March 12, 2009 Feminism
What are some of the things that have been invented by men? We have Democracy, as made famous by Caesar; Fascism, as made famous by Hitler. There is this popular device called the internet; but like global warming and other Al Gore inventions, it’s probably just a passing fad. Don’t forget about the United States of America, calculus, and nuclear power. And we would be doing ourselves a disservice if we forgot about the Sistine Chapel, Mahler’s Resurrection Symphony, the pyramids, and Lord of the Rings. When we think of the wonders of this world, how much of that thinking is occupied by putting it in gendered context? We really don’t think of whether a male or female accomplished it. This could mean lots of different things about who we are, but I am thinking of a couple of things in particular: individuals’ experience far outweighs all other factors, or their gender outweighs all other factors.
Of course, what is experience when taken out of its original context? Is it the same experience? And what is context if it excludes some of the factors that constitute it? When studying our world, are we allowed to be choosy about what factors we deem relevant? Was Joseph Smith simply another product of the Great Awakening? Were the Founding Fathers just a group of rich land-owners who didn’t want to pay taxes to a foreign government? Was Dorothy Smith a flower-child who wanted to jump on the coat tails of the hippie sixties?
As I ask myself these questions, I begin to believe that it really doesn’t matter. We can remove Smith from the early nineteenth century just as easily as we can vote George Washington as President today; or (while we’re daydreaming) remove our current government officials. To think differently would be fruitless. Sorry, Rational Choice Theorists. In a descriptive science like sociology, we cannot answer the question of “What if it were different?” It is not different. Deal with it.
Modern sociology was invented by men. This, apparently, is the basis for Smith’s argument in favor of Feminism. Since men invented sociology, it will naturally have a masculine flavor. However, more, hmmm, “dynamic” feminists might use a word more like “taint” or “stench.” So, to rid the discipline of such a bias, we must re-look at it through another’s eyes. We must break it down, start all over again, and build it up again. Only this time, we look at it from the women’s standpoint. How does a woman see the world? How do they act and think? In what ways are they oppressed? If she is arguing that things made by males need restructuring, then we need to basically reinvent the wheel—the wheel here referring to all of man’s inventions. Although I do not know for sure that it was an individual with non-matching chromosome pairs who invented the wheel, the idea is that elements of our lives upon which we rely so heavily and that have served us quite satisfactorily to this point don’t need reinventing.
But has sociology served us as well as the internet? Are the conflicts we face all the time evidence of a broken sociology? one that needs reinventing, fresh from a masculine standpoint? To Smith: Yes. Smith presents a foundational sociology with elements of the subject, not the object. “We don’t need Sociology,” Smith seems to say. “Sociology needs us!” Sociology doesn’t teach us anything. Sociology doesn’t even have a law upon which to rest its assumptions, like Economics and Physics do. Theory doesn’t teach us anything. Human experience teaches us. And since experience is embodied starting when we grow up, and since we grow up mostly around women, let’s start with them.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Gospel, Phenomenoligically
March 11, 2009—The Gospel as Phenomenology
I believe in relationships. I believe that interaction is the clearest, most definitive way to define our respective humanity; human being-ness. We see clear proof of this in business and commerce with sayings such as “It’s not what you know, but whom you know.” Among sports teams, the coaches strive to build camaraderie between his teammates because teams with close friendships perform better. In missionary work, the investigator-then-convert is much more likely to progress and grow his or her testimony if introduced to the gospel through a member-friend. Eternally-speaking, we see exaltation in terms of family units. Even the Zen-seeking, bleeding-heart tree-huggers talk about their relationships with nature as self-defining.
Further, a relationship-based ontology and Phenomenology are not mutually exclusive. They don’t necessarily contradict each other. Actually, the absence of some kind of ontology within Phenomenology prevents it from contradicting much at all. If Phenomenology is the study of the world as experienced or how it is lived, how in the world, literally, are we supposed to learn about things outside our experience? How do we explain that we know about things that happen on the other side of the world that had nothing to do with us? How do we account for our understanding of religion, or history? Phenomenology, on the surface, may not be able to explain second-hand learning.
However, one of the elements that Phenomenology adds, that Crotty brings up, is the value of language. Through language, we are able to recount and record experience. And when read or listened-to, that experience can become a part of someone else’s experience. So putting the gospel in context of Phenomenology, the scriptures become critical in religious experience. There is even a spiritual gift that enhances the scriptures and language (D&C 46: 13-14). Through scripture, we can all be fed as the 5,000; or be caught up in the belly of a whale; or experience a host of other miracles without them actually happening to us first-hand.
