Matthews 1

Caden Matthews

ACP Composition W131

Mrs. Heiter

February 22, 2021

The Fate of Beliefs Rooted Solely in Tradition

New York Times​ contributing writer Peggy Orenstein, in her article “Cinderella and

Princess Culture,” claims that while traditional gender stereotypes are harmful, children who

dress up as princesses do not demonstrably adopt the traditional conceptualization of femininity.

While Orenstein found that children dressing up as princesses is not necessarily a bad thing, this

does not cause Orenstein to accept the traditional gender roles intrinsic to “princess culture.”

This makes it appear that Orenstein has an issue with people being expected to follow traditional

gender roles. However, others argue that following traditional ideas about gender is important to

preserving our society and culture.​ ​The Family Research Council, in its article “Ten Arguments

from Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage,” claims that heterosexual marriage is better for

children, the institution of marriage, and spouses. While same-sex marriage was a controversial

issue when the article was published, the matter is largely settled now. The same thing happened

to interracial marriage decades ago; it was a largely contested subject but over time became

accepted. This shows that while the regressive force of gender ideals regarding marriage have

created opposition initially in the past, this opposition has been temporary. While the opposition

created by traditional gender roles eventually subsides given enough time, the change in society

may be better explained by acting as if it were instantaneous rather than taking place over the

span of several years.

 Matthews 2

The first point that must be addressed is how the argument against same-sex marriage

relates to tradition. While the Family Research Council claims that homosexual marriage is

harmful to children, this is in disagreement with scientific consensus. Doctor Mike Allen of the

University of Milwaukee demonstrates that the gender of the parents of a child has no impact on

the child in his paper ​Comparing the Impact of Homosexual and Heterosexual Parents on

Children: Meta-Analysis of Existing Research​. Allen’s meta-analysis looks at already existing

data on the “effectiveness” of homosexual parents when compared to heterosexual parents. The

meta-analysis measures this “effectiveness” by statistically analyzing the IQ, sexual orientation,

and classroom behavior of the children; the data shows that the sexual orientation of the parents

has no impact on the child’s emotional well-being, sexual orientation, development, or behavior

(3). Allen’s findings are corroborated by the vast majority of studies on the same topic. Since the

Family Research Council’s claims regarding the well-being of children with homosexual parents

are not in agreement with scientific consensus, the article’s argument is reduced to its claim that

same-sex marriage causes harm to the institution of marriage and the spouses.

However, the arguments that same-sex marriage harms the spouses are predicated on non

sequiturs and traditional ideas of partnership. For example, the Family Research Council claims

that since fewer men in homosexual marriages value sexual fidelity than men and women in

heterosexual marriages, this would lead to a higher amount of sexual disloyalty. However, this

stems from the preconceived notion that marriage should be monogamous, as in, the partners do

not have sexual intercourse with others. This idea comes from tradition, as open relationships

share the same emotional closeness that results from monogamous relationships. This shows that

while many arguments against same-sex marriage seem to come in different forms, they tend to

boil down to an appeal to tradition.

 Matthews 3

Since these arguments from tradition tend to mask themselves as arguments for the

well-being of children in spite of scientific consensus, it leads one to wonder why this is. While

this could come from intellectual dishonesty, it could alternatively come from confirmation bias

and misinformation. Despite the true evidence existing, there are many who do not or will not

consider it. This lack of consideration could be explained by “alternative facts.” In the modern

digital age, it is increasingly possible to widely spread false information. If one is initially

exposed to false information, one is more likely to disregard new contradictory information,

regardless of the truth. This is part of the reason that people have difficulty changing their

opinions on various topics. People can also be nudged in the direction of this faulty information

if they are told ideas without justification. If people receive their news from a biased source, they

will search for evidence to confirm their belief. However, there is almost always a study to back

up any opinion, even contradictory opinions. By searching for a study to corroborate one’s

opinion instead of basing one’s opinion off of a broad range of studies, one is partaking in a sort

of confirmation bias. With this lack of accuracy in forming opinions, it seems nearly impossible

for societies to substantially change, yet as previously stated, they do.

