no political (or military) experience (historically important criteria for the U.S. president to possess), Donald Trump, officially

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

41

decided in 2015 to run for president. He is brash, brutish, and speaks without a filter about returning to a past era and ran on one of the most vague political mottos ever—“Make America Great Again.” Such an empty slogan and yet millions of people were inspired by its conservative overtones. Never once did Trump explain what particular past era was great or which particular era he wanted America to return too (ideally this era would, at least, be post-Civil War and the Jim Crow era). Most of his followers never articulated what past era they wanted to return to either (although some of his most extreme followers—the “Alternative Right” for example—certainly did), but they mostly agreed that they were not in favor of the current era with its progressive overtones (e.g., perceived “political correctness”). Realizing that he had tapped into a large frustrated segment of society who were ready to embrace conservatism, Trump espoused all the contemporary conservative touching points (some of which would resonate with conservatives of the Enlightenment era) by promoting such ideas as a return to the thought paradigms of tradition (even though he lacked the traditional qualifications for the office of the president) and faith via such fundamental conservative ideas as: Christianity as the true religion of the United States; de facto endorsing a system of patriarchy; advancing “family values” and the idea of a monogamous family (even though Trump himself already had more divorces than all the past presidents combined); attack all those who would challenge his rule, especially the media (the creation of the term “fake news” in an attempt to discredit those who would challenge his thoughts and beliefs); downplay the importance of higher education (Trump had said during his presidential campaign, “I love the poorly educated” and he said this for good reason as education became the strongest predictor of who voted for Trump or Clinton, with Trump easily carrying the “poorly educated” vote); and the promotion of an anti-science agenda (e.g., scientists are wrong when they say humans contribute to global warming). In early January 2018, multiple news agencies reported that Trump communicates at the lowest grade level of the last 15 presidents, according to an analysis of speech patterns of presidents going back to Herbert Hoover. The analysis assessed the first 30,000 words each US president spoke in office, and ranked them on the Flesch-Kincaid grade level scale and more than two dozen other common tests analyzing English-language difficulty levels. Trump’s level of communication was at the mid-fourth grade level, the worst since Harry Truman, who spoke at nearly a sixth-grade level. At the top of the list were Hoover and Jimmy Carter, who spoke at the 11th-grade level, Barrack Obama came in third with a high ninth-grade level of communication. Trump also uses the fewest average syllables. Obama, on the other hand, rated as the most fluent of the past 15 presidents (Burleigh 2018; Gordon 2018). The utilization of simplistic language helps the poorly educated and the ignorant to understand things easier, linguists report (Gordon 2018). Trump’s style of speech, which includes fragmented sentences and simple vocabulary, is more relatable to the less educated because that is the manner in which many people speak in everyday life.

42

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

This contemporary conservative reaction led by President Trump empowered conservatives who are afraid of scientific truths that challenge their longheld beliefs; reinforces conservative religious moral beliefs (e.g., anti-LGBTQ rights; anti-abortion); promotes the idea of going back to a long-gone era; and gave power to those who do not embrace enlightened, rational thought. And while it is true that Trump did not receive the support of the majority of the American voters (Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly three million votes, but nonetheless, she lost the electoral vote), he did tap into the large conservative segment of the population that clearly reacted against the progressive movements that had taken hold in the United States prior to the 2016 presidential election. Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom in 2016, voters were presented with a referendum, known as the EU referendum and/or the Brexit referendum, to decide whether or not to leave the European Union (EU) and officially sever ties with the EU. The term “Brexit,” a combination of the words “Britain” and “exit” became the nickname for the question put forth on the June 23, 2016 referendum asking voters: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” (Taub 2016). While there were many factors involved with the vote to remain or leave the EU, perhaps the most prevalent, and certainly the most relevant to our discussion here, resides with the conservative ideals held by many British people who felt that leaving the EU would help to secure the United Kingdom’s national identity (e.g., via limits on immigration), a desire to maintain past cultural norms and values (cultural nostalgia) and independence from the rest of Europe (and the rest of the world). Mirroring the 2016 U.S. presidential race, conservatism and traditionalism, social class and education were among the leading factors that would dictate the Brexit vote. Amanda Taub (2016) explains that the vote reflected the UK’s famously deep class divides: Voters with less money and education would be more likely to support leaving the union. Citing Robert Tombs, a historian at Cambridge University, Taub (2016) wrote that, “The Brexit debate has become a vessel for anti-establishment and anti-elite feelings directed at the leaders of mainstream British political parties as much as at Europe.” In short, the less educated British, like their American counterparts, were more likely to support conservative, reactionary ideals than enlightened, rational thought (although it remains unclear whether or not staying or leaving the EU is truly and simply a matter of enlightened, rational thought). British people who supported staying with the EU were not so much in favor of arguing the benefits of the union with Europe or taking a pro-immigration stand, but rather, argued that leaving the EU would cause disastrous economic repercussions (e.g., via the loss of access to the union’s open markets, trade and investment, and the loss of a cheaper labor force that immigration provides), a concern shared by most economists. By now, of course, everyone knows how the British voted; nearly 52% (17,410,742 votes) voted to leave the EU and a little more than 48% (16,141,241) voted to remain (BBC 2018). The UK is scheduled to officially

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

43

depart from the EU on March 29, 2019. The question as to whether or not this turns out to be a rational, or common sense, move will be answered in the future. What we do know is that sentiments of nationalism, populism, and anti-establishment politicians are growing around the world at this time and is not limited to either the United States or the United Kingdom (Bremmer 2018). The ideals of enlightened, rational thought, and socio-economic politics (e.g., free trade among nations) that has encouraged globalism but has not benefited certain segments of a population has led to a conservative backlash highlighted by many attitudes, including anti-immigration. Like the science versus faith and tradition paradigms themselves, the divide among peoples within a nation, and the divide between nation states, has clearly created an “us versus them” mentality (a concept as old as humanity itself). Is there a solution to this schism? Perhaps a fourth paradigm of social thought and social interaction, one based on common sense, will emerge as a prevailing sentiment of social interaction.

Common Sense To this point, we have learned about three paradigms of thought on how social order should be structured: tradition, faith, and enlightened, rational thought. The tradition- and faith-based forms of thought are generally conservative in nature because they look to maintain the status quo and keep those with power in power (this includes the notion of keeping God in power) and to keep the oppressed, subjugated. The enlightened, rational thought paradigm promotes liberal ideas such as equality and freedom, while also promoting science and technology. While the tradition- and faith-based paradigms of thought often, but not always, work together, the enlightened, rational thought paradigm is quite often at odds with the other two. What remains in our discussion of paradigms of thought is the discussion of the common-sense paradigm. Notions of common sense have likely existed throughout most of human history and yet it was never a paradigm of thought powerful enough to override any of the other three paradigms. Nonetheless, most people, whether liberal, moderate, or conservative; religious or non-religious; highly educated or poorly educated; tend to promote the idea of using one’s common sense. So, it is only “common sense” that if such a paradigm of thought is promoted by essentially people from all walks of life, that this is a subject matter worthy of a full examination. Common Sense: The Fourth Paradigm of Thought It is fairly common to hear expressions such as, “use your common sense,” or “anyone with any common sense at all would’ve seen that coming.” It seems as though we are all expected to use common sense and that we expect others to always use common sense. However, have you ever asked someone, “What is common sense?” or asked them to define “common sense”? How would

44

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

you define common sense, and what does common sense mean to you? Questions like these, and more importantly, answers to these and other related questions, are the true focus of this book. Generally, when we look for definitions of words we go to a dictionary. Academics prefer that people use peer-reviewed sources to address matters such as the definition of terms. For example, when I teach a course on deviance, I would not want students using a definition of deviance from a dictionary but rather a definition provided in a textbook or some other authority that researched the subject matter. (This book then, serves as a source for people looking to define “common sense” with a peer-reviewed source.) That academics prefer peer-reviewed definitions is reflective of the enlightened, rational thought paradigm of thought. We will review what academics have to say about common sense in Chapters 3 and 4. For now, let’s take a look at a few dictionaries and how they attempt to define “common sense.” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines common sense as “the ability to think and behave in a reasonable way and to make good decisions.” This definition is relatively straightforward but certainly filled with flaws as it, (1) fails to tell us how we attained this common sense in the first place; (2) fails to articulate on what is meant by a “reasonable way” to behave; and, (3) fails to make clear how we know our decisions are “good.” Dictionary.com defines common sense as “sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence.” This definition is equating common sense with a judgment call on what a practical course of action should be; makes a point of saying that common sense is independent of knowledge (which is odd); but, does introduce an important variable that common sense is normal native intelligence; in other words, it is something that people native to a particular region should know (thus implying that non-native people, or those from a different culture, might not have this same “normal” intelligence). The Free Dictionary has an overly simplified definition of common sense that reads, “Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge.” Once again, we have a definition that requires a judgment and this judgment must be sound (which is more reasonable that making a non-sound judgment); and, such a judgment is based on something other than specific knowledge about a subject matter. Finally, the Urban Dictionary defines common sense as “knowledge that most people (except babies and the mentally disabled) should know.” This rather peculiar definition reinforces that common sense is knowledge (and like the other definitions fails to state how this knowledge is attained); qualifies itself that babies and mentally disabled people are incapable of common sense; and makes a point of saying that this knowledge is simply something we “should know.” Based on these definitions, common sense has a great deal to do with knowledge and acting upon matters in an obvious manner even if one lacks specific knowledge about particular situations. In an attempt to develop a better definition of common sense we must first realize that common-sense

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

45

knowledge is not innate knowledge. This means, that we must first address the issue of, “How is knowledge attained?” Such a question, once thought reserved for the domain of philosophy, was in fact addressed by the famous philosopher, Plato (in The Republic) wherein he uses the “allegory of the cave” to represent a metaphor for the state of human existence with humans depicted as being imprisoned by their bodies and what they perceive by sight only. The Republic is structured as a fictional dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon, two Greek thinkers. Socrates would say (according to Plato) that the people were chained in a world of darkness but because this is the only life they have ever known, they do not understand or appreciate the limitations they face. In other words, people raised in a cave would only have knowledge of life in a cave and would no idea of life outside the cave. Their level of knowledge was limited to their life experiences. And for our purposes, any notions of common sense would be limited to behaviors associated with one’s life experiences. The Enlightenment thinkers would expand upon this “living in a cave” notion to explain that knowledge is not innate but comes from experience and observation guided by reason. Experience and observation certainly has a great deal to do with the ability to use common sense and yet it is questionable whether or not every reflection of experience and observation is guided by reason by all people. The Enlightenment thinkers, then, instituted the variable of reason in attaining common sense, something that people (beyond babies and the mentally disabled) often lack the ability to accomplish. Perhaps we need to escape our reliance on philosophy to answer the question of, “What is common sense?” When one wants to explain human behavior, the best discipline to turn to is sociology, as sociology involves the study of human behavior in the social context of groups, organizations, social institutions, and society, and in terms of how social forces affect behavior. Human behavior is a product of interaction with others. Everything we have learned or will learn is the result of social interaction. (Biology gives us all the chance to learn—if we have a functioning brain—but sociology explains why people behave the way they do.) As for common sense specifically, it is important to realize that anything labeled as common sense is actually learned behavior; that is to say, any knowledge we have is the result of interactions with others. These interactions include the notions of experience, observation, and yes, reason, but more importantly, it involves the socialization process (see Chapter 5 for a full description of how the socialization process works). Through the socialization process, and coupled with experience, observation, and reason, it is proposed that anything labeled as “common sense” is really learned knowledge. That people have different notions as to what constitutes common sense is reflected by the socialization process. Thus, most people would prefer to hire a qualified plumber to fix their plumbing problems or a qualified electrician to take care of their electrical problems and a qualified mechanic to repair their car or computer, and so on, because it is

46

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

common sense to do so. This same principle of common sense was not applied by all people when it came to vote for someone for president of the United States in 2016. People that voted for Donald Trump did not care that he lacked traditional presidential qualifications (e.g., holding a political position or serving in the military—something that all previous presidents had to their credit) and in fact, voted for him because he was not a part of the system. Thus, people who voted for Trump did so for many other reasons that they felt were legitimate; they applied a different perspective of common sense than those who voted for Hillary Clinton (or who did not support either candidate). The point here is not to debate the merits of one candidate over another—as people vote for candidates for a variety of reasons—but rather to point out that the notion of someone being qualified for a job is not always considered important nor is it a matter of “common sense.” It is unlikely, however, that the people who voted for Trump for president would hire him to fix electrical, plumbing, or mechanical problems in their home because of his lack of experience and qualifications. Still, the political arena is such an unusual one that many voters felt that perhaps it was time to elect someone outside of the traditional mold of qualifications. A number of other people who voted for Trump for president felt that it was a common-sense move compared to voting for Clinton, one of the most qualified persons to ever run for president, but someone who brought with her political baggage from the past. Thus, as we can see, those who voted for Trump or those who voted for Clinton (let alone those who decided not to vote for either), felt it was the common-sense thing to do, from their perspectives. We can also revisit the notion of royalty in the context of common sense. From the perspective of those who support tradition and faith, the ideas of “the divine rights of kings” and of the concept of “royals” was a reasonable idea as it was only common sense to continue such a notion. And yet, when we apply enlightened, rational thought to the concepts of the “divine rights of kings” and “royalty” we can see that it is a ridiculous notion to think that one being born into a privileged family is a criterion for superiority over others. That some people in the contemporary era still accept royalty as a legitimate form of governance (even if it’s just as figureheads to a state/empire) is a violation of common sense when we know that, rationally, people are not superior to others simply because of birthrights. That “royalty” still exists today is a sure sign of the lack of enlightened rational thought as the universal dominant thought paradigm. And, seemingly, common sense would seem to dictate that Americans, and any category of people who were once dominated by an imperialist nation, should shudder at the idea of royalty as a legitimate form of social structure. We will explore the meaning of common sense in far greater depth in Chapters 3 and 4 and discuss a number of examples of utilizing common sense in Chapter 5. However, for now, this definition of common sense is offered: Common sense refers to knowledge learned through the socialization process, observation, personal experience, and in many cases by reason, and entails the ability to utilize that knowledge in warranted situations.

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought 2.1 Connecting Common Sense and Popular Culture “How Can Scientific Truth Be Heresy?”—Dr. Zira, chimpanzee animal psychologist from the original Planet of the Apes (1968) The original Planet of the Apes (1968) movie set the tone for quite a discussion on the merits of the four paradigms of thought when we have to consider, what if apes evolved to the top of the food chain instead of humans? All the debates about whether man evolved from ape and whether God created man in his own image to rule over the planet are turned around when the opposite question is asked, “Did ape evolve from man?” In Planet of the Apes, an astronaut crew from earth’s twentieth century crash-lands on a planet some 2,000 years into the future. On this planet, apes have evolved to the top of the food chain and have the ability to talk and reason, to a certain degree, while humans cannot speak, are oppressed, enslaved, and experimented on; in other words, a far inferior version of humans from two millenniums earlier. (Note: In case the reader has not watched this movie, the ending has quite a revelation about the planet they have landed on and its history and relevance to the astronaut crew.) Shortly after the astronauts arrive to the planet dominated by apes, they are rounded up with a number of native humans by apes on horses using nets and other weapons to corral them. (In 1968, viewing audiences found this round-up scene to be rather intense.) The only astronaut to survive this roundup was Commander George Taylor (played by Charlton Heston), but his vocal cords are injured during the chase and he is temporarily left without the ability to speak. Taylor is caged, tortured, and risks mutilation but is soon befriended by two chimpanzee scientists, Dr. Zira (played by Kim Hunter), who is a “forward-thinking and outspoken” animal psychologist and her fiancée, Dr. Cornelius (played by Roddy McDowall) who is an archeologist and evolutionary researcher. Zira and Cornelius are fascinated by the apparent intelligence of Taylor and are blown away when his vocal cords heal and he begins to speak. Zira excitedly describes to Cornelius how Taylor’s existence supports his theory of evolution. Cornelius, however, realizes that going public with his evolutionary ideas will cause trouble with the powers that be in Ape City because such notions will be perceived as scientific heresy. Zira asks, “How can scientific truth be heresy?” This profound question is an underlying theme of The Planet of the Apes, such as presenting scientific truths to some contemporary powers that be is looked upon as heresy. Eventually, the power elite apes learn of Taylor and they bring him and Zira and Cornelius before an ad hoc tribunal hearing. The tribunal consists of the President of the National Academy, the Commissioner of Animal Affairs, and the Minister of Science and Chief Defender of Faith (Dr. Zaius). In addition to the three tribunal members is the State’s prosecutor, the Deputy Minister of Justice, named Honorious. The tribunal fears what Taylor represents—a challenge to their long-held traditional and dogmatic, faith-based

47

48

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought beliefs. Instead of accepting the idea that Taylor, as a human, learned to speak on his own, the tribunal accuses Zira and Cornelius of conducting scientific experiments on Taylor that somehow led to his ability to speak. Essentially, they are being accused of going against the laws of nature as ordained by “The Almighty.” Dr. Zaius warns Zira and Cornelius that their careers are indeed in danger for their work with Taylor and he further accuses them of teaching and promoting evolution (because of their alleged use of science to enable Taylor to gain the ability to speak). Dr. Zaius warns the chimp scientists that their work is scientific heresy. Zira counters the heresy claim by attempting to applying common sense. She says to the tribunal, let’s assume, as common sense dictates, that the human’s (Taylor) story is false (that he did not arrive in Ape City via a space ship from another planet). However, if he’s not from another planet, he must be from this planet. The tribunal reacts dumbfoundedly as Zira has presented a version of common sense (one that supports the notion of evolution) that counters with their interpretation of common sense. Zira further explains that all humans have the capacity to speak (possessing the proper biology) and, therefore, they all could learn to talk. Angrily, Honorious verbally attacks Zira and Cornelius and cites the “First Article of Faith” which reads in part that “The Almighty” created ape in his own image and gave him a soul and mind to be set apart from the beasts of the jungle and made the ape the Lord of the planet. The prosecutor adds, “These sacred truths are self-evident.” Such faith-based principles are the same as those proposed by faith-based humans in the contemporary era. Eventually, Zira and Cornelius are indicted on three charges: contempt of the tribunal; malicious mischief; and, scientific heresy. The Planet of the Apes movies, both the original (there were five of them) and the contemporary (with the latest, to date, released in 2017), provide food for thought as the dominion of humans over all creatures is turned upside down; and reflects past, present, and, likely, future clashes between the four major paradigms of thought. In Planet of the Apes, we have clear examples of tradition- and faith-based doctrines that are blindly accepted by the masses and yet challenged by scientific evidence and notions of common sense.

Summary In this chapter, the concept of “common sense” was framed within the context of a “paradigm of thought.” Throughout time and in nearly all social situations people have been expected to abide by some sort of prevailing paradigm (defined as a primary theme, characteristic, or single stem) of thought that determines their behavior. Paradigms of thought help to structure social order—a particular manner in which humans are expected to

Common Sense as a Paradigm of Thought

49

behave (both in private and in public)—in a particular society, organization, or group. As presented in this chapter, there are four established paradigms of thought that have been around since the earliest humans first roamed the earth: tradition; faith; enlightened, rational thought; and, common sense. Tradition, the first paradigm of thought, refers to a way of thinking, behaving, or doing something that has been used by people of a particular group/clan/society over a long period of time. It involves passing down elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially via oral communication—or as sociologists would explain, via the socialization process. Within this paradigm of thought, people are expected do things a certain way because that’s the way things have always been done. Questioning an existing social structure based on tradition is generally frowned upon. A number of ancient, Middle Ages, and modern traditions were discussed. The second paradigm of thought is faith. The faith-centered paradigm of thought works much in the same manner as tradition in that adherents to a certain faith are taught to choose courses of action that abide by specific belief systems that have long been enacted. Faith itself does not have to solely involve a belief in spirituality or religion but this paradigm of thought generally assumes such a connection. The role of religion, past monarchies, royalty, the “divine rights of kings,” and contemporary monarchies were all examined in an effort to illustrate how faith works as a paradigm of thought. Enlightened, rational thought is the third paradigm and involves a reliance on discovery and explanation, innovation and invention, theoretical speculation, data collection, empiricism and rational thought as a means of explaining how the world we live in works and how our behaviors should be modified in light of scientific evidence. While rational thought, at least in primitive forms, has likely existed in some small capacity for thousands of years, it was the Age of Enlightenment that truly ignited this paradigm of thought. Science and technology along with a conservative reaction against enlightened, rational thought are also discussed. The notion of “common sense” is described as the fourth paradigm of thought and while the concept of common sense is likely to have existed throughout most of human history it was never a powerful enough paradigm to override any of the other three. Nonetheless, most people, whether liberal, moderate, or conservative, would promote the idea of using one’s common sense. So, it is only “common sense” that if such a paradigm of thought is promoted by essentially people from all walks of life, that this is a subject matter worthy of a full examination. The discussion of common sense as a paradigm of thought was designed to set the tone for the rest of the book.

3

Explaining Common Sense From the Ancient Greeks to the Early Twentieth Century

Introduction This is all bullshit! Most likely, your attention has been caught by this opening sentence. Why is that? Perhaps it has something to do with the realization that people from all walks of life, politicians, lawyers, salespeople, bureaucrats, corporate executives, friends at a bar, are all among those who regularly engage in bullshit. Joshua Wakeham (2017) believes that people from all sorts of backgrounds regularly engage in bullshit, students bullshit on assignments, subordinates feed their bosses whatever bullshit they need to hear, and management/administration have their employees engage in bullshit tasks. At times, bullshit is a source of consternation. At times, bullshit represents a sly wink at social conventions. The many uses of this scatological expression offer an implicit commentary on our flexible and often problematic relationship to the truth that deserves further consideration. (Wakeham 2017:15–16) To further emphasize the idea of employees engaged in bullshit tasks comes David Graeber’s analysis put forth in his book Bullshit Jobs: A Theory (2018). Graeber (2018), a London-based anthropologist and Professor of Anthropology at the London School of Economics, describes a bullshit job as a form of paid employment that is so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence even though, as part of the condition of employment, the employee feels obligated to pretend that this is not the case. The reason for bullshit jobs, according to Graeber, is not economic but, rather, it’s moral and political. “The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger” (Graeber 2018:xviii). Graeber (2018) further explains that the creation of bullshit jobs is one of the secret strengths of right-wing populism and states that this reality is especially clear in the United States “where Republicans have had remarkable success mobilizing resentment against schoolteachers and autoworkers (and not, significantly, against the school administrators or auto industry executives who actually cause the problems)

Explaining Common Sense

51

for their supposedly bloated wages and benefits” (p. xxi). Graeber cites a YouGov survey that asked Britons if their job makes a “meaningful contribution to the world?” and more than a third (37 percent) said they believed that it did not; and, in Holland, 40 percent of the Dutch workers reported that their jobs had no good reason to exist. Bullshit Jobs is a fascinating book and well worth the read. Joshua Wakeham believes that sociologists have mostly ignored the topic of bullshit and that seems a shame, especially considering how much fun it is to talk about bullshit, let alone to actually participate in bullshit, or research the topic. (It should be noted that philosophy professor Harry G. Frankfurt wrote a New York Times bestseller book on bullshit in 2005 titled On Bullshit. This “book” is very tiny, literally at 4.25 inches by 6.25 inches and just 67 pages. Frankfurt also pointed out that the topic of bullshit had not aroused the level of attention it deserved as a serious academic topic worthy of study.) Wakeham (2017) has studied bullshit (and its cognates bull, bull crap, bull session, B.S., being full of shit, or even horse shit) to the point where he has identified three categories of bullshit: self-described bullshitting (refers to those situations in which people engage in what they willingly describe to some other people as bullshitting; it’s done as a means to some end; it can be instrumental or expressive); contextual bullshit (involves situations where people make stuff up that is flat-out bullshit; lies; naivety; cultural incompetence); and bullshit as criticism (people bullshit in a variety of situations including as a means to be confrontational or accusatory). Wakeham believes that recognition and tolerance of other people’s bullshit is understood as part of the fabric of social life in a diverse society. “Bracketing off one’s epistemic standards is not an abdication of a belief in the truth but a savvy response to the demands of the social situation” (Wakeham 2017:33). Furthermore, Wakeham states that if one challenges a comment made by another as “bullshit,” he or she has taken on “a kind of commonsense assumption” that they are an authority on that particular topic (p. 33). So why is the topic of bullshit being used as an introductory story to a chapter titled “Explaining Common Sense”? Besides the idea that it is fun to say “bullshit!” it is relevant to the fact that among the earliest academic attempts to explain the notion of common sense were the ancient Greeks and their skeptical approach to any notion of the existence of a “common sense.” Wakeham’s review of the possible shortcomings in the theories of Garfinkel (his theory is based on a taken-for-granted world but much of the interactions between social actors is left unsaid, leading the researchers to fill in blanks that may or may not be accurate) and Goffman (his presentation of self theory relies on surface-level analysis of interactants) are also relevant, as these social thinkers will be discussed later in this chapter. While the study of bullshit is fascinating (and kudos to Wakeham and Frankfurt), the content in this chapter is not bullshit; or, at least, it is not meant to be.

52

Explaining Common Sense

Examining Common Sense In Chapters 1 and 2, we were introduced to the concept of common sense as a paradigm of thought and it was suggested that notions of common sense have likely existed throughout most of human history. In addition, it was stated that most people, whether liberal, moderate, or conservative, promote the idea of using common sense. We can add to this that regardless of one’s socio-economic-political leanings, utilizing a common-sense approach to our daily life activities is, as a rule, a good idea. At the very least, it is better than not utilizing common sense (see Chapter 6). People, then, seem to support the notion of using common sense in an array of daily activities. This conclusion, however, leads to the following question: If the utilization of common sense is, at least in principle, such a good idea and a scheme that seemingly everyone agrees is a good method of thought and action, why didn’t common sense as a paradigm of thought supersede the other three paradigms of thought (something that will be discussed in Chapter 7)? In this chapter, we will examine a significant sampling of the theories of social thinkers on the topic of common sense from the time of the ancient Greeks to the early twentieth century. As we are discussing the theories of these social thinkers, the definition of a theory is provided here: A theory is a statement, or a set of statements, that proposes to explain or relate observed phenomena or a set of concepts. We will begin by examining the ideas of the ancient Greeks and continue with the interpretations of social thinkers from the Middle Ages through the present.

The Ancient Greeks and Modern Philosophy: Common Sense and Skepticism The ancient Greeks were among the earliest people who attempted to explain common sense. They were also among the first to question its legitimacy as a paradigm of thought as they questioned the validity of how knowledge is attained. Consider, for example, Parmenides of Elea (born c. 515 B.C.E.), who founded the Eleatic school of philosophy. Parmenides was a major influence on Plato and met a young Socrates upon his moving to Athens. To Parmenides, common-sense thinking is full of illogical rationale primarily because he believed that the senses cannot be trusted. According to Parmenides, all sensations occur in the realm of appearance. This means that reality cannot be apprehended by the senses. Change and variety (the many) are only appearances; they are not real. If this is true, then our most commonly held beliefs about reality are mere opinions. The senses cannot recognize “what is,” much less can they discover—observe—it, ever. In other words, whatever we see, touch, taste, hear, or smell is not really, does not exist. (Soccio 2010:67)

Explaining Common Sense

53

Addressing the issue of “appearance of change,” Parmenides argued that the very concept of change is self-contradictory and what we see as change is really an illusion because, as Soccio (2010) explains, “Change” equals transformation into something else. When a thing becomes “something else,” it becomes what it is not. But since it is impossible for “nothing” (what is not) to exist, there is no “nothing” into which the old thing can disappear. (There is no “no place” for the thing to go into.) Therefore, change cannot occur. (p. 67) The fallacy of Parmenides’ reasoning is easy to ascertain as the transformation of something to something new is just that, “new,” it is not “nothing.” Thus, change does occur. For example, when a person receives a major promotion in the workplace he or she has a new title and responsibilities. The person’s role is new and has changed, but the person did not cease to exist. For most people in the contemporary era, a theory grounded with the idea that change is merely an “appearance” and “not real” seems to defy common sense and enlightened, rational thought as we believe change and movement as being very real. Nonetheless, as Soccio (2010) explains, The popularity or unpopularity of an opinion is not a measure of its merit, however. And Parmenides’ position was the product of careful reasoning in a way that common sense rarely is. Further, Parmenides’ philosophical contemporaries took his arguments seriously, and Parmenides’ notion of what is real played an important part in the development of Plato’s theory of forms. (p. 67) We know today that of course we can measure a theory or opinion based on its merit as flawed reasoning has little or no value other than to serve as an example for others what not to do. Parmenides’ influence on Plato would help to keep his own theories alive, in one form or another, through Plato’s influence on ancient Greek skepticism. Greek skepticism, among many things, questioned the reliability of common sense as a legitimate form of argument. The skeptics asked, if someone attempts to defend their argument (on some given topic) with common-sense knowledge alone, would such an approach be reasonable? We can attempt to answer this question by applying the definition of common sense provided in Chapter 2 that, in part, emphasizes that common sense refers to learned knowledge. In so doing, we know that the skeptics were on to something because they recognized that an individual’s common sense is limited to the knowledge he has learned. Thus, for the skeptic, any argument utilizing common sense as a defense is limited to the level of knowledge possessed by those involved in the argument.

54

Explaining Common Sense

Ancient Greek Skepticism Questioning the legitimacy of presenting a common-sense approach as a means to defend an argument is just one an example of skepticism. Skepticism itself refers to an attitude of doubting or distrusting something, especially when that something is presented as the “truth.” Jack Crumley II (2016) states, “Skepticism is the view that we do not have knowledge or justified beliefs in some area” (p. 2). While rare, global skepticism about knowledge holds that none of our beliefs are instances of knowledge despite our having reasons for those beliefs being justified (Crumley II 2016). As explained by Soccio (2010), “a skeptic is a person who demands clear, observable, undoubtable evidence—based on experience—before accepting any knowledge claim as true” (p. 277). Skeptics want to personally verify by means of their own sensory experience any claim to knowledge. “They want to see, touch, taste, or measure everything” (Soccio 2010:7). Soccio cites the New Testament and the disciple known as “Doubting” Thomas, who would not believe that Jesus had risen from the grave until he carefully examined Jesus’ wounds for himself as an archetype (exemplar) of a skeptic. The word “skeptic” comes from the Greek skeptesthai, which means to consider or examine (Soccio 2010). The peer-reviewed Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2017b) states that the term “skeptic” is derived from a Greek noun, skepsis, which means examination, inquiry, consideration. Many ancient Greek philosophers employed a skeptical outlook as it pertains to knowledge. The term “ancient skepticism” however, is generally applied to a member of Plato’s Academy during its skeptical period (c. 273 B.C.E. – first century B.C.E.) or to a follower of Plato, Pyrrho of Elis (c. 365– 270 B.C.E.) (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2017b). Gaskin (1989) also cites ancient skepticism having its roots with Pyrrho (but uses a slightly different estimation of his lifespan, c. 360–275 B.C.E.) and explains that “The philosophical thrust of skepticism was a rejection of all claims to knowledge that exceed a simple statement of each fact as it appears to us” (p. 28). Gaskin puts forth the notion that skepticism came about as a means of challenging dogmatism and of the hope of settling contradictions to claims of truth. Citing Sextus Empiricus (Outline of Pyrrhonism, I, Chapter 6; III, Chapter 3), Gaskin (1989) states, “The main basic principle of the Skeptic system is that of opposing to every proposition an equal proposition; for we believe that as a consequence of this we end by ceasing to dogmatize” (p. 33). Two schools of skepticism would emerge from Greece during the third and second centuries B.C.E.—Academic Skepticism and Pyrrhonian Skepticism. (Note: Crumley II uses the term “Pyhrronian” instead of Pyrrhonian; Pyrrhonian is used here because the Greek philosopher’s name is spelled Pyrrho.) In the simplest terms, “academic skepticism held that we know but one thing: that we have no knowledge” (Crumley II 2016:2). The academic skeptics particularly enjoyed targeting the Stoics and their confidence in the areas of metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology, which was supported by an elaborate

Explaining Common Sense

55

and sophisticated set of arguments (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2017b). From this school of skeptical thought we learn that skeptics may challenge all forms of perceived dogmatic thinking regardless of if they are grounded in tradition; faith; enlightened, rational thought; or, common sense. From the ideas of Pyrrho, Pyrrhonian skepticism accuses the academic skeptics’ notion that we have no knowledge as a position that was too dogmatic and rigid and countered with the proposal that we suspend belief in some proposition until it becomes completely evident (Crumley II 2016). Sextus Empiricus (c. 160–210 C.E.), a physician, is regarded at the foremost exponent of Pyrrhonian skepticism and he held that we must content ourselves with appearances only as it is possible to give equally compelling arguments for and against any belief. Sextus also believed that people would be happier in life if they learned to suspend judgment (presumably of others) (Crumley II 2016). From his Pyrrhonian skeptic’s point of view, there are three types of philosophers: dogmatists, who believe they have discovered the truth; academics, who believe the truth cannot be discovered; and skeptics, who continue to investigate, believing that no one has yet to discover absolute truths while also believing that it is possible to do so (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2017b). Skeptics, then, question any claims to knowledge; however, depending on one’s perspective of skepticism, it is either possible or impossible to eventually attain knowledge on a subject matter. As skepticism pertains to common sense, it becomes evident that because the notion of common sense itself is dependent upon learned knowledge, it is questionable whether there is such a thing as common sense at all. Ancient skepticism would influence the ideas of later philosophers and in particular the ideas of Rene Descartes and David Hume.

Modern Philosophy and Skepticism: Rene Descartes and David Hume Modern philosophy begins with French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist Rene Descartes (1596–1650). It could be argued that Descartes was not a skeptic as he believed that humans are capable of gaining certain knowledge on a wide variety of things (Crumley II 2016). Descartes’ (from The Discourse on Method) non-skeptical sentiment is expressed in one of the most famous quotes in philosophical history, “I think; therefore I am.” This profound statement has been interpreted by many scholars and laypersons alike but essentially it boils down to Descartes’ realization that he could not doubt his own existence because he was the one doing the doubting in the first place. In other words, that he could ponder his own existence implied that he had to exist in order to question his own existence. In his attempt to discredit the line of thinking of the ancient skeptics, Descartes questioned one of their most fundamental arguments—that we cannot rely on our senses for knowledge. In Meditations, Descartes states, “Occasional failure of the senses does not show that our senses never yield

56

Explaining Common Sense

knowledge” (Crumley II 2016:4). Descartes also pointed out that many philosophers and scientists settle for one methodological approach to substantiate their theories/beliefs. (Note: This criticism is still true today as many people who conduct research are comfortable with just one form of methodology and stick with it even though another form may yield better results. For example, a social researcher that likes to distribute surveys as a sole method of gathering data will be better suited utilizing observational research when conducting research on street gangs.) When people rely on just one method of explaining phenomena they become guilty of dogmatic thinking. Thus, there is the need to use more than one method of study as a means to gain knowledge. Somewhat contradictory to his first criticism of the ancient skeptics, Descartes argues that our senses do not really tell us everything about the world and if we wish to attain genuine knowledge we must utilize different methods to acquire it. Descartes made note of the new physics developing during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and felt that such scientific discoveries would reveal “another world” wholly unlike our sensory world (Crumley II 2016). We know today that science has in fact discovered “another world” that cannot be observed by our senses and examples of this abound (e.g., viruses and parasites that cause illness and yet are not visible by the naked eye nor directly observable by our other senses). For those lacking in scientific knowledge the idea of tiny, invisible to the eye, parasites as the root of illnesses defied common sense. And yet, using scientific methodology that goes beyond the limitations of our senses, we have discovered that there are countless, living organisms invisible to our senses. While the argument that Descartes was not a skeptic (as presented above) can be made, there are those who would claim that there are degrees of skepticism. Soccio (2010) interprets Descartes’ promotion of varying methods to acquire knowledge as a “deliberate, methodological skepticism” that is labeled as methodic doubt (p. 255). Methodic doubt involves deliberately doubting everything it is possible to doubt in the least degree. Whatever remains will be known with absolute certainty. In order to apply methodic doubt, Descartes had to rely on a ‘standard of truth’ that could tell him whether or not it was reasonable to doubt something. (Soccio 2010:254) Descartes reasoned that regardless of the method we use in our search for truth and knowledge, we have to have some criterion for distinguishing truth from falsity. His “standard of truth” was based on that which is clearly (that which is present and apparent to an attentive mind) and distinctly (that which is so precise and different from other objects that it contains within itself nothing but what is clear) true. His reliance on precision and detail as a means of determining truth is commendable and yet his standard of truth concept seemingly remains unclear and ambiguous (Soccio 2010).

Explaining Common Sense

57

Ultimately, Descartes hopes to set some sort of standard of truth and knowledge so that we are not skeptical of everything in life. In Meditations, he asks if it’s rationally possible to doubt everything. Certainly, if everything is questionable, there cannot be common sense; then again, tradition, and certainly faith, along with enlightened rational thought can all be uncertain as well. David Hume (1711–1776), a Scottish philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist, had skeptical concerns that extended, but modified, Descartes’ work on methodology. Possessing an interest in our beliefs about the world and a desire to attain truth and knowledge, Hume was willing to grant that we often get things right; that is to say, many of our beliefs about the world are undoubtedly true, or at the very least, are likely to be true. But Hume thought that if we claim that some of our beliefs are rational because of our reliance on some method, then we must have some good reason to rely on that method. He argued, however, that one important method cannot be shown to be rational. (Crumley II 2016:13) Hume believed too, however, that our beliefs are rational to us when we can rationalize them. He cautioned that we should not be satisfied with some belief simply because we have some reason for it to be true. Consider, for example, that I am driving a rental car that was picked up on “empty” and therefore only needs to be returned with the dial on “empty.” I do not want to put an excessive amount of gas in the car because I will not be financially reimbursed for any gasoline over the empty mark. So, as I drive the car on empty with 20 miles left until I return the car, I want to believe that the car will make it there without running out of gas. Rationality goes both ways here. There is a rational reason for not wanting to stop at a gas station and purchase gas for the car as there is no financial benefit to this behavior. On the other hand, it would be rational to stop and purchase gas so that I do not run out while on the highway, thus causing another set of problems for myself (e.g., being charged a late fee for returning the car late; having to pay a tow truck service to bring me gas). My belief that the car will make it to the car rental place before running out of gas may, or may not, be true. Beliefs also have a degree of causal inference according to Hume. With this in mind, we may come to view a belief of ours to be true because of other elements that we think are related to it. For example, if you were supposed to meet friends for a baseball game but felt it was no longer prudent to go to the baseball stadium because it had rained heavily earlier in the day, you are assuming that one variable (earlier rain) will cause another variable to be true (the game will be canceled). However, you may have failed to take into account that the field was covered with a tarp before it rained and thus the field is

58

Explaining Common Sense

“playable” and the fact that management wants the game to be played because rescheduling it could cause problems. In this matter, our belief that one event will directly impact another event is unsubstantiated. Hume was not a full-blown skeptic as he believed that doubting the existence of an external reality was illogical and irrational. Further, he believed that no one can actually live a lifetime as a skeptic. Soccio (2010) cites Hume from his Dialogues: To whatever length anyone may push his speculative principles of scepticism [sic], he must act … and live, and converse like other men … It is impossible for him to persevere in total scepticism, or make it appear in his conduct for a few hours. (p. 305) Hume promotes a moderate version of skepticism that entails “exercising caution and modesty in our judgments” and “by restricting our speculations to abstract reasoning and matters of fact” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2017c).

Thomas Reid and Common Sense Thomas Reid (1710–1796) was a Scottish philosopher who was interested in the fabric of the human mind and body, promoted the research methodologies of observation and experimentation, and is best known as the “father of common sense philosophy.” According to Christopher Hookway, Reid is one of the originators of the Scottish school of common sense. Hookway (2002) says of Reid that he understood “common sense as a body of ill-defined but self-evident and certain principles which guide our actions and our beliefs, including philosophical ones” (p. 198). In his renowned An Inquiry Into the Human Mind: On the Principles of Common Sense (1764), Reid opens with a discussion on the curious and wonderful human mind and its relationship with the body (he examines each of the five senses and explains the ways in which we achieve knowledge of our world by utilizing them). The faculties of the one are no less wisdom adapted to their several ends, than the organs of the other. Nay, it is reasonable to think, that as the mind is a nobler work, and of a higher order than the body, even more of the wisdom and skill of the divine Architect hath been employed in its structure. It is therefore a subject highly worthy of inquiry in its own account, but still more worthy on account of the extensive influence which the knowledge of it hath over every other branch of science. (Reid 2000:11)

Explaining Common Sense

59

Reid continues by explaining that the best (and only) way to attain knowledge is through observation and experiment. Reid (2000) states: By our constitution, we have a strong propensity to trace particular facts and observations to general rules, and to apply such general rules to account for other effects, or to direct us in the production of them. This procedure of the understanding is familiar to every human creature in the common affairs of life, and it is the only one by which any real discovery in philosophy can be made. (pp. 11–12) Reid acknowledges that theories and conjectures help to spark the curiosity of man but warned of its limitations compared to actual scientific procedures. The theory of ideas is indeed very ancient, and hath been very universally received; but as neither of these titles can give it authenticity, they ought not to screen it from a free and candid examination, that seems to triumph over all science, and even over the dictates of common sense. All that we know of the body, is owing to anatomical dissection and observation, and it must be by an anatomy of the mind that we can discover its powers and principles. (Reid 2000:12) Reid certainly acknowledged that it is much more difficult to “dissect” the mind than it is to dissect the body. It was, however, important to Reid that philosophy discover how the mind operates in order to learn such things as how knowledge is attained. What we are most concerned about with regard to Thomas Reid is his work on common sense. Following the wave of skepticism in philosophy which questioned whether or not the notion of common sense was even feasible, Reid promoted the utilization of common sense. He felt that common sense was possible because humans can acquire knowledge through empirical observations and experimentations (the methods he promoted and described previously). As Magnus (2008) explains, “Thomas Reid’s reply to skepticism involves an appeal to common sense. Since he often claims that no defense of common sense is required, he is sometimes misread as claiming that no defense could be given. Yet Reid does defend common sense” (p. 1). In his defense of common sense, Magnus reminds us that it was more than empirical research that led Reid to promote common sense. Reid was a very religious person (his dedication in Inquiry was addressed to “My Lord”) and connected a belief in common sense to religious overtones. From Norman Daniels (1974) we learn that Reid finds common sense to be trustworthy because it is given to us by a benevolent God. Using a faith-based argument, Reid proclaims common sense as legitimate because of his belief that God would not deceive us. Daniels points out the weakness of this defense of common sense

60

Explaining Common Sense

over skepticism because it is contingent on a belief held by Reid. Magnus (2008) counters that Reid did not defend common sense because we ought to deduce it from the existence of God but rather because it is a reliable guide to truth. This guide to truth is based on the human capacity to conduct scientific research and empirically verify certain events and situations. In challenging the beliefs of the skeptics, Reid made such common-sense assumptions as the belief in the existence of an external world that can be perceived by the human mind and experienced by our senses. Our senses and capacity for memory allow us to share in a common life with others, thus giving the opportunity for repeated experiences that can come to be regarded as common sense in future similar situations. Reid also believed that the longer we live in the external world (a world that actually exists) the more opportunities we have to observe commonalities; which, in turn, allows us to label certain situations and expected behaviors as common sense. Reid also describes common sense as knowledge of self-evident principles—those ideas which are shared by a widespread audience. Common-sense knowledge is not innate, it is learned (this is a basic premise of the common sense as presented in this text). Magnus (2008) concludes that Reid does give arguments in defense of common sense. Admittedly, they are not answers to the determined global sceptic [sic]. They are meant to dislodge the partial sceptics (who doubt their senses but accept reason, for example) or the would-be sceptics (who think for some reason that perhaps they ought to be sceptics). Still, they do not rely on some indefensible premise like the existence of God or the reliability of our natural faculties. (p. 13)

G.E. Moore: Refutation of Skepticism and the Promotion of Common Sense George Edward Moore (1873–1958) was a British philosopher of the early twentieth century who went by his initials of G.E. because he hated his first names; and, interestingly, his wife called him “Bill” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2016a). In line more with a sociological perspective of common sense (the idea that common sense does indeed exist; and it is the result of learned behavior and not innate to humans) than with a philosophical skepticism approach, Moore believed in the legitimacy of ordinary forms of common sense. That is to say, he believed that a number of behaviors can come to be seen as acts of common sense as they are routine, ordinary, and practical, and treated as common sense by those involved. Moore also ignored the philosophical and metaphysical questions of whether we know anything for certain, or whether the objects we take to surround us have anything other than a mental existence.

Explaining Common Sense

61

The latter problem—and the refutation of idealism—was a preoccupation throughout Moore’s very long career. It prompted his most famous paper: “Proof of an External World.” This paper takes issue with Kant’s assertion that “it remains a scandal to philosophy … that the existence of things outside of us … must be accepted merely on faith and that, if anyone thinks to doubt their existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof.” (Tallis 2008) Moore had little patience for philosophers who questioned the existence of things that could be experienced via our senses (e.g., objects in front of us that can be viewed by our eyes and sense of vision). Moore famously, or infamously depending on your academic leanings, said that he could prove that two hands exist. How, he would ask his students? By holding up my two hands, and saying, as I make a gesture with the right hand, “There is one hand,” and adding, as I make a gesture with the left, “and here is another.” The primary point of Moore’s demonstration is to refute philosophical skepticism. Non-skeptics take this very perspective of Moore’s (and of Thomas Reid, as described earlier), that is, if we can visibly see objects such as our own hands, feel them when we rub them against our face, and hear the sound they make when slapping other objects, we do not have to debate whether or not they exist, they do exist. Once we can establish that external objects actually exist, it becomes easier to try and explain other basic notions of life such as common sense. In his 1925 “A Defense of Common Sense” Moore begins his paper with a number of “truisms” with “every one of which (in my own opinion) I know, with certainty, to be true” (Moore 1925). Among his truisms is the idea that he (and all of us) resides within a living human body, and our bodies are our own bodies. The body has a past, present, and a future (at least until our death). (Although Moore did not specifically say this, it is also a truism, or common sense, that our bodies will, at some time, cease to function.) Moore describes other truisms about the body, that it has shape and size in three dimensions, it has physically been to many other places than its current location, it can hold other objects (e.g., our hands can hold onto pens and pencils), our bodies come into contact with other people’s bodies, and so on. Beyond our own recognition of the existence of our own body is the truism that other people are aware of our body as well, that is to say, the others we come into contact with can see us in bodily form. Truisms, according to Moore, are an example of the existence of common sense because everyone realizes the existence of their own body and the bodies of others.

Bertrand Russell and Common Sense Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) is a British philosopher, mathematician, logician, historian, social critic, political activist, and a Nobel laureate (he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950) who, for the most part,

62

Explaining Common Sense

considered himself a liberal, a socialist, and a pacifist, although never in a profound sense of the meanings of such labels (Biography.com 2018). In 1890, Russell entered Trinity College, University of Cambridge, to study mathematics and while there he made lifelong friends through his membership in the secretive student society the “Apostles,” whose members included some of the most influential philosophers of the day, including G.E. Moore (previously discussed). It is Moore who helped to influence Russell’s abandonment of idealism in favor of mathematics and logic (Monk 2018). Russell and Moore both felt that philosophical discourse should be broken down to its simplest components as that would lead to clarity in thought. In 1951, Russell had an article titled, “The Best Answer to Fanaticism— Liberalism” published in the New York Times. This article attempted to simplify and clarify the essence of the liberal outlook via a liberal decalogue that Russell described as “The Ten Commandments.” These 10 commandments formed a common-sense approach to viewing life (Muehlhauser 2010). Among his liberal common sense commandments are the following: 1 2 3

4 5

Do not feel absolutely certain of anything. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.

In his short but succinct book Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare, Russell (1959a) expresses a common-sense approach to ending the threat of nuclear conflict by stating that the only way to end such a threat is to end war itself. Written at the height of the Cold War, Russell’s straightforward commonsense approach to ending the threat of nuclear warfare helps to provide an understanding of his involvement in the “Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament” and his fervent campaign for peace. As revealed in the Preface of Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare, Russell believed that his common-sense approach to nuclear disarmament held merit to communist nations, NATO nations, and to uncommitted nations. Russell was not naive about his common-sense proposal to nuclear disarmament as he realized that should war break out (at any time), any agreements made about disarmament could, and would, likely be ignored. Thus, even though, as a promoter of peace wherein he encouraged disarmament, Russell realized that war is often justified by the nations involved. It was his hope that those responsible for waging war would recognize that the use of nuclear weaponry could lead to the

Explaining Common Sense

63

extermination of the human race and, as common sense dictates, no nation wins if the human race is eliminated from the face of the planet. The discussion on Russell and common sense ends with an unreferenced quotation from the English philosopher, “Common sense, however it tries, cannot avoid being surprised from time to time” and a referenced quotation, “The painter has to unlearn the habit of thinking that things seem to have the color which common sense says they ‘really’ have, and to learn the habit of seeing things as they appear” (Russell 1959b).

Thomas Paine and Common Sense Thomas Paine (1737–1809) was born on January 29, 1737 in Thetford, Norfolk in England, the son of a Quaker. He was mostly a failure at all his attempts to maintain employment, first as an apprentice for his father, as a seaman, and then as an excise (tax) officer. He did, however, publish The Case of the Officers of Excise (1772) wherein he argued for a pay raise for officers (US History 2017). In 1774, he met Benjamin Franklin in London who advised him to emigrate to the United States. Heeding Franklin’s advice, Paine arrived at Philadelphia in November 1774. Starting a new career, first as a publicist, and later as co-editor of the Pennsylvania Magazine, Paine’s first publication was African Slavery in America (1775), which criticized American slavery as being unjust and inhumane. Paine also recognized the rise of tension and the spirit of rebellion in the colonies, especially following the Boston Tea Party. From Paine’s perspective, the colonies had all the right to revolt against a government that imposed taxes on them but which did not give them the right of representation in the parliament at Westminster. Going a step further, Paine felt that the colonists should declare their independence from England. This would lead to his most famous publication, Common Sense (American History 2012). In the Introduction to Common Sense, Paine (1997 [1776]) uses a subtitle that reads, “Addressed to the Inhabitants of America.” Originally published anonymously in January 1776, Paine’s pamphlet became a colonial bestseller. In a would-be nation of 4 million, some 150,000 copies were sold. That’s the equivalent of selling 12 million copies in today’s [2005] United States. Thomas Jefferson used it as a template when he sat down a few months later to write the Declaration of Independence, distilling many of Paine’s ideas—the natural dignity of humanity, the right to self-determination— in both context and form. (Ulin 2005:A13) Paine directly advocated the colonists’ right to declare their independence based on a number of “common sense” notions including moral and political, human dignity, the right for self-determination, and the belief that people should not be taxed without representation. Using plain language, Paine

64

Explaining Common Sense

addressed the “common” people of the United States and openly encouraged them to seek independence from England. In Common Sense, Paine wrote that it was inevitable for the colonists to seek independence from England because they had lost touch with the mother country. He justified the call for separation based on such straightforward terms as “nothing more than simple facts,” “plain arguments,” and “common sense” (American History 2012). Seeking common ground among the colonists for his call to revolution, Paine also invoked pragmatic terms that focused on security and economic independence (Ulin 2005). Paine (1997 [1776]) accused the Crown of abusing its power in the colonies and considered it absurd that an island (England) should attempt to rule a continent. Paine was not so much against government—he considered it a necessary evil—but rather against a government rule that did not provide its citizens with representation and frequent elections. Paine argued for a republican form of government under a written constitution for the colonists of the yet-to-be-formed United States of America. During the War of Independence, Paine volunteered in the Continental Army, and while he was not very successful as a soldier he started to write his highly influential 16 The American Crisis papers (1776–1783) which helped to inspire the Army. These essays were a part of Paine’s ongoing support for an independent and self-governing America. The American Crisis pamphlets were so popular that, based on a percentage of the population, they were read by or read to more people than today watch the Super Bowl (US History 2017). In 1777 he became Secretary of the Committee of Foreign Affairs in Congress, but two years later he was forced to resign because he had disclosed secret information. Paine had alluded to secret negotiations that were underway with France in his pamphlets prior to the signing of the Treaty of Alliance (Thomas Paine National Historical Association 2017). During the following nine years he worked as a clerk at the Pennsylvania Assembly and published several writings (American History 2012). In 1787, Paine left for England, but then moved to France to write about, and defend, the French Revolution. He later moved back to the United States and died in New York City. Paine’s profound influence in the United States remains intact today. He encouraged, supported, and helped to fight for American independence from the tyranny of the British Crown. But, what is most important in the context of this book is his use of common sense as a matter of fact and not a philosophical debate over its very existence as a real concept. For Paine, the notion of common sense is not questioned; indeed, it is treated as a given. Paine believed that certain beliefs and social realities could be treated as common sense because of their commonality among large numbers of people. In this regard, we see a shift in how common sense is viewed. Paine did not concern himself with how common sense arises or debate its merits as a concept but rather he assumed that common sense was a real thing. In fact, the notion of common sense was so real that it helped to stimulate the freedom of oppressed people.

Explaining Common Sense

65

Karl Marx, Conflict Theory, and Common Sense Sociological conflict theory has its roots in the ideas of Karl Marx (1818– 1883), Max Weber (1864–1920), and Georg Simmel (1858–1918). (Some of the ideas of Weber and Simmel will be discussed later in this chapter.) As we shall learn in this chapter and in Chapter 4, Marx has a tremendous impact on the social thought of many other significant theorists. In overly simplistic terms, conflict theory boils down to two things: (1) the ideas of Marx and (2) the realization that there is an imbalance in power found in society. The role of power in society is a common thread of analysis among all conflict theorists, and it is the theories of Marx in particular that are most evident in the conflict perspective. Marx did not “create” conflict theory; rather, it was his ideas on such subjects as class theory, human potential, the historical method, class conflict, class consciousness, capitalism, exploitation, and communism that influenced future social thinkers when they established conflict theory in the mid-twentieth century. The role of an imbalance in power is significant because power is the force that keeps the rich (the bourgeoisie) in control of the means of production and keeps the masses (the proletariat) subordinate to the social elites. From a Marxist and conflict perspective is a matter of common sense that the scarce resources, especially those found in the economic realm, should be shared among all people, including the proletariat, and not restricted to those who control the means of production. Marx is often referred to an “economic determinist” because he felt that all major aspects of society are centered on economic means, especially in terms of who controls the means of production. The relations of production are the result of the distribution of property. The possession of property becomes the critical issue of industrial production, which, in turn, constitutes the ultimate determination of the formation of classes and the inevitable development of class conflicts. Marx believes that capitalist societies are especially vulnerable to class conflict. He also argued that inherent in a capitalistic society is the tendency for the classes to polarize. As the social classes polarize, their class situations become increasingly extreme. Marx believed that class inequality would end with the collective control of property (the idea that all the people of society should collectively own property) and, thus, the reason why he promoted communism (communal ownership). With regard to common sense, Marx proposed that once the masses became aware (class consciousness) that they were being victimized by the bourgeoisie, they would rise in revolt and overthrow the social system that bound them to a life of subordination. On the other hand, it becomes a matter of common sense from the perspective of those who control the means of production to maintain their power position and not distribute wealth evenly. As it turned out, Marx overestimated the willingness and the ability of the masses to unite and overthrow the power elites (as common sense would dictate that their behavior should be). Sure, there have been plenty of examples of revolts and protests by the masses throughout the world and

66

Explaining Common Sense

throughout history but, generally, such rebellions are short-lived and unsuccessful. In the United States, for example, the wealthiest nation in the world, the inequality gap between the rich and the poor is the largest it’s ever been (Sherman 2015). The middle class tends not to revolt because they are relatively well off, economically speaking, but not as well off as the rich. (Marx would refer to this as “false consciousness”—the inability to acknowledge one’s own best interests.) In 2017, US President Donald Trump was able to spearhead a tax cut that provided crumbs to the middle class—who seemed content with a very modest increase in net pay—but provided huge benefits to the wealthy (thus, leading to an even greater social class polarization). The primary change in the tax plan overhaul reduced the rate businesses pay to 21 percent from 35 percent. Did the taxpayers revolt as common sense would dictate? No, they did not. The conflict perspective, built upon the basic ideas of Marx, views society as a system of social structures and relationships that are shaped mainly by economic forces. Those who are economically wealthy control the means of production and thus dominate society (e.g., through political means) because of their advantageous power position. Conflict theorists assume that social life revolves around the economic interests of the wealthy and that these people (often referred to as the “power elite”) use their economic power to coerce and manipulate others to accept their view of society—and of the world. Furthermore, because there is a clear power differential among individuals and social classes, resentment and hostility are constant elements of society. In the United States, this resentment is most evident with the poor and especially with persons of color but not with the middle class. Consider, for example, 2018 data from the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program that reveals the U.S. “national median income for white households is $63,257, compared to $47,029 in households of people of color” (Baker 2018:A16). From the conflict perspective, the obvious implication of this social reality is that conflict is inevitable. Following the Marxist tradition, conflict theory, in general, proposes that it is only a matter of common sense for the masses to demand a fair share of the distribution and allocation of scarce resources; on the other hand, it is a matter of common sense that the wealthy would not voluntarily want to give up their advantageous position. Furthermore, adhering to the norms and values of the power elites runs counter to the best interests of the masses and is, therefore, a violation of common sense.

