Social Engineering: Major Players Shaping Human Society

Unkaspam · Jan 1, 2004

Who are the major players in the social engineering of human society?

selfAdjoint · Jan 5, 2004

Advertisers?

Unkaspam · Jan 6, 2004

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Advertisers?

Sorry, I didn't think this topic posted. I had a poll going with it and aborted the idea when I realized the number of choices the poll would have!

Yes, advertisers would be a good choice until you realize that advertisers act for producers and producers get their ideas from the general populace.

I'd say there are some major choices to choose from in finding an answer to this question:

Media
Religion
Government
Corporations
Society itself

Organically I'd say that it is society itself that engineers itself. Since Media, Religion, Government, Corporations and so on are all products of society, any of the engineering that moves the masses toward a direction ultimately was motivated by society at large.

However, there are suggestions that the masses can be engineered or motivated in desired directions by corporate greed alone.

Do we have any examples of that?

Another example of governmental social engineering would be, of course, the Nazi era. In answer to that threatening bit of engineering was the social engineering seen in America and Britian. It was more subtle and slightly more voluntary on the part of the people in society but, what choice was there in the face of the killing machine devised by the Nazis? It was a case of fighting fire with fire.

The problem is that the whole science of social engineering carried on from there to generate income for a number of corporations with no actual, just cause. The social engineering of today simply teaches people to buy Prozac when they feel down or Viagra when they want to get it up!

selfAdjoint · Jan 6, 2004

I think that in addition to the ones you listed there are groups of private individuals who try to influence public behavior through the media, and also to influence the government through write in campaigns and so on. One such group that has been very successful is MADD. And you should examine the campaign against smoking - there's a bunch of sociology theses there as to who did which and which were important and which just sideshows. But it was an enormous, and directed, change in social behavior. Why have we been so successful with tobacco while the War on Drugs goes nowhere?

Loren Booda · Jan 6, 2004

Scientists as modern religious leaders in cases of eventual extraterrestrial intelligence, life from inert material, intradimensional physics or any of the possible discoveries making science fact from popular science fiction.

Unkaspam · Jan 7, 2004

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I think that in addition to the ones you listed there are groups of private individuals who try to influence public behavior through the media, and also to influence the government through write in campaigns and so on. One such group that has been very successful is MADD. And you should examine the campaign against smoking - there's a bunch of sociology theses there as to who did which and which were important and which just sideshows. But it was an enormous, and directed, change in social behavior. Why have we been so successful with tobacco while the War on Drugs goes nowhere?

Yes and I forgot to list Education. Education holds a wide range of social engineering tools.

A lack of education has its place in social engineering as well. Not that the lack leads to a better society. Society is a system that was originally designed to benefit all of its constituents, not just a select few or group of sub-societies. Most self-serving modifications, like withholding education, that are made to an overall beneficial social system will lead to a failure of the system.

I don't know anything about the war on drugs.

The re-engineering of the tobacco industry, the de-glamorization of smoking and the histeria of the health-nuts produced remarkable results, for non-smokers. I'm not sure why the whole campaign was launched. Someone has it in for smokers and their producers.

Whenever I see a product being forced out of existence by regulation and hyped-up scarey health figures, I think there must be something good about the product that some social engineers disagree with.

selfAdjoint · Jan 7, 2004

I'm not sure about the tobacco thing. As I've posted elsewhere, I gave up smoking years ago after seeing (a)a good friend and former boss die of emphysema and (b) seeing how pathetically dependent on tobacco my own father was on his death bed. That's a pretty strong negative experience and it worked for me, although I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.

About MADD though I do have a piece of information. Many of the founding members of MADD were members of the WCTU (the old Womens' Christian Temperance Union, which was one of the big promoters of Prohibition, back in the day). So this was a new battle in an old war.

Unkaspam · Jan 7, 2004

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I'm not sure about the tobacco thing. As I've posted elsewhere, I gave up smoking years ago after seeing (a)a good friend and former boss die of emphysema and (b) seeing how pathetically dependent on tobacco my own father was on his death bed. That's a pretty strong negative experience and it worked for me, although I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.

About MADD though I do have a piece of information. Many of the founding members of MADD were members of the WCTU (the old Womens' Christian Temperance Union, which was one of the big promoters of Prohibition, back in the day). So this was a new battle in an old war.

Sorry to hear about your experience with your dad. I'm not sure about the prohibitionist's war, a drug war or any other war. War is a term that is used in negative/deconstructive social engineering practices.

