SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY AS A TOOL FOR UNDERSTANDING
RELATIONSHIPS IN FICTION: APPLICATIONS TO THE WORKS
OF PETRUS ALFONSI, WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, JAMES
JOYCE, ANNE TYLER, AND NICK HORNBY
THESIS
Presented to the Graduate Council of
Texas State University-San Marcos in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of ARTS by
Billy Joe Lancaster
San Marcos, Texas
May 2011

SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY AS A TOOL FOR UNDERSTANDING
RELATIONSHIPS IN FICTION: APPLICATIONS TO THE WORKS
OF PETRUS ALFONSI, WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, JAMES
JOYCE, ANNE TYLER, AND NICK HORNBY
Committee Members Approved:
Approved:
____________________________
J. Michael Willoughby
Dean of the Graduate College
________________________________
Priscilla V. Leder, Chair
________________________________
Paul N. Cohen
________________________________
Sally Caldwell

COPYRIGHT by
Billy Joe Lancaster
2011

FAIR USE AND AUTHOR’S PERMISSION STATEMENT
Fair Use
This work is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, section 107). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgment. Use of this material for financial gain without the author‘s express written permission is not allowed.
Duplication Permission
As the copyright holder of this work I, Billy J. Lancaster, authorize duplication of this work, in whole or in part, for educational or scholarly purposes only.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I want to acknowledge my Lord, Jesus the Christ the Son of the Living God, for hearing my many prayers and for His faithfulness even when I failed.
I thank those writers and scholars, living and dead, whose works are a part of my work, whose creations and endeavors allowed me to move forward with my own.
I thank my family without whose encouragement, understanding, and support I would not have been able to complete this task.
I thank the committee who oversaw this thesis, especially Priscilla Leder, who questioned everything and in doing so assisted me in creating a solid work.
And I thank my friends, the cheering section who stuck with me to the end: Jonna,
Jason, Sean, Steve, Will, and especially Lora, whose assumption of my abilities berated me into believing I could finish.
This manuscript was submitted on February 22, 2011. v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................v
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER
I.
INTRODUCTION: THEORETICAL CRITICISM IN MIMETIC CONTEXT
AND SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY ...........................................................1
The Basics of Social Exchange Theory .......................................................2
Additional Concepts.....................................................................................6
The Range of Application ..........................................................................15
II.
RELATIONSHIPS IN ALFONSI‘S DISCIPLINA CLERICALIS ...................17
Significance of the Disciplina Clericalis ...................................................17
Medieval Children‘s Literature ..................................................................20
Application of Social Exchange Theory ....................................................21
III.
MOTIVE IN THE ATTITUDES, ACTIONS, AND ARGUMENTS OF
SHAKESPEARE‘S TOUCHSTONE AND JAQUES.....................................27
Behavior as Exchange in Shakespeare‘s Work ..........................................28
Rhetorical Abilities in Jaques and Touchstone ..........................................29
Exchange Theory and Motive in Shakespeare‘s Characters ......................31
Motive and Jaques................................................................................31
Motive and Touchstone........................................................................34 vi

IV.
UNEQUAL PAIRINGS IN JOYCE‘S ―LITTLE CLOUD‖ AND
COUNTERPARTS‖ ........................................................................................37
Social Exchange in ―A Little Cloud‖ .........................................................38
Social Exchange in ―Counterparts‖ ...........................................................43
V.
RELATIONSHIPS IN TYLER‘S
LADDER OF YEARS .................................49
Familiarity in the Works of Anne Tyler ....................................................49
Typical Relationships in Ladder of Years ..................................................51
Spousal Relationships ..........................................................................51
Heterosexual Romantic Relationships .................................................54
Parent-Child Relationships ..................................................................57
Further Suggestions ...................................................................................59
VI.
RELATIONSHIPS IN HORNBY‘S
A LONG WAY DOWN ...........................60
Atypical Relationships in Hornby‘s Work .................................................60
Suicide as the Dissolution of Relationships ...............................................62
Martin ...................................................................................................64
Maureen ...............................................................................................65
Jess .......................................................................................................66
JJ ..........................................................................................................67
Atypical Relationships Through Social Exchange Theory ........................68
Martin ...................................................................................................71
Maureen ...............................................................................................73
Jess .......................................................................................................75
JJ ..........................................................................................................77
Further Suggestions ...................................................................................79 vii

VII.
CONCLUSION: SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY AS LITERARY
CRITICISM .....................................................................................................80
The Range of Applicability ........................................................................80
A New Literary Theory ..............................................................................82
WORKS CITED ....................................................................................................85
viii

ABSTRACT
SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY AS A TOOL FOR UNDERSTANDING
RELATIONSHIPS IN FICTION: APPLICATIONS TO THE WORKS
OF PETRUS ALFONSI, WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, JAMES
JOYCE, ANNE TYLER, AND NICK HORNBY by
Billy J. Lancaster, B.A.
Texas State University-San Marcos
2011
SUPERVISING PROFESSOR: PRISCILLA LEDER
An analysis of Petrus Alfonsi‘s
Disciplina Clericalis
, William Shakespeare‘s
As
You Like It
, James Joyce‘s
Dubliners , Anne Tyler‘s Ladder of Years
, and Nick Hornby‘s
A Long Way Down illustrates the nearly universal applicability of social exchange theory as a lens for understanding the motives and relationships of literary characters. An application of theory to fiction within a mimetic context lies at the heart of some of the most popular and important methods for the contemporary interpretation of literature and, by extension, theoretical literary criticism. These mimetic forms, these applications of ix

real-life ideologies, philosophies, and sciences, are part of an ever-expanding list of tools available to literary scholars attempting to draw clearer meanings from texts. Social exchange theory, posited by Homans in ―Social Behavior as Exchange‖ and expounded on in his seminal article‘s follow-up, Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms , explains the dynamics of relationships by observing how behavior is traded as a commodity between and among members of a group (two or more) and uses the economic formula of profit equals reward minus cost (P=R-C) to reveal a person‘s motives when acting within the group. This thesis adds George Homans‘s social exchange theory to the mimetic toolbox of theoretical literary criticism. x

