If you’re paying attention to the news at all these days I’m sure you’ve noticed that the world is pretty messed up right now. I’m not sure if this is a result of the planets being misaligned in some way or what but it does seem there's a disproportionate amount of bad stuff going on. It’s almost as if a negative energy vortex has descended upon us and while it’s tempting to blog about the Ukraine or ISIS or Gaza or Fergusen or children at our border or Ebola... I’m not going to do that. Rather I want to draw your attention to an incident this week on a United Airlines flight. Apparently two “seat molesters” caused enough of a scene to force the pilots to divert and land the plane so they could kick off these troublesome passengers. As a frequent flyer, I’ve experienced plenty of seat abuse myself... What I don’t understand is how otherwise normal people can let something as trivial as an airline seat (reclining 5 inches!) result in the unscheduled landing of a passenger jet and the involvement of TSA. Wouldn’t a normal person ask a passenger in the row behind if it was ok before reclining a seat? Given that the seats are so close, isn’t that the courteous thing to do? Surely a passenger can empathize with the passenger behind since that passenger is likely behind someone else. Haven’t we all had the experience of a beverage spilled or laptop pinched by someone else's spontaneous recline?? And if you’re the passenger being reclined upon, shouldn’t you be aware that this is prone to happen and perhaps not expect to have your tray table function like a Herman Miller desk? Apparently not, because this particular passenger came prepared with a device that mechanically prevents the other passenger’s seat from reclining. And rather than either one sympathizing with the other and “standing down” they both dug their heels in, and the situation escalated to the point that we’re now discussing it in our CRES Perspectives blog (well, at least I am...).
So why is it that we’re not nicer to each other? Why don’t we simply communicate our desires and needs? Have we become so focused on our own needs that we’re able to completely tune-out the human being that is literally right next to us? As a society, are we getting less empathetic or have we always been so focused on ourselves? Is the desire to get our way so much stronger than the idea of being courteous or “getting along” with our neighbor? Do we lack humility?
I certainly don’t mean to trivialize the myriad other far more significant conflicts we’re witnessing in the world today by talking about this apparently trivial dispute, but I do think it holds some lessons for us. If more people were able to see things from the other person’s perspective maybe we’d have fewer confrontations. If people were less concerned with getting their own way and more able to disengage and step down, perhaps 150 other passengers wouldn’t have had to miss their connecting flights. Shouldn’t we focus less on winning and more on living harmoniously with each other? That to me seems like the normal thing to do.
"trivial dispute" that sounds like an interesting game.
ReplyDeleteYes, Joe I also feel as if people in general have gotten more selfish, or self absorbed. I don't know if it has been there all along, or if it is a generational thing, but I do believe that we have become more focused on ourselves.
Maybe it's the idea of the rugged individual that is foisted upon us by our collective single narrative. Or maybe it is because parents aren't teaching their children social skills like manners any more. Maybe it is a direct result of Reality TV.
One aspect I think about a lot is the affect advertising has on the individual and our ideal as an individual being. We are under a constant barrage by ads that are trying to sell us commodities to make us be better people. I don't mean better as in nicer etc, but better as in the idea that we are flawed somehow, and that if we purchase the newest diet cream, or body spray, or flashiest car then we can be perfected or whole. I see most advertising as an attack-a terrorist attack if you will-on our self worth. We are constantly being told that we need to be voracious consumers if we want to belong, to fit in, to be an acceptable part of society. It plays on our hopes, our dreams, our fears of ultimately ending up alone.
What does this have to do with "Seat Molester" you ask, besides the 1/2 magnum of vino I've consumed, you ask?
I think capitalism generates an unhealthy need for competition. A selfish form of competitiveness that pits what we imagine as our rugged individual self, designed by advertisement playing on our fears, which has made us callus towards our fellow citizens. Not all, not everybody, but many people seem to be afraid of losing what little they may have gained in life, material items especially, as if some "other" is going to take them away.
Look at the children from Honduras and Guatemala trying to seek refuge in the US and the opposition they have received. Vicious, racist, opposition. Then think of a person on an airplane that feels jaded by losing an once of leg room after they paid $500 for a cramped seat.
It aint right! no it aint right at all, but we are quickly loosing our compassion and sympathy for the immediate other (I can't comment on empathy because I am not sure if I have it).
When it becomes easier to be nicer to someone on the other end of a text or tweet than it is to a person sharing a physical seating section with you on an airline, I believe that we do lack humility. Something surely has gone awry.
The airlines provide rich opportunities to study conflict. This whole zones/groups business, for example, in which the red carpet (literally) is rolled out for the preferred passengers (and they may be called that) -- not to mention refusing to allow economy class passengers to use the first class bathroom -- is the stuff that disputes come from, for sure.
ReplyDeleteOne thought on the seat-reclining problem: I agree with Joe that the courteous thing to do before reclining is to ask. But I have never been asked such a thing on a plane, and I haven't seen other people doing it either. This makes me think that perhaps the problem is not so much that people don't have the right emotions (compassion, empathy) but that they don't have the right words.
You can imagine two types of recliners: (1) unconcerned about the person behind, so reclines with impunity; and (2) concerned about the person behind, but isn't sure how to broach the subject, so just reclines and hopes for the best. Both types of recliners shift the burden of saying something to the person behind them. That person also doesn't often have the right words, especially because that person now feels like her airspace has been infringed upon.
