Cultural Theory and Grid/Group Analysis “We are interested in how individuals confer meaning upon...
-
Upload
bethany-summers -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Cultural Theory and Grid/Group Analysis “We are interested in how individuals confer meaning upon...
Cultural Theory and Grid/Group Analysis
“We are interested in how individuals confer meaning upon situations, events, objects, relationships--in short, their lives. How do people come to believe that physical nature is one way rather than another? How does one view of human nature come to seem more sensible than others? ... [We explore] the different perceptual screens through which people interpret or make sense of their world and the social relations that make particular visions of reality seem more or less plausible.”
The Rationale for Grid/Group1. The framework is based on the idea (from
Durkheim) of constraint. The question is to what extent do different social forms constrain person’s in terms of group membership and patterns of social relations.
2. Group is the extent to which an individual is incorporated into bounded limits; "grid refer to the degree to which an individual's life is circumscribed by externally imposed prescriptions, the less of life that is open to individual negotiation."
3. Furthermore, patterns of constraint, in terms of grid and group, will match the ways that persons construe their world, their ideas about physical nature, human nature, economic resources, blame, scarcity and risk. These constructions constitute cultural biases
.
Group
Grid
High
Low
Low High
Fatalist Hierarchist
Indivdualist EgalitarianHermit
Examples: The Elderly,
Peasants, The Poor.
Politics: Non-Voters
Examples: The Military, The
Corporate World, The Catholic Church, Sports
Teams
Politics: Conservative
Examples: Wall Street Traders, Neoliberals, College
Students
Politics: Libertarian
Examples:Communal Groups,
Political Activists
Politics: Liberal/Progressive
The world is terribly unforgiving, any jolt could destroy it
The world is bountiful but accountable within limits. The world is forgiving, but
extreme events could disrupt it.
The world is wonderfully forgiving and little that humans do could affect it.
The world is random, capricious, and erratic
Hermit
Nature is resilient
Cultural theory-based Interpretation of Climate Change:
•The Hierarchist’s Story (nature perverse/tolerant): International protocols and national commitments are needed to address the tragedy of the atmospheric commons and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
•The Egalitarian’s Story (nature ephemeral): The underlying problem is consumption (resource throughput). Precaution, lifestyle simplicity and grass roots action are the most effective responses.
•The Individualist’s Story (nature benign): To address climate change, rely on laissez-faire markets to spur competition and innovation. The benefits of climate change may even balance out the costs.
•The Fatalist’s Story (nature capricious): Natural forces are beyond human understanding, much less human influence.
•The Hermit’s Story (nature resilient): transcends and includes each of the others.
Grid
High Grid/Low Group High Grid/High Group
Low Grid/Low Group Low Grid/High Group
Group
The Social Construction of Human Nature
FatalistHuman nature is
unpredictable; some people may be
benevolent, but more are hostile
IndividualistFor individualists human nature is stable; human beings regardless, are always the same, self-
seeking
HierarchistsHuman beings are born
sinful but can be redeemed by good
institutions
EgalitariansHuman beings are born good,
but are corrupted by evil institutions
HermitBelieves in the
goodness of human nature, but recognized evil by attributing it to
ignorance
The Social Construction of Needs and Resources
In terms of needs and resources, there are four possibilities:
• 1. You can manage neither your needs or your resources.
• 2. You can manage your needs but not your resources.
• 3. You can manage your resources but not your needs.
• 4. You can mange both your resources and your needs.
Grid
High Grid/Low Group High Grid/High Group
Low Grid/Low Group Low Grid/High Group
Group
Management of Resources
FatalistManage neither needs nor resources. The strategy is
to cope within an environment within which
one has no control
Egalitarian Resources are fixed, and so
you reduce your needs. Nature is so precarious that
inequality in the distribution of resources will bring calamity
HierarchistNeeds are fixed and resources manageable. If you can't adjust
your needs, increase your resources. This requires resource
mobilization.
IndividualistManages needs and resources.
Nature is a cornucopia and is manageable by
skill.
HermitNeeds and
resources are manageable
These five strategies for making ends meet are the only ones that contain views of economizing congruent with the models of nature that serve to justify the corresponding ways of life.
Should egalitarians seek to expand resources they could not justify sharing out.
