Part Eleven: Exploring new frameworks that allow us to put SAT to use.
Hello again.
The last blog ended on a heavy note, with me acknowledging how easy it can be to start questioning our free will when looking at ourselves and the world through the lens of SAT. I know from experience that it's frustrating when you realize that what we believe are our personal choices, goals, identities, and even our sense of purpose, are actually shaped by social pressures to fit in or stand out. We like to think we’re in control of our lives, but this theory does seem to reveal that we’re constantly navigating a web of social validation.
Our modern culture likes to tell us that true success comes from within. We hear phrases like “be yourself” or “reject the herd” all the time. But as we’ve already explored, a lot of what we consider to be self-driven is heavily influenced by the need to embrace or reject what's normal. Most of the time, when we think we’re acting independently, we’re really just following the rules of social accreditation, looking for approval from the world around us.
Recognizing this can be disheartening because it can seem like our autonomy is an illusion when we conform, or that we're alone or in the minority when we feel deviant, especially when society’s idea of success doesn’t match up with our own. But this realization can also be liberating. Grasping the role of social influence allows us to see when we’re following the crowd and it empowers us to make conscious decisions about when to prioritize our own sense of self-worth over any external forms of approval. It’s not always about rejecting social validation and conformity altogether, rather it’s about finding a balance that works for us.
One recurring theme in this SAT series is the tension between opposites, or binary thinking. We love to frame everything as black-and-white, success vs. failure, strong vs. weak, accepted vs. rejected. But in reality, we find that these forces exist on more of a spectrum. SAT isn’t suggesting that every single thing we do is driven by a need for validation; instead, it’s realizing that there's a fluid process of negotiation, where we’re constantly balancing personal agency with external influence.
Imagine you’re invited to an important work function. As you're getting ready, you feel like you have a choice about what to wear, but you also know your boss will be there, so there’s still an unspoken pressure to dress appropriately, maybe you choose a suit and tie, or a formal dress. It still feels like you’re exercising free will because you’re the one picking the outfit. But the decision is also shaped by social expectations, company culture, and the desire for approval. You choose the formal outfit because you know it will be socially accredited.
Even though your choice is influenced by these external factors, you still feel like you’re making a free decision, because no one is physically forcing you to wear a certain outfit. This is a key idea in compatibilism, that we can still be free even if our choices are shaped by external factors, as long as we're not explicitly constrained or coerced.
SAT teaches us that while these dynamics of validation are powerful, they aren’t everything. We can still make deliberate choices about what forms of social approval matter to us and what we’re willing to let go of.
In this scenario, while you technically had the freedom to choose what to wear, the options you even considered were narrowed by your social expectations. But, if you truly wanted to show off your fancy new dress suit in front of your boss and work friends, does it even matter? Ultimately, you have to understand that true freedom is about more than just having choices it’s about whether we can genuinely pursue what we value.
This is where the Capabilities Approach, developed by philosopher Martha Nussbaum and economist Amartya Sen, can give us a fresh perspective. It shifts our focus away from measuring success by things like economic growth, wealth, or the distribution of resources; and instead asks us to consider what people are actually able to do and be in their lives.
Sen’s key insight is that having status, wealth or resources don’t necessarily lead to a better life if people aren’t able to use them in meaningful ways. It’s not enough to ask, “What resources do people have?” Instead, we should be asking, “What real opportunities and freedoms do people have to live a life they have reason to value?”
Sen illustrates this point through the example of a bicycle, arguing that while the bicycle itself is a tool designed to enhance mobility, whether it can actually fulfill this purpose depends on the capabilities of the person using it. A person without able-functioning legs, for example, can still own the bike, but it won’t provide the function of mobility for them. Even if this person finds joy in having it, they still lack the capability of transportation. The Capability Approach, therefore, asks us to shift our attention from the commodities or mental reactions people experience to the actual functionings and capabilities they can access.
To extend this point, we can consider how a degree from an university is seen as a key marker of success and competence. But, much like the bicycle, simply holding a degree doesn’t necessarily provide the function it’s meant to fulfill. If a person doesn't have' access to job opportunities in their field due to systemic barriers, such as economic instability, discrimination, or even an oversaturated job market, the degree alone won't guarantee them any meaningful career success. I have a Bachelor's Degree in English, and besides the self validation I get from making these blogs, it hasn't gotten me any lucrative writing opportunities.
