The inertia of tradition, the safety of the ‘known’

As humans, we aim towards homeostasis and follow the general law of inertia, that is, to remain in a state of constancy. Now, how does one describe constancy in a social setting? Traditions and cultures are perfect mediums to ensure that certain practices and ways of life live past transient humans and build a community containing shared philosophies and ideologies. The formation of societies and groups are due to the need to be part of a self-sustaining symbiotic relationship amongst the members of the said society or group.

Now, where does inertia come into play here? A simple example: In most Indian households with lineages of doctors, engineers and lawyers, the offspring is expected to (if not forced) follow in the same career path. Suppose that a rebellious member of the household challenges the ‘tradition’ followed by their family by opting to pursue an "unorthodox" career. In that case, they are most likely met with paramount resistance to the idea. If they remain resilient with their choice, they'll be asked to back up their claims with double the evidence of its viability and desirability than they would have had to show if they had chosen to pursue a more "orthodox" career. When they are just yet another sheep amongst the herd and choose to enter medical school, they are met with zero resistance toward their future plans. Is this the natural skepticism and coping mechanism towards uncertainty that follows any modicum of change, or is it simply the unwillingness to experience a different lifestyle? It's a mix of both.

To pursue a novel idea is to plunge into the depths of daunting uncertainty. Trial-and-error methods of living have long been expelled, and far more "tested-out" ways of life have been encouraged. If we go back to when the caste system was followed without question and was considered the appropriate social module to be considered when making decisions about one's own life and future, we notice how generations of people belonging to the same caste have had homogenous jobs and livelihoods. The Brahmins consisted of priests and teachers, and the Vaishyas of farmers and traders. A Shudra wanting to serve as a warrior in battle was an anomaly, a deviation in the social hierarchy. Although such stringent ways of life have diminished, the social blueprints for them do still exist. And these very blueprints are laid into the collective consciousness of groups and societies, which motivate behaviour to follow unspoken norms.

By definition, blueprints are a guide for making something — it's a design or pattern that can be followed. Unfortunately, what "can" be followed has transformed into something that "must" be followed. In the biological sphere, Cleistogamous flowers (flowers that have their petals closed and only pollinate with themselves) ensure the purity of their species by reproducing the same genetic code every single generation. Similarly, in human societies, the need to ensure homogeneity in future progeny serves as a barrier to the rise of novel individuals. Homogeneity in jobs, livelihoods, ideologies and beliefs promotes safety in group identity and a fair chance of survival. However, it is a tremendous obstacle to diversity. Diversity ensures an ecosystem; it ensures co-evolution of species through competition. Without diversity, mere survival is one's safest bet (which really shouldn't be the hallmark of human life).

Which brings me back to my point: Why do parents immediately say no to new ideas?

It's due to the ‘availability bias’. The availability bias is a mental shortcut that relies on immediate examples that come to a person's mind when evaluating a specific topic, concept, method or decision. Thus, when the immediate examples are images of tradition, ancestral lineages, constancy, and cultural history, they believe they are justified in saying 'no' to a new suggestion.

Unfortunately, this bias has captured the mindset of numerous individuals in positions of power as well. An academic institution unwilling to cancel examinations amid a pandemic, when it is well-aware of the plight of the students' mental and physical health, is truly its unwillingness to break a long tradition. "We have been doing this for the past several years, why should we change now?" A phrase we've heard all too often in almost every facet of adolescent and adult life. Workers unions fighting for change, youth advocates pleading with governments for reforms, and students requesting administrative authorities for leniency are not about a lack of strength in newer generations but a mandated response towards the conservative mindset of the older ones.

(The writer is a science student at Sri Kumaran Children’s Home, Bengaluru)