People new to the gospel, then, must accustom themselves with a new kind of language; another Crotty contribution. Where else is the word “ward” used to describe a church congregation? I’ve only heard about “wards” in hospitals and jails besides church; as in “mental ward” or “maternal ward.” The word “quorum” is used very little outside talking about a group of Priesthood holders, but would another word really do justice in describing the brotherhood shared between men engaged in the work of the Lord?
Triteness and cliché, now, become road blocks in Phenomenology. Over-usage of seemingly significant language reduces the effectiveness of that language, and in turn, the value of second-hand experience. Just as a good song played in excess on the radio becomes boring and not preferred to its listeners, commonly-used language can become boring and less-substantial. It becomes unfit for the purpose. Eventually, it doesn’t do justice to the experience.
Progressive meaninglessness and altered meaning has crept its way into Mormon lexicon. For example, do people fully understand what it means to say “I know this is what God wants me to do?” I would think that if this truly is the case, the individual would by this time have made such a strong relationship with God that whatever “this” may be is not only what God wants to have happen, but also what that person wants to have happen. Maybe what this pious, faithful person really means is “This is what I want to do, and God is on my side about it.”
Of course, true submissiveness and discipleship means having an attitude of “It doesn’t matter what I want. I only want that Thy will be done.” But my point is that we should look beyond the words that are used to the meaning that we wish to be portrayed.
I believe in relationships. I believe that interaction is the clearest, most definitive way to define our respective humanity; human being-ness. We see clear proof of this in business and commerce with sayings such as “It’s not what you know, but whom you know.” Among sports teams, the coaches strive to build camaraderie between his teammates because teams with close friendships perform better. In missionary work, the investigator-then-convert is much more likely to progress and grow his or her testimony if introduced to the gospel through a member-friend. Eternally-speaking, we see exaltation in terms of family units. Even the Zen-seeking, bleeding-heart tree-huggers talk about their relationships with nature as self-defining.
Further, a relationship-based ontology and Phenomenology are not mutually exclusive. They don’t necessarily contradict each other. Actually, the absence of some kind of ontology within Phenomenology prevents it from contradicting much at all. If Phenomenology is the study of the world as experienced or how it is lived, how in the world, literally, are we supposed to learn about things outside our experience? How do we explain that we know about things that happen on the other side of the world that had nothing to do with us? How do we account for our understanding of religion, or history? Phenomenology, on the surface, may not be able to explain second-hand learning.
However, one of the elements that Phenomenology adds, that Crotty brings up, is the value of language. Through language, we are able to recount and record experience. And when read or listened-to, that experience can become a part of someone else’s experience. So putting the gospel in context of Phenomenology, the scriptures become critical in religious experience. There is even a spiritual gift that enhances the scriptures and language (D&C 46: 13-14). Through scripture, we can all be fed as the 5,000; or be caught up in the belly of a whale; or experience a host of other miracles without them actually happening to us first-hand.
People new to the gospel, then, must accustom themselves with a new kind of language; another Crotty contribution. Where else is the word “ward” used to describe a church congregation? I’ve only heard about “wards” in hospitals and jails besides church; as in “mental ward” or “maternal ward.” The word “quorum” is used very little outside talking about a group of Priesthood holders, but would another word really do justice in describing the brotherhood shared between men engaged in the work of the Lord?
Triteness and cliché, now, become road blocks in Phenomenology. Over-usage of seemingly significant language reduces the effectiveness of that language, and in turn, the value of second-hand experience. Just as a good song played in excess on the radio becomes boring and not preferred to its listeners, commonly-used language can become boring and less-substantial. It becomes unfit for the purpose. Eventually, it doesn’t do justice to the experience.
Progressive meaninglessness and altered meaning has crept its way into Mormon lexicon. For example, do people fully understand what it means to say “I know this is what God wants me to do?” I would think that if this truly is the case, the individual would by this time have made such a strong relationship with God that whatever “this” may be is not only what God wants to have happen, but also what that person wants to have happen. Maybe what this pious, faithful person really means is “This is what I want to do, and God is on my side about it.”
Of course, true submissiveness and discipleship means having an attitude of “It doesn’t matter what I want. I only want that Thy will be done.” But my point is that we should look beyond the words that are used to the meaning that we wish to be portrayed.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Divorce
Divorce March 4, 2009
Diane Vaughn’s work on divorce made me feel kinda bad, and I’ve never even been divorced! But putting this in context of other relationships, such as dating relationships, has pretty much tagged me as a jerk. Moreover, it made me think about the importance of having clear communication, even with people whom I don’t like very much. (“Wow,” you’re thinking. “This guy doesn’t like the girls he dates. He is a jerk!”)