The degree, while still a valuable credential, simply cannot provide its intended benefits without the capability to apply it effectively. This reinforces Sen’s argument: it’s not just about the resources we have or the qualifications we earn, but the real opportunities we have to make use of them in ways that create value and enhance our lives.
So, rather than focusing on what we own or the wealth we accumulate, Sen’s framework urges us to think about the substantive freedoms we have. This directly aligns with SAT because it asks us to look critically at the societal norms and validation systems that determine which capabilities are valued and supported.
Nussbaum’s list of ten core capabilities lays out a vision of what’s essential for human dignity; things like bodily health, emotional development, social relationships, and practical reason. These capabilities don’t just cover our basic needs, they also emphasize the importance of both personal freedom and social participation. In this way, instead of simply acting to gain social validation, the Capabilities Approach pushes us to ask whether those actions align with our authentic goals and values.
This will be important later on as we start putting these ideas into practice. Just as SAT encourages us to critically evaluate social norms, Nussbaum’s approach urges us to focus on whether those norms help us achieve meaningful well-being.
Throughout this series, we’ve seen how social accreditation shapes everything from our personal relationships to larger societal structures. Now, I want to integrate these insights into a practical framework. Ken Wilber’s Four Quadrants model, part of his integral theory, gives us a layered perspective on how social accreditation works from the personal level to the collective, and from the internal to the external.
His Four Quadrants—Interior of the Individual, Exterior of the Individual, Interior of the Collective, and Exterior of the Collective—each represent a perspective through which we can view the interplay of personal, interpersonal, and collective dynamics.
Wilber’s point is that all these perspectives are essential for a full picture of reality. With them, we can break down each of the layers of social accreditation we've covered so far, and show how balancing external validation with internal values can perhaps lead us to a better, integrated, and authentic life.
Connecting The Quadrants
Upper-Left: Interior of the Individual – "I"
This quadrant focuses on our personal, inner world (our thoughts, emotions, and beliefs) and how they shape our motivations and self-concept. This sense of being a continuous, unified self is rooted in complex neural processes, we'll call it narrative self. In part seven, we talked about how mental models guide us through life, helping us make sense of our experiences, take action, and avoid any uncertainty or dissonance.
Sometimes, internal processes, like being alone in solitude, self-reflection, or introspection, can lead us to have moments of personal insight, where we feel a deep understanding or clarity about who we are or where we belong. As we discussed in part eight, many cultures emphasize detaching from social or material pressures and finding peace and self-realization through this kind of inward reflection. Practices like meditation teach us to transcend the ego and external influences, encouraging us to find meaning and validation from within. For some, these moments of inner stillness feel like true self-validation, because they're truly independent of any societal standards or external recognition.
In times of existential crisis or personal transformation, people may also need to rely entirely on themselves. Henry David Thoreau, for example, reflected on self-reliance and self-discovery in his famous work "Walden", where he went looking for meaning and independence by living outside societal norms. Similarly, people facing the challenges of survival in wilderness or harsh settings need to build a sense of validation from their ability to endure, grow, and be self-sufficient.
These experiences of survival and self-discovery can be a source for more “authentic” forms of validation because they come from within. But, without some form of social validation people can experience a crisis of identity, questioning their value and place in the world.
In this quadrant, social accreditation is closely tied to our internal need for validation and belonging. It begins when we internalize societal expectations, norms, and values. The feedback loop at this level revolves around how we see ourselves and how we measure up to those internalized standards. As we explored in part two, our self-perception is largely shaped by how we think others see us. And our feelings of worth or inadequacy usually stem from how much we believe we align with societal norms.
It's through experiences like praise, criticism, or exclusion, that we learn which behaviors or beliefs are socially accepted, and over time, these experiences shape our sense of self-worth and identity. But remember, internalizing these values isn’t passive. We actively negotiate and sometimes resist the social accreditation we receive. Remember our discussion from part three on the Focus Theory of Normative Conduct, which explains how norms influence behavior when they are made prominent by social cues?
Our mental frames guide our attention to those cues and shape our actions. Similarly, Snyder’s Self-Monitoring Scale showed us that people can learn to adjust their behavior based on social situations. This ongoing internal reflection feeds into our behaviors, resonating with identity signaling and Lemert’s Labeling Theory, which suggests that we start to behave in ways that align with how others label us.
This naturally leads us into the next quadrant.