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION: THEORETICAL CRITICISM IN MIMETIC
CONTEXT AND SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY
An application of theory to fiction within a mimetic context lies at the heart of some of the most popular and important methods for the contemporary interpretation of literature and, by extension, theoretical literary criticism. Bernard Paris, in his discussion of psychology and fiction, ―argues that [psychoanalytic] theories can also be applied in a mimetic context to help us understand fictional characters‖ (Keesey 215). In the late eighteenth century Mary Wollstonecraft published her radical treatise, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman , the vanguard of the feminist movement, and about 150 years later,
Simone de Beauvoir, with The Second Sex, pulled feminism fully into the field of literary analysis. With the publication of The Communist Manifesto , Karl Marx introduced to the world to the idea of class struggle, and riding on the weight of his philosophies, economics became an important consideration in literary criticism. Freud‘s groundbreaking work in the field of psychoanalysis was applied to literature almost immediately, giving rise to various schools of criticism with roots in psychology, including the use of Murray Bowen‘s family systems theory. These mimetic forms, these applications of real-life ideologies, philosophies, and sciences, are part of an everexpanding list of tools available to literary scholars attempting to draw clearer meanings from texts. This thesis adds George Homans‘s social exchange theory to the mimetic toolbox of theoretical literary criticism.
1

Sarah Schiff‘s ―Family Systems Theory as Literary Analysis: The Case of Phillip
Roth‖ stands as a good example of how a theory created by one discipline, psychology,
2 for use with actual people, can be applied to fictional characters in literature. Schiff presents Bowen‘s family systems theory as a means to interpret fiction, giving, as an example for further critical use, her application to Roth‘s work and revealing, within the text, purposes and motivations not otherwise seen though traditional psychoanalytic interpretation. Likewise, this thesis demonstrates how Homans‘s social exchange theory can be used to interpret characters‘ actions using the disparate works of authors ranging from medieval to contemporary times. An analysis of Petrus Alfonsi‘s Disciplina
Clericalis
, William Shakespeare‘s
As You Like It
, James Joyce‘s
Dubliners
, Anne Tyler‘s
Ladder of Years
, and Nick Hornby‘s
A Long Way Down illustrates the near-universal applicability of social exchange theory as a lens for understanding the motives and relationships of literary characters.
The Basics of Social Exchange Theory
Before delving into an application of theory to literature, or even how the theory should be used with literature, readers need an explanation of how social exchange theory works. Social exchange theory, posited by Homans in ―Social Behavior as Exchange‖ and expounded on in his seminal article‘s follow-up,
Social Behavior: Its Elementary
Forms , explains the dynamics of relationships by observing how behavior is traded as a commodity between and among members of a group (two or more) and uses the economic formula of profit equals reward minus cost (P=R-C) to reveal a person‘s motives when acting within the group (603). Homans describes how a combination of B.
F. Skinner‘s work in behavioral psychology, both field and laboratory small-group

research, the dynamics of influences, and, as the title of his work suggests, economics
3 informs social exchange theory (597). Because Homans, as most scholarly writers in the
1950s, uses a generic ―he‖ to denote any individual, I am adopting his usage for the sake of clarity within this thesis.
To better understand the behavior as exchange concepts, consider a classroom example, using the following designators for the various group members: Professor,
Student, Other (for one other student), and Classmates (to represent the remaining student group). The student-teacher relationship during a seminar class in which students are expected to participate in discussion exemplifies behavior as exchange. The class costs
Student in money for tuition and time for study, and, in this example, Student provides insight—incurring further costs with the possibility of failure—into a statement by
Professor. Student receives positive feedback from Professor (reward), which extends
Student‘s knowledge, provides guidance for further study, and increases Student‘s status among Classmates (profit). Professor, who has invested time and money in research, also profits in the relationship through satisfaction with successful students and money for teaching the class. This simplified illustration, which I continue throughout the chapter, illustrates Homans‘s ―view that interaction between persons is an exchange of goods, material and non-material‖ (―Exchange‖ 597). Homans expounds further on this idea in his later work, when he states that he ―envisages social behavior as an exchange of activity, tangible and intangible, and more or less rewarding or costly between at least two persons‖ (
Social 13).
Homans‘s concepts include all behaviors and materials traded between and among members of a group, but a single encounter with another individual is not considered a

relationship. For example, the exchange of money for goods in a store between a clerk
4 and a customer, with additional polite comments included, does not constitute a relationship because the exchange is a single instance rather than ongoing. However, if the customer regularly frequents the store, the repeated exchange of money for goods could begin to include other costs and rewards for the two individuals, such as a secure knowledge of the availability of the desired products and a comforting smile offered by the clerk, as well as the feelings of accomplishment and monetary security for the clerk who helped to establish a repeat customer. The continued and growing exchange between the two constitutes a relationship, a group of two, albeit with limited boundaries.
Homans looks at relationships using an amalgam of sociological, behavioral, and economic theories which informs his view of behavior as exchange in what has come to be known as social exchange theory, and several specific observations are necessary for an understanding of Homans‘s theory. The most important of these observations, given in
―Social Behavior as Exchange,‖ come from Homans as suggestive statements of what a social exchange theory should contain:
1.
Social behavior is an exchange of goods, material goods but also nonmaterial ones, such as the symbols of approval or prestige.
2.
Persons that give much to others try to get much from them, and persons that get much from others are under pressure to give much to them.
3.
This process of influence tends to work out at equilibrium to a balance in the exchanges.

4.
For a person engaged in exchange, what he gives may be a cost to him, just as what he gets may be a reward, and his behavior changes less as profit, that is, reward less cost, tends to a maximum.
5.
Not only does he seek a maximum for himself, but he tries to see to it that no one in his group makes more profit than he does.
6.
The cost and the value of what he gives and of what he gets vary with the quantity of what he gives and gets. (606 numeration added)
While these statements are the most important for an understanding of Homans‘s theory, other points need to be emphasized or expounded upon as well for our particular
5 investigation of the texts by Alfonsi, Shakespeare, Joyce, Tyler, and Hornby. First, when a person is rewarded for certain behaviors, he will tend to increase those behaviors until he is satiated with the reward or the reward for those behaviors is withdrawn. Second, a group exerts pressure by withholding sociologically valuable rewards (intrinsic or extrinsic) from deviant members and will minimize interaction with those members.
Third, Homans‘s application to relationships of the economic formula of P=R–C, explaining how behaviors are exchanged in small groups, concludes that change is greatest when profit is least (―Exchange‖ 603). Therefore, if the profit among members of a group or partners in a relationship is high, the participants have no reason to change the functioning of the group.
Using our classroom example, Student‘s input during the seminar increases as
Professor and Classmates progressively expect more from Student and as Professor and
Classmates acknowledge Student‘s abilities. If Other, however, gives input that is off topic or in error, he, or at least his answers, will be shunned by Classmates as this is