A positive aspect of social engineering can be found in recently designed city planning techniques. A tool used to implement city planning is gentrification. Gentrification introduces new cultures to areas that have become run down. Permit and zoning by-laws are introduced to favor small business and enterprises. Initially the rent in these areas is affordable for a new establishment. The former occupants of the area are often inspired by the successes seen before their eyes. They may become employees of, or in competition with, the newly arriving injection of commercial activity. This type of social engineering uses vicarious successes to motivate it in a societie's constituents.

selfAdjoint · Jan 7, 2004

Yes, although gentrification tends to take neighborhoods away from the poor people who lived there and give them to the prosperous people who can afford to gentrify.

A simpler process for social change in poor and rundown neighborhoods is cleanup fixup. Replace all broken windows, and ensure they remain unbroken. Clean up vacant lots. Clean up dirty buildings and raze hopeless vacant ones. Get the people themselves to do this, not the government, although funding often comes from the government. Local preachers are a big resource for motivating this. All this has been proven to reduce crime even in very "bad" neighborhoods.

Unkaspam · Jan 8, 2004

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Yes, although gentrification tends to take neighborhoods away from the poor people who lived there and give them to the prosperous people who can afford to gentrify.

A simpler process for social change in poor and rundown neighborhoods is cleanup fixup. Replace all broken windows, and ensure they remain unbroken. Clean up vacant lots. Clean up dirty buildings and raze hopeless vacant ones. Get the people themselves to do this, not the government, although funding often comes from the government. Local preachers are a big resource for motivating this. All this has been proven to reduce crime even in very "bad" neighborhoods.

I didn't know the "poor" owned anything, let alone a neighborhood. The worst case scenario you describe happens in cities with a poor understanding of social engineering. Good social engineering is a bit like looking 2 blocks ahead of you when your driving. You want to see any obstructions or potential accidents and adjust your method of transport to suit any upcoming problems before you zip on through the intersection or school zone. And so, in keeping this this, good social engineering finds a place and solution for every condition that arises out of change.

The "people themselves" are the ones moving in and changing the neighborhood, not the government. They clean it up and they re-vitalize what invariabley is an area that provided a habitat for the uneducated and lawless poeple of a society. If the 21 billion dollars spent per term on the "war" on drugs was shifted to programs that assist the "poor" out of poverty, there would be quite a few less customers for the pushers and big-wig drug dealers and less crime in general. With that kind of money going into each "poor" person's dilema they could each start a multi-million dollar enterprise and pay it back within 5 years. Many of them could start programs that outreach to their "poor" compatriots, given the proper education and training.

However, the "rich" need the "poor" to feel "rich" and get their children and floors looked after at rock bottom prices. And the poor require the same polarity to feel justified in their misery, so, why mess with that?

selfAdjoint · Jan 8, 2004

You and I will never agree. If poor people did "own" their homes there wouldn't be much opportunity for gentrification. The reason gentrification works is the the living quarters of the poor are owned by non-poor people, who find they can make more money gentrifying than collecting low rents from poor people. The people who lived in the neighborhood before gentrification had no say in the matter. That's no problem to you, for whom poor people are apparently worthless dross to be swept away in the upscale paradise. But they matter to me because they are human beings who are being unhoused without any choice of theirs.

Unkaspam · Jan 9, 2004

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
You and I will never agree. If poor people did "own" their homes there wouldn't be much opportunity for gentrification. The reason gentrification works is the the living quarters of the poor are owned by non-poor people, who find they can make more money gentrifying than collecting low rents from poor people. The people who lived in the neighborhood before gentrification had no say in the matter. That's no problem to you, for whom poor people are apparently worthless dross to be swept away in the upscale paradise. But they matter to me because they are human beings who are being unhoused without any choice of theirs.

Your derogatory assumptions about me are incorrect. How's your reading comprehension ability?

selfAdjoint · Jan 9, 2004

Originally posted by Unkaspam
Your derogatory assumptions about me are incorrect. How's your reading comprehension ability?

Just fine. If I came down too heavy I apologize, but what I saw in your post was the typical "libertarian" attitude toward community.

Unkaspam · Jan 10, 2004

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Just fine. If I came down too heavy I apologize, but what I saw in your post was the typical "libertarian" attitude toward community.

Economic disparity between social groups stimulates a strong emotional response. Its comparable to the friction created by the Indian cast system. One difference is that democracy has allowed for the creation of independant monetary systems within the democratic society. Any citizen of the United States can create their own currency.

Any American citizen can also own a block of apartments if they so choose. That opportunity is not blocked by religious dogma or an inflexable cast system. As much as a porn tycoon or recycling magnate may be shunned in some societal circles, there are no restrictions on who owns what.

