Cultural Theory and Grid/Group Analysis “We are interested in how individuals confer meaning upon situations, events, objects, relationships--in short,

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

Heroes

The Bureaucrat(Hierarchist)

The Holy Man(Egalitarian)

The Pioneer(Individualist)

The Hermit

The Individualist

The Egalitarian

The Hierarchist

The Fatalist

Hierarchist’s Reaction to “Helpless”

Individualist’s Reaction to Helpless

Egalitarian’s Reaction to Helpless

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



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



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



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


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.


Hierarchist

FatalistFall from grace, debarred

or defrocked

IndividualistThe civil servant who

sets him/herself up as a consultant

EgalitarianLoyalist to heretic, the

whistleblower


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.”

Exercises

1. Write a story or narratives that characterizes each way of life.

2. Match specific forms of music or specific songs to each way of life.

3. What are some of the characteristic metaphors or frames for each way of life?

Documents

Cultural Theory and Grid/Group Analysis “We are interested in how individuals confer meaning upon situations, events, objects, relationships--in short,