Does Social Engineering Work?

Social engineering has something of an image problem. It is a phrase used by right wing columnists who make confused literary allusions to Orwellian Brave New Worlds, warning that New Labour is a party of soviet-style autocrats who seek to mould us into Blairite poodles.

However, look to Scotland and you’ll see social engineering being hailed as a success. Legislators there have drastically altered the public behaviour of citizens, winning the enthusiastic approval of the majority. The ban on public smoking has resulted in cleaner air for all and an almost guaranteed health dividend. The main complainants are owners of small pubs who have seen their takings fall. But since binge-drinking is a national problem, there are even reasons for welcoming this unintended consequence.

Is this proof that social engineering can work? Social engineering is the attempt by legislators to change the operations of institutions or the behaviour of individuals in order to achieve a politically determined goal. That may sound sinisterly manipulative, but the only way to avoid it altogether is to end politics. State schools and universal health care are the two most obvious examples of ideology-laden programmes almost everyone supports. Even a society that rejects both is not one that avoids politics altogether, since the very decision to roll back the state is, of course, deeply political.

Given that, we might think that everyone is really in favour of social engineering after all, and it’s simply a question of which interventions work. But it is not that simple. There are plenty who would argue that the mere fact a piece of social engineering makes things better doesn’t necessarily justify it.

For instance, taken as a discrete measure, the Scottish smoking ban seems to be a success, but arguably it is still wrong because it undermines our power to make autonomous choices for ourselves. If maximising human freedom is a core political good, then it would be better if we were left to light up when we want, even if the quality and duration of our life (and those of others inhaling our smoke) is reduced as a result.

We might think this even if we are able to concede that some social engineering is justified as the only means of achieving basic public good, such as universal health care and education. We may not be able to avoid it, but social engineering could still be seen as a necessary evil that we should resort to only when strictly necessary.