Gentrification has a bad name because it has been poorly implimented in widely publicized instances. There are quite a few examples of postive outcomes when you look into the history of gentrification.

In many instances the rapidly changing industrial areas of a city have been revitalized to accommodate its citizens and the industries relocated to carefully selected, industrial-friendly sites. We also see certain inefficiently utilized areas of a city become cultural flowers of the entire global population. For example look at Haight Ashbury, Piccadilly or Grenich Village.

The method and effectiveness of gentrification is dependent on the culture implimenting it. A culture that puts aside the emotional, gut reactions that come with ill-informed religious or out-dated political rules can accommodate everyone of its constituents in an equal and just manner.

Unkaspam · Jan 20, 2004

But I digress. Gentrification could be a whole other thread in Social Sciences.

My main purpose for submitting this thread was to get an idea from the members about what group exhurts the most influence when it comes to Social Engineering.

I will list some of my earlier entries here:

Media
Religion
Government
Corporations
Society itself

Feel free to add one of your own. Thank you

selfAdjoint · Jan 20, 2004

I think all of your choices are good, except I think media are not original molders but just follow the others. Amplifiers maybe.

How about sports? It seems to me that the growth of spectator sports has infected the public mind with categories (winners/losers, etc.) that are not really appropriate for most social situations.

But if you think this is going to hijack the thread again, just blow it off.

FZ+ · Jan 20, 2004

Family.

Particularly parents have a huge effect in the beliefs, attitudes and so on of their children. I agree about the society self-engineering though.

But can you clarify what you mean by social engineering?

Unkaspam · Jan 21, 2004

Originally posted by FZ+
Family.

Particularly parents have a huge effect in the beliefs, attitudes and so on of their children. I agree about the society self-engineering though.

But can you clarify what you mean by social engineering?

Social engineering could be described by using the Ten Commandments as an example. How to behave. How to "get along" as a group.

From this rudimentary example we can expand into the Social Engineering implimented by religious groups. Their standards identified who/what was good and who/what was bad. Often these choices were arbitrary and dependent upon a specific direction the religion wanted to go, which was usually toward a more secure church with plenty of material and social resources.

The "who/what is good or bad" standard of social engineering is also evident in what Self Adjoint has suggested with Sports which have played a large part in Social Engineering. The Romans utilized games and competitions extensively and fostered a desired social attitude and that demonstrates an understanding of Social Engineering.

From here we could get socially fictitious about things and imagine Huxley's Brave New World and the Bioengineering of a society. But, for now, I think present day examples are good enough. Thank you!

FZ+ · Jan 22, 2004

So you would put social engineering as intentional modifying of a person's moral, cultural etc tendencies as part of an organised society?

TENYEARS · Jan 22, 2004

I would say human weakness. Unconscious acts. The lack of understanding of the universe. If people would understand, there is no way they would do what they do. Greed. It is the most unconscious act that perpetuates the others. What we are now doing is not engineering. We are destroying the fabric of society. This conditioning is far from the word engineering. I see the senseless movement of the waters of human self to an end which will destroy us all. The only hope, can be social engineering driven by an understanding of truth and perpetuated in it's balance. The american indians did not live to badly in the americas for thousands of years. Their way of life was in a balance and seemingly responsible unlike our present culture.

Unkaspam · Jan 23, 2004

In these two replies there are good examples of tools used in social engineering or programming. The tools are many, those who utilize the tools are upon what I would like to focus.

FZ, yes, intentionally modifying social behavior to some end.

TENYEARS, yes, in the case of the American Native the social programming or engineering was determined by nature and by those who understood the cycles and actions of nature (weather, disease, migration and other aspects of nature).

Today, however, weather can practially be modified itself. The people who would attempt this are not only meterologically engineering society, they are reaping the benefits. Similarily crops are modified, groups of individtuals are modified either by psychological means or by massive drug distribution and promotion. Later, thank you.

Unkaspam · Jan 30, 2004

Since there have been no suggestions as to what group or institute of society could be the dominant force in Social Engineering, I will give my opinion on the matter.

I suggest that, today, it is the Corporation or, more accurately, the amalgamation of corporations, seen as the multcorporate multinational corporation, that uses a wide variety of implimentations to engineer society in directions that best serve the interests of these/this group(s).

In the past it was the royals and the upper crust of the merchants who utilized religion and other tools of the social fabric to engineer the populace of a society.

