Why do we succeed or fail in certain areas? On the surface, there is no need to work for 4 hours on this question, which almost does not seem to be a question as it calls for banal evidence: talent, competence, expertise, experience, but also posture, relevance, method, creativity, common sense, a spirit of solution, leadership are well understood as the keys to "deserved" success...
But are these qualities only the result of individual predispositions and personal work? What exactly is the role of recognition by the outside world in their emergence, development and affirmation in individuals?
Coined by Robert King Merton, the notion of " self-fulfilling prophecy" sheds useful light on the relationships between self-confidence and trust granted by others, stereotypes suffered and internalized assignments, strength of conviction and ability to " create " reality.
Thomas ' " theorem ": from belief to credibility
When the sociologist of science Merton began to take an interest in the phenomena of social recognition (let us remember that we also owe him the concepts of role model or the Matthew Effect that inspired the Matilda Effect), he referred to the precursor of psychosociology William Thomas. In the 1920s, he highlighted the pre-eminence of representations of reality over reality itself. We don't believe only what we see, as St. Thomas says, but we only perceive what we believe, says William Thomas. So much so that one works to conform reality to one's own conviction.
An example to help you understand: I have confidence in my company's organizational system and I therefore assume that my line manager is in a deserved position; I recognize his skills, I accept his authority, I am loyal to him and through my attitude, I contribute to strengthening his leadership. I already had a good leader and now I am helping to make him even better. Conversely, if I doubt the legitimacy and credibility of this same leader, even if his qualities were unchanged, my mistrust makes me quicker to spot his shortcomings and my posture can undermine his authority. This also applies in the other direction: if my boss believes in me, I give the best of myself and even more; If he withdraws his trust in me, my chances of demonstrating my worth are drastically diminished.
Two lessons to be learned : firstly, the revelation of the value of individuals depends in part on the context and secondly, on what we are invested in by others influences, in reality, our way of being and acting.
The experiment of Rosenthal, Fode and Jacobson: rats (elite) and men (Pygmalion)
Does this seem like simple common sense to you? Certainly, but do you have any idea of the extent of this performative power of trust that we give to others or of which we deprive them?
In 1963, psychologists Robert Rosenthal and Kermit Fode conducted an astonishing experiment. They divide 12 ordinary rats into 2 groups of 6 that they entrust to two separate teams of students. The étudiant.es are tasked with making the rats pass through a maze. The researchers warn the first team that rats are by nature not very good at orienting themselves in space. To the second team, they announce that their rodents have been rigorously selected for their exceptional abilities: they think they have inherited an elite pool of rats!
Launched into the arena, the supposedly gifted rats wander at ease in the maze while those of the first team actually encounter significant difficulties in progressing there, some even refusing to take the start. The difference: the so-called "intelligent" rats were given attention, how they functioned to train them effectively, they were addressed individually, and they were encouraged and rewarded. The others were left in their state from the outset, which was considered heartbreaking, or even mistreated, to the point of being paralyzed.
Persisting in her research on the power of trust and encouragement, Rosenthal then conducted a new experiment with her colleague Lenore Jacobson, this time in the humain.es. After an evaluation test intended, they announce to enseignant.es, to identify the best elements of a class, they distribute 20% of the students in a totally random way into an "elite group". What do we observe at the end of the school year? That this group, although originally made up of individuals no more or less gifted than the others, has outperformed! They call this phenomenon the " Pygmalion effect," in reference to the ancient legend that inspired more than one fairy tale, which says that the " mentor " has the power not only to sculpt perfection but also to bring it to life.
Self-fulfilling prophecy : taking effect for cause and fact for demonstration
Often confused with the notion of self-fulfilling prophecy, the "Pygmalion effect" is however only one dimension. For Robert King Merton, being invested by others with presuppositions is unfortunately more often a factor of stagnation or failure than an opportunity to stand out from the crowd.
Focusing on situations of racial discrimination, he shows, for example, that the unions of the 1940s rejected the membership of African-American workers on the grounds that they did not share their values, as proof that they did not stop work during strikes. The argument is largely sophistry, because how can you go on strike when you do not benefit from the protection of a union ?
If we transpose Merton's example to the situation of women confronted with the glass ceiling, it would roughly give: women do not access responsibilities because they do not have the shoulders to do so ; proof of this is that the higher you go in the hierarchy, the fewer women are parvenu.es stay in the competition.
The self-fulfilling prophecy takes effect for cause : both when it produces negative prejudice (taking for granted the incompetence of those who have not been able to put themselves in a position to prove their worth) and positive presumption (when, for example, one refuses to admit the incompetence, even manifest, of a high-ranking individual on the grounds that " one does not get there by chance"). In this way, we rationalize belief and oversimplify the vision of reality by considering that the facts speak for themselves... Without taking into account his share of responsibility in their creation.
The internalization of the stigma: when discriminé.es " prefer " to give reason to the stereotype than to assert their singular identity
In addition to creating biases in the interpretation of the situation and the behaviours of un.es and others, self-fulfilling prophecy tends to promote the internalization of the stigma by the discriminated against.
Stigma, explains sociologist Erving Goffman, is a " virtual social identity," made up of characteristics attributed to a group to which one is attached. These are stereotypes, but also assignments to functions, presumptions of intent or even to pre-defined destinies.
Faced with this set of imposed determinants that position him or her as "different" (and not necessarily in a hostile way in everything), the "stigmatized" individual can adopt different "strategies": hide the "disability" that causes him or her to be discriminated against (Goffmann takes the example of the illiterate person who pretends to be a myopic person who has forgotten his or her glasses in a situation where he or she should read), denying discrimination (for fear of suffering the humiliation that the condition of victim would entail) or "settling in" with the place assigned to it.
Even if it means overplaying the expected "social role". Thus, the person who has been designated as " different " takes the side of actually being so, sparing himself or herself disproportionate efforts to assert himself or herself against the tide of what is expected of him/her and possibly asserting an added value linked to his or her status, experience, point of view of " different " and place as an " exception " in relation to the norm.
Against self-fulfilling prophecies, for the realization of the self in all its dimensions
It is easy to understand that the self-fulfilling prophecy, as an assertion inducing behaviors that validate the assertion, restricts personalities to reductive patterns, locks individuals into boxes and limits paths to restricted horizons. To allow each person to express his or her singular identity and to realize himself or herself in the multiple dimensions of his or her appetites and abilities, it is therefore necessary to break the vicious circle.
To do this, we can of course work to strengthen the self-confidence and assertiveness of individuals, in order to make them more resistant to the influence of collective mentalities on their perception of themselves. But at the same time, it is probably necessary to challenge these mentalities with beliefs and certainties that are not sufficiently questioned.
Let's reinvest in the understanding of talent, competence, expertise, relevance or leadership with broad-mindedness, so that everyone can fully grasp it from their own being.
