I found the video Four Ways to Fix a Broken Legal System by Phillip K. Howard fascinating for its intersections with Lessig’s (2006) work Code 2.0. The discussion of the American legal system is to understand a change in societal architecture. Lessig notes regarding law and society, “In each example, an architecture is changed so as to realize different behavior…Law can change social norms as well…” (Lessig, 2006, 129). Howard (2010) concurs with this thesis through his discussion of American law, especially in the way that both societal structures and individual outlooks have shifted, “Our culture has changed. People no longer feel free to act on their best judgment” (4:20). He notes that the current legal system reflects the judgment of hindsight bias, when in actuality it may not be possible to correctly identify the reasons for actions taken or alternatives when run in real time without perfect knowledge. Individuals tend to act defensively due to the presence of lawsuits; this leads to paralysis in society. This brings to mind the figure in Lessig (2006) where the law element skews the market, norms and architecture of society, thereby changing a citizen’s comprehension of the surrounding world and how to react and interact in society. Howard said that to fix the legal system there must be trust. “If you make people self conscious about their judgments, studies show they will make worse judgments” (Howard, 2010, 12:15).
The combination of Howard and Lessig’s discussion was very powerful. A question of mine through the course of my studies has been how to actually make changes when it is clear the existing structure is not working. Some may claim that society “is the way it is” and that making large structural changes is too difficult. I concur that change is extremely difficult, especially when people are comfortable with current operations. However, I personally have a difficult time accepting this perspective. To believe that society cannot change and adapt, that any big changes will ruin the country, feels like giving up. I appreciated Howard’s prescription for change in that he tried to identify changes in structure that may improve the legal system, therefore improving American society.
Great analysis, exactly what I was hoping for in terms of understanding the content, connecting it to other material, finding key messages that make you think about your work and your interests.
ReplyDeleteHere is another way to look at change. We are always in a state of change and although day to day there might not be obvious differences, the principles that guide those changes do add up in the long term. So as we move forward know that we are not paralyzed, just the opposite, we are changing more and faster than ever. But as Lessig points out, all these new ambiguities that are caused during change need to be thought out carefully. So can we use something like the four principles of Howard to guide future decisions.