5>reciprocity Flashcards
how do 3rd wave politeness theories tackle impoliteness (DEF) &2>
> as “a continuum from very negatively>very positively perceived behaviours IN CONTEXT”
politeness no longer seen as just FTA avoidance
now ‘culturally-specific normative behaviour’ is key
Impoliteness & different kinds of norms>
> expected behaviours
social “oughts”
Impoliteness & norms> expected behaviours>
> these as resulting from behavioural regularities/habits
not necessarily instituionalised
can be different levels (e.g. among close friends>social interaction as a whole)
Impoliteness & different kinds of norms> social “oughts”>
> these as authoratitive injunctions to perform social actions
injunstions as warning/order to not begin/continue an action
TOM in phylogney> FIRST>
> assumed SHARED INTENTION first emerged between 2 collaborative partners operating in acts of ‘JOINT INTENTIONALITY’
> subsequently, interaction is developed ‘TRIADICALLY’ (thus including a common obj or intentional attention)
TOM in phylogeny> THEN>
later humans developed the capacity to interact with other individuals as members of a cultural group in acts of:
>COLLECTIVE INTENTIONALITY (what ought i think?)
>& EXTENED INTERSUBJECTIVITY (what ought i do as part of social group)
cooperation & TOM: chimps vs infants>
- chimps only cooperated when has OWN GAIN at hand (basic), & used each other as a vehicle/social tool; once could achieve without no longer cared/helped
- infants helped each other out; cooperation not restricted to short-term gain & aware of need for long term cooperation
How do norms evolve in cultural evolution?
- RECIPROCITY (<arguable one of the “very building blocks of moral systems”)
How does ‘reciprocity’ facilitate cooperative social interaction>
it facilitates co-operative social interaction because they require individuals to make ‘commitments’ to behave in ways that later may prove contrary to independent individual interests
Reciprocity-based altruism=
individuals cooperating by TRADING helpful acts
when do both participants benefit in reciprocity-based altruism?>
when the benefits to the recipient are greater than the cost to the actor (so long as the act is reciprocated sometime in future>i.e. gratitude)
reciprocity-based obligations=
moral systems develop as systems of ‘delayed reciprocity’–>& moral rules are established to control tendencies of individuals to behave selfishly
what is required for reciprocal altruism to evolve?
a socio-normative mechanism of conditional repayment of costs & benefit must be in place among members of any cooperative activity (in order to detect cheaters)
how do human moral individuals hold one another accountable for their obligations?
e.g. via reactive attiudes such as resentment & blame to ‘free riders’ in acts of so called moral protest to which they expect/demand an appropriate response in return
reciprocity & moral orders>
moral order of relgiious & legal systems is where reciprocity is prominent
(e.g. old testament “eye for an eye”; new testament “turn the other cheek”)
the principle of (im)politeness reciprocity (PIR)>
a constraint on human interaction such that there is a pressure to match the PERCEIVED/ANTICIPATED (im)politeness of other participants, thereby maintaining a ‘balance of payments’
how are social payments balanced in PIR>
> a politely formulated request–>makes a politeness CREDIT that can be balanced by a politely formulated compliance
an impolitely formulated insult–>make a DEBIT that can be balanced by an impolitely formulated counter insult
how do interactants know what the state of (im)politeness “balance of payments” is?
they make assumptions about the balance on the basis of their memory of the perceived (im)politeness of the interlocutor’s past relevant actions
Balance of social payments & mismatch>
a mismatch amoungst interactants perceptions could result in an attribution of impoliteness on the basis that you are “owed” more than you are given
Extended intersubjectivity=
impolite acts on behalf of someone
How can reciprocity mis(matching) be measured> for requests>
> FIRST: develop way to assess degree of (im)p of different request strategies
THEN: assess the ‘interactional effort’ made by recipient (acceptance/refusal [A]/[R]; comment/absence [C]/[NoC]; positive/negative comment [Cp]/[Cn]
FINALLY: assess context & norms associated
Spiral of impoliteness> terms> (7)
- turn orientation
- personalisation
- resonance
- action elcition
- sarcasm
- impolite or negative words
- impolite constructions
turn orientation=
a turn reacting to a turn (which turn a turn is reacting to if any)p
personalisation=
typically whether a 2nd person (or direct reference to that) is present
resonance=
whether the turn re-uses lingusitic material from another
action elicitation=
including e.g. request, commands, threats