Max Weber, Rationality, and Common Sense Max Weber (1864–1920), a German social thinker and one of the founding figures of sociology, is known for his work in the area of rationality. And while Weber did not articulate upon the topic of common sense, notions of common sense are prominent in his theories of social action; rationalization and formal rationality; and bureaucracy. The thread of rationalization links

Explaining Common Sense

67

all of these thoughts as Weber recognized that society was increasingly becoming dominated by the norms and values of rationalization. Weber conceived of sociology as a comprehensive science of social action. By action, Weber meant meaningful, purposive behavior, not merely reactive behavior. Working within these parameters, Weber argued that social action is generally very predictable. The notion of predicting behavior is generally viewed as a difficult task; especially considering the many social influences and near limitless potential courses of action open to individuals. However, Weber notes that humans enjoy routines and regular courses of action. People like the “feeling” of freedom, but even our leisure time arises precisely when it has been rationally calculated to fit our schedules. That we choose social action based on predetermined, rationally calculated schedules and patterns gives rise to the notion that our behavioral patterns tend to be viewed from a common-sense point of view. That is to say, we realize that certain courses of action have to follow other courses of action. For example, it becomes a matter of common sense that if we hope to go on vacation somewhere we need to first secure the financial means to do so and that implies the common-sense realization that we need to earn a living. The central importance of Weber’s work on social action is his idea that human behavior has become increasingly formally rational over the course of history. Formal rationality refers to the careful, planned, and deliberate matching of means to an end; in formally rational action, human beings identify and use means that they believe are most likely to bring a desired end. “All human beings engage in action, in meaningful behavior, but such behavior is not always formally rational. Only in modern societies does the mode of formal rationality pervade all spheres of action” (Garner 2000:88). Based on Weber’s formal rationality criteria, engaging in purposive behavior reveals predictable patterns of behaviors; behaviors that, because they serve a means to an end, come to be viewed as common sense courses of action. And, the more often people act in predictable manners, the easier it is to develop a common-sense perspective about the expectations of others’ social action. The caveat to formal rationality and the predictability of social action is emotional reactive behavior (e.g., anxiety, anger, envy, jealousy, love, pride, loyalty, etc.), as such acts driven by emotions are impediments to attaining rational goals. A rationalist would view emotional reactive behavior as irrational. Emotional and reactive behaviors may also interfere with the establishment of common-sense social action. Then again, the astute observer of human action will note patterns of social action that are emotionally driven and come to learn that certain, predictable, emotional reactions will occur when presented by specific stimuli; and thus, become a part of predictable common-sense social action. Rationalization, according to Weber, is the product of scientific specialization and technical differentiation. In other words, rationalization is a striving for perfection and refinement of the conduct of life (Freund 1968). Similar to

68

Explaining Common Sense

Marx’s notion of alienation, rationalization as well as bureaucratization seemed, for Weber, an inescapable fate for future society. The negative aspect of rationalization is clearly demonstrated by Weber’s use of the term an “Iron Cage” to describe the role of humans in future society. The increased bureaucratization of society would limit the activities and free-thinking of people and instead instill rationally based (from the perspective of the owners of the means of production) and established rules and procedures (e.g., employee manuals). Weber believed that bureaucracies are goal-oriented organizations designed according to rational principles in order to efficiently attain stated goals (e.g., maximization of profits). Offices are ranked in a hierarchical order, with information flowing up the chain of command and directives flowing down. Operations of the organizations are characterized by impersonal rules and explicitly stated duties, responsibilities, standardized procedures and conduct of workers and management. Offices are highly specialized. Appointments to these offices are rationally made based on specialization qualifications. All of the ideal characteristics of the bureaucracy are centered on the efficient attainment of the organization’s goals. Weber’s description of bureaucracies from over 100 years ago has proven to be true as there are concerted efforts in nearly all walks of life to streamline procedures based on rational principles (something George Ritzer would decades later refer to as the “McDonaldization of society”). What we can see by rationalization and bureaucratization is the further development of a common-sense world wherein people act according to role expectations. These expectations become so ingrained that it becomes a matter of “common sense” to behave in predictable ways. A teacher, for example, expects to walk into the classroom and take a position in the front of the room while looking upon students seated in their seats; and, students come to class, take their seats, and expect to see the teacher stand in front of them. To act in this manner is simply a matter of common sense from the perspectives of both teacher and students. Acting in a predictable manner such as the classroom is repeated in countless work and social settings across the globe. And when this type of “rational” behavior is repeated over and over again, it takes on the characteristics of common-sense behavior because we have knowledge learned through the socialization process that provides us with the ability to utilize that knowledge in warranted situations.

C. Wright Mills, Situated Actions, and Vocabularies of Motives and Common Sense C. Wright Mills (1916–1962) was born in Waco, Texas, on August 28, 1916, into a middle-class Catholic household. Mills earned his doctorate at the University of Wisconsin where he studied under Hans Gerth, a German émigré. “Far from the usual student-professor relationship, they soon engaged in a series of collaborative works focusing on social psychology and

Explaining Common Sense

69

introducing the work of the German sociologist Max Weber to an Englishspeaking audience” (Kivisto 1998:36). After earning his Ph.D., Mills moved to New York City and accepted a position at Columbia University (in 1945). Mills wrote for many left-wing journals, including the New Leader, the New Republic, the Partisan Review, and the union journal Labor and Nation (Scimecca 1977). While he is considered a significant and prominent figure in sociology, Mills was a rather controversial person who wrote on such topics as the power elites, conflict theory, the types of power (authority, manipulation, and coercion), and his famous “sociological imagination.” In the context of common sense, what is most relevant to us is Mills’ early social-psychological work on situated actions and vocabularies of motives as these concepts consist of common sense elements. In his article “Situated Actions and Vocabularies of Motive,” Mills (1940) states: Human actors do vocalize and impute motives to themselves and to others … Rather than fixed elements “in” an individual, motives are the terms with which interpretation of conduct by social actors proceeds. This imputation and avowal of motives by actors are social phenomena to be explained. The differing reasons men give for their actions are not themselves without reasons. (p. 904) Motives, then, according to Mills, are not innate but reflect personal desired courses of action and are designed to act as cues to others about the intent behind the behaviors of social actors. Vocabularies are important as they serve as the mechanisms of linkage to the motives of social actors’ actions. When social actors communicate with one another they are expressing desired courses of action; in turn, the communicated vocabularies of others leads typically to a reinforcement of the desired action, alternatives to desired social actions, or unexpected dialogues that may challenge desired courses of actions. Communicated vocabularies between social actors lead to conversations. As Mills (1940) explains, Conversation may be concerned with the factual features of a situation as they are seen or believed to be or it may seek to integrate and promote a set of diverse social actions with reference to the situation and its normative pattern of expectations. For Mills, motives represent a means of communication for anticipated situational social action. Intent is an important aspect of motives in that social actors communicate through language (vocabularies) their motives for intended social action. When people interact with one another they often expect the other to understand the intent behind the motive of communication being utilized. In this regard, the social actor comes to see a number of their intentional social

70

Explaining Common Sense

acts as a matter of common sense as people should understand, at least within situational circumstances, the meaning and motives attached to their social action. Weber had said about motives that the actor comes to see his communicated intentional social acts as adequate ground for his conduct and that his conduct should be understood by the other people involved in the situational setting. Weber also warned that the motives of social actors may actually be quite complex with potential multiple meanings. To this point, Mills recognized that different populations may have different interpretations of motives and use different vocabularies to express their motives. Mills (1940) also believed that “motives vary in content and character with historical epochs and societal structures” (p. 913). With these concerns in mind, we can see that situated actions and vocabularies of motive deemed as common sense by the social actor may not be interpreted as common sense by other actors involved in the situation. As we will learn in the following pages, a number of twentieth-century social thinkers will expand upon the notion that common sense not only varies by culture and time, it also varies by subcultures, location, stocks of knowledge possessed by social actors, and the taken-for-granted worlds in which people reside.

Symbolic Interactionism, Social Action, and Common Sense Symbolic interactionism is a term coined by Herbert Blumer and is a theoretical perspective most generally associated with George Herbert Mead. Blumer had been asked by Emerson P. Schmidt to contribute an article on social psychology to his book Man and Society (1937). Blumer used “the term symbolic interactionism in an attempt to clarify how social psychology was largely interested in the social development of the individual and that its central task was to study how the individual develops socially as a result of participating in group life” (Wallace and Wolf 1999:190). As essentially a social-psychological perspective, symbolic interactionism focuses primarily on the issue of self and in small group interactions. With such a focus, symbolic interactionism easily lends itself to the examination of common sense.

William James, Pragmatism, Habits, and Consciousness There are a number of diverse intellectual influences that led to the development of symbolic interactionism including the evolutionary ideas of Charles Darwin (he was an influence on Mead), the Scottish moralists (especially their belief that the “mind” and “self” were social products shaped by individuals’ interactions with others), German idealism (another influence on Mead), pragmatism (acting in pragmatic fashion gives rise to the notion of common sense); behaviorism (e.g., the examination of how people respond to stimuli), and William James (e.g., his work on pragmatism and distinguishing between instincts and habits) (Delaney 2005).

Explaining Common Sense

71

William James (1842–1910) was an American psychologist, philosopher, and an early proponent of pragmatism. James, along with Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) and John Dewey (1859–1952), is considered an important “classical pragmatist” having published Pragmatism: A New Name for an Old Way of Thinking (1907). For James, his views of pragmatism were more of a response against the metaphysical mindset of many of his contemporary philosophers and psychologists than a matterof-fact way of going about doing things. James did not clearly articulate pragmatism’s parameters but instead used examples to help illustrate his perspective. He generally deferred to Peirce as the primary authority on pragmatism. Peirce, with his concept of “critical common-sensism” believes that in “the case of inquiry every proposition to which we ascribe certainty should be first put into doubt by means of experience, imagination, and thought experiments” (Malitowska and Bonecki 2016: 187). Peirce applied critical common-sensism to habits (behaviors which embody the cultural understanding of the world). Habitual behavior comes to be seen as a matter of common sense as a result of “concrete thinking” about certain things; in turn, such thinking comes to take on pragmatic meaning (Malitowska and Bonecki 2016). Dewey put forth the notion that concrete thinking is used as a means to attaining some end and that it provides an immediate practical course of action toward that end. Furthermore, effective habits of thinking (the use of “tested beliefs” rather than “mere opinions”) can lead to more practical courses of actions which can be viewed as common-sense behaviors (Dewey 1938). Dewey, then, is attempting to articulate the meaning behind pragmatism via the logic and ethics of scientific inquiry. The ideas of James, Peirce, and Dewey would serve as an influence on Mead. Turning our attention back to James, we will learn that he would influence Mead not only on his ideas of pragmatism but the properties of his social psychology and symbolic interactionist approach overall. It was James’ ideas on “the self” that had particular importance to symbolic interactionism as he was “perhaps the first social scientist to develop a clear concept of self. James recognized that humans have the capacity to view themselves as objects and to develop self-feelings and attitudes toward themselves” (Turner 2002:344). In his Principles of Psychology (1948 [1890]), James called for a re-examination of the relations between the individual and society (Martindale 1988). Although James was a product of his time and had accepted the instinct theory that was so prevalent then, he began to believe that other aspects beyond biology tended to modify behavior. His works on “habits” were of special importance, as James recognized that habits reduce the need for conscious attention to every minute detail of social action. This important realization led to his idea that, unlike instinctual behavior, habitual behavior can be changed as actors are capable of modifying their habits (James 1948 [1890]). (Note: In Chapter 5, we will look at habits again in relation to a number of behaviors including smoking.)

72

Explaining Common Sense

A second critical aspect of James’ psychology was his rethinking of the role of “consciousness.” He noted that consciousness always involves some degree of awareness of the person’s self. The person appears in thought in two ways, “partly known and partly knower [and], partly object and partly subject … For shortness we may call one the Me and the other the I” (James 1948:176). Mead would later use the exact concepts of “me” and “I” in his description of “the self.” That individuals are consciously aware of themselves gives rise to the notion that we are certainly consciously aware of others. We tend to observe others’ behaviors and judge them compared to our own behaviors and come to see such acts as pragmatic, logical, or common sense, or as illogical and lacking in common sense.

Charles Horton Cooley, Symbols, Language, and Social Interaction Charles Horton Cooley (1864–1929) was a student of John Dewey and was well acquainted with the writings of William James, as well as of James Mark Baldwin (an American philosopher and theoretical psychologist who had a significant influence on early American psychology). Cooley and William James both identified the influence of the environment on behavior. The self is viewed as a process in motion, in which individuals see themselves as objects in the environment, and modify their behaviors as the situation dictates (a necessary ingredient for “common sense” behavior). Actors learn to act as the society (others) wants them to act, not as they themselves might want to act (thus, individuals do not react solely to a stimulus-response mechanism). It is important to note that symbolic interactionists often use the term “actor” in place of “individual” because of their belief that each of us acts in certain ways in certain situations and that we all put on performances in an attempt to support the role we are trying to convey. (This will be explained throughout our discussion on symbolic interactionism.) There are elements of symbolic interactionism that seem to have the notion of common sense built right into the theoretical perspective itself. Among these elements discussed by Cooley are the use of symbols, the role of language, explaining how social interaction occurs, and the human ability to modify their behaviors in given situations. As the theoretical name of this theory implies, symbolic interactionism is based on the idea that social reality is constructed in each human interaction through the use of symbols (Levin 1991). Put another way, we interact with others through the use of symbols. Symbols include such things as words (language) and gestures. When actors share a language, or at the very least understand the meanings of symbols and gestures used during interactions with others, they have a greater opportunity to interact with one another in a common-sense manner. The ability to communicate by the use of language becomes the primary method of symbolic interaction. Language allows individuals to discuss and understand ideas and events that transcend the immediate environment. “The interactionist assumes that human beings are capable of making their own

Explaining Common Sense

73

thoughts and activities objects of analysis, that is, they can routinely, and even habitually, manipulate symbols and orient their own activities towards other objects” (Denzin 1969:923). As a micro theory, symbolic interactionism has as a primary focus of study the behaviors and interactions of individuals. The study of common sense generally focuses on micro behaviors as well. Symbolic interactionists believe that studying social interaction is the key to understanding human behavior. Instead of focusing on the individual and his or her personality characteristics, or on how the social structure or social situation causes individual behavior, symbolic interactionism focuses on the nature of interaction, the dynamic social activities taking place between persons. In focusing on the interaction itself as the unit of study, the symbolic interactionist creates a more active image of the human being and rejects the image of the passive, determined organism. (Charon 1989:22) The focus on social interaction is transferable to the study of common sense as any notion of one using, or failing to use, common sense falls under the parameters of the expected behavior of actors during interaction. Cooley believed that during social interaction, social acts and events come to be defined in some matter by participating interactants. As actors evaluate a given situation they may find it necessary to modify their behaviors. The ability to modify behavior is clearly a trait that humans possess even if many often fail to employ this potentially pragmatic option when seemingly a different course of action might be warranted in order to behave in a common-sense manner.

George Herbert Mead, Pragmatism, the Social Act, Gestures, and Language George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) was born on February 27, 1863, in South Hadley, Massachusetts. Mead attended Harvard University where his philosophical interests lay in the romantic philosophers and Hegelian (German) idealism. He studied under William James, whom he worked for; he also tutored James’ children (Miller 1973). Although he found James’ philosophy courses stimulating, Mead also felt that they were too abstract and isolated from the real world (Pampel 2000). Unhappy with the abstract nature of philosophy, Mead decided to change his course of study to physiological psychology. In 1889, he accepted a scholarship offer to study in Germany, the location of the world’s most renowned specialists in physiological psychology (Pampel 2000). Mead never did earn his doctorate and in 1891 settled for a lecturer’s teaching position at the University of Michigan, teaching philosophy and psychology (Scheffler 1974). This turned out to be very advantageous as Mead’s colleagues at Michigan included Charles Cooley, James Tufts, and

74

Explaining Common Sense

John Dewey. Mead and Dewey quickly recognized their similar interests and became lifelong friends. In 1893, Dewey received an offer to become the chair of the department of philosophy at the upstart University of Chicago. Dewey insisted that Mead be allowed to join in the department as well. Mead would remain at the university for the rest of his life. Mead is generally considered the most influential of the social thinkers in the field of symbolic interactionism. A critical influence on Mead’s intellectual thinking was pragmatism. As Morris explains in the “Introduction” to Mead’s (1934) Mind, Self and Society, “Philosophically, Mead was a pragmatist, scientifically, he was a social psychologist” (p. ix). Mead is often considered one of the key figures in the development of American pragmatism even though he learned about it from Dewey, James, and Baldwin; Mead gave these thinkers full credit for introducing him to the pragmatic way of thinking. Pragmatism is, in essence, the extension of the scientific method to all areas of intellectual inquiry, including psychology, sociology, and philosophy. All ideas and theories are tested on their ability to solve problems and provide useful information. Thus, an idea can be evaluated in terms of its consequences. Mead’s version of pragmatism goes beyond the everyday usage of “being pragmatic” in reference to any practical, matter-of-fact viewpoint or behavior and instead is meant as a methodology to advance all facets of human knowledge and improve the human condition by the rigorous application of scientific methods (Baldwin 1986). Mead (1938) viewed pragmatism as “a natural American outgrowth” as it reflected the triumph of science in American society and a belief in the superiority of scientific data and analysis over philosophical dogma and other forms of “inferior” beliefs (a clear attack on the tradition and faith paradigms of thought). Pragmatists reject the idea of absolute truths and regard all ideas as provisional and subject to change in light of future research (Ritzer 2000). While Mead may have employed a version of pragmatism that is “beyond” reference to practical, matter-of-fact, everyday events, it is this variation of pragmatism that is applicable to the study of common sense. It is applicable because actors rarely conduct rigorous scientific research throughout the day as they potentially interact with dozens or more people in a variety of settings. We do, in fact, work with a “matter-of-fact” reality as it allows us to more easily proceed to the next social interaction. Pragmatists also believe that humans reflect on the meaning of a stimulus before reacting. The meaning placed on various social acts depends on the purpose of the act, and the context of others to the act (Adams and Sydie 2001). Because the meanings that actors place on social acts are subject to reflection and interpretation they come to see certain courses of actions as obvious, or as common sense. Mead’s notion of the act was directly influenced by Dewey and Cooley. Dewey believed that reflexive action(s) leads to the construction of viewpoints on a wide variety of issues, such as morality. Thus, Mead came to view even

Explaining Common Sense

75

issues such as ethics and morality as socially constructed and not fixed entities. Different cultures are easily explained by the realization of the fact that people with different life experiences come to different interpretations of events and impose different meanings on acts. This realization helps to explain why notions of common sense are not necessarily shared universally. In The Philosophy of the Act (1938), Mead identified four basic and interrelated stages in the act: 1

2

3

4

Impulse: The impulse involves “gut” reactions or immediate responses to certain stimuli. It refers to the “need” to do something. Reactions to this impulse still involve a level of contemplation and decision-making. Perception: The second stage of the act is perception. The actor must know how to react to the impulse. Actors will use their senses as well as mental images in an attempt to satisfy impulses (Ritzer 2000). Because actors are bombarded with potentially limitless stimuli, they must choose among sets of stimuli that provide the characteristics most beneficial to them and ignore those which do not. Manipulation: Once the impulse has been manifested and the object has been perceived, the actor must take some sort of action with regard to it. For example, if a thirsty person views a friend enjoying a refreshing drink, he or she has an impulse to acquire a drink as well. The thirsty person must now observe the environment and search for courses of action to satisfy the impulse. The actor may ask the friend for some of the beverage, ask the friend if there is another beverage, or find a drink on his or her own. Consummation: At this point, the actor has followed through on a course of action and can consummate the act by satisfying the impulse (e.g., going to the kitchen and getting a drink from the refrigerator).

The social act may be defined as one in which the stimulus (or situation) sets free an impulse (found in the very character of nature of its being) that then triggers possible reactions from those found in the environment (Reck 1964). Mead restricted the “social act” to the class or acts that involve the cooperation of more than one individual, and whose object as defined by the act, is a social object (Reck 1964). The basic mechanism of the social act is the gesture. According to Thayer (1968), the importance that Mead placed on gestures was influenced by Darwin’s Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals (1872), in which Darwin described physical attitudes and physiological changes as expressive of emotions (e.g., a dog baring its teeth for attack). This suggested an evolutionary biological origin of the gesture of language, which Mead found appealing (Thayer 1968). However, he objected to Darwin’s subjectivistic psychological theory that emotions are inner states and gestures are the outward expressions of those ideas and meanings (Thayer 1968). Mead emphasized the importance of the vocal gesture because the individual

76

Explaining Common Sense

who sends a vocal gesture can perceive the vocal signal in much the same way as the listener. That shared perception, however, does not guarantee that the listener will respond in the manner that the sender anticipated (Baldwin 1986). Verbal gestures represent signs, which, being heard by the maker as well as other parties in the social act, can serve as a common sign to all parties in the social act. The mutually understood gesture becomes a significant symbol (Martindale 1988). Common gestures allow for the development of language and create significant symbols. Symbols allow people to communicate more easily. Consequently, a shared language greatly assists the whole society to function more efficiently. The development of symbolic communication leads to inner conversation with the mind, and to reflective intelligence (Baldwin 1986). When people react to gestures and symbols similarly, they form the basis for a common-sense outlook on how social acts should be consummated. We will revisit the ideas of Mead in Chapter 5 when we examine how people learn about common sense.

Herbert Blumer, Meanings, Language, Gestures, and Social Action Herbert Blumer (1900–1987) taught at the University of Chicago from 1927 to 1952, having completed his doctoral dissertation 1928 under the guidance of Ellsworth Faris, a disciple of George Herbert Mead. Mead’s social psychology courses regularly drew a large number of sociology students, including Blumer. In fact, when Mead became ill during his last quarter of instruction at the University of Chicago, he asked Blumer to take over his major course, “Advanced Social Psychology.” Blumer was one of sociology’s most prominent and esteemed practitioners, and for an entire generation he was the leading spokesperson for symbolic interactionism. It is little wonder that Blumer was considered the leading proponent of early symbolic interactionism as he was the person who coined the term. Blumer conceived of symbolic interactionism much in the manner as articulated by Mead in his 1934 classic, and posthumously published book, Mind, Self and Society. Elaborating on his meaning of symbolic interactionism, Blumer (1937) proposed three simple premises: The first premise is that human beings act toward things on the basis of meanings that the things have for them … A second premise is that the meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with one’s fellows. The third premise is that these meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he encounters. (p. 2) Blumer’s writings “attempt to capture the fluidity of social action, the reflexivity of the self, and the negotiated character of much of everyday life” (Farganis 2000:349). Blumer believed that humans construct their own actions

Explaining Common Sense

77

free of internal drives. Instead, social actions are a consequence of reflective and deliberate processes determined by the individual in response to the environment. Further, Blumer believed that humans act on the basis of meaning. Meanings arise during the interactive process, which itself is mediated by language. Language allows individuals to take the role and perspective of the other in order to better understand the true meaning of one’s own and others’ behavior. That humans can reflect and find meaning in behavior and come to expect others to act a certain way in certain situations gives rise to the notion of acting in a common-sense manner. Blumer himself insisted that the first premise of symbolic interactionism— that “humans act toward things on the basis of meanings”—is merely common sense and cannot be argued against. Adding to this, Blumer argues that there comes a time when shared meanings for things can be treated in a taken-for-granted manner. With all this mind, Blumer is convinced that there is such a thing as common sense; viewing human social action on the basis of meanings is an example of common sense; and, living in a taken-for-granted world becomes even further proof that people interact with one another in a common-sense manner. (Note: We will explore this notion of the “taken-for-granted” world further when we look at phenomenology and ethnomethodology.) Blumer argued that in order for humans to interact, they must be able to communicate; to communicate effectively, they must share a language. This simple realization that humans interpret each other’s actions is the foundation of symbolic interactionism. As Farganis (2000) explains, “Blumer views symbolic interactionism as a uniquely human process in that it requires the definition and interpretation of language and gestures and the determination of the meaning of the actions of others as well” (p. 350). The importance that Blumer places on interpretation is an elaboration of Mead’s argument against Watsonian behaviorism (the behavioristic approach of John B. Watson) or any mechanical stimulus-response approach. Blumer and Mead insisted that both covert (subjective meanings, the thinking process) and overt (actual, observable) behaviors be analyzed when scientific explanations of human interaction are offered (Wallace and Wolf 1999). Furthermore, gestures are a key element in the interpretation process: They help to shape an awareness context. This awareness context is illustrated in Glaser and Strauss’ (1965) classic study of dying patients (Awareness of Dying), in which the patients learned to interpret the gestures of their nurses. The patient’s awareness of dying served as the context of their study. The context of this study itself is important as well because in the early 1960s people did not openly talk about dying and were prone to avoid telling a person that he or she was dying. Nursing and medical education were focused on the technical aspects of dealing with patients, with little acknowledgment to psychological aspects of care (Andrews 2015). Glaser and Strauss (1965) found that the closer to death a patient was the more likely medical personnel were to try and avoid conversations with them. The nursing staff would also make a number of subtle

78

Explaining Common Sense

gestures that eventually patients picked up on as cues to their impending death (or recovery). Among other things, Glaser and Strauss’ study demonstrated the link between common gestures and their transference into knowledge that would come to be seen as common sense by those who have experience with loved ones facing death in a care facility.

Erving Goffman, the Presentation of Self, and Common Sense Another important figure in the field of early symbolic interactionism is Erving Goffman (1922–1982). Goffman was born in Manville, Alberta, Canada, on June 11, 1922. He graduated from the University of Toronto in 1945 and for his graduate studies went to the University of Chicago, where he studied under Herbert Blumer. Perhaps Goffman’s most famous work, and his first major publication, is Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959). Presentation of Self is very much in the tradition of symbolic interactionism because of its focus on the individual as an active and reflective self capable of making a vast number of choices in determining how the self should be presented in the varied social situations in which it must perform. It is with this publication that Goffman set the tone for symbolic interactionists to refer to individuals as “actors.” In the preface of Presentation of Self, Goffman states that the perspective used in the book is that of the theatrical performance; the principles derived are dramaturgical ones. I shall consider the way in which the individual in ordinary work situations presents himself and his activity to others, the ways in which he guides and controls the impression they form of him, and the kinds of things he may and may not do while sustaining his performance before them. (p. xi) The dramaturgical perspective compares all human interaction to a theatrical or dramatic performance. Society is viewed as a stage where humans are actors giving performances for audiences. While acting, individuals attempt to present themselves according to their identity constructs. The “self label” is an identify that one presents to others in an attempt to manage their impression of him or her. Individuals give off signs to provide others with information about how to “see” them. The implications of the presentation of self concept to common sense are very evident and clear as it becomes a matter of “common sense” for people to act in a certain way in certain settings. A teacher acts one way in the classroom, another way with his or her significant other, another way while interacting with his or her children, yet another way while attending a ballgame or shopping and so on. Thus, we all put on performances in certain settings so that others see us as we want to be seen based on our

Explaining Common Sense

79

presentation of self. Notions of common sense abound as we begin to realize that acting in a certain manner (presentation of self) in warranted situations becomes a norm of expected behavior with corresponding social expectations that are treated as common sense by others. As a matter of illustration of the presentation of self and its connection to common sense consider the scenario of the job interview. The person applying for the job implicitly requests that the observers (those doing the interviewing) take seriously the impression that is fostered before them. They (the observers) are asked to believe that the presented self put forth by the individual applying for the job actually possesses the attributes presented. During the interview the person applying for the job should utilize all the proper props, such as an updated résumé, a prepared verbal and or visual presentation if called upon to do so, and, at the very least, be dressed in a manner warranted for that situation. For example, if the position being applied for is in a professional, management environment, being dressed in appropriate business attire is critical as it conveys to others the manner in which we want to be evaluated. Proper dress is important in many settings, and how one dresses often influences the way one is perceived. So, while it is generally important to dress professionally for a job interview in a professional setting, you would not dress that same way if applying for a job as a welder at an oil field. It is so clearly important to “dress the part” during the job interviewing process that it falls under the domain of an obvious social expectation and such obvious social expectations come to be viewed as a matter of common sense.

Phenomenology and Common Sense Phenomenology is an excellent theoretical perspective to examine the concept of common sense because that is precisely one of its primary focal areas of study. Phenomenology examines common sense, conscious experience, and routine daily life. In this regard, phenomenology may be placed in the category of sociologies of everyday life. In the preface to Introduction to the Sociologies of Everyday Life, Jack Douglas (1980) argued that the sociologists of everyday life have for many years been rebuilding the foundation for understanding all human life and thus rebuilding the foundation of all theory and method in the social sciences. These concentrated efforts have led to five major bodies of theoretical ideas called the sociology of everyday life: symbolic interactionism; dramaturgical analysis; labeling theory; phenomenology and ethnomethodology; and existentialism (Delaney 2005). The sociology of everyday life is a sociological orientation concerned with experiencing, observing, understanding, describing, analyzing, and communicating about people interacting in concrete situations. Right away, we can see the relevance of the sociologies of everyday life to the study of common sense as any notion of common sense is directly connected to social action among actors in actual situations. The sociologist of everyday life

80

Explaining Common Sense

studies face-to-face social interactions by observing and experiencing them in natural situations, that is, in situations that have not been scientifically manipulated. The sociologist begins with an analysis of the actors’ meanings of their behaviors. With these ideas in mind, phenomenology can be defined as a philosophical sociology that begins with the individual and his or her own conscious experience as the focus of study and attempts to avoid prior assumptions, prejudices, and other dogmatic forms of thinking while investigating social behavior (Delaney 2014). A phenomenologist would like people not to take for granted the social world and, instead, to question its formation and maintenance. The phenomenological approach to common sense would be a cautionary one as this theoretical perspective warns us that because every individual has different life experiences, the notion of common sense itself varies from person to person. The roots of phenomenology are firmly entrenched in the German tradition in general, and in Edmund Husserl specifically, as it was Husserl who first developed the phenomenological approach.

Edmund Husserl, the Rudiments of Common Sense Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) is generally regarded as the “father” of phenomenology. He was born on April 8, 1859, in the town of Prossnitz in Moravia, then a part of the Austrian Empire. Husserl was influenced by such social thinkers as René Descartes, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant. Husserl’s ideas are often very complex and confusing, and at times, seemingly contradictory. However as we review his ideas we can see that many of the concepts (e.g., perception, memories, retention, reflection, and recollections of mental glances) he discussed serve as the rudiments of common sense. In Ideem I (1950 [1913]) Husserl described phenomenology as a “doctrine of essences.” Husserl distinguished essences from facts. He described sciences of experience as sciences of “fact.” Such “facts” are determined by acts of cognition which underline human experiences. Something is real and thus a fact because it possesses a spatiotemporal existence, having a particular duration of its own and a “real” content (Husserl 1931). An essence is that which an individual discloses as a “what is,” an empirical possibility—a possibility which is itself to be understood not as empirical, but as an essential possibility (Husserl 1931). Husserl noted that whatever belongs to the essence of one individual can also belong to another individual. Shared essences give rise to the notion of common sense as it is possible for social interactants to share perceptions of a situation. These shared perceptions of a situation allow for individuals to interact with one another in a taken-for-granted manner. Husserl viewed phenomenology as a type of science but, above all, as a method and an attitude of mind. It is a philosophical attitude of mind that incorporates a philosophical method. The research focus of phenomenology is the understanding of pure transcendental consciousness and involves

Explaining Common Sense

81

suspending the “givens” of the natural world (as perceived by the researcher). The idea of “givens” was derived from Kant, who argued that researchers can never attain “true” knowledge about things because knowledge is mediated through certain fundamental mental categories, or “givens.” Kant argued that we treat the world “as if” something is true—which equates to a priori reasoning. In other words, everything we “know” is relative to personal experience and preconceived notions about things. While the German tradition involves questioning whether or not “truth” can truly be discovered by researchers and scientists, it is the nature of treating certain things as “givens” that gives rise to people behaving in a common-sense manner in warranted situations. Treating certain aspects of the real world as a given allows social actors to ignore some details while concentrating on others. For example, when an individual goes to a car dealership to purchase a new car, we can treat as a “given” the reality that the customer wants the best deal possible; this is an example of common sense. However, we can also treat as a given that the car salesperson also wants to make as much money as possible for him- or herself, as well as for the car dealership; this is also a matter of common sense. Each of the interactants realizes that the other is trying to maximize their perception of a “good” deal. In order for both the salesperson and car buyer to feel good about their interaction they both need to somehow feel that they got a bargain. The reader may recall the discussion in Chapter 1 on whether or not it is a matter of common sense to purchase an extended warranty. In that situation it could also be treated as a “given” that the buyer of the automobile does not want to spend extra money unnecessarily and that it is also a given that the auto dealership also wants to sell customers every possible optional feature in an effort to maximize their profit. Building off the idea of treating certain things in the real world as “givens” is the sociology of Georg Simmel (1858–1918), a German sociologist who specialized in examining micro behavior, and a social thinker known as the founder of the “Formal School” of sociology. One of Simmel’s dominant concerns was the “form,” rather than the “content,” of social interaction. From Simmel’s standpoint, the real world is composed of innumerable events, actions, interactions, and so forth. To cope with this maze of reality, people order it by imposing patterns, or forms, on it. Therefore, instead of a bewildering array of specific events, the actor is confronted with a limited number of “forms.” Simmel argued that people interact with one another based on their forms of reality. In fact, he stated that society itself consists of a number of social webs (forms), and networks of patterned interactions. Categorizing the world in forms and envisioning interactions as a series of patterned events allows for the implementation of a common-sense approach among social actors (Delaney 2004). Furthermore, Simmel’s categorizing of the world in forms and patterned interactions gave rise to the answer to his question, “How is society possible?” Simmel, using Kant’s reasoning in explaining how nature was possible (Kant said that nature was nothing but the representation of nature—that nature is organized by human understanding in accordance

82

Explaining Common Sense

with certain a priori principles of knowledge) believed that society is the result of the unity of reciprocal parts that consisted of a web, or a network, of patterned interactions. Simmel believed that it is the role of sociology to study the forms of these interactions as they occur and reoccur in different times and settings. In his 1895 publication “The Problem of Sociology,” Simmel states, “Society is merely the name for a number of individuals, connected by interaction.” Returning to Husserl, he believed that objectivity is a goal of science, but objectivity is always influenced by perceptions. Perception itself is influenced by many factors but especially by retention and memory—both of which are important elements of common sense. Memories, according to Husserl (1964), consist of forms of objects, and interconnected with these different forms are givens about the social world that allow social actors to recall past courses of actions. “The mental process which we are now undergoing becomes objective to us in immediate reflection, and thenceforth it displays in reflection the same objectivity” (Husserl 1964:52). Thus, objectivity, in many cases, is something conjured up by individuals via a mental glance of past memories. The social actor comes to see their own past memories as an example of objectivity and behaves according to what they now perceive as common sense. We can see the potential fallacy of common sense because of this process of recalling past memories as objective facts. Each actor involved in social interaction brings with them different perceptions based, in part, on their memories and their ability to properly recall a memory. From this phenomenological approach, Husserl (1931) viewed humans acting in accordance with both past behavior (memories) and current situations (that need to be interpreted for possible courses of action). Humans, then, are aware of things not only in perception (the current situation), but also consciously in recollections and in representations similar to recollections. Reflexivity provides the individual an opportunity for an inner mental glance toward itself. Recollections make it possible for individuals to perceive acts and situations in certain ways. The retention of memories is an important factor in perception, and consequently in one’s consciousness. Retention is a characteristic modification of perceptual consciousness, which is a primal impression in the primordial, temporally constitutive consciousness, and, with reference to temporal objects, whether or not it is consciousness of the immanent—as an enduring sound in the tonal field or a color-datum in the visual field—perceptual consciousness is immanent (adequate) perception. (Husserl 1964:159) From Husserl, then, we learn that when certain elements are combined— perception, memories, retention, reflection, and recollections of mental glances—we have the rudiments that assist the actor with social interactions with

Explaining Common Sense

83

others. These same fundamentals also assist notions of common sense that actors bring with them while interacting with others.

Alfred Schutz, the Life-World, Stocks of Knowledge, and Common Sense Alfred Schutz (1899–1959) was born in Vienna, Austria, and earned a law degree at the University of Vienna. While attending the university, Schutz attended lectures given by Max Weber. Schutz never studied under Husserl but the two visited often and kept in correspondence until Husserl’s death (1938). Schutz is responsible for developing phenomenology as a sociological science. His Phenomenology of the Social World (1967 [1932]) combined Weber’s sociology with Husserl’s phenomenological method. Schutz’s publications would have a lasting impact on phenomenological sociology (especially through the works of Thomas Luckmann and Peter Berger) and influenced the writings of Harold Garfinkel’s ethnomethodological sociology. Schutz’s works have a direct connection to notions of common sense as he examined the ordinary, everyday interactions of people and was concerned with the social construction of the life-worlds of individuals. He was especially concerned with the methods that people use to construct their versions of reality through everyday experiences. It is the construction of the life-worlds of people that lead to their interpretation as to what constitutes common sense. A major aspect of Schutz’s work on these concerns of study involves the concept of “stock of knowledge.” Schutz believed that all individuals possess a “stock of knowledge” (past experiences) that they draw upon when confronting situations (similar or new) in the social world. A stock of knowledge is like a recipe of conceptions of appropriate behavior that enable individuals to think of the world as made up of “types” of things (e.g., categories of sports, movies, emojis, and automobiles). The stock of knowledge that people possess is determined by their life experiences and education. A diverse awareness of events will dramatically increase one’s stock of knowledge. Stocks of knowledge, especially the habitual, come to be so taken-for-granted that the individual may come to view certain situations as being dictated by the concept of common sense. Schutz realized that labeling certain situations and events as “common sense” may present potential dangers (for both the researcher and social actors) as there may be a lack of objective verification. As presented above, Schutz realized that researchers must often draw upon their own experiences in order to fill in the blanks of the social situation under examination. They are drawing upon their stock of knowledge. Social actors also draw upon their stock of knowledge while interacting with one another in the social environment. As Wallace and Wolf (1999) explain: For Schutz, the definition of the situation includes the assumption that individuals draw on a common stock of knowledge, that is, social recipes of conceptions of appropriate behaviors that enable them to think of the

84

Explaining Common Sense world as made up “types” of things like books, cars, houses, clothing, and so on. Schutz’s idea of stock of knowledge is similar to Mead’s generalized other. Schutz thus views individuals as constructing a world by using typifications (or ideal types) passed onto them by their social group. (p. 255)

Schutz and Luckmann (1973) categorized a number of types of stocks of knowledge, some of which seem to overlap. A few examples are provided here. Routine knowledge refers to the ability to differentiate between common situations (routine) and unique ones. Useful knowledge refers to the awareness of everyday events and being able to accomplish acts that represent a “means to an end.” This type of knowledge allows individuals to solve problems. Habitual knowledge presents “definitive” solutions to problems, which are organized in the flow of lived experiences, and require little attention (e.g., getting dressed, texting, whistling a song while working on a mathematical problem). Schutz stated that a certain amount of habitual knowledge belongs to everyone’s stock of knowledge. “The ‘content’ of this knowledge is indeed variable, but not in the same sense that the partial contents of the stock of knowledge are variable from society to the next and within a society” (Schutz and Luckmann 1973:109). From this quote we learn that Schutz and Luckmann acknowledge that what might appear as common-sense knowledge in one society, or in one subculture, may differ in others. Thus, the notion of common sense being universally common knowledge is incorrect. Instead, any notion of common sense is tied directly to one’s past experiences; it is learned, it is not innate. As Schutz and Luckmann (1973) explain, “No element of knowledge can be traced to any sort of ‘primordial experience’” (p. 119). The acquisition of knowledge is a lifelong process, and it continually reshapes our perception of the world. Stocks of knowledge, especially the habitual, come to be so taken for granted that the social actor may come to view certain situations as being dictated by the idea of common sense. Labeling situations and events as being dictated by common sense presents many potential problems (for both the researcher and the interactants). Schutz (1962) stated that: even the thing perceived in everyday life is more than a simple sense presentation. It is a thought object, a construct of a highly complicated nature … in other words, the so-called concrete facts of common-sense perception are not as concrete as it seems. They already involve abstractions of a highly complicated nature, and we have to take account of this situation lest we commit the fallacy of misplaced connectedness. (pp. 3–4) All of our knowledge of the world, including all four of the major paradigms of thought, involves constructs (e.g., generalizations, formalizations, and idealizations). This does not mean that we are incapable of understanding the

Explaining Common Sense

85

reality of the world; it just means that we merely grasp only certain aspects of it. Schutz (1962) further explains: Common-sense constructs are formed from a “Here” within the world which determines the presupposed reciprocity of perspectives. They take a stock of socially derived and socially approved knowledge for granted. The social distribution of knowledge determines the particular structure of the typifying construct, for instance, the assumed degree of anonymity of personal roles the standardization of course-of-action patterns, and the supposed constancy of motives. (p. 38) These taken-for-granted and common-sense patterns are relevant only to those with shared life experiences. Thus, the behaviors of one person may seem to violate the common sense of another person, but the person who has no awareness context of the expected and “proper” course of action has not violated common sense. Add to this, the reality that many people regularly violate so-called common sense (see Chapter 6). It is the everyday life-world that remains the cornerstone of interest to phenomenologists. Schutz and Luckmann (1973) stated that the everyday life-world is the region of reality in which man can engage himself and which he can change while he operates in it by means of his animate organism … Only in this realm can one be understood by his fellow-men, and only in it can he work together with them. Only in the world of everyday life can a common, communicative, surrounding world be constituted. This world of the everyday life is consequently man’s fundamental and paramount reality. (p. 3) Thus, the life-world is found in the everyday world. The everyday reality of the life-world includes both natural elements found in the environment and the social elements created by culture. Schutz believed that the everyday lifeworld is the primary reality for individuals because it encompasses most of their daily activities.

Peter Berger, the Social Construction of Reality, and Common Sense Peter Berger (1929–2017), was an Austrian-born renowned sociologist, social critic, theologian, novelist, and among the most significant contemporary phenomenologists. Among his many publications, Berger’s most significant contribution to sociology is The Social Construction of Reality (1966), which he co-authored with Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality was intended as a systematic, theoretical treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Berger and Luckmann argued that reality is socially constructed and

86

Explaining Common Sense

that the sociology of knowledge must analyze the processes in which this occurs. The key terms in these contentions are “reality” and “knowledge,” terms that are not only current in everyday speech, but that have behind them a long history of philosophical inquiry … for our purposes, [we] define “reality” as a quality appertaining to phenomena that we recognize as having a being independent of our own volition (we cannot “wish them away”), and to define “knowledge” as the certainty that phenomena are real and that they possess specific characteristics. (p. 1) It is difficult to argue with the premise that sociology has a strong interest in regard to “reality” and “knowledge” if for no other reason than their social relativity. Sociology involves the scientific study of society and, in order to study society, it must consist of “social reality.” In addition, our examination of society is based on our knowledge of it (Delaney 2005). However, social reality is greatly influenced by culture, and therefore, one person’s (such as a Tibetan monk’s) sense of reality may be drastically different from another’s (such as street gang member from Compton, CA). Once again, then, we see that notions of reality, including common sense, are subject to different interpretations based on the knowledge people have gained through the socialization process, personal experience, observation, and by reason. The foundation of reality is found in everyday life, and more precisely, the knowledge that guides conduct in everyday life. Berger and Luckmann (1966) explain: The world of everyday life is not only taken for granted as reality by the ordinary members of society in the subjectively meaningful conduct of their lives, it is a world that originates in their thoughts and actions and is maintained as real by these. (p. 19) Berger and Luckmann contend that every society has its own specific way of defining and perceiving reality. This social construction of reality, in turn, affects the way individuals perceive common sense.

Ethnomethodology and the Commonsense World Ethnomethodology involves the study of everyday people in their social worlds, including their interactions and conversations. Ethnomethodologists are interested in mundane and common sense knowledge, and in the range of procedures and considerations by means of which the ordinary members of society make sense of, find their way about, and act on the circumstances in

Explaining Common Sense

87

which they find themselves. The leading proponent of ethnomethodology is Harold Garfinkel.

Harold Garfinkel, Taken-for-Granted World, Accounts, and the Commonsense World Harold Garfinkel (1917–2011) was born in Newark, New Jersey and earned his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1952. In the fall of 1954 he accepted a position as an assistant professor at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), where he remained for the rest of his illustrious career, and developed ethnomethodology. Ethno refers to people, method refers, simply, to the methods used by people, and ology, refers to the “study of.” Put together, ethnomethodology can be defined as the study of the methods people use to sustain their taken-for-granted world. Ethnomethodology is an approach to understanding social interaction based on the assumption that social reality is negotiated by participating interactants. The basic assumption of ethnomethodology is that we live in a taken-for-granted world; that is, we expect people to behave predictably in certain situations. Ethnomethodologists argue that life consists of many ordered situations and activities and that most people take comfort in the familiar. As we can clearly see, the idea that people interact with one another in a taken-for-granted manner and expect others to behave predictably in warranted situations is the cornerstone of the common-sense perspective. Garfinkel believes that people employ a number of methods to make sense of their world. A key method used by social actors involves accountability, or making “accounts” of their behavior. As Turner (2003) explains, Garfinkel placed considerable emphasis on language as the vehicle by which this reality construction is done. Indeed, for Garfinkel, interacting individuals’ efforts to account for their actions—that is, to represent them verbally to others—are the terms, to do interaction is to tell interaction, or in other words, the primary fold technique used by actors is verbal description. In this way, people use their accounts to construct a sense of reality. (p. 421) The accounts of people reflect how social order is possible. As Ritzer (2003) explains, “Accounts are the ways in which actors explain (describe, criticize, and idealize) specific situations” (p. 155). Agreeing with Ritzer, Turner (2003) states, “Garfinkel placed enormous emphasis on indexicality—that is, members’ accounts are tied to particular contexts and situations” (p. 421). Garfinkel (1967) states that accounts are social creations built from past interactions that help to put order to the social lives of people and also serve as a means of justifying their behaviors. When others do not behave as we expected, especially in “common sense” situations, social actors often want an explanation, or an account, as to why they behaved in the manner they did.

88

Explaining Common Sense

For example, if a 16-year-old has an 11:00 p.m. curfew established by her parents but comes home from a date at midnight, her parents will ask her to account for her tardiness—“Why are you so late getting home?” The daughter may try to justify her violation of the curfew deadline by giving such accounts as, “We lost track of time” or “We got a flat tire on the drive home and there wasn’t a spare tire.” The parents, reinforcing why they have a curfew, may make their own account for why they have a curfew and respond, “You should have called us if you were in trouble as we were worried about you.” Harold Garfinkel is among the few social thinkers to specifically discuss common sense as a concept. He used the term “the commonsense world” to expand upon the idea of taken-for-granted world. From the theoretical writings of Schutz, Garfinkel created a number of “determinants” to define an event as an occurrence in the commonsense world (Rogers 1983). In brief, some of the determinants that assume the label of commonsense include viewing specific events as objective facts; viewing the meanings of events as products of a socially standardized process of naming, reification, and idealization of the user’s stream of experience (that is, as the products of language); applying past determinants of events to similar present and future events; and viewing alterations of descriptions of events as remaining in the control of the participating actors. Of greater concern for sociologists and other social researchers, but of less concern for us here, is the attention that Garfinkel paid to the researchers who also often rely on a taken-for-granted, commonsensical approach to the study of human behavior. Nonetheless, Garfinkel remains steadfast in the idea that scientific sociology is a fact, and not merely based on common sense. It can be a science if it follows certain policies of scientific production. Now, if only social actors used an enlightened, rational thought process as they engage in daily activities and interactions with others just as sociologists do when they study the social world! (Note: This idea will be further examined in Chapter 7.) In order to test his theory that centers on the idea that people not only interact with others in a commonsense manner but also find comfort in such a taken-for-granted world, Garfinkel employed a methodological approach designed to disturb the normal situations of interaction. A methodological key used by ethnomethodologists is intentional disruption of the process of reality negotiation or meaning construction. When a researcher upsets the process by which the meaning of a situation is negotiated, the normally hidden methods of the negotiation can be starkly highlighted. (Levin 1991:62) The primary method utilized by Garfinkel and other ethnomethodologists is conducting a breaching experiment. Breaching experiments involve violating

Explaining Common Sense

89

the everyday rules of social interaction as a technique for discovering social order through its disruption. Breaching experiments force social actors to adjust their stocks of knowledge in such a manner that actors become uncomfortable; it involves the deliberate attempt to disrupt the taken-forgranted realities of people. Garfinkel believes that one must “breach” constitutive expectancies in radical ways, since the natural attitude guarantees that people assimilate “strange” occurrences into “familiar” ones without altering the presuppositions underlying a shared world (Rogers 1983). When a social actor’s commonsense world has been violated they have no alternative except to try to normalize the resultant incongruities in their social world. Seeking balance and normality in one’s life is viewed as a natural need for humans from the ethnomethodologist perspective. Thus, breaching experiments become an effective means of observation of how humans bring order and stability to their lives (Garfinkel 1967). Studies have been constructed in conversation analysis, walking, face-to-face communication, and interactions in various settings. These studies examine how people construct and reconstruct social reality. The researcher enters a social setting, violates or breaches the rules that govern it, and studies how the interactants deal with the breach. Breaching experiments are quasi-experimental field studies where everyday events of people are altered (e.g., walking directly into the path of another pedestrian and moving in such a manner that no matter what the other does, you stay in front of the other; standing backwards on an elevator; posting wet paint signs where there is no wet paint, and so on). I have had my students conduct breaching experiments on-campus and in the local community (many of these experiments are on YouTube). Students have done such things as moving their dresser and lamp and bed into a dorm elevator; taking food items from another shopper’s shopping cart after complimenting their purchase choice; dressing in animal outfits and walking around campus; placing orange caution cones in parking spots (and then saving the spots for their friends!); placing a sign on the top and bottom of a stairwell that reads “Stairs are Out of Order” when nothing was wrong with the stairs; and a slew of other examples. In some cases, it is just as uncomfortable for the student conducting the breaching experiment as it is for those under study. Over the years, a number of TV shows, such as “Candid Camera” and “Punk’d,” have employed the breaching experiment technique to test the reactions of unsuspecting others. Conduct your own breaching experiment and you will quickly discover the validity of Garfinkel’s ethnomethodological perspective. Garfinkel was convinced that people always attempt to normalize any incongruities in their social interactions with others. He further argued that people need to seek a balance and normality in their lives because living in a commonsense world is what makes humans feel the most comfortable. Breaching experiments are an effective means of observing how humans bring order and stability to their lives. By showing how people can give meaning to an intrinsically meaningless situation, Garfinkel provided insight into how social actors create and maintain reality in everyday life.

90

Explaining Common Sense Box 3.1 Connecting Common Sense and Popular Culture “The Heresy of Heresies was Common Sense”—George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four As we near the start of the third decade of the twenty-first century, the idea of “1984” as a futuristic dystopian world seems odd, especially for younger people. However, when George Orwell’s classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four was published in 1949 it seemed quite visionary as it warned of a tyrannical future society overseen by “Big Brother.” This futuristic society would be dominated by leaders of “the Party” who enjoyed an intense cult of personality and existed for the benefit of the Party and not for the good of its citizens. The Party relied on propaganda and historic revisionism (proclaiming the glory of the past instead of looking forward to a brighter future for the good of the people). So compelling was Nineteen Eighty-Four, that the term “Orwellian” is now a universal shorthand for anything repressive or totalitarian (McCrum 2009). The circumstances behind the writing of Nineteen Eighty-Four are as gloomy as the future it predicts. Orwell, an English writer who was very sick with tuberculosis at the time of writing, grappled “alone with the demons of his imagination in a bleak Scottish outpost in the desolate aftermath of the second world war. The idea for Nineteen Eighty-Four, alternatively, ‘The Last Man in Europe,’ had been incubating in Orwell’s mind since the Spanish Civil War” (McCrum 2009). Orwell had also lost his wife, Eileen in 1945, when she died under anesthesia during a routine operation. The political climate of war, death, and tyranny at the time, of course, also influenced Orwell’s writing. Orwell spoke out against the apologists for Stalin on the Left. His eyes were first opened to Communist excesses in 1937, during the Spanish Civil War. He had gone to Spain to fight Franco’s fascists, but had ended up being hunted down by those on his own side who wanted their particular strain of Communism to stamp out all alternatives. (Lowe 2017) Orwell had discovered that the Left was just as capable of lies and repression as the Right (Lowe 2017). Orwell’s distrust in the leadership capabilities of future world leaders, and especially of “the Party,” would lead him to many profound statements, two of which are quite relevant here. Orwell warned that Big Brother would attempt to control what we think, how we act, and how we live, and do so by providing telescreens, using media control, implementing policies based on fearmongering, and engage in corruption. Big Brother says, “The people will not revolt. They will not look up from their screens long enough to notice what’s happening.” What a prophetic quote. Today, people are consumed with Facebooking, Snapchatting, Tweeting, and posting on Instagram (Habib 2017). They get their

Explaining Common Sense

91

news from social media and they consider this a common-sense thing to do, when in reality, at least from an Orwellian perspective, it has led us down the path of being manipulated by the power elites. The other famous quote from Nineteen Eighty-Four, and certainly the most relevant to us in the context of common sense, comes from chapter 7 wherein Orwell writes: In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? The Party had its citizens so confused that they questioned scientific facts. (Orwell used the phrase “Thought Police” to refer to Big Brother’s attempt to control what people think.) The Party proclaimed facts as false and duped its citizens further under its control. Even the notion of “common sense” was subjugated by Big Brother. Thank goodness the year 1984 is well in the past and we as citizens of the contemporary world no longer have to worry about the relevance of such a dire and dystopian Orwellian warning. Or do we?

Summary Is the notion of common sense “bullshit” as ancient Greek skepticism would have us believe, or is it a very real concept as latter-day, enlightened, rational social thinkers propose? In this chapter, we examined how a wide variety of social thinkers have attempted to explain the idea of common sense. The ancient Greeks were among the earliest people who attempted to explain common sense. They were also among the first to question its legitimacy as a paradigm of thought as they questioned the validity of how knowledge is attained. Beginning with Parmenides (an influence on Plato), who thought common-sense thinking is full of illogical rationale and through to the times of the quasi-skeptical ideas of Rene Descartes and David Hume, skepticism with regards to validity of common sense was a characteristic of philosophical thought. Thomas Reid, an eighteenth-century philosopher, began a transition in thought with regards to common sense by promoting

92

Explaining Common Sense

the idea of utilizing the research methodologies of observation and experimentation as a means of attaining knowledge. Reid felt that the notion of common sense was possible because humans can acquire knowledge through empirical observation and experimentation. Thomas Paine’s publication of Common Sense in 1776 represents a substantial change in thinking about the idea of common sense as he essentially worked with the assumption that common sense could not only be treated as a given; but also, be used as a means to spirit the cause of the American Revolution. Many subsequent social thinkers including Max Weber, C. Wright Mills, and William James, along with such symbolic interactionists as Charles Cooley, George Herbert Mead, Herbert Blumer, and Erving Goffman connected the notion of common sense with a wide variety of concepts including: rationality, situated actions, vocabularies/language, motives, social action, pragmatism, habits, consciousness, symbols, gestures, and the presentation of self. All of these concepts were described and applied to common sense. Phenomenologists, influenced by Edmund Husserl’s rudiments of common sense, developed models of explaining human behavior by discussing the lifeworld, stocks of knowledge, and the social construction of reality. These ideas are very related to the notion of common sense as our conception of the lifeworld, our stocks of knowledge, and our social construction of reality that allows us to gain knowledge through the socialization process, interactions with others (personal experience), and observation. Ethnomethodologist Harold Garfinkel spoke directly of the commonsense world and incorporated other relevant topics such as the taken-for-granted world and individual accounts which leads us directly to a perspective that common-sense knowledge is very real.

4

Explaining Common Sense From the Early Twentieth Century to the Postmodern Era

Introduction Advancements in science and technology along with progressive, creative, and liberal thinking have led to the invention of new technologies in many spheres of social life, including communications. The creation of computers led to the formation of the Internet, which now allows for immediate long-distance social interactions through a series of networking sites. The Internet has led to the creation of a virtual world (cyberworld) that in turn has led to the reduction of face-to-face interactions in favor of electronic communications. Electronic forms of communication help to shape the world of social media. Social media, then, refers to cyber communication and the nearly countless array of Internet-based tools and platforms that increase the sharing of information. All sorts of things are shared via social media including text messages, photos, and audio and video messaging. People use social media for business, pleasure, and other reasons, including the purposive spreading of false information. When Mark Zuckerberg and his associates first created Facebook they had as a primary purpose to create a method by which single people could find one another electronically, become friends, and yes, maybe “hook up.” At first, Facebook was limited to college students but then it was opened to all people and its explosion in popularity soared. (As of 2018, there were over two billion worldwide regular users of Facebook.) This second phase of Facebook was still meant to be a social platform, a place where family and old, current, and potential new friends could meet, chat, and share photos and stories. It didn’t take too long before human nature began to veer its ugly face onto a world that was meant to be a fun place where friends and family communicated electronically. While many people still limit, or attempt to limit, their Facebook (as well as Twitter and other social media platforms) interactions to pleasant social exchanges, there are many others who use Facebook as a tool to promote their political beliefs, troll and argue with others about nearly anything seemingly just because they are “haters,” or to spread flat out lies and propaganda. Things have gotten so bad that in the United States accusations of

94

Explaining Common Sense

Russian interference on the 2016 presidential election led to a federal investigation that has resulted, to date (as of this writing, May 2018), Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russians and three companies seeking to influence the 2016 presidential campaign. The nature of many humans to express “ugliness” is not limited to the users of Facebook but also Facebook itself, as exemplified by the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the political-data company backed by the billionaire Robert Mercer that consulted on both Brexit and Trump campaigns (Madrigal 2018). As the details were still unraveling at the time of this writing, it has been widely reported that Aleksandr Kogan, then a Cambridge academic, founded a company, Global Science Research, and immediately took on a significant client, Strategic Communications Laboratories, which eventually led to the creation of Cambridge Analytica. (Steve Bannon, an advisor to the company and a former senior adviser to Trump, reportedly chose the name.) Kogan’s company built psychological profiles of vast numbers of people by using Facebook data. Those profiles, in turn, might be useful to the political messages that Cambridge Analytica sent to potential voters (Madrigal 2018). Kogan utilized Facebook apps and because Facebook’s growth and revenue stream are driven by apps, they turned a blind eye to what was really going on—the misuse of data collected on Facebook users. Academic researchers first began publishing warnings that third-party Facebook apps represented a major possible source of privacy leakage in the early 2010s, Facebook users tend to be willing to share data on multiple apps and, thus, risks were inherent. In March 2018, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission opened an investigation into how Cambridge Analytica, ostensibly a voter-profiling company, accessed data on nearly 50 million Facebook users (Meyer 2018). Facebook has since begun to tighten up some of its policies in recent years, especially with regard to apps accessing friends’ data (Madrigal 2018). Nonetheless, the potential for fraud and misuse of data on social media sites such as Facebook remain. Postmodern social theorists have warned us that advancements in technology have changed society so much since the late-twentieth century that we have formed new levels of consciousness and that our socio-economic systems have moved on from modernity to postmodernity. W.E.B. Du Bois and postcolonialists have paid close attention to many aspects of society since the decolonization period and note that many former colonized nations have lingering social problems including racial inequality. The Robert Mueller, U.S. Justice Department, investigation found, in addition to political tampering, that a number of targeted ads on Facebook were designed to cause racial polarization by showing how police negatively treat black people in some ads and then encouraged support for pro-police groups in other ads by showing negative behavior of persons of color. In May 2018, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence provided a list of ads (such as the ones on race) shown on Facebook which leads to a simple conclusion, “people are

Explaining Common Sense

95

being preyed upon and duped” (Poughkeepsie Journal 2018). As postcolonialists caution, we are being invaded by the norms, values, and beliefs of others. Unfortunately, too many people lack the common sense to decipher the difference between real news and fake news.

