I am not arguing that groups develop rules, trust etc, and sanction transgressions in one way or another. This, as you pointed out, is Sociology 101. What interests me (and this is genuine interest, not just an attempt to spite you) is what happens when the social cohesion necessary to sustain these rules, trust etc, is weaken or altogether broken by environmental influences. This was addressed in a classical study by Shaw and McKay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_disorganization_theory) and countless followers who linked deviance to disintegration of community. Back then, that disintegration resulted from geographical mobility ("zones in transition"). Today, however, I suspect that the environmental factor contributing to this disintegration of community is the internet.
It does it in several ways. First, it encourages people to stay home instead of going out and socialize. Second, it facilitates contacts among like-minded individuals while discouraging contact between people who have diverging interests or world views. This is different from geographical communities, where people with different views live in close proximity and have more chances to interact. Consequently, what would be considered "deviant" in a geographical community is considered 'normal' in virtual communities. Third, the impersonal nature of internet encourages deviant behavior and "dehumanization" of others (manifested e.g. "flame wars" and "trolling") to a much greater degree than face to face interaction in physical space.
Given this, it seems that people whose main community is virtual rather than physical/geographical would be less likely to develop trust with people who are different than themselves than those who grew up in integrated geographical communities. BTW, by "virtual community" I do not mean just the internet - many suburban and gated "communities" fit that mold as well. I can go further on this trope and argue that the "old Left" drew its strength from traditional community ties, which significantly aided its organizing efforts, whereas the "new Left" largely lacks such ties (destroyed by capitalist development) which explains its weakness - but I will stop before getting there.
Wojtek
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:30 AM, shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com> wrote:
> no, i said trust is built when people don't violate that normative
> demand from the group. i also said that, when someone does, then
> everyone now knows that the person violated that trust and it
> reinforces for them the importance of this norm, which they sometimes
> take for granted and ren't even aware of. Let me drop a name: Goffman.
> as a sociologist, you also know full well the answer to what happens
> when someone does violate trust. indeed, there's an entire strand of
> sociological research which shows that such "deviance" from normative
> demands of a group is functional and necessary to solidarity.
>
> I have no sense of what you mean by standard behavior in other groups
> because you've provided no empirical examples of what you are talking
> about.
>
>
> you're a sociologist. if you don't know the answer to the question you
> have about "standard behavior", I can't really help you with that
> because your years of study and living life haven't given you a
> klewX4. My brains aren't big enough to figure out how to be better
> than the books you've read, teachers you've had, and colleagues with
> whom you've collaborated. if they've failed, I am certainly not the
> broad for the job.
>
>> I think it is you who routinely eschews standard grammar and spelling
>> on this list.
>>
>> But if you do not understand let me repeat - you state that mistrust
>> is created when people who disagree turn around and violate an
>> agreement by speaking for the movement. I replied by saying this this
>> is standard behavior in identity politics groups and internet
>> discussion groups (including this one, I may add). I then asked how do
>> want to overcome this tendency and built trust, which as you claim is
>> essential to build solidarity among diversity and disagreement.
>>
>> Is it sufficiently clear, or do I need to drop some names to further
>> clarify it?
>>
>> Wojtek
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:05 AM, shag carpet bomb
>> <shag at cleandraws.com> wrote:
>>> your sentences make no grammatical sense. You might want to read
>>> Alan
>>> Tourraine on the Solidarity movement if you don't understand.
>>>
>>>> Shag: " If you aren't trustworthy, if people with
>>>> whom you disagree and have arguments with in a working group turn
>>>> around and violate an argreement by speaking for the movement,"
>>>>
>>>> [WS:] Sounds like a standard practice of pomo identity politics and
>>>> internet-based discourse. How do you want to built trust to
>>>> overcome
>>>> it?
>>>>
>>>> Wojtek
>>>> ___________________________________
>>>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://cleandraws.com
>>> Wear Clean Draws
>>> ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)
>>>
>>>
>>> ___________________________________
>>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>>
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>
>
> --
> http://cleandraws.com
> Wear Clean Draws
> ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>