Introduction to Game Theory

I have to say that so far I really like game theory and how it applies to social control. The documentary that we watched for class was fascinating (Game Theory pt1 on YouTube [9:00] Pt2 [8:40] Pt3 [8:36] Pt4 [7:10] ). I loved seeing inside of the real operations of the Rand Corporation and John Nash. I thought he was a little to romanticized for a mathematician in the movie. My favorite part of the documentary was Lang though. Just the fact that Lang had so much influence on the deconstruction/reconstruction of social welfare systems in the UK and that the mighty Margret Thatcher had a think tank based on his research is awesome. The inspection of the overly bureaucratized and inefficient social programs of Britain was long overdue.

I can also feel a kinship with his application of game theory to all personal interactions. Keeping in mind that all game theory application is based on ideal types, Lang's analysis of interpersonal interactions as strategic and selfish is something to seriously think about.

I know that the last part of the documentary on Lang's attack of the American Psychiatric profession is supposed to be taken with a grain of salt but how inspiring still and frightening. I love that Lang got some psychiatrists to question their own profession and the amount of human judgement that goes into diagnosing mental illness. The results of his protest are not necessarily what he had in mind though, a computerized and mathematical system that is now used in psychiatry to diagnose mental illness. I don't have an answer to what might bring more balance into the profession of psychiatry but it is a system in need of serious repairs. Lang showed me that you can inspire change in a seemingly fixed system but beware of what you ask for because you just might get it.

The System of Social Control

Ellickson, Robert C. 1991. Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Chapter 7 of Ellickson's book breaks down and defines different types of norms and explains why an interdisciplinary approach is crucial to understanding the system of social control.

The Five types of norms (rules) are

1. substantive- at the core of the system, govern primary behaviors.

2. remedial- self governing laws meant to remedy a harm done or prevent one from happening.

3. procedural- govern weight and quality of evidence needed to constitute a valid complaint of wrongdoing.

4. constitutive- govern internal structures of control, the rules of the rules.

5. controller-selecting- dictate the division of social control labor, coordinate social control domains.

Ellickson describes the five controllers that make rules and administer sanctions

1. first party- self control/discipline

2. second party- contracts, promises

3. third party- social forces, norms

4. organizational- official rules of an organization not of the government but still sometimes punishable by law

5. government- actual law, state enforced

These rules and controllers can only be fully understood in the context of how they actually operate with one another and in society through a multi-disciplinary approach which includes psychology, economics, sociology, political science, organizational theory, and law.

Law and the Social Sciences

Friedman, Lawrence M. "The Law and Society Movement". The Stanford Law Review, Vol. 38, No.3 (Feb. 1986), pp. 763-780.

Sibley, Susan S. "Law and Society Movement" in Legal Systems of the World: A Political, Social, and Cultural Encyclopedia. Edited by Herbert Kritzer. Santa Barbara: ABC CLIO

The articles above are essentially the same thing just from different perspectives. Both are advocates of the Law and Society movement but Sibley is more confident in its present state where Friedman really feels that though the intentions are good a whole new approach is needed if one is even possible.

It seems to be understood that Law and Society is the study of how the legal system actually operates, explaining the law within the social context that it is operating in.

Friedman says that it uses the scientific method and applies to something thoroughly nonscientific. I think that the same could be said about the whole of sociology if one wanted to take such a staunch and traditional approach to academia. I do agree that it is difficult to create grand narratives in the theory of law and society but attempting it can do nothing but give us reasons as to why it is difficult as well as an understanding of just how disjointed law is all over the world and how it is connected.

Sibley asserts that "law and society has succeeded in painting a picture of law as a social system" (862).

It seems a logical conclusion of both articles that law and society is pretty cool, not so well respected in the legal field, under funded, crucial to the decentering of law as the only means of control in societies, needs to be more inclusive of economic theory, and unfortunately no matter what will be the red headed step child of legal scholarship.