Contemporary Scholarship in the Study of Common Sense This chapter continues where Chapter 3 left off, meaning that a number of theoretical explanations regarding the understanding of common sense will be discussed. The perspectives of a variety of social thinkers from the early twentieth century through the current, postmodern era are reviewed here. It is important to note that while the beginning of Chapter 3 and the end of this chapter represent clear differences in chronological eras, there isn’t a clear break between the end time period presented in Chapter 3 and the beginning time period to start this chapter as these time frames overlap. Scholarship in the field of common sense in the contemporary era is much the same as in the past; that is to say, it is limited to a variety of aspects of common sense—such as a hermeneutic approach to understanding, hegemony, communication action via language that shapes actors’ life-worlds, a world-systems approach, interaction ritual chain theory, a theory of resonance, post-feminism, posthumanism, transhumanism, and postcolonialism. In most cases, these aspects have to be applied to the study of common sense. The word “contemporary” refers to the existing time that is occurring now. The eras of “modernity” and “postmodernity” currently overlap with the contemporary era as there is no fixed dates that separate all of these categories of times. Additionally, the terms modernity and postmodernity are being used here to describe theoretical perspectives that are taking place in the contemporary era; however, not all contemporary theories (i.e., Collins’ interaction ritual chain theory; McDowell, Bail, and Tavory’s resonance theory) fit under the modernity or postmodernity categorization.

Hermeneutic Phenomenology and Common Sense In the previous discussion of phenomenology (see Chapter 3) we learned that this theoretical approach has roots firmly entrenched in the German tradition in general, and in Edmund Husserl specifically. Another intellectual German tradition, and one employed by the social thinker Max Weber, is the field of study known as hermeneutics. Hermeneutics, which has roots in religious studies and social philosophy, is the special approach to understanding and interpreting published writings (e.g., texts in literature, religion, philosophy, and law). (Weber’s sociology is primarily interpretative based on the concept of “verstehen” which is a term derived from hermeneutics.) The goal of hermeneutics is not limited to merely understanding the basic structure of the text, but the thinking of the author as well. It is interesting to note that art is often examined from a hermeneutic perspective; that is to say, fans of art do

96

Explaining Common Sense

not merely examine the final product (e.g., I enjoy sunsets) but attempt to analyze what the artist was thinking while producing his or her art (e.g., why were these particular colors used and why these types of brush strokes). Hermeneutic phenomenology was spearheaded by Martin Heidegger, developed by Hans-Georg Gadamer, and expanded upon by Paul Ricoeur and Cornelius Castoriadis. Review of these social thinkers will center on our primary topic of interest, common sense.

Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) Heidegger is a German philosopher known in the academic world for his existential and phenomenological theories. (Note: His private reputation, however, is tarnished because he was a Nazi sympathizer and anti-Semitic.) His ideas have exerted a seminal influence on the development of contemporary European philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2016c). From the works of Husserl, Heidegger learned of phenomenology and its focus on conscious phenomena. While Heidegger agreed with Husserl that the world we live in cannot be explained by naturalistic or positivistic means, he believed that phenomenology was a method to access the nature of one’s “being.” The concept of “being” was of primary importance in Heidegger’s renowned publication of Being and Time [Sein und Zeit] (1927), a publication often hailed as one of the most significant texts in the formation of contemporary European, or Continental, philosophy. As noted by Hans-Georg Gadamer, Georg Simmel’s essays on metaphysics also influenced Heidegger’s monumental publication (Ritzer and Stepnisky 2018). In this academically challenging publication, Heidegger manages to dismantle traditional philosophical theories and perspectives and institute his own philosophical question centered on the meaning of “being.” Heidegger argued that there are many variations of “being” (e.g., as it pertains to one’s sense of being, our essence, and our conscious awareness of being); and that the primary topic of study should center on the notion of “being-in-the world” (Heidegger also used the concept of “dasein” in place of “being”). For Heidegger, dasein (or Da-sein) means “being there” or “presence” (the English translation would be “existence”). Heidegger was preoccupied with the question of “being” throughout his academic career. The philosophical interpretation of being leads to a vagueness about our existence. As Royle (2018) explains, Heidegger’s Being-in-the-world does not mean that Dasein is in the world in the same way that water is in a glass or a dress is in a closet: he is not arguing that “Dasein” exists in one place and “the world” in another place next to it. On the contrary, Heidegger says that this erroneous “relationship of location” is the big mistake of Western philosophy, and one which he is seeking to put right. Such an error has meant that we tend to think of people as inner “subjects” separated from outer

Explaining Common Sense

97

“objects”, and philosophy has tended to focus on the discrepancy between these inner and outer worlds. (p. 7) A debate over one’s sense of being, however, becomes a potential impediment to the study of common sense as the notion of one’s existence is treated as “given” if we are to analyze common sense; after all, to behave in a commonsense manner would imply that one is either aware of their being and time, or, at the very least, aware of their own conscious awareness of being as these are important elements in acting in a common-sense manner. The analysis of common sense that I put forth does not bother with the philosophical debate as to whether or not one exists but presumes that living persons do exist, that we do have a sense of consciousness, and therefore notions of common sense become possible based on learned knowledge, the socialization process, personal experience, observation, and by reason. Along with his fixation with dasein, Heidegger ponders such philosophical questions as: “What is a thing?” and “What is the thingness of the thing?” (Gendlin 1967). Additionally, Heidegger attempts to demonstrate a distinction between “things of common sense” and “things rendered by science.” “The ways in which science and everyday common sense present ‘things’ are not at all the same. For example, in ordinary terms, the sun ‘rises’ and ‘sets,’ while science says it does not” (Gendlin 1967:256). Heidegger’s attempts to support his distinction falls short; and, the relationship between things and common sense can be simplified here. We know “things” as objects or entities and, in many cases, objects not precisely designated with a specific name, as in, “What is that thing called?” Still, it is necessary to make certain distinctions regarding things as such categorization of things may help us to choose specific courses of action and allows for the designation of certain courses of action as common sense and others as not. For example, if an object falls from the sky and has a strange odor and a glowing color we could refer to such an object as a “thing.” Furthermore, common sense might dictate that we should not touch such an object with our bare hands and perhaps we should consider running away from this potentially dangerous thing. Then again, a curious person would find it a matter of common sense to carefully pick up the object and to examine it more carefully for the sake of gaining new knowledge. When things, or stimuli, present themselves to us we choose courses of actions, some of which may come to be seen as common sense by some, but lacking in common sense by others (see Chapters 4 and 5).

Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900–2002) Gadamer was a German philosopher of the continental tradition who was profoundly affected by the philosophy of Martin Heidegger. Like Heidegger, Gadamer questions the validity of the scientific method; his major work Truth and Method (1960) represents his best attempt to challenge science’s attempt

98

Explaining Common Sense

to produce “truth.” Gadamer utilizes a hermeneutic approach in his philosophy. While virtually unknown outside European circles, Gadamer is an important twentieth-century social thinker (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2016b). Gadamer is not well known for his work on common sense specifically, but Rosenfeld (2011) wrote in her book Common Sense: A Political History that he advanced the restoration of concepts such as common sense, judgment, and good taste with regard to their ethical and political connotations. In Truth and Method, Gadamer, as previously mentioned, utilizes a philosophical hermeneutical approach (and actually expands on Heidegger’s explanation) to the study of truth and methodology (while proposing that objectivity can be attained through inter-subjective communication); he concludes that “truth” and “method” were at odds with one another. Gadamer argued against scientific explanations of truth as well as historic conceptions (he believed that historicism produces many misleading prejudgments about how discourse is to be interpreted) but instead proposes that hermeneutics was a valid method in its determination. Gadamer did believe that people have a type of historical consciousness; but more importantly, we have a hermeneutic consciousness that merges past and present experiences. With regard to common-sense notions, we could view historical and hermeneutic consciousness as akin to the role of past experience and how it shapes our present-day behavior. (Note: We learned in Chapter 2 that past experience is one of the important aspects of common sense.) In Chapter 5 we will see how individuals learn common sense and, as the definition of common sense reveals, the role of past experience and how it shapes present-day courses of action is one of the key methods of learning common sense.

Paul Ricoeur (1913–2005) Like Gadamer, Ricoeur was a twentieth-century continental philosopher. Ricoeur was a French philosopher who combined phenomenological description and philosophical anthropology with hermeneutics. Ricoeur refers to his hermeneutic method as a “hermeneutics of suspicion” because discourse both reveals and conceals something about the nature of being (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2018). His critique of Freud in his book Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation (1965), his study of metaphor in The Rule of Metaphor (1977), and his three-volume work on narrative in Time and Narrative (1984–1988) are cited as primary examples of hermeneutics of suspicion approach (Tariq 2016). Rita Felski (2012) offers a critique of the notion of a “hermeneutics of suspicion” itself stating that the phrase is rarely used, even by its most devout practitioners, who usually think of themselves engaged in something called “critique.” Ricoeur uses the phrase “hermeneutics of suspicion” to capture a common spirit that pervades the writings of Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche

Explaining Common Sense

99

(Felski 2012). Despite their many theoretical differences, Ricoeur categorized these three social thinkers as constituting a “school of suspicion.” That is to say, they share a commitment to unmasking “the lies and illusions of consciousness” (Felski 2012; Ricoeur 1970). Felski argues that the “hermeneutics of suspicion” approach is respectful, even admirable, but acknowledges that critics are understandably leery of such a term; and, correctly points out that, much like hermeneutical thinking itself, it remains “a path not taken in Anglo-American literary theory” and questions “How often to you see Gadamer or Ricoeur taught in a theory survey?” The answer to that question may vary from professor to professor and geographic location but Gadamer and Ricoeur are so relatively obscure in North American academia that they are virtually unknown; this conclusion, however, might be quite different in the UK and other European circles. While Ricoeur does not address the topic of common sense directly, we can derive notions of common sense in a variety of his works. For example, in Time and Narrative (1984), Ricoeur brings to light the major presuppositions of narratives and their role in human experience. The narratives of shared human experiences often come to be regarded as common-sense knowledge by those who have shared such undertakings. Furthermore, Ricoeur’s work on metaphors is also relevant to the study of common sense as the employment of metaphors is an aspect of language that goes beyond narratives. Metaphors are of service if the social interactants share a sense of their meanings. In The Rule of Metaphor (1981), Ricoeur demonstrates the fundamental power of language (beyond simply utilizing metaphors) in the construction of the world we perceive, how we come to understand the world, and our ability to behave in a common-sense manner.

Cornelius Castoriadis (1922–1997) Castoriadis was a Greek-French continental philosopher, post-phenomenologist, social critic, economist, and author of The Imaginary Institution of Society (1975). Among his important contributions to social thought was the idea that social change involves radical discontinuities that are not the direct result of determinate or sequential causes. Instead, Castoriadis argued that social change emerges through the “social imaginary” without strict determinations (Everipedia 2018). In this regard, social change is recognized when it is labeled as “revolution.” It is through sociological and philosophical analysis that a social imaginary offers interpretations of significant social events. In this manner, Castoriadis’ conceptualization of the imaginary is quite different when compared to mainstream social science and, in turn, allows for a different perspective as to what constitutes as “common sense.” In his Studies in the Theory of Ideology (1984), John B. Thompson states, “It is Castoriadis’s view that the nature of society and history has been obscured by certain emphasis which run throughout the whole tradition of Western thought” (p. 21). Castoriadis believes that Marx is a part of this tradition. As a result,

100

Explaining Common Sense

“Castoriadis develops his account of the social-historical world against the backcloth of his critique of Marx and Marxism” (Thompson 1984:17). As for social imaginary, Thompson (1984) argues that Castoriadis’ idea of social imaginary is “the attempt to explore the relation between language and ideology” (p. 6). Social imaginary can be viewed as a set of norms, values, laws, institutions, and symbols common to a particular group or category of people. Castoriadis used the term “social imaginary” in his 1975 book The Imaginary Institutions of Society and stated that each historical period creates an ideology (that includes the social imaginary characteristics just described) that members of a given society are expected to abide by. He also employed the term “social imaginary significations” to highlight the most significant expectations that a newborn individual is immersed in. As Moutsios (2013) explains, Each society then is instituted by creating its own world of significations which hold it together: they bring a sense of co-belonging to objects, acts, functions and individuals and they condition and orient what is doable and what is representable in this society. The society thus exists through the world of significations, which itself brought to existences, and immerses whatever new appears immediately into the world. (p. 146) Society, then, according to Castoriadis, is filled with significant expectations of behavior that its members are expected to adhere to. Within such a framework we can see how notions of common sense can emerge through social imaginary as certain behaviors and situations are deemed to warrant expected and accepted reactions among people. A number of Castoriadis’ publications, including World in Fragments (1997), The Castoriadis Reader (1997), Figures du Pensable (1999), and Sur le Politique de Platon (1999), delve into the “tasks faced by social scientists in recognizing the imaginative and creative capacities of human beings in their dealings with the world” (Elliott 2002). Castoriadis, utilizing a Freudian psychoanalytical approach, argued that we must listen to our dreams and desires if we hope to implement social imaginary. Detractors of such a notion, of course, would point out that dreams do not necessarily have any bearing on reality and question whether such an analysis of dreams can actually be linked to common-sense notions. Castoriadis, who married a French psychoanalyst (Piera Aulugnier), and who also had undergone psychoanalysis in the 1960s, remained committed to the validity of this form of psychological treatment. Castoriadis remains as an important social theorist to a number of contemporary social thinkers and this is, perhaps, due to the practicality of his beliefs about applied common sense to a number of specific subjects, such as racism. In World in Fragments, Castoriadis matter-of-factly states, it goes without saying that “we want to combat racism, xenophobia, chauvinism,

Explaining Common Sense

101

and everything relating to them” (p. 19). Attempting to eliminate all forms of prejudice and discrimination, such as racism and sexism, should be a matter of common sense for all of us.

Antonio Gramsci and Common Sense Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937) was an Italian Marxist philosopher and politician, who broke from the economic determinism mode of traditional Marxist thought. In 1913, Gramsci joined the Italian Communist Party and throughout the rest of his life was a dedicated Marxist revolutionary. Having questioned Mussolini’s fascist control over Italy (he also questioned Stalin’s government in Russia and the validity of capitalism), Gramsci was imprisoned for more than a decade at the end of his life. While in prison, Gramsci produced his most important theoretical writings (via a series of notebooks) despite long periods of poor health (Adams and Sydie 2001; Gramsci [1937] 1971). Gramsci’s analysis of society centered on the concept of hegemony. Hegemony refers to leadership, or authority. According to Karl Marx, hegemony was determined by those who controlled the means of production (the bourgeoisie) and their corresponding exploitation of the workers via economic means. Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923), who was born in Paris to an Italian political-exile father and a French mother, believed hegemony was a matter of the dominance of the political ruling elite. Gramsci, a key figure in postMarxist thought, argued that hegemony was the result of a combination of structural domination through economics and politics as well as a combination of political, intellectual, and moral leadership (Adams and Sydie 2001; Mouffe 1979). Gramsci describes the primary method of control utilized by the power elites over the masses as hegemonic cultural ideology. Gramsci viewed hegemony as cultural leadership exercised by the ruling class but contrasted it with coercion (Gramsci [1932] 1975; Ritzer and Stepnisky 2018). For Gramsci, hegemony was not just structural domination through economics or politics. It was a combination of political, intellectual, and moral leadership (Mouffe 1979), meaning that it involved superstructure or ideology and private institutions as well as politics … Hegemony, then, is exercised through the commitment of those who are persuaded and through the control of any opposition. (Adams and Sydie 2001:427) The hegemonic apparatus of a society includes, according to Gramsci ([1937] 1971), “schools, churches, the entire media and even architecture and the names of streets” (p. 332). Turner (2003) highlights the importance of ideology in Gramsci’s hegemony by stating that he turned Marx’s ideas back into a more Hegelian mode.

102

Explaining Common Sense That is, rather than view ideas as reflections of the material structure of society, much greater prominence is given to cultural forces in determining material relations in society … Gramsci believed the ruling social class is hegemonic, controlling not only property and power, but ideology as well. Indeed, the ruling class holds onto its power and wealth by virtue of its ability to use ideologies to manipulate workers and all others. (p. 204)

In this manner, Turner (2003) argues that the state is no longer a crude tool of coercion, nor an intrusive and insensitive bureaucratic authority; it has become the propagator of culture and the civic education of the population, creating and controlling key institutional systems in more indirect, unobtrusive and, seemingly, inoffensive ways. (p. 204) It is his focus on hegemony via cultural ideology that gives Gramsci’s works relevance to our discussion of common sense. Gramsci believes that the bourgeoisie attempt to establish a cultural ideology by instituting a large number of norms and values that benefit their lofty status in society. The ruling class promotes this ideology of norms and values and adherence to this way of thinking to the masses as a matter of “common sense.” Gramsci’s use of the term common sense (senso comune) is different from what most of us think of today. As explained by Kate Crehan, in the Preface to her Gramsci’s Common Sense (2016): It is important to note … that the Italian senso comune is a far more neutral term than the English common sense. The English term, with its overwhelming positive connotations, puts the emphasis, so to speak, on the “sense,” senso comune on the held-in-common (comune) nature of the beliefs. In the notebooks, Gramsci reflects on the complicated roots of such collective knowledge … [and] the ways it becomes accepted as beyond question. In this regard, it is the collective nature of accepting the cultural ideology of the bourgeoisie that concerns Gramsci more than whether or not it makes sense to abide by society’s ideals of common sense. For example, when the masses treat the ideology of the ruling class as a matter of common sense they are supporting the status quo rather than rising up in revolt against this hegemony. Gramsci cleverly recognizes that the bourgeoisie do not rule over the masses simply through economic or political means but, rather, by a more powerful force, cultural ideology. He also realized that the cultural norms and values most likely to be accepted and treated as common sense are those that

Explaining Common Sense

103

are tied to folklore, popular culture, and religion. If he were alive today, Gramsci would surely recognize this tactic being utilized by many world leaders and dominant power elites as followers of tyrants often blindly accept certain ways of thinking as a matter of common sense because of the manner in which they are presented. Taking Gramsci’s perspective, we can question adherence to notions of common sense, as doing so merely serves to make the multitude submissive and subordinate to the power of the ruling class. Thus, the next time you hear someone say that something is a matter of “common sense” analyze such a comment in Gramscian terms.

Jurgen Habermas and Common Sense Jurgen Habermas (1929–) is a German sociologist and philosopher in the tradition of “critical theory” and is perhaps the most well-known and prolific of the second generation of critical thinkers having been influenced by the works of Marx and Weber. He is also arguably the most productive descendant of the original Frankfurt School. He was born in Gummersbach, Germany, near Dusseldorf, and grew up during the Nazi regime and World War II. Critical theory emerged from the works of neo-Marxist German theorists collectively referred to as the Frankfurt School of Social Thought, beginning in earnest in 1923 with the founding of the Institute for Social Research. The term critical theory is itself an unfortunate one for it is confused with literary criticism and a number of other approaches to social theory could be considered “critical” in some sense. Marxist theory is a critical approach to the study of society, feminist theory is a criticism of a male-dominated society, and even positivist researchers make a claim to criticizing the existing understanding of social reality (Delaney 2014a). The critical theorist of particular interest to this review of common sense rests with Habermas and his significant contributions to social thought via his communication theory and analysis of communicative action and its corresponding application to his ideas on an intersubjectively shared “lifeworld.” Utilizing his theory of communicative action, Habermas (1984) promoted an examination of social interaction that begins with a description of structures of individual and collective social action and structures of mutual understanding that are found in modern societies. Through social interactions, individuals gain knowledge on how to behave in given situations. Communication and the understanding of language are the keys to comprehending knowledge and social integration. Habermas (1976) described social integration as “lifeworlds that are symbolically structured” (p. 4). In turn, an individual’s lifeworlds are influenced by constant interaction with others and with society’s social structures: The structures of the lifeworld lay down the forms of the intersubjectivity of possible understanding. It is to them that participation in communication

104

Explaining Common Sense owes their extramundane positions vis-à-vis the interworldly items about which they can come to an understanding. The lifeworld is, so to speak, the transcendental site where the speaker and hearer meet, where they can reciprocally raise claims that their utterances fit the world (objective, social, or subjective) and where they can criticize and confirm those validity claims, settle their disagreements, and arrive at agreements. (Habermas 1987:126)

Habermas’ communication theory involves communicative action, via language, and provides meaning to actors and shapes their lifeworlds. Under the functional aspect of mutual understanding, communicative action serves to transmit and renew cultural knowledge; under the aspect of coordinating action, it serves social integration and the establishment of solidarity; finally, under the aspect of socialization, communicative action serves the formation of personal identities. (Habermas 1987:137) As we learned in Chapter 3, Schutz also described life-worlds and the idea that each of us has a “stock of knowledge” (past experiences) that they draw upon when confronting similar situations in the social world. It is the stock of knowledge that allows for individuals to behave appropriately, or in a common-sense manner. Habermas takes the idea of lifeworlds from Schutz (and Husserl) and modifies the concept into his broader communication theory (Fairtlough 1991). Habermas, as his theory implies, highlights the role of communication with his perspective on lifeworlds and common sense. He believes that the lifeworld is a culturally transmitted and linguistically organized stock of knowledge based on interpretative patterns. These patterns include: (1) cultural knowledge, (2) social integration and group solidarity, and (3) personal identities of individuals. Common sense is achieved when social interactants share an overlap with these three lifeworld patterns. The overlap of the everyday world of taken-for-granted assumptions leads to common-sense assumptions about reality and also what Habermas (1976) refers to as “communicative competence.” For Habermas, the intersubjectively shared lifeworlds of individuals allow for consensus of thought and the concept of common sense.

Immanuel Wallerstein and Common Sense Immanuel Wallerstein (1930–) was born in New York City and earned his Ph. D. from Columbia University in 1959. After his graduation from Columbia he joined their faculty and subsequently taught there until 1971 when he left for McGill University in Montreal, and five years later joined the faculty at the State University of New York at Binghamton (Binghamton University) where he earned the title of Distinguished Professor of Sociology. He later

Explaining Common Sense

105

served as a senior research scholar in the department of sociology at Yale University and director emeritus of the Fernand Braudel Center at Binghamton University. In 1975, Wallerstein was awarded the prestigious Sorokin Award for the first volume of his The Modern World-Systems (Ritzer and Stepnisky 2018). Rooted in the Marxist tradition, this macro-sociological theory “is intent on viewing capitalism as a worldwide system from a perspective that emphasizes the longue durée and the operation of long-term cycles of development” (Kivisto 2003:448). One of the key distinctions between Wallerstein’s criticism of capitalism and most other variations of social thought critical of this socioeconomic system is his contention that capitalism did not rise during the Industrial Revolution but rather from 1450 forward (Turner 2003). Indeed, Wallerstein believes that “there have been only two world-systems in human history: the world empires of the ancient world and the modern capitalist world-economy that is undergirded by political and military domination” (Kivisto 2003:448). While this theory is a macro theory and the analysis put forth in this book is primarily of micro social interactions, we shall see how his theory (like a few others presented here in Chapters 3 and 4) is applicable to the study of common sense. Using a systems-analysis approach presumes the existence of social structures. Wallerstein (1983) states that the manifest function of world-systems social structures is to ensure repetitious patterns but not to the point of a functional equilibrium but rather moving the system along via trends that allow for the continuous growth of the capitalist system. Akin to Gramsci’s view of hegemony as a type of structural domination that extends beyond economics and politics to the realm of cultural arenas, Wallerstein (1983) puts forth the notion that hegemony involves the so-called “great powers” ability to impose its rules and wishes onto the economic, political, military, diplomatic, and cultural realms. Hegemony, then, is not a state of being but rather one end of a fluid continuum which describes how the world’s powerful nations come to dominate other nations (e.g., powerful states regularly and willingly interfere with the political processes in other states to ensure their own advantage) while also influencing cultural ideals of individuals within given societies. In order to maintain their position as “great powers,” such nation states must expand their militaries and administrative bureaucracies in order to sustain the necessary resources to support the privilege that elites enjoy. Of particular relevance to a discussion on notions of common sense is the realization that world-systems nations must convince the masses that such an ideology is necessary. In other words, the leaders of such nation states must convince their citizens that a disproportionate amount of spending on military and other social institutions designed to keep the wealthy rich, even at the expense of the everyday people, is necessary and in fact a matter of common sense. When people accept, whether consciously or not, that it is okay for the wealthy to earn and possess far more capital than the entirety of

106

Explaining Common Sense

the masses, the purveyors of world-systems have in fact infiltrated the realm of cultural norms and values—common sense. In his brief 2006 book, European Universalism, Wallerstein expands on his world-systems analysis to focus on the concept of “universalism.” He argues that the promotion of universalism is advanced by world powers as an explanation and justification for global interference. The mantra of “We are not invaders, we are liberators” illustrates the attitude that outsiders (e.g., Westerners) know what’s best and that they are willing to impose their will on “weaker” nations, via such notions as “we have the solution to your problems” all the while engaging in such activities as a means of securing their own goals. Chillingly, or thankfully, depending on one’s worldviews, Wallerstein (2006) argues that the current world-system is collapsing around us and that we need to decide what we want next. Wallerstein (2006) argues that it is dangerous and unacceptable for the world-system elites to promote the idea that specific values and norms are universal or absolute truths. If this notion is correct, it stands to reason that notions of common sense as universal and absolutely consistent would be inaccurate. Furthermore, ideals of common sense have been influenced by power elites.

Anthony Giddens, Structuration Theory, and Common Sense Anthony Giddens (1938–) was born in London and earned his Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge. Giddens has taught at universities in Canada (Simon Fraser); the United States, at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA); and, in the UK (Cambridge). He was at UCLA during the turbulent late 1960s and witnessed the Vietnam War protests which are credited as broadening his European view of the world of class and authority (Adams and Sydie 2001). In 1985, Giddens founded and became director of Polity Press. He is a prolific writer, having produced 34 books to date. One of his best-known contributions to social thought is “structuration theory.” Our discussion of structuration theory will be limited to the point wherein we can draw a connection to Giddens’ relevant concepts of structuration to the application of common sense. At the heart of structuration theory is the integration of agency and structure. Agency refers to the condition of being in action; it is the capacity of individuals (actors) to act in given situations. “Although agency refers to micro-level, individual human actors, it also can refer to (macro) collectivities that act” (Ritzer and Stepnisky 2018:499). Just as agency can refer to the behaviors of individual actors and collectivities, Giddens (1979) extends the boundaries of the term “structure,” which is generally viewed as a macro description of social structures, to include a micro orientation when addressing those involved in human interaction. Giddens (1990) proposes that the synthesis of structure and agency represents a “duality of structure” in that while an individual’s autonomy is influenced by structure, structures are

Explaining Common Sense

107

maintained and modified via agency. When an individual’s agency comes into contact with structure we have “structuration.” Human behavior, including notions of common sense, can best be understood, according to this perspective, by resolving the structure–agency interaction. Giddens adds another component to this duality by suggesting that we must recognize that people act within the context of rules produced by social structures. Giddens’ structuration theory is preceded by other relevant theoretical ideas including his belief that universal and timeless sociological laws can never be established like those in physics or the biological sciences. “Humans have the capacity for agency, and hence, they can change the very nature of social organization—thereby, obviating any laws that are proposed to be universal” (Turner 2003:476). Ritzer and Stepnisky (2018:499) state that although Giddens is not a Marxist, there is a powerful Marxian influence on his work The Constitution of Society (1984) as an extended reflection on Marx’s integrative dictum: “Men make history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chose by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given, and transmitted from the past” (Marx [1869] 1963:15). Giddens’ belief that sociologists are incapable of establishing laws of human behavior has its own negative consequence in the development of his theory of structuration as it fails to incorporate a series of propositions. As Turner (2003) explains, Giddens instead uses a cluster of sensitizing concepts linked together discursively. The key to structuration theory, according to Giddens, is to communicate the duality of structure; to show that social structure is used by active agents and to demonstrate that active agents transform or replace structures (Turner 2003). Ritzer and Stepnisky (2018) indicate that Giddens argues that social scientists must observe “recurrent social practices” (Giddens 1989:252). Giddens (1984) downplays the experiences of social actors as he states: The basic domain of the study of the social sciences, according to the theory of structuration, is neither the experience of the individual actor, nor the existence of any form of social totality, but social practices ordered across time and space. (p. 2) Turner (2003) suggests that Giddens prefers to establish some sort of concept of mutual knowledge that can be attained because actors engage in “interaction contexts” that extend across “space” and over “time” (p. 477). These “interaction contexts” are conceptualized as “rules” and “resources.” As explained by Turner (2003), “Rules are ‘generalizable procedures’ that actors understand and use in various circumstances” (p. 478). Rules become a part of actors’ “knowledgeability” that lend themselves to an actor’s recall and can furthermore lead to normative behaviors that allows actors to confront situations in a common-sense manner. Giddens’ (1984) description of “rules”

108

Explaining Common Sense

lend themselves to a link to common-sense behaviors as his “rules” possess the following characteristics: they are frequently used (e.g., in conversations, interaction rituals, and the daily routines of actors); they are understood as part of the “stock of knowledge” of actors; they are informal (e.g., unwritten and unarticulated); and, they are weakly sanctioned through interpersonal techniques. We have already learned about the concept of “stocks of knowledge” with our Chapter 3 discussion on Alfred Schutz. Giddens (1985) states that “The stocks of knowledge drawn upon by actors in the production and reproduction of interaction are at the same time the source of accounts they may supply of the purposes, reasons, and motives of their actions.” Giddens (1985) elaborates on this point by stating that the knowledgeability of social factors only partly operates at the conscious level as our response to stimuli may come from unconscious sources of cognition and motivation. It is practical consciousness that leads to “mutual knowledge”—our taken-for-granted knowledge about how to act in a particular situation. It is the utilization of our stocks of knowledge (mutual knowledge), whether consciously or unconsciously, that allows actors to act in a common-sense manner in given situations.

Randall Collins, Interaction Ritual Chains, and Common Sense Randall Collins (1941–) is one of the most significant sociologists and social thinkers of the contemporary era. One of Collins’ most interesting and significant contributions to sociological theory is his interaction ritual chain theory. His theory is put forth in his 2005 book publication, Interaction Ritual Chains (2005). Collins (2005) states that: A theory of interaction ritual is the key to microsociology, and microsociology is the key to much that is larger. The smallscale, the here-andnow of face-to-face interaction, is the scene of action and the site of social actors. If we are going to find the agency of social life, it will be here … Here is where intentionality and consciousness find their places; here, too, is the site of emotional and unconscious aspects of human interaction. (p. 3) In Interaction Ritual Chains, Collins incorporates the classic analyses of Durkheim, Mead, and Goffman, and draws on micro-sociological research on conversation, bodily rhythms, emotions, the use of symbols, and intellectual creativity. He then applies his analysis to a variety of specific activities such as sex (e.g., sex as individual pleasure-seeking; sex as interaction ritual; and eroticization), smoking rituals and addiction, and individualism and individuality (e.g., introversion; situational introverts; work-obsessed individuals; and socially excluded persons).

Explaining Common Sense

109

Through his interaction ritual chains theory, Collins explains why people behave differently among different groups of people. He believes that all social encounters can be ranked by their degree of ritual intensity. Those who have a highly invested interest in the group will carry out realistic behavior more intensely than those who are less committed to the group (or couple). Those who have an emotional attachment to the group, share in its social identity, and participate in the group activities will experience emotional energy (Collins 2000). Individuals carry symbols of this commitment to indicate membership and to recharge their emotional energy. There are numerous examples of this commitment to membership: married couples who wear their wedding rings to show their symbolic commitment to marriage; sports fans that wear clothing and display other imagery with symbols of their favorite team/athlete; religious persons that wear some token of their faith (e.g., a cross or star); and gang members who wear tattoos to show their allegiance to the gang. In cases of intense associations, all of the members of the group feel accepted and welcomed because of their attachment to the group and the corresponding ritualistic behavior. As Delaney’s (2001) research indicated, the same ritualistic behavior of bonding and emotional commitment is shared by members of sports booster groups. Cheering for the team and wearing team associated clothing (e.g., caps, t-shirts, and scarves) contribute to the interaction ritual. Members of a fraternity or sorority show commitment to group membership via a number of ritualistic behaviors including methods of greeting (such as a secret handshake), identifiable clothing, and participating in group activities. Collins (2005) explains that all social encounters can be ranked by their degree of ritual intensity. Those who have a high vested interest in the group will carry out ritualistic behavior more intensely than those who are less committed to the group. Those who have an emotional attachment to the group, share in its social identity, and participate in the group activities will experience emotional energy. A common theme of all highly ritualistic chains of interaction is the production of emotional energy; in turn, this energy further fuels the desire of group members to maintain their association with group members. When the emotional intensity begins to run dry, individuals begin to lose interest in maintaining the group. The interaction ritual chain theory is applicable to common sense for a number of reasons but especially because group members tend to take for granted the expected behaviors of others. Engaging in certain ritualistic behaviors becomes assumed by group members; they become a part of the commonsense world of those who engage in the association.

McDonnell, Bail, and Tavory, Resonance Theory and Common Sense The term “resonance” is typically identified with a quality of a sound that stays loud, clear, and deep for a long time; however, it can also refer to something that has special meaning or is particularly important to people. In

110

Explaining Common Sense

their 2017 journal article “A Theory of Resonance,” Terrence McDonnell, Christopher Bail, and Iddo Tavory use resonance as a metaphor to capture something intuitively useful—that the quality of the encounter between audiences and cultural object helps us understand how actors are propelled into social action … Rather than dismiss resonance as a metaphor gone amok—and in an attempt to distinguish resonance from mere alignment, congruence, or familiarity—we have argued that when grounded in a pragmatist understanding of action and emotion, the concept of resonance holds the potential to explain both individual-level transformation as well as field-wide cultural change. (pp. 8–9) The authors describe how cultural objects that resonate can shape the broader cognitive processes that individuals use to interpret the world around them. The theorists state that objects resonate when they are connected to audiences’ socially situated condition or to broader cultural themes and narratives that they recognize. McDonnell et al. (2017) argue that: cultural objects are not relevant unless employed to solve a problem. In order to distinguish between familiarity and resonance, we thus propose a pragmatic and processual move—seeing resonance as an experience emerging when affective and cognitive work provides actors with novel ways to puzzle out, or “solve,” practical situations. (p. 3) Uniting resonance with congruence, the authors further argue that “it is about the act of making a cultural object congruent as a person works through a situation or problem they face rather having an already congruent or familiar solution ready at hand” (McDonnell et al. 2017:3). Attempting to find solutions to problems by making a cultural object useful in specific situations is an important aspect of resonance. Tying cognition and emotion together yields a conclusion by the authors that: Cultural objects can validate people’s feelings, making cultural schema appear to solve the practical problems when they otherwise might not. Seeing how emotional states and resonance are intertwined would thus allow for further specification of the conditions under which resonance occurs. (McDonnell et al. 2017:10) While McDonnell and associates fail to make the link between resonance and common sense, the connection exists with the realization that objects that resonate with us are easier to view as common sense. Furthermore, when

Explaining Common Sense

111

people view the value of an object as a matter of common sense they may question why others do not feel the same way.

Feminism and Post-Feminism and Common Sense Feminist theory is an outgrowth of the general movement to empower women worldwide; it is an extension of the idea of feminism. Feminist theory is a comprehensive-based theoretical perspective that attempts to demonstrate the importance of women, to reveal the historical reality that women have been subordinate to men (beginning with the biological division of labor), and to bring about gender equity. Feminism is a women-centered approach to the study of human behavior. It serves as an advocate for oppressed women. Through analysis of gender roles and gender appropriateness, feminist theory demonstrates how women have historically been subjected to a double standard in both their treatment and the evaluation of their worth. With these ideas in mind, we can define feminism as a social theory and a social movement designed to empower women in an attempt to reach gender equity— especially with regard to sharing scarce resources (e.g., power, prestige, and status) (Delaney 2014a). Because gender social differences are the result of cultural norms, values, beliefs, and expectations associated with a sexual category, feminists indicate that such social arrangements can be altered. It should be easy to ascertain the relevancy of feminism to a discussion on common sense as proponents of feminist thought believe it is a matter of common sense that the distribution of scarce resources should be evenly distributed to women and not limited to men. In this manner, feminism is similar to Marxist thought and conflict theory (see Chapter 3), which argues that resources should be shared equally among people of all social classes. The feminist movement has generally been described as going through a series of “waves.” There are four acknowledged waves of feminism and each wave has drawn attention to specific examples of inequality that feminists argue need to be remedied. In the United States, the first wave of feminism, in addition to seeking the rights of women to vote, sought equality for women in education. These early feminists argued that women should have the right to attend college and receive a diploma. American first-wave feminists also advocated for married women’s property reform because women were not allowed to own anything when they married (West and Zimmerman 2002). The first wave of feminism in the UK began in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and was mostly concerned with women’s civil rights, especially the right to vote. Women above the age of 21 got the right to vote in Britain in 1928 (American women were allowed to vote in 1920 with the passage of the 19th Amendment). The first wave of feminism in Germany began around the same time as in the UK. Marianne Weber, wife of Max Weber (see Chapter 3), was one of the leading feminists of her era. This first wave of feminism promoted economic and political equality between men and women. Around 1905, another German feminist group, led by Helene

112

Explaining Common Sense

Stocker, emerged, whose primary concern was sexual autonomy, which led to what is known as the erotic movement. Feminists of the erotic movement fought for the right of women to engage in sexual relations regardless of marital and legal considerations (Mommsen and Osterhammel 1987). The second wave of feminism began in the 1960s throughout Western societies. This wave of feminism is known as the “Women’s Liberation Movement” (or Women’s Lib) and it attempted to gain equality for women in a variety of social spheres including the workplace (e.g., equal pay), sex and sexuality (e.g., an attempt to get rid of the “double standard”—where young men who had sex with multiple partners were merely sowing wild oats and women who had sex with many partners were labeled “whores” and “sluts”), civil rights in a variety of fronts. The third and fourth waves of feminism are generally categorized as having occurred in the postmodern era. (Note: The meaning of “postmodernism” will be discussed later in this chapter.) The third wave of feminism began in the mid-1990s and centered on many areas of concern, including: “universal womanhood,” gay and lesbian issues, homelessness, AIDS activism, environmental concerns, and human rights in general (e.g., an analysis of welfare states). The third wave of feminism has also acknowledged that many young women recognize that their bodies can be tools of power over men (a further expansion of the erotic movement). Another area of concern for third-wave feminists is the role of women in the military (e.g., stopping the harassment of women who serve in the armed forces). A leading third-wave feminist is Judith Butler and her work on “queer theory” and “performativity” (Ritzer and Stepnisky 2018; Sollee 2015). The fourth wave of feminism began around 2012 and is still developing. It is characterized by a continuation of sex-positivity, trans-inclusivity, intersectionality (the combination of multiple statuses such as class, race, sexual orientation, age, and disability combined with gender), body positive imagery, and is digitally driven (hashtag activism). Among the most popular current examples of hashtag activism is the #MeToo campaign that draws attention to women who have been victimized by sexual harassment and assault. The idea of “waves of feminism” reveals a historic perspective of this social theory. Feminism is also divided into diverse forms including liberal feminism, Marxist feminism, radical feminism, socialist feminism, and postmodern feminism, to mention a few. Liberal (sometimes called egalitarian) feminism is the most mainstream approach and advocates for social change on behalf of women and promotes the idea that the primary obstacle to equality is sexism. This feminist approach works with the premise that individuals are autonomous beings; that individuals are all equal; and that women are independent of men. Marxist feminists stress the need for a revolutionary restructuring of property relations in order to escape male exploitation. Radical feminism views patriarchy as a sexual system of power that has resulted in the male possession of superior power and economic privilege. The role of sexism is also important with radical feminism. Socialist feminists (like

Explaining Common Sense

113

Alison Jaggar, Iris Young, and Nancy Fraser) attempt to combine aspects of radical, Marxist, and psychoanalytic insights under one conceptual umbrella. Social change will occur through increased consciousness and knowledge of how society’s social structures are designed and operate to oppress women. The use of the terms “private sphere” and “public sphere” is a good example of the socialist perspective and is particularly relevant to the study of common sense. Traditionally, women have been associated with the private sphere (stay at home, raise the children) and men with the public sphere (the workplace). For traditionalists, this idea presents itself as common sense; for the progressive, the idea that men and women are designed for a specific sphere of life violates common sense. Postmodern feminists criticize the dominant social order and patriarchal social structures. Kristine Baber and Colleen Murray (2001) explain that a “postmodern approach stresses the importance of historical context, variations among people and the expectation of change over time” (p. 22). As with all schools of thought, there exists a wide variety of feminist social thinkers whose ideas are worthy of review in social theory books. As this is a book about common sense no one would expect, nor would it be practical, to provide an extensive review of feminist thought here. Thus, as with the review of the other schools of thought previously covered in this text, the ideas of a select few feminists will be presented here. The first feminist to be discussed is Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986) who is known especially for her 1949 publication The Second Sex. As described by Judith Thurman in the “Introduction,” The Second Sex has been called a “feminist bible” (p. xii). In this book, de Beauvoir describes women’s oppression in detail (e.g., describing how women were to be “eternally feminine”) (p. 4) and forms a foundation for modern feminism. The Second Sex certainly cemented de Beauvoir’s place in feminist thought. Along with de Beauvoir, Julia Kristeva was an important proponent of French feminism. In New Maladies of the Soul, Kristeva (1995) uses a psychoanalytic approach in her study of the understanding of the “psyche.” She explores the meaning of the psyche from the time of the ancient Greeks and Stoics who used a dualistic perspective of comparing the “maladies of the soul” to the “maladies of the body” (p. 3) through the time of Freud and his explicit promotion of a “philosophical dualism” (p. 4). Kristeva also employed a post-structuralist approach in her examination of the structure of language which she believed should be viewed through an analysis of history, the individual psyche, and sexual experiences. Such an analysis would reveal that each of us are individuals with different life experiences that, in turn, would imply a different perspective on the meaning of common sense. Carol Gilligan, who cites her primary influences as Freud, Jean Piaget, and Lawrence Kohlberg, has created a theory, in the tradition of Piaget’s cognitive development theory, that involves stages of moral development for women: (1) Orientation to Individual Survival (preconventional morality); (2) Goodness as Self-Sacrifice (conventional morality); and (3) Responsibility for

114

Explaining Common Sense

Consequences of Choice (postconventional morality) (Gilligan, Ward, and Taylor 1988). The moral development of women can be summed up as a transition from caring for oneself (Stage 1) to seeing the virtue in caring for others (Stage 2) to the final realization that a woman must seek moral equality between caring for herself and caring for others (Stage 3). In her 1982 book In a Different Voice, Gilligan describes how the developmental theories of Freud and Piaget treat women like men and were built on observations of men’s lives and behaviors. She believes that a different voice must be heard when describing the developmental theory of women. As a result, Gilligan (1982) promotes the idea of empowering women by giving them voice, a say in their own lives. Years later, Taylor, Gilligan, and Sullivan further attempt to give voice to women and adolescent girls in Between Voice and Silence (1995). Giving voice to all individuals, including those who are often victims of prejudice and discrimination, should be a matter of common sense. The idea that women should be treated equally, fairly, and not subjected to harassment and assault should be a matter of common sense to all people. The fact that waves of feminist movements have existed throughout the past centuries is a testament that not everyone understands this basic concept. All women, like all men, should have equal rights, equal agency, and should be treated as though they have equal worth.

Postmodernism and Common Sense The use of such terms as “modern” and “postmodern” is somewhat unfortunate and seems to defy common sense. After all, decades, and certainly centuries, from now, when scholars look back at this era (the early twenty-first century) they will not consider the ideas currently being promoted as “modern” or “postmodern” as something new and exciting but, instead, as something from the past. Consider that scholars have been using the term “modernism” for centuries, usually in connection with technological advancements or new levels of consciousness. Habermas (1997) traced the use of the word “modern” to the late fifth century, when Christians used the term to distinguish the present from the pagan and Roman past. Hegel applied the term modernity to the passage of humanity through the four cultural and spiritual levels of development—what he called the “Oriental,” “Greek,” “Roman,” and “Christian” Worlds (Martin 1992). Thus, the implication that each era considers itself modern. When scholars think beyond the present (modernity), they allow for both a future (postmodernity) and, consequently, postmodern thought. According to Alexander Riley (2002), “The history of postmodern thought … begins in the French Third Republic, roughly during the second half of the life of the Republic, from about 1900 to the outbreak of World War II in 1939.” Anthony Giddens (1990) describes “modernity” as “modes of social life or organization which emerged in Europe from about the seventeenth century onwards and which subsequently became more or less

Explaining Common Sense

115

worldwide in their influence” (p. 1). The late twentieth century would represent a new era, postmodernity (Giddens 1990). John Deely (1994) argues that there is a nearly indisputable consensus that the word “post” can only exist in opposition, continuity, or complementarity with the universe which it presupposes, that is, the world of modernity. Kellner (1989) explains that when society breaks from current modes of thinking, it has emerged into a postmodern era. Castoriadis (1997) states, “The label of postmodernism certainly does not and cannot define or characterize the present period. But it very adequately expresses it” (p. 32). Thus, the terms “modernity” and “postmodernity” must always be taken into context and should be viewed simply as a shift in a way of thinking that involves breaking away from past forms of thinking into some new way of thinking. That the earliest proponents of postmodern theory come from the twentieth century also reflects the problem with the use of such terms as “modernity” and “postmodernity” in this, the early twenty-first century. Currently, the terms modernity and postmodernity are in vogue in both the academic and nonacademic settings, but it is especially relevant to academic discourse in general and in sociology and philosophy in particular. As Turner (2003) explains, “Sociology was created as a self-conscious discipline to explain the transformation associated with ‘modernity,’ especially the rise of industrial capitalism and the corresponding decline of the agrarian feudal system in Europe and, eventually, elsewhere in the world” (p. 227). Additionally, the sociological study of modernity almost always included a scientific stance and attempted to explain human behavior via basic social forces and social processes (Turner 2003). Postmodern theories, in all their variations (some of which have already been discussed), challenge sociology’s commitment to scientific explanation and “break with modernity in which cultural symbols, media-driven images, and other forces of symbolic signification have changed the nature of social organization and the relations of individuals to the social world” (Turner 2003:227). Ritzer and Stepnisky (2018) posit, like Turner, that postmodernist theory begins with the observation that people no longer live in a modern world but, instead, live in a postmodern world. This postmodern world is shaped by the interplay of four major changes: 1 2

3 4

An expansive stage in global capitalism. The weakening of centralized state power (with the collapse of the old imperial systems, the fragmentation of the communist bloc, and the rise of ethnic politics within nation states). The patterning of life by an increasingly powerful and penetrative technology that controls production and promotes consumerism. The development of liberationist social movements based not in class but in other forms of identity—nationalism, race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, and environmentalism (p. 462).

116

Explaining Common Sense

Ritzer and Stepnisky (2018) summarize the four characteristics of the modern world described above by citing feminist philosopher Susan Bordo who believes that postmodernism asks a new set of questions about the study of society: “Whose truth? Whose nature? Whose version of reason? Whose history? Whose tradition?” (Bordo 1990:136–137). Combined, these questions lead to doubting whether or not it is possible to arrive at a complete and objective knowledge of the world. There are a number of postmodern theorists and a few have addressed the issue of common sense, although generally not as a specific topic. A few postmodern theorists are described here, beginning with Jean-Francois Lyotard (1993) who believed that we were in an era of relaxation, an approach to life that many, but certainly not all, humans, have embraced as a form of common sense. Many people feel that it is their right to relax after working, a privilege afforded to them because of industrialization and postindustrialization. Lyotard was more specifically concerned about those who have given up scientific research (and experimentation) and those who rely on secondary sources of knowledge (today we would think of those who do Google searches and accept what they find on the Internet rather than searching for facts) and accepted narratives that support their pre-existing beliefs about certain matters. Lyotard (1999 [1984]) spoke of legitimation, language, and narratives, and while he thought postmodernism allowed social thinkers and laypersons a chance to break away from positivistic grand narratives of knowledge, what has also happened is that postmodernism allowed for the creation of favorable narratives supported by biased language for those who seek to legitimatize one-sided views on private and public matters. In contemporary society it has become clear that creative narratives lead to different viewpoints of what constitutes as common sense compared to past, more narrow, interpretations of matters of common sense. Another leading postmodern figure is Jean Baudrillard who, among other things, discussed the mass media and entertainment. Baudrillard (1983, 1994) seems to be dead-on about his assessment of the mass media and entertainment as a dominant and powerful influence on culture, a culture that he believed that was characterized by “hyperreality.” Hyperreality refers to the idea that the media no longer simply mirrors reality; it has become more real than reality itself. As it is most relevant to our examination of common sense, hyperreality allows individuals to draw their own conclusions about what is “real” and what is not and these perspectives are driven by the media, especially social media. Building off this idea of hyperreality, Ryan and Wentworth (1999) argued that another important element of the media’s presentation of events is their over-simplification of complex issues; an element of postmodern reality that certainly affects one’s ideas of constitutes common sense. One final postmodern thinker to be acknowledged here is Zygmunt Bauman, who has written on such topics as happiness and the gulf between power and politics. In Retrotopia (2017), for example, Bauman discusses his

Explaining Common Sense

117

belief that nation states have long lost their faith in the idea that human happiness can be achieved in some sort of ideal type, a utopia. Bauman (2017) describes “retrotopia” as a negation of utopia (p. 8). It is a concept that describes a variety of social, political, and economic aesthetics associated with a revisionist (retro), or retrospective praxis, view of cultural development. In Retrotopia, Bauman begins his analysis with an Introduction on the “Age of Nostalgia” and concludes with an Epilogue: “Looking Forward, For a Change.” While utopian idealistic dreams of happiness may not be achievable, it is, of course, possible for humans to achieve happiness. (Note: Delaney has written two books on happiness.) As this related to common sense, happiness is something that most people attempt to achieve; however, what makes one person happy may make another unhappy. Views of happiness and courses of action to take in order to achieve happiness are connected to common sense. However, attaining happiness in the postmodern world is not always a matter of common sense.

Posthumanism and Transhumanism One variation of postmodern thought is posthumanism. Preceding posthumanism is, of course, humanism. From the time of the Enlightenment, humanists have promoted the idea that progress can be attained through enlightened rational thought because humans hold the capacity for reason. Humanists promote secular ideals rather than divine or supernatural ones. “Since its inception, during the Renaissance period, humanism has been a cultural and intellectual movement that emphasizes secular concerns of civility, morality and ethical behavior” (Delaney 2010:23). With the preceding quote in mind we can define humanism as a system of thought and action that highlights human interests by promoting reason, scientific inquiry and secular ideals of dignity, civility, morality, and ethical behavior that has its roots firmly entrenched in the Renaissance/Enlightenment-era thinkers. Among the basic tenets of humanism is the idea that humans should have the right to develop their full individual potentialities. Humanistic principles are applicable to a number of social arenas as this philosophy emphasizes the value of agency among humans, both individually and collectively, and because it is a mode of thought or action that promotes human action, interests, values, and overall dignity. Posthumanism has moved beyond the focus of the rights of humans to engage in secular pursuits free from the constraints of traditional and religious doctrines. Indeed, the concept of posthumanism entails the realization that people are increasingly involved in networks that encompass both human and nonhuman components (Ritzer and Stepnisky 2018) and that humans are increasingly relying on electronics for such things as friendships, romance, and happiness (Delaney and Gorlova 2018; Delaney and Malakhova 2018). The Oxford English Dictionary (2018) defines posthumanism as “The idea that humanity can be transformed, transcended, or eliminated either by

118

Explaining Common Sense

technological advances or the evolutionary process; artistic, scientific, or philosophical practice which reflects this belief.” Evidence of humanity’s growing affection, attachment, and dependence on electronics and other forms of artificial technology surrounds us all. It is nearly impossible to go through a day without using multiple forms of technology and certainly for most people, their lives are dependent upon electronics (e.g., cellular phones, social media, purchasing products, conducting banking, use of satellites for directions, and so on). The use of electronics and artificial forms of technology is simply a matter of common sense. Cary Wolfe (2009) purposes that posthumanism examines humanity’s place in the world by both the technological and the biological or “green” continuum in which humans are simply one of many life forms on earth. To this end, Wolfe examines bioethics, cognitive science, animal ethics, gender, and disability to develop a theoretical and philosophical approach responsive to the changing nature of humanity. Posthumanist theory attempts to transform the very manner in which we view humanity itself; and thus, the way in which we view common sense. Transhumanism is one way in which humanity may be transformed. Transhumanism is a way of thinking about the future that is based on the premise that the human species in its current form does not represent the final stage of our development but rather a relatively early phase (Humanity Plus 2017). Transhumanism may be viewed as an intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by using technology to enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities (The Nano Age 2018). One of the leading proponents of transhumanism is Oxford University philosophy professor, Nick Bostrom. Bostrom views transhumanism as a possible means of enhancing the human condition but warns that it does not entail technological optimism. While future technological capabilities carry immense potential for beneficial deployments, they also could be misused to cause enormous harm, ranging all the way to the extreme possibility of intelligent life become extinct. Other potential negative outcomes include widening social inequalities or a gradual erosion of the hard-to-quantify assets that we care deeply about but tend to neglect in our daily struggle for material gain, such as meaningful human relationships and ecological diversity. (Bostrom 2003) Learn more about posthumanism, and its relationship to common sense, in Box 4.1.

Postcolonialism Another variation of postmodern thought is postcolonialism. Colonialism (or imperialism) itself is important because it played a key role in the development of modern social constructions of race. The concept of race, as we

Explaining Common Sense

119

understand it today, did not exist before colonialism (Omi and Winant 2015; Ritzer and Stepnisky 2018). Colonialism was predominant from the sixteenth to twentieth centuries and involves the policy or practice of acquiring full or political control over another country, occupying it with settlers and military forces, exploiting it economically, establishing racial hierarchies, through the use of violence and domination. During this period, European nations established colonies in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Americas. At its peak in the late nineteenth century, the British Empire consisted of more than a quarter of all the territory on the surface of the earth, meaning that one in four people was a subject of Queen Victoria (National Archives 2018). W.E.B. Du Bois (1868–1963) is among the many social thinkers that has described how imperial powers used race as a means of justifying their colonialism. One of the surest examples of racist justification or rationalization on the part of the colonialist nations is to send religious missionaries to “save the souls” of the exploited people. The colonialists would argue that the indigenous people were barbarians because they did not believe in the same God as they did and thus, claim that they were inferior (Du Bois 1943, 1945). Another aspect of colonialism, according to Du Bois (1945), was the principle of “divide and conquer,” a concept that Marx had discussed and applied to the manner in which capitalists try to keep the working classes at each other’s throats. Du Bois noted that the colonialists did not always create such antagonisms but rather that they took advantage of the existing divisions (Adams and Sydie 2001). Furthermore, Du Bois (1945) argued, the imperialists assured themselves of reaping the resources of occupied nations via war as they had the superior weaponry. By the mid-twentieth century, most of the world was decolonized. It is at this point that postcolonialism comes into play. Postcolonial theory purposes that despite decolonialization, the power structures of colonialism remain intact. This postmodern perspective examines the human consequences of the control and exploitation of colonized people and the political and cultural condition (e.g., the ways in which race, ethnicity, culture, and human identity are represented in the contemporary era) of a former colony. As summarized by Ritzer and Stepnisky (2018:569), Julian Go (2013) provides the following elements of postcolonial thought: 1

2 3

Even though it pays attention to the history of colonialism, it is shaped by “present concerns” such as revealing the ways that colonial discourse continues to influence conceptions of race and ethnicity (Go 2013:30). It emphasizes the role that “culture, knowledge and representation” have played in constructing the colonial world and its inhabitants (p. 30). It argues that modern Western society is “constituted through colonialism” (p. 30). [The implication is that the modern Western world has modified its self-image (e.g., by highlighting certain benefits of colonialization such as the building of roads, irrigation systems, and so forth) in order to sustain Western privilege and power.]

120 4

5

Explaining Common Sense It offers “new critical concepts meant to destabilize the assumptions of western imperial culture” (p. 30). In other words, a desire to deconstruct taken-for-granted Western knowledge. It attempts to develop new kinds of knowledge that help to “decolonize consciousness” (p. 30).

The above description of postcolonial theory centers on the imperialism of European powers. Meanwhile, in the Far East, Japan played the role of colonial power via the exploitation of Korea and other neighboring countries. Japan benefited from a weakened China that was itself being exploited by European powers. By the start of World War II, Japan had become an imperial bully over Vietnam. Following the formula of European imperialists, Japan used racial and ethnic distinctions as a means of justifying its colonialism over “inferior” people. The Japanese shared many of the other same reasons for colonization with their Western counterparts, including economic (imperial nations always seek ways to maximize profits), exploratory (human curiosity to visit and explore unknown territories), ethnocentric (a belief that their cultural values, beliefs, and norms were superior to other nations or groups), political (patriotism leads to competition with others as a sign of supremacy), and religious (as previously described, religious people generally believe that their interpretation of supernatural powers and God is the accurate one and therefore feel the need to send missionaries to convert the non-believers of other nations). Postcolonial social theorists may also consider the United States as a postcolonial country because of its former status as a territory of European nations (primarily Great Britain but also France and Spain); however, most would consider the United States, like Russia (and the former USSR), a colonizing nation. Currently, both the United States and Russia employ many of the same justifications described above for their intrusion into the affairs of other nations. Other postcolonial social thinkers may examine Canada and Australia, because of their status as former colonies of Britain, but they are really a separate category of settler nations because of their continued membership in the British Commonwealth of Nations (Encyclopedia.com 2018). Postcolonial theory is applicable to the study of common sense in many ways but especially because of its focus on how the values and norms of a large number of societies are influenced by colonial powers. This is especially true with regard to race and ethnicity as, by now, we have learned that perceptions and conceptions of what constitutes common-sense behavior vary from person to person, from group to group, and from culture to culture. From a postcolonial perspective, the idea that “one size fits all” is not applicable to the study of common sense. Furthermore, it should be a matter of common sense that no nation has the right to colonize another and certainly no nation wants to be invaded by an imperialist nation and have their norms, values, and beliefs forced upon them.

