We will hear, especially in a campaign season, candidates saying things like “That’s social engineering!” or “We don’t need any more social engineering from Washington!” These comments are usually delivered with a tone implying that the social engineering in question is a bad thing. Moreover, the speakers frequently suggest that all social engineering, whatever the source or intent, is to be avoided. Let’s look at this with a little more detail than your usual media soundbite.
What is social engineering? When and how did it start? And for that matter, what is engineering, without the limiting word “social”?
In the world of science and technology, engineering students get a rigorous background education in the fundamentals of physics, chemistry, and math. They then go on to study the application of those basic science principles and understandings to creating electronics, building tangible things, making new chemical compounds, or designing the multitude of stuff that makes modern high-tech life possible and beneficial. The basic rules of science are translated by engineers into actionable designs and specifications of useful objects, big and small.
For example, electrical engineers would use their knowledge of how electrons behave to make the newest smart phones. Biomechanical engineers would use their knowledge of anatomy and motors to help the paralyzed walk again. Civil engineers would use their knowledge of chemistry and fluid flows to deliver clean drinking water.
So that’s engineering in a nutshell. Now, what do we mean by “social”? Social refers to society, the complex web of people and groups, and their intricate connections and interactions that, in combination, constitute the world we live in outside ourselves. Social as a concept does not apply to people in isolation, but instead to multiple humans in ongoing transactions and events.
Putting things together, it would appear that social engineering is the application of basic principles and understandings about human nature to the interactions of people living in society, hopefully to make it a better place. What is one major area of human endeavor and study aimed at improving the way people interact with each other and within society? Law.
The law acknowledges that people are varied in their outlooks and abilities, their goals and aspirations, their willingness to cooperate or not with others, and their ways of thinking. People can be greedy or generous, vengeful or kind, filled with hate or love, cynical or trusting, and endowed with every other characteristic you can think of. Human diversity suggests the need for social operating principles that allow people, despite their differences, to live together with minimal friction and maximum cooperative benefit. Social engineering is perhaps as old as civilization, based on principles about controlling water and fostering agriculture near the Earth’s great rivers.
Law supplies these social operating principles to all societies. Whether you want to discourage sheep stealing in a nomadic society, or theft of the latest intellectual property in software today, law provides for the rewards or punishments that modify behaviors in a socially beneficial direction. If you want to discourage dishonesty and greed, send the likes of Bernie Madoff to prison. If you want to avoid head-on collisions, tell people which side of the highway they should drive on. If you support commerce and trade, fairly enforce contracts and promote honest business transactions. Ideally, law should increase everyone’s freedom by discouraging social actions that would harm others, or in some way diminish the benefits of cooperative living.
So the next time you hear a politician decrying “social engineering”, ask yourself: What social rules/laws are they criticizing? Who created those rules/laws and what is their objective? Are those new social engineering rules under scrutiny wise and well thought out? Who benefits from either the revised social rule or the old way of doing things—society in general or a select few? (Hint—the politician’s campaign donors might be the ones benefiting from the status quo.) Could the rules/laws be simpler and clearer? Is there a better way of achieving the same goals for society?
We should be appreciative that we live in country with proper social engineering, for the alternative of no social engineering is anarchy without law.
And we should all be glad we work in a justice system that upholds society’s rules with due process and fairness for all. You can thank our social engineering attorneys the next time you see one.