considered deviant behavior that is not acceptable in the class. If Other does not amend
6 his behavior, he will not only face the derision of Classmates but Professor will deny valuable rewards in terms of grades.
Additional Concepts
In addition to those particular observations, a social exchange critic needs an awareness of the additional work done with the theory since its inception. In Social
Behavior: Its Elementary Forms , the follow-up to his 1958 article, Homans examines how his theory relates to several concepts and related propositions made in research connected to exchange in social behavior, including influence, conformity, esteem, sentiment, interaction, distributive justice, authority, and equality. Many of these concepts are overlapping and interconnected, one relating to, reflecting, or building on another.
Influence , affecting change in another person, constitutes a social exchange when any one of a particular set of social aspects becomes a reward for the person being changed: approval, acceptance, similarity, agreement with opinions, or material rewards.
In our example, Professor, through valuable social rewards, changes Student‘s behavior
(whether consciously or unconsciously does not matter) from giving hesitant answers to direct questions to participating regularly and confidently in class discussion.
Likewise, conformity is effective in groups that have achieved practical equilibrium , a state wherein a group has more or less worked out a consistent set of norms. Conformity seems related—as many of these concepts are intertwined—to influence, in that an individual‘s behavior is being changed; however, the method of reward differs between the two. Homans explains, ―People that find conformity valuable

reward conformers with social approval, but they withhold approval from those that will
7 not conform, or even express positive dislike for nonconformists as having denied them a reward they had the right to expect‖ (
Social 129). Other experiences this phenomenon in negative treatment by Classmates and in the correction of his information by Professor. In order for Other to regain status and approval, he must increase acceptable behaviors, adding insightful, helpful, or at least correct comments during class discussion. Whereas with influence behavior is changed in order to receive a reward (approval, thanks, etc.), with conformity, rewards (specifically, association with the group) are withheld in order to bring about change in the individual.
While influence and conformity are generally rewarded on an equal basis, esteem belongs to those members of a group whose contributions are valued more highly than the majority of the group members. Homans, relating esteem to the economic laws of supply and demand, states that ―it is not enough that a service be rare; it must be both rare and valuable to others‖ (
Social 147). If a particular product is in great demand, its value goes up as its availability goes down. However, if the supply of a product is relatively great, the value of that product goes down. Esteem can be seen in our example when an upcoming piece of reading for the seminar class is suggested, by Professor, to be troubling or extremely challenging, and Other states that they should form a study group.
Classmates are noncommittal until Student indicates plans to attend. Classmates soon indicate their plans to attend also. Other‘s presence at the study group is not valuable to
Classmates; however, Student‘s presence, because of the obvious agreement by Professor with his opinions, makes the study group with Student‘s information available without the professorial observation, more attractive. Student‘s esteem adds value to the study

group. Furthermore, the extra time invested might be rewarded by Professor in terms of
8 extra credit or an increased participation grade. Esteem develops in ―the relation between the activities performed by the members of a group and the sentiments of liking or social approval accorded them by other members‖ (145). A member of a group who can perform a unique activity which is in demand by all or most members of the group will be held in higher esteem than a member who can only perform the basic norms required for group membership and supplied by all members. Furthermore, the approval given by those with high esteem is valued more than that given by a group member with lower esteem (170).
Though esteem and sentiment are interconnected, esteem is given to a member by other members, while sentiment remains with the esteemed member without direct regard to his particular activities within the group except that he has already been given esteem.
Sentiment is derived from the amount of esteem given from members of a group to other members as related to preferences of choice by those members. While many variables come into play to determine those preferences, Homans‘s observations indicate that those members of a group held in highest esteem, those valued most for their contributions to the group or group members, will also be those with the highest amount of sentiment given to them; i.e. those members whose esteem is greatest will receive more preferential treatment by other members of the group than those whose sentiment is lower. At the beginning of the study session, Classmates as well as Other want to be in close proximity to Student, and because Student has higher esteem than any member of the group present, the group as a whole prefers him over other members. Student is the recipient of high sentiment and the resultant preferential treatment is reflected not only in the proximal

choices made by Classmates, but also in the degree of consideration given to his positive
9 or negative opinion of others. Homans frames his findings this way: ―[T]hey tended to choose others according to the simplest principle of distributive justice: the ‗better‘ a man‘s behavior, the greater his reward in approval‖ (
Social 176). Esteem, therefore, is what is given to a member by other members while sentiment rests within the member to which esteem has been given. Student‘s ―behavior,‖ giving valuable information to the group, infuses him with sentiment from Professor and Classmates. On its simplest level, sentiment can be measured by how often members of a group show a preference for any other particular member, and the member with the highest preference rate is the one with the highest sentiment.
Continuing with the interconnectedness of these suppositions and observations, interaction relates directly to the frequency of previously discussed behaviors. Homans uses the term liking to denote the social approval given by one member of a group to another, so it follows that a group member who has both high esteem and sentiment also has a high social approval ( Social 181). And group members will interact with other members who have a high social approval with more frequency than with those whose social approval is low. Homans‘s observation that individuals repeat activities with more frequency if they are rewarded for those activities is confirmed when practical equilibrium is in effect, wherein the ―process of influence tends to work out at equilibrium to a balance in the exchanges‖ (―Exchange‖ 606). The most significant finding for our purposes relates to the direct correlation between interaction and social approval: ―the more a man interacts with another, the more he likes him‖ (Homans,
Social 203). However, Homans explains an important exception, stating that ―When the

10 costs of avoiding interaction are great enough, a man will go on interacting with another even though he finds the other‘s activity punishing,‖ and in that case, the greater the frequency of interaction, the lower the social approval becomes between the two group members (187). Other has continued his unacceptable behavior in the seminar class by arguing against accepted concepts without evidence that those concepts are wrong.
Furthermore, he provides absurd suggestions in class for the sake of humor, causing a disruption of important discussion which is needed by Classmates. Because, however, all the students need to be present in the classroom, Classmates continue interaction with
Other because the ―costs of avoiding interaction,‖ not coming to class, are greater than the costs of enduring Other‘s antics. If, as Homans suggests in ―Exchange,‖ the greatest change comes about when profit is low, the interaction will continue until the ―costs of avoiding interaction‖ and the rewards from the interaction diminish. At that point, practical equilibrium is broken and frequency of interaction will be reduced or halted altogether. In the case of our example, a natural end to the interaction comes at the end of the semester.
When the value of what a member of a group receives in terms of rewards is comparable to what he puts into the group, Homans terms this distributive justice ( Social
234). Distributive justice, in a sense, is the feeling of equity within a group, the idea that individuals get what they deserve. Even though the contributions of one member may be more valuable than that of another, the group has reached a level of practical equilibrium, meaning that those members with low social approval still contribute enough to the group that equity is maintained. The only example of distributive justice available in our example comes in the social reward of grades given by Professor. The expectation of the

