From young ages, individuals are exposed to a variety of rules they are expected to follow—no running in the hallways, no biting your siblings or classmates, no dessert before dinner, no diving in the shallow end of the pool, no food or drink in the gym, no talking during tests, and many others.
And rules don’t suddenly disappear when a person becomes an adult. There are still plenty of written and unwritten regulations and standards to which individuals are expected to conform.
Why people follow rules isn’t always the same across the board. For some, there’s an intrinsic sense of responsibility to respecting rules, while others might follow them more so out of fear of the repercussions of breaking them. Individuals also follow rules to adhere to social expectations or to meet social preferences. Recent research found that between 55 and 70 percent of people in a study unconditionally followed rules more for intrinsic reasons, even when violating those rules would not result in harm for anyone.
But there are certainly individuals who think that rules do not necessarily need to dictate people’s choices and actions. Craig Stewart, who lives in England and is more commonly referred to as “British Craig” by his Dallas friends, said he believes that applying common sense is more important than adhering to standards that are enforced.
“When the rules are illogical and breaking them won’t harm anyone, then it’s fine to break them,” he said.
Like Stewart, Dallas-area resident Ivan Alonzo said he doesn’t think rules always need to be followed and that situations are often more conditional.
“Rules are important to maintain order and/or safety but should not always be blindly followed,” he said. “Like all other aspects of life, it is dependent upon context and the potential consequences of not following said rules. Blindly following rules without considering the context or its intent could potentially lead to negative consequences.”
Alonzo said there can be several reasons and instances that create justification for breaking or not following certain rules, including situations in which those rules are outdated or inefficient.
“Circumstances and situations change, which lead to the rules no longer being practical or effective,” he said. “You could also be given permission to ‘break’ a rule in order to try something new or innovate a process or method.”
Dallas-area resident and school counselor Olivia Wetzel said she addresses school and safety rules on a regular basis to students of all ages and talks to them about choices and consequences.
“Rules are meant to provide safety and structure for everyone, so yes, the rules should be followed,” she said. “However, if a rule does not provide that and the reasoning behind that rule does not provide safety and structure, there is a chance it may be a bad rule and should be looked at for tweaking or maybe even deleting.”
Wetzel cited examples of specific rules, such as the law of buckling one’s seatbelt and the standard from Mean Girls of not being able to sit at a certain table because one did not wear the color pink on Wednesday.
“These are two very different rules—one is rooted in safety and structure, and the other is rooted in malice and control,” she said.
Such differences cause Wetzel to believe that there are some instances in which rules may not necessarily need to be followed. For her, as she mentioned, the decision comes down to safety and structure.
“If a rule is not providing safety and structure for everyone, there are chances that maybe that rule will get broken, and it sounds like it should be,” she said. “Going back to the ‘you can’t sit with us’ rule—that is an example of a social rule that was created by someone to control others. We should break that rule and wear tie-dye on Wednesday because Regina George is not the president of the cafeteria. However, everyone should buckle their seatbelt for their own safety and the safety of others.”
Wetzel said she typically follows the rules the majority of the time, and it was even written on her preschool report card that “Olivia loves the rules,” but she said she also certainly has moments when she knows that the rules created don’t align with what she believes to be right and just.
“I used to read kids’ names on the tops of the cubbies and help them put their jackets in the right spot,” she said. “Elementary school truly seemed to be my destiny. But I am also a critical thinker who is connected to my emotions and understands nuance. So, I enjoy rules and structure, especially safety rules, but you better believe I read banned books and think the government has no place in telling women what to do with their bodies and who you can or cannot legally marry. It’s clear those rules are not about safety; those rules are about control.”
Regardless of whether a rule should or should not be followed, there are often still consequences—detentions, suspensions, citations, employment terminations, stern chats, timeouts, etc.—when people choose not to follow certain standards. Similar to his belief that common sense should be considered more than the expectation of following rules, Stewart said he also thinks that common sense should be applied when it comes to consequences for breaking rules.
“If the rule is there for a good reason and protecting people, then yes, there should be a negative consequence to ensure there is a disincentive to break it,” he said.
For Alonzo, consequences are also contingent upon the situations and should not simply be enforced in all cases.
“Not all rule breaking is malicious or done with malintent,” he said. “The specific circumstances and understanding of why or how a rule was broken could warrant an alternative consequence (e.g., education versus punishment). Also, people are not perfect and will make mistakes or have accidents. A rule being outdated, ineffective, or broken to prevent a more severe consequence are all things that should be considered and taken into account when determining the appropriate consequence.”
Similarly, Wetzel doesn’t think a negative consequence is always necessary, though she said that does not always mean that there won’t be any consequence, including a natural consequence.
“I think it depends on the severity of the rule that is broken,” she said. “Sometimes, especially for my littles who are learning, breaking a rule is an opportunity to learn. So, that usually means some type of consequence and/or some way to reset, reframe, and reflect on what we can do differently next time, which is important, too.”
WEEKLY PHOTO OP
.jpg)
NatNews staff and some dear readers celebrated a baby and questioned Pat McAfee’s shirtless decisions Saturday