Explaining Common Sense

121

4.1 Connecting Common Sense and Popular Culture Posthumanism and the Rise of the Machines As we learned in this chapter, posthumanism refers to the idea that humanity can be transformed, transcended, or eliminated either by technological advances or the evolutionary process. Humans sure are enamored with all things electronic, from the devices we use on a regular basis such as cellular phones that allow us to purchase items, conduct business and banking, and so on, to artificial technology that provides us with augmented and virtual realities. Throw into this mix a variety of machines that help to prolong a quality life, quantity of life, and life itself, to intrusions of life such as robo calls. Is this posthumanist shift in humanity an inevitable progression in the evolution of our species? And, if so, is it a good thing or a bad thing? Among the positive aspects of a posthumanist world is the ease in communications and the easy access to information. For many people, but especially the young, it is unimaginable to live in a world without a cellular device; and, even for the generations who were not raised on cellular technology, it would be difficult to return to a pre-satellite world. People who like sports or video games certainly see the advantages of augmented and virtual realities. Augmented reality is an enhanced version of reality created by the use of technology to overlay digital information on an image of something being viewed through an electronic device (e.g., television or smart phone) in real time. For example, televised football games often involve the projection of such images as the “first down marker,” the score, down, and yardage information, and a host of other bits of information. Football games may show the trajectory of the booted ball toward the net. Tennis matches will include augmented images to show the viewer whether the ball was in-bounds or out-of-bounds. The examples of augmented forms of reality are nearly endless. Virtual reality refers to technology that allows users to interact with a computer-stimulated environment. Virtual reality is used in a variety of fashions as well, including video games; the film industry; the medical community (e.g., to train surgeons and to experiment, virtually, with new, radical procedures before subjecting humans to untried treatments); engineers (e.g., to test a wide variety of designs to gauge their functionality before proceeding to implement their construction in the real world), and so on. Humans have also developed a wide variety of machines that allow for the completion of an innumerable variety of tasks. In the field of surgery technological advancements in machinery have allowed for: supervisor-controlled surgical systems; shared control robotic surgical systems; telesurgery systems; and robotic radiosurgery systems (BME240 2018). Anyone who has an artificial limb, or knows someone with one, is likely to see the benefits of technological developments in the medical profession. Major advancements in robotic prosthetics include: prosthetic foot materials (e.g., thermoplastic sockets give prosthesis longer life and durability); Bluetooth (allows for the electronic

122

Explaining Common Sense

communication between multiple prosthetics for the same recipient); microprocessor knees; myoelectric technology (the prefix myo- denotes a relationship to muscle); and targeted muscle reinnervation (amputees control prostheses directly with their minds) (Seeker 2012). Machines in the form of robots have been improving in development for decades now. Robots are becoming increasingly used in manufacturing and are replacing humans as a labor force. Robots are increasingly being developed and used by everyday consumers who use the machines for tasks around the home. If you follow the development of robot technology as closely as I do, you have surely noticed that they are becoming increasing mobile and flexible. They can jump, climb stairs, open jars, unlock doors, and so on. Should we be worried about this? Are robots becoming too advanced? Too smart? If you enjoy science fiction films like the Terminator movies you may be worried a great deal. But, is this worry over nothing? If you haven’t watched the Terminator franchise of movies (as of 2018 there are five films with a sixth scheduled for release in 2019) you are not a fan of science fiction. For people like me, the Terminator movies (and even The Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles television series) are among your favorite science fiction films. And, as each year goes by, and especially using the posthumanist perspective, these films seem increasingly likely to come true. The first Terminator movie was released in 1984 and stars Arnold Schwarzenegger as the android terminator (who appears indestructible) and who attempts to kill Sarah Connor (played by Linda Hamilton). The terminator has traveled back in time from a future where the machines rose to power and go about exterminating all humans (some are kept alive to work in factories that make more of these cyborgs). The eeriest aspect of this film franchise is the realization that humans created these cyborgs as a part of a strategic “Global Digital Defense Network” overseen by Skynet. (Note: The terminator android is described as a cybernetic organism consisting of living tissue over a robotic endoskeleton.) The relevant aspect of this film to our discussion here is the turning point of the machines; that is, when they learned to think for themselves and concluded that humans were the enemy that needed to be destroyed. Thus, it was human technology that led to the attempted extinction of humanity itself. Perhaps the ultimate, or inevitable, fate of humanity that willingly went along with the transformative posthumanist twenty-first century. Let’s revisit the related questions posed earlier, are robots becoming too advanced and too smart and should we be worried by the advancements of machines? How about these questions: If machines become too smart, can they begin to learn on their own and what happens if they view humans as a threat? Would they rise against humanity? What does common sense tells us about the possibility of a rise of machines? And, if machines (androids and robots) do rise, would this represent the final stage of humanity (thus proving the theory of posthumanism), the extinction stage? Some of us may live long enough to find out the answer to these questions!

Explaining Common Sense

123

Summary In this chapter, theoretical explanations as to the nature of common sense were provided from select social thinkers and their theories from the early twentieth century through the contemporary, modern, and postmodern era. Many of these theoretical perspectives share a post-Marxist analysis. The review began with a look at hermeneutic phenomenology, a theoretical approach with roots firmly entrenched in the German tradition in general, and in Edmund Husserl specifically. Hermeneutics is a special approach to understanding and interpreting published writings and involves an attempt to understand the basic text as well as the thinking of the author. The works of Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Paul Ricoeur, and Cornelius Castoriadis that are related to the topic of common sense were explored and explained. Italian Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci’s analysis of society, centered on the concept of hegemony, describes how the combination of structural domination through economics and politics as well as a combination of political, intellectual, and moral understanding were reviewed. Gramsci believes that the bourgeoisie do not rule over the masses simply through economic or political means but rather via cultural ideology. Elements of critical theory were explored in the discussion of Jurgen Habermas and his utilization of communicative action theory. Habermas’ communication theory involves communicative action, via language, and provides meaning to actors and shapes their lifeworlds. Following the discussion of Habermas was an examination of Immanuel Wallerstein and his systems-analysis approach which involves a view of hegemony as a type of structural domination that extends beyond economics and politics to the realm of cultural arenas. Wallerstein argues that it is dangerous and unacceptable for the world-system elites to promote the idea that specific values and norms are universal or absolute truths; a notion that leads to the conclusion that notions of common sense as universal and absolutely consistent would be inaccurate. The discussion on Anthony Giddens centers on his structuration theory, an integration of agency and structure. Promoting an element of postmodernism, Giddens argues that sociology is incapable of establishing laws of human behavior and instead he uses a cluster of sensitizing concepts linked together discursively in his structuration theory. It is the utilization of our stocks of knowledge (mutual knowledge), whether consciously or unconsciously, that allows actors to act in a common-sense manner in given situations. A review of Randall Collins’ interaction ritual chain theory helps to explain why people behave differently as he believes that all social encounters can be ranked by their degree of ritual intensity. Engaging in certain ritualistic behaviors becomes assumed by group members; they become a part of the commonsense world of those who engage in the association. McDonnell, Bail, and Tavory put forth a theory of resonance which allows for the

124

Explaining Common Sense

inference that objects that resonate with individuals and groups are easier to view as elements of common sense. The chapter concludes with a review of some specific variations of postmodern theory including post-feminism, posthumanism, transhumanism, and postcolonialism. For feminists, it a matter of common sense that they should share equally in society’s scarce resources and enjoy equal rights, equal agency, and should be treated as though they have equal worth (as men). The concept of posthumanism entails the realization that people are increasingly involved in networks that encompass both human and nonhuman components. Posthumanist theory attempts to transform the very manner in which we view humanity itself. Transhumanism is one way in which humanity may be transformed. Transhumanism is a way of thinking about the future that is based on the premise that the human species in its current form does not represent the final stage of our development but rather a relatively early phase. Another variation of postmodern thought is postcolonialism. Postcolonial theory is applicable to the study of common sense in many ways but especially because of its focus on how the values and norms of a large number of societies are influenced by colonial powers.

5

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

Introduction A 35-year-old man, his girlfriend, and her three young children (two boys and a girl) are swimming in the Oswego Canal about 150 yards north of Lock 3 in Fulton, New York, on a Saturday afternoon, June 11, 2005. The children were anxious to swim on that hot, June day. No one in the group had ever swam at this particular site prior to this occasion. Joel, the 11-year-old son, begins to struggle in the water due to a sudden increase in current speed. The man, Aaron Quinones, decides to risk his own life in an attempt to rescue the boy. He successfully manages to get the boy onto a rock but was not able to save himself. Fulton firefighters recovered his body from the canal shortly after the accident was reported around 12:30 p.m. Many believe that Quinones died a hero (Mohr 2005). Lock 3 of the Oswego Canal raises and lowers boats 27 feet (NY Canals 2013). When this happens the canal currents are subject to a quick change in water volume and speed. In this particular case, the water rose quickly as the lock was lowering a boat headed downriver. Fulton Firefighter Deputy Chief David Johnson said, “Common sense dictates that it’s not a safe place to swim. We advise people not to swim there” (Mohr 2005). From this perspective, Quinones died because he violated common sense; a rather harsh way of looking at things considering the man died saving the life of another. Was Quinones a hero because he risked his own life to save a child, or did he fail to adhere to common sense by allowing his group to swim there in the first place? What do you think?

Common Sense is Learned Behavior The story described above allows us an opportunity to discuss a number of general aspects of common sense. For example, most social scientists would argue that humans have few (if any) instincts that we rely on for basic survival as we have evolved past the time of mechanical stimulus-response reaction behaviors to the point where we can use our intellect to survive. From this perspective, the human ability to think is what separates us from the other

126

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

animals. Still, maybe we do have a few basic instincts that help us to survive. One might be self-preservation. After all, most people would agree that it is in one’s best interest to protect themselves from situations that could cause harm or death. Thus, if you are in a building and notice smoke down the hall and hear fire alarms sound their warning, the self-preservation “instinct” should kick in and tell you to run for safety. The voice inside of us that warns of impending danger is not only an aspect of self-preservation it is a feature of the “fight-or-flight” response that some consider as another possible example of a human instinct (and one shared with most animals). The term “fight or flight” was coined by American physiologist Walter Cannon in his 1915 book Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear and Rage (Brown and Fee 2002). This response is critical for survival, as many times people who are in a highly stressful situation may actually freeze and fail to react to signs of danger. The “flight” response is the reaction to run from danger. Individuals not trained for combat, for example, are best advised to use this tactic when confronted with an overwhelming hostile situation. The “fight” response entails confronting the dangerous situation head-on and is the more typical response among military, law enforcement, and gang members alike (Delaney 2014b). There are countless situations that we may find ourselves in where the selfpreservation “instinct” should kick in, including: getting out of the ocean if there is a shark spotted; avoiding an environment where there is an active shooter; or, if a wild animal is charging at you in the forest while you are camping. And yet, this so-called fundamental basic instinct for survival is subject to avoidance when the situation involves the need and/or desire to save another person’s life even if that endangers one’s own life. The introductory story provided us with just one example of a person risking his life to save another. Similar scenarios happen on a regular basis across the country and around the globe and lead us to this question—“Why would someone risk their own life to save another when it may lead to their own bodily harm or death?” Perhaps such people are truly altruistic (showing a disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others) or they may have learned through the socialization process, personal experience, or observation, that the “right thing to do” is to try and save the life of another. Some people, including military personnel, police officers, and firefighters, place their own lives at risk to save others (generally strangers) as a paid profession. With so many people willing to risk their lives for others, is this evidence of a lack of a selfpreservation instinct? Is it an example of violating common sense? Or, is it a matter of common sense to risk your own life to save another, especially a loved one? What do you think? Another important aspect of common sense raised in the chapter’s introductory story is the Firefighter Deputy Chief ’s statement about the site of the drowning that “Common sense dictates that it’s not a safe place to swim.” This comment allows us to reintroduce the idea that common sense is not necessarily a notion commonly held by all and, instead, something only becomes common sense when we have knowledge about a particular

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

127

situation. (In the drowning case described above that includes knowledge of the existence of canal docks and how they operate, being accompanied by someone who has personal experience about the danger of swimming in this particular area, or observing a similar situation in the past.) Swimming in a river that looks calm and consistent seems like a “safe” place to swim, especially compared to swimming in an ocean with huge waves crashing the shoreline. Thus, one might conclude that it is common sense that swimming in a river (in non-flooding situations) poses little risk. While there may have been warning signs posted, as the Deputy Chief pointed out, the reality is, people often ignore warning signs even if it is a matter of common sense to heed all warning signs. Thus, while it was a matter of common sense from the perspective of the Deputy Chief that people should not be swimming in that particular area, such knowledge was based on experience he had gained over the years. It was not common sense for Quinones because he lacked experience and knowledge of that site. These points, and more, indicate just how viable the definition of common sense (as provided in Chapter 2 and utilized throughout this text) really is. In sum, common sense does not refer to, or entail, innate, instinctual knowledge. Instead, it is something that is learned. And it is learned via the socialization process, observation, personal experience, the use of reason, and/ or some combination of all these elements. With this in mind, it is time to explore how these variables help us to attain common-sense knowledge. We begin with an examination of the socialization process.

The Socialization Process: A Critical Aspect of Learning About Common Sense Socialization involves developmental changes brought about as a result of individuals interacting with other people (Schaffer 1984). Sociologists view socialization as a lifelong process of learning—one that starts from infancy and continues through old age. Like psychologists, sociologists acknowledge the importance of early childhood development as a critical phase of learning; however, sociologists also emphasize that, ideally, each of us will continue to learn throughout our lifetimes. We learn by interacting with others. The importance of learning is a focal point in the definition of socialization and a fundamental aspect of developing common sense. Socialization is defined as “a process of social development and learning that occurs as individuals interact with one another and learn about the society’s expectations for acceptable behavior” (Delaney 2012:146). The importance of socialization is evident from the time an infant is born, as all infants are nearly completely dependent on caregivers for survival. These initial caregivers (e.g., parents, other close family members, or guardians) are responsible for loving, nurturing, protecting, and teaching children, especially young children, the ways of the world. Caregivers teach children the necessary, basic rules of life designed to aid in their very survival as well

128

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

as instruct them on how to best interact with others. Caregivers must also break the narcissistic tendencies of infants and young children. This is important because the self-centeredness of infants, which reflect their dependency on others, generally violates the norms and values of society in addition to violating common sense. Infants and young children do not behave narcissistically on purpose; rather, it is their innate instinct to survive that leads them to cry out when they are hungry or feel threatened or insecure. They have biological needs (for food, warmth, removal of discomfort, etc.) and respond to these needs biologically. Think about it: infants cannot feed or bathe themselves, they cannot clothe themselves; they cannot take care of their most basic needs without the assistance of others. As a result, they learn to manipulate caregivers via a number of techniques, especially crying and throwing temper tantrums. And because others take care of their every need, infants and young children become quite narcissistic and demand immediate gratification. If they are hungry or thirsty, they will usually cry and scream (as if dying!), regardless of the time of day or night, or whether other family members are trying to sleep. They do, after all, have biological needs they cannot fulfill themselves. So, instead, they rely on others. The role of the caregivers, then, continues from taking care of the basic needs of infants while also trying to break them from their habit of being waited on by others. Children must learn to take care of themselves and to consider the needs of others (Delaney 2017). They must learn that they live in a social world where biological urges must be controlled. The child must learn to conform to societal expectations and learn that the behaviors tolerated as infants will not be accepted as they age. Children learn such things through the socialization process. One of the early goals of the socialization process is to tame narcissism and to teach children that they cannot have whatever they want whenever they want it. For example, parents may feed infants specific foods that they find edible just to make sure they are fed and do not go hungry. However, the behavior of a five-year-old who throws a tantrum because he or she prefers macaroni and cheese and instead of the prepared family meal will not be tolerated. By this point in time the caregivers must break the child of their belief that the world revolves around them, as it doesn’t. The world is a social one with countless expectations of proper behavior. Adults come to recognize such realities as common sense. Infants must learn to control other biological urges too, such as their bodily functions. One of the toughest early jobs of caregivers is “potty training” a child. Small children must also learn that just because they are hungry or thirsty does not mean they should instantly receive food and drink; instead, they must wait to have dinner when the rest of the family has dinner. They must learn that temper tantrums no longer work and that proper behavior is expected at all times. Ideally, children learn such things before they reach school age. Adults who act in a childish or narcissistic manner are seldom taken seriously and those who possess common sense have learned that social conventions give rise to basic

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

129

biological needs and desires. It is through the socialization process wherein people learn that the conventions of society take precedence over individual, narcissistic wants and desires. While it has been described here a couple of different times that caregivers must “break” infants and small children of their selfishness, socialization is most effective when individuals learn to accept the appropriateness of behaving properly in given situations. In order for this to occur, individuals must learn to internalize the messages sent to them by significant others. In this regard, the expectations of society and how to behave properly in given situations are added to the “script” of response patterns of individuals; they have learned to respond to various stimuli in a routine social fashion (e.g., everyday courtesy and manners, formal etiquette, and knowing when to speak and when to remain quiet). Individuals who are properly socialized and have internalized the cultural expectations of the greater society are able to function properly in a variety of social settings. The socialization process, then, prepares individuals to perform appropriately in all social settings. In a broader sense, the socialization process is critical for the survival and stability of the greater society itself. After all, if everyone behaved in a narcissistic manner or acted as they pleased in every social situation, it would be difficult for any sort of maintenance or growth of society to occur; civil society itself would likely cease to exist. Furthermore, in the context of common sense, if everyone behaved as they pleased in every social situation, there wouldn’t be a chance to develop common expectations of behavior; and thus, common sense itself could not exist. Conversely, a general adherence to societal rules and expectations allows for the development of common sense. It should also be pointed out that accepting the legitimacy of adhering to the conventions of society does not preclude any chance of social change, as changing beliefs, norms, and values as a result of significant events and technological advancements can alter a given society’s ideology and operating structure.

Primary Groups In Chapter 3, we learned about sociologist Charles Cooley and his ideas on symbols, language, and social interaction, and their connection to common sense. Here, we learn about his work on primary groups. Cooley (1909) describes primary groups as: those characterized by intimate face-to-face association and cooperation … The result of intimate association, psychologically, is a certain fusion of individualities in a common whole, so that one’s very self, for many purposes at least, is the common life and purpose of the group. (p. 23) These associations are primary in many ways, but especially in that they are fundamental in shaping the social individual. For Cooley, primary groups are intimate, face-to-face groups that play a key role in linking the individual to

130

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

the larger society. The primary group is relatively small, informal, involves close personal relationships, and has an important role in shaping the self. Primary groups are such groups from which individuals receive their earliest and most basic experiences of social unity. They are the sources of the individual’s ideals, which derive from the moral and ethical unity of the group itself. Cooley stated that the most important primary groups are the family, the playgroup of children, and the neighborhood or community of elders. (Society has changed since the time of Cooley, as in most modern societies a “community of elders,” if it even exists, generally has little or no impact on young individuals—children and young people seldom are taught to respect the advice of a group of unknown elders.) Today, we would see primary groups as immediate family members and close friends (for children, this would most likely include schoolmates or neighborhood playmates; for adults, this would be our closest circle of friends). We value the input from primary groups because these are the individuals whose opinions and knowledge of life we value the most and the people we most easily identify with as similar to ourselves. As Loy and Ingham explained, it is through the socialization process and especially our interactions with close others that help individuals acquire a social identity. Loy and Ingham (1981) describe socialization as “an interactional process whereby a person acquires a social identity, learns appropriate role behavior and in general conform to expectations held by members of the social system to which he belongs or aspires to belong” (p. 189). The social identity we forge through interactions with primary group members provides us with an affinity that provides a sense of closeness that leads to individual group members using the term “we” when describing group activities. This “we” feeling reflects a sense of belonging among group members. “We-ness” can be viewed as a sort of sympathy and mutual identification for which “we” is a natural expression. It should be clear, then, that we value and respect the knowledge we learn from primary group members. A shared sense of social reality is transformed into a common-sense approach and outlook on a number of mannerisms of behavior. For example, in a Catholic family that regularly says “grace” in prayer form before every meal, it becomes just a matter of common sense to do so for the child raised in such an environment. The same thing is true in secular families that acknowledge (give grace, so to speak) the meal they are about to eat by giving thanks sans prayer.

Agents of Socialization Primary groups are an example of agents of socialization. Agents of socialization are sources of culture; they are people, groups, organizations, and institutions that teach us what we need to know in order to function properly in society. They also teach us how to behave in a “common sense” manner. In addition to our primary agents of socialization—parents and the family—are peer groups, schools, mass media, social media, religion, employers, and the government.

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

131

The family (especially parents) represents the first and most primary of all the agents of socialization. Siblings, cousins, grandparents, and other close family members of the child may also be considered members of the initial primary agent of socialization. It is within the family structure that most of us first experience face-to-face associations. Raised within the family structure, the young child receives mostly consistent messages about social expectations and concepts of “right” and “wrong.” The family is a social group, and like all other social groups, it has norms and rules with corresponding sanctions (punishments) for violations. For example, most of us had a curfew when we were young, and if we violated the curfew, we were confronted with some sort of punishment (e.g., grounding). One’s family, which is determined by kinship—a network of relatives—is so important that many claim it “is a bedrock of society” (Gubrium and Holstein 1990:13). In this manner, the family is often looked upon as a social institution vital to the general well-being of society. Because the family is the primary agent of socialization, it is the primary initial source of knowledge on how to properly act in numerous social situations. The level of common sense that children possess is often reflective of family upbringing. After a few early years of life some children will begin day care and by age four or five most children will begin formal education by attending school. Within this new environment children may be exposed to messages inconsistent with those they learned from their family. As a result, their perception of the “norm” of social reality may be altered, and certainly many of their notions of common sense may also be changed. Caregivers at day care as well as school personnel may have different ideas on norms, values, and cultural beliefs. These different outlooks on life may confuse the child, but they may also enhance an appreciation for diversity of thought and action. Attending school represents the beginning of secondary socialization. The influence of the family may also start to decline as the child progresses through school and gains a formal education. As the child grows older, the opinions, values, and norms of peers become increasingly important. A peer group consists of associates of a similar age and usually from the same social status and background. Peers enjoy a certain amount of autonomy and egalitarianism as each friend possesses relatively equal status with the group (although every group tends to have a “leader” with the rest as followers). Peer group participation affords members an opportunity to explore the limits of adult rules and expectations. In this manner, the child is being socialized into accepting the idea that norms, values, and beliefs are not fixed entities but are instead relatively fluid. This freedom is exciting to most children and helps to explain why they value praise and acknowledgment from their peers. This newfound freedom underscores the concern that parents have for the friendships their children establish and maintain. Peer group membership has a great deal to do with common sense as a child’s (and adult’s for that matter) conception of what constitutes as common sense can be dramatically altered (because of the introduction to

132

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

new norms, values, and beliefs, and the reinforcement of behaviors that the family frowned upon). Throughout one’s life, the mass media can be a very important agent of socialization. Children have already been indoctrinated into the use of computers, television, film, books, and a wide variety of mass media aspects. The mass media, in addition to being a source of news, information, and entertainment, may also display a significant influence over aging children. The mass media includes television, radio, motion pictures, newspapers, books, magazines, and sound recordings. (The electronic media will be treated as a separate agent of socialization.) It also consists of such things as video and computer games that may consume a great deal of time and thus have a moderate to great influence on children and adults. Some adolescents are more susceptible to the advertising associated with the mass media that is geared toward their generation. At the very least, the mass media exposes to individuals many different outlooks on norms, values, and beliefs, which, in turn, may alter the commonsense world that they reside in. Other significant agents of socialization include religion, employers, and the government. The importance of religion varies a great deal from one individual to another. For some, the teachings and advice of religious leaders and religious doctrines serve as beacons of truth that must be followed. Other people, however, lead a more secular life and religion has little significance for them. Religion, and more specifically, faith, as we learned about in Chapter 2, serves as a major paradigm of thought and claims to authority over matters of ethics and morality. Enlightened, rational people know that ethics and morality are not automatically associated with religion but still, for religious adherents, such teachings are treated as absolute “truths.” Thus, if religious leaders teach their followers that a particular behavior (e.g., abortion) is wrong, they treat such a claim as common knowledge or common sense. Many religious beliefs come into direct contradiction with the beliefs held by others outside of that faith and, thus, not only are claims to truth questionable, so too are claims of common-sense knowledge. Most people rely on employment in order to pay their bills and as a means of financial survival. Because we have to work, and especially in light of the reality that most of us work for others, employers may serve as a significant agent of socialization. An employer certainly dictates what is considered proper behavior on the job-site (e.g., showing up for work on time, staying focused on tasks-at-hand, proper dress and attire, work expectations) and appropriate behavior of an employee outside of the job site (e.g., professionals in particular are expected to avoid behaviors such as drug-taking and public intoxication). In some industries, such as gas and oil, employers may expect their employees to take a socio-political stand that supports their mission statement. As an example, many years ago, after I earned my undergraduate degree but before I started graduate school, I served as a field supervisor for an oil company’s large chain of convenience stores in Los Angeles. One day we were told by top level administration that all field supervisors and area

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

133

managers were to attend a mandatory meeting. Once there, we were told that environmentalists were trying to halt oil production at an Alaskan site and the vice-president informed all of us that we must write a letter (a draft of the letter we were to write was projected on a screen at the front of the room) to our respective Congress representatives that we wanted the oil drilling sites to remain open. He provided the names and addresses of all of our representatives so that we could not use as an excuse that we did not know how to reach our rep. We were not allowed to leave the meeting before we handed in our letters to a member of Human Resources. As a budding environmentalist, and as a person who did not like to be told to blindly follow orders, I refused. I was told I would be fired on the spot if I did not comply. So, I wrote a letter asking my representative to halt the oil production, placed the letter in the envelope and sealed the envelope (we were not supposed to seal the letter as HR wanted to read each one). While it may have been an example of common sense for me to blindly follow the orders of my employer, I could not, in good conscience, comply. Common sense should also dictate that employers have no right to force employees to obey such a command. Then again, as we shall see in Chapter 6, common sense should tell us that we (the human species) should not be relying on the burning of fossil fuels for our survival. As an endnote, I was “let go” from this company within a few weeks after challenging the blind obedience to the rule of top administrators even though my territory of stores were among the top performers in the entire West Coast region. I now promote and have published in the area of protecting the environment, something that seems like common sense. Unfortunately, much of the world community is still dependent upon the burning of fossil fuels as its primary energy source. The role of the government, whether it is democracy or a dictatorship or some medium in between, is very extensive and profound on the lives of people and in the way we conceive notions of common sense. It is the government that dictates what is legal and what is illegal and therefore has a strong influence on determining what is “right” and “wrong.” Thus, while someone may find it perfectly acceptable to smoke marijuana whether it’s for recreational or medicinal purposes, if the government labels it criminal, it is unlawful for individuals to make such a decision on their own. The government not only frames issues of legality, it has a great impact on a society’s ideology. An ideology may be thought of as a body of ideas, or a doctrine, that reflects the social needs and aspirations of a society. This doctrine forms the basis of the socio-economic and political system of a society. As a result, a society’s ideology justifies its social structure (e.g., the allocation of the fiscal budget). As an example of ideological beliefs in conflict, the North Korean government has labeled American society as decadent and as a threat to its survival; as a result, North Koreans treat as a matter of common sense that the U.S. government is an evil threat. Conversely, the U.S. government has indoctrinated its citizens into accepting the idea that North Korea has a rogue government and is a threat to our survival; thus, it becomes a matter of

134

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

common sense that we must keep North Korea “in check” and by any, and all, means possible. The state of affairs of governments around the world plays into this same type of scenario; that is to say, they promote the protection of their self-interests as a matter of common sense and warn that any government in conflict with their ideology is a threat to their way of life.

Cyber Socialization and Social Media The socialization process described thus far primarily involves traditional forms of learning via our parents and family members (or other caregivers), agents of socialization (e.g., peer groups), and social institutions. However, with the advent and continued advancement of communications technology, people are now spending a great deal of time communicating with one another in the cyberworld. The cyberworld, sometimes referred to as the electronic world, involves computers, inter-computer communication, and computer networks such as the Internet that provides a place wherein people go to communicate electronically. It has become so common for people to spend time in the cyberworld that socializing and conducting business online is an expected form of behavior (Delaney and Madigan 2017; Delaney and Malakhova 2018). Progressive, creative, and enlightened, rational thought allowed for the creation of new technologies that allow people to communicate with diverse others and those who are separated by a great deal of distance to share in instant long-distance interactions through a series of networking sites. Electronic forms of communication, and in particular social media, help to shape the world of social interactions and notions of common sense (Delaney and Madigan 2016). Social media refers to cyber communications and the nearly countless array of “internet based tools and platforms that increase and enhance the sharing of information. This new form of media makes the transfer of text, photos, audio, video and information in general increasingly fluid among internet users” (Social Media Defined 2014). People use social media for business, pleasure, and other reasons via such platforms as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, and so on, all with the inevitable conclusion of forming virtual worlds of reality. Social media is capable of spreading information (ranging from the mundane, such as a Facebook friend’s birthday, to the more serious news events of the day) so quickly that the concept of “trending” has become fashionable. Trending occurs when something significant happens in the world and people immediately use social media to talk about it and then others follow suit. A quick and huge spike in electronic talking about a topic causes it to be labeled as “trending” (Delaney and Madigan 2016). Our fascination with cyber socialization and social media did not develop overnight, even though for some it may seem that way. For nearly the past two generations, people have been raised in an increasingly electronic world. The use of computers has long surpassed a novelty fascination; it has become

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

135

a necessity and is treated as a “given” in the lives of most people. In other words, it is a matter of common sense for people to be online and interact with others. Socializing online is a norm and social networking in the cyberworld fulfills the purpose of staying connected with known others while also affording users a chance to meet new, diverse people. It is also a matter of common sense that as the number of people who interact online continues to increase so too does the power and influence of the social media increase. While it is impossible to cover all of the data associated with social media here, and within the context of common sense, consider, for example, that Facebook cracked the two billion monthly active users mark in the second quarter of 2017 (Statista.com 2017a). The total minutes spent on Facebook each month (by all users) is 648,000,000; average time spent on Facebook per visit is 18 minutes; the total number of languages available on Facebook is 70; and the percentage of Facebook users outside of the United States is at 75 percent (StatisticBrain.com 2017). Nearly half of all Facebook users between the ages of 18 and 34 check Facebook when they wake up and nearly 30 percent check Facebook before they get out of bed (StatisticBrain.com 2017). In the UK, young people aged between 16 and 24 spend more than 27 hours a week on the Internet and people of all ages are spending twice as much time online compared to 10 years earlier. This dramatic increase has been fuelled by increasing use of tablets and smartphones. The average person spends 2.5 hours every week “online while on the move”—away from their home, work, or place of study. Overall, the proportion of adults using the Internet has risen from six in ten in 2005 to almost nine in ten in 2015 (Anderson 2015). A similar trend is occurring in the United Kingdom as with the United States, that while people are still watching a great deal of TV and films, they are increasingly watching this programming online. In Russia, the most active Internet users are young people between the ages of 18 and 24 and they spend more than 21 hours a week online. This marks an increase of five times the number of hours spent online compared to 2009– 2019 when the popularity of the Russian social networking (Vkontakte.ru; Odnoklassniki.ru) began to increase rapidly (Rassadina 2015). Another tendency is that 90 percent of Internet users under the age of 35 use gadgets to get access to the web. Research also indicated that in 2016 the gadgets’ owners used the Internet mainly for communication in social networks—over two hours per day. The overall average of Russians’ online activity is about seven hours per week. This is less than the overall average for Europeans and Americans (11-plus hours per week) (Richter 2015), but higher than the world’s average (Yandex Research Report 2016). However, the main point about Russian social media interaction is that it develops much of the intercultural and interlingua dialogue within Russia. Time spent on the Internet and particularly in social media (with Facebook as the leading site) contributes to knowledge of other nationalities and cultures and increases the interest in them. All this being said, the tendency of growing tolerance and

136

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

dialogue between Russians and people from other cultures is more typical in the larger cities of Russia, including Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Kazan, than it is in the rural areas (Delaney and Malakhova 2018). As a bit of a warning, it should be a matter of common sense that not all the information found online is legitimate (for example, Statistic Brain.com reports that there are 81 million fake Facebook profiles alone). In fact, many people and organizations purposely plant false news stories and make bogus posts as a means of trying to sway people’s views about a wide variety of topics. So, proceed with caution when traversing the cyber highway as it is filled with potholes of falsehoods. While in some cases common sense might help some people decipher the difference between “truths” and “falsetivities” (made-up stories and claims of truths) found online, it is often a matter of applying enlightened, rational thought that will help the online user distinguish between the two.

Observation and Personal Experience Everyone observes his or her immediate social environments, with some folks being more attuned to their surroundings than others. Students sitting in the classroom are aware of other students (especially those nearest to them), the professor in the front of the room, and any other types of stimuli found in their social settings (e.g., the clock on the wall, the sounds of others out in the hall, and activities outdoors visible through classroom windows). In fact, all day long, we observe others. (Although it could be argued that many people are less aware of their surroundings today because of their preoccupation with electronic devices’ screens.) The value of observation should, of itself, be considered a form a common sense. As Yogi Berra is quoted as saying, “You can observe a lot by just watching.” Peter “Yogi” Berra (1925–2015), for those unaware, is best known as a New York Yankees baseball player and coach who is as famous for his malapropisms as he is for his sports career. He has earned a measure of fame for his ability to mangle common phrases and sayings, such as “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over,” “I didn’t really say everything I said,” and “No one goes there anymore because it’s so crowded.” These quips have become known as “Yogi-isms” (Biography.com 2017). There are potentially countless new situations that we may find ourselves in and when we are not sure of the protocol of behavior the best thing to do is observe what others are doing. For example, if you are invited to a formal dinner where the table set-up includes silverware with multiple forks and spoons and you are unsure which one to use follow the lead of the host (even if he or she uses the wrong fork, you’ll show your respect by doing the same thing as long as you don’t call attention to yourself or embarrass the host). The general rule for utensil use (and for utensil placement if you are the host of a formal dinner) is to start with the one farthest from the plate and work your way inward. Forks go on

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

137

the left, with the salad fork first, and then the dinner fork beside the plate. You will find the knife, appetizer or salad knife, spoon, soup spoon, and oyster fork. The knife blades should be positioned with cutting sides closest to the plates. The fork and knife closest to the plate are for eating your main course (Mayne 2017). The world of fine dining includes many other examples of “common sense” as well. Some restaurant etiquette is just common sense: Don’t speak when your mouth is full; don’t tell rude jokes during the meal; don’t wipe your mouth with your sleeve; and, always cover your mouth when you cough. Other rules are a bit more nuanced. Listed below are 15 etiquette rules for dining at fancy restaurants as provided by Mary’s Restaurant and Bed and Breakfast (2015): 

  

 

    

DO always dress nicely. It is still proper for men to wear jackets to dinner, especially if the man is dining with clients; and if the clients are from another country which tends to be more formal, wearing a jacket and tie is considered proper etiquette. DON’T put your cell phone, keys, or purse on the table. It’s just common sense. It distracts not only your other dining companions, but also your waiter and the entire restaurant. DO let your guest order first. The host should take an active role in hosting and use such phrases as, “Will you please bring my guest …” or, “My guest would like to order first” to ward off confusion. DO set up payment ahead of time if you’re the host. A savvy host will know how to give their credit card before they sit down for dinner, or even call the restaurant ahead of time. Also, the person who invites is the person who pays. DON’T tell the sommelier how much you want to spend on wine. Tell the waiter what you like, what you’re having, and give them an idea of price by simply pointing to a wine in your price range. DON’T return the wine. The protocol is you have to keep it even if you don’t like it because they opened the bottle for you. However, if the wine really tastes awful, you don’t have to keep it (and don’t spit it out!). Politely explain the problem to your waiter. DO take pictures of your food, unless you’re with a client. Everyone takes photos of food now, it is acceptable. DO know where to place your napkin. Wait until your host makes the silent signal of placing the napkin on his or her lap before you eat. The napkin goes on your chair seat if you stand to use the restroom. DON’T reach across the table to sample your companion’s food. If you’re with someone you know better, pass them your bread plate with a little sample of the food you want to share. DON’T yell to your waiter. Try to make eye contact or raise your right hand and index finger to get their attention. DO send back food that’s not cooked properly.

138    

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense DO order the same number of courses as your companion. This avoids awkwardness and allows you to pace yourself with the other person. DON’T place your utensils on the side of your plate when you’re done eating. When you are finished, place your knife and fork together at the 10 and 20 position on the plate. DON’T start a business conversation before the conclusion of the entrée. Business should not be discussed until the meal has been cleared away. DO remember your table manners—wipe your fingers and mouth often with your napkin; cut one piece of meat or fish at a time on your plate and eat it before cutting the next one; butter bread on your plate, never in midair; look into (not over) the cup or glass when drinking; and sit up straight, and keep your arms (including elbows) off the table.

Once you have learned these etiquette tips of formal dining you can act in a “common sense” manner and impress others with your knowledge. If you find yourself in any new situation it is best to observe the behaviors of others as you can learn the proper protocols of behavior. These situations can range from fine dining and flying first class on an airplane for the first time to camping, tailgating at a sporting event, fishing, hunting, backpacking, and traveling to new places. While everyone can benefit from observation, a number of researchers and scientists treat observation as a scientific endeavor. Observation becomes a scientific when it meets the following criteria:     

When it is systematic Presents a clear objective or purpose Involves careful record keeping Is tied to theory or broader accumulation of knowledge When the results are presented in some coherent manner that allows the results to be examined by others (Delaney 2012).

Observation research involves focusing on a social situation and meticulously recording key characteristics and events found in a specific setting. Stangor (2004) explains, “Observational research involves making observations of behavior and recording those observations in an objective manner. The observational approach is the oldest method of conducting research and is used routinely in psychology, anthropology, sociology, and many other fields” (p. 126). Ethnography, a popular variation of observational research, involves the study of an entire social setting in which the researcher asks the subjects for their perspectives on social reality—thus yielding a version of common sense from their point of view. Social researchers such as myself have utilized the observational method to examine a wide variety of subcultures (e.g., sports fans, surfers, and street gang members) and especially deviant, taboo, and illicit activities.

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

139

Despite the scientific value of observational research, most of us utilize observation as a way to learn about the behaviors of others. In some cases, people may even model themselves in accordance to the mannerisms of a role model or someone we greatly admire. Among the earliest people we model our behaviors after are our parents. A young boy may pretend to shave his face next to his father while looking at the bathroom mirror and another child may pretend to vacuum the living room or mow the lawn just like her parents do. We will take a closer look at modeling with the context of the social learning theory to be discussed later in this chapter. Once we have observed the behaviors of others we may attempt to emulate them through our own personal experience. After all, observing people may be a great way to learn about how to behave in given situations but nothing beats actually engaging in the behavior. Consider, for example, driving a car. It is nice to observe how others drive but until one actually gets behind the wheel and takes control of the car they do not really know how to drive. Typically, the new driver begins in a controlled environment (e.g., an empty parking lot or the family driveway), they learn how to slowly accelerate and brake, learn how to use the mirrors for safety purposes, learn to use the turning indicators, the wipers, and so on. Through experience the new driver learns how to navigate streets and highways in a safe manner. One of the great American passions involves a particular behavior that is associated with sport spectatorship, namely, tailgating. Sports tailgating should not be mistaken for traffic tailgating which involves a driver who follows too closely (“rides our bumper”). Sports tailgating is a time-honored tradition in the United States that combines fandom, celebration, and bonding with friends, family and, often, strangers, along with two behaviors that Americans love to do—eating large amounts of food and consuming large sums of beverages, generally alcohol. Participants may paint their faces, wear team colors, and boast of their favorite team’s upcoming game and, ideally, impending victory. Tailgating is commonly associated with football, although it is also very popular with auto racing and college lacrosse. Tailgating at football games occurs at all levels but is most common at college and professional (NFL) games. During football season there are hundreds of football games played every week and all of these games will have numerous tailgate parties at adjacent and neighboring parking lots that surround the football stadium. Tailgating is most common prior to the game but may occur after the game as well. While there are hundreds of tailgates across the country on any given weekend, each team has a limited number of games, thus making each game’s tailgate a social event. There was a tailgate party at the very first collegiate football game (college football preceded professional football by decades) between Princeton and Rutgers played at New Brunswick, NJ, on November 6, 1869. According to the American Tailgater Association (2014), Rutgers fans showed up at the game wearing scarlet-colored scarves (converted into turbans). However, these fans did not grill and drink in nearby paved-parking lots. Contemporary

140

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

tailgaters drive to the football game with their vehicle filled with food and drink and seek out their favorite tailgating sport in a parking lot near the stadium. Tailgating at football games is like picnicking but instead of a comfy blanket on a grassy field, tailgaters cook up a feast on a parking lot. This may seem like an odd thing to do; after all, who picnics at a parking lot under any other circumstances? Football tailgating, however, is not like any other situation. Tailgating represents a type of secular sentiment (in the tradition of Durkheim) that helps to bond fans together in collective action where ritualistic behaviors are the norm. As with the staging of any social event, there is a relative amount of planning involved, especially for the primary host(s) of the tailgate. It is at this point where we can quickly distinguish between the novice and regular tailgaters. The novice tailgaters often fail to pay attention to the “common sense” details that regular tailgaters treat as “givens.” The first order of business is to secure a regular or predesignated spot for everyone to convene. (As a regular tailgater myself, my group all have season passes in the same parking lot so that it is easy to meet and park next to one another.) Organized tailgates (as opposed to the haphazard simple gatherings of folks with a beverage cooler and some simple food items) employ the “controlled menu” format of planning (this assures that the tailgate does not consist simply of potato chips and beer). Novice tailgaters will always admire the seasoned tailgaters as they seem to have thought of everything. For the regular tailgaters, however, it is a matter of common sense to bring certain items. I utilize a “Tailgate Checklist” that begins with double-checking that game tickets and the parking permit are easily available for confirmation by automobile passengers along with these common-sense items: Non-food:                

Paper towels Trash bags Plates Utensils—forks, knives, spoons, spatulas Napkins Propane (or charcoal depending on your type of grill) The grill Grilling pans Folding tables Folding chairs Ice cooler Cooking spray–to grease pan Grilling glove (to pick up hot pans, etc.) Cups Thermometer to test whether the grilled foods have been cooked properly Bottle openers

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

141

Food items:        

Depending on the time of kick-off, the primary grilling food may include breakfast items (pancakes, bacon, sausage, eggs, etc.) or lunch/dinner foods (e.g., steaks, ribs, burgers, hot dogs, Italian sausage) Buns Syrups Condiments Beverages (alcohol, soda, juice, and water) Desserts Side dishes Snacks

As this sampling from the Tailgate Checklist indicates, there is a great deal of preparation involved in order to meet all the requirements of a successful tailgate. People who camp understand the need for good planning too and they will remember to bring a wide variety of items because, for them, it is a matter of common sense. As with most things in life, people get better at planning and implementation of plans with continued experience. Continuing to observe what others are doing will also help you to improve your own methods of handling situations with an increased level of common-sense knowledge. And this is true whether we are talking about tailgating, camping, traveling to different countries, meeting new people, and trying new things. After all, a seasoned traveler will know enough to bring proper electrical outlet adapters to charge their devices and will know to bring antacids, tissue paper (and maybe toilet paper), and a variety of over-the-counter medicines to properly prepare for any scenario. For these travelers, it is only common sense to do so. Personal experience teaches us a great deal, often in support of what we had always believed to be true but sometimes in opposition to what we were taught. Personal experiences that are repeated come to be seen as commonsense knowledge and when we interact with others in such situations we expect others to act in a predictable manner—a “common sense” manner. Trial and error is an aspect of personal experience as well and even intelligent people can make mistakes, perhaps many mistakes, over the course of their lifetimes. As Marilyn vos Savant (2015) (according to the Guinness Book of Records, she has the highest recorded IQ ever measured) explains: When we are born, we know virtually nothing. To learn anything, we must explore new territory. So, unless we behave like passive receivers of information (like a computer being programmed) or have perfect luck and guess right every time, we will make mistakes. This sentiment reflects the position taken here that common sense, like all forms of knowledge, is not innate, but is instead, learned. Vos Savant (2005) adds:

142

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense Some people, especially those who are inquisitive and bright, the process [of learning through experience] continues throughout life. They never stop learning—and making mistakes. Others try to avoid error by staying in familiar territory. But life is so short, and the world of learning is so vast, that I feel safe in stating that if you do not make mistakes, you don’t know much.

Thus, trial and error is an important aspect of learning and developing common-sense knowledge. People who remain in a limited “comfort zone” do not learn new things and therefore have a limited understanding of diverse common-sense situations.

The Development of Enlightened Rational Thought and Reason We learn about common sense from a variety of sources including the socialization process (e.g., primary groups, agents of socialization, cyber socialization and the social media, and observation and personal experience) and yet, the best way to gain true knowledge is through enlightened rational thought and reason. While everyone thinks, not all thinking is rational. Consider for example, that while someone may think something is true, that does not mean that it is factual. “To think rationally means adopting appropriate goals, taking appropriate action given one’s goals and beliefs, and holding beliefs that are commensurate with available evidence” (Stanovich, Toplak, and West 2008). Richetti and Tregoe (2001), describe rational thinking as “the ability to consider the relevant variables of a situation and to access, organize, and analyze relevant information (e.g., facts, opinions, judgments, and data) to arrive at a sound conclusion.” Max Weber described rational thought as the product of scientific specialization and technical differentiation. Rational thought is based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings. Reason refers to the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic and rationality. Reason provides fact-based explanations or justifications on why or how specific situations occur (e.g., explaining the reason for how and why eclipses occur). The utilization of reason provides humans with the ability to comprehend or infer the events of the world that is devoid of false interpretations (of why or how things occur). Reasoning is associated with thinking but also with cognition (the mental action of our brain that allows for the processing and acquiring of knowledge and understanding) and intellect (objective, logical reasoning, and understanding of things; as well as the ability to think abstractly). While the development of rational thought is not restricted to those with higher education (e.g., there are those who like to read, conduct experiments, and learn on their own), it is far more likely to be embraced by those who pursue knowledge based on empirical research, facts, and reason. We will revisit the importance of enlightened rationality, reason, and science, and its relationship with common sense, in greater detail in Chapter 6.

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

143

Social Theoretical Explanations on How We Learn and Common Sense To this point in the chapter, we have learned about the importance of the different aspects of the socialization process and its influence on what we learn. It is time now to briefly examine the manner in which we learn, that is to say, how do we learn? A number of significant social theories have been put forth in an attempt to explain how we learn. Coverage begins with social learning theory. However, before we look at a number of social theories we should be reminded of the definition of a theory first presented in Chapter 3: A theory is a statement, or a set of statements, that proposes to explain or relate observed phenomena or a set of concepts. Social theory involves linking a set of interrelated concepts and/or observed phenomena in an attempt to establish a cause–effect relationship. A good theory is one that allows itself to be tested and supported or disproved by empirical research. Presenting ideas (theories) in the form of statements allows for empirical testing and theories that are supported repeatedly following testing can take on the title of scientific theories and allow for the establishment of “laws.”

Social Learning Theory The social learning perspective works within a framework that humans are free beings capable of making their own decisions on how to behave in given situations. This theory, then, discounts any notion that behavior is predetermined (innate) and instead argues that we act based on knowledge we have learned. How we learn is a matter of a three-step procedure that entails three critical aspects: acquisition, instigation, and maintenance. Acquisition refers to the initial introduction of a behavior; instigation occurs when the individual actually participates in some form of behavior; and maintenance refers to the repetitive and consistent participation in a behavior over a period of time. An individual learns a behavior either through direct interaction with others, wherein such behavior is reinforced, or indirectly through observation. Thus, social learning is the result of environmental experiences. Social learning generally takes place through two primary methods: conditioning and modeling. Conditioning is a learning process whereby individuals associate certain behaviors with rewards and others with punishments. A child’s behavior is generally subject to evaluation by parents and other caregivers. When a child behaves appropriately (as deemed by significant others) and is rewarded by praise or other means, the usual consequence is continued suitable behavior on the part of the child. In this manner, proper behavior has been positively reinforced. Reinforcement is used in an attempt to secure a conditioned response to a given situation. Reinforcement is a powerful tool in human development and social learning as it attempts to influence individuals to conform to specific norms and values. Reinforcement is the result of contact between great numbers of people in society, and although parents and the immediate family are the most important agents of

144

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

socialization, when the child reaches a certain age (around the third grade), the reinforcement of peers becomes very important. Conversely, inappropriate behavior may lead to negative reinforcement in the form of a punishment. Punishments are undesirable consequences used to discourage the offender from further engaging in objectionable behavior. This same scenario plays out with adults too as a spouse’s behavior is subject to reinforcement by the other spouse; an employee’s behavior is reinforced by the employer; individual behavior in a group situation is reinforced by other group members; and so on. Along with conditioning, we learn behavior through observation and modeling. As previously described, simply observing how others behave represents a learning opportunity, and, indeed, daily activities generally present us with countless opportunities to learn. This is especially true for children as they have so much more to learn than adults as, presumably, adults have learned a great deal already throughout their childhood and onto adulthood. For young children, attending school—which may involve walking to school or taking a bus—interacting with other children in the classroom, lunchroom, and playground during recess, provides many opportunities to watch and observe how other students behave. The child may pick up good habits or poor habits via the observation and modeling of others’ behaviors. Modeling for a person of any age takes place as the individual watches the performances of others, taking time to digest (remember) what they observed, practicing the behaviors of others, followed by the reinforcement of the behavior by significant others. When the behavior is positively reinforced by the most valued agent of socialization it is more likely to be repeated even if other agents of socialization deem the behavior as being negative. For example, if a child values the feedback of his or her parents more than anyone else and receives praise for doing homework in a timely manner, this behavior has been positively reinforced and is more likely to be repeated. Conversely, if a teen has been warned by his or her parents not to smoke marijuana but the peer group reinforcement is positive and the teen values peer group reinforcement more than parental reinforcement, the smoking pot behavior is more likely to be repeated despite the threat of punishments from parents. In many cases, people model themselves after athletes, entertainers, and those already in the field that one hopes to work in. Observing their behavior from a distance can still lead to modeling. Whether conditioning or modeling takes place from direct interaction with others or observation from a distance, social learning theory demonstrates how people learn and, furthermore, helps to explain why people develop different views as to what best constitutes behaviors as common sense, or not.

Symbolic Interactionism As this is a book on common sense and an analysis of social interaction, the symbolic interactionist approach is very relevant. We learned of some of the most significant symbolic interactionists in Chapter 3 but in this chapter

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

145

we will explore how this theoretical perspective explains how we learn. Symbolic interactionism is a theory based on the idea that social reality is constructed in each human interaction through the use of symbols. The most critical aspect of social learning from the symbolic interactionist perspective is the development of “self,” which occurs through reflexive behavior. Reflexive behavior involves individuals observing, interpreting, and evaluating their own behaviors from the perspective of others. Learning to take the perspective of another is a fundamental aspect of common sense because we are trying to ascertain why people behave differently from ourselves, especially in situations that seemingly require a common-sense response. Charles Cooley, as we have discovered, believed that primary group participation is very important for children as it is within the primary group that children learn to develop a sense of self. “The self develops in a group context, and the group that Cooley called the primary group is the real seat of self-development” (Reynolds 1993:36). George Herbert Mead’s development-of-self concept provides the most fundamental symbolic interactionist theory of human development. Mead believed that the self was composed of two parts, the “I” and the “me” (we learned in Chapter 3 that Mead borrowed these terms directly from the work of William James). The “I” represents the subjective (or egocentric) aspect of the self; it is impulsive, spontaneous, imaginative, and creative. The “me” represents the objective (socialized) aspect of self and develops through interaction with others and the internalization of the norms and values of the greater community. The “me” reflects upon the self in relation to the expectations of society, which, in turn, allows for the development of a common-sense approach to social interaction with others. The “me” has a self-control aspect, in that it acts to stabilize the self, while the “I” is associated with change and the reconstruction of the self. The combining of the “I” and the “me” leads to the creation of individual personality and the full development of self (Pfuetze 1961). Mead believed that we are never totally aware of the “I” aspect of ourselves, and that is why we periodically surprise even ourselves by our own behavior. The self-expression of, “Why did I just do that?” reflects this self-disbelief we have from time to time regarding our own behavior. Mead believed that children learn to control their impulsive urges to respond to stimuli because of the expectations of others. Eventually, the “me” comes to dominate the “I,” and when this happens, human development has succeeded. For example, when a parent disciplines their child, the child’s “I” sense of self wishes to protest via a variety of means, such as throwing a temper tantrum; however, when the child reaches a point of realization that such a negative behavior will be frowned upon and therefore decides to keep his or her emotions in check, the “me” has developed. According to Mead, and the symbolic interactionist approach, the development of self is critical for the creation of consciousness and the ability of the individual to take the role of the other and to visualize her or his own

146

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

performances from the point of view of others. To understand the formation of the self, Mead studied the activities and socialization of children. Mead (1934) noted that newborn babies do not have a sense of themselves as objects; instead, they respond automatically and selfishly to hunger, discomfort, and the various stimuli around them. Very young babies do not have the ability to use significant symbols; and therefore, when they play, their behaviors are little different from those of puppies or kittens, who also learn from imitating their parents. Through play and as children grow, they begin to learn to take the role of others: “A child plays at being a mother, at being a teacher, at being a policeman; that is, it is taking different roles” (Mead 1934:150). To learn the role of others, the child must come to understand the meanings of symbols and language. Much of this learning takes place through various forms of play. The development of self, and our ability to learn, according to Mead, takes place through four stages: the imitation stage, play stage, game stage, and generalized other. 1

2

3

Imitation stage: At the most basic level of play, infants develop an emerging awareness of other people and physical objects. Babies learn to grasp, hold, and use simple objects like spoons, bottles, and blankets. As their physical skills further develop, they learn to play with objects by observing and imitating their parents. For example, the parent might pick up a ball and throw it, then coax the child to do the same thing. The infant is capable of understanding mere gestures and until infants learn to speak (and this may include sign language), they are capable of little more than imitating behavior. However, even imitation implies learning as babies discover that some behaviors are positively rewarded and other behaviors bring punishments (Pampel 2000). Play stage: At this stage of development, the child has learned to use language and understands the meanings of certain symbols. Through language, the child can adopt the role or attitude of other persons. They only act out the roles of others; their imaginations allow them to pretend to be that person (Pampel 2000). They can dress up and “play” (act like a) mom, firefighter, super hero, ballplayer, an animal, or even a cartoon character. While at play, the child will act in the tone of voice and attitudes of whom he is “playing” and in doing so, “He calls or tends to call out in himself the same response that he calls out in the other” (Mead 1964). The child has learned to take the role of specific others. Although lower animals also play, only humans “play at being someone else” (Aboulafia 1986:9). Mead explained that when the child learns to become both subject and object, she has conquered an important step in the development of self and social learning. Game stage: At this stage, the child must now be capable of putting herself in the role of several others at the same time, and to understand the relationship between these roles. When the actor can take the role of others, she can respond to herself from their perspective (Deutsch and

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

4

147

Krauss 1965). As Mead (1934) states, “The fundamental difference between the game and play stage is that in the latter the child must have the attitude of all the others involved in the game. The attitudes of the other players which the participant assumes organize into a sort of unit, and it is that organization which controls the response of the individual” (pp. 154–155). Mead used the game of baseball to illustrate his point. When the ball is hit, the fielder must make the play, but he must also know the role of his teammates in order to understand such game complexities as where to throw the ball if there are already runners on base, and so forth. Understanding the roles of others is just one critical aspect of the game stage. Knowing the rules of the game mark the transition from simple role taking to participation in roles of special, standardized order (Miller 1973). Abiding by the rules involves the ability to exercise self-control and implies that the individual has learned to function in the organized whole to which she belongs (Mead 1934). The game is viewed as a sort of passage in the life of a child from taking the role of others in play to the organized part that is essential to self-consciousness. Learning the diverse roles in organized games helps the child to understand the more general workings of social life (Pampel 2000). Generalized other: The generalized other develops from the successive and simultaneous use of many roles. The generalized other is a kind of corporate individual or plural noun; it is the universalization of the role-taking process (Pfuetze 1961). At this stage of development, individuals come to take the attitude of the whole community, or what Mead called the “generalized other.” At this point, the individual identifies not only with significant others (specific people), but also with the attitudes of a society, community, or group as a whole. The generalized other is not a person; instead, it is a person’s conscious awareness of the society of which he or she is a part (Cockerham 1995).

From the symbolic interactionist perspective, as articulated by Mead, social learning occurs through the four above described stages. Some people, as they reach adulthood, have difficulty with mastering the generalized other stage. Other people, who interact with diverse others, may have to remaster the play and game stage as they attempt to expand their level of knowledge of others. For example, many people foreign to the game of baseball have a difficult learning this sport and the roles of the participants. I recently learned about the game of Irish hurling and have yet to master the roles of all the players as they play the game. When one shares the same level of knowledge about a “game” (this concept is not limited to literally games of play or sport) and the roles expected, they can begin to share notions of common sense as well.

Subcultural Theory By the 1950s and early 1960s, sociologists were using the sociological terms of “subcultures” and “reference groups.” A subculture refers to a category of people found within the greater society who share a distinctive set of cultural

148

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

beliefs and behaviors that distinguish them from the larger society. Members of a subculture generally agree with most of the cultural aspects of the prevailing society but share a key characteristic(s) that provides them with a sense of identity. There are many examples of subcultures, including college students, street gang members, recreational drug users, surfers, gamers, athletes, bodybuilders, runway models, and Goths. Reference groups are quite similar to subcultural groups, as there must be some reference for individuals to point toward that serves as a primary identifier of the subculture group. Reference points are the common goals and traits that unite members into a subculture. Identification with a reference group helps to reveal how an individual’s world is structured (Shibutani 1955). Members of a subculture group share specific reference points of importance, and thus, a strong sense of loyalty to one’s fellows develops. In addition, subculture members aspire to gain or maintain acceptance from the group and, as a result, group norms take on a higher value than society’s. Research in the area of subcultural theory is mostly limited to analysis of delinquent and lower-SES groups; nonetheless, it is potentially relevant to all subcultural groups. Consider, for example, the subculture of bodybuilding. For bodybuilders, there is a desire for physical perfection which means having a physique characterized by large amounts of muscle and very little fat, and spending a large amount of time in the gym engaging in intense workouts. Bodybuilders are generally tanned (often self-tanned) and wear small clothing to show off their hard-earned and sculpted bodies. Competing in physique competitions is another aspect of this subculture. Long-time members of a subculture reinforce the mindset of the subculture and teach newcomers the norms and expectations of the group. Learning takes place when newcomers embrace the norms, values, and attitudes of the subculture even when they are at odds with those of the greater society. Because the connection among subcultural group members is strong, they develop a strong sense of common sense within their own community. For bodybuilders, it is only common sense not to go to a Friday happy hour and eat tacos and chicken wings while downing pints of beer. What would be common sense to them is working out on a Friday afternoon and enjoying protein energy drinks. Recreational drug users would consider smoking marijuana after work as a matter of common sense while conventional folks would not. Gamers would consider spending hours at a time playing video games without physical activity as their reference point of normal activity and, therefore, as common sense. Thus, ideas of common sense are not universally possessed among subcultural group members and other subcultural groups let alone the greater society.