11
Classmates is that Student will receive an A for his consistent good work and that Other will receive a lower grade because of his consistent inadequacy to correctly handle the requirements of the class. Because ―what he gives may be a cost to him, just as what he gets may be a reward‖ and because ―the value of what a group member receives from other members should be proportional to his investments,‖ those group members with low social approval may contribute at a greater frequency than those with a high social approval for the purpose of maintaining practical equilibrium and distributive justice
(Homans, ―Exchange‖ 606;
Social 237). In our example, however, an increased frequency of Other‘s deviant behavior results in more negatives than positives, but he may add other behaviors, such as bringing cookies to class, to offset the low social approval from Classmates.
Homans talks of authority in terms of the ability to exert influence over multiple group members comparable to exerting influence over an individual within the group.
Furthermore, authority in terms of social exchange refers to that authority which has been earned as opposed to that which is acquired by appointment or inheritance; therefore, ―In earning esteem men also earn authority‖ (Homans,
Social 286). Because Other has low authority among classmates, his suggestion to form a study group is met with skepticism about the benefits. Student, however, easily convinces Classmates to form a study group even though the group is initially suggested by Other. Because of the high levels of esteem and sentiment Student has earned, Classmates also accept his authority in the suggestion to participate even to the point that if he decides on a different time and place than Other wants, his desires are heeded. In earning esteem, sentiment, and authority through his efforts and abilities in the class, Student becomes a leader within the group.

12
Homans points out that leaders, those who hold earned authority, can sometimes be disliked by their followers, but the several causes of this dislike do not diminish the fact that the followers find their association with group leaders rewarding, often through advice given by the leader.
Equality within a group, especially concerning the leader, may be difficult to determine since ―The cost and the value of what [a group member] gives and of what he gets vary with the quantity of what he gives and gets‖ (Homans, ―Exchange‖ 606). Also, individuals may perceive the value of specific rewards differently from their fellow group members, creating a need for different or more frequent rewards in order to maintain practical equilibrium within the group. If one group member is perceived to have received greater rewards than he is due, Homans‘s principles suggest that others will maneuver to rectify the situation. Members of a group often perceive leaders to have obtained greater rewards than the majority; however, those leaders are also perceived to deserve those rewards. Another observation about those with whom group members prefer to interact also relates to equality: ―[T]he tendency for a man to interact with his
‗betters‘ may be especially strong when he is not just a little inferior to them but definitely a good deal inferior‖ (Homans, Social 334-35). Therefore, interaction within a group takes place most frequently not only with those a member is equal to and likes but also with those who are perceived to be superior (334). While equality in the exchange is maintained through distributive justice, esteem, authority, and other rewards, those group members whose esteem is lower than the majority of the group are under pressure to associate with those who are of higher esteem, while those of higher esteem are under no such constraint.

13
An invitation by Professor for the group to join him at his home one evening is accepted by Student and Other as well as a number of Classmates. While Student sees this as a reward, Other considers it a requirement, emphasizing again Homans‘s idea that
―[f]or a person engaged in exchange, what he gives may be a cost to him, just as what he gets may be a reward‖ (―Exchange‖ 606). For Student, the opportunity to socialize with
Professor outside the classroom allows for topics of discussion not otherwise available due to the time and subject constraints of the classroom and, because other faculty members will be present, allows Student to meet those who could influence future internship and teaching positions. Other, because he is aware of his status in the class, feels he must attend so as not to offend Professor. Each individual was invited to the same event in the same way, but the value of that socialization is different for each.
Social exchange theory has been extensively studied and utilized in a wide array of circumstances where other theories that do not provide as clear a picture of the dynamics involved in small group relationships, for, as explained by Robert Burgess and
Ted Huston in Social Exchange in Developing Relationships (foreword written by
Homans), ―the developmental course of particular relationships cannot be fully understood by recourse either to individual psychology or to the social system‖ (4). They add the caveat that they do ―not wish to imply that all features of relationships are readily interpretable by exchange theory, or that close relationships in contemporary society are necessarily sustained by the kind of affection based on exchange‖ (24). However, social exchange theory presents unique insight into relationships which might otherwise lack explanation or which might produce false explanations based on misguided assumptions about the nature of those relationships.

14
Two concepts which are particularly useful for considering relationships in literature are comparison level and comparison level for alternatives delineated by
George Levinger in ―A Social Exchange View on the Dissolution of Pair Relationships.‖
The comparison level ―refers to the average value of all outcomes one has experienced in a comparable situation‖ and comparison level for alternatives ―is the level of outcomes expected in one‘s best currently available alternative to the present relationship‖ (171).
Homans includes the pinnacle of the comparison level concept when he states, ―If in the past the occurrence of a particular stimulus-situation has been the occasion on which a man‘s activity has been rewarded, then the more similar the present stimulus-situation is to the past one, the more likely he is to emit the activity, or some similar activity now‖
( Social 53). Levinger exploits these concepts for use with his studies of paired groups
(spousal relationships and homogeneous friendship pairs); however, the ideas on comparison easily extend to relationships in groups greater than two. Each individual within a group, therefore, constantly reevaluates the relationships within that group based on previous life experiences and on possible alternative relationships outside the group or within another group to determine what behaviors to exhibit. When the comparison level of the present group is viewed negatively and the comparison level for alternatives is viewed positively, the individual will abandon the relationships within the current group in favor of more satisfying group relations.
The advantage of considering the relationships in a fictional text, as opposed to studying a group of living individuals, is that the text is static; the relationships in the text never change—they may change in the progression of the story but will always remain the same at a single point within the text. Being removed from the text in this distance in

time, we are able to look at snapshots of those relationships. Since looking at a text is
15 looking at relationships that are set, any change in the relationships has already come, or is documented in its progress, and lacks only the analysis of its cause.
The Range of Application
Within a mimetic context, applications of feminism, Marxism, and psychoanalysis provide a plethora of rich insights into literature that would not otherwise be available, and in the same way, social exchange theory, when used as a critical tool, gives a greater understanding to character interactions and motives. Examining character relationships, motives, and actions in the works of Alfonsi, Shakespeare, Joyce, Tyler, and Hornby provides strong examples of how Homans‘s theory operates with literature in a wide array of time periods and genres.
Each of these authors supplies a unique canvas, revealing different aspects of how social exchange theory maybe employed as a tool for literary analysis. Alfonsi‘s
Disciplina Clericalis allows us not only to see that Homans‘s theory is effective when applied to children‘s literature, but also provides insight into the workings of the teacherpupil relationship during the Middle Ages. With As You Like It, Shakespeare provides a dramatic work to use as a basis for the application of social exchange theory and, as it is well researched, allows a comparison to other interpretations of the actions of the characters Jacques and Touchstone. Joyce‘s Dubliners , an early modernist text, also carries the weight of extensive research and documentation from previous critics but contains the short stories of ―Little Cloud‖ and ―Counterparts,‖ each of which has its particular small group interactions (a homogenous friendship and an employee-employer relationship respectively) available for analysis with Homans‘s theory. Both Tyler and