I’ve been on both sides of the break-up; I’ve been the initiator before. I was the advantaged. I was in the decision-making position. I was whom Marx was preaching against—the emotional Bourgeoisie; only the factors of production I controlled and limited were DTRs, physical affection, and time spent together. The one-woman Proletariat would issue pleas of “Let’s talk about it;” and “Tell me what you’re thinking;” and “don’t shut me out.” I don’t remember precisely how I responded, but it probably included something about having cake, actually eating it while you have it, and how that’s a ridiculous, selfish desire to have. (Of course, the one who ACTUALLY was the ridiculous and selfish one was...)
I had the higher ground in the relationship. Most of the time the higher ground gives you a clear picture of what’s going on below: like how a lifeguard can see down into the water from his perch. (Man, those were some cool 15 year-olds up there.) Or we talk about going to the temple and keeping the commandments in order to be on spiritual high ground—to get above the foggy haze of indecision and meanness. Pres Hinckley asked why we have to be so mean and rude to each other. You think you know the answer, until you have to break up with someone. Then you find yourself on the sharp, poisonous, stinging end of Pres Hinckley’s inspired rebuke.
In Vaughn’s idea of the big “D,” the higher ground doesn’t represent clarity of mind. Here, higher ground is tactical. It is militaristic. Higher ground is my pretending that everything is normal and all right for as long as it takes me to establish an alternative to the status quo, and then jump from one ship to the other without rocking the boat too much.
Why must I first have the alternative? 1) Because I don’t want to end up down by the river in a van. 2) Because I don’t exist outside of experience. Therefore, if I have nothing to go to, then I won't exist, and I won't be able to leave. (Hence, the battered woman syndrome we spoke about.) 3) No one wants to get divorced, even if that ends up being the final decision. Despite this, some still revert to that option. The alternative that has been built up and established by the Initiator allows divorce to offer itself as the preferred option. Can you believe that? The fact that divorce has become the better option, the option that delivers less grief, the option that is the lesser of two evils really says something about the perceived badness of the marriage relationship. Separation becomes a source of relief. Moreover, that feeds into an explanation of why some dads become deadbeats. They are separated from the world that includes their children. Because they are not part of their children’s world, they have no need to contribute to making it better.
The status quo in a marriage, as many people believe, is to continue being married. That’s the default setting. The problem with this kind of thinking is that it doesn’t fit in with any other part of a responsible, rational person’s life. Who goes to their job and does not try to do it better in hopes of a raise or promotion? What guy goes to play basketball on the weekend with his buddies without an expectation of winning at least one of the games or scoring a few points? We go to school and strive to do better with each assignment or test that comes along. I’m not talking, necessarily, about competition. I’m talking about our motivations to participate—in anything. That is in some way to leave better than we came. Otherwise, why do we come in the first place?
Diane Vaughn’s work on divorce made me feel kinda bad, and I’ve never even been divorced! But putting this in context of other relationships, such as dating relationships, has pretty much tagged me as a jerk. Moreover, it made me think about the importance of having clear communication, even with people whom I don’t like very much. (“Wow,” you’re thinking. “This guy doesn’t like the girls he dates. He is a jerk!”)
I’ve been on both sides of the break-up; I’ve been the initiator before. I was the advantaged. I was in the decision-making position. I was whom Marx was preaching against—the emotional Bourgeoisie; only the factors of production I controlled and limited were DTRs, physical affection, and time spent together. The one-woman Proletariat would issue pleas of “Let’s talk about it;” and “Tell me what you’re thinking;” and “don’t shut me out.” I don’t remember precisely how I responded, but it probably included something about having cake, actually eating it while you have it, and how that’s a ridiculous, selfish desire to have. (Of course, the one who ACTUALLY was the ridiculous and selfish one was...)
I had the higher ground in the relationship. Most of the time the higher ground gives you a clear picture of what’s going on below: like how a lifeguard can see down into the water from his perch. (Man, those were some cool 15 year-olds up there.) Or we talk about going to the temple and keeping the commandments in order to be on spiritual high ground—to get above the foggy haze of indecision and meanness. Pres Hinckley asked why we have to be so mean and rude to each other. You think you know the answer, until you have to break up with someone. Then you find yourself on the sharp, poisonous, stinging end of Pres Hinckley’s inspired rebuke.