Anomie/Strain Theory In his 1893 book The Division of Labor in Society, Émile Durkheim (1984) used the word “anomie” (which comes from the Greek anomia, meaning “without law”) to refer to a condition of deregulation occurring in society. This deregulation led to a sense of “normlessness” among people because

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

149

they were confused about societal expectations. Feelings of normlessness interfere with the notion of common sense, at least to a degree, as many of society’s norms no longer exist, or have been so modified that people are unsure how to act in many situations. Because Durkheim also attributed anomie to contributing to the moral breakdown of society, people are left with an inadequate moral compass to direct their behavior in a proper fashion. Sociologists today generally define anomie as the absence of norms, or normlessness, characterized by the breakdown of social norms and rules and a condition in which existing norms no longer control the activity of individuals. From this definition we can easily ascertain how anomie can hinder “common sense.” Decades after Durkheim coined the term anomie and presented his ideas on its meaning, another sociologist, Robert Merton, adopted the notion of anomie as a means of explaining how people adapt to the strain of chaotic social conditions. “Whereas Durkheim conceived of anomie as a problematic social condition resulting from sudden and rapid social change, Merton saw it as an endemic feature of the everyday operation of certain types of society” (Curran and Renzetti 1994:149). Merton’s anomie theory (first published as “Social Structure and Anomie” in 1938) is based on the idea that society encourages all persons to attain culturally desirable goals—what Merton described as the “cultural structure”—but the opportunities to reach these goals—the “social structure”—are not equal for all members of society. Merton believed that a functional society was one that found the balance between cultural structure and social structure; conversely, a dysfunctional society is one that places a greater emphasis on one of the societal components over the other. Merton believed that the United States was a dysfunctional society because it places a great emphasis on cultural goals—primarily economic and material success— but is characterized by a social structure that does not provide everyone with an equal opportunity to reach the cultural goals (Delaney 2017). Minorities and lower-SES folks, according to Merton, often encounter obstacles in their pursuit of culturally desired goals that the wealthy and privileged members of society do not. Those who are confronted with structural barriers face strain (tension, tightness, tautness, pressure, stress) and must find a way to adapt to the anomic conditions that hinder their pursuit of cultural goals. Somehow, those who are disenchanted with the disconnect between cultural goals and the structural opportunities to attain them must learn how to adapt. This disconnect and strain also contributes to different perspectives on many notions of common sense. For example, when wealthy people are hungry they buy food or go out to dinner as this is simply a matter of common sense; however, poor people may lack the financial means to purchase food and are far less likely to be able to afford going out to dinner. Merton (1938) claimed that when individuals are faced with the strain caused by anomic conditions they have a choice between five modes of adaptation: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion. Conformity is the most common and widely diffused adaptation and involves the

150

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

general acceptance of things as they exist in society (as in, “we cannot afford to go out to dinner so common sense dictates that we will not”). Innovation involves finding alternative, generally deviant (e.g., bank robbery and selling drugs and stolen merchandise), modes of reaching culturally desired goals. The strain of anomic conditions have led these innovators to the commonsense perspective that they must take matters into their own hands if they wish to attain culturally desired goals. Ritualism is a type of behavioral adaptation that involves giving up the pursuit of culturally desired goals and striving for far more modest achievements (e.g., keeping the job one has in order to meet the basic needs instead of pursuing a better job that will provide opportunities to attain higher goals). Retreatists (e.g., hermits, drug addicts, street people, and bag ladies) have rejected both society’s goals and the means of attaining them, and as a result they have chosen to cut themselves off from the world. For conventional folks, retreatists are violating nearly all ideals of the notion of common sense. Rebellion, the fifth adaptation, is considered a deviant course of action as such rebels (e.g., anarchists, militant groups) are so strained by society that they wish to replace both the goals and means of attaining them (Delaney 2017). Rebels have come to learn that society is so hopeless that the only common-sense course of action is to overthrow the existing social system. All modes of adaptation come about as a matter of social learning; that is to say, people come to view society in a certain matter based on life circumstances and have chosen to adapt to social reality from a common-sense perspective that best reflects their outlook. With such diverse modes of adaptation the idea of a “universal” version of common sense is not feasible. (Note: The idea of a universal version of common sense refers to common knowledge-based behaviors that most people, especially adults, would agree exist.)

Differential Association Theory In the third edition of his textbook Principles of Criminology (1939), Edwin Sutherland developed a theory of differential association that was centered on the idea that all behavior is learned. As such, differential association theory incorporates some of the same aspects discussed previously with social learning theory and adds to it the role of imitation as articulated by Gabriel de Tarde in his The Laws of Imitation (1903). Tarde put forth the notion that much of the behavior that people engage in comes as a result of learning via imitating the actions of others. Learning to imitate others comes about via social interaction with others. Individuals may learn and imitate the behavior of conventional or deviant others depending upon whom they associate with. Direct association with specific others, especially over a period of time, is the most likely manner in which individuals will learn specific behaviors. Thus, if people spend most of their time with gang members while growing up, they are more likely to embrace that lifestyle as legitimate, whereas those who are not exposed to street gang life are less likely to become street gang members.

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

151

From the social learning perspective, learning takes place through the three related processes of acquisition, instigation, and maintenance. Acquisition refers to the individual’s initial introduction to a specific form of behavior. This introduction to a particular social act allows for reinforcement through imitation and modeling. Thus, if an individual is introduced to a group of friends who smoke marijuana and finds the behavior positively reinforced by the group members, he/she is more likely to imitate the behavior and come to view pot smoking in a positive manner. Instigation involves the individual actually participating in the behavior, in this case, smoking marijuana. Maintenance refers to the continued participation over an extended period of time (the person now regularly smokes pot with her friends). Maintenance of a behavior leads to reinforcement among group members. Reinforcement can come in the form of: (1) direct reinforcement, (2) vicarious reinforcement (occurs when you imitate the behavior of someone who has been reinforced for that behavior), (3) selfreinforcement (occurs when a person controls their own behavior by rewarding themselves when a certain standard performance has been achieved), and (4) neutralization of self-punishment (Shelden, Tracy, and Brown 2001). Although Sutherland spoke most often and specifically about crime, his differential association theory is applicable to nearly all forms of behavior. For example, a child raised in a family that values the environment and regularly takes steps to protect the environment is more likely to also engage in positive behaviors that are designed to assist the environment to thrive. The basic idea of Sutherland’s theory boils down to, the more associations you have with people who engage in a particular behavior the more likely you are to adopt those behaviors yourself because that is what you have learned to be the norm. In this manner, the individual has learned the values, attitudes, norms, and motives of particular others’ behaviors. The frequency, intensity, and duration of exposure to the activities of specific others helps to determine whether association will take hold. The premise of differential association theory is reflected by the familiar instruction of parents to their children, “I don’t want you associating with that person, or group of people because they are a bad influence on you. Instead, why don’t you make friends with … [someone whose behaviors the parents approve of].” While the term “association” is somewhat vague and Sutherland and Cressey (1978) admitted that differential association theory was not precise enough to undergo rigorous empirical testing, it remains as a popular theory of deviance and criminal behavior. As it pertains to common sense, we can see how members of a group who regularly associate with one another will come to see certain activities as a matter of common sense and others as not.

Labeling Theory The labeling perspective of human behavior resides with the primary premise that all behaviors are labeled as “acceptable” or “not acceptable,” “deviant” or “not deviant,” “common sense” or “not common sense,” and so on. These

152

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

labels are bestowed upon behaviors based on the perspectives of members of society, especially those in a position of authority or power, or within specific subcultural contexts. What is common sense or not common sense is, thus, a matter of whether certain acts are labeled as such. Howard S. Becker (2010 [1963]) is the primary architect of the labeling perspective who used the labeling criteria as part of his theory on social deviance. From his point of view, it is not the quality of the behavior itself that is under review but rather the application of a label by others that determines the classification of a particular behavior as deviant or not, or in this case, as common sense, or not. From the labeling perspective, when an individual receives continual feedback from others about the judgment of their behavior he or she will come to accept the label. Furthermore, if an individual is repeatedly told that their actions violate some sort of norm they will come to accept the negative label. Once actors accept negative labels of their behaviors a self-fulfilling prophecy has been created; that is to say, they have come to learn that certain behaviors are deemed a social violation of a norm. Clearly, people do not want to acquire a negative label, especially if they think such a label is an inaccurate assessment of their character, and as a result each of us attempts to negotiate their role identity as we all want some say in the outcome of the role identity allocation process (Spencer 1987). As this pertains to common sense, no one wants to be told, for example, that because they cast a vote for a particular candidate they lack common sense. However, the assignment of labels is determined by external people and there are times when these attached, unwanted labels come to consume the identity of individuals. In an attempt to restore and maintain preferred identities, individuals will often engage in the use of disclaimers as a means of fighting off unwanted identities and labels (Hewitt and Stokes 1975). In fact, people learn to utilize any number of techniques of neutralizing negative labels, including making accounts—a linguistic device employed whenever an action is subjected to valuative inquiry that may compromise the identity of individuals (Scott and Lyman 1968). There are two general types of accounts: excuses and justifications. Excuses are used when mitigating circumstances are involved with the behavior in question. For example, I voted for candidate “A” because candidate “B” was clearly not qualified for office. Justifications are accounts in which an individual admits to some undesired behavior but denies the pejorative quality associated with the act in question (Delaney 2014b). For example, I voted for candidate “A” because of the information I had at the time did not include the recent evidence of the unworthiness of his or her character. Disclaimers and accounts are means of attempting to neutralize a negative label that compromise one’s role identity. As Fontana (1973) explains, “Labeling places the actor in circumstances which make it harder for him to continue the normal routines of everyday life and thus provide him to ‘abnormal’ actions” (p. 179). The type of infraction and the previous role of the labeled individual in the community may impact how quickly one’s role identity is compromised. When it comes to common sense, many people

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

153

violate the notion of common sense and it is likely that their compromised identity will be limited in scope. However, there are occasions when a violation of common sense will be so outrageous that it gains public attention and the backlash might be quite severe (e.g., a public figure leaves his or her small child in a locked car in summer heat and the child dies because of this lack of common-sense behavior). The use of disclaimers and accounts reveals that the individual has learned that their identity has been compromised due to their lack of common sense and that he or she is attempting to neutralize the negative label. Some people, however, have not learned how to combat a negative label and suffer the consequences (e.g., private or public scorn and ridicule, loss of a positive identity, or loss of employment).

Control/Social Bond Theory The control/social bond theory is quite unique in that it does not focus on ways to neutralize negative labels, anomie/strain, associations with “negative” others, or the norms and values of a subculture but, instead, focuses on how people learn to accept and conform to society’s norms and values—thus, making it easier to develop universal and mainstream notions of common sense. The sociological roots of control theory can be traced back to Durkheim and his analysis of anomie and its connection to the existence, or lack thereof, of proper social control. Durkheim believed that social control was necessary in order for society to exist and for people to understand the boundaries of acceptable behavior (Delaney 2017). “When relationships and norms begin to break down, the controls they create begin to deteriorate. Durkheim noted that a breakdown of those controls leads to crime and suicide … Whenever anomie exists in society, controls begin to disappear” (Williams and McShane 1994:184). Durkheim’s work on “collective conscience” (the totality of beliefs and sentiments common to average citizens of the same society forms a determinate system that has its own life) demonstrated his belief that deviant behavior can be controlled when people share societal values and norms. We can expand this idea to, when people share societal values and norms; it is easier to develop universal notions of common sense. While control theory has roots with Durkheimian theory, this perspective developed in earnest in the 1950s and 1960s with the ideas of many other theorists. Perhaps the most relevant development of control/social bond theory to us here comes from the ideas of Walter Reckless (1961) who introduced his “containment theory” and Travis Hirschi. Reckless believed that individuals learn to form a bond with society via two forms of containment— outer and inner containment. Reckless believed that inner containments are self-controls (e.g., self-concept, ego strength, tolerance of frustration, goal directedness, and identification with lawfulness and the norms of society) that develop during the socialization process. Outer containment refers to the social control agents found in society (e.g., law enforcement, the judicial

154

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

systems, and others in a position of authority). According to Reckless, the key to learning about, and accepting, common notions of society’s values and norms involves avoiding a deviant lifestyle, avoiding the lure of deviant subcultures, internalizing the rules of society, and developing a positive sense of self and a sense of direction in life. Hirschi (1969) specified four elements of the social bond that are necessary for individuals to learn in order to help minimize social deviance and form a sense of collective conscience, which in turn, allows for the development of a universal notion of common sense: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. Attachment refers to a strong connection to significant others (especially parents and peers), educational systems, and other agents of socialization. As Siegel and Welsh (2014) explain, “The acceptance of social norms and the development of a social conscience depend on attachment to and caring for other human beings” (p. 161). Ultimately, learning to develop a strong sense of attachment to others in childhood will lead to a strong connection with society in adulthood, and help to foster a shared sense of common sense. Commitment involves the amount of time that individuals spend with conventional (common) behavior and their dedication to long-term goals (delayed gratification) and the simple reasoning that the more time individuals spend with conventional activities, the less time they have to pursue deviant activities. The commitment to conventional behavior helps to develop a shared sense of common sense. The involvement feature of the social bond is a continuation of the commitment element with the premise that individuals need to maintain heavy involvement in conventional activities. We can easily see how this feature of control/social bond theory relates to learning how common sense develops as the more often we are involved with common activities with common expectations the more likely we are to embrace such notions. Belief refers to the idea that we must learn to foster confidence in behaving in a manner common to that of other members of society. All four of these elements are interconnected and help us to learn how to develop common knowledge-based notions of common sense. This concludes our discussion on social theoretical explanations of how we learn about common sense. In the remainder of this chapter, we will look at specific examples of common sense.

Adhering to Common Sense In this chapter, thus far, we have learned about a number of ways in which we can learn about common sense. This review was important as it must be emphasized that in fact nothing can be considered common sense until it is learned. Bear in mind that even simple, everyday behaviors such as brushing your teeth at least twice day, washing your hands after going to the bathroom, common courtesy and table manners, not touching a hot stove or boiling water, and so on, are all examples of common sense and yet none of these

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

155

behaviors are innate, they are learned, and then become part of the commonsense lexicon. In fact, the idea of “germs” causing illness was once laughed at. It is now time to discuss some of the many examples of adhering to common sense. By adhering to common sense we are referring to examples of people actually engaging in behaviors that can be viewed as notions of common sense (at least by most people in a given society).

Common Sense Ironically, with so many examples of common sense worthy of a short story discussion to choose from comes the realization that it is not a matter of common sense to know which examples to include and which ones not to include; neither is it a matter of common sense to know where to begin! I have decided to begin with two inter-related topics of great interest to me and most assuredly to most everyone else—friendship and happiness. Few things in life are more important than having good, close friends and being happy; after all, what is life without friendships and happiness? (Note: I have coauthored an entire book on friendship and happiness and if you wish to learn more about these topics see Friendship and Happiness and Connection Between the Two.) Friendships involve an association of people who share a sense of intimacy, feelings of affection, or dispositions. They consist of people who refer to themselves as friends and as such are linked, or bonded, by expressions of harmony, accord, understanding, and rapport. Friends come in a variety of types and categories but are generally viewed as those who are attached to one another by feelings of affection or personal regard, those who provide assistance and support to one another, are on good terms with one another and who may share certain attributes such as religious and cultural affiliations or those who share a common interest such as music or favorite sports team (Delaney and Madigan 2017). The number of real-life friends one has is positively correlated with subjective well-being even after controlling for income, demographic variables, and personality differences. Doubling the number of friends in real life has an equivalent effect on well-being as a 50 percent increase in income (Helliwell and Huang 2013). While friendships have historically been primarily restricted to face-to-face interactions, the social world is changing in many ways due in part to electronic forms of communication. Electronic friendships possess most of the same characteristics as face-to-face friendships including voluntary participation, mutuality, sharing personal details about one another, and displaying some degree of affection. Electronic friendships then, are as real as friends make them (Delaney and Malakhova 2018). In common-sense terms, having friends is a very good thing. Happiness, while having different meanings for different people, is the emotional state of well-being and positive reactions experienced due to triggering stimuli. Happiness may involve such other emotions as inner peace,

156

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

absence of want, blissfulness, confidence, being true to oneself, freedom, and viewing one’s life favorably. The value of happiness is plentiful and generally manifests itself in the form of improved physical and mental health; improved attitudes toward education, academic aspirations, academic achievement, life satisfaction, altruism, self-esteem, and parental relations (for youth); happiness is good for our personal relationships; happy people make more money and are more productive at work; happy people are more generous; happy people use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences; and, happy people are more creative and better able to see the big picture (Delaney and Madigan 2017). Happiness may also be viewed as a by-product of properly organized life activities; is based on self-love and recognition of one’s own needs (biological and social) and abilities; allows for personal growth and development; helps to shape one’s own positive path in life; and can sufficiently resist negative manifestations from the environment (Delaney and Gorlova 2018; Litvak 2015). Clearly, common sense would tell us that it is better to be happy than it is to be unhappy. Another significant example of common sense is the desire and pursuit of good health, both mental and physical. Having positive friendships and happiness in one’s life are contributing factors toward good mental and physical health. From a sociological perspective, health is defined as a state of physical, mental, and social well-being wherein the individual is free from disease or ailment. Being physically ill is an example of poor health. Among the many benefits of good health are: being free from acute or chronic pain and disease; the avoidance of worrying over a life-threatening illness; time and money saved on doctor and hospital visits and prescriptions; more energy and vitality, which increases productivity and efficiency; you are likely to live longer; the time saved is time that can be spent with loved ones; increased energy to enjoy physical activities; a better sex life; the ability to think more clearly; better emotional well-being; not a burden on loved ones; can help others; sharpened attention spans; lower stress; and a more positive attitude on life in general. Clearly, each of us would much rather have good health than poor health and, thus, enjoying and desiring good health is a matter of common sense. In her book about serial killers, Helen Morrison (2004) describes how no one is ever safe from a determined serial murderer because his violent determination is anything but human and yet adds that there are ways to reduce the odds of attack and/or abduction. One might avoid a serial killer by being wary and watchful of his or her surroundings—by being alert but not alarmed. It sounds like common sense, but some don’t know that it’s more dangerous to take a shortcut through a deserted park at night than during the day. So the alert person wouldn’t take that walk through the park at night alone. And, a confidant demeanor, including a brisk, confident stride, couldn’t hurt either. (Morrison 2004:128)

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

157

Morrison’s advice is indeed considered common sense because nearly all of us are taught the advantages of walking with a group, especially at night, and taught to walk down well-lit streets and not alleys, parks, or other unlit areas. And yet, as Morrison warns, not everyone heeds this common-sense advice. Morrison (2004) calls attention to other notions of common sense by questioning such sage advice as, if attacked, one should scream hysterically in an effort to scare off the attacker (and draw the attention of others who may come to your rescue) by suggesting that some serial killers with a dominant, aggressive personality may actually be encouraged by distress or screams. Morrison (2004) also questions whether fighting back against a rapist attacker will be effective and applies the same question to an attack by a serial killer. However, it is suggested here that if a serial murderer is attacking you, there is little doubt that it would be considered common sense to fight back. I have a colleague who uses this example to introduce the notion of common sense to her introductory sociology students. My colleague informs the class about a young female college student who was jogging alone at 10:00 p.m. in Waco, Texas, on the campus of Baylor University on an early October night. The student is attacked and raped. My colleague asks her students for aspects of common sense regarding this story. Most students immediately reply that the jogger should not have been jogging at that hour of night and that she certainly should not have been jogging alone. My colleague then points out, however, that in Waco, Texas, even in October, the weather is very hot and jogging at night as opposed to during the day to avoid heat stroke is actually an example of common sense. She also notes that many jog alone because it’s a good way to do some inter-reflection, or she may be, or have been, an athlete trying to keep in shape, or she just wanted to keep off the “freshmen fifteen.” All of the plausible reasons could be examples of common sense as well. What do you think? Should this student feel safe on a college campus to jog alone at 10:00 p.m., or is it a matter of common sense to never jog alone, especially in the evening? If you have ever been to a public beach you know that there are many common-sense situations. For example, if small children or inexperienced swimmers are a part of your group it is best to find a place on the beach near a life guard tower just in case an emergency arises (whether it involves swimming in the ocean or sunbathing on the beach). It is also very important to bring plenty of sun block and food and beverages (if you plan on spending any significant amount of time at the beach). There is also the situation of changing into, or out of, one’s swimsuits. I can still recall a time at the beach with my family when I was a young child and my older brother and I went to the bathhouse to change out of wet bathing suits and into a dry street clothes. We were in adjoining bathroom stalls changing and my brother offered this advice, “Be sure to place your dry clothes on the door and not on the floor.” He explained to me why this was a matter of common sense (e.g., to keep the dry clothes dry and to keep the street clothes free from possible germs on the floor) and I listened attentively and have always followed this advice.

158

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

Have you ever experienced a situation wherein someone calls you or sends a message (e.g., a letter in the mail, a text, or an email) that requires your response to such a message and yet their return information was not included? This used to happen quite frequently in the past before everyone had a caller ID feature on their phones, but even today, someone may call you from a phone wherein they have blocked their number. Sometimes, a doctor’s office, insurance company, or some other business may contact you by letter or an electronic message and expect your reply as well. It is only common sense, in such a situation, to be sure to include your contact information! As a prolific author, I have contact with a great number of publishers and they occasionally send me vague messages that make it difficult to reply to their query. For example, one publisher I work with sent me an unexpected and unusual royalty check with a very vague explanation. I was not sure why I received this check and why it came during a period of time when the publisher does not normally send royalty checks. The enclosed letter of explanation concluded with, “If you have questions concerning the above please contact …” (two names were provided); however, neither of the contact persons’ phone numbers or email addresses were provided! How am I supposed to contact these two people without contact information? It is a matter of common sense to provide such basic information. Golf, like all sports, has a number of rules, as well as quite a few expectations of proper etiquette. One norm of etiquette is to yell “Fore!” when one hits a wayward shot. Yelling “Fore!” is a tradition that is centuries old and unless you want to face the wrath of very angry golfers you best heed this etiquette (Burke 2011). In 1999, golfer Andrew Tom hit Ryan Yoneda (another golfer) with an errant shot while playing at the Mililani Golf Course in Hawaii. Seven years later, the Hawaii Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling to dismiss a lawsuit Yoneda had filed against Tom. Chief Justice Ronald Moon wrote that Yoneda assumed the risk of injury when he played golf, since it is “common knowledge that not every shot played by a golfer goes exactly where he intends it to go” the judge said in the ruling, adding that there wouldn’t be much “sport” in the “sport of golf,” if golf balls went exactly where the players wanted (Associated Press 2006). The idea of “assumed risk” is a big part of the sports world and is treated as common sense that whenever one plays a sport, and in most cases attends a sporting event, that an injury may occur due to unexpected consequences of play. As Delaney and Madigan (2015) explain, “This concept is based on the English common law notion of volenti fit injuria, or voluntary assumption of risk. Assumption of risk assumes that both management and labor understand the medical hazards inherent with sport (as with many other employment occupations)” (p. 215). As described previously, notions of common sense can vary by context, by time, and by culture. In Russia, for example, a graduate student is considered

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

159

a member of a faculty (department or institute) while in the United States being a faculty member means you are a member of a teaching staff. Thus, graduate students in Russia consider it common sense that foreigners know what they mean when they say they belong to a faculty (e.g., of History or English). In Russian churches people stand during prayer service so as not to relax and to keep the body toned. Russians do not pronounce four-digit numbers in pairs (the year is a good example). While Americans might say, this is the year twenty-seventeen; Russians would say that it’s two thousand seventeen. Trying to connect common sense with clothing style is a risky subject area because so many people have different ideas about fashion and what it means to be in style. In the United States, a subculture of young urban males find it stylish to wear sagging trousers that reveal their under shorts and sometimes even their buttocks. While these urbanites find it acceptable to dress in such a manner others, including then-New York State Senator Eric Adams (D-Brooklyn), a former long-time New York City Police Department (NYPD) officer, find such behavior as a breach of society’s norms and expectations of proper dress. Adams sponsored a campaign that included the use of billboards in Brooklyn that read, “We are Better Than This! Stop the Sag!” The billboards also depicted a photo of two young adult males with their backs to the camera and their pants down below their butts. The billboard also included a photo of Senator Adams (in a suit and tie) with another message: “Raise Your Pants, Raise Your Image.” For the senator, and most citizens, it is a matter of common sense to pull your pants up to the waist. And in many cases, including one highly publicized incident in New York City, a young male killed three men in an apartment on the Upper West Side and when the police surrounded the murderer, he attempted to flee via the fire escape. But, as you might have guessed by now, when the perpetrator ran to the fire escape with his sagging pants, he tripped over them, took a tumble, fell off the building, and landed with a thud in the building’s backyard (The Post-Standard, 2010b). Common sense dictates that if you have to run fast, for any reason, wearing saggy pants is not a good idea. In many instances, laws and warning labels and signs are written for the good of citizens. Seat belt laws for motorists and their passengers as well as helmet laws for motorcyclists are among the many examples of laws written with common sense in mind. Such laws are often necessary because so many people violate the canons of common sense (as we shall see in the next chapter). Some people disagree with laws written with common sense in mind and no single such topic is as debated in the United States as attempts to institute common sense with gun laws. These political hot topic issues will be avoided here and instead we will look at warning labels on products that manufacturers have included, presumably because somewhere along the way someone violated the notion of common sense. Readers may find it interesting (or enjoyable!) to look up

160

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

“Wacky Warning Label Contest.” Every year the internationally recognized contest comes up with some odd warnings that seemingly should involve common sense and yet manufacturers included them on their products anyway. Among the “winning” labels is this gem from 2005: A toilet brush with a warning that read, “Do not use for personal hygiene” and in 2007 a warning label on a small tractor that read, “Danger, Avoid Death.” In 2016, the 19th annual contest finalists included: “For Accessory Use Only. Not to be Used as a Battle Device” – A label on a toy Star Wars lightsaber. “Blades are sharp” – A warning on a common utility knife. “In California, do not release outdoors or near electric power lines as it may cause power outages” – A label on a helium party balloon. “Cycling can be dangerous. Bicycle products should be installed and serviced by a professional mechanic … Failure to heed any of these warnings may result in serious injury or death” – A warning on a bicycle bell. “Do not hold over people” – A warning on a glass coffee pot. (Yahoo! Finance 2016) As a final example of common sense-related warnings comes this cautionary sign posted in every building of my own apartment complex. First, the backdrop of my apartment complex—which is known for its many rules that generally have common sense in mind. The 26-building apartment complex consists of many parking lots. It also has a number of families with children. As common sense dictates, children should not play in the parking lots for safety reasons. The warning from my apartment management company begins with a reminder that there is “Absolutely ‘NO’ Playing in the Parking Lots or on the Sidewalks.” The warning goes on to specify the activities not allowed (e.g., no bike riding, chalk drawing) and brings up the value of the cars in the parking lot and then this warning (in all caps): “Only you know the value of your child. Please use common sense, a parking lot is not a playground! However, we do provide a playground!” (There is in fact a huge playground area and there is a large swimming pool.) This clever sign (although a bit anal-retentive) makes a direct connection between notions of common sense and the value of one’s child, that should give folks a moment to reflect. The most obvious example of common sense is our need for clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. Both are necessary for all life to exist, including human life. Common sense should, therefore, dictate that no issue (including corporate profits) confronting humanity is more important than saving the environment and helping it thrive. Beyond our biological need for a thriving environment is the aesthetics component of a beautiful physical environment. Nearly all of us appreciate the beauty of nature including a sunrise or sunset; snow-capped mountains or mountains to scale; a river, lake,

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

161

or ocean to swim in or a beach to sunbathe at; birds singing and puppies and kittens playing in a green grass yard; camping in the woods to commune with nature or hunting in the woods to help maintain nature’s balance (and in some cases, for human survival); and so on. And yet, as important as a thriving environment is, many people do not heed the value of this, the most important, example of common sense. In fact, in Chapter 6, we will examine the many ways in which human behaviors have deeply and negatively impacted the overall health of the environment to the point where this war on the environment becomes one of our most glaring examples of violating common sense.

Common, Common Sense Common sense refers to the knowledge we have learned through the socialization process, observation, personal experience, and reason. The ability to utilize this knowledge in warranted situations is the other key aspect of common sense. Despite the relative ambiguity surrounding the notion of common sense there comes a time in one’s life when people are expected to have acquired a certain amount of knowledge that is common among people within that culture, or subculture. And, despite the often evidence to the contrary (see Chapter 6) there are people who do actually adhere to notions of common sense on a regular basis and throughout the day. If you question the above statement consider the thousands of things you have learned throughout your lifetime (beginning with all the basics in early childhood and continuing through the more complicated lessons of life in adulthood) and how we now know how to behave in a common-sense manner in numerous given situations. We can act predictably and properly in so many diverse situations because we have developed a stock of common-sense knowledge of which to draw on when presented with specific stimuli. (Note: If you wonder about your own level of common sense there are multiple common-sense quizzes available online.) During the 2002–2015 period of time I asked college students to provide me with a list of up to 20 examples of common sense. (As we shall see in Chapter 6, I also asked for examples of people violating common sense.) Over this period of time a great number of behaviors would reappear. This led me to create a classification of common examples of common sense or what I call here “Common, Common Sense.” Among the examples of common, common sense are: never touch a hot stove; don’t put your hands in a pot of boiling water; don’t eat food with mold on it; do not smoke while pumping gas; and, heed all warning signs. Please see Appendix A – “Common, Common Sense” at the end of the book for a more complete listing of examples of common, common sense behaviors. Also, see Appendix B – “Tim-isms” for a listing of my own bits of sage advice regarding common sense based on my own experiences and travels.

162

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

Box 5.1 Connecting Common Sense and Popular Culture “Robots Lack Common Sense, But They Will Shape Future Employment” One of the most popular shows on television is “The Big Bang Theory,” a show primarily about four scientists and a cute blonde who lives across the hall from two of the scientists who share an apartment. One of the characters, Sheldon Cooper (played by Jim Parsons), plays a brilliant theoretical physicist at Caltech. In real life, this award-winning actor is not, of course, a luminous scientist, but Michio Kaku, of City University of New York (CUNY) New York University, Institute for Advanced Study, is a theoretical physicist and also a futurist, popularizer of science, and a bestselling author and host of two radio programs. Kaku’s expertise is sought out by many, and he makes regular appearances on such news programs as CBS This Morning, the BBC, the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, and the Science Channel. In a 2016 video (available on YouTube) titled “Jobs of the Future will be What Robots Can’t Do,” Kaku explains why certain jobs will be replaced by robots and why other jobs will not. Kaku begins his video by saying the jobs of the future (for humans) will be those that cannot be done by artificial intelligence and robots. There are huge gaps in what robots can do and what they cannot do. Robots, according to Kaku, have two big problems: the lack of pattern recognition and lack of common sense. Robots lack pattern recognition because they have poor “eyesight,” they can see lines, circles, and squares but they don’t understand that these shapes make up objects like faces, cups, or chairs. Robots lack common sense as they cannot understand the simplest things about human behavior, they do not know that water is wet or that strings can pull but they cannot push. Still, they will take away many jobs. Kaku explains that the two sets of jobs that will be destroyed are repetitive jobs in the blue-collar industry, especially in the automotive and textile industries; while such non-repetitive blue-collar jobs as police, garbage men, sanitation workers, construction workers, and gardeners will survive. In the white-collar industry, the set of jobs that will be lost are middle management (“the friction of capitalism”): middlemen, low level accountants, book keepers, agents, and tellers; while those whitecollar jobs that will be safe are those who engage in intellectual capitalism (jobs that require common sense, according to Kaku): creativity, imagination, leadership, analysis, telling a joke, writing a script or book, and doing science (Kaku 2016). Kaku cites former English prime minister Tony Blair as having said that England derives more revenue from rock music than coal because we are moving away from commodity-based capital like coal, to intellectual capital like rock and roll (Big Think 2017; Kaku 2016). Most people recognize that the coal industry is a dying industry and common sense teaches us that

Learning About and Adhering to Common Sense

163

most of the jobs (that still remain) in coal will further be replaced by robots (certainly miners and middle managers will be replaced by automation in the coal industry). Thus, investing in coal as a future source of increased employment defies common sense (let alone logic).

Summary In this chapter the specific ways in which people learn about common sense were discussed. It was emphasized that anything described as “common sense” is really a matter of learned behavior and is does not refer to innate, instinctual knowledge. Common sense, like everything else, is learned via the socialization process, observation, personal experience, the use of reason, and/ or some combination of all these elements. The socialization process is the most critical aspect of learning about common sense. Socialization involves developmental changes brought about as a result of individuals interacting with other people. Sociologists view socialization as a lifelong process of learning—one that starts from infancy and continues through old age. The importance of socialization is evident from the time an infant is born as all infants are nearly completely dependent on caregivers for survival. The socialization process is most effective within the context of primary groups. Primary groups are an example of agents of socialization. Agents of socialization are sources of culture; they are people, groups, organizations, and institutions that teach us what we need to know in order to function properly in society. They also teach us how to behave in a “common sense” manner. In addition to our primary agents of socialization—parents and the family—are peer groups, schools, mass media, social media, religion, employers, and the government. In the contemporary era, a great deal of socialization is accomplished via cyber socialization (in the cyberworld) and social media. Observation and personal experience along with the development of enlightened rational thought and reason are other important methods of learning. A number of significant social theories that attempt to explain how we learn were also discussed. These theories include social learning, symbolic interactionism, subcultural, anomie/strain, differential association, labeling, and control/social bond. Each perspective describes the manner in which we learn proper behavior and notions of common sense. A number of common-sense short stories were provided to help illustrate adherence to notions of common sense. By adhering to common sense we are referring to examples of people who actually engage in behaviors that can be viewed as notions of common sense (at least by most people in a given society). The chapter concludes with a look at some of the most common examples of common sense and directed readers to look at Appendixes A and B for a listing of common, common sense as well as the author’s own bits of sage advice regarding common sense based on his own experiences and travels.

6

Violating Common Sense Uncommon Sense

Introduction It should be a matter of common sense that if you are already engaged in a covert form of illegal activity you shouldn’t draw attention to yourself by engaging in overt illegal activities as well. A number of motorists seem to violate common sense in this manner and in a variety of ways. News reports regular describe such scenarios as law enforcement officers finding motorists with illegal items (e.g., drugs, guns) in their car after they were pulled over for a traffic violation, such as speeding, failure to use turning signals, broken taillight, and so forth. In July 2017, a motorist in Wyoming County (NY) was driving his car without insurance, a covert violation (because law enforcement would not know this simply by driving past the motorist). What did draw attention to this motorist was his erratic driving; that, and the fact that his car had an ax in the roof, was devoid of doors and a license plate. When Wyoming County Sheriff’s officers pulled the driver over they would also find that he was impaired by drugs (a certified Drug Recognition Expert from the Sheriff’s Office found him to be “impaired by multiple different drug categories”); and, oh yeah, that pesky lack of insurance which was now of lesser concern (Becker 2017:C10). Later in this chapter, we will learn about other motorists who also violated common sense by drawing attention to their covert criminal activities by engaging in overt manners of criminal behavior. We will also learn about some of the many other ways that people violate common sense.

Impediments to Common Sense It would seem as though a common-sense approach to life is as important now as in any other time in history. So, why do so many people seem to violate common sense so often and in so many different scenarios? Is it a matter of a failure to learn; the lack of formal higher education; emotion and irrational fear; a belief in weird things such as pseudoscience, superstitions, and other oddities; or ignorance or stupidity? As presented here, all these factors contribute to the lack of adhering to notions of common sense; and all of

Violating Common Sense

165

these causes of “uncommon sense” will be discussed in the following pages. Note, for the purposes of this book, “uncommon sense” refers to a violation of common sense and the inability to utilize knowledge properly in warranted situations.

Failure to Learn In Chapter 5, we discovered some of the many ways in which we learn about common sense. The primary methods of learning include the socialization process, observation and personal experience, and the development of enlightened rational thought and reason. As emphasized throughout this book and as a part of the definition of common sense, common sense refers to the knowledge learned throughout our lifetimes and our ability to utilize that knowledge in warranted situations. Ergo, the failure to learn (about the vast array of situations that one may find themselves a part of) becomes a primary impediment to adhering to common sense. In some cases, the social actor may have been improperly socialized by the agents of socialization. This lack of proper socialization will put actors in a position to fail at utilizing common sense. During the first couple of decades of our lives much of what we have learned comes as a result of the agents of socialization as they are responsible for teaching us such basics as learning to function properly in society, proper etiquette, social protocols, and how to handle challenging situations (both common and new to us). The playing field of learning is not equal, however. Some children benefit from agents of socialization that have encountered a great number of different situations and life experiences that afforded them many more opportunities to develop a more fully developed common sense than those agents with a limited number of experiences. In addition, the enlightened agents of socialization are better equipped to share a vast array of knowledge onto the next generation. Caregivers with limited life experiences, naturally, have far less experience to share with their children and thus their opportunity to develop a broad scope of common sense was compromised. Still, it is important to realize that many individuals learn differently than others. As a result, no matter how hard the agents of socialization attempt(ed) to teach valuable life lessons to others, learning cannot be forced upon others. People must be willing and able to learn in order to actually gain knowledge, including common-sense knowledge. For example, there are many people (regardless of their age), who have been told repeatedly about the dangers of certain behaviors (e.g., drinking/texting and driving, smoking, and ignoring warning signs) and yet, they fail to heed these messages from the agents of socialization and continue to violate notions of common sense regardless. Observation and personal experience are two other important variables in social learning. If one has not observed or experienced certain specific situations in the past it may be difficult to know how to utilize a notion of common sense when such situations occur in the present (or the future). For

166

Violating Common Sense

example, if one has never attended a political rally, a cricket sporting event, or written a research term paper, such scenarios may present difficulties when they are first encountered. A person who attends a political rally for the first time and did so simply to support his or her favorite candidate might be caught off guard by the many potential behaviors (e.g., verbal and physical attacks from those with differing political views and law enforcement efforts to break up an “out-of-control” rally) that may occur simply because they had never observed (e.g., on television) or experienced a political rally in the past. Knowing how to react when the mood of the crowd at the political rally begins to change is often a matter of common sense as the experienced participant is likely to notice emerging elements of violence from the crowd and then act upon this knowledge. The person who attends a cricket match without knowledge of the sport may feel lost if they do not know the rules of the game or cannot comprehend why people cheer when they do and jeer when they do. While it is hard to believe that a college student has never written a term paper in high school, there are occasions when this is the case. A college student, especially depending upon their major, is likely to be expected to write many term papers while in college and professors are likely to assume that the student has learned by this point in time that they know how to write one properly. As a college professor myself, I am dismayed by the amount of time I have to spend with some students teaching them how to write a term paper; there have even been occasions when students do not know how to write a proper paper outline.

The Lack of a Formal Higher Education The failure to learn may be the result of poor socialization, the unwillingness or inability of social actors to learn, or the lack of opportunities to observe or experience certain behaviors (as described above). A somewhat related variable to the impediment of utilizing common sense may be the result of a lack of formal higher education. Formal education involves training and developing people in knowledge, skills, intellect, and character, in structured and certified programs. Thus, formal education can be viewed as a process of teaching and learning in which some people (e.g., teachers and professors) cultivate knowledge, skills, intellect, and character, while others (e.g., students and persons interested in learning specific skills) take on the role of learner. The value of formal education is two-fold: the knowledge one gains and the provision of credentials (e.g., diplomas, certificates, security clearances, and powers of attorney) that are needed in a technologically advanced society. A credential is issued by a third party with the relevant authority or assumed competence to do so. It indicates that the possessor is competent to perform or qualified for a specific job or position. There are some jobs, especially blue-collar jobs, wherein advanced formal education at a four-year college is not needed to be successful. Instead, specialized training may be made available for certification purposes (e.g.,

Violating Common Sense

167

becoming a certified plumber or electrician). However, as the economy has long ago shifted from primarily manufacturing (and other blue-collar occupations) to service and technology-based professions, it has become a matter of common sense that formal higher education is valued in the marketplace. Thus, while some people may claim (especially on social media) to have graduated from the “School of Hard Knocks” and that they have “street smarts,” these “achievements” are not credentials and rarely help people find employment in the current social-economic world. Some of the people who complain the loudest about the disappearance of manufacturing jobs have actually failed to utilize common sense by keeping up with the changes in the world economic order. In the United States, a number of people complain that corporations have shifted their manufacturing production overseas and thus cost them employment opportunities. Such a claim is only partially true as the reality is that two out of three “lost jobs” are the result of automation (and the downsizing of human job positions), and automation will not disappear anytime soon. Common sense, then, tells us that formal education is very important for many of the current employment opportunities and especially those that are most likely to offer a high salary. Common sense should also tell people that the general knowledge gained through formal education makes them more enlightened and society stronger. It is not necessary for people to have formal higher education in order to possess common sense. In fact, there are many people with a limited amount of formal education who possess a great deal of common sense just as there are some people who possess a great deal of “book smarts” but lack in the area of common sense. While common sense is not dependent upon a formal education, it is certainly beneficial to have attained it. People who attain high levels of formal education have generally attained advanced levels of knowledge on subjects that can help a society flourish and continue to advance. Additionally, individuals who possess advanced degrees are more likely to flourish in the current economic system and, at the very least, they have increased their overall level of knowledge. This is a good thing as common sense does refer to the attainment of knowledge and a formal education is a great way to achieve knowledge.

Overly Emotional and Irrational Fear In Chapter 2, enlightened, rational thought was discussed as a paradigm of thought. Formal education is the primary way to attain such knowledge but observation, trial and error, and experience are other ways of developing such a thought process. Enlightened rational thought helped humanity to escape the comparatively irrational paradigms of tradition and faith and spearheaded discovery and explanation and innovation and invention. Rational and scientific thought allowed humanity to accomplish a great number of astonishing feats of achievement. Employing enlightened, rational thought

168

Violating Common Sense

also helped us, as a species, to rise to the top of the food chain. In this manner, enlightened, rational thought is a great contributor to common sense. Conversely, overly emotional, irrational fear and bravado generally serve as examples of impediments to common sense. Emotions and emotional empathy help to make us human so it is not being suggested here that we should be emotion-less. Rather, being overly emotional may interfere with the pursuit of common sense (and certainly of rationalbased decision-making). Emotions refer to a state of feeling; a state of mind deriving from one’s circumstances, mood, or relationships with others; a conscious mental reaction (e.g., fear, anger, love); subjective feelings directed toward a specific object typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body; an affective state of consciousness in which certain feelings such as joy, sorrow, fear, love, and so on are experienced; and experiences of intense mental activity. Emotions often dictate courses of social action and may cloud our rational judgments. Sports fans in particular should understand this as their own state of mind may be predicated based on something that they have no control over, namely the performance of others and the performance outcome. A favorite athlete’s feats of achievement or favorite team’s playoff victory can bring great happiness just as a sporting defeat can leave fans devastated, sad, angry, and miserable. Being in love with someone who also loves you may represent the pinnacle of emotional happiness. Conversely, if the person you are in love with suddenly informs you that he or she no longer loves you it can be so devastating that it can lead to depression. Falling in love with someone who likes you only as a friend is often a recipe for irritability and sadness. Emotional involvement of nearly any kind can lead to misjudgments in courses of action, including behaviors that would otherwise be a matter of common sense. For example, placing a huge bet on a sporting outcome based on which team you want to win rather than on the team that is most likely to win may be a violation of common sense. In general, people lacking an emotional investment in a particular outcome remain unbiased and are better equipped to look at situations from a rational or common-sense perspective. Irrational fear refers to something that scares us because we assume it will cause harm despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous. As a result, we tend to avoid certain specific situations out of fear. An irrational fear may foster itself in the form of a phobia (e.g., fear of heights, fear of dust, fear of dancing, fear of crossing a bridge). According to the Mayo Clinic (2017): specific phobias are an overwhelming and unreasonable fear of objects or situations that pose little real danger but provoke anxiety and avoidance. Unlike the brief anxiety you may feel when giving a speech or taking a test, specific phobias are long lasting, cause intense physical and psychological reactions, and can affect your ability to function normally at work, at school or in social settings.

Violating Common Sense

169

A fear of crossing a bridge (gephyrophobia) becomes a phobia when the bridge is structurally sound. Because irrational fears and phobias are not associated with actual harmful situations they fall under the realm of uncommon sense.

Believing in Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstitions, and Other Oddities We live in a paradoxical world. On the one hand, we have relatively easy access to great amounts of scientific data and research and analysis that affords us an opportunity to examine and explain the world we live in within an enlightened, rational framework. We have explored the depths of the oceans, walked on the moon, and we are exploring deep space via space probes. On the other hand, we have a world wherein people have irrational fears and believe in all sorts of weird things, including pseudoscience, superstitions, and other oddities (such as a belief in ghosts, witches, creationism, alien abductions, and wearing copper bracelets to cure arthritis). (People who believe in such things certainly would not label them as “weird things.”) Michael Shermer, a leading twentieth-century and early twenty-first-century skeptic and publisher of Skeptic magazine, preceded my concern and states: If we are living in the Age of Science, then why do so many pseudoscientific and nonscientific beliefs abound? Religions, myths, superstitions, mysticisms, cults, New Age ideas, and nonsense of all sorts have penetrated every nook and cranny of both popular and high culture. (Shermer 1997:26) Shermer goes on to write: Other popular ideas of our time have little to no scientific support include dowsing, the Bermuda Triangle, poltergeists, biorhythms, creationism, levitation, psychokinesis, astrology, ghosts, psychic detectives, UFOs … clairvoyance, mediums, pyramid power, faith healing, Big Foot, psychic prospecting, haunted houses, perpetual motion machines … Belief in these phenomena is not limited to a quirky handful on the lunatic fringe. (p. 27) More than twenty years after Shermer wrote about his ideas of weird things that people believe in there are many who still believe in such oddities that, seemingly, violate notions of common sense. A 2013 listing of “Bizarre Things People Believe In” includes: Rumpology (psychic reading via examining one’s butt); flat earth; psychic surgery (a type of healing for people who are suffering from potentially terminal diseases without actual surgery); pyramid power; attachment theory (teaching misbehaving children how to “properly” bond with their parents or caregivers); melanin theory; body

170

Violating Common Sense

earthing (bonding with nature via the transfer of the Earth’s positive electrons into the human body); urine theory (a belief that drinking urine, or rubbing urine on one’s body, can cure everything from the flu to cancer); memetics (a belief in the power of memes to cure illnesses and/or energize the human body); and dowsing (using a rod or stick to locate things underground, like finding water or oil; statistically speaking this “skill” is no more accurate than guessing) (Grant 2013). Incongruously, Shermer (1997) does not clearly define pseudoscience. He does define scientific law as “a description of a regularly repeating action that is open to rejection or confirmation. A scientific law describes some action in nature that can be tested. The test confirms or rejects it as a law” (p. 33). The law of gravity, for example, Shermer (1997) declares, “describes the repeating attraction between objects, and it has been tested over and over against external reality, and thus it has been confirmed” (p. 33). An examination of various dictionaries descriptions of pseudoscience leads us to this definition: pseudoscience refers to a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. In this regard, pseudoscience can be viewed as the true meaning of “fake science” opposed to what is in vogue at the present time wherein people label any scientific evidence that disproves their beliefs as “fake news.” Astrology, psychokinesis, and clairvoyance are generally considered as examples of pseudoscience. Shermer uses a belief in ghosts and attempts to prove their existence as an example of pseudoscience. “Ghosts have never been successfully tested against external reality … Ghosts can be considered nonfactual because they have never been confirmed to any extent” (Shermer 1997:33). Science is different from pseudoscience as scientific knowledge is supported by evidence and open to new interpretations following new discoveries and explanations while pseudoscience, if it changes at all, changes primarily for personal, political, or ideological reasons (Shermer 1997). Shermer does admit that science is heavily influenced by the culture in which it is embedded, and that scientists may all share a common bias that leads them to think a certain way about nature but this does not take away from the progressive nature of science, in the cumulative sense. So, why do people believe in weird things? Shermer argues that most believers in such odd things as miracles, monsters, and mysteries are not hoaxers, flimflam artists, or lunatics; rather, they are normal people whose normal thinking has gone wrong in some way. According to Shermer (1997), among the ways in which thinking goes awry are the following: 1 Anecdotes do not make a science—Without corroborative evidence from other sources, or physical proof of some sort, ten anecdotes are no better than one, and a hundred are no better than ten. 2 Scientific language does not make something scientific—Just because a belief uses scientific language or jargon—as in “creation-science”—that does not make something scientific without empirical evidence, experimental testing, and corroboration.

Violating Common Sense

171

3 Bold statements do not make claims true—Something is likely to be pseudoscientific if enormous claims are made for its power and veracity but supportive evidence is non-existent. (Shermer uses “Dianetics” as an example.) 4 Heresy does not equal correctness—While people laughed at the ideas of Copernicus and the Wright Brothers only to find the truth behind their claims, this does not mean that if your belief is being laughed at that your belief is true; instead, you may indeed be a crackpot. 5 Burden of proof—It is up to the person(s) making the claim that some belief is true to prove it and not up to the doubters to disprove it. Thus, creationists must prove their theory to be true; it is not up to rationalists or evolutionists to disprove their belief. 6 Rumors do not equal reality—Rumors begin with such statements as “I read somewhere that …” or “I heard from someone that …” Rumors may be true, of course, but generally they are not. Science is not based on rumors but on facts. 7 Unexplained is not inexplicable—A belief that cannot be explained because it is too complicated is not science. 8 Failures are rationalized—In science, the value of negative findings— failures—cannot be overemphasized as failures eventually lead us closer to the truth about some phenomenon. 9 After-the-fact reasoning—Also known as “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” is a fallacy in reasoning that is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event. (Correlation is not the same thing as causation.) For example, it might be true that when a sports fan wears his “lucky” shirt that his favorite team wins but, his team did not win because he wore a certain shirt. Soon enough, his favorite team will lose even if he wears the “lucky” shirt. But, the after-the-fact reasoner will then blame the sporting outcome on his new ball cap, or something else that went against his normal routine. Shermer describes after-the-fact reasoning as a form of superstition, at best. 10 Coincidence—In the paranormal world, coincidences are often viewed as deeply significant, as a type of synchronicity, as if some mysterious force were at work behind the scenes. 11 Representativeness—The tendency to cite bits of evidence that support a belief while ignoring all the evidence that does not support a belief (e.g., like looking at one’s astrology and concluding that sometimes astrological forecasts actually come true). Shermer (1997) also provides a number of examples of logical problems in thinking that lead people to believe in oddities: emotive words and false analogies (relying on words designed to provoke emotion); ad ignorantiam (an appeal to ignorance or those lacking of knowledge); ad hominem and tu quoque (somewhat like name calling as a method to distract people away

172

Violating Common Sense

from the truth); hasty generalization; over-reliance on authorities; either-or propositions; circular reasoning; and reductio ad absurdum and the slippery slope. Shermer wrote entire chapters discussing topics such as space alien abductions, belief in witches, and creationism as examples of illogical beliefs. He summarizes the main reasons why people believe in weird things as a matter of credo consolans (people believe weird things because they want to as it makes them feel good, is comforting, or consoling); the need for immediate gratification (many weird things offer immediate gratification via simple answers to complex problems—like calling a psychic outline or believing in healing crystals); simplicity (people like simple answers to complex problems and science is often too complicated for the ignorant); morality and meaning (a belief in some sort of higher power, like a god, seems to provide more meaning to people than scientific and secular explanations). Interesting, while Shermer includes the word superstition in his book’s subtitle, once again (as with pseudoscience) he does not clearly define the term or include a chapter(s) on the topic. One would think that there would be far greater attention paid to this concept and yet it is relegated to a mere two pages of identification in the index. My own research on sport superstitions is helpful here as an example of violating common sense as superstitions are tied to irrational beliefs and the power of magic. Superstitions are fragmentary remains of past rituals, systems of thoughts, and belief systems that have lost their original meaning to those who believe in them in the present. As Hole (1969) explains: Superstitions are the living relics of ways of thought much older than our own, and of beliefs once strongly held but now abandoned and forgotten … Absurd as some of them now seem in the light of knowledge, all were serious in their beginnings. (p. 7) Superstitious persons find causal relations between certain behaviors and outcomes where they do not really exist (a type of post hoc reasoning). In some cases, sport participants and fans alike come to see a breach in certain superstitious behaviors as a “jinx.” With this in mind, superstitions can be defined as beliefs or practices resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, or a belief in magic or chance (Delaney and Madigan 2015:364). Superstitions can be found in all cultures and they are quite common in sports—although when it comes to sport superstitions, superstitious behaviors tend to fall under the belief in magic or chance, rather than ignorance or fear of the unknown. Thus, wearing a “lucky” shirt during the game is a behavior fans use in hopes that the team will win because of it. Beyond “lucky” clothing items, sport superstitions can include such behaviors as having to sit at a specific spot while watching the game, eating specific foods at specific times, chanting rituals, petting the family dog after a score, watching a game on delay,

Violating Common Sense

173

watching the game with the TV mute but the radio broadcast on, a specific morning routine, and so on. The majority of superstitious sports fans are not actually ignorant and believe that there is a direct correlation between a fan wearing a certain article of clothing and a favorable outcome; rather, it provides them with a connection to the game and makes them feel as though they are a part of the sporting activity. As with other forms of ritualistic behaviors, athletes engage in superstitious behavior as a way to reduce their level of anxiety before and during the game. They may have a certain pregame ritual that they must follow, a certain pre-game meal, not washing their socks for as long as they are on a winning streak, rubbing a certain object (e.g., “Play Like a Champion” sign or a rock in the stadium), and so on. In sum, the belief in weird things, such as pseudoscience, superstitions, and other oddities discussed here, all serve as impediments to common sense.

Ignorance and Stupidity Some people confuse the two terms of “ignorance” and “stupidity.” When you know the meaning of the two terms it is much harsher to be described as “stupid” (and some people are even offended by use of the term itself) than it is to be described as “ignorant.” Ignorance simply refers to a lack of knowledge, awareness, or information on a topic; whereas, stupidity refers to behavior that shows a lack of good sense or judgment. Ignorance and stupidity are two important reasons why formal education is so important. Both of these terms are very relevant to the study of common sense as they are linked to the study of human behavior and knowledge and because ignorance and stupidity serve as impediments to common sense. As demonstrated by the expression “ignorance is bliss,” some people are content or happy with their unawareness of the world around them. Entertainers, athletes, authors, and the like sometimes purposively employ this “ignorance is bliss” mantra as a self-esteem defensive tactic. For example, they may refuse to read the critics’ reviews of their work; that way, if the critics are harsh, they will be none the wiser and, presumably, happier not to know about the potential disparaging comments. In this regard, not knowing the truth is better than knowing and fretting over it. The “ignorance is bliss” mantra is akin to “what you don’t know won’t hurt you.” However, common sense destroys this notion as there are potentially plenty of things we don’t know about that might, in fact, hurt us. Thus, the counter cliché to “ignorance is bliss”—to be “forewarned is forearmed”—is not only helpful, it could save our life. Military personnel are better suited to have as much knowledge as possible on enemy troop movements; residents of a town in the path of a tornado or hurricane are better off knowing that the storm is coming so that they can plan accordingly; athletes are better off studying their opponents; and, students are better off attending class and studying prior to taking a test rather than taking the test without knowledge of the content.

174

Violating Common Sense

Beyond the descriptions depicted above that call attention to the fallacy of the false sense of security that the “ignorance is bliss” mantra is supposed to provide is the notion of ignorantia juris non excusat, or, ignorance of the law is no excuse. The maxim of ignorantia juris non excusat is applicable to both civil as well as criminal jurisprudence. The reasoning behind this jurisprudence is simple; if ignorance of the law was allowed as a defense against criminal or civil charges everyone could claim that he or she was unaware of the law in question to avoid liability (US Legal 2016). It is one thing to be ignorant about certain topics and situations, but it is another thing entirely to make judgments or decisions that affect others based on one’s own ignorance on a particular matter (e.g., voting against legislation designed to protect the environment because one is ignorant of the facts). The topic of “banned books” seems appropriate here as government and school officials have often banned books because of their ignorance of the subject matter at hand. Government officials may ban books that go against the prevailing ideology and schools may ban books because an ignorant parent finds a portion of the book offensive. Examples of banned books include Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer (first published in France in 1934), considered one of the most important pieces of American literature of the twentieth century, and maybe its most controversial. “Due to its portrayal of sex, the book was banned in the United States until it was published by Grove Press in 1961. Across the nation, the book was challenged by many who declared it obscene” (Croyle 2017:A2). In 1962, three employees at the Economy Book and Stationery Store in Syracuse were arrested for selling a copy of the book; more than 200 copies of the book were confiscated as well (Croyle 2017). The book Fahrenheit 451 was banned from a school in rural Mississippi because it contained the phrase “God damn” (Delaney 2012). (The list of banned books is extensive and includes Animal Farm, Brave New World, Catch-22, Doctor Zhivago, The Satanic Verses, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and Zhuan Falun to name a few.) As demonstrated here, the ignorance of a few can disrupt the free-flowing of diverse ideas that can benefit the whole society. Stupidity is behavior that shows a lack of good sense or judgment or is behavior that is foolish and demonstrates a lack of intelligence. It is a sad reality that in this, the “Age of Science,” there are an infinite number of examples and ways that people demonstrate just how stupid they can be. Here are a sample of stories involving people doing stupid things, or stupid people doing things, you decide for yourself. In Portland, Oregon, a house fire that caused $30,000 in damage was started by tenants who were using a hole in the floor as an ashtray. A spokesman for the Portland Fire and Rescue said, “That’s not careless smoking, that’s stupid smoking” (The Citizen 2011:A2). In 2010, a German reptile collector was caught at a New Zealand airport with 44 geckos and skinks (a type of lizard) in a package concealed in his underwear. The man admitted to trading in exploited species without a

Violating Common Sense

175

permit and hunting protected wildlife without authority (The Post-Standard 2010a). In 2009, a school district in Lakeland, FL, suspended an eighthgrader from school for three days because he was accused of passing gas. At first, the other kids laughed at the teenaged farter but then they reported that the stench was so bad that it was difficult to breathe. This boy got off lightly compared to a 13-year-old boy in Stuart, FL who was arrested for breaking wind in class (The Post-Standard 2009b). One of my students informed me that she stopped at a convenience store on her way to campus one morning and found that the store advertised “regular ice” and “diet ice” options. The same convenience store chain offered “regular ice” and “low-carb ice” at a different location. Underscoring the seemingly endless examples of people who violate common sense, Harvard media analyst Alex Jones said in 2003, “One of the greatest misnomers in the world is so-called common sense. It should be called ‘rare sense’ when you see [that] smart people can do stupid things” (Johnson and Leinwand 2003:1A).

People Doing Dumb and Stupid Things: The Award Goes To … Our previous look at the ignorant and stupid things that some people do has just begun as there are folks who act out in such an uncommon-sense manner they sometimes receive an “award” for their dumb and stupid behavior. Let’s begin our closer examination of people doing dumb and stupid things by first acknowledging the Darwin Awards.