Hornby are contemporary novelists but have widely varied styles. Tyler‘s Ladder of
16
Years revolves around the concept of the traditional nuclear family while the relationships in Hornby‘s
A Long Way Down involve strangers brought together under unusual circumstances, allowing a comparison of two different types of contemporary novels and extending the range of social exchange theory as a literary tool.
Homans states, ―When I speak of exchange I mean a situation in which the actions of one person provide the rewards or punishments for the actions of another person and vice versa‖ (Foreword xviii). Behavior as social exchange is prevalent in fiction, for in the creation of these works and characters, humans are the source, and fiction, therefore, naturally duplicates life. Furthermore, the more realistic or lifelike a piece of fiction, the more easily a mimetic form of theoretical criticism, such as social exchange theory, can be applied, and because some of the literature analyzed in this thesis is more mimetic than others, social exchange theory applies more readily to some works than others. Since fictional characters, however, originate from within the human psyche, even those works which do not attempt to duplicate reality are legitimately subject to analysis using theoretical criticism within a mimetic context.

CHAPTER II
RELATIONSHIPS IN ALFONSI‘S DISCIPLINA CLERICALIS
If you look at the moon, I was told in my childhood, you can see a man, The Man in the Moon. Likewise, someone—I don‘t recall who—taught me that when you look at the moon, you can see St. George forever slaying the dragon. On a recent trip to visit relatives, I sang a great-nephew to sleep using a song passed down from generation to generation, sung to us by our parents and grandparents, and an older niece asked in shock, ―How do you know that song?‖ Children‘s songs, tales, and stories are passed along through generations, whether or not within a family, in a multitude of ways. One significant artifact in this passing is Petrus Alfonsi‘s Disciplina Clericalis, which acts as a clearing house for medieval children‘s literature by collecting from other cultures and providing source material to future generations. When viewed through the lens of
Homans‘s social exchange theory, the
Disciplina Clericalis provides insight into medieval relationships between parents and children, teachers and students, and other various individuals, and the use of social exchange theory reveals particular viewpoints and attitudes, especially involving moral expectations, concerning those interpersonal relationships.
Significance of the Disciplina Clericalis
The importance of Alfonsi‘s Disciplina Clericalis cannot be overstated, for not only is this work an important collection of ancient literature, but it acts as source material for children‘s literature far into the future, as well as for other medieval works
17

18 including Geoffrey Chaucer‘s
Canterbury Tales . Alfonsi gives credit to source material, stating ―I put together this book, partly from the sayings of wise men and their advice, partly from the Arab proverbs, counsels, fables and poems, and partly from bird and animal similes‖ (104). Alfonsi references Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Enoch, Balaam,
Solomon, and others, while settings or sources of the stories include Spain, Mecca,
Rome, and Egypt. To call the Disciplina Clericalis anything less than eclectic minimizes the width of material the author uses. As an example of the sources from which Alfonsi gathers his material (as well as illustrating the acceptable use of others‘ works in that period), Eberhard Hermes points to the Alexander legend which ―is found not only in collections of Latin exempla, but also in the Qur‘an, the Arabian Nights, and the Talmud‖
(Alfonsi 42). The characters involved in the stories run the full gamut of society: hermits, tailors, kings, philosophers, thieves, servants, and, of course, animals. The didactic nature of the stories seems the only constant thread holding the work together to accomplish the goal, as Alfonsi states, ―that readers and hearers should have both the desire and opportunity for learning‖ (104).
The frame tradition of Arabic storytellers used in the Disciplina Clericalis indicates the level of influence Alfonsi had, and still has, on western writing. Katherine
Gittes states that Spain was the ―most important bridgehead for the dissemination of
Arabic culture‖ and that Alfonsi‘s work was the ―first European frame narrative of importance‖ (244). Not only did Chaucer use this framing tradition in his
Canterbury
Tales , but this method of storytelling is used in contemporary literature and film as seen in Rob Reiner‘s 1986 movie Stand by Me , based on Stephen King‘s novella, The Body . In this film adaptation, an adult writer, Gordie LaChance, sits in his car reflecting on the

19 death of a childhood friend and tells a story (the bulk of the movie) of their younger days.
Chaucer, according to Gittes, mentions Alfonsi five times in the text of Canterbury Tales and Chaucer quotes Alfonsi in ―The Tale of Sir Thomas and Melibee‖ (244). Alfonsi‘s version reads, ―Another has said: ‗Advice that is kept in secret is imprisoned, as it were, and you are its keeper, but advice that has been made plain holds you in its thrall‘‖ (109).
The problems with multiple translations moving Alfonsi‘s work to English, as well as the developmental changes in English over time, are likely the cause of the variances in
Chaucer‘s version of the statement: ―The book saith, ‗Whil thou kepist thi cousail in thin herte, thou kepest it in thi prisoun, and whan thou bywreyest thi couseil to any wight, he holdeth the in his snare‘‖ (108). Alfonsi‘s form is even duplicated by Chaucer, as both men quote an authoritative source to add weight to the saying. Alfonsi uses ―another‖ philosopher while Chaucer‘s storyteller quotes from ―The book,‖ recalling the more recent false adage, ―If it‘s in print, it must be true.‖ Despite differences in the two quotations, the clear reference to and quotation of Alfonsi by a great and influential author such as Chaucer is a significant indicator of the importance of the Disciplina
Clericalis .
As the Disciplina Clericalis exhibits a wide range of material, likewise, Alfonsi himself came from a diverse background. Hermes states that Alfonsi was not merely a
Spanish Jew converted to Christianity who studied as a doctor, but also was an ―Islamic scholar [and] a Rabbi brought up in the traditions of Jewish religious learning, who later, in the year 1106, converted to the Catholic faith‖ (Alfonsi 36). Alfonsi‘s background and education provided him with the resources to undertake the collection found in the
Disciplina Clericalis .

