In October 2017, sparked by the allegations against film producer Harvey Weinstein, actress Alyssa Milano asked her Twitter followers to tweet the words ‘me too’ if they had experienced sexual assault or harassment, to highlight the scale of the problem.

The global response that ensued – more than 1.7m tweets including the hashtag #MeToo, and 12m Facebook posts in less than 24 hours by 4.7m users around the world – became a rallying cry against sexual assault and harassment; a collective outpouring of shared experiences. Experiences that, for many, had previously been kept a secret. 

As social media time-lines filled up with stories, the norm of silence had shifted. Buoyed by the experiences of others – including the very public revelations from high-profile Hollywood actresses about Weinstein’s alleged abuse – the unleashing of honesty had empowered millions of women to speak out when they may otherwise
have not. 

In a new paper, Harvard Law School professor and co-author of Nudge – alongside Richard Thaler – Cass Sunstein outlines how this phenomenon of ‘unleashing’ can shift norms and ultimately effect social change. 

Sunstein, who has been writing on norms for many years, says he was influenced by the context of the dramatic shifts taking place across the current political landscape. “It seems to me that 2017 is a year of unleashing, in so many domains. I was influenced by some dramatic movements on both the left and the right, and the ideas just poured out.”

Sunstein wrote the paper ahead of the Harvey Weinstein allegations coming to light, but its arguments offer a means of understanding some of the ways in which unleashing preferences can effect social change (including in the context of sexual harassment) – with both positive and negative consequences.  

Sunstein’s paper explores two propositions: first, that the erosion of social norms releases people – in that it allows them to reveal what they believe and prefer, as well as act as they wish – and second, that the revision of norms can construct, and give rise to, preferences, values and beliefs that did not exist previously. 

He begins the paper with an anecdote from the time he spent as a visiting professor at Columbia Law School during the 1980s, when he witnessed an older male law professor stroking the hair of a female law student in a hallway. When he spoke to the student about it, she initially dismissed him by saying it was not a problem, but 30 minutes later knocked on his door in tears. 

Sunstein writes that social norms placed constraints on the student – while she hated what the professor was doing, because of existing norms she did not want to say, or do, anything in response. When Sunstein made a comment that it was inappropriate of the professor, she felt able to express her true thoughts, at least to him privately.

When legislation is passed that entrenches the revision of norms – such as judicial rulings that forbid sexual harassment in the workplace – or when new leaders are introduced, Sunstein argues the effect can be transformative, as it signals information about what other people think; a major influence on the construction and deconstruction of norms.

Norm entrepreneurs

Individuals can also play an important role in unleashing hidden preferences to effect social change. ‘Norm entrepreneurs’ – a term coined by Sunstein in his 1996 paper Social Norms and Social Roles – are those who oppose existing norms and try to change them. 

They are essential catalysts for social change, Sunstein tells Impact. “They can be ordinary people, willing to tackle, or to object to, a long-standing norm. They can be celebrities, willing to put their reputations on the line. In any case, norms can’t shift unless people are willing to be brave enough, or foolish enough, or reckless enough, to challenge them.”

This phenomenon can have both positive and negative consequences. That same process of norm erosion that empowers sexual harassment victims to speak out, could also serve to unleash less desirable preferences and beliefs – or reinforce discrimination. 

The phenomenon can be even more potent when the norm entrepreneur in question is a powerful figure. The paper looks at the results of a study on whether Donald Trump’s political success had affected Americans’ willingness to publicly support a xenophobic organisation (Leonardo Bursztyn et al – From Extreme to Mainstream: How Social Norms Unravel – published in May 2017 ).

Two weeks before the presidential election in 2016, the study recruited 458 participants from eight states that Trump had been predicted to win. Half of the participants were informed that Trump was projected to win the election, while the other half received no information. Respondents were asked whether they would authorise a $1 donation to an anti-immigrant organisation, with half of the group being told that if they decided to make the donation, it would be kept anonymous. Meanwhile, the other half were given no assurances regarding anonymity.

The research found that, for those who had received information about Trump’s projected victory and authorised the donation to the anti-immigrant group, anonymity did not matter. For those who were given no information on the expected Trump win, 54% of participants authorised the donation provided it would be anonymous, compared to 34% should the donation become public. 

“The general conclusion is that if Trump had not come on the scene, many Americans would refuse to authorise a donation to an anti-immigrant organisation unless they were promised anonymity,” Sunstein writes in the paper. “But with Trump as president, people feel liberated. Anonymity no longer matters, apparently because Trump’s election has weakened the social norm against supporting anti-immigrant groups.”

In effect, Trump is operating as a ‘norm entrepreneur’ here: “He is shifting norms in such a way as to weaken or eliminate their constraining effects,” writes Sunstein.

He also argues that some revisions of norms do not unleash any pre-existing preferences or values – instead, they create new ones. He argues that the rise of Nazism can be understood in such terms. 

As previously hidden preferences are unleashed, change can happen very quickly, Sunstein says. “We can have an unexpected upheaval. Lives, workplaces, and even nations can be turned around pretty rapidly.

“Some change is good, and important; other change is destructive and must be slowed down or stopped. We have to ask where we want to go, before deciding where we go.” 

A preliminary draft of Sunstein’s paper, Unleashed, is available via the Social Science Research Network (SSRN). The paper will also appear in Social Research.