When we try to modify a person’s behavior by external influence, we are trying to change them from the outside-in. When a person changes their behavior by a transformation of their personal values, they are being changed from the inside-out. You perhaps have heard of this concept in psychology as having an “external locus of control,” which is when behavior is controlled by outside influence, or an “internal locus of control,” which is when behavior is controlled by personal conviction. Today we will consider the benefits and shortcomings of the first of these and then examine the second one tomorrow.

Social Order)

An external locus of control is often presented as inferior to the internal, and it is, but that doesn’t mean that it is necessarily a bad thing. Punishments for crime serve as a deterrent for serious wrongs, and social pressure keeps us civil and fair in our everyday interaction. It’s impossible to say how much our conduct would deteriorate without these external influences, but most of our worst behavior comes out when we think we’re alone. Thus, external pressure helps us behave better, even if it doesn’t make us be better.

An external locus of control is part of the glue that holds a society together. It is first introduced to us when we are very small children, where we are made to follow rules like not hitting others, and sharing our toys, and saying polite things. It provides us a template for how to interact with the rest of the world to our mutual benefit, such as by maintaining positive relationships, remaining employed, and contributing to public safety.

As you can see, this external influence is not only about discouraging bad actions but also encouraging positive patterns that benefit everyone. As such, I think there will always be a place for it, and we can be grateful for the good that it does. That being said, it’s limitations must be acknowledged as well.

Morality Without Morals)

If each person had only an external locus of control, then it would be possible to have a society that was perfectly moral in its behavior, but where no one was actually moral. People would behave only because it was the most beneficial thing to do but would likely abandon all morals once there was an advantage to do so.

Now I do not believe in a society where everyone fits that description, but some of the people do. And I fear the percentage of people who are only moral because of social pressure is increasing. Jesus described such individuals when he said, “for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness,” (Matthew 23:27). Thus, we live in somewhat of an illusion of civility, and every now and again the mask slips, and we are terrified to realize that we live in a society dotted with psychopaths and monsters.

There are two great fears for the society that is primarily dependent on external controls for its morality. First, that those external controls will erode, and will be discarded one after another, until all pretenses of civility are gone. The second is that the people will simply become numb to the external controls. One fateful day, they just won’t care about them anymore, and once a significant percentage of people throw off common decency, even if they are a minority, it will become a snowball effect, a race to the bottom to maintain personal advantage at the expense of all others.

In short, there is real value in external influences for good, and I believe it is worth defending and strengthening them. But it is not the ultimate answer. For that, we must look to tomorrow’s post.