Can Social Engineering do Societal Good?

1696 words (7 pages) Essay

8th Feb 2020 Health And Social Care Reference this

Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a university student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Essay Writing Service. You can view samples of our professional work here.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKEssays.com.

Social engineering can be managed or changed (Roos, 2015) as governments shape different areas of society for social change and development (Kennedy and Parsons, 2014). Social engineering focuses on influencing and arranging environmental forces to create behavioural change with the intention of social action occurring (Kennedy and Parsons, 2014). From a political, social and innovative point of view, social engineering doing societal great is a disputable subject which has charmed a string of blended reactions crosswise over social orders and governments around the world. The part of social building in a general public can be a present moment or long term change where topical issues, for example, smoking and alcohol prevention are reoccurring issues in societies. Hence, this literature review will investigate how governments address these issues and in the event that it has influenced social orders both emphatically and contrarily.

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!

Find out more

The UK has indicated territories of societal good through their utilization of social engineering. Factors like environmental change can have a behavioural change in society (Kennedy and Parsons, 2011) and turn into a driver for wellbeing enhancement (Crawshaw, 2012) through socially dependable associations (Hyman, 2009). By creating a smoke-free policy and starting a health governance the UK engineered health improvement (Crawshaw, 2012; Hyman, 2009). The UK had issued a no smoking day which has been an ongoing occasion throughout the previous 20 years with more than 1million endeavours to stop smoking on the day with the long term accomplishment of 40,000 individuals stopping smoking for every year (Sandford, 2003). Additionally, a day is committed to urging individuals to quit smoking; a day supported by the government as the national achievement of the day. This encourages long-term behavioural change for the better (Kennedy and Parsons, 2012) due to this being a event supported by the general society and a day when society is brought together (Sandford, 2003). The idea of the government constructing a day of progress and attention to advise people to think about the impacts of smoking and how as a network, the general population can cooperate to enable each other to stop and enhance their social orders life expectancy and wellbeing. This portrays a good image of the government as they are doing a societal good through a few types of social engineering, for example, the no smoking day and the long-term congruity of the battle, is an explanation for the achievement. So, a positive social engineering perspective, aspects like liquor and consuming liquor in the UK need to be changed upon.

On the other hand, after investigating into the literature, most cases have distinguished how social engineering does not do societal great (Kennedy and Parsons, 2014; Are you being manipulated, 2015; Hyman, 2009; Clee and Wicklund, 1980; McMahon, 2002). Governments make a dream of ideal world for their social orders by adjusting the conduct and current standards of the general public (Kennedy and Parsons, 2014) while disregarding the present prerequisites and gauges of their individual social orders (Are you being manipulated, 2015). Therefore, social engineering is a weak contender for societal good. Alcohol can be controlled through environmental change as a method for affecting behaviours to modify the consumption of alcohol (McMahon, 2002). Laws being set, for example, drink driving laws neglect to satisfy the standard of excess drinking as it’s anything but a law which covers the full impacts of drinking (Kennedy and Parsons, 2014) which, along these lines, neglects to change the structure of society (Buckman, 1943) in light of the fact that no legitimate arrangement of assessment has been chosen by the government (Heather, 2006). In order for laws to be compelling, they need to address the present issue in the public arena not a path of the developing issue since individuals from societal will neglect to comprehend the dangers and risks of overabundance drinking.

As opposed to limiting ways of damage the UK has shown no worries on the welfare of the liquor business (Heather, 2006) as their main concern is profit (Limb, 2016). In this society we need to understand that youngsters are vulnerable to alcohol consumption (Anderson, 2009) and thusly, society ought to be moulded into creating regulations (Buckman, 1943). There are ways that social engineering would bring societal good and this is through changing the measure of alcohol drinks to making late night transport (Kennedy and Parsons, 2014) but also make a minimum unit cost for liquor (Limb, 2013) not by the use of extending the accessibility of alcohol. Hence, as governments centre around benefit and raising incomes for their nations, the utilization of social engineering turns into an incorporation to society through methods for making benefit by not decreasing drinking and medical benefits which brings long-term societal harm.