In Vaughn’s idea of the big “D,” the higher ground doesn’t represent clarity of mind. Here, higher ground is tactical. It is militaristic. Higher ground is my pretending that everything is normal and all right for as long as it takes me to establish an alternative to the status quo, and then jump from one ship to the other without rocking the boat too much.
Why must I first have the alternative? 1) Because I don’t want to end up down by the river in a van. 2) Because I don’t exist outside of experience. Therefore, if I have nothing to go to, then I won't exist, and I won't be able to leave. (Hence, the battered woman syndrome we spoke about.) 3) No one wants to get divorced, even if that ends up being the final decision. Despite this, some still revert to that option. The alternative that has been built up and established by the Initiator allows divorce to offer itself as the preferred option. Can you believe that? The fact that divorce has become the better option, the option that delivers less grief, the option that is the lesser of two evils really says something about the perceived badness of the marriage relationship. Separation becomes a source of relief. Moreover, that feeds into an explanation of why some dads become deadbeats. They are separated from the world that includes their children. Because they are not part of their children’s world, they have no need to contribute to making it better.
The status quo in a marriage, as many people believe, is to continue being married. That’s the default setting. The problem with this kind of thinking is that it doesn’t fit in with any other part of a responsible, rational person’s life. Who goes to their job and does not try to do it better in hopes of a raise or promotion? What guy goes to play basketball on the weekend with his buddies without an expectation of winning at least one of the games or scoring a few points? We go to school and strive to do better with each assignment or test that comes along. I’m not talking, necessarily, about competition. I’m talking about our motivations to participate—in anything. That is in some way to leave better than we came. Otherwise, why do we come in the first place?
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Goffman and Dating
There is no bigger proponent of not applying everything we learn to “dating” than me, the one writing this portfolio entry. I find the near-constant comparisons to dating from random, un-related parts of our life to be trite, cliché, unhelpful, and uninspiring. Sorry to disappoint, but no, dating is not just like the mission and girls are not investigators; I’m certainly not going to stalk and shoot anyone, so the hunting reference is bust; and no matter how many times we call it the “ward menu,” we are not at a restaurant and I am not ordering a chimichanga. I have not yet experienced anything, ever, except for this social past time, that would compel me to call up a complete stranger with whom I’m “sure to have a great time” simply because she was referred to me by a mutual acquaintance; the time spent with each other, of course, dripping with romantic undertones (remember: stranger). Furthermore, it is my sincerest, deepest hope that I’ll be able to go throughout the rest of my life never experiencing something like this again. I’m not against dating at all. In fact, I quite like the companionship. But I am against comparing dating to things that have no semblance of dating; these comparisons made solely for the sake of… talking about dating.
So I decided that Goffman can tell us all about dating. While talking with my roommate, I actually said the words “How do you want girls to take you?” See, he’s a “dramaturgical dater.” He talks about going out on dates in a very official way, each partner playing his and her role just as expected. He has a very distinct appearance (the cologne he uses and the shoes he wears and the ice cream he buys for afterward—closest thing we come to a ‘night cap’.) His manner is just as can be expected (he asks the normal questions, like “What’s new and exciting in your life?”) He’s very organized and official and straight-laced. And from that, he’s been perceived and serious, hard to read, even intimidating.
This all came up last night when he was saying how much he appreciates a short text or email or Facebook message from a girl after taking her on a date. I had to ask him “Are you really all that surprised that they don’t do that?” A text or other friendly message is a very casual thing, and he is simply not a casual person, and does not establish a casual relationship. So, the post-date text would be out of context. (Is that called “con-contextual?”) Like we said in class, “we must know how to take others to know how to interact with them.” I don’t think a lot of girls know how to take my roommate. He says “I don’t know why these girls I date can’t show a little interest. Why can’t they meet me halfway?” this coming from a guy who cuts a Saturday night date short by a couple hours if he has Sunday morning church meetings (which really is just when it’s getting started.)
Goffman would be so proud of me for what I told him. I said that his official, organized, neat, intimidating manner is just fine. But you have to expect to be taken as you present yourself. And he’s having Goffman-esque success at it! People are treating him the way that he is acting. We are all giving him the standing ovation, even throwing roses onto the stage and yelling “Encore!” Girls are treating him as serious and efficient and mature by not sending him random text messages. His dude friends see how well he thrives in high-structure situations, and they send him a lot of blind date suggestions. We are surprised that he ends his dates early because he sees his church calling as more important than the last couple hours of a date, which may be the most important time of the date! “Bravo, my friend. Bravo! You are playing your part magnificently! We all know exactly how to take you.”
But, I told him, if you want the random text message and other flirty behavior, then you must present yourself that way. My mother could not be more correct than when she said “To make a friend, you must first be a friend.” Goffman adds “And others will then take you as a friend.”
So I decided that Goffman can tell us all about dating. While talking with my roommate, I actually said the words “How do you want girls to take you?” See, he’s a “dramaturgical dater.” He talks about going out on dates in a very official way, each partner playing his and her role just as expected. He has a very distinct appearance (the cologne he uses and the shoes he wears and the ice cream he buys for afterward—closest thing we come to a ‘night cap’.) His manner is just as can be expected (he asks the normal questions, like “What’s new and exciting in your life?”) He’s very organized and official and straight-laced. And from that, he’s been perceived and serious, hard to read, even intimidating.
This all came up last night when he was saying how much he appreciates a short text or email or Facebook message from a girl after taking her on a date. I had to ask him “Are you really all that surprised that they don’t do that?” A text or other friendly message is a very casual thing, and he is simply not a casual person, and does not establish a casual relationship. So, the post-date text would be out of context. (Is that called “con-contextual?”) Like we said in class, “we must know how to take others to know how to interact with them.” I don’t think a lot of girls know how to take my roommate. He says “I don’t know why these girls I date can’t show a little interest. Why can’t they meet me halfway?” this coming from a guy who cuts a Saturday night date short by a couple hours if he has Sunday morning church meetings (which really is just when it’s getting started.)
Goffman would be so proud of me for what I told him. I said that his official, organized, neat, intimidating manner is just fine. But you have to expect to be taken as you present yourself. And he’s having Goffman-esque success at it! People are treating him the way that he is acting. We are all giving him the standing ovation, even throwing roses onto the stage and yelling “Encore!” Girls are treating him as serious and efficient and mature by not sending him random text messages. His dude friends see how well he thrives in high-structure situations, and they send him a lot of blind date suggestions. We are surprised that he ends his dates early because he sees his church calling as more important than the last couple hours of a date, which may be the most important time of the date! “Bravo, my friend. Bravo! You are playing your part magnificently! We all know exactly how to take you.”
But, I told him, if you want the random text message and other flirty behavior, then you must present yourself that way. My mother could not be more correct than when she said “To make a friend, you must first be a friend.” Goffman adds “And others will then take you as a friend.”
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Symbolic Interaction
The big question of the class, the lowest common denominator as we move from school of thought to school of thought has been “What is?” As pseudo-theorists, we are in the business of making ontological assumptions. (Am I allowed to talk about business in sociology?) Some ontological assumptions have been that we are what we make, or that we are what we do, or that we are what we consume. All of those are famous and important and somewhat explanatory. But they don’t completely envelope and explain everything about who we are. They all seem to be politically charged in some way (like Marx’s Communism), or the theorist wants to rationalize questionable or selfish behavior (like Freud’s complexes), or the theorist couldn’t take it into other academic fields, so he just dropped it off to with Sociology, like a kid at daycare (like Peter Blau’s Exchange Theory and Nietzsche’s Atomism, which are actually Economics in disguise.)
But finally we have come in our class to the most applicable, meaningful, and substantial of theories; outside of the ontological assumption that we are all children of God and “He has sent [us] here,” of course. Symbolic interaction is true sociology at work. It defines every thing, whether actions or objects or people, in terms of independent meaning depending on independent situations. We first identify what is, and from that we identify what we know. What is so fantastic about this is that here we are studying social science (testing an hypothesis, in the simplest of terms), and we have a theory that by definition is the opposite of scientific. Essentially, any thing could have any meaning in any situation. It’s fool proof: nobody can prove it wrong, so nobody has an obligation to prove it right.
However, what makes symbolic interaction to useful is that it doesn’t claim to be predictive; but rather, descriptive. We act in our natural ways, and it conforms to those actions. The symbols conform to our actions. S.I. doesn’t force us to justify our actions or get us riled up and motivated to change the world. (Really, that’s why we have the other social sciences. Let them boss us around.) S.I. reminds us that we are different people in different situations.
One of my best friends acts completely different around friends than he does around his uncles, who mostly raised him on account of his deceased father. Other theories would take the role similar to that of the disappointed girlfriend who might break up with him because he’s “a completely different person when you’re around your uncles.” But S.I. seems to tell the girlfriend off. “Well,” S.I. says. “His uncles take him as a different object, and so he acts differently. Of course he is a completely different person! He’s being treated completely differently!”
My mission president made an attribute out of being taken as a different object to different people. I served in Taiwan, and they speak differently there than the Mainland Chinese do, much like the difference between the US and Britain. So, when speaking to someone from China, President would match that person’s accent. When he met a native Taiwanese person, he would speak and act to mirror that person.
The moral problem to be dispelled with this idea of changing from interaction to interaction is that we are not being true to ourselves. Or at least that’s the sanctimony that your neighborhood motivational speaker is reciting. But what defines a ‘self?’ Where does a ‘self’ come from? Is there a ‘self’ factory in China and we all have to keep the same ‘self’ that we are issued from childhood? S.I. says that our relationships are our respective ‘selves.’ If we act the exact same way regardless of the situation, then we are limiting our ‘selves’ to one kind of group. That may explain why people get awkward: they are not willing to have their ‘selves’ be taken in a different way than they usually are.
But finally we have come in our class to the most applicable, meaningful, and substantial of theories; outside of the ontological assumption that we are all children of God and “He has sent [us] here,” of course. Symbolic interaction is true sociology at work. It defines every thing, whether actions or objects or people, in terms of independent meaning depending on independent situations. We first identify what is, and from that we identify what we know. What is so fantastic about this is that here we are studying social science (testing an hypothesis, in the simplest of terms), and we have a theory that by definition is the opposite of scientific. Essentially, any thing could have any meaning in any situation. It’s fool proof: nobody can prove it wrong, so nobody has an obligation to prove it right.
However, what makes symbolic interaction to useful is that it doesn’t claim to be predictive; but rather, descriptive. We act in our natural ways, and it conforms to those actions. The symbols conform to our actions. S.I. doesn’t force us to justify our actions or get us riled up and motivated to change the world. (Really, that’s why we have the other social sciences. Let them boss us around.) S.I. reminds us that we are different people in different situations.
One of my best friends acts completely different around friends than he does around his uncles, who mostly raised him on account of his deceased father. Other theories would take the role similar to that of the disappointed girlfriend who might break up with him because he’s “a completely different person when you’re around your uncles.” But S.I. seems to tell the girlfriend off. “Well,” S.I. says. “His uncles take him as a different object, and so he acts differently. Of course he is a completely different person! He’s being treated completely differently!”
My mission president made an attribute out of being taken as a different object to different people. I served in Taiwan, and they speak differently there than the Mainland Chinese do, much like the difference between the US and Britain. So, when speaking to someone from China, President would match that person’s accent. When he met a native Taiwanese person, he would speak and act to mirror that person.
The moral problem to be dispelled with this idea of changing from interaction to interaction is that we are not being true to ourselves. Or at least that’s the sanctimony that your neighborhood motivational speaker is reciting. But what defines a ‘self?’ Where does a ‘self’ come from? Is there a ‘self’ factory in China and we all have to keep the same ‘self’ that we are issued from childhood? S.I. says that our relationships are our respective ‘selves.’ If we act the exact same way regardless of the situation, then we are limiting our ‘selves’ to one kind of group. That may explain why people get awkward: they are not willing to have their ‘selves’ be taken in a different way than they usually are.
Friday, January 23, 2009
"Rational Choice"
January 23, 2009--Rational Choice Theory
So here we’ve been spending time talking about Rational Choice in a very philosophical and theoretical way. We’ve asked important questions like “Where do our preferences come from?” and “Why do people make the choices they do?” and “Where do social patterns and order come from?” We’ve also picked it apart and identified certain ontological assumptions underlying the theory and critiquing those assumptions; the most important one being that humans are rational actors and we seek to “maximize our preferences,” whatever that means. However, one of the biggest, most glaringly obvious critiques that we have missed, unfortunately, pertains to this very conundrum of knowing what qualifies as “maximization of preference.” In order to know if one of these rational actors is maximizing his or her preferences, you have to 1) know what he or she is giving up when the decision is made and 2) quantify the satisfaction that is gained by the objective choice and also the satisfaction that could’ve been gained by another choice that would’ve been objectified if the actual choice had been foregone; and this is the only way to know if the unchosen choice should’ve been made.
How could we have missed this? After all, a measurable approach to the theory could prove it correct. Don’t we want to know what is true? We probably ignore this critique because other people have taken it up for us. They are called Economists. They do calculus and run regressions and measure GDP. They know how to maximize not preferences, but profits. Sociology got it started, and economics is finishing it. However, they are the only ones who can because they study measurable things. They can measure income and profit margins and cost differentials. Everything in the economy; labor, capital, time, natural resources; can be reduced to a dollar sign. But relationship utility is simply not liquid. We can’t compare relationships of different types and qualities because they are simply too complex for the implementation of a common denominator.
