Definitions.
Domination: When ego threatens to alter remove control over elements to perform the requested action alter ego by
Negotiation: When alter ego has control over elements to perform the requested action alter by ego
Conversion: When ego affects alternative representations, giving reasons for making the alter ego action requested by
deconversion: When ego affects alternative representations, eliminating objections to alter perform the requested action by ego
The theory developed in this paper is based on the idea that there is no single mode of coordination, but the players have access to a variety of modalities, which will be used according to contexts and circumstances. The relevance of the above comes from many theories tend to use only one method, or recognizing the existence of more than one mode is basal to insist that a social life. On the other hand, the growing recognition that there are various forms of social interaction has been generally reduced to such recognition without the development of theories mostly showing the relationship between these modes (once elected, how they relate to each other etc. .). The intention of the theory we develop is precisely to produce a theory about the combination of these modalities.
The conditions are defined based on a distinction of control / representations. This award expands and adapts the distinction resources / Coleman interests (1990) . Control of resources spent to establish more clearly the universality of the 'resources' (which can be anything) and to emphasize that the core is the control exercised by an actor on the elements (White, 2008) . On the other hand, we use representations instead of interest: What affects the actor are all the changes in perceptions and beliefs about an item, and interests as such are a form of perception and belief. But the basics are the representation (is an element of that kind, has such features, if you want to accomplish such a thing is advantageous etc.).
The second distinction is between delivered / removed: For example. is not the same offer control over resources that threaten to remove control over resources. This allows better distinction before between the relations of domination (power) and negotiation (exchange). On the one hand, sometimes the distinction is made around the notion of action required: There is a relationship of power when no alternative courses of action. This has the consequence that when it is recognized that alter always have alternatives, then the power is reduced to the exchange, or as it is recognized that there are relations of power, denying the ability to alter alternative. Alter always has alternatives of action, but clearly not the same offering a new resource in a negotiation (ie give me this item for money for example) or the threat of domination (ie give me the article or if your house did not burn). In a second meaning, power and exchange refer to the existence of equality in the number of resources, then it denies that there can be exchanges between actors with different levels of resources, or tends to deny the relevance of that difference. But the difference in resources has more to do with the possibility of success in coordination with the type of coordination: One could try to dominate another, even if they have the necessary resources, and many real conflicts can be understood as a result of a claim of dominance when there is no power differential necessary.
The difference deliver / remove it very clear in regard to control over elements, but in regard to the representations on these items this difference does it make sense for cognitive and normative? Initially, in fact, the distinction did not apply to the performances (conversion and we used to refer to any change in the representations).
However, it seems that the distinction could be applied to the representations. This is because people can have positive or negative reasons in relation to possible actions: We must do X, but X is good, not to do Y because Y is bad. To get someone to perform an action I can work on two elements: I can give reasons for doing X (it's good, it should be so.) Or I can just delete objections to X (not a bad thing, it has bad consequences.) And are not the same arguments or reasons which are adduced in a situation or the other, and I can get a convincing result of a number of reasons but not others. I can eliminate these concerns to do X without having to give positive reasons for doing so: I can convince you that X is not bad not convince you that X is good. The use of these different forms may well have different consequences, and that is why we keep the difference as a form of coordination.
is important to differentiate between these definitions of the problem of coordination and cooperation. Coordination referred to herein simply reduces to how an alter ego gets to perform a desired action. Cooperation is usually understood as ego and alter can get a better result: the use of prisoner's dilemma to understand the problems of cooperation is an example of this. The solution of the problem is getting both perform an action that would produce the best collective outcome (of both choose to cooperate). Understood in this way the cooperation is a more specific than that of coordination.
0 comments:
Post a Comment