I
don’t usually watch TV shows when I’m at college (breaks from school are
another story), but I’ll occasionally have time to go to Hulu and watch
something that I think looks interesting. A month or so ago, I remembered that
my dad had told me about a new show on the History
Channel called “Vikings,” so I decided to check it out. The show itself is
very violent and gory most of the time, and while some parts can be disturbing,
others fulfill my weekly dose of a great battle scene. The show is about the
Norsemen of Scandinavia and especially focuses on the life of Ragnar Lodbrok,
historically known as a great Norseman who travelled to and led successful
raids into Britain and Gaul (Walker, 2013).
As I have been watching the show, I
have been paying attention to the power dynamic between the chieftan of the
province and Ragnar Lodbrok. While the show depicts the chieftain as corrupt
and autocratic, it is possible that, historically, he was not as harsh as he is
made out to be in the series. Either way, his representation in the show definitely
adds drama and conflict. When the show just started, the main plot focused on
Ragnar’s aspirations to sail West rather than East to find new kingdoms to raid
for treasure. Ragnar presents his proposition to the chieftain, asking for
permission to sail West, but the chieftan, as he has done in the past, shuts
him down. While the show does not go into this, I would be interested in
investigating the decision-making process that goes into planning these raids.
Does the chieftain have a group of close friends and family who serve as
advisors? Does he hold meetings to decide what bands of men in the community he
will give ships and supplies to so that they can carry out these raids?
While all of this is unclear, it is
interesting to speculate about the kinds of group processes that would occur to
decide upon such matters. According to an article by Lars Walker, Viking
government was essentially democratic, and the History Channel got this aspect of the show wrong by portraying the
chieftain as an autocratic ruler. Either way, from what social psychologists
know about the role of experts and authority in group processes, the chieftain has
a significant amount of influence over the decisions the group comes to.
According to social influence principles, people tend to comply with and be
influenced by experts and authorities. This could be problematic in group
processes and lead to process loss when only the ideas and suggestions of the
leader in the group are considered seriously. Thus, if Vikings used group processes
to organize and orchestrate raids, many of the decisions may have been
influenced by the chieftain of that specific tribe or providence.
In the case of this show, then, the
decision to only sail East may have been influenced by the chieftain’s authority.
Even if someone on the advising committee felt strongly that sailing West could
be highly successful and profitable, he may not have even voiced this opinion,
or if he had, the chieftain could have shut this idea down completely. As it
turns out, when Ragnar went against the wishes of the chieftain and sailed West,
he ended up coming back with a plethora of treasure from a monastery, showing that
the decisions that the chieftain and his group of advisors made were not the
wisest.
While it is important to investigate
group processes and decision-making, it would also be interesting to look at
when individuals decide to go against the mandates of the group. If the
influence of authority is so strong, then how are some people, like Ragnar
Lodbrok, willing to go against decisions made by the group? We often look at
group conformity and how social influences shape our behavior, but what
motivates certain people to break through these social constructions?
References:
Walker, L. (2013, March 12). History channel gets vikings precisely wrong. Retrieved May 3,
2013, from The American Spectator website: http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/12/history-
channel-gets-vikings-p
No comments:
Post a Comment