Note that even if (2) wanted to say something, he might have trouble figuring out the words and/or knowing how such a statement would be received, given that we don't have strong cultural norms around asking for permission in these situations. What we do have norms around is exercising rights, even if they injure someone else, and forcing the other "injured" person to take the initiative and complain.
The airlines have set this up as a zero-sum game -- one passenger's reclining (made possible by the design of the airplane) is going to cut into the other passenger's airspace. It's not surprising that this zero-sum game causes conflicts that erupt into disputes, as in the example Joe gives here.
The question becomes: is it possible to cultivate social norms that help people talk their way through these kinds of zero-sum situations in a civil, friendly way? I have seen people on airlines negotiate for seat trades, without help from the flight attendants, to get families sitting together and what not. So I have hope it can be done. But how?
Great post, Joe, and great comments, too. I wrote a comment, but it slipped into cyberspace--something about the current state of airline travel. There are so many unpleasant aspects to contend with that one little unforeseen provocation may be enough to push stressed out travelers into the category of seat molester.
ReplyDeleteQuick technical note: my first comment was also lost because (I discovered) I needed to sign into google first. So be warned! :)
DeleteInteresting...
ReplyDeleteI also read a story a while back about someone who used a cell signal jammer on his morning commute. He was arrested eventually but he forced his agenda on others, just like the seat molester did.
I don't know where I heard the quote, "you don't know what you don't know". This is what I try to remember anytime my thought starts out with "why don't they, or whay can't she just…". Many humans exhibit behavior that displays a severe lack of skills. When I screw up, it’s usually because I haven’t yet learned to prevent what I did. Another option is that I’m clueless that I’ve even screwed up. Others may not even care that they’ve screwed up. It seems obvious to me that emotional intelligence is a learned skill that we must first be aware that we need. Then we have to seek out the resource. Where do we learn the skill if those we grew up around, work around or socialize with don’t have these skills
The airline staff could be trained to be observant of escalation and reserve those stupid first-class seats for the disgruntled parties to work it out. (yes they have to go back to their little seats after it’s over)
Our reaction might be “what a bunch of idiots”. Another view is, “wow those people are really struggling and there isn’t anyone to help”. What if a trained mediator was sitting there? That would be a great news story. Mediator thwarts attempted seat molestation!
Asking the other person gives them the opportunity to say no. Most people like to take advantage of the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality when it comes to conflict. By not opening the door of communication before doing the molestation, there is no opportunity for the other person to refuse. Most people probably wouldn't even say anything if someone reclined back one them. They might instead make some kind of non-verbal gesture or grumble a remark to their row partner. It is just a method of avoiding conflict by not opening the door of negotiation first. I would not personally say anything just because I don't like to confront people that I am going to be stuck in close quarters with for extended periods of time.
ReplyDeleteIs it lacking humility to not ask someone if you can put the seat back of a chair that you have paid a large sum of money for? It is courteous and kind to ask the person behind you, but like it has been said many times, people have different values. Some people are so wrapped in their own values that they don't have any empathy for the people around them. It doesn't benefit the person behind them to not put their seat back, so why would they ask if they don't value the comfort of other individuals.
These are the symptoms of an individualistic culture that has been taught to look out for number one. It shouldn't come as a shock to anyone when they do just that.
This is a curious topic to come back to at the end of the perspectives course. My first thought goes back to something that I remember from class this week. It’s not that people want win, so much as they just don’t want to lose. That is to say, people do not want to be seen as the fool in the situation. This rings true of the passenger who brings a device to stop a seat from reclining onto an airplane. They have no idea who they will be sitting behind, or around, or if the person in front of them will even try to recline their seat into the party’s relative personal bubble. However, just in case that does happen, the party has ensured (at least in their mind) that they won’t come out of the situation looking like the fool. They have brought with them a device which they are convinced insures that they will not lose should a seat reclining conflict arise.
ReplyDeleteI concur with Ellis’s point above that the competitive nature of western society in-general has certainly contributed to people’s interpretation that they must constantly be on their guard against scams, both from corporations and each other. There is an inclination to distrust advertisers because we know that they are trying to convince us of something. What occurs is that we are bombarded with so much advertising, trying to push the products and services of the entities they serve, that we become mired in the delusion that everyone works towards this end. Grandmaster’s point on how individualistic our culture is only serves this point, as a specific line of thinking takes effect.
This line of thinking goes as follows: in an individualistic culture, such as American culture, people are self-serving; if people are self-serving, then they will put their values and goals ahead of other peoples’ values and goals; other peoples’ values and goals will not always align with our own values and goals; at this point a zero-sum concept is presented which states that if two (or more) peoples’ goals are not parallel in their alignment, then they will eventually come into conflict; therefore, we must always be on the defensive towards conflict from other people seeking to promote their own ends, as their ends may not align with our ends. This is an abbreviated version of this argument, and an argument that I personally find to be unsound, but it is some peoples’ reasoning for being constantly on the defensive about even the most minor slights to their pride.
I personally think that the small instances of daily conflict are the most important kinds of conflict on which an individual should focus, since these interpersonal conflicts are much more likely to affect your everyday life than the plight of an African nation (though you should hardly disregard any such plight as inconsequential).