Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Looting the vehicle and NGO's dilemma
You are running an NGO in a village, which is located near a high way. A lorry carrying valuable goods breaks down near village. When the driver and cleaner of the lorry has left for city to bring a mechanic the village looted all the valuable goods. The driver approaches you as NGO head for a solution rather than police action. When you interact with villagers they claim that though all villagers participated in the looting, many of them had dissented.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
In this case the contagion theory seems to be applicable. Here the villagers claim that they dissented on the idea to steal initially but changed their minds later on. This obviously explains that the behavior of the initial looters influenced the rest to resort to steal as well. One solution is to talk to the village head to order the villagers to return back the stolen goods, so that any possible police intervention is avoided.
The behaviour exhibited by the villagers is herd behaviour and they engaged in looting abandoning their indivduality(responsibilty)thinking they will be shielded by annonymity. However, in given situation first we would talk to village leaders and they would appeal the crowd to return the goods or they may threat for legal action. NGO leader should not directly engage to the crowd instead let the village leader try to convince them that goods loooted were meant for development of villagers only and on moral responsibilty return back the goods. This will cause a good portion of looted articles to regain if not all. Since, NGO head does not want to lodge police complaint as it will taint the gooodwill earned by NGO so the remaining losses will have to be beared by it.
Here three types of people are involved; the ones who actually did the looting or who due to overt passivity supported this act and others who were against this. The same situation is seen in emergent norm theory which concerns the view that complete uniformity is a collective illusion. So trying to interact with other two groups of people who were not involved in actual looting would help the cause.
It is one of those case when people get carried away in the act without thinking about whether the act is right or wrong. This spontaneous reaction can be explained through contagion theory in which the crowd influences its members behaviour. Another reason could be that a person who doesn't indulge in the looting loses the benefit of loot when the chance of being caught is minimal so why not loot?
Looting the vehicle is an act that an individual would not have dared to do alone, but was easy for individuals to come together as a crowd. Crowd as a form of collective behavior was present in this case. The villagers were dominated by collective impulse. Handling the case would depend on how actively the NGO is involved in the village, what good it has brought and the strength of its hold there. The solution in this case would be to target their emotional side and convince them to return the goods by assuring them of no negative after effects.
The people in a crowd act in a different way as the sense of being in a group imparts a push for the act. Here a single individual wouldn’t have indulged in looting but in a group they looted the truck without thinking of the consequences, thanks to the contagion theory. But as the driver has faith in the working of NGO, and as an NGO head I would address the villagers with the tangible difficulties associated with intervention of police. And I would assure that they would not be punished for that act if they returned the stolen articles.
The anonymity provided by the crowd and the high emotional arousal forced individuals to commit the act; contagion theory being in play here. In the current situation, the NGO should directly talk to the villagers and not through any particular person as his/her presence in the loot might offset NGO’s aim. People should be made to believe that their anonymity would be maintained while they give back the looted items and also their emotional sentiments should be aroused to make them realise what they did and how they can get into trouble if they don’t return back the looted items.
2. Contagion theory, whereby moods, attitudes and behaviour are communicated rapidly and accepted uncritically best explains the behaviour exhibited by villagers in looting of the caravan. If we look into the event the salient features are that the mob has an identity which is divergent from an individual’s conscious personality. Moreover the camouflage of anonymity and passivity on non participants make it a mass act. As an NGO manager working in the village my first effort would be to discuss the gravity of the issue with the key people and thereby identify the criminals with their help.
Two parties were involved in the act of looting. One group of people were involved in the act, contagion theory explaining their behaviour. And the second group of people were opposed to the act but did not stop it from occurring as majority of the people were involved in the act. In this case I would first identify the second group and would make them realise that a police case would create problem for the whole village due to the wrong doings of a few culprits
Here contagion theory is explaining the behaviour of the crowd, who initially dissented the idea but later on with everybody working at it followed the suit.Now NGO head should make sure that people realize that following mob effect was their mistake and that they should return the loot back to the driver.
Mood behavior and attitude of people was communicated rapidly for looting and was accepted by the group of people initially dissented. This is explained by contagion theory. Therefore through opinion leader from the village, people may be convinced to return the loot to the driver and make them understand that doing so will save them from the legal proceedings by the police.
Two types of people are involved in the looting. Those concerned about the immorality of the act and voice this concern by dissenting and those who are seemingly unperturbed by the immorality of the act. Therefore, the contagion theory can explain the uniformity in the behaviour of the people of the village, the intensity of their action of looting the lorry despite being at a variance from their normal behaviour. A possible solution is to identify the dissenters and appeal to them to return the goods.
As you have to maintain ties with the village and also earn their goodwill, you need to make your point to them without involving the law. You have to make the villagers realize that what they did was wrong and it would be a loss for them only. The village leader can be asked to address the situation and a request could be put up to the people to return the stolen items.
Some villagers might have initiated the process initially and later many others also joined. The contagion theory explains the situation of the crowd well. The NGO is working for the villagers so the NGO people must talk to village heads and try to figure out more about the situation. By means of conversation they can try to identify the initiators and appeal them to return back the goods.
Enforcement or assurance are two ways of dealing with a collective action. In this case the situation demands undertaking a dialogue between the villagers and the NGO head. Enforcing them to return goods may have negative consequences as they may become defensive. Instead assuring them of no further action being taken on them, after returning stolen goods, would not affect the relationship between the NGO and the villagers.
The behavior can be explained by contagion theory. By looting the caravan, the villagers exhibited that how mood, attitudes and conduct proliferates in haste. There were people who dissented initially but still accepted the conduct. With no resistance from others the crowd behavior extended as it imposed no obligations. The solution lies in making the people realize severity of act and their hideous attitude can lead to ill consequences in future. The NGO should seek help from the people who dissented and should try to convince their leader for helping by utilizing his influence.
We had recieved this case in the class also. Our group discussed that the whole village might not be behind the looting and NGO needs to try to figure out via there inner connections in the village, so that they could know the truth. We can use the convergence theory here as we see that the people involved in the loot might have had the same pre-disposition and pre-ocuupation.
This is a classic example of ‘group think’ where in a group, people go with the majority decision even if there are contradicting views to minimise conflict. The best possible solution would be to talk and convey the seriousness of the issue to the head of the community or the prominent leaders who words carry weight among the people. It should be properly communicated that an amicable settlement of the issue is in the best interest of all, and if not they will need to bear the consequences including police action. Inaction would lead to the same incident repeating again.
Emergent norms theory can be related to the incident. Seeing the incident we can find people who actually looted in which many of them would have different reasons, some of them may just have supported the whole cause in flow of emotions, some for mere fun and some who did not know why they were doing it. One should sit and talk with the leader of the village and we can identify the faces whom we recognize were present during the loot and talk to them in small groups and ask them to co-operate.
Post a Comment