Medieval Children‘s Literature
Gillian Adams‘s ―Medieval Children‘s Literature: Its Possibility and Actuality,‖
20 speaks to the question of whether or not children‘s literature existed in the medieval period and promotes Alfonsi‘s
Disciplina Clericalis as an example of children‘s literature in that time. Adams states:
Written in a very simple Latin at a time when the language often reflected
Ciceronian splendors, this collection of stories primarily from Semitic and
Arab sources, is, on the evidence of Alfonsi‘s ornate preface and an addressee in the text (―a little boy like you‖), especially intended for young students. (―Children‘s‖ 14)
This and further statements emphasize the point that the didactic literature of the time, with a simplification of language and lesson, is medieval children‘s literature. Adams counters ―the romantic notion . . . that didactic works do not count, are not truly
‗literature‘‖ by pointing to the like nature of and explicit lessons from masters such as
Dante and Chaucer (6). In ―A Medieval Storybook: The Urban(e) Tales of Petrus
Alfonsi,‖ Adams again takes up the question of children‘s literature in the medieval ages, looking specifically at Alfonsi‘s work. Adams points to four reasons that the Disciplina
Clericalis should be considered children‘s literature: ―the author‘s express purpose in writing it, the brevity of the text, the simplicity of its language, and the nature of the addressee with the text, clearly a student, often a son . . .‖ (8). While some critics may still deny a place for children‘s literature in medieval times, the strongest evidence that the intended audience is children is the text itself. As Adams indicates, the ―nature of the addressee‖ is either a child or pupil being instructed by a parent or teacher. The first three

21 of Alfonsi‘s tales are Enoch teaching his son, Socrates his followers, and Balaam also his son. The Disciplina Clericalis is medieval children‘s literature.
Application of Social Exchange Theory
In considering Alfonsi‘s work, Homans‘s social exchange theory provides insight into medieval relationships when applied to Disciplina Clericalis, particularly concerning the teacher-pupil and parent-child exchanges. The exchanges that Alfonsi presents to readers reach most aspects of life, including relationships with parents, children, superiors, underlings, friends, mentors, nature, and deities. Using social exchange theory, we can extrapolate information about medieval relationships by applying the theory to the various interpersonal exchanges in the Disciplina Clericalis . Alfonsi demonstrates prescience, unconsciously or at least seemingly, of social exchange theory when he writes of Socrates, who says, ―be not led astray by [hypocrisy] and deprived of the reward for your exertions‖ (105). Socrates or Alfonsi or the original author of this particular story was already aware that relationships, in this case a man‘s relationship with his god, were a matter of cost, ―exertions,‖ and ―reward.‖ Homans warns that we, as humans, already tend to think of behavior as exchange, and this idea, therefore, is ―one of the oldest theories of social behavior‖ (―Exchange‖ 587). Alfonsi supplies a rich trove of material for exploration and analysis, including friendships, mother-daughter relationships, and teacher-pupil relationships.
In the several categories of relationships explored within the Disciplina
Clericalis , friendship takes an early and important position, as Balaam states, ―My son, do not think that one friend is too few and do not imagine that a thousand friends is too many‖ (Alfonsi 105). Within this conversation the tale of another father teaching his son

22 of friendship ensues. In the tale, the son puts his friends to a test, but they fail. Homans‘s theory suggests that their perceived cost of continuing that friendship was too high when the son asks them to help him bury a murdered man. In this case the cost of remaining friends with the son was to become complicit in the murder, but for the friends of the son, the minimal profit (no reward to offset the cost) creates a lack of equilibrium which upsets the cohesiveness of the group, demanding the son‘s removal. One former friend states, ―You shall never from this day forward enter my house‖ (Alfonsi 106). Homans suggests the positive aspect of the theory when he says, ―behavior changes less as profit, that is, reward less cost, tends to a maximum;‖ however, we see the inverse of Homan‘s principle in this instance, wherein changes in the relationships increase when profit tends toward the negative (―Exchange‖ 606).
In the story of ―The Perfect Friend,‖ two merchants (friends) were in love with the same woman, each man‘s love unbeknownst to the other, and when the one, who had planned to marry her, found that the other was lovesick for her, he let the lovesick friend marry her and gave all that he had planned to give her as his wife to his friend instead.
Until this point in the relationship between the two men, equilibrium exists from their previous communication in which they ―used messengers to inform each other of necessary business,‖ but the profit for the married merchant increases by gaining a wife and the first merchant‘s gifts (Alfonsi 107). Homans hypothesizes that each member of a group ―tries to see to it that no one in his group makes more profit than he does‖
(―Exchange‖ 606). In this case the married merchant later discovers his friend is destitute and about to be put to death for a murder and attempts to take his place. While the act of having himself put to death may seem counterintuitive as a reward, we must be aware

that rewards can come in many forms, such as a reputation as a self-sacrificing friend.
23
The actual killer eventually confesses to the crime and both merchants are set free; whereupon the married merchant gives the friend half of all he owns, fulfilling Homans‘s requirement that the ―process of influence tends to work out at equilibrium to a balance in the exchanges‖ (Alfonsi 107; Homans, ―Exchange‖ 606). Homans‘s theory reveals, in
Alfonsi‘s writings on friendship, several important points, including behavior as exchange, increased change in behavior that comes with minimized (or negative) profit, the attempt to increase personal profit, and the tendency toward equilibrium.
In the midst of his writings concerning evil women, Alfonsi presents a picture of the relationships between mothers and daughters in ―The Linen Sheet‖ and ―The Sword.‖
Both stories have similar plots wherein a husband goes on a trip and a mother assists her daughter in seeing her child‘s illicit lover, but the husband returns early and the mother finds a way to deceive the husband (121-22). The mother-daughter relationships we see are already in equilibrium, but the daughter uses the relationship to gain a liaison with a lover, maximizing her profit. By hiding her daughter‘s lover, however, the mother increases in profit; whether that profit is control over the relationship, her daughter‘s gratitude, or something less apparent, is never revealed. Looking past the obvious patriarchal leanings of these tales, the most important finding from this section is the ongoing negotiation between the pupil and teacher.
The pupil in Alfonsi‘s collection requests of his teacher any story ―concerning the guile‖ of women so he can increase his learning (119). In doing this, the pupil shows a desire to profit from the relationship. The teacher, however, is reluctant as seen in his expansive explanation that if naïve people read his stories, they will think he is as