Darwin Awards Perhaps the most recognized “awarding” platform that acknowledges people who do dumb and stupid things is the “Darwin Awards.” These folks do not receive an actual award but are, instead, acknowledged publicly via social and traditional media outlets. As described by the Urban Dictionary (2017), a Darwin Award is given to people who contribute the most to the evolution of humanity by removing their genes from the gene pool. Sometimes given to people who simply sterilize themselves, but most of the recipients have ended up dead because of their actions … By insuring that their stupid genes [do] not spread, they ultimately help humanity and thus receive an award. By dying off, or at the very least by not procreating, Darwin Award winners help contribute to the evolution of humanity by removing their genes from the gene pool. Such awards, while “tongue-in-cheek” and satirical, are often mean-spirited. The Sunday Times (2017), for example, states that the Darwin Awards honor those who “chlorinate” the human gene pool by dying in the stupidest possible way.

176

Violating Common Sense

The most recognized website to maintain a chronicle list of the Darwin Awards is DarwinAwards.com (there are a few other anonymously authored lists). The site is run by Wendy Northcutt (although her name does not appear at the site) who has also written several books on the Darwin Awards including The Darwin Awards: Countdown to Extinction. Generally, to be considered for a Darwin Award a particular social behavior meets the five requirements described below (DarwinAwards.com 2017): 1 2

3

4 5

Inability to reproduce—The nominee must now be dead or left sterile. Excellence—Astounding misapplication of judgment. In other words, a lack of common sense was displayed in their behavior. It is a story you will remember. Self-selection—The nominee caused their own demise. The award-winner contributed to his/her own self-selection against successful adaptation to the environment. Maturity—The nominee must be at least past the legal driving age (generally around 15 or 16 years of age), and be free of mental defect. Veracity—The story must be documented by reliable sources (i.e., reputable newspaper article, confirmed television reports, or responsible eyewitnesses). If the story is found to be untrue, it is disqualified, but particularly funny ones are placed in a section of the archives entitled “urban legends.”

In consideration of all these characteristics, the Darwin Awards (2017) homepage uses this description: “The Darwin Awards salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who accidentally remove themselves from it.” It some cases, however, Darwin Award winners may have already procreated. The Darwin Awards are, of course, named in honor of Charles Darwin. Darwin is famous for coining the term “natural selection” and for applying this term to the natural world and the many species that are found in it. At its core, Darwin’s biologically driven theory of natural selection, first articulated in his 1859 book The Origin of Species, proposes that organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. These changes will either allow for the organism to better adapt to its environment in order to ensure its survival, or it will lead to the organism’s demise as it was not adaptable to the environment. The process that brings about this ability of adaptability is evolution (Darwin 1999). The Darwin Awards honor those “selected” against survival. One of the first recipients of the Darwin Awards, in 1985, was a Polish farmer who engaged in a machismo contest with some friends, and, “tiring of hitting himself with frozen turnips, cut off his own head with a chainsaw” (The Sunday Times 2017:5). While there are many stupid ways people contribute to their own deaths, thus violating common sense, the British newspaper The Sunday Times (2017) suggests tracking the number of cases that

Violating Common Sense

177

involve selfie-related deaths. An increasing number of people have died while taking selfies via a variety of means including plummeting off cliffs or bridges in an attempt to attain that “perfect” selfie photo. The Darwin Awards website annually lists the top nominees of the year and allows Internet users an opportunity to vote for the “winner” of the stupidest person who has been selected against survival because of their lack of commonsense behavior. Described in the following pages is a selection of stories provided in a chronological listing on the Darwin Awards (2017) homepage. In 2017, the leading vote-getter (at the time of this writing) of the Darwin Awards involved a “Double-Darwin Award” as two teenage Mexican friends (17 years old and 18 years old) were standing on a truck on an airport runway in Chinipas, Chihuahua, in northern Mexico. They were attending horse races held adjacent to the runway and their desire for the perfect selfie led them to ignore the realities of the surrounding physical world, including the sound of the motor of a descending aircraft. The wing of the small plane struck and killed them instantly. This tragic story, among other things, illustrates the concern over people attempting to take the perfect selfie while ignoring the dangers of the world. When it comes to survival there is an adage that one does not have to be the fastest, one simply needs not to be the slowest. This biological truism is demonstrated in this 2017 Darwin Award winner story involving three male hunters and three male elephants in Zimbabwe. The hunters were driving the elephants into a clearing in an attempt for their own version of a trophy. Agitated by the humans intruding into their domain, the elephants turned and charged after them. The men ran away but the slowest runner was trampled to death while the other two escaped. The top vote-getter for the 2016 Darwin Awards was a 58-year-old man referred to as a “distracted driver” who was driving on Interstate 75 in Michigan without wearing pants or a seatbelt but also watching a porn video on his mobile device. The man may have been distracted from his driving but he was attempting to maximize his driving pleasure in a self-satisfying manner of masturbation. His car slid out of control, rolled, crashed, and ejected the man through the sunroof. The incident was the climax of his life. The second-leading vote-getter for 2016 also involved a motorized incident, this one in Virginia. A 20-year-old woman and her friend were attempting to strap down a mattress atop their van left curbside by the former owner who had disposed of it. Lacking the proper mechanisms to tie the mattress down, the woman decided to lie atop the mattress and perhaps assumed the weight of her body would keep the both of them in place on the roof of the van. The Darwin Awards (2017) website description of the incident also pondered, “perhaps the young woman was testing a physics theory and betting that friction would keep the two fixed in place.” Regardless of whether or not this woman was working with a false assumption or a failed theory, she was guilty of death via stupidity as both she and the mattress slipped off the moving vehicle. The vehicle, by the way, was driven by an unlicensed driver.

178

Violating Common Sense

In 2015, a Canadian earned a Darwin Award for wearing a plastic bag over his head while waiting 45 minutes in line to cast his ballot during the October elections. It seems that various protesters covered their heads in an assortment of clever ways to attract the attention of the media. In Montreal, a 24-yearold voter decided to wear a plastic bag (a paper bag would be a less fatal choice) over his head but the long wait in line led to his fainting and death from “respiratory complications.” As the story was told on the DarwinAwards.com (2017) website, he not only did not get to vote, he never reproduced either, resulting in a “double elimination.” While there were surprisingly only two Darwin Awards stories available for review, the year previous was a bumper crop of award winners with a very large number of people voting on many stories. The leading vote-getting story, however, involves a Sprint Cup racer who confronted his rival during a race, while on the track, while the race was still going on. The driver, Kevin Ward, was upset at the manner in which he was raced, eventually leading to his vehicle spinning out of control and knocked into the wall. With the amount of damage done to his car, Ward was out of the race. Violating the notions of common sense, however, he decided to immediately “go after” the driver he deemed responsible for the incident, Tony Stewart. His bit of anger, while understandable to many, did not do Ward’s common-sense judgment any favors as walking on a slippery dirt track, on the corner of a racetrack, wearing a black uniform and helmet, on a dimly lit track were enough environmental factors to lead to a predictable conclusion. He was in fact hit by the car of Tony Stewart, the very man he had gone after. It should be noted that while Ward’s behavior is worthy of a Darwin Award, his family sued Stewart, alleging that Stewart could have avoided hitting their son. This case went to court and it was deemed that Stewart did try to avoid hitting Ward (Auto Week 2017). We can combine the topics of selfies and elephants with a “double-topic” Darwin Award in 2014. Two men were taking a selfie of an elephant in the wild of Kenya and actually touched the elephant’s face when the irate pachyderm trampled the two men and proceeded to bury the corpses. The Darwin Awards (2017) website added this wise tongue-in-cheek comment attributed to Darwin, “When taking sensational selfies, remember the Photoshop option.” With so many Darwin award-winning stories to choose from it was decided to share a few final random stories here in conclusion of this topic. In 2006, for example there was a very popular award-winner titled “Stubbed Out.” This news story takes place in England and involves a medical patient was being treated for a skin disease. The treatment included smearing a paraffinbased cream upon the patient’s skin. The patient was warned that the cream could ignite, so he definitely should not smoke. However, violating two forms of common sense at the same time (the uncommon sense behavior of smoking will be discussed later in this chapter), the man decided to light a cigarette regardless. He was able to smoke the entire cigarette but when he ground out

Violating Common Sense

179

the butt with his heel things went downhill. The paraffin cream had been absorbed by his clothing. As his heel touched the cigarette butt, fumes from his pajamas ignited. The resulting inferno left first-degree burns on much of his body and he died soon after in intensive care. In 1999, there were an abundance of Darwin Awards and many of them involved dangerous pets. One story involved a man in Nevada who kept a 15foot Burmese python as a pet. The man was handling this pet when the snake mistook his hand for dinner, clamped its jaws around it, and began constricting around his arm. The man’s wife was afraid of snakes but did call 911 for help. Lacking a lever or a sharp knife to persuade the serpent to abandon its course of action, the snake had reached the point of constriction of the man’s chest by the time paramedics arrived. The man, of course, died. Another 1999 Darwin Award went to a man in Delaware who was victimized by a Diamondback rattler while he attempted to feed the snake. A flock of sheep charged a well-meaning British farmer’s wife and pushed her over a cliff. The woman was carrying a bale of hay while riding a power bike. The sheep were disturbed by the noise and attacked both the bike and woman. And yet one other worthy animal-related death to be described here comes to us from Singapore. A tour consisting of 13 buses was hired to escort school children through the Shanghai World Animals Park. One of the buses unexpectedly broke down as the convoy passed through a fenced tiger enclosure. Needless to say, and as common sense would dictate, the park rules clearly forbid leaving the safety of the vehicle. The bus passengers were never in any real danger considering how many other people were aware of the situation and, yet, the driver of the broken-down bus decided to climb out of the bus in an attempt to attach a tow rope (Note: This part of the story is not clearly explained). The children watched in horror while the tigers savagely attacked their driver. The Darwin Awards (2017) concluded this story (“Wild Animal Lesson”) with a bit of a callous lesson learned: “As a consolation prize, his death provided a memorable example to the children of the danger of stupidity in action.” As presented here, to avoid violating common sense one must not do stupid things.

The Stella Awards The Stella Awards—not to be confused with the Stellar Awards, which honor Gospel Music artists, writers, and industry professionals—are awards that were given between 2002 and 2007 to people who filed outrageous and frivolous lawsuits. Why the Stella Awards ceased to exist is in and of itself a common-sense tragedy as outrageous and frivolous lawsuits are as common today as they were during the Stella era. Perhaps someone will be inspired to re-establish these awards as they are less harsh than the Darwin Awards (no one needs to die to qualify for a Stella). As described by Randy Cassingham, author of The True Stella Awards: Honoring Real Cases of Greedy Opportunists, Frivolous Lawsuits, and the Law

180

Violating Common Sense

Run Amok (2005), the Stella Awards were inspired by Stella Liebeck. In 1992, Stella, then 79, spilled a cup of McDonald’s coffee onto her own lap, burning herself. A New Mexico jury awarded her $2.9 million in damages. While the lawsuit has served as benchmark for frivolous lawsuits—after all, people should expect hot coffee to be hot—the public perception of events is different than the facts. For example, she was not the driver of the car but the passenger; she did receive severe burns which needed to be treated; she requested from McDonald’s coverage for her medical expenses but they refused to help her; and, her $2.9 million award was later reduced to about $500,000. In addition, the coffee McDonald’s served in those days was at a temperature between 180 and 190 degrees, a good 30 degrees above most home coffee brewers (Bertram 2013). In this particular case, then, it may have been McDonald’s that violated common sense as serving coffee at such an extreme temperature is bound to cause problems via a potential quick and severe skin burning. According to the true Stella Awards (2017) website, they are not a “tort reform” site and they do not serve as a front for any special interest group. (The Stella Liebeck suit and story was used by many groups, especially conservative groups, to promote their agenda of tort reform in order to protect large corporations and big business in particular.) The site does state that the “Stella Awards is a project of [This is True]—a weekly news commentary column featuring bizarre-but true stories from legitimate news outlets from all over the world, all with snippy commentary by Colorado humorist Randy Cassingham” (StellaAwards.com 2017). The true Stella Awards site was last updated in June 2012 with the last true Stella Awards granted in 2007. The founder (Cassingham) of the true Stella Awards is still active with his weekly publication of the This is True newsletter. Most relevant to us, the true Stella Awards site provides archival links to its past annual frivolous lawsuit descriptions which involves numerous examples of people who have violated common sense in a dumb and stupid manner and yet failed to take responsibility for their own actions. The initial year for the true Stella Awards was 2002 and the first story to be shared (these stories can be found at StellaAwards.com) involves a Utah prison inmate serving 1–15 years on multiple felonies. He sued the Utah Department of Corrections (UDC), claiming the prison was not letting him practice his religion: “Druidic Vampire.” Among his religious needs were: sexual access to a “vampress” (the UDC did not allow any conjugal visits) and a daily supply of his specific “vampire dietary needs” (blood!). The suit was thrown out. The Stella Awards winner for 2002 was a set of three sisters who accompanied their mother to a minor medical procedure. When something went wrong, two of the sisters witnessed the doctors rush their mother to emergency surgery. The sisters later sued the medical staff involved. They did not sue for malpractice however but because of “negligent infliction of emotional distress” directed toward them as a result of their having to witness the medical staff rush to immediate action. The case went all the way to the

Violating Common Sense

181

California Supreme Court, which finally ruled against the sisters. If they had won the case it is likely that doctors and hospitals everywhere would have to keep all patients away from their family members during medical procedures just in case their everyday and emergency procedures somehow caused the waiting family members distress. The 2003 true Stella Award winners included a man named Shawn Perkins of Laurel, Indiana. Perkins was hit by lightning in the parking lot of Paramount’s Kings Island amusement park in Mason, Ohio. Instead of acknowledging that acts of nature (or, acts of God) occur randomly and cannot be controlled by humans, Perkins hired a lawyer who sued the amusement park for unspecified damages arguing that the park should have “warned” people not to be outside during a thunderstorm. Failing to heed the potential wrath of any storm is a violation of common sense and a lesson that any mentally competent person should have learned by adulthood. The 2003 true Stella Award winner went to a police officer in the City of Madera, California. The police officer, Marcy Noriega, handcuffed a suspect from a minor disturbance and placed him in the back of her patrol car. When the suspect started to kick the car’s windows, Officer Noriega opted to try and subdue him with her Taser. Somehow, she pulled out her service sidearm instead and shot the man in the chest, killing him instantly. After being found innocent of any wrongful acts on the part of Officer Noriega, the City of Madera sued Taser, arguing that the company should pay for any award from the wrongful death lawsuit the man’s family filed. The 2004 true Stella Award winning story involves Mary Ubaudi of Madison County, Illinois, who was a passenger in a car that got into a wreck. She placed the blame on the “deepest pocket available: Mazda Motors, who made the car she was riding in” (StellaAwards.com 2017). Ubaudi sued Mazda in excess of $150,000, claiming that it “failed to provide instructions regarding the safe and proper use of a seatbelt.” Once again, it should be a matter of common sense how to properly wear a seatbelt by the time one has reached adulthood; unless, of course, someone had never used a seatbelt and, thus, never had a chance to learn how to use one. If you have ever been mystified by magic to the point where you think that magicians defy the laws of physics and God’s will, you might have something in common with the 2005 true Stella Award winner, Christopher Roller of Burnsville, Minnesota. So blown away by professional magicians, Roller decided to sue David Blaine and David Copperfield to demand they reveal their secrets to him—or else pay him 10 percent of their lifelong earnings, which he figures amounts to $50 million for Copperfield and $2 million for Blaine. Besides drastically underestimating just how much money Copperfield would earn over his lifetime (his 2017 net worth was estimated by TheRichest. com at $900 million), Roller claimed as the basis for his suit that the magicians defy the laws of physics, and thus must be using “godly powers.” In 2006, a runner-up Stella Award winner sued a mall after being “attacked” by a squirrel that lived among the trees and bushes. While she

182

Violating Common Sense

frantically tried to detach the squirrel from her leg, she fell and suffered injuries. Her lawyer concluded that it had to be the mall’s fault that his client got hurt based on their “failure to warn” her that squirrels live outside. The winner, such as winners go, for 2006 was a man named Allen Ray Heckard from Portland, Oregon, who sued Michael Jordan and Nike for a combined hundreds of millions of dollars for “punitive damage for emotional pain and suffering.” Heckard, who is three inches shorter, 25 pounds lighter, and eight years older than the former NBA star claims that he looks so much like Jordan that he is often mistaken for him and thus deserves financial compensation. After Nike lawyers spoke with Heckard, the case did not proceed. The final year of the true Stella Awards, 2007, provides fewer stories of frivolous lawsuits but does have this final award-winner, Roy L. Pearson, Jr. Pearson claimed that a dry cleaner lost a pair of his pants, so he sued the mom-and-pop business for over $65 million. Pearson, who was an Administrative Law Judge from Washington, DC, represented himself. In court, Pearson claimed that surely there wasn’t a more compelling case in the District archives. The Superior Court judge was not swayed by Pearson’s argument and awarded damages to the dry cleaners. But Pearson was not satisfied so he decided to appeal the decision, thus tying up the court system for an even longer period of time because of his frivolous lawsuit and refusal to heed to the notions of good common sense. It is important to point out that there are fake “Stella Award” online sites and these stories are often far more sensationalized and funnier than the true Stella Awards, but, are not factually accurate.

Dumb Criminals Jay Leno, the former long-time host (1992–2009, 2010–2014) of NBC’s “The Tonight Show” regularly incorporated one of his personal favorite topics— “dumb criminals”—as a reappearing segment on the show or as a punch line in the opening monologue. (As the term is being used here, “dumb” is defined as lacking intelligence or good judgment.) For the unfamiliar, there are many videos of this segment available online, including on YouTube, wherein Leno sat at his desk and read stories (mostly from newspapers, like the stories attained for the Darwin Awards and the Stella Awards) about dumb criminals. They were labeled “dumb” because of the stupid manner in which the criminals committed their crimes or the manner in which they were apprehended made the criminals appear to be quite unintelligent. At the very least, they displayed a lack of common sense. As for Leno, he once described one dumb criminal as the “stupidest criminal in the world” after the bank robber asked the teller for $40 million. When the teller said that the bank did not have that much money she offered to write him a check for $400,000. The bank robber accepted and left. The bank, of course, put a hold on the check, and waited. And sure enough, the bank robber attempted to deposit the check into his own bank account (Leno 1992).

Violating Common Sense

183

Jay Leno is not the only person with a fascination for criminals who act in an unintelligent, ignorant, or dense manner as criminologists (experts in the scientific study of crime and criminals) and laypersons alike tend to have a fascination with people who commit crimes and are easily apprehended because of their less-than-sharp manner of execution of said activities. Count me as among the people who have cut out newspaper articles over the years on dumb criminals (for the purpose of writing this book). A quick Google search will also yield a wide variety of stories of dumb criminals, although in some cases, one has to be skeptical of the authenticity of certain websites. Described below are a number of instances of dumb criminals found in legitimate publications. It seems that many robbers lack the sophistication of mastermind thieves. Consider these examples from the past years:  









An alleged gasoline thief from Warrensburg, New York, used a lighter to check his progress in the dark and ended up setting his goatee, hands, and a nearby forklift on fire (The Post-Standard 2005). A 40-year-old Chicago man allegedly robbed a Chicago bank using a threatening note written on the back of his own pay stub, which was printed with his name and home address. FBI spokesperson Ross Rice stated, “It’s fairly unusual that we see something that specifically stupid. But, overall, we see a lot of strange bank robberies” (The Post-Standard 2008:A-2). Police had an easy time apprehending two would-be bank robbers in Fairfield, Connecticut because the pair called the bank ahead of time and told an employee to get a bag of money ready. Sgt. James Perez said that the two Bridgeport (CT) suspects were “not too bright” (The Citizen 2010:A2). A hapless 49-year-old man tried to hold up a Dallas bank but was sidetracked by a teller who said that she needed two forms of identification in order to comply with his request. The teller then gave the robber the money and the police captured him as he tried to flee with the money (The Citizen 2016). An Indiana man robbed a gas station and made off with food, drinks, and cigarettes. However, this dumb criminal forgot to include gas for his getaway car while he was at the gas station and, as a result, his vehicle ran out of fuel. Authorities arrested the man shortly afterwards (The Post-Standard 2017). Perhaps one of the most classic examples of a criminal being caught because of poor motoring preparation was Timothy McVeigh, the “Oklahoma City Bomber,” who blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building (killing 168 people and injuring hundreds more) in 1995. McVeigh was caught because a “by-the-book” law enforcement officer pulled him over for not having a license plate. McVeigh was driving north on Interstate 35 after causing his carnage in Oklahoma City when Sheriff

184

Violating Common Sense Charlie Hanger noticed the infraction. Hanger then noticed McVeigh’s (an American Gulf War veteran) loaded concealed gun and made an arrest (Branson-Potts 2015). Little did Hanger know that he had just apprehended the man responsible for the deadliest terrorist incident on U. S. soil, until the September 11 attacks in 2001 (Encyclopedia Britannica 2017).

In this chapter’s introductory story we learned of a Western New York man who violated common sense by drawing attention to himself because he was driving a car with an ax in its roof and sans doors and license plate. When the Wyoming County Sheriff’s officers pulled the driver over they found that the driver was impaired by drugs and that he lacked auto insurance. There are other motorists who have also violated common sense by drawing attention to the covert criminal acts by engaging in overt illegal activities. Listed below are some examples: 





An Ogdensburg, New York, motorist and his three passengers were arrested for possession of $24,00 worth of cocaine because the driver of the car was speeding, following too closely, and zig-zagging between lanes (The Post-Standard 2007a). A Long Island, New York, motorist, Calvin McDonald, drove with a revoked driver’s license and multiple suspensions to visit a friend. McDonald was accompanied by a friend who had an active warrant for unlicensed operation of an automobile. The friend the two were visiting, interestingly, was an inmate at the Suffolk County Correctional Facility in Yaphank and when McDonald was asked for a driver’s license at the check-in desk he responded, “I have no license. It’s suspended” (The PostStandard 2007b). He was charged with a suspended license. McDonald’s car companion was arrested on the spot when he provided his identification. Many people, including parents, are guilty of violating this type of automobile common sense—they leave the car running as they attempt to make a quick purchase at gas station or convenience store. Such a behavior is likely to contribute to car theft as would-be car thieves have easy access to an unattended running car. This is especially common when the temperatures are very cold and the motorists want to keep the inside of the car warm. It is especially important not to violate this common-sense notion of leaving your running car unattended if you have a small child in a car seat inside the car. Sometimes, as in the case of Shondelle McKelvin of Syracuse, New York, if a car thief steals your car in this type of scenario, the child is unharmed. Sgt. Thomas Connellan, Syracuse police department spokesperson said, “Adults should not leave children unattended in a car and they should not leave their keys in their car.” Sound common-sense advice that is all too-often ignored (McAndrew 2005:A-1).

Violating Common Sense 

185

MSN (2014) detailed a number of dumb auto thieves stories including one instance wherein two men were arrested for attempting to steal the “Bait Car” designed to catch car thieves; a tired shopper decided to hop into a idling, unattended car and drive it home only to discover it was a police car (he was arrested at home, where he left the car); and, a car thief in the UK was caught when he two of his three companions willingly posed for a speed camera as they drove around town, the photo was shown to the public and the thieves were soon apprehended.

In 2016, the BBC published a list of “13 of the World’s Most Stupid Criminals.” Some of these incidents are shared here:  











Two men from Skegness, Lincolnshire, took photographs of themselves stealing thousands of pounds from gambling machines contributing to criminal conviction of theft. Armed robber Andrew Hennells was caught after he boasted on Facebook about his plans to raid a supermarket in a post which included a selfie, a photo of a knife, and this message: “Doing. Tesco. Over.” The police caught him 15 minutes later with the knife and the cash he had stolen from a Tesco in King’s Lynn, Norfolk. A man suspected of arson and vandalism sent a selfie to police in Ohio because he felt that his arrest warrant photo was unflattering. The suspect texted the police a better photo and also called a radio station complaining about how he was being disrespected by the photo used on the arrest warrant. With the partial help of a better photo, he was later arrested in Florida. An Afghan Taliban commander, described as a “mid-to-low-level Taliban commander,” gave himself up at a police checkpoint, pointed to a wanted poster featuring his face, and asked for the $100 finder’s fee. One U.S. official reportedly told journalists, “Clearly, this man is an imbecile.” A man tried to rob a Ladbrokes bookmakers in Shettleston in Glasgow and demanded cash. A female worker was undaunted by the threat as the man attempted the robbery with a cucumber. An off-duty police officer arrested the would-be robber after he admitted to assault with intent to rob. A criminal on the run decided to violate common sense by taunting Gwent Police and their inability to apprehend him by telling a news agency that, “I have been walking around near home so they’re not trying too hard to catch me.” He was caught later that day and the police thanked him for “drawing attention to our efforts to return him to prison.” A burglar in China had to be arrested after his attempt to squeeze through a small fifth floor window of an apartment block left him dangling. After rescuers freed him he was handed over to the police. (This story does not seem so spectacular in light of the fact there are many

186







Violating Common Sense stories of burglars getting caught in windows, chimneys, or some other part of a house or dwelling.) Dean Smith went to his local branch of Barclays in the Welsh village of Treorchy to change his address. He paid particular attention to the amount of cash in the tills. He decided to return to the bank and rob it. Wearing a “terrible disguise” of sunglasses and socks over his shoes, he demanded money from the cashier but was refused. He ran away but police were easily able to find him. He admitted to being “very stupid” and was jailed for two-and-a-half years for attempted robbery and carrying a bladed weapon. A suspected car thief in Pretoria, South Africa, was halted in his attempt to steal a car when the auto-lock system of the car he allegedly broke into trapped him inside. He shouted for help for an hour and a half and amused passers-by pointed and laughed at his shame. When the car’s owner finally returned she called the police and the trapped man was arrested. Ashley Keast used a stolen SIM card to take a selfie of himself inside a house he was burgling. When the Rotherham, South Yorkshire man posted the picture on the WhatsApp messenger application he also unknowingly sent the picture to the victim’s work colleagues. Officers found him at his home with merchandise he stole from the house (BBC 2016).

Some of the most fascinating people turn out to be “dumb criminals” and perhaps that’s why even People magazine compiles a list of foolish criminals. Alex Heigl (2016), writing for People, established “The 9 Dumbest Criminals of 2015” and they are described below: 







Levi Charles Reardon—Wanted for theft and forgery, Reardon was so excited to see his face on the April “most wanted” poster on the Great Falls/Cascade County Crimestoppers Facebook page that he “liked” it. He had two warrants for his arrest and was arrested a few weeks later. Christopher Wallace—Made a post of his location (Fairfield, Somerset County), his specific location (in a cabinet inside of a specific house) and his activity (that he was hiding from the police) which, of course, assisted the police in their pursuit of his whereabouts. John Morgan—Making life easier for the police in the first place because of his face and neck tattoos (easier to identify), Morgan posed for numerous photos with the money from his alleged bank robbery, along with his girlfriend. The pair were arrested shortly after the photos hit the web. A surveillance photo of Morgan which revealed some of his tattoos made it easier for police to find the pair of bank robbers. Renaud “Junior” Plaisir—We hear of this type of story from time to time, that an intruder and would-be burglar manages to fall asleep while committing their crime. Plaisir broke into a home in New Hampshire, ate

Violating Common Sense











187

some leftover chicken wings, and fell asleep in the guest bedroom where he was discovered by the homeowner and detained until the police arrived. Devin Gesell and two accomplices—This trio broke into a Missouri home and took, among other things, a box containing what they thought was cocaine. Turns out, it was the homeowner’s father’s ashes. Making matters worse, two of the teenage burglars were the deceased man’s grandchildren. The suspects told police that, after tasting it, they discarded the ashes when they realized it was not cocaine. The burglar of age was charged with 2nd degree burglary and theft, the other two suspects were charged as juveniles. Frank E. Blake, Jr.—This dumb criminal was already incarcerated in a Virginia jail when he was visited by his second and third wives. This chance encounter led to some investigation and it was discovered that Blake had never finalized his divorce from wife number two before he married wife number three. He was then charged with bigamy and pleaded no contest. Patrick Rempe—This man decided to visit friends after he got high on “flakka,” a synthetic stimulant. In addition to driving while high, Rempe rammed his car through the front door of where his friends were staying, the Indian River County Jail Building C. His car did not make it through the front door so he backed up and tried to go through the fence and that didn’t work either. He then tried to climb the fence, where he got stuck on razor wire. Rempe was arrested on several charges including aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, battery on a law enforcement officer, three counts of felony criminal mischief, leaving the scene of a crash with property damage, and driving under the influence. Reliford Cooper, III—Cooper fled from the police one evening in October (2015), leading them on a high-speed chase that involved running through a stop sign and two ditches before he crashed into a house. He told police at the scene that he was not driving but instead, “My dog was driving that car.” No dog was found at the scene. Among the crimes he was charged with here drunken driving, aggravated fleeing, and leaving the scene of an accident. Unnamed Man in a Bear Suit—This final member of the People magazine’s “Top 9 Dumbest Criminals of 2015” is unnamed because his identity has yet to be determined. This man, dressed in a “fairly realistic” bear costume, was caught harassing several actual bears in the Chilkoot River near Haines about 500 miles east of Anchorage (Alaska). “This is not the first time we’ve encountered a man in a bear suit,” Fish and Game spokesperson Megan Peters told the Associated Press. Such experience, however, did not translate into an arrest.

One of my favorite dumb criminal stories involves a married couple, who appeared on the “Dr Phil” television show in November 2008. A nicely

188

Violating Common Sense

dressed couple said that they roamed several states as shoplifters, stealing mostly toys, selling them on the Internet and making as much as $1 million over seven years. Talk-show host Phil McGraw responded by saying, “I’m no lawyer or a cop, but isn’t that a federal crime?” The wife paused a second then said, “Yeah, it is!” (The Los Angeles Times 2009:A9). McGraw, the studio audience, and a television audience of about five million people were very surprised by the admission of the couple, Matthew Allen and Laura Eaton. Secret Service agent Greg Meyer, who worked the case, said, “In 20 years of fraud cases, I’ve never seen anything like this: a taped confession before a national audience” (The Los Angeles Times 2009:A9). Defense attorney and former two-term San Diego County district attorney Paul Pfingst said, “In the hall of fame of dumb crooks, these people will have a prominent position” (The Los Angeles Times 2009:A9).

Not Adhering to Common Sense There are some forms of uncommon sense that warrant a closer look than bullet points, such as those provided above. This is especially true when behaviors are bad for our health.

Uncommon Sense: It’s Bad for Our Health As a reminder, the concept of “uncommon sense” refers to violations of common sense and the inability to utilize knowledge in warranted situations. In this chapter, we have already learned about many possible explanations as to why someone might violate the general notions of common sense held by others within the greater community/society. The examples to be described here involve behaviors that people engage in while generally being aware of the fact that such social action violates common sense and is bad for their health and the health of others. If the people who engage in these uncommonsense behaviors claim not to know of the dangers associated with their actions, they have not taken advantage of the vast amounts of information available to them. Let’s begin with a look at smoking. This was the single most popular response to the question that asked respondents to identify examples of violations of common sense from the data I collected on college students (during the period of 2002–2015). There is little wonder why people so commonly cite smoking as an example of a violation of common sense as it defies logic and learned knowledge to purposively put smoke and toxins into your own lungs (or to subject the lungs of others to your smoke). When this behavior is looked at from the common-sense perspective it is clear that avoiding smoke is preferable to inhaling smoke. Consider, for example, that if we found ourselves inside a burning building we would run for clean air as quickly as possible because we realize that the smoke can cause us harm. It is, perhaps, part of our survival instinct to run out of burning buildings/dwellings. Visibly

Violating Common Sense

189

seeing, or smelling, smoke is a warning sign that triggers our instinct. Highlighting the importance of avoiding the inhaling of smoke is the realization that people are more likely to die from smoke inhalation than the actual flames of a building on fire. “More people die from smoke inhalation than flames. Fire can suck all of the oxygen from a room and replace it with poisonous smoke and gases before flames even reach a room. Many times people die from a lack of oxygen before the fire reaches their room” (Fire Rescue 1 2017). The National Fire Protection Association 2011 reports that death certificates show a 2-to-1 ratio of smoke inhalation to burns for fire deaths overall, while fire incident reports show an 8-to-1 ratio for home fire deaths. If common sense did not already convince you that smoke is more dangerous than fire to human safety, there is a great amount of data and reports that confirm this. It can be treated as a given that smoke is harmful to our health and that common sense dictates we do whatever we can to avoid inhaling smoke. Why, then, do people smoke cigarettes? It is also a matter of common-sense knowledge that thousands of deadly toxic chemicals are added to tobacco in order to assist the addiction process that tobacco companies covet in order to enhance the chances of smokers continuing to smoke. No secret here, the tobacco companies are in business strictly to make money and keeping people addicted is a good way to help keep the profits flowing into bank accounts. Data indicates that tobacco companies in the United States and around the world are reaping in profits at record levels and this despite the fact that, in the United States anyway, fewer Americans are smoking now than in the past (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2016; Statista 2017b; Weiss 2015). The largest tobacco companies in the world, based on 2016 sales in billion U.S. dollars are: Imperial Tobacco Group, 39.1; Philip Morris International, 26.2; British American Tobacco, 20.0; Japan Tobacco, 19.2; Altria Group, 18.9; and Reynolds American, 10.7 (Statista 2017b). In the United States, people have increasingly heeded the warnings of smoking tobacco and while 15.1 percent of adults aged 18 years or older still smoke, this figure is down from 40 percent in the 1970s (CDC 2016; Weiss 2015). What is tobacco and why is that some people continue to smoke? First, we have to realize what is actually of concern with cigarette smoking is the nicotine. While caffeine is considered one of the safest psychoactive drugs, nicotine is among the most dangerous. Nicotine is a toxic colorless or yellowish oily liquid alkaloid, water-soluble, and is the chief active ingredient of tobacco. It acts as a stimulant in small doses (thus one of its appeals to users) but in larger amounts blocks the action of autonomic nerve and skeletal muscle cells. According to a report of the Surgeon General, tobacco smoke is a toxic mix of more than 7,000 chemicals, many which are poisons. When these chemicals get deep into your body’s tissues, they cause damage. The chemicals in tobacco smoke reach your lungs quickly when you inhale and go from your lungs into your blood. Then the blood flows through your arteries and carries the chemicals to tissues in all parts of your body. Your lungs,

190

Violating Common Sense

blood vessels, and other delicate tissues become inflamed and damaged when you smoke (CDC 2011). Damage is done to a smoker’s body as soon as they start smoking. Even smoking a cigarette now and then is enough to hurt you … The more years you smoke, the more you hurt your body. Scientists now know that your disease risk surges even higher after you have smoked for about 20 years. But research shows that if you quit by age 30, your health could become almost as good as a nonsmoker’s. At any age, the sooner you quit, the sooner your body can begin to heal. (CDC 2011) It has long been known that cigarettes are designed for addiction and nicotine addiction helps to sell products and, of course, the additives and chemicals that tobacco companies put in cigarettes help to make them more addictive (CDC 2011). Many adults have quit smoking because they know of the dangers related to nicotine consumption. Other people try to quit but the addiction makes it hard to quit the habit. But why do people start to smoke in the first place? Everyone, including children, have been informed of the dangers of smoking so why doesn’t common sense kick in for everyone? The CDC (2011) reports that each day up to 4,000 teens smoke a cigarette for the first time. Many teens who try cigarettes don’t realize just how easy it is to become addicted and believe that they are stronger than nicotine addiction. However, as adults who have tried (successfully or not) to quit smoking can attest, the withdrawal for the first few days after quitting is very uncomfortable and difficult to overcome. When smoking becomes an addiction, it is more difficult to break than other habits but many people succeed in quitting. A common reason for people to start smoking in the past had a great deal to do with its perception as “being cool.” The billions of dollars spent on procigarette advertising decades ago created a user image of sophistication and coolness that has today been replaced with a less positive image. As a result, the tobacco industry has stepped up its advertising and promotion of cigarettes to the tune of more than $9 billion in spending in 2014 alone (CDC 2017a). Years ago, smokers enjoyed an environment very tolerant toward public smoking but today’s smokers have been relegated to designated smoking areas away from the public and sometimes subject to inclement weather conditions. The perception of smoking changed primarily because people began to heed the warnings of its dangers. The overwhelming data on the harmful effects of smoking—it is the leading cause of preventable death (CDC 2017a)—has been so well documented that it has served as a deterrent. Among the dangerous effects of tobacco consumption reported by the CDC (2017a) are: Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States and more than 6 million deaths per year worldwide; more than 16 million Americans are living with a disease caused

Violating Common Sense

191

by smoking; for every person who dies because of smoking, at least 30 people live with a serious smoking-related illness; on average, smokers die 10 years earlier than nonsmokers; smoking causes cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung disease, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis; smoking increases the risk for tuberculosis, certain eye diseases, and problems of the immune system, including rheumatoid arthritis; and smoking is a known cause of erectile dysfunction in males. Smoking costs all Americans as they must pay increased rates for health care coverage due to the fact that the total economic cost of smoking is more than $300 billion a year, including nearly $170 billion in direct medical care for adults and more than $156 billion in lost productivity due to premature death and exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS). Secondhand smoke is a significant cause of smoking being banned in public buildings. Secondhand smoke causes more than 41,000 deaths per year. Worldwide, exposure to secondhand smoke is responsible for about 600,000 deaths per year, and about 1 percent of the global burden of disease globally (World Health Organization 2017). While the United States has made great strides in creating smoke-free public zones, 93 percent of the world population is still living in countries not covered by 100 percent smoke-free public health regulations, and exposure to SHS in the home is still common (WHO 2017). The data provided above represents a key sampling of the overwhelming harmful effects of smoking at yet, each day, more than 3,200 people younger than 18 years of age smoke their first cigarette. Smoking clearly represents a violation of common sense as we all have access to the knowledge of the overwhelming harmful effects of tobacco use and yet millions (including, somehow, people in the medical profession) fail to utilize this knowledge. And while smoking marijuana has the same uncommon-sense line of thinking—purposely putting smoke into your lungs violates common sense—it is less dangerous than tobacco smoking, has health benefits, and yet is illegal in most U.S. states while tobacco is legal. Thus, the legality issue of tobacco being legal to consume while marijuana is not, also defies common sense. Another example of uncommon sense involves self-harm. Deliberate selfharm (also known as self-injury and/or self-mutilation) occurs when a person purposively inflicts physical harm to self via such methods as self-cutting, head-banging, self-biting, and self-scratching (CDC 2017b). (Generally speaking, self-harm does not include suicide or attempted suicide, as that has its own category of self-directed violence.) The absence of the goal of trying to kill oneself is an important aspect of defining self-harm as revealed by the definition of self-harm provided by Gratz and Chapman (2009): “Deliberate self-harm is when one intentionally damages one’s own bodily tissue without intending to die” (p. 2). Self-harm becomes a way in which people, especially young people, cope with strong emotions. While some people may cry, drink, use drugs, or talk with friends when faced with stressful situations, others resort to self-harm. Natasha Tracy (2015) describes specific criteria for the variations of self-harm:

192 1

2

3

Violating Common Sense Self-harm—Often occurs when people are seeking attention; however, once accustomed to the pain, they may inflict greater levels of self-harm so that they can achieve the same previous level of relief. Self-injury—Generally starts as a spur-of-the-moment outlet for anger and frustration (such as punching a wall) but then develops into a method of coping with stress that, because it remains hidden, generates more stress. Self-mutilation—Can be a hidden problem that goes on for years (e.g., self-cutting; self-burning or “branding;” picking at skin or reopening wounds; hair-pulling; and bone breaking).

Tracy (2015) expands upon the concept of self-mutilation to include behaviors that people engage in that are harmful to themselves, such as smoking or drinking to excess, as an unfortunate side effect of participating in an act that is viewed as self-pleasurable even though its ultimate consequences results in self-harm. While the concept of uncommon sense is certainly applicable to people who harm themselves, as common sense and self-preservation would dictate that one should do whatever it takes to protect body and mind, there are some relatively complicated issues involved when people decide to selfharm. People who self-harm often feel completely alone a lot of the time. They may feel as though they are “the only one who struggles with such intense urges, emotional turmoil, or feelings of being out of control” (Gratz and Chapman 2009:1). Self-harmers may become frustrated with themselves because it is so hard to stop and their sense of self is compromised, as they know how society views people who harm themselves; consequently, they isolate themselves with their personal struggles (Gratz and Chapman 2009). Self-harmers are not alone, however. Research indicates that there are as many as 12 million people in the United States alone who self-harm (Gratz and Chapman 2009). In fact, if we all look at our own behavior throughout the years it is likely we have all engaged in some sort of self-harm (e.g., the spurned lover who punches a wall due to his frustration and lack of ability to find a more productive outlet for an emotional setback). Causes of self-harm may include: the self-abuser has poor communication skills; might suffer from a medical condition; might have a developmental disability, such as autism; an intellectual disability; suffer from depression or an anxiety disorder; or faced with severe depression (CDC 2017b). In other instances, self-harmers may be acting on impulses of rebellion, a rejection of parents’ values, and as a means of individualizing oneself (WebMD 2015). Self-harm certainly violates the notion of common sense but the complicated reasons why some people engage in such a behavior cloud this issue for those who are self-abusers or for those who live with and/or love self-harmers. The song “Hurt” written by Trent Reznor and performed by Nine Inch Nails provides lyrics that resonate with many self-harmers.

Violating Common Sense

193

Another example of uncommon sense, which also involves health issues, is the very popular behavior enjoyed by millions of people, tanning. Tanning, once a strictly outdoor activity, has become increasing popular because of indoor facilities. Tanning is the process of darkening skin color most commonly as a result of exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation from sunlight or artificial light such as a tanning bed. The concept of “sunbathing” is used by those who enjoy laying outdoors and basking in the sunshine and warmth it provides. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2015) states that there is no such thing as a “safe tan.” The increase in skin pigment, called melanin, which causes the tan color change in your skin is actually a sign of skin damage. This comes about once the skin is exposed to UV radiation as the production of melanin is triggered within the body. Melanin is produced in an attempt to protect the skin from further damage. Some people have skin tones that are more capable of developing a tan and will darken in tone within two days of tanning. Evidence suggests that tanning greatly increases your risk of developing skin cancer. And, contrary to popular belief, getting a tan does not protect your skin from sunburn or other skin damage (FDA 2015). Developing a sunburn or erythema (a skin condition characterized by redness or rash caused by congestion of the capillaries in the lower layers of the skin) is among the most obvious signs of UV exposure and skin damage. Sunburn is a form of short-term skin damage. It occurs as a result of UV rays reaching your skin, which damage cells in the epidermis, triggering your immune system to increase blood flow to the affected areas. The increased blood flow is what gives sunburn its characteristic redness and makes the skin feel warm to the touch. Concurrently, the damaged skin cells release chemicals that send messages through the body until they are translated by the brain as a painful burning sensation (FDA 2015). White blood cells will come to the rescue, so to speak, by attacking and removing the damaged skin cells. It is this process of removing damaged cells that can cause sunburned skin to itch and peel (FDA 2015). Exposure to UV rays can cause a number of significant problems including premature aging (taking the form of leathery, wrinkled skin and dark spots); skin cancer, including melanoma (a dangerous variation of skin cancer that begins in the epidermal cells that produce melanin) and non-melanomas (which occur in the basal or squamous cells located at the base of the epidermis); actinic or solar keratoses (earliest stage in the development of skin cancer caused by long-term exposure to sunlight, common in pre-malignant skin condition and affecting more than five million Americans each year); eye damage, including photokeratitis (sunburn of the cornea) and cataracts (a form of eye damage, clouding of the natural lens of the eyes causing decreased vision and possible blindness); and, immune system suppression, caused by overexposure to UV radiation which may suppress proper functioning of the body’s immune system and skin’s natural defenses, increasing

194

Violating Common Sense

sensitivity to sunlight, diminishing the effects of immunizations or causing reactions to certain medications (FDA 2015). Many people utilize indoor tanning and violate common sense by thinking this is a safe form of sunbathing. However, as the CDC (2017c) explains, indoor tanning can cause: skin cancers, including melanoma; basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma; UV exposure can cause cataracts and cancers of the eye (ocular melanoma); and UV exposure from the sun and from indoor tanning is classified as a human carcinogen (causes cancer in humans) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (part of WHO) and by the US Department of Health and Human Services. The CDC (2017c) further warns about the indoor tanning as a cause of premature skin aging, like wrinkles and age spots; changes your skin texture; increases the risk of potentially blinding eye diseases, if eye protection is not used; indoor tanning is not safer than tanning in the sun; a base tan is not a safe tan; and, indoor tanning is not a safe way to get Vitamin D. The Skin Cancer Foundation (SCF) states that “Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States, and one of the most preventable. Exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) from the sun or from indoor tanning machines has been identified as the principal avoidable risk factor for the development of both melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers” (NMSC) (SCF 2017). Multiple studies show that despite repeated health warnings and increased knowledge about the dangers of excessive UVR exposure, many individuals, especially adolescents and young adults, still use little or no skin protection whether tanning outdoors or at tanning salons (SCF 2017). Considering all of the information available on the potential dangers from sunbathing, why do people tan? For starters, sunbathers believe that they look better with a tan as they do not appear pale and pasty when tanned. Because tanners feel better about themselves with a tan, tanning can be viewed as a method of self-esteem enhancement. Some people tan seasonally when the sun allows for natural sunbathing. Others, however, are addicted to tanning and if they do not live in a climate that allows for year-around sunbathing they utilize indoor tanning machines. As the SCF (2017) explains, continued “purposeful exposure to a known cancer-causing agent suggests that factors besides lack of knowledge are driving individuals to tan.” Failure to utilize knowledge that is readily available is a sign of uncommon sense. However, that tanners ignore the warnings of the dangers of sunbathing (like smokers who ignore the dangers of smoking) may be indicative of addiction. Tanning becomes addictive to some people because of the positive mood enhancement, relaxation, and socialization benefits associated with the behavior. Frequent tanners exhibit signs of both physical (the repeated behavior builds a tolerance, creates a craving and causes withdrawal symptoms when the behavior is stopped) and psychological dependence (UV light has been shown to increase the release of opioid-like endorphins—feel-good chemicals that relieve pain and generate feelings of well-being, potentially leading to

Violating Common Sense

195

dependency) (SCF 2017). Research conducted by Mosher and Danoff-Burg (2010) indicates that tanners can indeed become addicted to tanning; and, they commented that indoor tanning addiction (the focus of their study) has some of the same characteristics to substance abuse addiction. In their study, Mosher and Danoff-Burg (2010) found that as many as a third of young people who use indoor tanning facilities may be addicted to the behavior. The next example of uncommon sense to be discussed is “driving distracted.” This violation of common sense behavior also has a connection to health concerns. According to the CDC (2017d), “each day in the United States, approximately 9 people are killed and more than 1,000 injured in crashes that are reported to involve a distracted driver.” Put another way, AAA (2017) states that, “Federal estimates suggest that distraction contributes to 16% of all fatal crashes.” Distracted driving refers to driving a motor vehicle while doing another activity that takes your attention away from driving. Beyond the obvious example of driving while using an electronic device, there are many other ways drivers are distracted including: reaching for your phone; changing the music; checking your GPS or map; turning around to assist your child in a car seat or turning to talk to your backseat passenger(s); eating and drinking; putting on makeup/grooming; daydreaming about things other than paying attention to the road. The CDC (2017d) categorizes three types of distraction:   

Visual—Taking your eyes off the road Manual—Taking your hands off the wheel, and Cognitive – Taking your mind off of driving.

The CDC (2017d) uses this analogy to highlight the seriousness of driving distracted, “At 55 mph, sending or reading a text takes your eyes off the road for about 5 seconds, long enough to cover a football field.” According to the CDC (2017d), drivers under the age of 20 have the highest proportion of distraction-related fatal crashes. In 2015, 42 percent of high school students who drove in the past 30 days reported sending a text or email while driving. Students who reported frequent texting while driving were: less likely to wear a seatbelt; more likely to ride with a driver who had been drinking; and more likely to drink and drive. In reaction to the serious nature of driving while distracted many states have enacted laws—such as banning texting while driving—to help raise awareness about the dangers of driving while distracted; federal laws passed under President Obama prohibit federal employees from texting while driving on government business or with government equipment (CDC 2017d). Awareness of the problem of distracted driving, like the awareness of the potential harm associated with smoking, self-harming, and tanning, does not appear to be enough to motivate people from violating common sense. It should indeed be a matter of common sense that you cannot safely drive while texting or while trying to eat a sloppy sandwich and balance a hot

196

Violating Common Sense

coffee. All the new technology installed in vehicles is only making the matter of distracted driving an even greater problem. As the National Safety Council (NSC) (2017) states, “Fifty-three percent of drivers believe if manufacturers put ‘infotainment’ dashboards and hands-free technology in vehicles, they must be safe … But in fact, these technologies distract our brains even long after you’ve used them.” AAA (2017) reports that distracted driving consistently ranks as one of the traffic safety issues at the forefront of many drivers’ thinking. “Each year, more than 80% of drivers in the annual AAA Foundation Traffic Safety Culture Index cite distraction as a serious problem and a behavior that makes them feel less safe on the road.” The AAA Foundation believes that educating the public will improve our understanding of how mental and physical distractions impair drivers and that such knowledge will help bring about the awareness of the importance in avoiding distractions and, thus, eliminate needless deaths. This will be a tough task to accomplish as AAA also reports that drivers spend more than half their time focused on things other than driving. Distracted driving is clearly an example of uncommon sense as anyone old enough to legally drive should certainly have learned of the dangers of driving while distracted. Like most common violations of common sense, however, it is likely that people will not soon heed the danger warnings of distracted driving. Consider this quote about distracted driving and common sense from 2006 from Jim Champagne, then-chair of the Governors Highway Safety Association in Washington, DC, which is just as relevant today, “What we’re truly talking about is common sense. Therein lays the problem with the American driver. We firmly believe that we can do anything while driving our vehicles” (The Post-Standard 2006). In Chapter 5, it was stated that the most obvious example of common sense is our need for clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. A thriving, or at the very least sustainable, environment is far more important than the pursuit of corporate profits. Consequently, the epitome of uncommon sense is the manner in which humanity, in general, and certain individuals, groups, organizations, and societies in particular, treat the environment. We literally cannot survive without a healthy environment, especially clean air and water, and yet, humans are destroying one ecosystem after another. At risk are nearly all of the scarce natural resources necessary for life along with the vast majority of all the earth’s species. The current state of the environment is so perilous that we are already in the 6th mass extinction period. Beginning with the term “environment,” we should acquaint ourselves with some key concepts. The environment refers to the totality of social and physical conditions that affect nature (land, water, air, plants, and animals) and humanity and their influence on the growth, development, and survival of organisms found in a given surrounding (e.g., a limited proximity or the earth as a whole) (Delaney and Madigan 2014). The ecosystem refers to the ecological network of interconnected and interdependent living organisms (plants,

Violating Common Sense

197

animals, and microbes) in union with the nonliving aspects found in their immediate locale, including air, water, minerals, and soil (Delaney and Madigan 2014). While it could be argued that the entire planet is an ecosystem, the term is generally applied to limited areas. In this manner, the concepts of “ecosystem” and “environment” are similar but not necessarily interchangeable. As Charles Harper (2012) explains, “An ecosystem means the community of things that live and interact in parts of the geophysical environment” (p. 3). Thus, ecosystems are generally considered parts of the greater planetary whole environment. When the overall environment of a world is compromised beyond the point of reconciliation most life forms will face extinction. A mass extinction (ME) occurs when the planet loses more than three-quarters of its species in a geologically short period of time, usually during a few hundred thousand to a couple of million years (Barnosky et al. 2011). However, a critical event caused by nature, such as a meteorite impact, or caused by humans, such as nuclear warfare, may trigger a ME in a much shorter period of time. Many people are ignorant to the fact that the planet Earth has already endured five ME in the past 540 million years. In order of occurrence, these five ME are known as the “Big Five” and include the end-Ordovician, Late Devonian, end-Permian, end-Triassic, and end-Cretaceous (Andryszewski 2008). Overwhelming scientific evidence indicates that we are already in the sixth ME period. Consider, for example, that every 20 minutes we lose an animal species and if that rate continues, by century’s end half of all living species will be gone (Corwin 2009). Barnosky et al. (2011) warns that three-quarters of today’s animal species could vanish within 300 years. Species extinction did not occur as quickly before humans arrived and mammal extinction was very rare, on average, just two mammal species died out every one million years (The Independent 2011). In the past five centuries, however, at least 80 of 5,570 mammal species have died off (The Independent 2011). (Note: Look at Delaney and Madigan’s Beyond Sustainability book for more extensive coverage of the evidence of the existence of the current ME.) The earth’s first five ME occurred prior to the existence of humans and, thus, were caused by natural forces. In fact, the environment is under constant attack from the forces of nature including glaciation, volcanic eruptions, global warming and cooling, lightning strikes, and natural wildfires. The planet has even been attacked by other-worldly forces such as asteroids and meteorites. While nature is contributing to the 6th ME, it is the activities of humans that has sped this extinction process to a near-catastrophic level. We cannot control the forces of nature but we can control, or at least attempt to control, human behavior. Curtailing the negative activities of humans is critical and ignoring to heed the countless warnings of our impending demise is a certainly a matter of uncommon sense. Beginning with overpopulation and the realization that the earth has a limited “carrying capacity,” described here in brief, are some of the major uncommon sense behaviors engaged in by humans that are contributing to

198

Violating Common Sense

our compromised environment and the 6th ME. The earth has a limited capacity, or “carrying capacity,” to support life. Carrying capacity refers to the maximum feasible load, just short of the level that would end the environment’s ability to support life (Catton 1980). Put another way, the carrying capacity is tied to the number of organisms that can be supported in a given area based on the natural resources available without compromising present and future generations. Once the environment is sullied, the carrying capacity shrinks, thus negatively altering its ability to sustain life. Over the generations, but especially recently, the earth’s carrying capacity has been stretched to its limits due to a number of threats to the environment, most of which are caused by humans. These threats include, but are not limited to, the many areas where human population is exceeding the carrying capacity of local agriculture (overpopulation), human dependency of fossil fuels, hydraulic fracturing, the use of plastics, urban sprawl, the spread of deserts, the destruction of forests by acid rain, deforestation, the stripping of large tracts of land for fuel, nuclear waste, and radiation fallout. By the end of 2017 there were over 325 million Americans (WorldOMeters 2017) and more than 7.6 billion people in the world (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2017). There are already nearly one billion people in the world who are suffering from chronic undernourishment and hunger (WorldHunger.org 2016) and as world population projections point to dramatic increases in total population (8.6 billion in 2030, 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100), the crisis over the fight for scarce natural resources will only continue to escalate (leading to more wars, among other uncommon-sense behaviors). Instead of heeding the common-sense notion of investing, utilizing, and relying on renewable sources of energy, humanity, driven by corporate greed and politicians who benefit from their campaign donations, continues to defy logic by depending on the burning of fossil fuels for its primary source of energy. For well over a century now, humans have become increasingly dependent on fossil fuels especially for transportation and heating. The major forms of fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—were formed many hundreds of millions of years ago, long before the time of the dinosaurs—thus the name (fossil). The drilling (e.g., oil drilling and hydraulic fracturing) and burning of fossil fuels has compromised the quality of the land that is drilled and (often) nearby water supplies, and especially the air we breathe. As common sense dictates, the constant release of toxins in the air as a result of burning fossils has not only compromised the air we breathe on a daily basis but also the ozone layer—the earth’s upper atmosphere, which screens out a great deal of the sun’s harmful UV rays. The depletion of the ozone layer, glacier thawing, global warming and cooling (climate change), and the greenhouse effect are among the primary concerns with our reliance on burning fossil fuels. Science and technology have developed ways to greatly lessen our dependency on fossil fuels but their efforts to introduce such techniques have been halted by the oil industry, politicians in their favor, and those to ignorant to understand

Violating Common Sense

199

the harm that burning fossil fuels represents to the environment and, thus, humanity. For a long time now, science has recognized the threat of burning fossil fuels on the environment as a “given.” Relying on fossil fuels is a clear example of uncommon sense and explains why the term “fossil fool” is used to describe those who promote its continued use as the primary source of energy. The vast majority of people are reliant on gasoline and electricity as the primary means of energy so we will not witness a major boycott of its use among even those who would like to see it replaced with a better energy source. The people are, essentially, powerless in decisions of such magnitude. We can drive more fuel-efficient vehicles, use public transportation whenever possible, turn off house lights, etc., all in an effort to conserve energy but it is likely the damage has already reached the tipping point. Consider, for example, that measurements of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is measured in terms of parts per million (ppm), the prime human contributor to global warming, has reached a staggering all-time high level. Scientists calculate that the global average of CO2 before the Industrial Revolution was about 280 ppm (Porter 2013). Scientists also point out that 350 ppm is the maximum level for CO2 to halt global warming and avoid catastrophic weather patterns that could dramatically alter human activity and possibly lead to the end of human civilization. In 2010 the average CO2 reading for earth was 398.78 (Delaney and Madigan 2014), in 2013 it reached the 400 ppm threshold (NASA 2013), and in August 2017 it reached an all-time high of 405.07 ppm (NOAA 2017). This level of CO2 would indicate that the planet should be witnessing more intense storms and weather pattern changes (e.g., severe hurricanes), which has happened; it also indicates that our uncommon-sense behavior is contributing to the 6th ME. One area that people are fighting back against in an effort to save the environment is the use of plastics. Depending on one’s perspective, the use of plastics is either a man-made miracle or nightmare. Plastics refers to a very broad category of materials known as polymers, substances that are made up of a large number of smaller molecules that link together to form larger molecules, in this case, consisting primarily of carbon (Knight 2014). While plastics have made life simpler for humans in many ways, especially as storage containers, they are a huge threat to the environment. Plastic products take centuries to decompose and are a leading cause of waste. Among the most popular uses for plastics are as grocery bags (but in the process of being banned at many stores throughout the nation) and bottled water. Plastic bottled water is alarming for two primary reasons: (1) The production, distribution, and sale of bottled water has been privatized to the point that major corporations, such as Nestle, Coca-Cola, and Pepsi, control the vast majority of water supplies in the United States; and (2) Its threat to the environment and its role as a major contributor to the 6th ME. Perhaps the most critical environmental issue related to use of bottled water is decomposition. It takes about 450 years for non-biodegradable plastic bottles to decompose. Some other facts about plastics and decomposition include:

200    

Violating Common Sense Nearly every piece of plastic ever made still exists today. A plastic cup can take 50 to 80 years to decompose. Plastic garbage in the ocean kills as many as one million sea creatures every year. The global fishing industry dumps an estimated 150,000 tons of plastic into the ocean each year, including packaging, plastic nets, lines, and buoys (Institute for Sustainable Communication 2012).

