Do social networks breed extremists?

By Cass R. Sunstein Bloomberg News July 31, 2013 In recent decades, many social scientists have drawn attention to the importance of “social capital.” The term is meant to capture the value, economic and otherwise, that comes from social networks, through which people frequently interact with one another. But what if social capital ends up contributing to the rise of extreme movements, including fascism? It is well-established that individuals and societies can gain a great deal from civic institutions, such as parent- teacher associations, athletic leagues, churches and music clubs. High levels of social capital have been associated with numerous social benefits, including improvements in health, promise-keeping, trust, altruism, compliance with the law, child welfare and individual happiness. Harvard University political scientist Robert Putnam has done a great deal to explore the beneficial effects of social capital. In his book “Bowling Alone,” he documented what he saw as its decline in the United States, connecting that decline with a wide range of social problems. Pointing to research by Putnam and others, many have argued that the U.S. and other nations should make a sustained effort to measure and increase social capital, with particular attention to civic associations that help to generate it. At the same time, social capital can have a dark side. If people are in a social network whose members are interested in committing crimes, social capital will promote criminal activity. A fascinating recent study called “Bowling for Fascism” goes much further: It shows that the rise of Nazism was greatly facilitated by unusually high levels of social capital in Weimar Germany. The research offers an important and novel perspective on Adolf Hitler’s ascension to power. And by identifying conditions that help to spread extremism, it also offers lessons for the present, including the risk of terrorism. The study, conducted by New York University’s Shanker Satyanath and his co-authors, is based on a wide range of original materials, including Nazi Party membership lists and hand-collected data from 112 German towns. The central question: Who was most likely to join the Nazi Party? In the late 1920s and early 1930s, Germany had an exceptionally vibrant civil society that included clubs involved in hiking, animal breeding, shooting, gymnastics, bowling, fire fighting and singing. The authors’ principal finding is that in cities with dense networks of clubs and associations, Germans were far more likely to join the Nazi Party. In their words, “a dense fabric of civic associations went hand-in-hand with a more rapid rise of Nazi party membership.” It could be suggested that some independent factor, such as socioeconomic status or religion, accounts both for associational activity and for willingness to join the Nazi Party. But even if we control for these and other variables, a dense network of civic associations is correlated with significantly higher rates of entry into the Nazi Party. This finding undermines the view, held by some, that the Nazi Party succeeded by appealing to people who were socially isolated, the lonely and the rootless. The evidence strongly suggests that Nazism spread in part as a result of face-to-face interactions by people who were in frequent contact with one another. Consider the chilling remarks of a Nazi Party member who recalled his growing acquaintance “with a colleague of my own age with whom I had frequent conversations. He was a calm, quiet person whom I esteemed very highly. When I found out that he was one of the local leaders of the National Socialist party, my opinion of it as a group of criminals changed completely.” The authors’ central findings fit well with emerging research on the immense importance of social influences on individual behavior. With respect to music, political convictions, voting and food, we constantly learn from others. Like-minded people tend to go to extremes, in large part because they learn from each other. Within nations and around the world, modern social media connect disparate people and hence build social capital, intensifying social influences on thought and behavior. For the current period, there is a straightforward lesson. Individuals and nations generally benefit from large numbers of private associations, including sports clubs, religious groups and parent-teacher associations. But in some nations, dense social networks also increase people’s vulnerability to extremism. A great deal of work suggests that terrorism itself can arise not because people are isolated, poor or badly educated, but because they are part of tightly knit networks in which hateful ideas travel quickly. No one should doubt that private associations are desirable and valuable, and that they can produce a dazzling range of social goods, including checks on the power of government. But Satyanath and his co-authors reveal another possibility: that such associations can facilitate the spread of extremism, ultimately laying the groundwork for challenges to democracy itself. Cass R. Sunstein is the Robert Walmsley University professor at Harvard Law School.

A mentally ill child

http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/

30 Years of Mass Killings in America

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2

Firearms

I read on the Internet that in "the old days" when people wanted to get a ham radio license to broadcast, they had to pass a rather difficult Morse code test. Morse code was useless for the majority of hams, but it worked well in separating the ones willing to work from those just playing around. Firearms should be at least as difficult to get. To own a firearm, a person should have to pass marksmanship and other tests similar to what a police officer has to take. Psychological tests also would be appropriate. Then the aspiring gun owner could even be designated a member of the "Civil Militia" (as in the 2nd Amendment). Members of the Militia would be allowed to own and carry a gun, but they would be responsible if their gun were used in a crime. (No more "I lost it" or "It was stolen".) Gun owners should be held to the same high standards to which police officers are held.

Legally owned guns

Adam Lanza, 20, was armed with two handguns and a semi-automatic Bushmaster .223 rifle Friday morning when he barged into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Authorities said all the weapons were legally owned and registered by Nancy Lanza, the shooter's mother. According to police, a Glock handgun, a Sig Sauer handgun and a Bushmaster rifle were recovered after the shooting at Sandy Hook. Authorities say that Nancy Lanza had five weapons registered to her, including a Glock, a Sig Sauer and a Bushmaster. Acquaintances of Nancy Lanza told the New York Times that the 52-year-old mother was a big fan of guns. She had several different guns and would go target shooting with her kids. She was originally from New Hampshire and was comfortable with weapons. Reports that Adam Lanza may have suffered from a personality disorder are being supported by people who knew that the mother had a troubled son. A classmate of the shooter from kindergarten through middle school said Adam was “quiet” and “one of the smartest students in school.” She said that Adam “was always participating in class and everything.” But she said her former classmate with whom she rode the school bus “sort of vanished” after their junior high years. “He almost fell off the radar in middle school,” she said. The shooter's aunt, Marsha Lanza, said that Adam’s mother pulled him out of Newtown public schools because of a dispute over the district's plan for her son. She ended up home-schooling him because “she battled with the school district,” the aunt said. Newtown’s school superintendent, Janet Robinson, told reporters that Nancy Lanza had no connection to Sandy Hook School despite initial reports that she was on the faculty or a substitute teacher there. Lanza divorced her husband, Peter, in 2009 when Adam was 17. As part of their divorce settlement, she got the house, and she did not have to work because Peter, a financial executive, left her very well off.