Walden Two and Social Change : The Application of Behavior Analysis to Cultural Design Comunidad Los

The complex process of social change can be facilitated by applying the findings of behavior analysis. Los Horcones, located in Mexico, is a Walden Two community which is guided by behavioral technology. The success of the community since it was founded in 1973 illustrates the promise of social applications of behavioral principles. Some misconceptions about behavior analysis and behaviorism as a philosophy have inhibited the application of behavioral principles to social change, especially in developing nations. A comprehensive strategy for social change can and should be derived from the science. The behavior analyst should be viewed as a shaper of a better society. The term "Walden Two" is used in this essay to refer to a model of a society guided by principles derived from behavior analysis, as well as to a strategy for social change derived from that science . We do not use the term to refer to the fictional community descri bed in the novel published by B. F. Skinner in 1948; rather, we use the term to denote any application of behavioral principles to social change. This essay describes some of the contributions that behavior analysis has made to cultural design. These contributions include spe cifications of some of the essential characteristics of a society appro p riate for human beings, as well as relevant rese arch findings an d methodologies for selecting the most effective pro cedures for producing social change, or, more specifically, for bringing about an appropriate society a Walden Tw o social system. We do not discuss behavior anal ysis or behaviorism in dep th. Instead, we describe one way in which a technology of beha vior can be applied. We also point out some misconceptions about behavior analysis and its philosophy, behaviorism, as well as some typical but undesirable characteristics of behavioral resea rch. We hold that these misconceptions have led people w ho are interested in social change, including some who call themselves behavior analysts, to abandon the scientific approach in their efforts to improve society in favor of philosophical, religious, and political approaches . We believe that all behavioral research may be of value, but we insist upon the necessity of research that is relevant to cultural design and that would therefore contribute to the formulation of integral solutions to social problems. We object to the practice of simply patching up the system through temporary stopgap measures. Finally , we believe that the social function of the behavior analyst consists of replacing defective social conditions with conditions that promote human well being . Los Horcones Community: A Walden Two Experiment We offer a general description of the social environment in which this article was written, because our proposal is not merely a verbal exercise but one that corresponds to a real and current social alternative. Los Horcones is a pilot Walden Two experiment that began formally in October 1973; it was designed to facilitate the study of behaviors relevant to cultural planning and social change. In Los Horcones, private property does not exist; all property is held communally. Our children are raised and educated communally. The family is extended to include not only the biological parents but all members of the community . Our marital relations are monogamous. We work cooperatively in an egalitarian fashion. There is no dominant class, nor is there an oppressed class. We sha re the products of our labors both goods and earnings equally and peacefully, and we oblige no one to live as we do or to stay among us. We subscribe to the assumption that it is necessary to study new forms of social organization, social chai;ige strate36 I Los Horcones, with Ro/Jerts and Epstein I WALDEN TWO AND SOCIAL CHANGE gies, and social action alternatives experimentally. We also believe that behavior analysis is indispensible in this kind of research and that a proposal for social change which takes relevant scientific knowledge into account reduces the risk of creating social conditions worse than the ones it seeks to modify. We have created a miniature world, a small scale society with unique cultural practices. Some Misconceptions about Behavior Analysis and Its Philosophy, Behaviorism In developing nations (and elsewhere to a lesser extent), behavior analysis and behaviorism are commonly misconceived in seven ways that impede proper consideration of behavioral strategies for social change . Misconception 1: The Nationalistic Concept of Science We frequently hear people from developing countries, including some who call themselves behavior analysts, say that behavior analysis is a United States export and is therefore a capitalistic science. It is true that, to date, most of the contributions to this discipline have been made in the United States, but the data and methodology have no nationality, just as no nationality can be assigned to physics, biology, or chemistry. Although science has no passport, its applications may be more helpful in some nations than others. For example, research on behavior that reduces the consumption of electricity may be of little use in some African or Latin American countries. Misconception 2: Confusing Science and Application This error is often expressed as follows: "Behavior analysis is destructive and has been invented in order to maintain unjust social systems in which some people are controlled for the benefit of othe rs . It is exploitative and can serve only th e privile ged social class." Those who confuse science with its applications lack an under stand ing of the nat ur e of scien tific knowl edge . Chemistry is not inh erentl y destructive or inhumane simp ly beca u se chem ists have creat ed defoliants and chemical weapons. Simila rly, to say that biology is inhumane because it makes ba cteriologi cal war possible or that physics is destructive beca use it make s nuclear war feasible is to con found science with its most destructive appli catio ns. The same mistake is made when it is said that behavior ana lysis is at fault because it ha s inspired methods that get workers to produce more for, and report earlier to, exploitative workplaces, or methods that help salespeople to sell more useless products. Misconception 3: The Static Concept of Science Some hold that behavior analysis lacks answers and data required to change society, and some add that it never will. But science is progressive, not static. Behavior analysis does not have all the answers