It is recognized here that bottled water is becoming increasing necessary as a result of the deterioration and availability of clean drinking water from the tap. The infrastructure is falling apart and local, state, and federal governments are not heeding the warnings necessary to assure that everyone has clean drinking water. And, during times of crisis, such as major storms that are occurring at an increasing rate, bottled water is a good method of distribution. Still, plastics remain a major problem to the environment and contribute to another problem heightened by humans, marine debris. Marine debris includes any form of manufactured or processed material discarded, disposed of, or abandoned in the marine environment (Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel 2011). Marine debris can be found from the poles to the equator and from shorelines, estuaries, and the sea surface to the depths of the ocean, making this uncommon-sense behavior a global concern. Plastics are among the items that contribute to marine debris and includes various domestic and industrial products such as bags, cups, bottles, balloons, strapping bands, plastic sheeting, hard hats, and resin pellets, and discarded fishing gear. A great deal of marine debris also includes harmful chemicals that cause of a loss of biodiversity, increase acidification, and contribute to the rise in the sea level (Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel 2011). Ocean acidification is an undeniable environmental problem worldwide and is the result, as previously described of marine debris, but also the worldwide increased output of CO2. Perhaps the best example of the seriousness posed by marine debris is the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch,” or the “Garbage Island” that exists like a floating landfill of trash and marine debris found in the Pacific Ocean north of Hawaii and is larger than the size of Texas. Humans create a great deal of waste other than plastics and marine debris. For example, we waste a great deal of food. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2017), food waste in the United States is estimated at between 30–40 percent of the food supply. Edible food that could have helped feed families in need is often sent to landfills and food waste in general represents the single largest component going into municipal landfills (USDA 2017). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2017) estimates that the global volume of food wastage is estimated at 1.6 tonnes and that food wastage’s carbon footprint is estimated at 3.3 billion tonnes of CO2. Another type of waste is electronic waste, known as E-waste. Since industrialization, humans have increasingly found ways to produce

Violating Common Sense

201

devices and materials to make life easier. Among these items of late are a slew of electronic devices. E-waste is a popular, informal name for electronic products that have been deemed obsolete because they are outdated and are discarded. E-waste represents more than just solid waste materials; it is an environmental hazard because of its toxins, including lead, mercury, nickel, cadmium, arsenic, beryllium, and brominated flame retardants. The toxic materials found in electronics can cause cancer, reproductive disorders, endocrine disruption, and many other health problems (Mulvaney and Robbins 2011). Medical waste pales in comparison to most forms of waste but it is a growing concern because of its negative impact on human health and the environment in general. Medical waste, or health care waste, includes waste generated by health institutions, research institutions, and laboratories, as well as waste originating from health care done at home (e.g., dialysis, insulin injections, and blood sugar test strips) (Brasovean et al. 2010). Nuclear waste is another example of a harmful creation made by humans who are not sure how to deal with the negative by-products of its creation. Nuclear waste is the material that nuclear fuel becomes after it is used in a reactor; this spent material contains radioactive and extremely toxic by-products. This waste may remain radioactive for thousands of years and therein lies one of the primary concerns with nuclear waste— how do we properly dispose of it? While nuclear energy represents an alternative to fossil fuels, it too has contributed to the 6th ME and could, in fact, directly cause it to occur in the very near future (rather than the distant future). As the world’s population continues to explode, humans increasingly take over land space and destroy ecosystems. As previously mentioned, overpopulation also leads to a greater demand for food. To meet this growing need, crop and livestock farms have expanded (and will continue to expand), and scientists have incorporated genetic manipulations in an effort to increase food yield. Finding the balance between feeding billions of people while preserving the environment’s natural resources has become increasingly problematic. In some instances, forests are being destroyed in an effort to secure more land to grow crops and/or to use wood for building purposes. The extreme intrusion on forests has led to deforestation, a different type of waste caused by the uncommon-sense behavior of humans. Deforestation refers to the clearing, or permanent removal, of the earth’s forests on a massive scale. Forests still cover about 30 percent of the world’s land area, but swaths half the size of England are lost each year. The world’s rainforests could completely vanish in a hundred years at the current rate of deforestation (National Geographic 2017). However, this will not happen as it will be impossible for humans to completely destroy the rainforest because we would all be dead before that could occur. Ironically, such a death would be the result of the lack of oxygen in the atmosphere due to the loss of the rainforest.

202

Violating Common Sense

Common, Uncommon Sense Uncommon sense refers to a violation of common sense and the inability to utilize knowledge in warranted situations. As illustrated throughout this chapter, uncommon-sense behavior often results in personal harm or harm to others. This is generally true whether we are talking about behaviors that involve millions of people, such as smoking, self-harm, tanning, driving distracted, and harming the environment; or, if we are talking about individuals who commit acts worthy of a Darwin Award or a Stella Award. Uncommon sense also reminds us that notions of common sense are not innate. A student told me a story of her boyfriend doing roofing work while hungover from a heavy night of drinking the prior evening. He was not completely paying attention to what he was doing and could have seriously harmed himself, his co-workers, or anyone else in the work zone area. While he was standing on the top two rungs of a ladder, a bug of some sort landed on his face. In an effort to slap the bug off his face, he swatted at it, forgetting that he had a hammer in his hand. He hit himself so hard that he fell off the ladder, hurting himself. When he told my student (his girlfriend) the story of what happened, she just had to shake her head in disbelief and said, “I thought selfpreservation was an innate quality, not learned behavior. Boy was I wrong as he does many stupid things like this.” She also mentioned that if she had any common sense at all, that she should break up with him after this, the latest, incidence of his uncommon-sense behavior, before he accidentally hurt her. During the 2002–2015 period, I asked college students to provide me with a list of up to 20 examples of people violating common sense. Quite a few responses were repeated. A summary of the most common examples of uncommon sense is provided in Appendix C – “Common, Uncommon Sense” at the end of the book. Box 6.1 Connecting Common Sense and Popular Culture “If Seemingly Every Decision You Make in Life Turns Out to Be a Matter of Uncommon Sense, Do the Opposite!” Presumably, we have all violated the canons of common sense at one time or another and, as presented in this chapter, some people violate common sense on a daily basis; they may even violate common sense in multiple ways. Sometimes, people begin to recognize that many of their decisions have negative outcomes and they begin to question their every decision. There’s little wonder that we do not always make the “right” choice as we are faced with a large number of decisions each day. We have to decide what to wear, what to eat, who to associate with, how to respond to texts/emails, how to meet the demands of work while balancing the desires of your personal lives, decide who our friends should be, who we should date (or if we should date), whether to marry, should I say hello to that attractive stranger, should I run that yellow traffic light, and so on. Most of

Violating Common Sense

203

us evaluate our courses of action in hindsight and if it turns out that a few of these decisions were violations of common sense, or even if one major decision was an example of uncommon sense, we tend to wonder if maybe a different course of action was warranted. In extreme cases, we may wonder if doing the opposite of what we normally do might be reasonable. Doing the opposite is exactly what Seinfeld character George Costanza (played by Jason Alexander) decided to do after evaluating his decision-making and where it led him to his current moment in time. In the episode “The Opposite” (#86, first air date, May 19, 1994), George decides it is time to behave contrary to his inclinations and instincts (Lavery and Dunne 2006). This idea dawned on him as we see a sad-looking George staring out at the ocean. The scene cuts to George joining Jerry (Jerry Seinfeld) and Elaine (Julia LouisDreyfus) at the diner. George mutters that, “It’s not working, Jerry. It’s just not working.” Jerry asks his friend, what’s not working? A very reflective George tells Jerry that while he was sitting out at the beach earlier in the day it finally dawned on him that “every decision I’ve ever made, in my entire life, has been wrong. My life is the opposite of everything I want it to be. Every instinct I have, in every [aspect] of life, be it something to wear, something to eat … It’s all been wrong.” Just then, the waitress comes over and asks George if he wants his “regular order” and George decides immediately that nothing has ever worked out for him with his regular order so the decides to order the complete opposite. Shortly thereafter, Elaine informs George that a good-looking woman just looked at him from the diner’s counter. Speaking as the “old” George, he replies negatively and asks Elaine, “What am I supposed to do?” Elaine tells him to go to talk to her. He is resistant because he feels like a loser (e.g., no job, no money, living with his parents). Jerry encourages George to do the opposite and actually approach her. George agrees and says, yeah, I should do the opposite. He does approach the young woman, tells her that he is unemployed and living with his parents and, still, they hit it off. Doing the opposite is working out for George. His new girlfriend Victoria is intrigued by his unique way of handling life by doing the opposite of what the situation normally calls for. It turns out that Victoria has an uncle that works for the New York Yankees and promises George an interview, what he describes as his dream job (working for the Yankees). At Yankee Stadium, George meets with Mr. Cushman (Victoria’s uncle) to interview for the position of assistant to the traveling secretary. Cushman begins the interview in typical fashion by asking George to explain some of his previous job experiences. Cushman is amazed by the stories that George is telling him as he is violating common sense in his responses. George admits to being fired from a publishing job for having sex in his office with a cleaning woman and that he quit a job in real estate because his boss wouldn’t let him use his private bathroom. Cushman tells George that he is the complete opposite of every applicant he has met. Just then, Mr. Steinbrenner, owner of the Yankees organization, walks by in the hallway. Cushman gets Steinbrenner’s

204

Violating Common Sense

attention and asks him to meet George. Steinbrenner, as manners would dictate, extends his hand to shake George’s hand and offers a pleasant greeting, “Nice to meet you.” George, doing the opposite of what common sense would tell most people to do, courageously or stupidly, refuses to shake hands with Steinbrenner and says, “Well, I wish I could say the same, but I must say, with all due respect, I find it very hard to see the logic behind some of the moves you have made with this fine organization. In the past twenty years you have caused myself, and the city of New York, a good deal of distress, as we have watched you take our beloved Yankees and reduced them to a laughing stock, all for the glorification of your massive ego!” Steinbrenner immediately replies by telling Mr. Cushman (who was shuddering during George’s tirade), “Hire this man!” (Delaney 2006). Doing the opposite of what his instincts have always told him to do, has given George everything he dreamed of having. He has a beautiful girlfriend, his dream job, and a huge salary that affords him a new apartment. But there is a limit to the power of doing the opposite. No one can literally do the opposite of everything their gut tells them to do, or the opposite of what society’s norms and laws dictate. In addition, George’s opposite behavior becomes routinized and thus becomes a new norm of his behavior. Once this behavior is repeated, it is no longer the opposite. The lesson learned here is, if you are seemingly making wrong decisions, change your behavioral patterns; but, don’t expect that you can always do the opposite of what your gut, or instincts, tell you to do. Learn from your mistakes and gain new knowledge in your journey toward attaining and adhering to common sense and you will be able to overcome uncommon sense.

Summary In this chapter, the topic of violating common sense, referred to here as “uncommon sense,” was discussed. Uncommon sense involves a violation of common sense and the inability to utilize knowledge properly in warranted situations. While the application of common sense in warranted situations is something that most people strive to achieve and behavior that people expect others to conform to, many people commonly use uncommon sense. In an attempt to explain why uncommon sense is so prevalent a number of impediments to common sense were reviewed. The impediments discussed were the inability of people to learn (failure to gain and accept well-established bits of knowledge; poorly socialized); the lack of formal higher education (a great, but not exclusive, method of learning, especially learning new things; formal training and development of skills, intellect, and character in structured and certified programs); emotion and fear (irrational beliefs impede enlightened,

Violating Common Sense

205

rational thought); a belief in weird things (such as pseudoscience, superstitions, and other oddities); and, ignorance and stupidity (simply lacking knowledge—ignorance—is excusable as there is still time to learn; stupidity, however, is behavior that shows a lack of good sense or judgment, is foolish, and demonstrates a lack of intelligence). Anyone who interacts with others, follows current news events, has gained an education, or is knowledgeable about a great number of topics can certainly attest to the reality that many people do dumb and stupid things on a regular basis. If you find yourself shaking your head in wonderment many times over the course of the day you know how true this is. There are so many people committing so many dumb and stupid social acts that “awards” have been established to acknowledge their uncommon-sense behavior. The Darwin Awards, which are still active, acknowledges people who have committed such stupid acts that they have contributed to the evolution of humanity by removing their genes from the gene pool, they have “chlorinated” the human gene pool (generally by dying or by not having children). The Stella Awards, which no longer officially exists (there are websites that do the same thing as the original Stella Awards did) acknowledged people who filed outrageous and frivolous lawsuits. A number of online sites and legitimate press outlets regularly report on the activities of dumb criminals— defined as criminals who lack intelligence or good judgment as they commit their crimes. A number of specific examples of uncommon sense were discussed to highlight the fact that millions of people violate a variety of common-sense notions on a daily basis. These activities include smoking, committing selfharm, tanning, driving while distracted, and harming the environment. As demonstrated throughout this chapter, and especially with these examples, uncommon-sense behavior often results in personal harm or harm to others. (Reference was made to Appendix C, which provides a list of some of the most common examples of uncommon sense from data collected by the author.) The discussion on uncommon sense also highlights the fact that notions of common sense are not innate.

7

Can Common Sense Rise as the Prevailing Paradigm of Thought?

Introduction While on their walk to the park together on a clear cloudless day, a young child, who is gazing upward, asks her mother, “Why is the sky blue?” Perplexed by how to best answer this question, and relying on her religious faith, the mother replies, “Because God painted the sky blue.” The child nods, seemingly in approval, but then asks, “But, why is the sky not blue at sunset?” Not sure how to respond to this question other than to suggest that God changed his mind or that God likes lots of colors, the mother changes the subject and, thus, thwarts the child’s attempt to gain credible knowledge about nature. Meanwhile, another mother and child are also walking to the same park and this child too asks, “Mom, why is the sky blue?” Without much hesitation, this parent replies by saying, “Well, sweetheart, the sky is blue because molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light.” Contemplating this reply the child asks a follow-up question, “Well, why is the sky red and orange at sunset?” Her mother replies by saying, “We see red and orange colors because the blue light has been scattered out and away from the line of sight.” The child has now gained some great knowledge about the role of nature in our everyday lives. Depending on the age of the child, further information could be provided such as the work of Isaac Newton who used a prism to separate the different colors of the white light from the sun and who also explained that the colors of light are distinguished by their different wavelengths. Even more information could be shared by the parent(s) but, ideally, all this information will be provided to children in grade school during science class.

Common Sense in Review The notion of common sense and abiding by its implications is something that, seemingly, everyone agrees is a good way of making behavioral decisions and conducting one’s daily activities. As described in Chapter 1, common sense would seem to be a straightforward concept and, yet, it is anything but

The Prevailing Paradigm of Thought

207

commonly understood, let alone properly explained. The idea of not chasing a ball that has rolled onto a busy street filled with high-speed passing automobiles would seem to be a clear example of common sense; however, the idea of whether or not to purchase an extended warranty on a consumer product is fraught with complications that affect decision-making. People from all sorts of diverse backgrounds can explain why you do not run after a ball in a busy street and yet people will offer varying explanations as to what constitutes common sense when trying to decide whether or not to purchase a warranty. Significant purchases such as buying a house or moving thousands of miles to start a new job or pursue a love interest will yield different voices on what the “common sense” course of action should be. The utilization of common sense is important for mundane and ordinary, as well as major decisions as, at the very least, it provides a starting point as to the course of action to be taken by people. The study of common sense is of great interest too as it provides insights about micro behaviors. Implementing a common-sense approach to decision-making represents one of the four major paradigms of thought processes. In Chapter 2, the concept of “paradigms of thought” was described as a primary theme, a single stem, perspective, or model of thinking that dictates courses of action chosen by social actors. Four paradigms of thought were identified and described: tradition; faith; enlightened, rational thought; and common sense. Tradition refers to a way of thinking, behaving, or doing something that has been used by people of a particular group/clan/society over a long period of time. From this perspective, people act in a manner that is expected within that culture, or subculture, because that is the way things have always been done. It is likely that tradition represents the first paradigm of thought as early humans were lacking in great intellectual contemplation and organized religious doctrines. The human species had to learn how to survive via trial and error, behavioral reinforcement, modeling, observation, and in many cases a great deal of luck. Behaviors that lead to successful outcomes would be repeated over and over again until it became a simple matter of tradition— we do things this way because we have always done things this way. From this perspective, abiding by traditional behaviors and customs would eventually become a matter of duty and obligation. In this manner, tradition overlaps with common sense as people would react in an expected way in warranted situations. The tradition-centered paradigm of thought is very conservative in nature as people are not encouraged to innovate and be creative in their way of thinking about how things should be done; instead, it is assumed and mandated, in many cases, that people will behave in a predictable manner. The faith-centered paradigm works much in the same manner as tradition in that adherents to a certain faith are taught to choose courses of action which abide by specific beliefs that have long been established. While faith does not have to involve spirituality or religion it generally does. Religion arose out of the human attempt to explain life’s many mysteries and uncertainties. Realizing that the masses lacked the intelligence to understand

208

The Prevailing Paradigm of Thought

complicated issues, early organized religions developed a system of explanations that were reduced to the simplest possible explanation. Consider, for example, this chapter’s introductory story in which a child wonders why the sky is blue. Most young children, and even some adults for that matter, have a hard time rationally explaining the mysteries of nature and human existence so they provide simple answers that appease most people. The idea that an all-powerful entity such as God created everything found on this planet and all other planets was established as the “go-to” answer to questions that faith-based proponents could not, or refused to, explain. For many people, the faith-based outlook on life serves as a comfort to them and allows them to go about their daily lives. However, when members of one version of a faith-based congregation meet with people of a different account of faith, there exists the seeds of misunderstanding, intolerance, and possible conflict. And, nearly all faith-based adherents have a hard time accepting those who do not abide by any religious doctrine. In short, this paradigm of thought has, at the very least, as many limitations as the tradition-based paradigm of thought. While the reliance on either tradition- or faith-based paradigms of thought works for many people, it does not resonate with everyone. Eventually, a number of individuals who were driven by a thirst for knowledge would challenge the tradition and faith-based variations of explanations on matters about life and, for that matter, death. They developed an intellect via formal training and education, curiosity, or simply seeking a better way of doing things. Antonie (Antony) van Leeuwenhoek (1632–1723), for example, was such an individual who revolutionized the manner in which we think about a number of things. Possessing little formal education or a scientific background, Leeuwenhoek “defied all odds to be reckoned as a great scientist through his skillful observations, insight and unmatched curiosity. He revolutionized biological science by exposing microscopic life to the world” (Explorable.com 2017). Born in Delft, the Netherlands, Leeuwenhoek was an apprentice to a textile merchant and it was at this capacity that he likely first encountered magnifying glasses that were used in the textile trade to count thread densities for quality control purposes (BBC 2014c). Having read Robert Hooke’s Micrographia during his only visit to London in 1668, Leeuwenhoek began to closely observe bees and tiny organisms he found in water. He also had interests in glass processing and lens grinding which greatly assisted him in the improvement of the microscope (from 200 times magnification to 500 times), laying the foundation for microbiology (thus making him the “father of microbiology”) (Explorable.com 2017). Another individual who had a thirst for scientific knowledge is French scientist Louis Pasteur, a nineteenth-century microbiologist who studied bacteria and viruses, yielding great progress in public health and hygiene (Zardo 1987). In turn, Pasteur’s discoveries would influence other scientists that followed him, just as Leeuwenhoek had influenced knowledge-driven individuals who benefited from his findings.

The Prevailing Paradigm of Thought

209

Scientific discoveries have many consequences, including the direct challenge they present to long-held traditional- and faith-based belief systems and, more importantly, the advancement of knowledge and enlightened, rational thought. As Zardo (1987) explains: Since the days of Aristotle, it was retained that the simplest living organisms (worms, maggots, frogs and salamanders) could generate spontaneously from dust and mud. Some also sustained that rodents generated from wet wheat and that plant lice were born through condensation of dew drops. Scientific experimentation would, of course, debunk such notions. Still, there are people today, creationists for example, who believe that life forms can simply emerge independently from other, simpler, life forms without an evolutionary component. Enlightened, rational thought, the third paradigm of thought, proves that things are far more complicated than they might appear. There are, in fact, micro-organisms and cells in existence that can cause disease and illnesses, just as there are treatment protocols involving such things as antibiotics that can sustain life. Rational and scientific thought has guided humanity in accomplishing a great number of feats in many spheres of life. Grounded in the principles of objectivity and a thirst for non-biased “truths” about all matters of life, science represents the pinnacle of thought processes. Continued evolutionary growth and human progress are dependent upon technological growth and, since the Enlightenment era, a great number of scientific achievements have occurred in a countless number of spheres of life including medicine, material goods, improvements in travel and food production, advancements in communications, the development of non-fossil fuel energy sources, and so on. The fourth paradigm of thought and the focus of this book is common sense. It is highly likely that notions of common sense have existed throughout most of human history and, yet, it has never evolved as the prevailing paradigm of thought. On the surface, this seems odd as nearly everyone, whether liberal, moderate, or conservative, young or old, and regardless of socio-economic background, promote the use of implementing common sense when faced with a decision on a course of action. It is also likely that everyone has heard and/or said, “Use your common sense” when observing the behaviors of others. So, why doesn’t everyone use common sense on a regular basis? The answer to this question is found when we realize that common sense does not involve innate behavior; instead, it refers to learned behavior. As used throughout this book, common sense is defined as knowledge learned through the socialization process, observation, personal experience, and in many cases by reason, and entails the ability to utilize that knowledge in warranted situations. In Chapters 3 and 4, we learned that common sense has been the subject of scholarly pursuit and explanation for thousands of years. From the time of

210

The Prevailing Paradigm of Thought

the ancient Greeks through the Middle Ages and to the present day, many social thinkers have shared their thoughts on common sense as they attempted to explain its meaning. Starting with Parmenides, we discover that the idea of common-sense thinking (as the prevailing paradigm of thought) was long ago questioned as a legitimate form of knowledge because it is filled with “illogical rationale.” As demonstrated in this book, common sense is a questionable form of thinking because it relies on the socialization, personal experiences, observation (and reason) of individuals and each of us has a unique past experience and interpretation of events. Thus, as Parmenides suggests, it is a questionable form of logic. Philosophers of the eighteenth century, such as Thomas Reid, countered that common-sense knowledge is possible because humans can acquire knowledge through empirical observation and experimentation. I would counter that knowledge gained through empirical observation and experimentation is more akin to enlightened, rational thought as it involves the scientific method. (In fact, as a matter of foreshadowing, the conclusion to be found here is that utilizing common sense is generally a good idea but only if such beliefs about what constitutes common sense can be supported empirically.) Interestingly, while other social thinkers, such as Weber, Mills, James, Cooley, Mead, Blumer, Goffman, and Husserl all connected the notion of common sense with a wide variety of concepts including rationality, situated actions, vocabularies/language, motives, social action, pragmatism, habits, consciousness, symbols, gestures, and the presentation of self, it was ethnomethodologist Harold Garfinkel who wrote directly about the “commonsense world.” In Chapter 4, common sense in the contemporary, modern, and postmodern eras was examined. We looked at hermeneutic phenomenology and a number of theorists associated with this perspective; we examined the relevant ideas of Gramsci, Habermas, Giddens, Collins, and McDonnell, Bail, and Tavory; and, the postmodern schools of thought that included post-feminism, posthumanism, transhumanism, and postcolonialism. Many of these perspectives are influenced by Marxist thought and the postmodern theories, in particularly, question the validity of creating laws of human behavior that can be universally applied in a universal manner. While these theories question the legitimacy of “one size fits all” approach to the notion of common sense, they do not detract from enlightened, rational thought. Thus, these theories also support the primary conclusion of this author and his study of common sense as a paradigm of thought. In Chapter 5, we examined one of the biggest misconceptions regarding the character of common sense that it is innate. Common sense is not innate but, instead, represents learned behavior; it is learned via the socialization process, personal experience, observation, and in many cases by reason. The socialization process is the most critical aspect of learning about common sense. Socialization is a process of social development and learning that occurs as individuals interact with one another and learn about society’s expectations for acceptable behavior. It is a lifelong process wherein the agents of

The Prevailing Paradigm of Thought

211

socialization (e.g., family, peers, teachers, church leaders, employers, and the media) influence the behaviors and decision-making of individuals by teaching us cultural norms and values. When individuals learn to adhere to the social expectations of others they are deemed to be acting “appropriately.” When large numbers of people collectively view certain social acts as “proper” and others as “improper,” they have in essence been socialized into associating certain behaviors in specific situations as a matter of “common sense.” Common sense is worthy of the distinction of a “paradigm” of thought as people adhere to many aspects of it on a regular basis and in a wide variety of manner. A number of common-sense short stories were also provided to help illustrate adherence to notions of common sense. By adhering to common sense we are referring to examples of people who actually engage in behaviors that can be viewed as notions of common sense (at least by most people in a given society). The idea that common sense should be promoted as the paradigm of thought that people should adhere to during all their social interactions is put to the test in Chapter 6 with the analysis of the many violations of common sense put forth by people. In this chapter, perceived violations of common sense, referred to as “uncommon sense,” were discussed. Uncommon sense involves a violation of common sense (from one’s particular viewpoint) and the inability to utilize knowledge properly in warranted situations. In an attempt to explain why uncommon sense is so prevalent a number of impediments to common sense were reviewed. A number of specific examples of uncommon sense are discussed to highlight the fact that millions of people violate a variety of common-sense notions on a daily basis.

The Limitations of Common Sense While the notion of common sense is indeed worthy of the “paradigm of thought” distinction and does provide an excellent method of studying the everyday social interactions of people, it is also rife with limitations; and, these limitations are the cause of why common sense will not rise as the prevailing paradigm of thought. As discussed in Chapter 6, the most significant challenge to common sense as the prevailing paradigm of thought is the realization that countless numbers of people violate common sense (referred to here as uncommon sense) on a regular basis. Uncommon sense involves a violation of common sense and the inability to utilize knowledge properly in warranted situations. Uncommon sense is prevalent because of a number of impediments to common sense. These impediments to common sense were discussed in Chapter 6 and include: the failure to learn and accept well-established bits of factual knowledge; the lack of a formal higher education, which involves training and developing people in knowledge, skills, intellect, and character in structured and certified programs; overly emotional and irrational fear; believing in weird things (such as pseudoscience, superstitions, and other oddities); and,

212

The Prevailing Paradigm of Thought

ignorance and stupidity (simply lacking knowledge—ignorance—is excusable as there is still time to learn; stupidity, however, is behavior that shows a lack of good sense or judgment, is foolish, and demonstrates a lack of intelligence). There are so many people violating common sense that mock awards have been established to draw special attention to those who engage in uncommon sense. Most readers can think of examples of uncommon sense that they have witnessed first-hand but for a matter of demonstration, a number of specific examples of uncommon sense were discussed in Chapter 6 to highlight the fact that millions of people violate a variety of common-sense notions on a daily basis. A list of some of the most common examples of uncommon sense is provided in Appendix C. Among other lessons learned from a discussion on uncommon sense is the realization that notions of common sense are not innate. People tend to promote the use of common sense as it seems like a logical course of action; however, as demonstrated throughout this book, common sense is not solely based on logic, or rationality, for that matter. The reason that common sense is often confused with logic and rationality and obvious courses of action is because a number of situations encountered in the past by social actors come to be viewed as clear options of behavior. The reality is, anything learned becomes obvious and a matter of common sense among social actors. But, common sense alone cannot be used to rationally or scientifically explain how humans should behave in all situations nor can it be used to explain how the social structure should be designed. Common sense as the paradigm of thought is unrealistic because it is dependent upon learned behavior; and, as established, individuals learn different things throughout their lives.

Enlightened, Rational Thought Should be the Prevailing Paradigm of Thought Enlightened, rational thought is guided by the principles of science and the scientific method. The parameters of science generally include such criteria as having knowledge attained and tested through the scientific method. The scientific method is defined as the pursuit of knowledge involving the stating of a problem, the collection of facts through observation and experiment, and the testing of ideas (hypotheses) to determine whether such ideas and theories are valid or invalid. Both the social sciences (e.g., sociology and psychology) and the natural sciences (e.g., biology and chemistry) employ the scientific method in their social research and have a strong commitment to testing their theories through statistical and/or systematic observational analysis. Herein lies the primary reason why enlightened, rational thought should be the dominant paradigm of thought that guides individual decision-making specifically and society generally as none of the other three major paradigms of thoughts attempt to prove their belief systems of based on “truth,” or fact.

The Prevailing Paradigm of Thought

213

It is social theory guided by scientific research that allows for enlightened, rational thought to be labeled as the best paradigm of thought. You will recall, in Chapter 3, a theory was defined as a statement, or a set of statements, that proposes to explain or relate observed phenomena or a set of concepts. Social theory involves linking a set of inter-related concepts and/or observed phenomena in an attempt to establish a cause–effect relationship. The best theories are those that allow for testing so that they can be supported or disproved by empirical research. Theories that are repeatedly supported by empirical research are said to be scientific theories and allow for the establishment of “laws.” As Jonathan Turner (2003), a leading contemporary social theorist, explains: Scientific theories begin with the assumption that the universe, including the social universe created by acting human beings, reveals certain basic and fundamental properties and processes that explain the ebb and flow of events in specific contexts. Because of this concern with discovering fundamental properties and processes, scientific theories are always stated abstractly, reign above specific events and highlight the underlying forces that drive these events. (p. 1) While contemplation of the social world that surrounds us is an activity shared by humans throughout history it was the rise of the Enlightenment era that marks the time when social thinkers would attempt to rationally challenge the paradigms of thought of tradition and faith in earnest. The early European sociologists were among those social thinkers that continue to challenge such long-held beliefs. Early sociologists, like sociologists today, and all other rationally based social thinkers, promoted the use of empirical research when seeking to validate their theories. The tradition- and faithbased paradigms of thought have seldom felt the need to justify their beliefs systems and when they have such justifications were superficial and devoid of empirical research, rationality, and logic. Once again, then, we can clearly see how enlightened, rational thought is the best paradigm of thought and the one that should be guiding human thinking and their courses of action. Many traditional behaviors engaged in by social actors are harmless. Examples would include families getting together to celebrate secular holidays such as Thanksgiving or football fans who enjoy tailgating parties hours prior to the start of the game. These traditions are mostly about celebrating life and spending time with loved ones. Other traditions, however, such as rule by monarchs and institutional racism and sexism are very harmful. Faith-based forms of thinking also have their place in society as religious belief systems help many people get through the daily grind of life and help to provide meaning to the personal lives of many. However, the faith-based paradigm of thought has its limits in legitimacy as it is not grounded in empirical, enlightened, rational thought and often leads to people engaging in behaviors that

214

The Prevailing Paradigm of Thought

are harmful for themselves or to those who do not share their belief systems. Consider, for example, the six major world religions along with the many other variations of religious- and faith-based ways of thinking and how they contradict one another in their interpretations as to what constitutes the manner in which people should lead their lives. Such contradictions, among other things, have led to war, intolerance, and the mistreatment of nonbelievers. Add to this, the reality that if one religion is “right” in its interpretation of the meaning of life and death, the rest of the religions are “wrong.” In contrast, scientific fact is just that, factual, it is not open to interpretation as something is either factually true or it is not. Matters of scientific fact become a cause of concern for those who promote tradition- and faith-based paradigms of thought and, as a result, they often attempt to challenge the rationality and reason based on enlightened, rational thought. While it was one thing that the masses believed in tradition and faith in the past, because they were ignorant and lacked access to factual information, it is unacceptable that people today would challenge science. It is truly frightening and an indictment of the direction of humanity that antiscience movements exist in contemporary society. It is science and enlightened, rational thought that will solve the major problems (e.g., the deterioration of the environment, the lack of global human rights, and tolerance for all people) confronting humanity. The nonsense, to put it kindly, that surrounds the creation of the concept of “alternative facts” highlights the fact that humanity is headed in the wrong direction (toward dissolution rather than evolution). It is simple, facts are facts, and when something is factual, there is no other interpretation that is accurate. It is empirical science that should be promoted and embraced by humanity. It is also frightening to realize that there are those in contemporary society who claim that news items and facts that run counter to their long-held traditions and faith are to be labeled as “fake news” in an attempt to discredit such information. Clearly, there are true examples of fake news promoted by those with a socio-political agenda and that is why, as with countering the anti-science movement, that formal education is as important now as at any other time in history. Formal education involves training and developing people in knowledge, skills, intellect, and character, in structured and certified programs. Formal education is defined, then, as a process of teaching and learning in which some people (e.g., teachers and professors) cultivate knowledge, skills, intellect, and character, while others (e.g., students and those with a true desire to learn) take on the role of the learner. The true importance of formal education has been lost in recent decades as most people view such things as a college degree as a means of “getting ahead” or “finding a good job.” When I work at my college’s “Open House” (this is when prospective students and their parents visit the college campus and meet with administrators and faculty) I am dismayed how the top concern and questions asked of me all center on, “What kind of job can my son/daughter attain with a degree in sociology/etc.?” The reason for this dismay rests with

The Prevailing Paradigm of Thought

215

the realization that the primary role of formal education is the knowledge that one gains by engaging in a formal course of study. Historically, the near exclusive reason for going to college was to gain knowledge. Today, many people view the coursework as a type of inconvenience that must be overcome in order to receive the degree that accompanies graduation and, in turn, the “good job” they hope to find as a result of that degree. It is the knowledge and critical thinking skills earned and developed during the formal education process that should be cherished and valued the most. The influx of administration (which acts in accordance to political pressure and demands) upon higher formal education serves as a primary culprit in the rewriting of the mission statements of most colleges. Faculty, the people actually responsible for higher education, should be the people with the power in decision-making on college campuses so that they can steer the mission back to the pursuit and attainment of knowledge. We see hints of enlightened, rational thought among some politicians and laypersons with regards to higher, formal education when they promote the idea that college should be “free” to all students. (The idea of college being “free” is a bit misleading as either taxpayers are covering the costs of higher education and/or students are expected to “pay back” their free tuition in one form or another.) It is critical that the masses be allowed access to formal education and it should be promoted as a primary means of gaining knowledge. This is true because of how important education is to enlightened, rational thought and, yes, even to common sense. Some may suggest that common sense is needed now more than ever. Common sense is important and it is better to utilize common sense instead of uncommon sense. However, the conclusion drawn here, after an analysis of common sense as a paradigm of thought, is that it is enlightened, rational thought that is needed now more than ever before. Box 7.1 Connecting Common Sense and Popular Culture “Testing Your Common Sense” Common sense is knowledge learned; as a result, it can be developed. That is to say, common sense is not a matter of “you either have it or you don’t have it.” Some people have more common sense than others but that’s because they have paid attention to their surroundings and taken note of how things work and what type of behavior is most appropriate for any given situation. People with common sense have also been socialized by others with common-sense knowledge and they have engaged in a variety of experiences. People with common sense also have the ability to use reason and possess practical skills. There are a wide variety of common-sense tests available for people to take that are designed to measure one’s level of common sense. In many instances, it becomes clear that the answers to such questions are not

216

The Prevailing Paradigm of Thought

always obvious. A Google search of common sense tests yields many results. Here are a few examples: From MagiQuiz.com: Do they have the 4th of July in the UK? Answer options: “Of course they do” or “No way!” The answer is “Of course they do.” (If the question had been do they celebrate the 4th of July as Americans do, the answer would be “No way!”) Another question: Some months have 31 days, and some have 30. How many have 28? Answer options: “One,” “Two,” “Twelve.” The answer is “Twelve,” as all have at least 28 days. (If the question had been how months have just 28 days, the answer would have been “One.”) From ProProfs: A farmer has 13 cows. A bolt of lightning kills all but 5 of them. How many cows survived? Answer options: 8, 9, 10, 0, or 5. The answer to this question is in the question itself, all but five survived. Go online and take a test or two for yourself and measure your level of common-sense knowledge. You may find that you possess a great deal of common sense, or you may find the opposite. Chances are, if you score low, you need more life experiences; and, if you score high, you also possess the capacity for enlightened, rational thought.

Summary In this concluding chapter, a brief review of the preceding chapters was presented as a matter of summary but also as a means of providing a context for the notion of common sense as a paradigm of thought. Common sense is deemed worthy of the distinction of a “paradigm” of thought along with tradition, faith, and enlightened, rational thought. Nonetheless, a reminder was provided about the limitations of solely relying on common sense as a means of guidance in decision-making processes. It was proposed that while common sense has its merits, it is the enlightened, rational thought paradigm that should serve as the guiding light of governing behavior; and this is true both at the micro (individual decisionmaking) and macro (societal) levels. The bottom line conclusion is that while common sense is better than uncommon sense and represents a better paradigm of thought than either tradition- or faith-based paradigms for that matter, it is enlightened, rational thought that should reign supreme as it is needed now more than ever before.

Appendix A “Common, Common Sense”

At Home/Indoors:                       

Never touch a hot stove. Don’t leave a child unattended near a hot stove. Don’t put your hands in a pot of boiling water. Don’t eat food with mold on it. Wash your hands every time after using the bathroom. Use deodorant. Put on more layers of clothing when you have a cold. Child-proof your home if you have small children (e.g., put locks on cabinets, especially liquor and gun cabinets). Brush your teeth at least twice a day and preferably after each meal. Push your chair in close to the table after you have finished eating. Don’t put your hands (or any body part for that matter) in boiling water. Use everyday etiquette and good manners, such as saying “please,” “thank you,” and “you’re welcome.” Don’t stick utensils into an electrical outlet. Don’t put metals in a toaster or microwave. Don’t stick your fingers or toes in an electrical outlet. Don’t drink poison. Wipe your butt after going to the bathroom. And certainly, wash your hands each time you go to the bathroom. Open up a window(s) if you are painting or using some other odorized product. Do not use electrical appliances (e.g., hair dryer/blower) in the bathtub because you might get an electrical shock. Don’t sit too close to the television while watching programming as you may compromise your eyesight. Do not talk during a movie in a movie theater and do not use electronic devices for any reason during a movie at a movie theater. Shower daily. Don’t fall asleep while eating.

218                           

 

Appendix A “Common, Common Sense” Don’t fall asleep drunk with your shoes on as you can be subject to a drunk shaming. Don’t sleep with your contacts in. Don’t run across a wet floor after it has just been mopped. If your shoes are dirty, take them off and leave them outside the door (or put them on a mat inside the doorway). Don’t fall asleep in class. Don’t fall asleep at work. Don’t drink cleaning products. Flush the toilet after using it. (In drought areas, however, there is a saying, “If it’s yellow, let it mellow; if its brown, flush it down!”) Don’t yell “fire” inside any building. Set your phone to “airplane” mode when flying. Taking one’s medication responsibly is a matter of common sense. Turn off all lights and appliances when you leave your home. Grab the curling iron by the handle, not the metal part if it’s hot. Don’t put soap in your eyes or mouth. Don’t leave the refrigerator or freezer door open. Don’t cheat on exams or you risk getting caught and expelled from school. Don’t stay out late if you have a test the next day or an important work meeting/presentation. Don’t place plastic objects atop your toaster oven. Don’t carry on a conversation while at the movie theater. Don’t stick your fingers in the fan. If you are offered extra points for an extra credit assignment, do it! At work, if you are offered extra money for completing an extra project weigh that money against your family time constraints. Don’t lie under oath. Don’t lie on an employment application. If you are a male, be sure to lift the toilet seat prior to peeing. When traveling on a bus, train or plane, be sure to close the bathroom door when you use it. Don’t let your children run around a restaurant. If you cannot control them, you shouldn’t take them out to a public restaurant. This principle applies when you visit friends and family for dinner too; keep your children under control. (Then again, keep the adults under control too!) Greet your spouse/live-in significant other with a kiss every morning and evening. Do not set the microwave timer for a time far longer than needed as you may create a mess inside the microwave or items may create a fire.

Outdoors/Out of the Home: 

Do not smoke while pumping gas. In fact, do not smoke anywhere near a gas station.

Appendix A “Common, Common Sense”                                 

219

Don’t drink and drive. If it’s raining outside wear a rain jacket or bring an umbrella. Wear a life jacket if boating. Take precautions near any body of water if you cannot swim. Do not approach or agitate wild animals. Wear sunscreen if you are going to be outdoors for a length of time. Look both ways before crossing a street. Don’t go out in public in the nude. Put gas in your car when the indicator light comes on. Check the engine when the check engine light comes on. Wear warm clothes if it is cold outside; wear lighter clothes when it is hot outside. Don’t walk in front of moving vehicle because you could get seriously hurt. Don’t play outside during a lightning storm. Wear sunglasses when it is sunny. Don’t talk to strangers. Do not walk out of a store with an item(s) that you have not paid for as this is a crime. Don’t stick your tongue to a metal flag pole when it is freezing cold outside as it will stick and it will hurt removing it. Look behind you when backing up your car (or use the car screen with backup cameras/sensors). Put the cap back on your pen or marker after using it or you risk it drying up. Don’t stand under a tree during a lightning storm. (Get cover indoors or in your car.) Don’t walk on thinning ice (of a pond, river, or lake). Wear bright colors if you are walking in the woods during hunting season, hunters too should wear bright colors. Don’t try to put on make-up on while driving your car. Don’t walk by yourself at night or in a deserted area. Don’t fall asleep behind the wheel of a car. Although we live in the age of Uber and Lyft, be wary of taking rides from strangers. Don’t spit into the wind. Don’t yell “hijack” or “bomb” at the airport. Drive on the proper side of the road—if you visit a foreign country, they may drive on the “other” side of the road. Abide by all traffic laws. Don’t eat the yellow or brown snow! Walk with the flow of pedestrians on the sidewalk. Drive at a reasonable speed (with the flow of traffic or abiding by the speed limits). Don’t eat things in the wild if you are not sure what they are.

220             



Appendix A “Common, Common Sense” Use proper eyewear if you are going to watch an eclipse. Don’t walk down the middle of a street, busy or not. Turn the snow blower off before putting your hand near it. Turn off the lawnmower before you put your hand in to clear the blades. Don’t stare at the sun. Pull over when an emergency vehicle has its flashing lights on. Don’t try to beat the train across the railroad tracks when the crossing lights are already on and/or the crossing gate is down. Don’t urinate on an electric fence. Don’t fly a kite under power lines. Never throw trash out your car window, or throw trash on the ground while you are walking. Just don’t litter! Don’t build a meth lab in the basement of your house. Do not attempt a 90 degree turn while traveling at 50 miles per hour. If you moved four months ago but did not fill out a change of address form do not expect to receive the mail and do not expect the U.S. Post Office to know how to forward your mail (this story came from U.S. Post Office clerk). If a place of business (i.e., the U.S. Post Office) provides a carpet for people waiting in line, use it! Don’t stand on the floor next to the carpet with your wet and potentially muddy shoes making the floor dangerous and in need of mopping.

Indoors/Outdoors:                

Don’t smoke, perhaps the most obvious example of abiding by common sense. Heed all warning signs. In case of an emergency, call 911. Don’t have unprotected sex. Murdering someone is wrong. Open a door before trying to walk through it. Wear shoes when it is cold. Don’t eat raw meat because you could get seriously ill. Don’t play with fire as you may hurt yourself or others. Take the cap off the pen before trying to use it. Chew your food carefully (and take small-sized bites) so that you do not choke. Don’t eat food wrappers. Rest your eyes after staring at an electronic device screen for 30 minutes at a time. Tie your shoe laces so that you don’t trip and fall. Don’t swing a baseball bat near someone as you might hurt them. Don’t shove foreign objects into parts of your body as you might harm yourself.

Appendix A “Common, Common Sense”                                  

221

Don’t walk backwards with your eyes closed. Don’t talk or laugh with your mouth full as it is rude and gross and you could choke. Look both ways before crossing a street or a hallway as some sort of danger could be lurking anywhere. Feed your pets. If you drop food on the ground or on the floor do not eat it—there is no such thing as the “five-second rule”! Cover your mouth when you cough. Do not use your electronic devices at a professional talk, during church, at a theater, and so on. Don’t run with scissors. Do not wear casual clothing to a formal event. Lock your door when you leave your home and when you go to sleep at night. Be nice to the wait staff at a restaurant. Be sure to tip (if you are in one of those countries where tipping is still expected!) Think before you speak. Don’t put a plastic bag over your head. Don’t stand on the top step of a ladder. Don’t lean against wet paint. Don’t leave burning candles near curtains. Use proper manners. Don’t use vulgar language that might offend people. Don’t cut lines, wait your turn. Wear proper footwear if you are working at a construction site. Everyone should wear proper footwear in a construction zone. Don’t eat food that is spoiled. Don’t shake a baby. Always count your change. If you make a bank deposit be sure to check the receipt to make sure the money was deposited into your account. Don’t eat a big meal just prior to a strenuous sporting event (that you are participating in). Don’t try to fix something that isn’t broke. Don’t show up for class or work drunk or wasted. Pregnant women should not drink alcohol or take recreational drugs. Make sure that all smoke detectors are operational. Make sure your cigarette is put out before you dispose of it. Keep your guns safely locked, especially if you have small children. Don’t hit on the sister/brother of your girlfriend/boyfriend. Don’t hit on your girlfriend/boyfriend’s roommate. If you are a diplomat, don’t vomit on your host. If you receive a gift from someone always be gracious if you do not really like the present … be polite.

Appendix B “Tim-isms”

“Tim-isms” are a listing of my own bits of sage advice regarding common sense based on my own experiences and travels and within the tradition of “Yogi-isms” (discussed in Chapter 5).              

The only thing you can control in life is how you react to things you cannot control. If you are engaged in covert activity, don’t announce it. When necessary, enact legislation (e.g., helmet laws and anti-distracted driving laws) on matters of behaviors that should be common sense to all. While it is nice to be street-smart, don’t forget about being knowledgebased smart. While it is nice to be book-smart, don’t forget about utilizing common, common sense. Pursuing a love interest with someone who only sees you as a friend, or worse, wants nothing to do with you, is a violation of common sense. Assholes are universal (in other words, wherever you go in the world, you will find some people who are assholes). Never trust a sports mascot (as you never know what they might do at your expense in order to get a laugh from the audience). Home team fans will be nicer to visiting fans during tailgating (and in the shops and restaurants prior to the game) if they do not perceive the visiting team to be a threat to the home team. You cannot put toothpaste back in the tube (no matter how hard you try!). If a bear is trying to take your food (e.g., at a campsite), let it do it! Do not approach the bear and try to shoo it away. Put on sunscreen when outdoors for any length of time, especially if you are at the beach or working outdoors for a length of time Everyone wants to feel like they got a good deal (and this is one reason why most people dread negotiating with car salespersons). Don’t use dish soap to wash a car as an abrasive soap on something like car paint accelerates the oxidation process and gives the car a dull look. Dish soap will also break down a car’s wax coat and it is rough on rubber.

Appendix B “Tim-isms”   

           



     

223

If you are in the desert, be careful when picking up a rock as a souvenir as there may be a scorpion or poisonous snake underneath. Naked and afraid may be a reality TV show but it really occurs every time you try to figure how to use a shower in a new hotel or friend’s house. A bank branch in the inner city is busier than in a wealthy area a few miles down the street because wealthy people are far more likely to bank online. However, the air-conditioning is better in the wealthier bank branch. The décor will be about the same if the bank branches are of the same parent bank. Don’t walk barefoot on a sidewalk with the temperature is hot (Palm Springs/Furnace, a woman did this in 112 degree weather on June 20, 2017). Don’t start a fight with a rabid raccoon, or any other wild animal for that matter. Good friends always have each other’s backs. Electronic friendships are better than no friendships at all but face-to-face relationships are better. Cyber flirting is still flirting. Winning at fantasy sports is not the same as winning at real sports. Someone who only participates in fantasy sports is not an athlete. In order to be happy, one must first not be unhappy. The U.S. “Declaration of Independence” guarantees Americans the right to pursue happiness; it does not guarantee that Americans will be happy. Participating in pleasurable intentional activities make us happy. It is better to have good health than poor health. If you go to the beach with small children or inexperienced swimmers it is common sense to find a place on the beach near a life guard tower just in case an emergency arises (whether it involves swimming or sunbathing on the beach). In this day and age wherein everyone tries to shorten their messages by using abbreviations or emojis, it is common sense for people to use the term “edress” instead of “email address” and for years I have been saying “edress” while no one else does. Why?! It is common sense to edress! (Even my spell check does not like “edress”!) Wherever you go in life, there you are. If a wild animal charges at you, take evasive action. Just because you are wearing a super hero cape does not mean you can fly. Do not wear rival gang colors in another gang’s territory. Always use the bathroom, even if you are not sure you really need to go, prior to taking any length of trip as you never know when you may encounter a traffic jam. If you are going to jump out of a plane, be sure you are wearing a parachute.

224                 



 

Appendix B “Tim-isms” Never purposively antagonize your supervisor/boss/employer or your significant other. Put your car in park before exiting. And, if you have a keyless ignition don’t forget to turn the car off before you get out of the car. Before diving into a pool, make sure there is water in it. Don’t promise something that you have no control over or that you cannot provide. Train engineers, drivers-for-hire, and pilots should not be among the distracted drivers. You cannot lose weight if you eat all day and never exercise. You do not need to water a plastic plant. If you are traveling overseas, be sure to bring your passport. There is a better chance of having more space/room on a long bus ride if you go to the back of the bus because most people grab the first seat that is open. If attending a large meeting with table seating that faces all directions (e.g., a round table or a square/rectangle table) be sure to sit on the side of the table that faces the speaker so that you don’t have to sit awkwardly. If a hotel is using piping for the towel rack be sure to warn guests that when the hot water is turned on those pipes get extremely hot. Shower and sink operations are not universal. Hotels should always include directions on the wall so that patrons know how to use the faucets and shower. Be sure to carry the address of your hotel when you go out for the night. I grab a business card from the front desk and carry it with me whenever I leave the hotel while traveling. An extension cord is not necessary for a cordless drill. If you pull the pin from a grenade, throw it! Car manufacturers should not create a car (Dodge Dart!) that uses a keyless ignition and requires you to push the “Panic” button on the dashboard. And if a car rental place is going to use such a car, please inform your customers! Car manufacturers should not use a keyless ignition system period. Where are drivers supposed to place the rest of their keys (that are with the keyless device)? And, keyless ignitions often result in drivers leaving their car with it still running because there was no reminder to turn it off as there would be if the keys were in the ignition. If you are hosting a large academic conference it is best not to have as one of your topical area organizers a person who is on a one-year sabbatical. If you use a leaf blower on a rainy day and the leaves are soaking wet, don’t expect the leaf blower to do its job properly. Also, save the environment and rake the leaves instead of using a leaf blower in the first place.

Appendix B “Tim-isms”       

  



225

If you write checks, be sure to keep your checkbook balanced. If the garbage bin is already full beyond capacity don’t place more garbage on top or leave it on the ground next to it. Don’t burn candles if you have the window(s) open on a windy day. Shooting your gun at a hurricane will not impede its progress. It is pointless to use a leaf blower during a hurricane. It is also pointless to use a leaf blower on wet leaves stuck to the sidewalk. You don’t need a recipe for bacon-wrapped hot dogs. If you work in the service industry that involves writing customers’ names down on an order or cup to go, be mindful that the customers can see what you wrote and may not be pleased by your clever “memory tricks” (e.g., insulting nicknames/descriptions) as a means to keep track of orders. Never bring glass to the beach. If a man is asked by his girlfriend or wife, “Does this outfit make me look fat?” tread carefully! And, don’t say something like, “Sort of,” or “It’s not the clothing it’s your rolls of fat that make you look fat.” If the hotel check-in person offers you a complimentary glass of champagne, you should not chug it at the check-in desk, rather, you should bring it to your room with you. Then again, if you do chug it, you might get a second glass! If a restaurant server brings dinner rolls or biscuits (such as those delicious Cheddar Bay biscuits at Red Lobster) to a patron’s table, bring the same number of biscuits, or a number equally divisible, as there are patrons at the table; in other words, why bring three biscuits to a table of two people?

Appendix C “Common, Uncommon Sense”

At Home/Indoors:  

                     

Politicians who do not read the legislation that they vote on. A young person responds to a parent’s question, “What did you do last night?” with “I don’t know, I was too drunk to remember” is a violation of common sense. Telling the police that you are too drunk to understand their questions is not advisable either. Bringing illegal objects to the airport. Reaching into a blender/garbage disposal. Not showering on a daily basis. Touching a hot pan/plate. Sticking something metal in the microwave. Eating cereal with a fork/using the improper utensil in general is a violation of common sense. Putting your hand over the stove with the flame on. Plugging in an excessive number of appliances in one socket. Trying to force an American-made product appliance into a European/ Asian wall socket. Going to sleep with contact lenses in your eyes. Drinking household cleaning products. Changing a light bulb while it is turned on. Talking loudly in a library. Yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater. Not putting medicine out of the reach of children violates common sense. Forgetting to use dish soap when washing dishes. This is more likely to be common sense among older folks because these appliances are not in vogue now, but washing cast iron pots and pans with dish soap violates common sense because it will ruin them. Telling your professor/parents that you cheated on an exam. Putting candles on a Christmas tree. Grabbing a hot curling iron. Not flushing the toilet after using it. Using household appliances while in the bathtub.

Appendix C “Common, Uncommon Sense”              

227

Running with scissors and other sharp objects. The unattended cooking of food on a stove. Touching a light bulb that is on to see if it’s hot. Lifting heavy weights without a spotter. Leaving the water running in the shower even though you have finished washing. Talking/texting while the movie is playing at a movie theater. Not leaving a tip to the waiter/waitress at a restaurant (in the US). Hiding your gun in the oven. Jumping into a moving ceiling fan. Sticking a knife in the toaster to get the stuck toast out prior to unplugging it. Setting off fireworks indoors. Not regularly attending class and expecting a high grade. Not regularly attending work and expecting a promotion. Standing by a window during an earthquake. Buying cigarettes or alcohol for kids.

Outdoors/Out of the Home:                  

Harming the environment in any manner. Driving distracted (e.g., texting and driving). To avoid violating common sense one must not do stupid or dumb things. Failing to heed the potential wrath of any storm, but especially a severe one, is a violation of common sense. Taking the trash outdoors to a communal trash bin without wearing shoes. Putting coins/paper currency in your mouth. Keeping your car running while pumping gas. Smoking while pumping gas. Leaving your car window(s) down while it’s raining. Putting your tongue on a car battery terminal. Turning a running lawnmower upside down to see what is jamming the blade and reaching in to clear debris. Riding up close behind a standard-transmission car while on a steep hill (standard-transmission cars roll back and especially on steep hills). Sticking your tongue to a metal pole. Riding a bicycle with no brakes, especially down a hill. Disobeying traffic laws (e.g., speeding, running stop signs, not wearing a seat belt). Not looking both ways before crossing a street. Swimming during an electric storm. If your car is covered in snow, brush it off before going on the road—and not just the windshield but the side windows, back window, and the roof of the car.

228                            

Appendix C “Common, Uncommon Sense” Wearing flip-flops without socks in the winter. Putting water in your gas tank. Not getting the proper amount of sleep. Walking on railroad tracks while wearing head phones and listening to music or talking to someone on the phone. Standing on a chair with a broken leg. Driving the wrong direction at a drive-through restaurant. Putting on make-up while driving an automobile. Walking on thin ice. Walking through an active construction site. Hitch-hiking. Putting an RV on cruise control and leaving the wheel to make a sandwich. Flying a kite during a thunder and lightning storm. Wearing all dark clothing while out walking at night in the dark defies common sense. Going rock climbing by yourself. Eating berries or mushrooms from the wild that you have no idea whether they are poisonous or not. Going into rival gang territory while wearing you own gang’s colors. Driving on a freshly paved driveway or roadway before it has a chance to dry. Getting into a car with a stranger. Running through a bonfire. Jumping off the top of a tall building. Not wearing shower shoes in public showers. Peeing on an electric fence to see how it feels. Playing in traffic. Jumping in front of a moving bus. Trying to drown a fish in the lake defies common sense. Putting diesel fuel in a car that uses unleaded gasoline. Trying to learn how to surf even though you do not know how to swim. Parking in front of fire hydrants.

Indoors/Outdoors:   



Smoking is a violation of common sense as it is the leading cause of preventable deaths in the United States. Smoking while pumping gas is a particular violation of common sense. Exposing one’s skin to an excessive amount of UV rays via tanning. While it is true some people win when they gamble, most people do not; this is especially true with Las Vegas and Las Vegas-style casinos. The house always has the edge, as evidenced by the many multi-billion-dollar casino and hotels in existence. If you are going to make a statue to honor someone from the past, make sure the clothing is era-appropriate. At Syracuse University, for example,

Appendix C “Common, Uncommon Sense”

                                    

229

a statue of football star Ernie Davis (the first African American to win the Heisman Trophy) included him wearing a pair of Nike cleats. Nike did not exist when Davis played football. Forgetting your mom or spouse’s birthday. Dating your best friend’s significant other. Falling asleep with gum in your mouth. Wearing sandals with socks. Walking around with your shoe laces untied. Punching a wall because you are angry. Not replenishing fluids after a rigorous workout. Putting a plastic bag over your own, or someone else’s, head. Not wearing safety goggles while cutting wood or metal with any type of tool. Looking at someone who is reading a book and asking them what they are doing. Eating raw or undercooked meat. Eating food too quickly without properly chewing as it may cause you to choke. Dropping your cellphone into a liquid container. Calling 911 when it is not an emergency. Getting drunk or high before going to work or class. Trying to take food away from an animal while it is eating. Eating food that is past its use-by date. Calling in sick to work/class and then going out that night to a place where your supervisor/professor may be. Calling someone while you are drunk/angry. Making a pipe bomb in your garage (a student told me this one!). Forgetting to open a door before entering/exiting a room/building. Ignoring warning signs, such as “high voltage.” Committing a crime in full view of a police officer. Cleaning a loaded gun. Picking a fight with someone who is much bigger and stronger than you. Drinking or eating any unknown substance, especially if it was given to you by a stranger. Tanning with your clothes on. Continuing to eat even when you are full. Taking a deep breath while you are under water. Volunteering to remove a bees’ nest when you are allergic to bees. Diving in shallow water. Shaking a baby. Cursing at a police officer. Using a hammer to put in a screw. Wearing four-inch heels the night after you get off crutches. Throwing objects out of your window. Smashing a beer bottle over the side of your head.

230            

Appendix C “Common, Uncommon Sense” Looking through your neighbors’ mail to find coupons, or to snoop about their private business. Throwing a ball, or any other object, at someone who is not paying attention. Knowingly eating something you are allergic to in order to see what happens. Making prank phone calls to a person with caller ID. Stealing from your employer. Pushing a door that is clearly labeled “pull.” Inviting someone out to dinner but not having the money to pay for the meal, or expecting your guest to pay for the meal. Showing up at a dinner party but failing to bring a gift to the host, such as a bottle of wine or dessert. Peeing in a swimming pool. Letting your three-year-old child smoke cigarettes as a British woman was found guilty of doing is a clear violation of common sense (The Post-Standard 2009a). Not calling 911 for your dying daughter because your cell phone is low on minutes is a major violation of common sense but actually occurred in San Antonio, Texas on September 5, 2017 (Burke 2017). Don’t hide your illegal drugs in your toddler’s clothing or baby stroller and if then caught by law enforcement claim that the drugs belong to your toddler. (There are many examples of variations of this example of uncommon sense including a case in Syracuse in May, 2017, when police found several envelopes of heroin on a motorist who then claimed they belonged to his five-year-old son.)

