Re: [ox-en] "The science of persuasion"
- From: Casimir Purzelbaum <quasi utopix.net>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:29:47 +0100
* Ref.: »[ox-en] "The science of persuasion"«
* Per I. Mathisen (2004-02-26 19:50)
One of the things in the article that caught my attention was
its treatment of reciprocation as a basic human drive.
To quote a little:
"To understand the effect of the unsolicited gift, we must
recognize the reach and power of an essential rule of human
conduct: the code of reciprocity.
All societies subscribe to a norm that obligates individuals
to repay in kind what they have received."
Although, I think I disagree with the article's attributing
this to biology: "Evolutionary selection pressure has probably
entrenched the behaviour in social animals such as ourselves."
You could just as probably attribute it to the evolutionary
selection of human societies - as societies in which there is
no culture or ideology of reciprocity, there would be no
community.
Of course, since dog eat dog capitalism does not encourage
reciprocity as a human drive, we can hope it will soon face
selection pressure in favour of something better ;)
What you call "dog eat dog capitalism" is in this very phrase
described as a society of reciprocity, isn't it? And I think the
whole idea of all-governing reciprocity ("in kind"!) comes from
our modern (i.e. capitalist or so) world view -- or more
precisely: ideology.
Concerning the following thesis I would dare a
counter-hypothesis:
...evolutionary selection of human societies - as societies in
which there is no culture or ideology of reciprocity, there
would be no community.
The more a society is focused on reciprocity, the less it can be
considered a community! This can make it both more competitive in
relation to other societies and at the same time less stable.
(The power to destroy others does (obviously) not prove higher
stability.)
In order to question the actual relevance of the original
statement, I would like to reverse it:
"All societies subscribe to a norm that allows individuals not
to repay in kind everything they have received."
Would this be wrong? I think not. That's why I don't see the
point of the "discovery" quoted above ;-)
Cheers,
Casi.
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: projekt oekonux.de