On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan: "I don't buy it for an instant. "
>
> [WS:] I do not understand why. Nothing in the passage that follows
> contradicts my argument - it merely provides enumerations of different
> allovariants of desirable social image aka dignity construction. I
> acknowledged that "dignity" can be constructed in very diffrent ways by
> different social groups, but those differences were not crucial for my
> argument. My argument was that considerations for one's social status and
> image typically trump "rational" interests as they are understood in the
> rational choice paradigm (i.e. maximization of material rewards.) Perhaps
> the Weberian distinction between purpose-rationality and value-rationality
> will add some light to what I am trying to argue.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't buy it for an instant. Rather than dignity how is this,
> > alternatively, not simply fundamental adolescent sexual insecurity -
> rooted
> > in a sexist, heteronormative and homophobic society - coming out in an
> > extreme fashion? Or, how might this not simply be a manifestation of the
> > depth of the pain "fundamental" to the human experience of being spurned
> by
> > a loved one? Or, how isn't it any one of a range of other overly abstract
> > fundamental principals you might happen to advance?
> >
> > Your argument in this case elides all differences w/r/t dignity, its
> > various
> > manifestations and ways of being maintained. If the younger man, the
> > killer, defined dignity in terms of not being provoked by off-hand and
> > stupidly sexist jabs intended to provoke how would his behavior have been
> > different... and, if this is so fundamental and unmediated within
> > communities of street folks, are you sure this is the response of the
> > majority of the people, or young men, called pussies? If this was about
> > dignity, why'd he stoop so low as to respond to that undignified posting?
> > This is like almost all claims for universal fundaments or principals of
> > human behavior... the fundamental categories and behavioral principals
> have
> > insufficient empirically cross-cultural continuity and similarity to hold
> > any water. Last, given everything you know - as a sociologist - about
> > capital crimes, what makes you think there was any evalutation of his
> > material interests or personal freedom? Or is your argument that this
> > street kid found the front to his dignity, on Facebook, so extreme that
> he
> > couldn't have thought of his material interests or personal freedom...
> > heck,
> > he's just a street kid, you know. If the friends who held him back from
> > previous fights and/or took his knife from him were able to think about
> is
> > material interests and personal freedom - weighed against this affront to
> > his dignity - why didn't the see the importance of a clear-cut, violent,
> > response to this affront to his fundamental dignity?
> >
> > How do you deal with limnal/initiation rituals where part of the
> transition
> > is humiliation and denigration, either of the subject being initiated or
> as
> > transgressions of normal statuses in the context of the ritual?
> > Furthermore, in Durkheimian terms - oh how I despise these dualistic and
> > false categories - is dignity in relatively undifferentiated small social
> > groups held together by enforced similarity the same thing as dignity in
> > wildly differentiated global social groups held together by mutual
> > reciprocity and respect for difference? How about dignity in
> traditionally
> > affective relative to rationalized bureaucratic settings? Dignity
> matters
> > but the category has too much historical, material and cultural diversity
> > to
> > be worth much as a metacategory.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/10372678.stm
> > >
> > > [WS:] What makes this case interesting is that it is a clear-cut
> > > demonstration of what I believe is one of the most fundamental
> principles
> > > of
> > > human behavior - construction and maintenance of one's own dignity i.e.
> a
> > > desirable image of the self projected to others. Not to maximize
> profits
> > > or
> > > pursue his material interests - as variations of the rat-choice
> paradigm
> > > want us to believe - but to construct, maintain, and defend if
> necessary
> > a
> > > dignified image of the self, even at the expense of one's material
> > > interests
> > > and personal freedom.
> > >
> > > Everyone does that, but the middle class folks learned how to
> camouflage
> > > that under the guise of rationality, political ideology, charity,
> > > patriotism, or faith. The street folks, by contrast, are very explicit
> > > about it, and they have neither desire nor social skills to camouflage
> > it.
> > > This is why middle class folks - judges, journalists, intellectuals -
> > > find
> > > it very upsetting, and try to redefine it as "cowardice," "stupidity,"
> > > "false consciousness" etc.
> > >
> > > It follows that liberal/leftist exhortations about "false
> consciousness"
> > > and
> > > people being duped to make choices that undermine their own material
> > > interests stem from misunderstanding of this simple and fundamental
> > > principle of human behavior - a dignified image of the self projected
> to
> > > others is the ultimate end, everything else is the means to that end.
> > What
> > > specifically constitutes a "dignified image" varies among social
> groups,
> > > but
> > > they are merely allovariants of the same principle, which remains
> > constant.
> > >
> > >
> > > To use an example, the natives in Joseph Conrad's story "The Heart of
> > > Darkness" serving the Europeans in exchange for pieces of copper wire
> are
> > > not ignoramuses who do not understand the concept of value. They
> > > understand it it perfectly - to them, the possession of shiny metal,
> such
> > > as
> > > copper wire, is a manifestation of one's social status, and thus
> dignity,
> > > which is of ultimate value. They act quite rationally when they go to
> > > great
> > > lengths to obtain objects manifesting that value. It is the Europeans
> > who
> > > are are ignoramuses, as they fail to grasp this simple principle of
> human
> > > social behavior, and confused the principle with its manifestation.
> > >
> > > Wojtek
> > > ___________________________________
> > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *********************************************************
> > Alan P. Rudy
> > Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work
> > Central Michigan University
> > 124 Anspach Hall
> > Mt Pleasant, MI 48858
> > 517-881-6319
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- ********************************************************* Alan P. Rudy Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work Central Michigan University 124 Anspach Hall Mt Pleasant, MI 48858 517-881-6319