now, but it does have an effective methodology that can be used to generate pertinent data. If, in designing Los Horcones, we had based our practices on the behavioral research most frequently cited by colleagues in Mexico and Latin America, we would have reinforced cooperative behavior with sweets, cigarettes, praise, money, or tokens or points that could be exchanged for clothes, free time, outings, and the like. We would have observed each other constantly while taking notes on clipboards, using response counters, or timing behavior with stopwatches . We might also have punished members for uncooperative behavior by using timeout, overcorrection, or withdrawal of dining privileges. We would have treated our children similarly. We are quite sure that, had we done such things, the Los Horcones experiment would not exist today. Adhering to practices developed in settings very different from our own without validating such practices through research would have meant abandoning the scientific method when it was most needed . Fortunately, we recognized the need to use scientific methodology in probing an unexplored area of application. Our research on competitive and cooperative behavior, natural reinforcement, and other relevant matters, has led to drastic changes in our social organization, supporting our contention that even the most complex social behavior can be studied experimentally. In the absence of relevant data, the Walden Two strategy leads one to collect such data. Misconception 4: The Separatist Concept of Science No single science is adequate for the task of designing the physical and social environments that comprise a soci. ety. All of the sciences have th eir place in the proc ess. A great deal is already known about the physical , che mical , and biological world which is of great value in the design of a socie ty. The behavior analyst who is interested in socia l change and who do es not con sider the importance of other sciences is over estima ting behavior analysis . But we believe that behavior analysis is fundamental to the task of design ing a society , because all sciences depend upon hum an behavior . An effec tive science of behavior makes it po ssible to app ly science in general in way s tha t are WALDEN TWO AND SOCIAL CHANGE I Los Horames, with Roberts and Epstein I 37 beneficial to human beings. The lack of scientific knowledge about people leads us to use science in general in defective ways, and this is indeed the way science is used in contemporary social systems. We believe that most social problems are not rooted in a lack of knowledge about the physical world but in the dearth of information about human behavior itself. Misinterpretation 5: The Belief that Humans are Passive Some people mistakenly assert that behavior analysts believe that human beings are passive entities subject to the influences of the environment . This misconception may derive from the inadequate way in which environment is defined in the behavior analytic literature. Some affirm that environment controls behavior, but they fail to note that behavior also changes the environment. Characterizing the environment in this way leads one to overlook variables that teach people how to change it. The relationship between behavior and the environment is bidirectional. Misconception 6: The Concept of "Group Behavior" Some behavior analysts interested in social change fail to use their science because, they say, it is useful only in explaining individual behavior, not for the so-called "behavior of society" or" group behavior." Thus they affirm that the laws of individual behavior do not apply to the "behavior of society." All changes in behavior occur at the level of the individual, and by "group behavior" we can only mean that several individuals behave in the same way under certain circumstances. When an event, social or otherwise, affects the behavior of many individuals, we say that the group or society has changed. To be more precise, we should say that the behavior of individuals within the group has changed. A concept of group behavior which leads us to look for special laws is erroneous. For example, members of an audience often orient toward the speaker, but it would be imprecise to say that a group "pays attention." The individuals behave in a group but not as a group. A change in socie ty consists of a change in the behavior of the ind ividuals wh o comprise it. Changing the behavior of many individuals simult aneously is entirely compatible with th e skills of th e behavi or analyst. For example, raising the price of gasoline changes the behavior of many people in similar way s. People wait in line, fill extra containers, get angry with gasoline statio n attendants, pay extra to get quick service, or criticize the governme nt. It is the behavior of individuals which ha s changed as a result of a change in an environmental variable. Misconception 7: The Concept of the Fragmentary Environment This is a mistake made by behavior analysts themselves, and it is a particularly serious one. Behavior analysts, in their enthusiasm to demonstrate the power of the environment in controlling behavior, usually work with environmental events that are easy to manipulate. The behavior analyst says "very good," "that's fine," or gives some other statement of approval. Sweets or other foods are supplied, money is awarded, disapproval is verbalized, electric shocks are inflicted, caresses are given. The environment is thus misconceived as a set of disconnected events, because the easily manipulated events have little relationship to other environmental events. Just as there are chains of responses, there are chains of environmental events. No event in the natural environment of an organism occurs in isolation from other events . Environmental events are interrelated. We call the sum of such events the unified environment. In Figure 1 event Ex is a discriminative stimulus for behavior Bx, and event Ey is a consequence. These three events, represented within the brackets, form what is usually called the three-term contingency. It is incorrect to assume that the environment is comprised of only those events that come immediately before and after some behavioral event, although the work of many behavior analysts would suggest that this is so. The concept of the unified environment leads us to ask about other events that determine the three terms. In Figure 1, Ex depends upon the existence of other events, Ea, Eb, and Ec, and the consequence depends upon Ez, Bx, and E 0 , which in tum depend upon E ~E ~E ""7 E ~ E 2 ""7 Eyl ""7 El ""7 E a