immoral as the women about whom he writes. The teacher, in hesitating, shows that he
24 believes he would pay a high cost in continuing his relationship with the student in this particular instance, and that such a cost would effectively negate any profit he might normally gain through his teaching. The student is unwilling to forgo this vein of teaching and points out others who have received accolades or become famous for their writings on the topic, stating ―If you for our useful instruction write in this same way of women, so will you too not receive blame but rather a crown of glory‖ (Alfonsi 120).
Suddenly, the teacher has the possibility to realize more profit through continuing the instruction, making the possibility of assumptions about his character a cost worth paying. The student, requesting more teaching on the same subject, offers what will be a cost to him and profit to the teacher, showing an actual bargain using behavior as the substance of the exchange: ―But I would still wish you would tell me something more about their tricks, if it is no trouble to you, for the more you tell me, the more I will become dedicated to your service‖ (122). The student presents the first part of the exchange, asking the teacher to pay a cost and tell ―something more about their tricks.‖
He attempts to minimize the perceived cost to the teacher by using the phrase ―if it is no trouble‖ and offers the second half of the transaction, the profit for the teacher, to
―become dedicated to [the teacher‘s] service.‖ Instruction is exchanged for dedication.
More insight into the negotiation between the teacher and the pupil is found after
―The King and His Story-Teller‖ when the student tells his teacher, ―The story-teller did not love his king as much as you love me, because he wanted to take advantage of the king . . .‖ (123). The affection the student receives from his teacher is counted as reward along with the instruction the student desires. Though previously suggesting fame and

offering dedication, the student also requests the profit of learning with only his own
25 increase: ―But if you have laid up anything of this type gained from the sages in the library of your spirit, I beg you tell me your pupil, and I will commend it to my faithful memory‖ (130).
In one instance, the same ongoing negotiation between the teacher and pupil is portrayed between father and son when the son asks his father for a story ―that posterity may gain something useful,‖ showing that the learner in these stories is not completely selfish (Alfonsi 136). In a reversal of the parent-child or student-teacher roles, the father requests a story of his son and says, ―Such a story will be a joy and delight to heart and soul‖ (138). This request appears to be a large increase in profit both for the father and the son as the father gains happiness in knowing that his son is duplicating his method of teaching through storytelling, and the son gains experience in teaching with an experienced guide, his father, as well as the boost in confidence his father‘s exuberance likely gives him.
We gain, in the relationships explored through Homans‘s social exchange theory, some insight into medieval thinking. A friend is one who will sacrifice anything, even his own life, for another, which statement is reminiscent of Jesus‘s saying, ―Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friend‖ (John 15.13). We find that tales of evil mothers-in-law are nothing new but come to understand that, at least in someone‘s view, a mother values her relationship with her daughter over all else. We learn that whatever arrangement placed the pupil with his instructor, the bargain was an ongoing negotiation, in which each sought, consciously or not, the greater profit in the relationship. Homans‘s theory has done its work. While many of the relationships in the

26
Disciplina Clericalis can be viewed without a particular scope to focus the reader, using social exchange theory as a lens through which to interpret this text allows a deeper understanding of what Alfonsi values and portrays in his work, as well as the broader understanding of the medieval mind.

CHAPTER III
MOTIVE IN THE ATTITUDES, ACTIONS, AND ARGUMENTS
OF SHAKESPEARE‘S TOUCHSTONE AND JAQUES
Cinema fans are seldom surprised to find some favorite old movie remade into a newer version, colorized or starring the latest popular actor or actress. For theater lovers, each iteration of a play with new directors or actors allows for multiple comparisons with previous performances. Often books are adapted to stage or screen, some more successfully than others, and Shakespeare does this in his adaptation of Thomas Lodge‘s
Rosalynde or, Euphues’ Golden Legacy
into the play As You Like It . Edward Baldwin states, ―When Shakespeare wrote ‗As You Like It‘ he did precisely what so many dramatists of to-day are blamed for doing, that is, he dramatized a well-known novel‖
(xviii). Baldwin also points out that Lodge‘s tale comes from an older work often attributed to Chaucer, ―The Tale of Gamelyn‖ (ix). Shakespeare‘s changes to Lodge‘s tale include reducing the violence (elimination of the deaths during the wrestling match) and adding characters. Anne Barton says that Rosalynde has ―no equivalent to
Shakespeare‘s Jaques, or to Touchstone,‖ two characters who comment philosophically throughout the course of the play about a wide range of topics: the nature of humanity, love, country living (365). Edward Thron suggests the importance of Jaques and
Touchstone when he states, ―The individuality of Shakespeare‘s play arises not from what he borrows but from what he adds to the basic structure of his source, Lodge‘s
Rosalynde
‖ and goes on to say, referring to the character additions of Jaques and
27

Touchstone, that ―It is impossible to discuss one fool without the other‖ (12; 66). An
28 analysis of As You Like It using Homans‘s social exchange theory shows how
Shakespeare uses behavior as a medium of exchange in his work, and this analysis allows better insight into the characters unique to Shakespeare‘s play: Jaques, who uses wit as a scourge, and Touchstone, whose comments lighten the mood of the play and the other characters.
Behavior as Exchange in Shakespeare‘s Work
One behavior often used in exchange by Shakespearean characters is speech, and several critics consider rhetorical abilities as exchange in Shakespeare‘s plays. In an exploration of feminine speech in
The Winter’s Tale
, Martine van Elk suggests that
Shakespeare‘s use of speech as a commodity reflects the realities of the King James court: ―The play begins by showing the court to be a place where social identity is constructed through public, rhetorical performance‖ (431). This ―rhetorical performance‖ was an important part of the courtiers‘ overall effect, the success of which assists them in moving up the social order. Likewise, Peter Grav, in Shakespeare and the Economic
Imperative , points out that in A Comedy of Errors
, ―the medium of exchange is linguistic and the currency they use is words‖ (49). In As You Like It , Duke Senior references the court negatively, calling it ―painted pomp‖ and ―envious court,‖ yet speech is valued in the Forest of Arden in the same way it was in the previous court (Shakespeare 2.1.3-4).
Of those who accompany him in his exile, Senior states, ―I smile and say, ‗This is no flattery: these are counsellors / That feelingly persuade me what I am‘‖ (2.1.10-11). In the duke‘s first appearance in the play, Shakespeare takes the opportunity to show that speech is as important in the court of the rural as it is in the urban setting.