The conditions necessary for overcoming this seemingly insurmountable task, shifting a

society’s stance, could be explained by bestselling author Malcolm Gladwell’s book ​The Tipping

Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference.​ Gladwell mentions three causes of a

“tipping point”: the “Law of the Few,” the “Stickiness Factor,” and the “Power of Context.”

These three ideas form the very specific conditions in which a “tipping point” can occur. The

“tipping point” is a sociological term referring to a point in time when a group drastically

changes its behavior or beliefs. This “tipping point” can refer, for example, to the specific

instance in which it became acceptable for women to work instead of being a housewife. While
 Matthews 4

this change may not seem as instantaneous as the “tipping point” would indicate, this is due to

group size. When thinking of the “tipping point” for the whole country, it would have to span a

large range of time; whereas, the “tipping point” of a small community would be more instant.

Gladwell shows this through his comparison of societal change with epidemics. While epidemics

do quickly spread, they do not suddenly infect the entire continental United States. This analogy

to epidemics shows the importance of considering the group size. While the population of the

United States is a group, it is further divided into smaller and smaller groups. This division

shows that the “tipping point” is indeed instantaneous. Since the “tipping point” truly is

instantaneous this lends credence to the necessity of the three causes as opposed to just the

passing of time.

Gladwell’s “Law of the Few” states that “. . .the success of any kind of social epidemic is

heavily dependent on the involvement of people with a particular and rare set of social gifts”

(33). These people act as a sort of revolutionary. For example, a large factor in the success of the

Civil Rights Movement is Martin Luther King Junior; in the realm of traditional gender roles,

individuals such as Susan B. Anthony show the “Law of the Few.” The “Law of the Few” is

justified by the fact that, without a rallying force, people will not be able to adequately band

together to demand change. Gladwell’s “Stickiness Factor” stresses the importance of the impact

or memorability of the message being spread. Essentially, in order for change to occur, the

message being spread must be impactful enough to spark action. Finally, Gladwell’s “Power of

Context” states that human behavior is affected largely by their circumstances (139). This relates

to the Greek idea of kairos, the opportune moment. While each of these concepts on their own

contributes to the “tipping point,” they must all be adequately met to satisfy the initial conditions
 Matthews 5

required for the “tipping point.” These conditions are the reason why society is able to overcome

the barrier of tradition.

Senior media relations specialist of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Gabrielle DeMarco

in her article “Minority Rules: Scientists Discover Tipping Point for the Spread of Ideas” writes

that members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) of

Rensselaer found that when as little as ten percent of a population shares a view, the view will

spread to the majority of the population. This seems to act as an alternative form of the “Law of

the Few.” While the “Law of the Few” is concerned with the sociability and charisma of those

that hold a belief, the findings of the SCNARC are more concerned with the sheer number of

believers. The findings do have a caveat when it comes to a specific type of belief. For beliefs

that are incredibly polarized among a group, this “Ten Percent Principle” does not apply; the

beliefs remain polarized. For example, political parties and religions do not follow the “Ten

Percent Principle.” This shows that the "Ten Percent Principle" relies heavily on a majority of

the population not already having an unshakable belief; whereas, the “Law of the Few” does not

have this required condition.

The “Law of the Few” instead has the required conditions that people are drawn toward

beliefs that are presented to them frequently, so long as the opposing belief is not also presented

as frequently, and that people are drawn toward beliefs presented by charismatic individuals. It is

notable that in both the “Law of the Few” and the "Ten Percent Principle" polarized beliefs are

resilient to change. This is why heavily polarized issues, instead of over time resolving to one

pole, become integrated into the society they are found in. This can be shown in the culture that

has evolved around the political dichotomy in the United States. This shows that a significant
 Matthews 6

reason as to why gender ideals have been overcome is that they are no longer strongly held by a

large enough percentage of the population.

