As this has been a day of work and already I’m tired, I’m just going to write the skeleton of the idea-which we hope to develop later:
The interactions can be divided, from the point of view of the ‘initiator’ (the claim that alter perform an action) in the following:
- Domination: When threats to remove resources to alter to perform the action requested (Do X, or if not…).
- Exchange: When to offer resources to alter to perform the action requested (Do X, I offer you…)
- Conversation: When you change the interests of alter to perform the action requested (You must do X, it is good to do X)
The difference of resources / interests, taken directly from the well of Coleman (Foundations of Social Theory). But interest is understood more broadly: change of interest has to do with the whole change in the perceptions and beliefs of alter that makes the required action appears as the action to follow. It has the advantage of relating to the traditional bases of order which usually we offer, and gives you a reason because it is a triad. It has the advantage to clearly distinguish between power and exchange, which not always are well distinguished (for example, don’t lack those as you see that always people have alternatives of action, reduce the domination of the exchange).
Things to develop:
- The resources are divided into two types of actions according to whether we offer or take away resources to alter (exchange / domination); but regarding interest is not. Can we use the difference to provide / remove in around the interests as well?
- What is the point of the difference in cognitive changes / regulatory changes in relation to this typology in terms of interests? It is one thing to change your interests because we changed the map of the world of alter (‘your thought that X was not possible, if it is thy thought that X needed this, this is not required; your thought that X had this consequence, actually has this other’). Another thing is to change the interest due to that we change values (‘your thought that X was a bad thing, but in reality is good’). Although the difference between maps and ratings for relevance, for this does not have it (and if he had it could be used to solve the first question?)
- In some place I have to put the points of Schelling: alter performs the action because the situation is structured in such a way that the only thing you can do sensibly is X. in The end, the original idea there were 4 types of interaction, but I never put to Schelling in the scheme (Although as things are going, able to that end up being 5 basic types)
Why the typology might be useful?
- Apart from that it recognizes, starting, various forms of coordination and gives a logical framework to our distinctions usual. But, we know that this does not have much importance anyway.
- Because I have my old idea of ‘law’ in this regard. The types of actions that require less spending are the ones with lower probability of success. Convince requires little expenditure, but the odds that people will change of idea by talking are low (and are especially low for the coordination of actions, people change their ideas, but not now). The negotiation requires more expenses (you must provide resources at the end of the day), but it is more likely to work. And the threat requires all the expense (it requires some investment to make it credible if there is to carry it out that if you spend resources), but it has the greatest chance of success.
- Given that inverse relationship, and assuming also that the ratio investment / chance of success varies in different contexts, then we can have a basis for thinking that modes of co-ordination will be chosen. Or, when you choose to master? when do you choose to convince?
- It is a typology that can be applied to a simple relation ego-alter-but allows you to begin to build systems after. On the one hand, by simple concatenation and aggregation (both pure and combined). But, more important, because they alter, in turn, can require actions and that opens a range of possibilities (power-power, power-bargaining and so on, until the 6 possibilities binary).
- That is, we can have a descriptive vocabulary varied to see relationships (and larger systems) from fundamental distinctions.
- Now, of course there are a lot of cloth to cut: what happens when you respond to threat with threat? what happens when you combine threats (for a side) and negotiations (with another). You could apply something, it just occurred to me, of the distinction of De Certeau’s tactics and strategies in this respect.
And suffice it by now, that this was the skeleton of the matter.
(* For some strange reason, the music is the only art that really has the power to move me as, and more strangely, it is the classical period (or pre-classic) the only one who has the power to do so. In the end, there are always strange things)