Those of us in the States (and perhaps the rest of the English-speaking world) currently have a wonderful opportunity to observe one of the lesser-known NLP Metaprograms at work: The Rules Metaprogram.
Most behavior is “rule governed” in one way or another, so where and how rules apply is important in social interactions. The First Rule is perhaps to whom does a rule apply. Here’s one possibility:
- My rules for me.
- Your rules for you.
- Everyone chooses his or her own rules.
This won’t work well in a variety of social situations. Imagine driving in a big city with everyone thinking, “I get to go first.” In some situations, everyone following his or her own rules results in chaos. So … we need to have a rule about which rules apply under what circumstances. Most sports, for example, have specific rules about who can do what when. Sports rules, such as a rule for “out of bounds,” for leaving the field of play; rules for the number of people on a “side”; rules governing scoring, and so on, define how the game is played.
Like sports, societies are governed by a wide variety of agreed-upon rules with an equal number of agreed-upon sanctions for rule-breakers. We (individuals in general) sometimes have problems when individuals take the rules they learned in one culture and expect them to apply in another. We see that with those who learned to drive in the States trying to drive in the U.K. or in Japan. The rules for “side of the road” aren’t the same. There is, however, a rule that would help prevent some of the confusion. That rule is, “Keep the passenger next to the curb.” That isn’t, however, a rule that most people have memorized or can do automatically.
An additional source of difficulty in complex societies is that some individuals and some groups have an underlying rule: “My (or our) rules should apply to everyone. In terms of cultural expectations, the general trend has been for cultures to become increasingly democratic and egalitarian. While in some cases that tendency is more an ideal than actual, the trend has been to provide more members of a society with the freedom to decide which rules to follow, especially when others aren’t affected by what the person chooses. In an egalitarian society, two people can go out for a pizza dinner, and one can eat the pizza with a knife and fork while the other picks a slice up with his or her fingers and eats it that way.
Even in an egalitarian society, however, some people aren’t willing to allow others to follow their own rules. Their underlying rule is that their rules are the right rules for everyone: “Pizza is finger food….” Such individuals have at least some variant of the following:
- My rules for me.
- My rules for you.
- My rules for everyone.
In the States—and I suspect elsewhere—this construct seems to apply most often in matters of sexuality, often because those who want their rules to apply to everyone think that their rules have been prescribed by God. Things get really interesting when competing gods have competing rules for how people should dress, what and how they should eat, and what sexual behaviors are permissible.
At least one of the individuals running for his party’s nomination for president of the U.S. has a rule that contraception is “not OK” because it encourages people “to do things in the sexual realm that is [sic] counter to how things are supposed to be,” which he is convinced are “within marriage for the purposes of procreation.” The “bottom line” for the stance, “My rules for everyone,” tends to be “God said so.” My guess is that, regardless of the culture, the idea that the principal underlying concept of “my rules for everyone” is “God said so.” If I don’t like it, and if there’s no good reason for it, it must be that “God said so.” Even atheists tend to rely on that kind of reasoning, using “logic” as the Deity to support their sense of disapproval.
Most readers of this blog will be aware that one of the major cultural conflicts around rules of this sort are based on what rights are afforded children, women, and minorities. In the States, women were “afforded” the right to vote in 1919. (In the U.S. we like to say that we’re Number One, but that isn’t always the case.) Early in the twentieth century a lot of people (including some women) were still thinking that God didn’t want women to vote…. Currently, one of the most contentious issues is whether to legalize same-sex marriages. This, again, is a “God said so” issue. And that is always a question of whose God. [My] God’s rules for everyone.” If I believe that God has a rule for X, everyone else must believe it, too.
To avoid “my God said so” reasoning, societies usually attempt to find a “universal concept” to support absolute rules. We make murder and stealing illegal not because “God said so,” but because such behaviors damage the fabric that holds a culture together. We may frown at those who eat pizza with a fork (or with their fingers), but we don’t have them arrested and thrown in jail. How they eat pizza doesn’t influence us in a material way. When we don’t like something that doesn’t influence us in a material way, however, we often resort “God said so” to support our feelings. Some people’s God would say that people shouldn’t eat pepperoni pizza. If enough of those people live in a state, city, or neighborhood, pepperoni pizza would disappear from menus. It is not a matter of I won’t eat pepperoni pizza, but a matter of making pepperoni pizza illegal.
In the U.S. and many other cultures, this is what we have with rules governing sexual behavior. If “we” don’t like it, we’re not going to allow it, regardless of whether we have to engage in the behavior. If you are heterosexual (and are sure of it), someone else’s homosexual behavior doesn’t influence you any more than his or her method of eating pizza does. Contrary to what some have said, the fabric that holds culture together isn’t influenced by same-sex marriage any more than pizza choices influence consumption of those who don’t like pepperoni. If anything, the fabric that holds culture together is made stronger when those who wish to marry are encouraged to do so. Stable relationships help stabilize a culture.
- My rules for me.
- Your rules for you.
- As long as others aren’t influenced, everyone choose his or her own rules.
The next time you have the feeling that someone else’s behavior is violating an important rule, think about how the violation influences you. If it doesn’t influence you, think about the source of the rule. How important is the rule for the well-being of society? Spelling would be an example. In a lot of cases, spelling isn’t too big a deal. In most cases, confusing “there” and “their” isn’t especially significant. If you’re playing championship Scrabble for a lot of money, however, spelling might be important, so you’d want to agree on which dictionary will be the arbiter for differences.
When there’s no logical consequence for a rules violation, however, it is probably a matter of a “God said so” rule. When that’s the case, what stops you from allowing God to take care of the problem in the way He or She desires? I think it was the TV character Maud (Bea Arthur) whose signature line was, “God will get you for that….” That is essentially saying, “You have violated my rule; I want you punished, and God will follow my rule.” My rules for me. My rules for you. My rules for everyone. My rules for God.
My sense is that we’ll all be better off when the foundation for the rules we follow are based more on the logic of its influence on culture as a whole than on our personal beliefs about what God (whichever one) might like or dislike. Whatever god you believe in, even if that god is combination of accident and evolution, he (she or it) must have a high regard for variety, having created so much of it for us to enjoy.