Upper-Right: Exterior of the Individual – "It"
In the Exterior of the Individual quadrant, the focus shifts from our inner experiences to the outward behaviors that others can observe. Here, our narrative self is put on display as we navigate the social world. This quadrant deals with how our behaviors reflect our internalized beliefs and how we interact with societal expectations, much like the explicit forms of accreditation we explored in part three with conformity and social norms.
Just like our internal reflections aren't static, our outward actions too are influenced by emotions, beliefs, past experiences, and the social cues we pick up from our environment. We talked about this in part seven with propositional attitudes and heuristics shaping our mental frames. As we internalize societal norms and labels, we adapt our behavior to fit the standards set by those around us. This dynamic process shapes not only how we view ourselves but also how we are perceived by others.
Our brains play a key role in this, helping us interpret social norms from both explicit and implicit forms of accreditation. For instance, explicit feedback like verbal praise reinforces certain behaviors, while more subtle cues, like a disapproving glance, might signal that we need to adjust our actions. Over time, these signals help us build an understanding of what is expected, which guides our behavior in pursuit of validation and social approval.
In this quadrant, social accreditation shows up in the form of things like uniforms, degrees, awards, certifications, or other external markers. Our clothes, behaviors, and titles are tangible symbols that represent societal recognition of our actions, status, or achievements. The feedback loop here is clear: we engage in certain behaviors to gain recognition or avoid sanctions, and these outward actions are shaped by the external rewards or penalties we encounter.
Every time we choose to conform or deviate from social norms, we’re making decisions based on how we think it will affect our standing. We’re constantly responding to the rewards or consequences; whether that’s positive reinforcement or the fear of rejection.
This loop is ongoing, evolving as we interact with the external world. Whenever we engage with our environment, new behaviors are shaped by the social feedback we receive. Labels and social cues make norms more visible, encouraging us to either align our actions with those norms or in opposition to them. These labels and cues are drawn from our interactions with others, culture, and other group dynamics, naturally leading us to the next quadrant.
Lower-Left: Interior of the Collective: "We"
The Interior of the Collective quadrant emphasizes the shared beliefs, values, and worldviews that are collectively internalized by a group or society. The narrative self becomes partially derived from our group memberships, social roles, and the cultural contexts we inhabit. Social accreditation here comes from how groups validate certain beliefs and discredit others through shared narratives, myths, and traditions.
In parts two and three, we explored how intersubjective social dynamics can lead to conformity driven by both normative and informational influences. When our actions clash with group norms, this can lead to implicit sanctions like social disapproval or exclusion, or explicit sanctions such as formal penalties or censure. On the flip side, when our actions align with group values, this leads to implicit validation, like social acceptance and sometimes explicit validation in formal recognition or rewards.
In part four, we also discussed how attachment styles and learned behaviors from our relationships shape our ability to navigate social networks. These behaviors evolve into roles and hierarchies that spread through shared narratives, myths, and traditions, as explored since part five. As collective beliefs evolve, so do the standards through which society grants accreditation.
In the past few posts, we’ve seen how cultural transmission helps pass down these shared values through generations, through myths and rituals like rites of passage or community traditions. This feedback loop functions as people internalize collective values, contributing either to their reinforcement or transformation. Our discussions on language, media, and knowledge are especially relevant here, as these are the primary tools through which societal myths and traditions are passed down. By participating in these practices, we either help sustain or adapt them in response to new cultural developments.
This also resonates with part ten’s discussion of group dynamics, where the collective adoption of new values is driven by both individual and group participation. This, in turn, feeds back into the broader cultural narrative, reinforcing or reshaping social norms. These norms become foundational structures that shape our society, leading us into the final quadrant.
Lower-Right: Exterior of the Collective:"They"
The Exterior of the Collective quadrant examines the observable aspects of collective behaviors and societal systems that reinforce social accreditation on a broader scale. It’s here that the shared behaviors and cultural narratives of each individual narrative self come together to form a social contract, establishing the structures of society.
The feedback loop here is cyclical in that societal institutions shape our behavior by providing us with clear external markers of what's acceptable or unacceptable, and we, by adhering to or challenging them, contribute to the evolution of these systems.
These systems are instrumental in shaping collective norms, as well as reinforcing the social hierarchy and power dynamics that determine whose values hold sway. At this level, social accreditation mechanisms include legal codes, economic systems, and institutionalized norms, like formal education, that define what is valid and what is deviant.
