Social Acceptance: How Far Can We Be Pushed?

After a long week of listening to class lectures and writing down notes to prepare for upcoming exams, I decided to pick up the phone and call my mother to temporarily disconnect from my role as a college student. Normally our conversations consist of what we did during the day, but because it was the start of the weekend, I decided to ask my mom if she’s recently seen any good shows or listened to any podcasts that I might enjoy. Before I could finish, she immediately recommended “Jonestown: Paradise Lost.” The documentary focuses on a tragic massacre that persuaded hundreds of innocent people to consume a poisonous Kool-Aid in the hopes of becoming closer to God. Led by one of the most influential preachers at the time, Jim Jones collected his mass following by giving the people what they wanted. Due to the amount of exposure he gained through media along with the rapid growth of believers, Jones quickly became aware of the amount of power he possessed. Though there were also large amounts of speculation that his intentions were dishonest, his followers were too invested to examine opposing opinions. Though the main focus of the documentary is bringing awareness to how baffling his motives were, I was more curious as to how people were so vulnerable and influenced by others that they were willing to take their own life.

In chapter five, Mead introduces us to an interpretive theory that further explains how others are influenced by a majority’s choice or opinion. Symbolic interactionism, defined as “the ongoing use of language and gestures in anticipation of how the other will react,” is dissected into three core principles (52). With the first narrowing down to meaning-making, Mead explains that how we interact with objects is often based on the meaning those objects have on people. However, this decision is normally made by the interpretation of a group of individuals, rather than one person alone. The second premise targets language and our ability to assign names to objects, incorporating symbolism. A symbol “conveys messages of how we are to feel about and respond to the object, event, or person to which it refers” (54). For example, there is nothing making you question that a pen is called a “pen”. You could simply switch the name at any given time and no rules would be considered broken. However, the reason we continue to identify it as a pen because we have collectively decided and agreed that pen is its given name. The third and final premise is that “an individual’s interpretation of symbols is modified by his or her own thought process. . . an inner conversation” (55). An advantage we as humans possess is the ability to process our responses before we decide to act. We are capable of putting ourselves in the place of others and process how they might perceive us.

 

As previously discussed, we tend to alter our opinions depending on the given audience. Why? Social construction would admit that the more shared meaning present, the easier it is for people to bond together and resist socialization. This is actively seen in “Jonestown: Paradise Lost.” Observing this event from an outside perspective, we constantly question how someone could be so easily persuaded to do something so drastic. The people involved, however, were so consumed with surrounding opinions and choices that they truly believed what they were doing was harmless. Through language, Jones’ followers were convinced his requests were intended to help others rather than to manipulate. When believers hear the term “religion”, we commonly see it from a positive perspective. Therefore, we don’t feel the need to guard ourselves against what is being asked of us, but rather take the request as a way to improve our relationship with God. Though the majority of the participants in the Jonestown Massacre believed the promises Jones made, even after knowing they would be taking their own lives, there were reported survivors who knew something was wrong before traveling to Guyana where the massacre took place. Whether it was through their own intuition or outside perspectives, those who chose not to follow through with Jones’ request considered the consequences that would follow. If his promises were untrue, their choice would not only end their lives but drastically impact their loved ones. Many survivors admitted that it was through looking from an outside perspective that they were able to grasp the severity of the situation they had ended up in.