I have a different fish to fry here - to argue against the idea, popular on the left, that people will eventually vote to defend their pocket books. I find it rather unlikely. They will rather vote for those that offer them delusions about their own self-image and status.
Wojtek
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
> We're agreed on rational choice.
> I think the differences are crucial because I find the diversity of what
> you
> call allovariants undermines the utility of the meta-claim.
> Similarly, following Ollman (and Levins and Lewontin's) account of
> dialectics, my sense is that arguing for fundamental terms rather than
> focusing on situated historical, material and semiotic relations,
> associations, and conditions operates outside of my intellectual and
> political tradition.
> Among Weber's many problems is an insistence on a transhistorically useful
> term, rationality, that simply has different aspects operating to different
> effect at different times and places as rationality ineluctably spreads.
> All decisions are meldings of conscious and unconscious affect and
> purpose... abstractions are useful analytic tools at instititional and
> social levels but generally quite poor when applied to the level of the
> individual, as you have done.
>
> 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
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>