Thus, macro social engineering claims to be a weakness to society however can be a piece of a positive action plan for societal change (Kennedy and Parsons, 2012) as most social engineering programs have a critical presence across governments (McMahon, 2002) on the grounds that administrations don’t require huge use to conveyance medical advantages (Sandford, 2003, for example, the Canadian Antismoke battle (Kennedy and Parsons, 2012). The crusade started in 1985 with the Tobacco demonstration of 1997, is a reason for the start of dread interests around smoking and continues to the present day (Kennedy and Parsons, 2012). Any necessary smoking-related information was to be reported to Helath Canada which set off of prohibited sponsorships around smoking and an increased amount of 2000 health caution messages showed on over half of the cigarette packages (Kennedy and Parsons, 2012). In light of the fact that governments were encouraging societal motivation, forming skills and attitudes of the general population by bringing issues to connect with the entire society, and not only a fragment (Kennedy and Parsons, 2014). The social engineering actions supported by the government resulted in doing societal good for Canada as smoking diminished in 1965 from 49.5% to 18% in 2009 (Health Canada, 2010).

Find out how UKEssays.com can help you!

Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.

View our services

To conclude this literature review, social engineering a procedure which can enhance the welfare of society and a procedure which can likewise harm the development of a general public, demonstrates the difference in qualities and standards which spin around the activities of the governments and why they involute with explicit activities. Social engineering is an arranged procedure which has given society a long-term benefit and societal damages. How social engineering can do goodness to society is reliant on elements, for example, the nation of activity and the standards and societies which have developed around that nation. Singular nations require explicit strategies for societal engineering in light of the fact that every nation has explicit laws and convictions and one procedure of social engineering would hence, not be successful over numerous nations.

References

Social engineering can be managed or changed (Roos, 2015) as governments shape different areas of society for social change and development (Kennedy and Parsons, 2014). Social engineering focuses on influencing and arranging environmental forces to create behavioural change with the intention of social action occurring (Kennedy and Parsons, 2014). From a political, social and innovative point of view, social engineering doing societal great is a disputable subject which has charmed a string of blended reactions crosswise over social orders and governments around the world. The part of social building in a general public can be a present moment or long term change where topical issues, for example, smoking and alcohol prevention are reoccurring issues in societies. Hence, this literature review will investigate how governments address these issues and in the event that it has influenced social orders both emphatically and contrarily.

The UK has indicated territories of societal good through their utilization of social engineering. Factors like environmental change can have a behavioural change in society (Kennedy and Parsons, 2011) and turn into a driver for wellbeing enhancement (Crawshaw, 2012) through socially dependable associations (Hyman, 2009). By creating a smoke-free policy and starting a health governance the UK engineered health improvement (Crawshaw, 2012; Hyman, 2009). The UK had issued a no smoking day which has been an ongoing occasion throughout the previous 20 years with more than 1million endeavours to stop smoking on the day with the long term accomplishment of 40,000 individuals stopping smoking for every year (Sandford, 2003). Additionally, a day is committed to urging individuals to quit smoking; a day supported by the government as the national achievement of the day. This encourages long-term behavioural change for the better (Kennedy and Parsons, 2012) due to this being a event supported by the general society and a day when society is brought together (Sandford, 2003). The idea of the government constructing a day of progress and attention to advise people to think about the impacts of smoking and how as a network, the general population can cooperate to enable each other to stop and enhance their social orders life expectancy and wellbeing. This portrays a good image of the government as they are doing a societal good through a few types of social engineering, for example, the no smoking day and the long-term congruity of the battle, is an explanation for the achievement. So, a positive social engineering perspective, aspects like liquor and consuming liquor in the UK need to be changed upon.

On the other hand, after investigating into the literature, most cases have distinguished how social engineering does not do societal great (Kennedy and Parsons, 2014; Are you being manipulated, 2015; Hyman, 2009; Clee and Wicklund, 1980; McMahon, 2002). Governments make a dream of ideal world for their social orders by adjusting the conduct and current standards of the general public (Kennedy and Parsons, 2014) while disregarding the present prerequisites and gauges of their individual social orders (Are you being manipulated, 2015). Therefore, social engineering is a weak contender for societal good. Alcohol can be controlled through environmental change as a method for affecting behaviours to modify the consumption of alcohol (McMahon, 2002). Laws being set, for example, drink driving laws neglect to satisfy the standard of excess drinking as it’s anything but a law which covers the full impacts of drinking (Kennedy and Parsons, 2014) which, along these lines, neglects to change the structure of society (Buckman, 1943) in light of the fact that no legitimate arrangement of assessment has been chosen by the government (Heather, 2006). In order for laws to be compelling, they need to address the present issue in the public arena not a path of the developing issue since individuals from societal will neglect to comprehend the dangers and risks of overabundance drinking.