This is still kinda hard for us to accept, though. We like to be able to explain exactly why something occurred, and predict what is going to happen if we choose a certain path. That’s why we compare relationships to bank accounts, and how we need to make deposits before we make withdrawals. It is why I’m using such a thick explanatory way of writing right now. It is probably also why we have such a propensity to trust ourselves with as important things as politics and the economy and family relations. If I have my own interests in mind and want to do what is best for me, then I am always going to make the best decision. I am going to do wise things with my money and time and let the most qualified person boss me around (politics) and choose the best person to marry.
But sometimes we choose wrong. Wrong choices are manifested by uncontrollable debt and divorce; things we often experience. Despite this theory that says we won’t let bad things happen to ourselves because we are self-interested, we have to remember that self-interest is not only a function of who we are, but also when we are. We all change over time. That which we decide to hold in the highest priority (some would say that our priorities define us) changes. Self-interest is not a singular concept. It holds plurality inasmuch as one decision heavily influences many different times of our individual selves.
A smarter way to choose than “self-interestedness” might be “being-interestedness.” That is, we should act in ways that will contribute to the preference of our “being:” our future self, those who are close to us, those things that are most important to us, and our respective spouse to whom we are sealed.
Now, then, I call into question the definitions of “atomism” and “individual.” As mentioned above, an individual is not simply his or her own self. The fact that we are speaking in terms of sociology right now proves that we all are social beings. And “social beings,” semantically, implies multiplicity.
So here we’ve been spending time talking about Rational Choice in a very philosophical and theoretical way. We’ve asked important questions like “Where do our preferences come from?” and “Why do people make the choices they do?” and “Where do social patterns and order come from?” We’ve also picked it apart and identified certain ontological assumptions underlying the theory and critiquing those assumptions; the most important one being that humans are rational actors and we seek to “maximize our preferences,” whatever that means. However, one of the biggest, most glaringly obvious critiques that we have missed, unfortunately, pertains to this very conundrum of knowing what qualifies as “maximization of preference.” In order to know if one of these rational actors is maximizing his or her preferences, you have to 1) know what he or she is giving up when the decision is made and 2) quantify the satisfaction that is gained by the objective choice and also the satisfaction that could’ve been gained by another choice that would’ve been objectified if the actual choice had been foregone; and this is the only way to know if the unchosen choice should’ve been made.
How could we have missed this? After all, a measurable approach to the theory could prove it correct. Don’t we want to know what is true? We probably ignore this critique because other people have taken it up for us. They are called Economists. They do calculus and run regressions and measure GDP. They know how to maximize not preferences, but profits. Sociology got it started, and economics is finishing it. However, they are the only ones who can because they study measurable things. They can measure income and profit margins and cost differentials. Everything in the economy; labor, capital, time, natural resources; can be reduced to a dollar sign. But relationship utility is simply not liquid. We can’t compare relationships of different types and qualities because they are simply too complex for the implementation of a common denominator.
This is still kinda hard for us to accept, though. We like to be able to explain exactly why something occurred, and predict what is going to happen if we choose a certain path. That’s why we compare relationships to bank accounts, and how we need to make deposits before we make withdrawals. It is why I’m using such a thick explanatory way of writing right now. It is probably also why we have such a propensity to trust ourselves with as important things as politics and the economy and family relations. If I have my own interests in mind and want to do what is best for me, then I am always going to make the best decision. I am going to do wise things with my money and time and let the most qualified person boss me around (politics) and choose the best person to marry.
But sometimes we choose wrong. Wrong choices are manifested by uncontrollable debt and divorce; things we often experience. Despite this theory that says we won’t let bad things happen to ourselves because we are self-interested, we have to remember that self-interest is not only a function of who we are, but also when we are. We all change over time. That which we decide to hold in the highest priority (some would say that our priorities define us) changes. Self-interest is not a singular concept. It holds plurality inasmuch as one decision heavily influences many different times of our individual selves.
A smarter way to choose than “self-interestedness” might be “being-interestedness.” That is, we should act in ways that will contribute to the preference of our “being:” our future self, those who are close to us, those things that are most important to us, and our respective spouse to whom we are sealed.