As we discussed in part eight, movements like the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, and the Enlightenment began to emphasize individual rights, personal conscience, and self-determination. This shift away from collectivist societies, where a person's role and status were largely determined by their birth, traditions, and community expectations, gave rise to new political, economic, and cultural systems that prioritized individual freedom and choice, which are now embedded in many modern institutions.
Our recent discussions on media, religion, and power all highlighted how large social institutions enforce conformity through explicit accreditation systems, such as codified laws or religious titles, and how these serve as external symbols of validation. These structures formalize societal judgments on what is deemed credible or deviant on a general basis.
In part ten, we explored how formal accreditation systems, like legal rights or educational degrees, gain their legitimacy when they're backed by enforcement from laws or state authority institutions. These systems, when tied to resources and economic activities, are also privileged by those in power, reinforcing paternal hierarchies. Because bureaucratic systems that regulate, tax, and quantify accreditation are controlled by these powerful groups, they can be manipulated to maintain dominance.
As formal systems gain dominance, the feedback loop emerges: people who succeed within these systems gain social and economic benefits, which in turn strengthens the systemic legitimacy and control. A major issue in our modern, individualistic societies is the “tyranny of merit,” where we internalize the belief that our success (or failure) is directly tied to our adherence to societal standards and the validation we get from others' recognition.
These dynamics of power suppress or marginalize any alternative systems of accreditation by promoting specific cultural or moral standards through media, education, and public discourse. Over time, these standards become deeply ingrained in societal consciousness, further reinforcing the dominance of formal accreditation systems.
Malcolm Gladwell, in his book "Outliers," critiques this view by emphasizing that success is usually less about individual effort and more about context, like the circumstances of our upbringing, advantages, and luck. He suggests that too much focus on the traits of successful people ignores the broader context, raising the question: how much potential is lost or ignored when we cling to outdated ideas of success?
As we've seen, when we challenge outdated laws or accreditation standards, we can spark social change, resulting in the evolution of institutions to reflect new societal values. Over time, this feedback loop allows collective structures to adapt in response to both internal pressures (like shifting public opinion) and external events (such as technological advances or cultural shifts).
Take, for example, Rosa Parks’ act of civil disobedience in 1955, when she refused to give up her seat on a segregated bus. Her defiance became a symbol of resistance to racial segregation, inspiring greater social change within the civil rights movement and challenging an institutionalized social norm. Her act, along with the acts of others at the individual and group level, sparked systemic shifts in our societal values.
Through Wilber’s framework, we can see how social accreditation operates on multiple levels, with each quadrant offering a unique dimension of how society assigns value, both to individuals and to groups. As we continue, this integral model will help synthesize the insights we’ve gathered throughout this series, offering a comprehensive view of how societal systems influence accreditation and change.
The feedback loops within social accreditation processes continuously operate across all levels of the Four Quadrants. As individuals and collectives engage with these loops by internalizing, reinforcing, or challenging the mechanisms of validation and sanction, we drive the ongoing evolution of society itself.
Learning how to R.I.S.E. above Social Influences
The RISE model is a simple, easy-to-apply framework that can be used to illustrate the interplay between social accreditation processes. Within this framework, people or groups can become aware of (or recognize) societal norms or values, whether through explicit awards or implicit group behaviors. People adjust their behavior based on these norms (internalizing), either striving to meet expectations or reflecting on the consequences of failing to do so. Feedback in the form of positive reinforcement (support) or punishment (sanctions) reinforces or discourages certain behaviors, influencing the next cycle. These interactions feed back into the system as other people recognize, internalize, and choose to support or sanction the norms, leading to shifts (evolution) in behavior, group dynamics, or broader societal norms. RISE.
The RISE model offers a really useful way to understand the different ways people experience social validation and sanctions. This is how understanding social accreditation, in both explicit and implicit forms and can shape everything from personal behavior to larger societal trends.
As an example, let's imagine a scenario that explores the cycle of social accreditation from explicit validation through awards or honors. Example: an employee winning the “Employee of the Month” award at work. (as an added bonus, i'm also including stills from various sitcoms or tv shows that also illustrate how these processes are reinforced in media)
R: This part of the process happens when we first come into contact with the rules or norms of a particular social environment. In this phase, people recognize and engage with normative values, or expectations through exposure to formal (explicit) or informal (implicit) standards.
Our employee becomes aware of the Employee of the Month award, the criteria associated with winning it and they recognize that this is a form of validation within the company.
I: At this stage, people begin to internalize the norms they’ve encountered. They adjust their behavior, beliefs, or self-perception to align with or resist societal expectations. This stage involves adopting societal norms into one’s identity and this can happen consciously or subconsciously, as habitual behaviors integrate these norms into their everyday actions and attitudes.
The employee internalizes the company’s values, like hard work, punctuality, and teamwork, because they're associated as criteria for being recognition of the award and starts embodying these values. They adjust their behavior to align with these expectations, focusing on improving their performance and relationships with colleagues.
S: This is the feedback loop where societal norms are reinforced through support (validation) or sanctions (punishment). Positive feedback encourages conformity, as any behaviors that align with societal norms get positive reinforcement (praise, rewards, accolades). While negative feedback may lead to reconsideration or resistance and behaviors that deviate face sanctions (criticism, exclusion, punishment).
Upon winning the award, the employee receives public validation in the form of renown. They get a plaque and an announcement in a meeting, letting the entire office know about their achievements. This positive reinforcement encourages them to continue engaging in those behaviors and incentivizes others to try harder next time, because it could be them.
E: Over time, the accumulation of individual and collective behaviors leads to societal change. Norms evolve as they get reinforced, challenged, or adapted. This stage represents the transformative effect of the feedback loops on both the individual and society. As behaviors are repeated or questioned, the broader societal norms may either solidify or shift, leading to an evolution in collective standards.
Over time, the Employee of the Month award becomes a symbol of success and a motivating factor for others in the company. It could also lead to organizational evolution, where employment accolades become even more valued, influencing the broader culture of the workplace.
Importantly the RISE model applies both ways. Individuals shape society through their behaviors, and society shapes individuals by reinforcing or challenging their actions. In the reverse application of the RISE model, we can see collective change in societal norms or institutional standards (in this case, the company’s evolving culture) initiate the process.
The company introduces the Employee of the Month award, reflecting an evolution in its priorities as they're now placing more emphasis on individual recognition and performance. Employees engage with this new system, understanding that their behavior will be supported or sanctioned based on their alignment with these evolving expectations. Assuming the 'S' is support in this scenario, positive feedback, like public praise or nomination for the award, reinforces behaviors that align with the new company values. Over time, employees internalize these values, adjusting their behavior to align with the expectations of the company. As the company’s culture evolves, employees recognize these new norms and engage with them differently. Some people may start thinking the award promotes brown-nosing or bootlicking, while others view it as something that boosts their team's morale and productivity.
This shows the feedback loop where employees both reinforce and are shaped by the evolving social norms of the entire company. If enough employees adopt these behaviors and values, the company culture solidifies around these evolved principles. Ultimately, this feedback loop sustains or further evolves the company culture, showcasing the dynamic interplay between individual actions and broader societal forces.
Whether it’s understanding workplace dynamics, social movements, or cultural shifts, the model captures the dynamic nature of how these self-correcting feedback loops create change across various contexts, from small groups to entire societies.
Let's try imagining a different scenario of implicit validation. Example: A student is invited to join a popular group in school, signaling validation from social acceptance.
R: The student recognizes the social hierarchy at the school and learns of the importance of being included in the popular group. They understand the implicit validation that comes with being part of this group.
I: The student begins to adopt the behaviors, fashion choices, or attitudes of the group to fit in. They internalize the social norms that are rewarded with acceptance (e.g., following trends, attending specific events).
S: The student receives ongoing support through their inclusion in group activities and social gatherings. This reinforces the idea that conforming to these norms will continue to bring them social rewards, like popularity and belonging.
E: Over time, this kind of popularity hierarchy can start to become the norm in workplaces and other institutions as the student’s internalized behaviors spread to others outside the group, influencing and evolving broader social dynamics. The group itself might also evolve by adopting new trends or behaviors, perhaps like adopting more social acceptance
Just as the model explains how validation reinforces behavior, it also shows how sanctions discourage behaviors that deviate from norms. Let's explore an example by applying the rise model to an explicit sanctioning scenario. Example: Public shaming involving a politician who faces negative media coverage after being involved in a scandal.
R: The politician becomes aware of the public’s standards for behavior and their expectation for decent and ethical conduct during their campaign. They recognize that the media plays a significant role in publicly sanctioning any actions that deviate from these norms.
I: As the threat of media coverage amplifies, the politician internalizes the consequences of their actions. Realizing that their reputation and future opportunities are being affected, they might start acting a bit more cautious or take a defensive approach to their public image.
S: The politician experiences direct sanctions through the negative media attention, public criticism, and the potential loss of support from political allies. This feedback discourages the behavior that led to the scandal, pushing them to change their actions or issue public apologies.
E: The scandal and its media coverage might lead to broader societal discussions on ethics, transparency, or leadership, potentially changing how future politicians or public figures are held accountable. Over time, this could lead to stronger regulations or an evolution in public expectations.
Now let’s wrap this up with another scenario that captures the implicit sanctions of social ostracism in a way that is more subtle but still powerful. Example: A college student is excluded from their study group after manipulating their relationships and trying to keep control over the group’s dynamics.
R: The student recognizes that everyone in the group expects mutual respect and honest engagement in their interactions but they choose to sidestep these expectations so they can manipulate the group’s dynamics while still maintaining their place within it.
I: As the group starts to sense that the person is manipulating the dynamics, they begin distancing themselves from them. The manipulative student starts to internalize the unspoken feedback that their behavior is not in line with the group’s values.
S: As the manipulative behavior continues, the study group escalates their sanctions by further distancing themselves from the student. The group’s response to manipulation is subtle but powerful, as they may not all directly confront the student but sitll make it clear through exclusion that their behavior is not acceptable.
E: Over time, the person realizes that to re-integrate into the group, they must adopt the group’s values of trust, honesty, and cooperation. The group’s dynamics evolve as well and if the student makes genuine efforts to change, they may be gradually reintegrated, reflecting the group’s capacity for forgiveness and growth.
Summary of RISE in These Scenarios
Recognition: In each scenario, a person becomes aware of societal norms or values, whether through explicit awards or implicit group behaviors.
Internalization: The people adjust their behavior based on these norms, either striving to meet expectations or reflecting on the consequences of failing to do so.
Support/Sanction: Feedback in the form of validation (positive reinforcement) or sanction (punishment) reinforces or discourages certain behaviors, influencing the next cycle.
Evolution: These interactions feed back into the system, leading to shifts in behavior, group dynamics, or broader societal norms.
The beauty of the RISE model is that once you’ve mapped out these dynamics, you can make conscious decisions about how to move forward. This is where everything with SAT has been leading. It’s about choosing to embrace certain forms of validation that truly resonate with you, or stepping away from behaviors that no longer serve you.
Embracing Change Through Reflective Action Cycle Evaluations
The RISE model helps us understand how social validation operates, but understanding isn’t always enough. To make this even more actionable, the Reflective Action Cycle Evaluation (RACE) builds on these insights, guiding us through a structured process of self-examination and intentional action.
It’s a complementary system: while RISE shows us the mechanisms behind societal pressures, RACE gives us the tools to navigate those pressures in ways that align with our authentic selves. Both frameworks draw heavily from Wilber’s Four Quadrants, but understanding how these quadrants work together doesn’t immediately change our lives. This is where Nussbaum’s Capabilities Approach comes into play. It helps us evaluate whether the societal norms and systems we engage with actually allow us to achieve what we truly value in life, like autonomy, emotional development, meaningful relationships, and creative expression. Think of this as the practical application of the RISE model—a way to move from theory to action.
The RACE consists of four steps that help you to reflect on your motivations and societal influences, assess your actions, and ultimately evolve your approach to living authentically. Let’s walk through each step and see how you can apply it to your life by using an example from my own.
For most of my life, I’ve been a pedestrian. I’ve always rejected the idea that everyone needs to be a licensed driver, firmly believing that the widespread use of cars contributes to harmful carbon emissions and other systemic issues that I just didn’t want to participate in. While everyone around me was getting their licenses as a rite of passage, I actively chose not to. For me, it became a statement about deviating from the norm, and refusing to accept that driving should be the standard for everyone.
But recently, I made the decision to get my driver’s license. As much as I believed in the value of walking and public transportation, I started to realize that my lack of mobility was holding me back from other opportunities and affecting my personal relationships. My avoidance of the societal norm of driving wasn’t just about rejecting the system; it was limiting my own growth in other areas. This realization led to a kind of cognitive dissonance: I didn’t want to contribute to the systemic and cultural dependence on automobiles, but I also knew that by getting my license, I’d have the freedom to pursue opportunities that mattered to me.
