The following notes are inspired by a conversation we had
about a section from Pinker’s “The Better Angels of our Nature,” (pp 759-65)
which describes the continuum of domains that provide the context and “rules”
for interpersonal interactions. Cultures and individuals vary widely over what
is assigned to the sacred to what is seen as mere commerce. Moreover, notions
such authority and distributive justice tend to change over time. Because they are fluid and variable,
mismatch between interpersonal expectations can produce comic faux-pas, but
also tragic miscommunication. Whether we are consciously aware of it or not,
significant energy is spent navigating these shifting sands, whether to find
happiness or for survival. We choose to take this “snapshot” of these domains
in our intentional Spoltopia because a compelling argument can be made that
rationality, tolerance and transparency (as opposed to mere consistency) in
these domains is a major force for pacification. More, however, than the mere
avoidance of cross purposes, our goal is to build a conceptual framework
through which to explore an adaptive and intentional approach to relationship
building.
Sacred/tapu
This is the ‘thou shalt” and “thou shalt not” domain, but
need not be embodied in religious articles of faith. As derived from practical
enlightenment humanism, this domain covers any exposure that produces a lasting
and visceral negative, such as fear, mistrust or disgust. Examples include
violence, sexual/emotional infidelity, odors, (certain) bodily functions. These
seem intuitive on paper, but are quite commonly breached in a series of
“marginal violations”, leading an erosion of trust, safety and romantic love.
Moreover, because of the indivisibility, by definition, of the sacred/tapu,
disagreements on this level are nearly impossible to resolve without conflict
and submission.
Authority ranking
This is essentially a hierarchical model, and has great
utility in some contexts, especially where the highly ranked own both power and
its consequences (eg “healthy” ward systems) or have “paid their dues” (eg mana
for certain elders). Without these
legitimizing constraints, authority ranking can lead to authoritarian abuses of
power (most religions, Abu Grahib, patriarchal marriage).
This schema is rarely used in Spoltopia, but provides a high
value strategic orientation in situations where one individual transiently
assumes a “leader” role due to advanced skill (spreadsheets vs haka). It should
not impact on the overall relationship equilibrium (i.e. not produce a lasting
asymmetry—see equality matching below).
Communal/shared
In Spoltopia, food and money are the best examples of
“pooled” resources, for which no real or conceptual accounting is kept. We do,
however, have numerous small zones of implicit quasi-ownership over items that
could conceivably be communal (pairs of wool socks, hats, backpacks, sides of
the bed, suitcases). Even though we are rarely consciously aware of this zone,
we acknowledge its existence by prefacing use of these items with, “is it okay
if I . . ?”, even though we know the answer will be a yes. However, “pure”
communalism works better in the abstract and for plentiful resources.
Communalism as an ever-expanding assumption can undermine autonomy and
individualism.
Equality matching
In this model, explicit or implicit tabs are kept on the
contributions of various members to ensure an equitable distribution of labor.
A classic double bind in many relationships is that parties may feel aggrieved
when they have to keep track of chores, but also feel cheated or overburdened
when accounting is absent. It is in this domain that temperament most
determines what will happen “naturally” when people meet over a shared cadre of
tasks. This also means that conflicts in equality matching can be stubbornly
resistant to change, as it requires a conscious exertion of will over an
ego-syntonic reaction to a task (like a full rubbish bin or sink full of
dishes). Conversely, super-collaborators, those with high innate ability to
mentalize the states of others or those with highly developed observing egos
will generally pair well with one another, divide tasks equitably and be
unperturbed by transient minor disequilibria in workloads. However, even in
these cases it is important to be able to express and resolve conflicts in the
case of sustained asymmetry (say when a birth, disability or career change
disrupts an existing equality matching system).
Market value/trade
In this model, negotiation is king and the more
dispassionate, the better. Basically, this category covers everything that
doesn’t fall into one of the above domains, which exist in part to cover
situations unsuited to the commodity form. In terms of Spoltopia, this model
would cover almost nothing inside the dyad, but is likely the most adaptive
“default” way of interacting with the outside world. Far from dehumanizing,
testing for “transactional” situations—where X amount of capital is exchanged
for a good or service-- helps avoid fallacies and errors that lead to
misallocation of monetary and emotional capital, such as chasing sunk-costs and
personalizing contractual relationships. Where that doesn’t fit, the
interaction can be steered into one of the other relational domains.
No comments:
Post a Comment