Captive Adaptations

Bangalore witnessed behavior that was uncalled for, the past week, I will not join the mainstream media on disecting “Mob Mentality” and the likes of it. But on a deeper level, I always wondered how such violent and barbaric behavior is exhibited by people who were otherwise known for their nonchallant and mellow nature.

While munching on these thoughts I recollected Adam Smiths Impartial Spectator theory, from one of his book, which I had briefly skimmed a few years ago. As I began my explorations on this, as always I discovered an amazing treasure trove on human behavior. Adam Smith, believed that much of human behavior was under the influence of “passions”—emotions such as fear and anger, and drives such as hunger and sex—but these passions were moderated by an internal “voice of reason,” which he called an “impartial spectator.”

According to Smith, Conscience, in turn, is the “internalized impartial spectator”. However, conscience itself is susceptible to confusion, for it comes from “Morality or Social Ethics”, which cannot be unbiased, as Social Morality is heavily inclined/biased with what is good/true for a larger audience, which to a large extent explains religious, cultural or lingual fanaticism.

The most interesting pieces of my learning regarding the Impartial Spectator is however the application of this theory in Corporate Ethics, and Behavioural Economics.

Smith believed that there were certain virtues, such as trust and a concern for fairness, that were vital for the functioning of a market economy. He wrote about “Trust and reciprocity” as leading to trade. One might think that the need for trustworthiness diminishes as a market develops, the kind which cut-throat capitalism has lead us to belive, but if anything the opposite is true.

And the advise to business leaders would likely be that they should weigh carefully the costs of breaking trust and risking reputation. Should I say more regarding the beating that Bangalore’s reputation must have taken?