Social Status

Gusfield, Joseph R. (1986). Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

"Social Status and the Temperance Ethic"

This chapter gave great insight to a mechanism of social control that has had a big impact in the United States. Moral entrepreneurism was a major motivating factor in the founding and forming of our country and is still quite relevant in the weaving and tearing of our "social fabric". Gusfeild does a good job of pointing out that although symbolic politics are more covert they are just as important as economic issues. It is these movements that shape the dominant opinions of our vastly diverse country, they define the majority. I use the term majority here in the sense of the dominant group ie the "moral majority" not in the sense of numbers but in the sense of power. The crusades of the moral majority always succeed in creating a divide in the country between the deviant and the surpassers, an othering if you will. It is within these Symbolic Crusades that the group in danger of losing its foothold sets out to demonize those not like him therefore solidifying his respect and position of authority.

The temperance movement in post civil war U.S. was a strategic move by the protestants to maintain their hold as the moral majority. Post civil war America saw a large influx of Eastern European immigrants of the Catholic persuasion. What the Protestants could not fight in numbers they tried to make up for with existing political power. One giant difference in the two groups was that Protestants were sober and Catholics were not. If the Protestant group could solidify in law that drinking alcohol was deviant and therefore illegal US the law would be legitimizing Protestant values while simultaneously demonizing Catholics.

By setting up such a rigid moral dichotomy moral crusaders like those in the temperance movement are also setting the perimeters within which a citizen must live in order to be a valuable member of his/her society. The values of the moral majority become symbols of social status and the deviation from such values become signs of deviance.

New developments in the country, such as changing economic and political climates, finally beat out the moral entrepreneurs of the temperance movement, thank god (no pun intended).

Summarizing Quote- "Temperance has been both a protest against a changing status system and a mechanism for influencing the distribution of prestige. This study is consequently a contribution to the theory of status conflict and its relation to political and social movements" (Gusfield 12, 1986).

Rhetoric in Claims-Making

Best, Joel. "Rhetoric in Claims-Making: Constructing the Missing Children Problem*" Social Problems. Vol. 34, No. 2 (April, 1997). 101-21.

The Best article was extremely helpful in defining what are job for the research project will be and how best to go about deconstructing the claims maid about cell phone etiquette. Best breaks down claims into 3 major categories, data or grounds, warrants or justifications, and conclusions or claims. By looking at claims through these three main processes Best enable us to deepen our understanding on who, how, when, and why claims are made and hoe through the process they are shaped. With Best's direction we can situate claims within their social context.

Punishment and Deterrence

Andenaes, J. 1974. "General Prevention - Illusion or Reality?" (electronic reserves) from Punishment and Deterrence.

Andenaes really breaks down and categorizes prevention methods employed by the law to keep citizens from breaking the law. Andenaes states that the actual effects of punishment are marginalising and "demoralising" for the punished, which I wholeheartedly agree with. But to criticize we must first understand. Prevention is broken down into two main categories, general and specific. Each category has the goal of deterrence, moralizing behavior, and habitualizing law abiding behavior. Individual or specific punishment is directed towards the punished and general prevention is meant to deter others from committing deviant acts.
Andenaes goes on to categorize crime and assigns the best method of punishment for the crime category that produces the best deterrent effect. The six categories for crime that we are given are police offenses, economic, property, moral, murder, and treason, all of which require a relationship between general and individual prevention. The ultimate goal of the prevention method is to eliminate the crime, to stop deviants from committing crimes. Somehow its just not working?

Irrational Rationality

As I walk across campus with my daily heavy load of necessities in tow I cant help but feel controlled by an irrational bureaucracy that dictates where I am allowed to park my car based on seemingly little or no logic whatsoever. Not only is there very little parking at Mills but the parking that does exist is all assigned according to your "place" at the school. None of these assigned lots actually coincide with where any of us need to be on a daily basis. I don't park somewhere because it is convenient to my daily location but because it is my assigned lot. Why cant we park where we like, teachers, residents, and commuters all mixed up together according to their own personal needs. Weber might say that it is just a part of are inevitable iron cage.