While the phasing out of gender ideals is able to arise due to lack of conviction in the

population, this lack of conviction has not always been present. Psychoanalyst Erich Fromm may

be able to describe why conviction due to tradition fades with time in his article “Disobedience

as a Psychological and Moral Problem.” Fromm illustrates the difference between heteronomous

obedience and autonomous obedience. Fromm claims that heteronomous obedience, submission,

is obeying an authority due to it being an authority; whereas autonomous obedience, affirmation,

is obeying an authority due to shared values (125). When traditional beliefs are not rationally

justified, this creates a dilemma; the authority is still being obeyed, yet does not align with

rational values. This causes obedience to unjustified tradition to be submission. Fromm argues

that disobedience is an inherent part of being human (124). When submission and inherent

disobedience are combined, the heteronomous obedience is bound to fade. This fading is what

leads to the lack of conviction in the tradition’s followers.

The following illustrates from beginning to end the life and death of an unjustifiable

tradition. The tradition is established; then, due to lack of rationality, the tradition is rendered as

heteronomous obedience. Heteronomous obedience is submission, so humans in their natural

desire to disobey lessen their obedience to the tradition. Once a large enough percentage of the

population no longer firmly holds the tradition, the opportune moment is reached. This kairos,

the “Power of Context,” has been achieved, allowing the “Ten Percent Principle” and the “Law

of the Few” to cause the spread of the opposition throughout the majority of the population. This

spread is aided by the “Stickiness Factor” of the presentation of the idea. Finally, the opposition

to the tradition has spread so widely that the tradition is abandoned and subsequently frowned
 Matthews 7

upon. In regard to gender ideals, many traditional ideas of masculinity, femininity, and marriage

are now regarded as toxic, oppressive, or intolerant. This is the result of the end of the lifecycle

of irrational tradition.

While it initially appears that the passage of time was a significant factor in the death of

traditions, Gladwell shows that time passing actually serves as the window of opportunity for the

true factors to act in order to reach the nearly instantaneous “tipping point.” Despite the various

conditions for rejection being met across a wide range of traditional beliefs, DeMarco shows that

only a subset of these beliefs are able to be rejected: the nonpolar beliefs. While this fading of

traditions shown by Fromm may appear to indicate that no tradition is safe, only unjust traditions

will incur the fading that begets rejection; however, since gender is socially constructed, no

traditions regarding gender can be rationally justified. This selective nature of the process of

phasing out traditions seems to indicate a sort of social evolution within humanity. By replacing

unjustified traditions over time with either no tradition or justified traditions, humans are able to

work toward achieving a maximally rational culture.

 Matthews 8

Works Cited

Allen, Mike, and Nancy Burrell. ​Comparing the Impact of Homosexual and Heterosexual

Parents on Children: Meta-Analysis of Existing Research. ​1994,

files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED370143.pdf.

DeMarco, Gabrielle. “Minority Rules: Scientists Discover Tipping Point for the Spread of

Ideas.” ​Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, ​25 July 2011, news.rpi.edu/luwakkey/2902.

Fromm, Erich. “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem.” ​Writing & Reading for

ACP Composition, ​compiled by Christine R. Farris and Deanna M. Jessup, 2nd ed.,

Pearson Learning Solutions, 2013, pp. 123-128.

Gladwell, Malcolm. ​The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference.​ 1st ed.,

Little Brown and Company, 2000, pp. 33-139.

Orenstein, Peggy. “Cinderella and Princess Culture.” ​Writing & Reading for ACP Composition,

compiled by Christine R. Farris and Deanna M. Jessup, 2nd ed., Pearson Learning

Solutions, 2013, pp. 326-329.

“Ten Arguments from Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage.” ​Family Research Council,

2014, www.frc.org/issuebrief/ten-arguments-from-social-science-against

-same-sex-marriage.