As opposed to limiting ways of damage the UK has shown no worries on the welfare of the liquor business (Heather, 2006) as their main concern is profit (Limb, 2016). In this society we need to understand that youngsters are vulnerable to alcohol consumption (Anderson, 2009) and thusly, society ought to be moulded into creating regulations (Buckman, 1943). There are ways that social engineering would bring societal good and this is through changing the measure of alcohol drinks to making late night transport (Kennedy and Parsons, 2014) but also make a minimum unit cost for liquor (Limb, 2013) not by the use of extending the accessibility of alcohol. Hence, as governments centre around benefit and raising incomes for their nations, the utilization of social engineering turns into an incorporation to society through methods for making benefit by not decreasing drinking and medical benefits which brings long-term societal harm.

Thus, macro social engineering claims to be a weakness to society however can be a piece of a positive action plan for societal change (Kennedy and Parsons, 2012) as most social engineering programs have a critical presence across governments (McMahon, 2002) on the grounds that administrations don’t require huge use to conveyance medical advantages (Sandford, 2003, for example, the Canadian Antismoke battle (Kennedy and Parsons, 2012). The crusade started in 1985 with the Tobacco demonstration of 1997, is a reason for the start of dread interests around smoking and continues to the present day (Kennedy and Parsons, 2012). Any necessary smoking-related information was to be reported to Helath Canada which set off of prohibited sponsorships around smoking and an increased amount of 2000 health caution messages showed on over half of the cigarette packages (Kennedy and Parsons, 2012). In light of the fact that governments were encouraging societal motivation, forming skills and attitudes of the general population by bringing issues to connect with the entire society, and not only a fragment (Kennedy and Parsons, 2014). The social engineering actions supported by the government resulted in doing societal good for Canada as smoking diminished in 1965 from 49.5% to 18% in 2009 (Health Canada, 2010).

To conclude this literature review, social engineering a procedure which can enhance the welfare of society and a procedure which can likewise harm the development of a general public, demonstrates the difference in qualities and standards which spin around the activities of the governments and why they involute with explicit activities. Social engineering is an arranged procedure which has given society a long-term benefit and societal damages. How social engineering can do goodness to society is reliant on elements, for example, the nation of activity and the standards and societies which have developed around that nation. Singular nations require explicit strategies for societal engineering in light of the fact that every nation has explicit laws and convictions and one procedure of social engineering would hence, not be successful over numerous nations.

References

  • Anderson, P. (2009). Is it time to ban alcohol advertising? Clinical Medicine, 9(2), pp.121-124.
  • Are you being manipulated? (2015). Strategic Direction, 31(7), pp.14-16.
  • Buckman, R. 1943, “Social Engineering: A Study of the Birth Control Movement”, Social Forces, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 420.
  • Clee, M. and Wicklund, R. (1980). Consumer Behaviour and Psychological Reactance. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(4), pp.389-405.
  • Crawshaw, P. (2012). Governing at a distance: Social marketing and the (bio) politics of responsibility. Social Science & Medicine, 75(1), pp.200-207.
  • Health Canada (2010), Health Canada Controlled Substances and Tobacco Directorate Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (CTUMS): Smoking Prevalence 1999-2010, Health Canada, available at: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/tobac-tabac/research-recherche/stat/_ctums- esutc_prevalence/prevalence-eng.php
  • Heather, N. 2006, “Britain’s Alcohol Problem And What The Uk Government Is (And Is Not) Doing About It”, Adicciones, vol. 18, no. 3.
  • Hyman, M. (2009). Responsible Ads: A Workable Ideal. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(2), pp.199-210.
  • Kennedy, A. and Parsons, A. (2012). Macrosocial marketing and social engineering: a systems approach. Journal of Social Marketing, 2(1), pp.37-51.
  • Kennedy, A. and Parsons, A. (2014). Social engineering and social marketing: why is one “good” and the other “bad”? Journal of Social Marketing, 4(3), pp.198-209.
  • Limb, M. (2013). Government has lost “credibility on public health” for inaction on cigarettes and alcohol, campaigners say. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 346(7908), p.4.
  • McMahon, L. (2002). The Impact of Social Marketing on Social Engineering in Economic Restructuring. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 9(4), pp.75-84.
  • Mezquita, L., Sánchez-Romera, J., Ibáñez, M., Morosoli, J., Colodro-Conde, L., Ortet, G. and Ordoñana, J. (2017). Effects of Social Attitude Change on Smoking Heritability. Behavior Genetics, 48(1), pp.12-21.
  • Roos, n. (2015), “Alcohol panic, social engineering, and some reflections on the management of whites in early apartheid society, 1948-1960”. The Historical Journal, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 1167-1189.
  • Sandford, A. (2003). Government action to reduce smoking. Respirology, 8(1), pp.7-16.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on the UKDiss.com website then please: