From Rules to Norms

Over the past few days, Georgetown has altered its public health protective rules, dropping the masking requirement in most areas of the campuses. As with many protocols related to public health, the change follows evidence, in this case, statistics showing a decline in infections and hospitalizations. When the threat declines in a community, mandates tend to be dropped and much more individual decision-making about risks need to guide behavior. Rules are dropped; norms replace them.

Rules are more straightforward than norms. They can be written down immediately; enforcement procedures can be defined quickly. Norms are complicated. They are heavily influenced by group affiliation. Normative structures can be influenced by sub-cultures within a population. Norms can change over time. Perhaps, more importantly, norms in new areas take time to develop.

The one-week time period between the announcement of the dropping of the mask mandate and the implementation allowed all of us to speculate on what we individually would do. There is great variation in the Georgetown community in sensitivity to COVID19 risks. Some face harm from infection that is much greater than that for others.

Hence, in prompting what norms might replace the rules being dropped, the university returned to a set of Jesuit values that guide our work together. We seek to be people for others. Hence, one of our obligations is to make sure that we support others in our day-to-day work. That implies that we are alert to their needs especially when they might be different from our own. Thus, my masking behavior should be informed both by my own health status and the health needs of those around me.

We are also guided by the concept of the presupposition – the assumption that in interaction with others, they are acting with good will. We approach others seeking understanding of their behavior that assumes that they have good intentions toward us.

Putting these two values together, Georgetown can build a normative environment to replace the rule-based environment. So, if one has a meeting with a colleague who is wearing a mask, putting on a mask should be a logical step or, at least asking whether they would be more comfortable in the meeting if others would wear a mask. Now, some Georgetown colleagues begin their meetings masked and then ask how people want to engage in the meeting – masked or unmasked. If anyone prefers to be masked, then others, following the values above, would remain masked.

The opposite occurs when the visitor arrives unmasked and asks whether they should mask (seeing others masked). The group works out the solution. The greater influence is given to those with greater need for protection. If all are comfortable maskless, the entire group removes their masks.

This is all very new to the vast majority of us. It’s always a little awkward building new normative structures, and we’re not yet adept at the subtleties of negotiating the behavior in all situations.

The values above help us, however. When we know one of our goals is helping others, concern for them can guide our own masking behavior.

I suspect over the coming days, as we become more sophisticated in implementing new norms, we will be able to read more subtle cues about serving the health needs of others by our own masking decisions.

This is new to all of us. Patience and empathy are valuable for each of us at this time.