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/Group
1. 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
Low
High
Grid
High
Fatalist
Hierarchist
Examples:
The Elderly,
Peasants, The Poor.
Examples:
The Military, The Corporate
World, The Catholic
Church, Sports Teams
Politics: Non-Voters
Politics: Conservative
Hermit
Low
Indivdualist
Egalitarian
Examples:
Wall Street Traders,
Neoliberals, College
Students
Examples:
Communal Groups,
Political Activists
Politics: Libertarian
Politics:
Liberal/Progressive
Heroes
The Bureaucrat
(Hierarchist)
The Pioneer
(Individualist)
The Holy Man
(Egalitarian)
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 bountiful but accountable
within limits. The world is forgiving, but
extreme events could disrupt it.
The world is random,
capricious, and erratic
Hermit
Nature is resilient
The world is wonderfully forgiving and
little that humans do could affect it.
The world is terribly unforgiving,
any jolt could destroy it
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.
The Social Construction of Human Nature
High Grid/Low Group
High Grid/High Group
Fatalist
Hierarchists
Human nature is
unpredictable; some
people may be
benevolent, but more are
hostile
Human beings are born
sinful but can be
redeemed by good
institutions
Hermit
Grid
Low Grid/Low Group
Believes in the
goodness of human
nature, but recognized
evil by attributing it to
ignorance
Low Grid/High Group
Individualist
Egalitarians
For individualists human
nature is stable; human
beings regardless, are
always the same, selfseeking
Human beings are born good,
but are corrupted by evil
institutions
Group
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.
Management of Resources
High Grid/Low Group
High Grid/High Group
Fatalist
Manage neither needs nor
resources. The strategy is
to cope within an
environment within which
one has no control
Grid
Low Grid/Low Group
Individualist
Manages needs
and resources.
Nature is a
cornucopia and is
manageable by
skill.
Hierarchist
Needs are fixed and resources
manageable. If you can't adjust
your needs, increase your
resources. This requires resource
mobilization.
Hermit
Needs and
resources are
manageable
Low Grid/High Group
Egalitarian
Resources are fixed, and so
you reduce your needs.
Nature is so precarious that
inequality in the distribution of
resources will bring calamity
Group
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).
The Social Construction of Blame
High Grid/Low Group
High Grid/High Group
Fatalists
Hierarchists
Blame fate
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
Grid
Hermit
Low Grid/Low Group
Lay no blame since
they are uninvolved in
social struggles.
Low Grid/High Group
Individualists
Egalitarians
Blame bad luck or personal
incompetence
They reject authority;
it is the system that is to blame
Group
Fatalist
Individualist
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.
Hierarchist
Poor
compliance
with
established
procedures,
lack of
professional
Response
expertise.
to Blame
Cannot blame
collective
system,
blame shifted
to deviants
who don’t
know their
place
Typical
‘I’m not even ‘Every man for ‘All for one
Credo
supposed to himself.’
and one for
all.’
be here
today.’
Egalitarian
Abuse of
power by toplevel leaders,
system
corruption.
Blame the
collective or
the system,
solidarity by
portraying
external
symbols as
monstrous.
‘A world in
ourselves and
in each other.’
The Social Construction of Risk
High Grid/Low Group
Grid
High Grid/High Group
Fatalists
Hierarchists
Do not knowingly take
risks. They would only get
hurt and there is little
prospect of reward
Accepts risk as long as
decisions are made by
experts
Low Grid/Low Group
Hermit
Eager acceptance of
myopically perceived
risk. They are
attached to him and
can’t be transferred
Low Grid/High Group
Egalitarians
Individualists
Risk is opportunity. With no
risk, there would be no
opportunity of personal
reward
By 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.
Group
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 World
I
Capricious
I
Capricious
(Fatalist’s Myth)
II
Ephemeral
Egalitarian’s
Myth
III
Benign
Individualist’s
Myth
IV
Perverse/Tolerant
Hierarchist’s
Myth
II
Ephemeral
Expected
windfalls don’t
happen
Caution does not
work
III
Benign
Unexpected runs Unexpected runs
of good luck
of good and bad
luck
Others prosper
Skill is not
rewarded
Total collapse
Unpredictability
Total Collapse
IV
Perverse/Tolerant
Others prosper
Partial collapse
Competition
The 12 Possible Changes
Fatalist
Big man to Rubbish Man
Individualist
Hierarchist
Informal group of
organization gets formal
Egalitarian
Becoming the
charismatic leader of a
sect, the CEO in
retirement becomes
prominent in activitst
groups
The 12 Possible Changes
Individualist
Typical rags to riches
story
Fatalist
Hierarchist
No-hoper who joins the
military and “finds
himself.”
Egalitarian
Recruited by some tight
group as someone they
are seeking.
The 12 Possible Changes
Fatalist
Fall from grace, debarred
or defrocked
Hierarchist
Individualist
The civil servant who
sets him/herself up as a
consultant
Egalitarian
Loyalist to heretic, the
whistleblower
The 12 Possible Changes
Fatalist
The person rudely
expellled from the group
who doesn’t land “on his
feet.”.
Egalitarian
Hierarchist
“routinization of
charisma, co-opted
rebel
Individualist
Someone 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?