Should hierarchists attempt to decrease needs, they could not maintain the differentials required to support graded statuses. And so it goes.
Supporters of each way of life construct their ends to make their cultural biases meet up with their preferred pattern of social relations. Their strategies do what is important to them--uphold their way of life.
(Thompson, Michael, Richard Ellis, and Aaron Wildavsky, 1990. Culture Theory p.48).
Grid
High Grid/Low Group High Grid/High Group
Low Grid/Low Group Low Grid/High Group
Group
The Social Construction of Blame
Hierarchists Can't blame the system, that would
be self-destructive. Instead, hierarchies are "blame-shedding
machines. Investigations are quashed or forbidden; blame is
shifted to deviants
Individualists Blame bad luck or personal
incompetence
Fatalists Blame fate
Egalitarians They reject authority;
it is the system that is to blame
HermitLay no blame since they are uninvolved in social struggles.
Response to Blame
Fatalist Individualist Hierarchist Egalitarian
The fickle finger of fate; world does things to us.
Faulty incentive structures. Competitive system remains blameless, attribute personal failure to bad luck and/or personal incompetence.
Poor compliance with established procedures, lack of professional expertise. Cannot blame collective system, blame shifted to deviants who don’t know their place
Abuse of power by top-level leaders, system corruption. Blame the collective or the system, solidarity by portraying external symbols as monstrous.
Typical Credo
‘I’m not even supposed to be here today.’
‘Every man for himself.’
‘All for one and one for all.’
‘A world in ourselves and in each other.’
Grid
High Grid/Low Group High Grid/High Group
Low Grid/Low Group Low Grid/High Group
Group
The Social Construction of Risk
FatalistsDo not knowingly take risks. They would only
get hurt and there is little prospect of reward
Hierarchists Accepts risk as long as decisions are made by
experts
IndividualistsRisk is opportunity. With no
risk, there would be no opportunity of personal
reward
EgalitariansBy accentuating the risks of technological
development and economic growth, egalitarians are able to shore up their way
of life and discomfort rival ways. predictions of imminent catastrophic- helps convince themselves anew that it is safer inside than outside the egalitarian group.
HermitEager acceptance of myopically perceived
risk. They are attached to him and can’t be transferred
Each way of life needs each of its rivals either to make up for its deficiencies or to exploit or define itself against. Were egalitarians to eliminate hierarchists and individualists, for instance, their lack of a target to be against would remove justification foor their strong group boundaries and thus undermine their way of life. Or, to take another example, were indiidalists ever to rid the world of hierarchy, there would be no extra-market authority to enforce the laws of contract, thus producing the breakdown of the individualists' way of life.
--Thompson et al 1990: 3-4)
A Typology of Surprises(Actor assumes the world is one way, acted in a world that was, in fact, another
way.)/Actual World
Stipulated WorldI
CapriciousII
EphemeralIII
BenignIV
Perverse/TolerantI
Capricious(Fatalist’s Myth)
Expected windfalls don’t happen
Unexpected runs of good luck
Unexpected runs of good and bad luck
IIEphemeral
Egalitarian’s Myth
Caution does not work
Others prosper Others prosper
IIIBenign
Individualist’s Myth
Skill is not rewarded
Total collapse Partial collapse
IVPerverse/Tolerant
Hierarchist’s Myth
Unpredictability Total Collapse Competition
The 12 Possible Changes
Individualist
FatalistBig man to Rubbish Man
HierarchistInformal group of
organization gets formal
EgalitarianBecoming the
charismatic leader of a sect, the CEO in
retirement becomes prominent in activitst
groups
The 12 Possible Changes
Fatalist
IndividualistTypical rags to riches
story
HierarchistNo-hoper who joins the
military and “finds himself.”
EgalitarianRecruited by some tight group as someone they
are seeking.
The 12 Possible Changes
Hierarchist
FatalistFall from grace, debarred
or defrocked
IndividualistThe civil servant who
sets him/herself up as a consultant
EgalitarianLoyalist to heretic, the
whistleblower
The 12 Possible Changes
Egalitarian
FatalistThe person rudely
expellled from the group who doesn’t land “on his
feet.”.
Hierarchist“routinization of
charisma, co-opted rebel
IndividualistSomeone expelled from the group who lands “on
his feet.”