Step 1: Self-Awareness
The first step in the Reflective Action Cycle is about developing self-awareness. We start with Recognition, the first stage of the RISE model, where you acknowledge the tension between what you truly want and the expectations society places on you.
For me, the tension was clear: I didn’t want to be a licensed driver of the state, yet not having a license was limiting my ability to engage fully in life. I had long prided myself on my ability to live without it, but as time passed, I realized I was sacrificing other opportunities that could allow me to do more good in the world.
At the core of self-awareness is understanding the narrative self, the story we tell ourselves about our identity. This step encourages us to reflect on the ways societal norms and expectations shape that story and how much of our internal identity is constructed in response to external pressures.
As I reflected, I had to ask myself, What am I actually avoiding? Was it the idea of driving itself, or was I afraid of seeking societal validation in a way that felt at odds with my core values? I listed out the areas where not having a license was causing tension: burdening others for rides, not having transportation for work, being unable to visit family, and even missing out on events and activities that would help me grow personally and professionally.
Step 2: External Reflection
Once you’ve developed self-awareness, the next step is to examine how your narrative self manifests in your behaviors or how the internal story you tell about yourself gets expressed in the actions you take. This aligns with the Internalization stage of the RISE model, where you reflect on how societal norms have shaped not just your inner world, but also the way you act in the world.
For years, I'd resisted getting a license, not just because I was committed to the environmental impact of walking, but because I took pride in being different. In many ways, I had internalized the validation I received from being the “pedestrian” among drivers and it made me feel like I was standing against something I didn’t believe in.
In this stage, you want to examine how societal systems (workplace expectations, media portrayals, etc.) may be influencing your actions. Are you working late because you’re passionate, or because you feel it’s expected? Again, the goal is to assess whether these behaviors help you express your capabilities or are merely actions to gain shallow social validation.
I noticed that I made a lot of decisions based on my refusal to drive, whether it was turning down opportunities to visit friends or limiting my professional growth because of the lack of mobility. I also realized that by focusing on resisting the societal pressure to drive, I was ignoring other areas where I wanted to grow and make a bigger impact.
Step 3: Cultural Evaluation
In this third step, we start evaluating cultural influence, aligning with the Support/Sanction stage in RISE. It’s here that you evaluate how collective beliefs and group identities influence your narrative self, reflecting on the story you tell about your place in the world and the cultural roles you occupy.
Here, you want to understand how your group identities (family, social class, profession) influence your values. Consider how collective cultural narratives shape your perception of success and failure. Apply Nussbaum’s Capabilities Approach here, and ask whether the cultural norms you’ve absorbed support your ability to live a life that expresses your true potential or if they confine you to predefined roles.
Society tends to view driving as a symbol of freedom and independence, and I had always pushed back against that narrative. For me, not driving was a way to reject that story. But I started to see that by holding on to my non-driving identity so tightly, I was allowing a different set of cultural beliefs about environmentalism, non-conformity, and the value of being “different.”, shape my decisions I had always prided myself on being part of the minority, but at what cost? I had to ask, was this belief truly serving me, or was it limiting my ability to pursue more meaningful goals?
Step 4: Structural Evaluation and Action
Finally, we arrive at actions towards systemic change, which aligns with the Evolution stage in RISE. This is where you assess how societal structures, like your education, workplace hierarchies, or legal systems, validate or discredit certain parts of your narrative self. This step invites you to consider how these structures influence your choices, and how societal systems either support or limit your ability to live a life you value. Ask yourself, Am I accepting these structures as the only path, or can I challenge them to better align with my authentic goals?
I had come to resist the structured way society requires everyone to drive, but now I saw that by not having a license, I was playing into a different kind of limitation. It became clear that I was actually limiting my ability to engage with the world on my own terms.
I evaluated the societal systems that had shaped my thinking: the reliance on cars in modern infrastructure, the environmental costs of driving, and the professional and personal limitations that come with not being able to travel easily. I asked myself, Am I allowing this system to limit my ability to make an impact in the areas I care about most? The answer, I realized, was yes.
Once I passed the test and got my license, I realized that having a driver’s license hasn’t fundamentally altered my values. But it has given me the freedom to engage with the world more fully. I can now make choices that align with both my personal values and the opportunities that require mobility. In working through this Reflective Action Cycle Evaluations and the RISE model, I’ve learned how to find a balance that allows me to live authentically while still engaging with the structures that enable me to grow.