Bibliography

AAA. 2017. “Distracted Driving.” Retrieved July 14, 2017 (https://exchange.aaa.com/ safety/distracted-driving/#.W55msPlReM8). ABC Science. 2017. “How Often Do Solar Eclipses Occur?” Retrieved July 9, 2017 (www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/11/06/3624600.htm). Aboulafia, Mitchell. 1986. The Mediating Self: Mead, Sartre, and Self-Determination. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Adams, Bert and R.A. Sydie. 2001. Sociological Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. American History. 2012. “A Biography of Thomas Paine (1737–1809).” Retrieved July 17, 2017 (www.let.rug.nl/usa/biographies/thomas-paine/). American Tailgater Association. 2014. “History of Tailgating: A Time Honored Tradition.” Retrieved June 8, 2014 (http://americantailgaterassociation.org/news.histor y-tailgating-time-honored- tradition/). Anderson, Elizabeth. 2015. “Teenagers Spend 17 Hours a Week Online: How Internet Use has Ballooned in the Last Decade.” Telegraph, May 11. Retrieved December 14, 2015 (www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/ digital-media/11597743/Teenagers-spend-27-hours-a-week-online-how-internet). Andrews, Tom. 2015. “Awareness of Dying Remains Relevant After Fifty Years.” Grounded Theory Review, 2. Retrieved August 4, 2017 (http://groundedtheoryreview. com/2015/12/19/awareness-of-dying-remains- relevant-after-fifty-years/). Andryszewski, Tricia. 2008. Mass Extinctions: Examining the Current Crisis. Minneapolis, MN: Twenty-First Century Books. Answer.com. 2017. “How Often do Lunar and Solar Eclipses Occur?” Retrieved July 9, 2017 (www.answers.com/Q/How_often_do_lunar_and_solar_eclipses_occur?#sli de=1). Ashcraft, Richard. 1987. Locke’s Two Treatises of Government. London: Allen & Unwin. Associated Press. 2006. “Did You See?” As it appeared in The Post-Standard, May 18. Auto Week. 2017. “Court Deposition: NASCAR Star Tony Stewart Tried to Avoid Kevin Ward Before Hitting Him.” Retrieved September 17, 2017 (http://autoweek. com/article/monster-energy-nascar-cup/court-deposition-nascar-star-tony-stewart-tri ed-avoid-kevin-ward). Baber, Kristine and Colleen I. Murray. 2001. “A Postmodern Feminist Approach to Teaching Human Sexuality.” Family Relations, 50(1): 23–31. Baker, Chris. 2018. “Large Gap in White, Black Incomes.” The Post-Standard, May 20: A1, A16.

232

Bibliography

Baker, Rosalie F. and Charles F.BakerIII, 1997. Ancient Greeks: Creating the Classical Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baldwin, John. 1986. George Herbert Mead: A Unifying Theory for Sociology. Beverly Hills: Sage. Barnosky, Anthony D., Nicholas Matzke, Susumu Tomiya, Guinevere O.U. Wogan, Brian Swartz, Tiago B. Quental, Charles Marshall, Jenny L. McGuire, Emily L. Lindsey, Kaitlin C. Maguire, Ben Mersey, and Elizabeth A. Ferrer. 2011. “Has the Earth’s Sixth Mass Extinction Already Arrived?” Sierra, 80(6): 51–57. Baudrillard, Jean. 1983. Simulations. New York: Semiotext(e). Baudrillard, Jean. 1994. Simulacra and Simulation, translated by Sheila Faria Glaser. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Bauman, Zygmunt. 2017. Retrotopia. Cambridge: Polity. BBC. 2009. “Christmas.” Retrieved July 2, 2017 (www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/ christianity/holydays/christmas_1.shtml). BBC. 2014a. “Languages across Europe: Russia.” Retrieved July 1, 2017 (www.bbc.co. uk/languages/european_languages/countries/russia.shtml). BBC. 2014b. “Languages across Europe: Greece.” Retrieved July 1, 2017 (www.bbc.co. uk/languages/european_languages/countries/greece.shtml). BBC. 2014c. “History: Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632–1723).” Retrieved October 15, 2017 (www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/van_leeuwenhoek_antonie.shtml). BBC. 2016. “13 of the World’s Most Stupid Criminals.” April 4. Retrieved September 20, 2017(www.bbc.com/news/uk-35785834). BBC. 2018. “EU Referendum: Results.” Retrieved April 22, 2018(www.bbc.com/ news/politics/eu_referendum/results). Becker, Howard S. 2010 [1963]. “Labeling Theory,” pp. 39–41 in Readings in Deviant Behavior, edited by Alex Thio, Thomas C. Calhoun and Addrain Conyers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Becker, Maki. 2017. “Car with Ax in Roof, No Doors Leads to Driving While on Drugs Arrest.” Buffalo News, July 26: C10. Bell, J. Bowyer. 1987. To Play the Game. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Bertram, Bonnie. 2013. “Storm Still Brews Over Scalding Coffee.” New York Times, October 25. Retrieved September 18, 2017 (www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/booming/ storm-still-brews-over-scalding- coffee.html). Big Think. 2017. “SAP Sapphire Now Video (Full).” Retrieved August 26, 2017 (http://bigthink.com/videos/sap-sapphire-now-video-full). Biography.com. 2017. “Yogi Berra.” Retrieved August 19, 2017 (www.biography.com/p eople/yogi-berra-9210325). Biography.com. 2018. “Bertrand Russell: Philosopher, Mathematician, Journalist, Anti-War Activist (1872–1970).” Retrieved April 28, 2018 (www.biography.com/p eople/bertrand-russell-40493). Blackson, Thomas A. 2011. Ancient Greek Philosophy: From the Presocratics to the Hellenistic Philosophers. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Blumer, Herbert. 1937. “Social Psychology,” pp. 44–98 in Man and Society, edited by Emerson P. Schmidt. New York: Prentice Hall. BME240. 2018. “Developments in Robotic Surgery and Types of Robotic Surgery Machines.” Retrieved May 20, 2018 (http://bme240.eng.uci.edu/students/10s/sgupta 1/Developments.html).

Bibliography

233

Bordo, Susan. 1990. “Feminism, Postmodernism, and Gender-Scepticism,” pp. 133– 156 in Feminism/Postmodernism, edited by L. Nicholson. New York: Routledge. Bostrom, Nick. 2003. “The Transhumanist FAQ.” World Transhumanist Association. Retrieved May 18, 2018 (https://nickbostrom.com/views/transhumanist.pdf). Branson-Potts, Hailey. 2015. “After Oklahoma City Bombing, McVeigh’s Arrest Almost Went Unnoticed.” Los Angeles Times, April 19. Retrieved September 30, 2017 (www. latimes.com/nation/la-na-oklahoma-city-bombing-20150419- story.html). Brasovean, I., I. Oronian, C. Ideran, C. Oroian-Mihai, A. Fleseriu, and P. Burduhos. 2010. “Legislative Framework and Objectives of Medical Waste Manag.” Pro Environment, 3: 301–304. Bremmer, Ian. 2018. Us vs. Them: The Failure of Globalism. New York: Portfolio/ Penguin. Brown, Elizabeth A.R. 2017. “Feudalism.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved July 1, 2017 (www.britannica.com/topic/feudalism). Brown, Theodore M. and Elizabeth Fee. 2002. “Walter Bradford Cannon: Pioneer Physiologist of Human Emotions.” American Journal of Public Health, 92(10): 1594–1595. Burke, John. 2011. “Golf Etiquette: The 15 Strangest Unwritten Rules in the Sport.” Bleacher Report, March 23. Retrieved August 26, 2017 (www.bleacherreport.com/a rticles/640724-golf-etiquette-the-15-strangest- unwritten-rules-in-the-sport). Burke, Minyvonne. 2017. “Mom Didn’t Call 911 for Dying Daughter Because of ‘Low Minutes’.” New York Daily News, September 28. Retrieved October 1, 2017 (www.nyda ilynews.com/news/crime/mom-didn-call-911-dying-daughter- minutes-article-1.3527535). Burleigh, Nina. 2018. “Trump Speaks at Fourth-Grade Level, Lowest of Last 15 U.S. Presidents, New Analysis Finds.” Newsweek, January 8. Retrieved March 2, 2018 (www.newsweek.com/trump-fire-and-fury-smart-genius-obama-774169). Cannon, Walter B. 1915. Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear and Rage. New York: Appleton. Cassingham, Randy. 2005. The True Stella Awards: Honoring Real Cases of Greedy Opportunists, Frivolous Lawsuits, and the Law Run Amok. New York: Penguin. Castoriadis, Cornelius. 1975. The Imaginary Institution of Society, translated by Kathleen Blarney. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved May 2, 2018 (http://base. mayfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/cornelius-castoriadis-the-imaginary-institu tion.pdf). Castoriadis, Cornelius. 1997. World in Fragments: Writings on Politics, Society, Psychoanalysis, and the Imagination, edited and translated by David Ames Curtis. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Catton, W.R. 1980. Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. CBS This Morning. 2017. “The Road Less Traveled.” Original air date, June 28. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2011. “A Report of the Surgeon General: How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease.” Retrieved September 21, 2017 (www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2010/consumer_booklet/pdfs/co nsumer.pdf). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2016. “Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults in the United States.” Retrieved September 21, 2017 (www.cdc. gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/ index.htm). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2017a. “Smoking & Tobacco Use.” Retrieved September 22, 2017 (www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_ sheets/fast_facts/index.htm).

234

Bibliography

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2017b. “Self-directed Violence and Other Forms of Self-Injury.” Retrieved September 22, 2017 (www.cdc.gov/ ncbddd/disabilityandsafety/self-injury.html). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2017c. “Indoor Tanning Is Not Safe.” Retrieved September 22, 2017 (www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/basic_info/indoor_ta nning.htm). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2017d. “Motor Vehicle Safety: Distracted Driving.” Retrieved September 23, 2017 (www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesa fety/distracted_driving/index.html). Charon, Joel M. 1989. Symbolic Interactionism, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. The Citizen. 2010. “Robbers Called Bank for Money to Go.” March 25: A2. The Citizen. 2011. “Hole-In-The-Floor Ashtray Causes Fire.” February 3: A2. The Citizen. 2016. “Dumb Bank Robber Going to Prison.” March 16: A-2. Clark, Rosemary. 2000. The Sacred Tradition in Ancient Egypt: The Esoteric Wisdom Revealed. Woodbury, MN: Llewellyn. Cockerham, William. 1995. The Global Society. New York: McGraw-Hill. Collins, Randall. 2000. “The Sociology of Philosophies: A Precis.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 30(2): 157–201. Collins, Randall. 2005. Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Consumer Reports. 2014. “Extended Car Warranties: An Expensive Gamble: The Majority of Buyers Never Use the Coverage.” February 28. Retrieved July 30, 2017 (www.consumerreports.org/extended-warranties/extended-car-warranties-an-expensi ve-gamble/). Cooley, Charles Horton. 1909. Social Organization. New York: Scribner. Corwin, Jeff. 2009. “The Sixth Extinction.” Los Angeles Times, November 30. Retrieved September 24, 2017 (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/30/opinion/la -oe-corwin30-2009nov30). Cowell, Alan. 2017. “Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Ex-President of Iran, Dies at 82.” New York Times, January 8. Retrieved July 4, 2017 (www.nytimes.com/ 2017/01/08/world/middleeast/ayatollah-rafsanjani- dead.html). Crehan, Kate. 2016. Gramsci’s Common Sense: Inequality and Its Narratives. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Croyle, Johnathan. 2017. “Bookstore Employees Guilty of Selling ‘Smut.’” The PostStandard, August 10: A2. Crumley, Jack S.II 2016. Introducing Philosophy: Knowledge and Reality. Tonawanda, NY: Broadview. Culliford, Larry. 2011. “What is Spirituality?” Psychology Today, March 5. Retrieved July 2, 2017(www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spiritual-wisdom-secular- times/201103/ what-is-spirituality). Curran, Daniel and Claire Renzetti. 1994. Theories of Crime. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Daniels, Norman. 1974. Thomas Reid’s Inquiry. New York: Burt Franklin & Co. Danxner. 2017. “The Influence of the Roman Empire.” Retrieved July 1, 2017 (www. danxner.com/extramaterials/art003/Final_Project/Influences.htm). Darwin, Charles. 1999 [1859]. The Origin of Species. New York: Bantam. DarwinAwards.com. 2017. “Darwin Awards.” Retrieved September 17, 2017 (http://da rwinawards.com/darwin/). De Bary, William Theodore, and Irene Bloom. 1999. Sources of Chinese Tradition, Vol. 1, 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bibliography

235

De Beauvoir, Simone. 1949. The Second Sex, introduction by Judith Thurman; translated by Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany Chevallier. Paris: Gallimard. Deely, John. 1994. New Beginnings: Early Modern Philosophy and Postmodern Thought. Buffalo, NY: University of Toronto Press. Delaney, Tim. 2001. Community, Sport and Leisure. Auburn, NY: Legend Books. Delaney, Tim. 2004. Classical Social Theory: Investigation and Application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall/Pearson. Delaney, Tim. 2005. Contemporary Social Theory: Investigation and Application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall/Pearson. Delaney, Tim. 2006. Seinology: The Sociology of Seinfeld. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Delaney, Tim. 2010. “Humanism and Sportsmanship in an Uncivil Society.” The International Journal of the Humanities, 8(1): 23–32. Delaney, Tim. 2012. Connecting Sociology to Our Lives. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Delaney, Tim. 2014a. Classical and Contemporary Social Theory: Investigation and Application. New York: Pearson. Delaney, Tim. 2014b. American Street Gangs, 2nd ed. New York: Pearson. Delaney, Tim. 2017. Social Deviance. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Delaney, Tim and Daria Gorlova. 2018. “Explaining How Happiness is Attained,” pp. 57–65 in A Global Perspective on Friendship & Happiness, with a foreword by Sean Moran, edited by Tim Delaney and Tim Madigan. Wilmington, DE: Vernon Press. Delaney, Tim and Tim Madigan. 2014. Beyond Sustainability: A Thriving Environment. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Delaney, Tim and Tim Madigan. 2015. The Sociology of Sports: An Introduction, 2nd ed. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Delaney, Tim and Tim Madigan. 2016. Lessons Learned from Popular Culture. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Delaney, Tim and Tim Madigan. 2017. Friendship and Happiness: And the Connection Between the Two. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Delaney, Tim and Anastasia Malakhova. 2018. “Are Electronic Friendships Real Friendships?” pp. 1–8 in A Global Perspective on Friendship & Happiness, with a foreword by Sean Moran, edited by Tim Delaney and Tim Madigan. Wilmington, DE: Vernon Press. Denzin, Norman K. 1969. “Symbolic Interaction and Ethnomethodology: A Proposed Synthesis.” American Sociological Review, 34(6): 922–934. Deutsch, Morton and Robert M. Krauss. 1965. Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Basic Books. Dewey, John. 1938. Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt & Company. Douglas, Jack D. 1980. Introduction to the Sociologies of Everyday Life. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. du Bois, W.E.B. 1943. “The Realities of Africa.” Foreign Affairs, 21(July). Retrieved May 18, 2018(www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/africa/1943-07- 01/realities-africa). du Bois, W. 1945. Color and Democracy: Colonies and Peace. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company. Durkheim, Émile. 1984 [1893]. The Division of Labor in Society, translated by W.D. Halls. New York: Free Press. Elliott, Anthony. 2002. “The Social Imaginary: A Critical Assessment of Castoriadis’s Psychoanalytic Social Theory.” American Imago, 59(2): 141–170. Encyclopedia.com. 2018. “Postcolonialism.” Retrieved May 18, 2018 (www.encyclop edia.com/arts/educational-magazines/postcolonialism).

236

Bibliography

Encyclopedia Britannica. 2017. “Timothy McVeigh: American Militant.” Retrieved September 30, 2017 (www.britannica.com/biography/Timothy-McVeigh). Everipedia. 2018. “Cornelius Castoriadis.” Retrieved May 2, 2018 (https://everipedia. org/wiki/Cornelius_Castoriadis/). Explorable.com. 2017. “Discovery of Bacteria.” Retrieved October 15, 2017 (https:// explorable.com/discovery-of-bacteria). FactCheck.org. 2016. “Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote.” Retrieved July 1, 2017 (www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular- vote/). Fairtlough, Gerard H. 1991. “Habermas’ Concept of ‘Lifeworld.’” Systems Practice, 4 (6): 547–563. Farganis, James. 2000. Readings in Social Theory, 3rd ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Felski, Rita. 2012. “Critique and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion.” M/C Journal, 15(1). Retrieved May 1, 2018 (http://journal.mediature.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/ view/431). Fire Rescue 1. 2017. “9 Facts About Fire.” Retrieved September 21, 2017 (www.firerescue1. com/fire-products/Firefighter- Accountability/articles/1206336-9-facts-about-fire/). Flat Earth Society. 2016. “About The Flat Earth Society.” Retrieved July 31, 2017 (https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/about-the-society). Fontana, Andrea. 1973. “Labeling Theory Reconsidered,” pp. 177–212 in Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, edited by Howard Becker. New York: Free Press. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2017. “Food Wastage: Key Facts and Figures.” Retrieved September 24, 2017 (www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/ 196402/icode/). Fortune, Robert. 2015. Tito in Ten Short Chapters. Amazon Digital Services. Freeman, William. 1997. Physical Education and Sport in a Changing Society. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Freund, Julien. 1968. The Sociology of Max Weber. New York: Random House. Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Garner, Roberta (ed.). 2000. Social Theory. Orchard Park, NY: Broadview. Gaskin, J.C.A. 1989. Varieties of Unbelief: From Epicurus to Sartre. New York: Macmillan. Gendlin, E.T. 1967. “An Analysis of What is a Thing?” pp. 247–296 in What is a Thing, edited by Martin Heidegger. Chicago: Henry Regnery. Giddens, Anthony. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press. Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press. Giddens, Anthony. 1985. A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. Cambridge: Polity Press. [Reprinted in Peter Kivisto’s Social Theory: Roots and Branches Readings, 2nd ed., 2003.] Giddens, Anthony. 1989. “A Reply to My Critics,” pp. 249–301 in Social Theory of Modern Societies: Anthony Giddens and His Critics, edited by David Held and John B. Thompson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bibliography

237

Gilligan, Carol, Janie Victoria Ward, and Jill McLean Taylor. 1988. Mapping the Moral Domain: A Contribution of Women’s Thinking to Psychological Theory and Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss. 1965. Awareness of Dying. Chicago: Aldine. Go, Julian. 2013. “For a Postcolonial Sociology.” Theory and Society, 42(1): 25–55. Goffman, Erving. 1959. Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Anchor. Gordon, James. 2018. “Trump Speaks at a Fourth-Grade Level According to New Analysis but Linguists Say it may Make Him More ‘Authentic, Relatable and Trustworthy.’” Daily Mail, January 8. Retrieved March 2, 2018 (www.dailymail. co.uk/news/article-5248567/Trump-speaks-fourth-grade-level-according-new-analysi s.html). Graeber, David. 2018. Bullshit Jobs: A Theory. New York: Simon & Schuster. Gramsci, Antonio. [1932] 1975. Letters From Prison: Antonio Gramsci, edited by Lynne Lawner. New York: Harper Colophon. Gramsci, Antonio. [1937] 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart. Grant, S. 2013. “10 Bizarre Things People Believe In.” ListVerse.com, June 12. Retrieved September 4, 2017 (http://listverse.com/2013/06/12/10-bizarre-things-peop le- believe-in/). Gratz, Kim and Alexander Chapman. 2009. Freedom from Self-Harm: Overcoming Self- Injury. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger. Greeka (The Greek Islands Specialists). 2017. “Traditions in Greece.” Retrieved June 29, 2017 (www.greeka.com/greece-culture/traditions/). Griffin, Andrew. 2017. “Solar Eclipse 2017: NASA Issues Safety Guide to People Waiting for the Sun to Disappear.” Independent, July 24. Retrieved July 30, 2017 (www.independent.co.uk/news/science/solar-eclipse-2017-nasa-safety- glasses-guidesun-disappear-eyesight-looking-directly-moon-a7856671.html). Guarant Info Centre. 2017. “The History of Russian Ballet.” Retrieved July 1, 2017 (http://russia-ic.com/culture_art/theatre/155#.WVgWHFGQyM9). Gubrium, Jaber F. and James A. Holstein. 1990. What is Family?Toronto: Mayfield. Habermas, Jurgen. 1976. Legitimation Crisis, translated by Thomas Viertel. London: Heinemann. Habermas, Jurgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1, edited by Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press. Habermas, Jurgen. 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 2, edited by Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press. Habermas, Jurgen. 1997. “Modernity: An Unfinished Project,” pp. 38–55 in Habermas and the Unfinished Project of Modernity, edited by Maurizio Passerin d’Entreves and Seyla Benhabib. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Habib, Rashell. 2017. “George Orwell Knew What Our Future Held.” News.com.au, June 12. Retrieved July 28, 2017 (www.news.com.au/entertainment/books-maga zines/george-orwell-knew-what-our-future-held/news-story/1b33db339627e88e59171 c8d4ffa026d). Hadden, Richard W. 1997. Sociological Theory. Orchard Park, NY: Broadview. Harper, Charles L. 2012. Environment and Society, 5th ed. Boston: Pearson. Heigl, Alex. 2016. “The 9 Dumbest Criminals of 2015.” People.com, October 18. Retrieved September 20, 2017 (http://people.com/crime/the-dumbest-criminalsof-2015/).

238

Bibliography

Helliwell, Cedric and Haifang Huang. 2013. “Comparing the Happiness Effects of Real and On-line Friends.” PLOS, September 3. Retrieved May 20, 2018 (https:// journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0072754). Hewitt, John and Randall Stokes. 1975. “Disclaimers.” American Sociological Review, 40(1): 1–11. Hirschi, Travis. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. History Channel. 2017a. “Vladimir Lenin.” A&E Entertainment. Retrieved July 2, 2017 (www.history.com/topics/vladimir-lenin). History Channel. 2017b. “1992 USSR Established.” A&E Entertainment. Retrieved July 2, 2017 (www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ussr-established). The History Guide. 2009. “Lectures on Ancient and Medieval European History: The Laws of the Twelve Tables.” Retrieved July 1, 2017 (www.historyguide.org/ancient/ 12tables.html). Hole, Christina. 1969. Encyclopedia of Superstitions. Chester Springs, PA: Dufour. Hookway, Christopher. 2002. Truth, Rationality, and Pragmatism. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Humanity Plus. 2017. “Transhumanist FAQ.” Retrieved May 18, 2018 (https://huma nityplus.org/philosophy/transhumanist-faq/). Husserl, Edmund. 1931. Ideas. New York: Macmillan. Husserl, Edmund. 1950 [1913]. Ideem I. The Hague: Martinus Nijholf. Husserl, Edmund. 1964. The Idea of Phenomenology, translated by William P. Alston and George Nakhnikian and introduction by George Nakhnikian. The Hague: Martinus Nijholf. The Independent. 2011. “World’s Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway—Study.” March 7. Retrieved December 23, 2015 (www.independent.co.uk/environment/ worlds-sixth-mass-extinction-may- be-underway-study-2234388html). Institute for Sustainable Communication. 2012. “Plastic Garbage.” Retrieved December 7, 2015(www.sustainablecommunication.org/eco360/what-is-eco360s- causes/pla stic-garbage). The International Commission and Association on Nobility (TICAN). 2016. “Monarchy History.” Retrieved July 3, 2017 (www.nobility- association.com/monarchyhistory.htm). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2017a. “Ancient Greek Philosophy.” Retrieved June 29, 2017 (www.iep.utm.edu/greekphi/). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2017b. “Ancient Greek Skepticism.” Retrieved July 15, 2017 (www.iep.utm.edu/skepanci/). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2017c. “David Hume (1711–1776).” Retrieved July 15, 2017 (www.iep.utm.edu/hume/). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2018. “Paul Ricoeur (1913–2005).” Retrieved May 1, 2018 (www.iep.utm.edu/ricoeur/). James, William. 1907. Pragmatism: A New Name for some Old Ways of Thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. James, William. 1948 [1890]. Principles of Psychology. Cleveland: Word Publishing. Johnson, Peter and Donna Leinwand. 2003. “TV Networks Pull Arnett, Rivera.” USA Today, April 1: 1A. Kaku, Michio. 2016. “Jobs of the Future will be What Robots Can’t Do.” YouTube. Retrieved August 26, 2016 (www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eP7nuZgNqU). Kelemen, Lawrence. 2017. “The History of Christmas.” Retrieved July 2, 2017 (www. simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm#_ftn3).

Bibliography

239

Kellner, Douglas. 1989. Jean Baudrillard: From Marxism to Post Modernism and Beyond. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Kelly, Christopher. 2006. The Roman Empire: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Khan Academy. 2017. “Gallery: How Did the First Humans Live?” Retrieved June 27, 2017 (www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/big-history-project/early- humans/ how-did-first-humans-live/a/gallery-how-did-the-first-humans-live). Kivisto, Peter. 1998. Key Ideas in Sociology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Kivisto, Peter. 2003. Social Theory: Roots and Branches Readings, 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury. Knight, Laurence. 2014. “A Brief History of Plastics, Natural and Synthetic.” BBC News, May 17. Retrieved September 24, 2017 (www.bbc.com/news/magazine27442625). Kornblum, William. 1994. Sociology, 3rd ed. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Krausz, Jen. 2017. “Solar Eclipse Over US This Summer Is a Big Deal—Here’s Why.” Newsmax, March 20. Retrieved July 9, 2017 (www.newsmax.com/TheWire/sola r-eclipse-us- summer/2017/03/20/id/779783/). Kristeva, Julia. 1995. New Maladies of the Soul, translated by Ross Guberman. New York: Columbia University Press. Lavery, David with Sara Lewis Dunne (eds). 2006. Seinfeld, Master of Its Domain: Revisiting Television’s Greatest Sitcom. New York: Continuum. Leno, Jay. 1992. “World’s Dumbest Bank Robber: Leno 1992.” YouTube.com. Retrieved September 30, 2017 (www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWEzX61SuRE). Levin, Donald. 1991. Georg Simmel. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lewis, Mark Edward. 2007. The Early Chinese Empires: Qin and Han. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Library of Congress. 2017. “Creating French Culture.” Retrieved July 4, 2017 (http:// loc.gov/exhibits/bnf/bnf0006.html). Lindsay, Alexander. 1943. Religion, Science, and Society in the Modern World. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Litvak, Mikhail. 2015. If You Want to Be Happy. Rostov-on-Don, Russia: Phoenix (Fenix). Los Angeles Times. 2009. “Couple’s Bragging Catches Up with Them.” September 21: A9. Lovell, Stephen. 2009. The Soviet Union: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford. Lowe, Keith. 2017. “Orwell and Churchill: More Alike Than We Think?” Telegraph, July 28. Retrieved July 28, 2017 (https://uk.style.yahoo.com/orwell-churchill- more-a like-think-160000338.html). Loy, John and Alan Ingham. 1981. “Play, Games, and Sport,” pp. 189–216 in Sport, Culture and Society, edited by John Loy, Gerald Kenyon and Barry McPherson. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger. Lyotard, Jean-Francois. 1993. The Postmodern Explained. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Lyotard, Jean-Francois. 1999 [1984]. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Madrigal, Alexis C. 2018. “What Took Facebook So Long?” The Atlantic, March 18. Retrieved May 21, 2018 (www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/03/fa cebook-cambridge-analytica/555866/).

240

Bibliography

Magnus, P.D. 2008. “Reid’s Defense of Common Sense.” Philosophers’ Imprint, 8(3): 1–14. Malitowska, Anna and Mateusz Bonecki. 2016. “Common Sense and Scientific Inquiry: Remarks on John Dewey’s Philosophy of Educational Progressivism.” Ethics in Progress, 7(1): 184–198. Martin, Bill. 1992. Matrix and Line. Albany: State University of New York Press. Martindale, Don. 1988. The Nature and Types of Sociological Theory. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Mary’s Restaurant and Bed and Breakfast. 2015. “15 Etiquette Rules for Dining at Fancy Restaurants.” Retrieved August 19, 2017 (www.marysfinedining.com/15- eti quette-rules-for-dining-at-fancy-restaurants/). Marx, Karl. [1869] 1963. The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. New York: International Publishers. Mayne, Debby. 2017. “How to Use Utensils at a Formal Dinner.” The Spruce. Retrieved August 19, 2017 (www.thespruce.com/how-to-use-utensils-at-a-formaldinner-1216967). Mayo Clinic. 2017. “Specific Phobias.” Retrieved September 3, 2017 (www.mayoclinic. org/diseases-conditions/specific-phobias/home/ovc- 20253336?p=1). McAndrew, Mike. 2005. “Child Abandoned by Thief, Rescued from Hot Car.” The Post- Standard, June 27: A-1, A-5. McCrum, Robert. 2009. “The Masterpiece That Killed George Orwell.” Guardian, May 9. Retrieved July 28, 2017 (www.theguardian.com/books/2009/may/10/ 1984-george-orwell). McDonnell, Terrence E., Christopher A. Bail, and Iddo Tavory. 2017. “A Theory of Resonance.” Sociological Theory, 35(1): 1–14. Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self & Society, edited and with an introduction by Charles W. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mead, George Herbert. 1938. The Philosophy of the Act. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mead, George Herbert. 1964. Selected Writings, edited by Andrew Reck. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. MedicineNet.com. 2017. “Medical Definition of Photokeratitis.” Retrieved July 20, 2017 (www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=19394). Merton, Robert. 1938. “Social Structure and Anomie.” American Sociological Review, 3(5): 672–682. Meyer, Robinson. 2018. “The Cambridge Analytica Scandal, in 3 Paragraphs.” The Atlantic, March 20. Retrieved May 21, 2018 (www.theatlantic.com/technology/a rchive/2018/03/the-cambridge- analytica-scandal-in-three-paragraphs/556046/). Miller, David. 1973. George Herbert Mead: Self, Language, and the World. Austin: University of Texas Press. Mills, C. Wright. 1940. “Situated Actions and Vocabularies of Motive.” American Sociological Review, 5(6): 904–913. Milmo, Cahal. 2014. “Royal Family Expenses: Taxpayers Pay 56p Each for Upkeep of Monarchy – and Royals Insist its ‘Value for Money.’” Independent, June 25. Retrieved July 2, 2017(www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cost-of-royal-fam ily-rises-twice-as-fast-as-inflation-9563293.html). Mohr, Fred A. 2005. “Drowning Victim Will ‘Always be Hero.’” The Post-Standard, June 13: B-1.

Bibliography

241

Mommsen, Wolfgang and Jurgen Osterhammel (eds). 1987. Max Weber and His Contemporaries. Boston: Allen & Unwin. Monk, Ray. 2018. “Bertrand Russell: British Logician and Philosopher.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved April 28, 2018 (www.britannica.com/biography/Bertra nd-Russell). Moore, G.E. 1925. “A Defence of Common Sense.” Originally appearing in Contemporary British Philosophy (2nd series), edited by J.H. Muirhead. Retrieved July 19, 2017 (www.ditext.com/moore/common-sense.html). Morrison, Helen. 2004. My Life Among the Serial Killers. New York: HarperCollins. Mosher, Catherine E. and Sharon Danoff-Burg. 2010. “Addiction to Indoor Tanning: Relations to Anxiety, Depression, and Substance Use.” Archives of Dermatology, 146(4): 412–417. Mouffe, Chantal (ed.). 1979. Gramsci and Marxist Theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Moutsios, Stavros. 2013. “Imaginary Significations and Education as a Social Institution.” Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(11): 144–149. MSN. 2014. “The World’s Dumbest Auto Thieves.” Retrieved September 20, 2017 (www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/the-world%e2%80%99s-dumbest-auto-thieves/ss-A A2x4Gd). Muehlhauser, Luke. 2010. “Bertrand Russell’s 10 Commandments.” Common Sense Atheism. Retrieved April 28, 2018 (http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=10937). Mulvaney, Dustin and Paul Robbins. 2011. Green Technology: An A-to-Z Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. The Nano Age. 2018. “Transhumanism and Posthumanism.” Retrieved May 18, 2018 (www.thenanoage.com/transhumanism-posthumanism.htm). NASA. 1999. “Eye Safety During Solar Eclipses.” Retrieved July 30, 2017 (https:// eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/safety2.html). NASA. 2013. “NASA Scientists React to 400 ppm Carbon Milestone.” Retrieved February 13, 2018 (https://climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes/). NASA. 2017a. “What Is an Eclipse?” Retrieved July 9, 2017 (www.nasa.gov/audience/ forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-a- supernova.html). NASA. 2017b. “NASA Recommends Safety Tips to View the August Solar Eclipse.” July 21, 2017, press release. Retrieved July 30, 2017(www.nasa.gov/press- release/na sa-recommends-safety-tips-to-view-the-august-solar-eclipse). National Archives. 2018. “British Empire Overview.” Retrieved May 19, 2018 (www. nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/empire/intro/default.htm). National Geographic. 2017. “Deforestation.” Retrieved September 24, 2017 (www.na tionalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/). National Public Radio (NPR). 2011. “Kings (And Queens) Of The World: Where Monarchies Still Exist.” Retrieved July 2, 2017 (www.npr.org/2011/04/26/ 135413612/kings-and-queens-of-the-world- where-monarchies-still-exist). National Safety Council (NSC). 2017. “Ending Distracted Driving is Everyone’s Responsibility.” Retrieved September 23, 2017 (www.nsc.org/learn/NSC- Initiatives/ Pages/distracted-driving.aspx). New World Encyclopedia. 2013. “Etruscan Civilization.” Retrieved July 29, 2017 (www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Etruscan_Civilization). New York Post. 2001. “These Ladies are Victims of Hex Bias.” July 6: 13. Newman, Simon. 2017. “Middle Ages Customs.” The Finer Times. Retrieved July 1, 2017 (www.thefinertimes.com/Middle-Ages/middle-ages-customs.html).

242

Bibliography

NY Canals. 2013. “Welcome to NY Canals: Oswego Canal Locks.” Retrieved August 1, 2017 (www.nycanals.com/Oswego_Canal_Locks). Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 2015. Racial Formation in the United States, 3rd ed. New York: Routledge. Osborne, Hannah. 2015. “Solar Eclipse Apocalypse: How Ancient Civilizations Explained Disappearance of the Sun.” International Business Times, March 18. Retrieved July 9, 2017 (www.ibtimes.co.uk/solar-eclipse-apocalypse-how-ancient-ci vilisations-explained-disappearance-sun-1492508). Oxford English Dictionary. 2018. “Posthumanism.” Retrieved May 18, 2018 (https:// en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/posthumanism). Paine, Thomas. 1997 [1776]. Common Sense. Mineola, NY: Dover. Pampel, Fred. 2000. Sociological Lines and Ideas. New York: Worth. Pfuetze, Paul. 1961. Self, Society and Existence: Human Nature and Dialogue in the Thoughts of George Herbert Mead and Martin Buber. New York: Harper Torch Books. Pinch, Geraldine. 2004. Egyptian Mythology: A Guide to the Gods, Goddesses, and Traditions of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Porter, Sandra J. 2013. “Why Earth’s Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Matter.” The Post- Standard, June 6: A-21. The Post-Standard. 2001. “200 Suspected Witches Hacked to Death in Congo.” July 6: A-4. The Post-Standard. 2004. “Clerics Pray for Rain, Fault Sins, Women for Drought.” April 2: A-9. The Post-Standard. 2005. “Alleged Gas Thief Learns Lighter Was Wrong Tool.” June 3: A-10. The Post-Standard. 2006. “Multitasking Best Done While Standing Still.” May 15: A-6. The Post-Standard. 2007a. “Thruway Traffic Stop Nets $24,000 Worth of Cocaine.” February 26: A-6. The Post-Standard. 2007b. “Driver and Friend Charged While Visiting Suffolk Jail.” February 26: A-6. The Post-Standard. 2008. “Police Say Robber Foiled by Stupidity.” December 30: A-2. The Post-Standard. 2009a. “Mother Sentenced for Letting Boy, 3, Smoke.” January 23: A-6. The Post-Standard. 2009b. “Did You See?” March 26: A-2. The Post-Standard. 2010a. “Man Accused of Stuffing Lizards in Pants.” February 8: A-2. The Post-Standard. 2010b. “Senator: Pull Up Your Pants.” April 4: A-13. (Originally appeared in the New York Times.) The Post-Standard. 2017. “Gas Station Robbery Suspect’s Getaway Car Runs Out of Fuel.” September 17: B-3. Poughkeepsie Journal. 2018. “Reporters Find Breathtaking Scope of Election Meddling: Editorial.” May 15. Retrieved May 20, 2018 (www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/ story/opinion/editorials/2018/05/15/reporters-find-breathtaking-scope-election-medd ling-editorial/612043002/). Rassadina, T.A. 2015. “Internet Addiction: Information-Communicative Aspect.” University Proceedings, Volga Region, Social Sciences, 2(34): 108–109. Reck, Andrew. 1964. Selective Writings: George Herbert Mead. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bibliography

243

Reckless, Walter C. 1961. “A New Theory of Delinquency and Crime.” Federal Probation, 25: 42–46. Reid, Thomas. 2000 [1764]. An Inquiry Into the Human Mind: On the Principles of Common Sense, 4th ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Reynolds, Larry. 1993. Interactionism: Exposition and Critique, 3rd ed. Dix Hills, NY: General Hall. Richetti, Cynthia T. and Benjamin B. Tregoe. 2001. Analytic Processes for School Leaders. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Richter, Felix. 2015. “Americans Use Electronic Media 11+ Hours a Day.” Statista. Retrieved December 14, 2015 (www.statista.com/chart/1971/electronic- media-use/). Ricoeur, Paul. 1970. Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretations. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Ricoeur, Paul. 1981. The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Ricoeur, Paul. 1984. Time and Narrative, Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Riley, Alexander Tristan. 2002. “Durkheim Contra Bergson? The Hidden Roots of Postmodern Theory and the Postmodern Return of the Sacred.” Sociological Perspectives, 45(3): 243–265. Ritzer, George. 2000. Classical Social Theory, 3rd ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Ritzer, George 2003. Contemporary Sociological Theory and Its Classical Roots. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Ritzer, George and Jeffrey Stepnisky. 2018. Sociological Theory, 10th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rogers, Mary F. 1983. Sociology, Ethnomethodology, and Experience. New York: Cambridge University Press. Rosenfeld, Sophia. 2011. Common Sense: A Political History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Royle, Andrew. 2018. “Heidegger’s Ways of Being.” Philosophy Now, 125: 6–10. Russell, Bertrand. 1951. “The Best Answer to Fanaticism: Liberalism; Its Calm Search for Truth, Viewed as Dangerous In Many Places, Remains the Hope of Humanity.” New York Times Magazine, December 16: 9, 40–42. Russell, Bertrand. 1959a. Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare. New York: Simon & Schuster. Russell, Bertrand. 1959b. The Problems of Philosophy. London: Oxford University Press. Ryan, John and William Wentworth. 1999. Media and Society. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Sansone, David. 1988. Greek Athletics and the Genesis of Sport. Berkeley: University of California Press. Schaffer, H.R. 1984. The Child’s Entry into a Social World. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Scheffler, Israel. 1974. Four Pragmatists: A Critical Introduction to Peirce, James, Mead, and Dewey. New York: Humanities Press. Schutz, Alfred. 1962. Collected Papers. The Hague: Marinus Nijholf. Schutz, Alfred. 1967. The Phenomenology of the Social World, introduction by George Walsh. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Schutz, Alfred and Thomas Luckmann. 1973. The Structures of the Life-World, translated by Richard M. Zaner and H. TristramEngelhardt, Jr.Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

244

Bibliography

Scimecca, Joseph A. 1977. The Sociological Theory of C. Wright Mills. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat. Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel. 2011. “Marine Debris as a Global Environmental Problem: Introducing a Solutions Based Framework Focused on Plastic.” Retrieved September 24, 2017 (www.stapgef.org/sites/default/files/stap/wp-content/ uploads/2013/05/Marine-Debris.pdf). Scott, Marvin B. and Stanford M. Lyman. 1968. “Accounts.” American Sociological Review, 22: 46–62. Seeker. 2012. “5 Major Advances in Robotic Prosthetics.” Retrieved May 18, 2018 (www.seeker.com/5-major-advances-in-robotic-prosthetics-1766150994.html). Seidman, Steven. 1983. Liberalism and the Origins of European Social Theory. Los Angeles: University Press. Seinfeld. 1994. “The Opposite.” Episode #86, first aired date, May 19, 1994. Shelden, Randall G., Sharon K. Tracy, and William B. Brown. 2001. Youth Gangs in American Society, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Sherman, Erik. 2015. “America is the Richest, and Most Unequal, Country.” Fortune. Retrieved May 18, 2018 (http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/america-wealthinequality/). Shermer, Michael. 1997. Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New York: W.H. Freeman. Shibutani, Tamotsu. 1955. “Reference Groups as Perspectives.” American Journal of Sociology, 6: 562–569. Siegel, Larry J. and Brandon C. Welsh. 2014. Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice, and Law. Stamford, CT: Cengage. Simmel, Georg. 1895. “The Problem of Sociology.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, VI: 412–423. Skin Cancer Foundation (SCF). 2017. “Tanning Addiction: The New Form of Substance Abuse.” Retrieved September 22, 2017 (www.skincancer.org/prevention/ta nning/tanning-addiction). Soccio, Douglas J. 2010. Archetypes of Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage. Social Media Defined. 2014. “What is Social Media?” Retrieved August 8, 2017 (www. socialmediadefined.com/what-is-social-media/). SoftSchools.com. 2017. “Roman Empire.” Retrieved July 29, 2017 (www.softschools. com/timelines/roman_empire/timeline_9/). Sollee, Kristen. 2015. “6 Things to Know About the 4th Wave of Feminism.” Bustle. Retrieved May 16, 2018 (www.bustle.com/articles/119524-6-things-to-know-a bout-4th-wave-feminism). Spencer, William. 1987. “Self-Work in Social Interaction: Negotiating Role-Identities.” Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2): 131–142. Stangor, Charles. 2004. Research Methods for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2016a. “George Edward Moore.” Retrieved July 19, 2017 (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moore/). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2016b. “Hans-Georg Gadamer.” Retrieved April 29, 2018(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gadamer/). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2016c. “Martin Heidegger.” Retrieved May 4, 2018 (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/).

Bibliography

245

Stanovich, Keith E., Maggie E. Toplak, and Richard F. West. 2008. “The Development of Rational Thought: A Taxonomy of Heuristics and Biases.” Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 36: 251–285. Statista.com. 2017a. “Number of Monthly Active Facebook Users Worldwide as of 2nd Quarter 2017 (In Millions).” Retrieved August 8, 2017 (www.statista.com/sta tistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook- users-worldwide/). Statista.com. 2017b. “Largest Tobacco Companies Worldwide in 2016, Based on Net Sales (in Billion U.S. Dollars).” Retrieved September 21, 2017 (www.statista.com/ statistics/259204/leading-10-tobacco-companies- worldwide-based-on-net-sales/). StatisticBrain.com. 2017. “Facebook Company Statistics.” Retrieved August 8, 2017 (www.statisticbrain.com/facebook-statistics/). StellaAwards.com. 2017. “May it Please the Court.” Retrieved September 16, 2017 (www.stellaawards.com/). The Sunday Times. 2017. “The Art of Selfie Destruction.” June 18: 5. Sutherland, Edwin H. 1939. Principles of Criminology. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott. Sutherland, Edwin H. and Donald Ray Cressey. 1978. Criminology, 10th ed. Philadelphia. PA: Lippincott. Swadling, Judith. 1980. The Ancient Olympic Games. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Tallis, Raymond. 2008. “George Moore’s Hands: Scepticism About Philosophy.” Philosophy Now, 69. Retrieved July 19, 2017 (https://philosophynow.org/issues/69/ George_Moores_Hands_Scepticism_About _Philosophy). Tarde, Gabriel de. 1903. The Laws of Imitation. New York: Holt and Company. Tariq, Mohammad. 2016. “Metaphor, Time and Narrative: Paul Ricoeur’s Philosophy of Language and Literary Hermeneutics.” Retrieved May 1, 2018 (http://shodhga nga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/190233/16/abstract.pdf). Taub, Amanda. 2016. “Brexit, Explained: 7 Questions About What It Means and Why It Matters.” New York Times, June 20. Retrieved April 22, 2018 (www.nytim es.com/2016/06/21/world/europe/brexit-britain-eu- explained.html). Taylor, Donathan. 2016. Roman Empire at War: A Compendium of Battles from 31 BC to AD 565. South Yorkshire, UK: Pen & Sword Books. Taylor, Jill McLean, Carol Gilligan, and Amy M. Sullivan. 1995. Between Voice and Silence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Thayer, H.S. 1968. Meaning and Action: A Critical History of Pragmatism. New York: Bobbs-Merrill. TheRichest.com. 2017. “David Copperfield Net Worth.” Retrieved September 18, 2017 (www.stellaawards.com/). Thomas Paine National Historical Association. 2017. “The Affair of Silas Deane.” Retrieved August 3, 2017 (www.thomaspaine.org/essays/american- revolution/the-a ffair-of-silas-deane.html). Thompson, John B. 1984. Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Berkeley: University of California Press. Tracy, Natasha. 2015. “What is Self-Injury, Self-Harm, Self-Mutilation?” Healthy Place. Retrieved September 22, 2017 (www.healthyplace.com/abuse/self-injury/wha t-is-self-injury-self-harm-self-mutilation/). Trotsky, Leon. 1932. The History of the Russian Revolution, translated by Max Eastman. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Turner, Jonathan. 2002. Face to Face: Toward a Sociological Theory of Interpersonal Behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

246

Bibliography

Turner, Jonathan. 2003. The Structure of Sociological Theory, 7th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Ulin, David L. 2005. “Common Sense That Changed the World.” Los Angeles Times, July 4: A13. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2017. “World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision.” Retrieved September 24, 2017 (www.un.org/devel opment/desa/publications/world-population-prospects- the-2017-revision.html). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2017. “US Food Waste Challenge: Frequently Asked Questions.” Retrieved September 24, 2017 (www.usda.gov/oce/ foodwaste/faqs.htm). Urban Dictionary. 2017. “Darwin Awards.” Retrieved September 16, 2017 (www.urba ndictionary.com/define.php?term=Darwin%20Awards). Urness, Zach. 2017. “Flip-flop-wearing Hikers, Wildfire Danger Could Cause Eclipse Chaos.” July 22, as it appeared in the Democrat and Chronicle: 1B (originally appearing in the Salem, OR Statesman Journal). U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2015. “The Risks of Tanning.” Retrieved September 22, 2017 (www.fda.gov/Radiation- EmittingProducts/RadiationEmitting ProductsandProcedures/Tanning/ucm116432. htm). US History. 2017. “Thomas Paine: These are the Times that Try Men’s Soul’s.” Retrieved July 17, 2017 (www.ushistory.org/paine/index.htm). US Legal. 2016. “Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat Law and Legal Definition.” Retrieved September 4, 2017 (https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/ignorantia-juris-non- excusat/). vos Savant, Marilyn. 2005. “Ask Marilyn.” Parade, July 24: 6. Wakeham, Joshua. 2017. “Bullshit as a Problem of Social Epistemology.” Sociological Theory, 35(1): 15–38. Wallace, Ruth and Alison Wolf. 1999. Contemporary Sociological Theory, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1983. “The Three Instances of Hegemony in the History of the Capitalist World-Economy.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 24(1– 2): 100–108. [Reprinted in Peter Kivisto’s Social Theory: Roots and Branches Readings, 2nd ed., 2003.] Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2006. European Universalism: The Rhetoric of Power. New York: New Press. Warner, Brian. 2014. “Does The Royal Family Take Advantage of UK Taxpayers?” Celebrity Net Worth, July 5. Retrieved July 2, 2017 (www.celebritynetworth.com/a rticles/entertainment-articles/royal-family- uk-taxpayers/). WebMD. 2015. “Anxiety & Panic Disorders Health Center.” Retrieved September 22, 2017 (www.webmd.com/anxiety-panic/default.htm). Weiss, Brennan. 2015. “Bad for the Lungs, Good for the Portfolio.” Washington Times, July 28. Retrieved September 21, 2017 (www.washingtontimes.com/news/ 2015/jul/28/tobacco-profits-continue- upward-surge/). West, Candance and Don H. Zimmerman. 2002. “Doing Gender,” pp. 3–24 in Doing Gender, Doing Difference: Inequality, Power, and Institutional Change, edited by Sarah Fenstermaker and Candace West. New York: Routledge. West, Richard. 1994. Tito: And the Rise and Fall of Yugoslavia. New York: Carroll & Graf. Williams, Frank P. and Marilyn McShane. 1994. Criminological Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wolfe, Cary. 2009. What is Posthumanism?Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Bibliography

247

World Atlas. 2017. “The Most Spoken Languages in America.” Retrieved July 1, 2017 (www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-spoken-languages-in-america.html). World Health Organization (WHO). 2017. “Global Health Observatory (GHO) Data: Second-hand Smoke.” Retrieved September 22, 2017 (www.who.int/gho/phe/sec ondhand_smoke/en/). WorldHunger.org. 2016. “2016 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics.” Retrieved September 24, 2017 (www.worldhunger.org/2015-world-hunger-and-pover ty-facts-and-statistics/). WorldOMeters. 2017. “U.S. Population (Live).” Retrieved September 24, 2017 (www. worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/). Wright, Addison G., Roland E. Murphy, and Joseph A. Fitzmyer. 1990. “A History of Israel,” pp. 1219–1252 in The Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Yahoo! Finance. 2016. “2016 Wacky Warning Labels TM Contest: Finalists.” Retrieved August 26, 2017 (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/2016-wacky-warning-labels-tm -130000491.html). Yandex Research Report. 2016. “The Development of the Internet in Russia in 2016.” Retrieved March 28, 2017 (https://yandex.ru/company/researches/2016/ya_internet_ regions_2016). Zardo, Nico. 1987. “Pasteur: The Discovery of Germs.” Perini Journal, 43. Retrieved October 15, 2017 (www.perinijournal.it/Items/en-US/Articoli/PJL- 43/Pasteur-thediscovery-of-germs). Zimmermann, Kim Ann. 2015. “American Culture: Traditions and Customs of the United States.” Live Science, January 15. Retrieved July 1, 2017 (www.livescience. com/28945-american-culture.html).

Index

Anomie/Strain theory 148 a priori reasoning 81 Age of Enlightenment 32, 36–8, 49 agents of socialization 130–2, 134, 142–4, 154, 163, 165, 210–11 Bail, Christopher 95, 109–10, 123, 210 Berger, Peter 83, 85–6 Blumer, Herbert 76–8, 92, 210 Bolshevik Revolution 29 breaching experiments 88–9 Brexit 42, 94 bureaucratization 68 Castoriadis, Cornelius 96, 99–100, 115, 123 class consciousness 65 Collins, Randall 95, 108–9, 123, 210 conditioning 143–4 consciousness 70, 72, 80, 82, 92, 94, 97–9, 108, 113–4, 120, 145, 168, 210 Consumer Reports 3 Control/Social Bond theory 153–4, 163 Cooley, Charles Horton 72–4, 92, 129–30, 145, 210 credo consolans 172 cyber socialization 134, 142, 163 Darwin, Charles 70, 75 Darwin Awards 175–9, 182, 205 de Bonald, Louis 40 deforestation 198, 201 Descartes, Rene 36, 55–7, 80, 91 Deschutes National Forest 6 distracted driving 195–6, 222 divine rights of kings 26, 28, 32–3, 35, 46, 49 Du Bois, W.E.B. 94, 119 Durkheim, Emile 108, 140, 148–9, 153

eclipses 4–6, 10–11, 15, 25, 142, 220 enlightened, rational thought 4, 7, 11–12, 26, 32–3, 37–9, 42–4, 46, 49, 53, 55, 57, 88, 117, 134, 136, 142, 163, 165, 167–8, 207, 209–10, 212–16 environment, the 13, 18, 39, 133, 151, 160–1, 174, 176, 190, 196–202, 205, 214, 224, 227 extended warranty 1–3, 6, 81, 207 ethnomethodology 77, 79, 86–7 Facebook 2, 22, 90, 93–94, 134–6, 185–6 faith 7, 10, 12, 19, 24–6, 28–9, 31–3, 37, 39, 41, 43, 46, 48–9, 55, 57, 59, 61, 74, 109, 117, 132, 167, 206–9, 213–4, 216 false consciousness 26, 66 feminism 111–13, 124 feminist theory 103, 111–13 festivals 16 Flat Earth 4, 169 folk culture 20, 23 formal education 28, 131, 166–7, 173, 208, 214–5 Gadamer, Hans-Georg 96–9, 123 Garfinkel, Harold 51, 83, 87–9, 92, 210 gestures 72–3, 75–8, 92, 146, 210 Giddens, Anthony 106–8, 114–5, 123, 210 Gilligan, Carol 113–14 globalism 43 Globularist 4 Goffman, Erving 51, 78, 92, 108, 210 Gramsci, Antonio 101–3, 105, 123, 210 Habermas, Jurgen 103–4, 114, 123, 210 habits 70–1, 92, 144, 190, 210

Index Heidegger, Martin 96–8, 123 hermeneutics 95, 98–9, 123 Hirschi, Travis 153–4 Hobbes, Thomas 34–6 Hume, David 55, 57–8, 80, 91 Husserl, Edmund 80, 82–3, 92, 95–6, 104, 123, 210 ignorance 36, 38, 164, 171–4, 205, 212 interaction ritual chain 95, 108–9 Iron Cage 68 irrational fear 164, 167–9, 211 James, William 70–4, 92, 145, 183, 210 Labeling theory 79, 151 Laws of the Twelve Tables 18 Locke, John 32, 34–6 Luther, Martin 32, 34 Machiavelli, Niccolo 33–4 mass extinction 196–7 Marx, Karl 26, 65–6, 68, 98–101, 103, 107, 119 Marxist thought 65–6, 101, 103, 105, 107, 111–3, 123, 210 McDonnell, Terrence 109–10, 123, 210 Mead, George Herbert 70–7, 84, 92, 108, 145–7, 210 Middle Ages 19–20, 26–8, 32–3, 40, 49, 52, 210 Mills, C. Wright 68–70, 92, 210 monarchies 26–30, 49 modernity 94–5, 114–5 Moore, G.E. 60–2 motives 68–70, 85, 92, 108, 151, 210 NASA 5, 11, 199 observation 4, 12, 33, 37, 45–6, 56, 58–9, 86, 89, 92, 97, 114–5, 126–7, 136, 138–9, 142–4, 161, 163, 165–7, 207–10, 212 Paine, Thomas 63–4, 92 paradigm 7, 11–5, 24, 26, 28, 31–3, 37–9, 41, 43–4, 46–9, 52, 74, 84, 91, 132, 167, 207–16 Parmenides 52–3, 91, 210 phenomenology 77, 79–80, 83, 95–6, 123, 210 plastics 198–200

249

Plato 26, 45, 52–4, 91 popular culture 9, 20, 22–3, 103 populism 43, 50 postcolonialism 95, 118–9, 124, 210 post-feminism 95, 111, 124, 210 posthumanism 95, 117–8, 121–2, 124, 210 postmodernism 112, 114–6, 123 postmodernity 94–5, 114–5 pragmatism 70–1, 73–4, 92, 210 presentation of self 51, 78–9, 92, 210 pseudoscience 164, 169–70, 172–3, 205, 211 primary groups 129–30, 142, 163 rationality 57, 66–7, 92, 142, 210, 212–4 reason 2, 4, 26–7, 33–4, 36–8, 40–1, 44–7, 50–1, 53, 57–8, 60, 97, 106, 117–8, 137, 142, 154, 157, 159–61, 163, 165, 168, 170–4, 190, 192, 199, 203, 209–10, 212, 214–5, 217, 222 reflexive behavior 145 Reid, Thomas 58–61, 91–2, 210 reinforcement 12, 69, 132, 143–4, 151, 207 religion 12, 16, 21, 24–6, 31, 35–7, 40–1, 49, 95, 103, 115, 130, 132, 163, 169, 180, 207, 214 resonance theory 95, 109–10 Ricoeur, Paul 96, 98–9, 123 Rousseau, Jean Jacques 32, 34–6 Russell, Bertrand 61–3 Schutz, Alfred 83–5, 88, 104, 108 science 10–12, 26, 33, 36, 38–9, 41, 43, 48–9, 56, 58–9, 67, 74, 79–80, 82–3, 88, 93, 97, 99, 107, 118, 142, 162, 170–2, 198–9, 208–9, 212, 214 self-harm 191–2, 195, 202 Simmel, Georg 65, 81–2, 96 situated actions 68–70, 92, 210 Skepticism 52–6, 58–61, 91 smoking 71, 108, 144, 148, 151, 165, 174, 178, 188–92, 194–5, 202, 205, 227–8 social action 66–7, 69–71, 76–7, 79, 92, 103, 110, 168, 188, 210 Social learning theory 139, 143–4, 150 social media 2, 22, 91, 93–4, 116, 118, 130, 134–5, 142, 163, 167 social order 11–3, 24, 26, 32, 34, 36, 40, 43, 48, 87, 89, 113

250

Index

socialization 12, 45–6, 49, 68, 86, 92, 97, 104, 126–30, 142–4, 146, 153–4, 161, 163, 165–6, 194, 209–11 Socrates 45, 52 Stella Awards 179–80, 182, 205 Stocks of knowledge 70, 83–4, 89, 92, 108, 123 structuration 106–7, 123 stupidity 164, 173–4, 177, 179, 205, 212 Subcultural theory 147–8 subculture 6, 70, 84, 138, 147–8, 153–4, 159, 161, 207 Sun 4–5, 10–11, 25, 31, 97, 157, 160, 193–4, 198, 206 sunbathing 157, 193–4, 223 sunburn 193 superstitions 15–7, 165, 169, 172–3, 205, 211 Symbolic Interactionism 70–4, 76–9, 144–5, 163

taken-for-granted world 9, 51, 70, 77, 87–8, 92 tanning 193–5, 202, 205, 228–9 Tavory, Iddo 95, 109–10, 123, 210 Tim-isms 161, 222 tradition 12–24, 27, 29, 32, 36–7, 39–41, 43, 46–9, 55, 57, 66, 74, 80–1, 95–7, 99, 103, 105, 116, 139–40, 158, 167, 207–9, 213–4, 216 transhumanism 95, 117–8, 124, 210 Trump, Donald 18, 40–2, 46, 66, 94

tailgating, sports 138–41, 213, 222

Zuckerberg, Mark 93

uncommon sense 7, 165, 169, 175, 178, 188, 191–205, 211–2, 215–6 Wallerstein, Immanuel 104–6, 123 Weber, Max 65–70, 83, 92, 95, 103, 111, 142, 210 Yogi-isms 136, 222