Now, then, I call into question the definitions of “atomism” and “individual.” As mentioned above, an individual is not simply his or her own self. The fact that we are speaking in terms of sociology right now proves that we all are social beings. And “social beings,” semantically, implies multiplicity.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Gift, Exchange, and Duty
Individual scriptural passages can be a rich, powerful source of knowledge and truth. When two or more passages are put together and we study them in context of one another, we learn even more. Sometimes, however, we must have understanding of other scripture in order to understand another. For example, D&C 130: 20-21 may be one of the most misunderstood passages of scripture we have today. It explains how every blessing we receive is predicated on our obedience to a corresponding commandment. This would be an example of an exchange-based relationship. We get something in return for our payment of obedience. Unfortunately, we often read this scripture to mean that our blessings are dependent on our obedience. Thus, in order to receive blessings, we must obey. Hence, our motivation for obedience becomes the blessings we receive after and contingently. Looking at our society today, this misunderstanding is quite understandable. Our legal system is based on crime and not cruel or unusual punishment. Our economy is run by an understanding of cost and benefit. We understand our world in terms of cause and effect, so why not apply that to things spiritual?
This misunderstanding can lead to frustrating questions, such as “Why do bad things happen to good people?” or “If I obey I’ll have trials. If I disobey, I’ll have trials. I may as well do what I want.” Well, this question gets cleared up when a person realizes the real motivation, the real reason, which God gives to us for the hard work and sacrifice associated with obedience. The scripture doesn’t say “If ye don’t want lung cancer, keep my commandments.” It doesn’t say “If ye don’t want to suffer, keep my commandments.” And it certainly doesn’t say “If ye want blessings, keep my commandments.” If we love God, then we will obey Him, and everything else will follow. This would more closely resemble a gift relationship.
Notwithstanding these elements of gift, are we able to give God a gift? A pure gift is, by definition, given out of the recipient’s interest and need. I have a hard time thinking that God needs something that we have, and our interactions with Him are "gifts." On the other hand, the value of a gift in based on the relationship between the giver and the recipient. The objective good or service is sentimental, not intrinsic; meaning that it would have a completely different value and take on a different meaning if given outside the relationship. But our relationship with God is completely different from any other relationship we have. So in trying to marginalize the tokens (whether gifts or exchanges) of our relationship with God, we’re stuck in a maze of semantics.
What might be closer to those tokens might be deals done out of duty. First of all, a major part of our relationship with God (also defined as ‘religion’) is following His appointed prophet. And multiple prophets have spoken of our duty to God. We even have an award by the same name, which if achieved accompanies an assumption of piety on the part of the recipient. President Monson, in near thematic habit, exhorts us to “Do [our] duty. It is best.”
Moreover, God ultimately does not tolerate imperfection. Gifts and exchange automatically assumes imperfection on the part of one or both of the players, hence the need for the transaction. Duty does not imply an owing tone. We do things because we’re supposed to; because God tells us to, and because we love Him. We don’t offer these tokens to God because we want something in return (exchange) or because we see a need that we can resolve (gift). With a sense of duty are we called to the work; not hired or invited.
This misunderstanding can lead to frustrating questions, such as “Why do bad things happen to good people?” or “If I obey I’ll have trials. If I disobey, I’ll have trials. I may as well do what I want.” Well, this question gets cleared up when a person realizes the real motivation, the real reason, which God gives to us for the hard work and sacrifice associated with obedience. The scripture doesn’t say “If ye don’t want lung cancer, keep my commandments.” It doesn’t say “If ye don’t want to suffer, keep my commandments.” And it certainly doesn’t say “If ye want blessings, keep my commandments.” If we love God, then we will obey Him, and everything else will follow. This would more closely resemble a gift relationship.
Notwithstanding these elements of gift, are we able to give God a gift? A pure gift is, by definition, given out of the recipient’s interest and need. I have a hard time thinking that God needs something that we have, and our interactions with Him are "gifts." On the other hand, the value of a gift in based on the relationship between the giver and the recipient. The objective good or service is sentimental, not intrinsic; meaning that it would have a completely different value and take on a different meaning if given outside the relationship. But our relationship with God is completely different from any other relationship we have. So in trying to marginalize the tokens (whether gifts or exchanges) of our relationship with God, we’re stuck in a maze of semantics.
What might be closer to those tokens might be deals done out of duty. First of all, a major part of our relationship with God (also defined as ‘religion’) is following His appointed prophet. And multiple prophets have spoken of our duty to God. We even have an award by the same name, which if achieved accompanies an assumption of piety on the part of the recipient. President Monson, in near thematic habit, exhorts us to “Do [our] duty. It is best.”
Moreover, God ultimately does not tolerate imperfection. Gifts and exchange automatically assumes imperfection on the part of one or both of the players, hence the need for the transaction. Duty does not imply an owing tone. We do things because we’re supposed to; because God tells us to, and because we love Him. We don’t offer these tokens to God because we want something in return (exchange) or because we see a need that we can resolve (gift). With a sense of duty are we called to the work; not hired or invited.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)