Today it is government and science (as someone has offered) that are utilized toward manipulating the social engineering and the resulting benefits by specific corporations. The corporate agendas involved are duo-pronged, like a forked tounge, in that they support further social engineering for the future while ensuring future profits (at least, that's the plan).

I'll give time for rebuttle or agreement then continue with some examples of corporate, mass social engineering

Nereid · Jan 31, 2004

I suggest that, today, it is the Corporation or, more accurately, the amalgamation of corporations, seen as the multcorporate multinational corporation, that uses a wide variety of implimentations to engineer society in directions that best serve the interests of these/this group(s).

I'm looking forward to your analysis, and particularly the role played in such engineering by competition regulators, be they direct (e.g. "Competition Commission", FAA), or indirect (e.g. legal institutions).

Evo · Feb 1, 2004

I agree that politics, religion, greed & commercialism have had a huge impact on society. It has always been this way and doesn't appear to be abating.

Going by your list:
Media
Religion
Government
Corporations
Society itself

I would say that the media has the greatest impact today on what people think and how they act. Of course a great deal of this impact is from advertisers, so this brings in the corporations. The corporations, in turn, look to influencing the government quite often in getting laws "bended" in their favor.

Society as a whole, seems to want to be "accepted" which means they are easily manipulated by the former.

Religion - there are so many and they run such a gamut, that many are in complete opposition in their beliefs. But this does not mean we can discount their impact on their followers.

selfAdjoint · Feb 1, 2004

I can't resist another category: Peer group. I think we are all most molded by the people we spend time with. And the peer group isn't neutral; it has an agenda. Be like us. Fit into one of the accepted niches. Care about what we care about, and disdain what we disdain. There are despised catchall niches for "geeks" (people who care about something the group disdains) and "clowns" people who are too different for the group to parse, but have an allowed status because of wit.

How many of the kids who went off and shot people had a prior rep as clowns?

Unkaspam · Feb 2, 2004

Originally posted by Nereid
I'm looking forward to your analysis, and particularly the role played in such engineering by competition regulators, be they direct (e.g. "Competition Commission", FAA), or indirect (e.g. legal institutions).

"Competition Commission" and the FAA are, I am assuming, comprised of people. People have weaknesses, (likes and dislikes). These are played upon by the "competitors". Whomever threatens best or offers the most money wins whatever appointment or ruling they desire, in most instances.

There are few left of the old guard. You know, the GI who would throw himself on the grenade to save the platoon. There are some but somehow I don't imagine them to be behind a desk luxurating in the climate controlled offices of a presumably unassuming government. When your boss is 350 million tax payers its easy to slip between the cracks unnoticed in your ineptitude and lack of courage.

Thank you and "I'll be back".

Unkaspam · Feb 5, 2004

Originally posted by Unkaspam
"Competition Commission" and the FAA are, I am assuming, comprised of people. People have weaknesses, (likes and dislikes). These are played upon by the "competitors". Whomever threatens best or offers the most money wins whatever appointment or ruling they desire, in most instances.

There are few left of the old guard. You know, the GI who would throw himself on the grenade to save the platoon. There are some but somehow I don't imagine them to be behind a desk luxurating in the climate controlled offices of a presumably unassuming government. When your boss is 350 million tax payers its easy to slip between the cracks unnoticed in your ineptitude and lack of courage.

Thank you and "I'll be back".

Having said this I'd like to give my pick of the choices given with regard to what group or organization preforms the most amount of social engineering on society (consciously or unconsciously):

Who controls the food?

Who controls the energy?

Who controls the movement of goods?

Who controls the media?

Who influences government the most?

Who has no single center of power to be held responsible for erronious actions?

Who uses society as a means to one end ($ and power).

Corporations (and associates)

And that's my choice for the most influencial group of society in terms of engineering society. There have been numerous examples over the past 100 years of this phenomenon. The ramifications of a society engineered to suit the needs of the corporate elite are stunning. But, then, tell me something in life that isn't stunning!

Nereid · Feb 6, 2004

This is really quite interesting ... if I understand correctly, the Marxists (aka 'communists') had a real shot at providing an alternative to 'the corporation', but totally flubbed it 'cause they couldn't provide the food, energy (etc) which people wanted (esp when they looked at what 'corporations' could provide). Worse, their answer - in practical terms - parties, seemed no better than their much despised foil (Orwell did a great job of highlighting this in Animal Farm).

Now here's an interesting corollary: since most corporations are 'public', and owned by shareholders, to what extent can your answer be restated as 'the shareholders of such corporations'?

