Social Engineering

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

 

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!

 

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.

 

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 impliment 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.

 

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?

 

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

 

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 accomodate 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 accomodate everyone of its constituents in an equal and just manner.

 

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

 

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!