By following the RACE, you can put the insights of the RISE model into practice by recognizing where societal validation influences your choices, internalizing what drives your behavior, reflecting on the cultural norms you’ve absorbed, and evaluating the structures that shape your decisions. It's my hope that with each pass through the evaluations, you’ll grow more intentional about when to embrace societal validation and when to challenge it.
As you try the RACE, you can consider these reflection prompts and activities for each step:
Self-Awareness: By asking myself, 'where in my life am I conforming to societal expectations that don’t reflect my personal values?', I started to realize that by holding on so tightly to my identity as a non-driver, I was limiting my own freedom and, in a way, conforming to a different set of expectations that were rooted in deviance.
Activity: Take a moment to reflect on 3-5 key areas of your life (like your career, relationships, personal goals, etc.). For each area, identify the narrative you tell yourself; i.e. what story are you living? Ask yourself: How much of this narrative is shaped by external expectations, and how much reflects my authentic desires?External Reflection: While I'd always thought I was resisting societal expectations by not getting a license, I began to see how much my behavior was still shaped by the system. By refusing to conform, I was still letting societal pressures define my actions, just in a different way. It was a form of deviance but it wasn’t necessarily any freer than conforming to the norm of getting a license.
Activity: For one week, track your behaviors in the areas identified in Step 1. After each action, ask yourself: How is this action reinforcing or contradicting the narrative I tell about myself? Look for moments when your behaviors might contradict your narrative self or when they reinforce it in ways that might be more about seeking approval than acting authentically.Cultural Evaluation: When I started to see how deeply I had internalized both the mainstream societal narrative about driving and the counter-narrative I had built for myself, I reflected on how these cultural narratives had shaped my choices. I read books like "Autophobia: Love Hate in the Automobile Age" by Brian Ladd and once I understood where these beliefs came from, I could start to ask, are they helping me flourish or holding me back?
Activity: Identify key cultural narratives that have shaped your life (e.g., “Success equals financial wealth,” or “Good people always put others first”). Now ask yourself: How do these cultural stories shape my narrative self? Structural Evaluation: I saw how the systemic purpose of driving licenses enforces conformity, but also how I had given that system too much power over my choices. I wasn’t necessarily “giving in” to societal expectations, I was freeing myself to make choices that aligned with my deeper goals. In line with Nussbaum’s Capabilities Approach, I saw that getting my license was actually a way to expand my capabilities, allowing me to pursue more meaningful work and life experiences.
Activity: Identify the institutional structures (schools, workplace hierarchies, economic systems, etc.) that have played a major role in shaping your narrative self. Ask yourself: Are these structures reinforcing a narrative that limits your ability to pursue what truly matters to you, or are they helping you grow?From how we shape our personal identities to the larger systems we navigate, these feedback loops are constantly at play. But by using tools like RACE and RISE, we can start being more intentional about our choices. Here's a downloadable PDF with the RISE and RACE tools, please feel free to use and share them as you wish!
We can see when we’re acting based on societal pressures versus when we’re following what truly matters to us without overreacting and jumping straight into ditching external validation altogether. Realizing instead that it’s about knowing when societal norms are helpful and when they’re holding us back, so we can make decisions that support our own growth and happiness.
So where does SAT go from here? Well, this series has been setting the foundation, but now it’s time to dive into the real-world issues we’re all dealing with today.
For the next post, I want to work on something that feels very current: the growing backlash against accredited norms, values, and behaviors, particularly in the realms of science and technology. We're going to talk about how discourse around subjects like climate change, vaccines, and AI development have long been shaped by experts, accredited institutions, and scientific consensus. But now, there’s a surge in skepticism and a social pushback against these accredited systems. We’re seeing a cultural shift where people don't just question the findings of science and tech but the very legitimacy of the authorities behind them.
In the next blog, we’ll explore how Social Accreditation Theory can help us understand this backlash. Why are people increasingly rejecting the experts, the data, and the systems that have traditionally been seen as pillars of truth in modernity? How does the erosion of trust in these accredited norms change the way society functions? And most importantly, what does it mean for the future of innovation and progress when accreditation itself is under fire?
Thank you for reading this!
If you like this blog, buy me a coffee! https://ko-fi.com/callmebryy
Comments