Unkaspam · Feb 7, 2004

Originally posted by Nereid
This is really quite interesting ... if I understand correctly, the Marxists (aka 'communists') had a real shot at providing an alternative to 'the corporation', but totally flubbed it 'cause they couldn't provide the food, energy (etc) which people wanted (esp when they looked at what 'corporations' could provide). Worse, their answer - in practical terms - parties, seemed no better than their much despised foil (Orwell did a great job of highlighting this in Animal Farm).

Now here's an interesting corollary: since most corporations are 'public', and owned by shareholders, to what extent can your answer be restated as 'the shareholders of such corporations'?

Just as in politics where a group sells its ideology to a percentage of a population, a corporation will sell its ideology and methodology to a certain percentage of consumers of shares.

In politics if you know how to tweek the percentile with buzz words and promises you gain more votes than if you are unorganized with little or no future vision of where to take your potential voter.

With a publicly traded corporation you have buzz ideologies, performance reports (both real and fluffed up) and the "rumors" on the street that speak for your company and the validity of its shares (or not).

In instances like Enron, BreeX, World Com and Northern Telecom. there were shareholders who made a poor choice in that their bets went sour due to in appropriate use of funds and perhaps other, undisclosed, reasons. This, to me, identifys the corporation as the entity in control of the shareholder, rather than it being the other way around. Except in the case of major shareholders (over 49%) who automatically own the corporation and who, sometimes, take responsibility for any inefficancies (deceptions or poor decisions)in corporate methodology.

In politics, at least in Democratic politics, it is the voter who hires a party to manage, distribute, collect and allocate taxes in the best interest of the voters (and non-voters alike). In the ideal democracy it is not the donations of time or money that bend a party's ear and concerns but it is the over all perceived urgencies and long term goals exhibited by the populace of the given nation that determine where a tax dollar should be and will be spent.

In answer here I'd say the corporation is ultimately responsible to its shareholders to socially engineer the attentions and spending habits of a population - thusly directing a goodly portion of society's cash toward the corporate coffers, winning more support not only from these funds but also from a fresh load of shareholders for the corporation.

Let's look at one example of social engineering brought about by a corporation either unconsciously or consciously. Microsoft has benefited greatly by making it easier to use a computer. Society has been drastically modified or engineered by this corporation.

I can't say Bill Gate's attempts to model corporate donation to research into diseases and living conditions around the world has caught as much attention as Janet Jackson's mammary gland. But, his investments and inventions have made it possible to learn about that particular bit of anatomy anywhere in the world. And people are lapping it up.

Nereid · Feb 7, 2004

clarifications please

Unkaspam,

You will likely be covering this anyway, so this could be just a wasted post ...

to what extent are you looking at corporations as individual players vs some kind of a gestalt?

at some level, are the corporations - individually or collectively - acting with deliberate will? how much of an overt plan (objectives, tactics, actions) is there? is it possible to elucidate the processes by which the corporates' (corporate's) agenda(s) come together?

Nereid

Unkaspam · Feb 9, 2004

Originally posted by Nereid
Unkaspam,

You will likely be covering this anyway, so this could be just a wasted post ...

to what extent are you looking at corporations as individual players vs some kind of a gestalt?

at some level, are the corporations - individually or collectively - acting with deliberate will? how much of an overt plan (objectives, tactics, actions) is there? is it possible to elucidate the processes by which the corporates' (corporate's) agenda(s) come together?

Nereid

Here I would remind myself that corporations and governmental departments are comprised of individual people, in any given example.

Every day will be different for the people of any corporation. Someone at corporate head office may expect North Korea to start a war (after financing their military) so they can sell more steel and bandages. But, someone in shipping may have a burst appendex. This might delay the surruptitious courier with the message of war by so much time that the message misses the plane.

Thusly, a delayed courier runs into further mishap and the whole plot is picked up by a Washington Post reporter, somehow. From there, things are often made "perfectly clear", and the result is the delay of a coup by Fancy Megacorp.

Of course there are dreams of laying waste to the small farm and building a combine that will reap all of North America in one passing sweep. Then there are the GMO crops that will reap themselves.

These corporate methodologies hold great promise of wonderous profit. But they leave little room for society - as we know it. In fact, no society of humans has survived the continuous erosion and rampant decimation of ethics for any longer than, say, 100 years.

Social Engineering: Major Players Shaping Human Society

FAQ: Social Engineering: Major Players Shaping Human Society

What is social engineering?

Who are the major players in social engineering?

How does social engineering impact human society?

What are some examples of social engineering in action?

How can we protect ourselves from social engineering tactics?

Similar threads

Hot Threads

Recent Insights