But speech is only one of several behaviors that serve as mediums of exchange
29 rather than money or goods in Shakespeare‘s work. Grav states that ―Indeed, the conflation of material concerns with spiritual, political and romantic spheres (among others) was practically a mainstay of Shakespearean drama that manifested itself through the trope, metaphor and, on occasion, through plots that dealt directly with the economic relationships between men and women‖ (2). Grav extends this idea in his assertion that in
The Merchant of Venice happiness equals money, but in As You Like It , happiness equals love and marriage (107). Few of the characters in As You Like It have available monetary assets as indicated in the wrestler‘s description of those who follow the banished Duke
Senior; Shakespeare writes that their ―lands and revenues enrich the new Duke‖ (1.1.102-
03). Orlando has the 500 crowns Adam saved against old age, and Celia buys the sheep cote with her jewels. Otherwise, most exchange in the play is that described by Homans when he says, ―Social behavior is an exchange of goods, material goods but also nonmaterial ones, such as the symbols of approval or prestige‖ (―Exchange‖ 606). In bringing court behavior and values to the rustic setting of Arden, Shakespeare, through
Lodge‘s tale, stirs the romance with his comic pen, revealing the intrinsic value of behaviors, especially speech, rather than the typical commodities purchased with money.
Rhetorical Abilities in Jaques and Touchstone
Of the behavioral exchanges in As You Like It , Jaques and Touchstone use speech as a medium or commodity more than any other characters besides, perhaps, Orlando and
Rosalind. In fact, Jaques and Touchstone are valued most, if not exclusively, for their rhetorical abilities. Jaques, whose companionship could depress the happiest soul, is most valuable to Senior when the former is in a melancholic state, for that mood brings out his

philosophical pronouncements. Upon hearing of Jaques‘s lamentation on the death of a
30 deer, Senior says, ―Show me the place. / I love to cope with him in these sullen fits, / for then he‘s full of matter‖ (2.1.66-68). That the duke wishes to ―cope,‖ confer, with Jaques in a ―sullen fit‖ of depression suggests that the duke has in the past found wisdom,
―matter,‖ in Jaques‘s melancholic musings. Jaques, like other members of the court who follow the duke, has no real monetary support, but whereas some have musical or hunting skills, Jaques has speech.
In the case of Touchstone, Celia first addresses him after a discussion with
Rosalind and concludes her comments to her cousin with this: ―[F]or always the dullness of the fool is the whetstone of the wits‖ (1.2.54-55). However, Shakespeare foreshadows the later revelation that Touchstone is as much, or more, a philosopher as a clown in
Celia‘s next line: ―How now, wit, whither wander you?‖ (1.2.56). While some humor is found in Celia‘s reference to Touchstone as ―wit‖ rather than ―fool‖ or ―clown,‖ she aptly marks what the reader will discover later; ―fool‖ is his title, but ―wit‖ is his description.
The audience is not privy to the initial encounter between Jaques and Touchstone but receives a secondhand account as Jaques celebrates the meeting, identifying
Touchstone‘s clothing as more of a disguise than a reflection of the individual, saying
―Motley‘s the only wear‖ (2.7.34). Prior to this statement, Jaques finds rapturous humor in Touchstone‘s ―deep contemplative‖ to the point that he laughs unendingly and goes on to praise fools as wise, showing that Jaques, known for his philosophy and wisdom, finds the same in Touchstone (2.7.31).
While Jaques is referred to as ―full of matter‖ by the duke, Touchstone is often called a fool; however, the reasoning behind Touchstone‘s accompaniment of Rosalind

31 and Celia suggests otherwise. Although Celia asks to be left ―alone to woo him,‖
Rosalind makes the initial suggestion that he come, asking ―Would he not be a comfort to our travel?‖ (Shakespeare 1.3.133; 1.3.131). Although the simplest explanation would suggest that women journeying in that time period would want a male in their presence, two things indicate a different motive. First, Rosalind already plans to carry a ―curtleaxe‖ and ―boar spear,‖ taking the role of a man and defender in their travels (1.3.114-
122). Second, Rosalind‘s suggestion reveals her adept abilities to get others to do her bidding. Dale Priest identifies three characters as manipulators in ― Oratio and Negotium :
Manipulative Modes in As You Like It,
‖ Jaques, Touchstone, and Rosalind, but the greatest of these is Rosalind (273). In Touchstone, not only has Rosalind found a kindred spirit, another manipulator, but she also robs her uncle of, perhaps, the wisest man in his court. Touchstone, like Jaques, is valued for his rhetorical abilities; however,
Touchstone‘s words will comfort the cousins as they travel to Arden.
Exchange Theory and Motive in Shakespeare‘s Characters
Motive and Jaques
Both Jaques and Touchstone are valued for their abilities with words, and their individual speech is part of the cost they pay in exchanges with the various groups.
However, the question remains of why these wise men would choose to follow others into a hard life in the forest. Although Jaques‘s melancholic manner has value for the
Duke Senior, Jaques also enjoys this depressed state. When Amiens finishes a song, a conversation takes place that reveals this attitude in Jaques‘s character:

32
Jaq .
Ami .
Jaques.
Jaq .
More, more, I pritee more.
It will make you melancholy, Monsieur
I thank it. More, I pritee more. I can suck melancholy out of a song, as a weasel sucks eggs.
More, I pritee more.
Ami . My voice is ragged, I know I cannot please you.
Jaq . I do not desire you to please me. I do desire you to sing. (Shakespeare 2.5.9-18)
Amiens fears that his singing will ―make [Jaques] melancholy,‖ but Jaques, counterintuitively, is thankful for the onset of that emotion. Jaques does not want Amiens to please him with singing; Jaques prefers his depressed state. Homans points out that ―For a person engaged in exchange, what he gives may be a cost to him, just as what he gets may be a reward‖ (―Exchange‖ 606). Jaques enjoys the depressed feeling, because from his melancholia comes the rhetorical wit that causes him to be in demand. Even
Shakespeare‘s seven stages of life, given by Jaques, come with a final note of sadness:
―Last scene of all, / . . . Is the childishness, and mere oblivion, / Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans every thing‖ (2.7.163-66). This line, delivered with a tone of near longing by Richard Pasco in the BBC version, clouds Jaques as an even darker figure than his companions knew, and all are silent until the entrance of Orlando with his venerable
Adam. Jaques‘s pronouncements that accompany his personal darkness bring him the rewards he seeks; therefore, because rewarded behavior tends not to change, Jaques, who

is rewarded at every turn for his detached demeanor, will remain in a depressed state
33
(Homans ―Exchange‖ 606).
By the end of the play, Jaques loses against Shakespeare‘s major theme of love and pronounces blessings, of sorts, to each of the couples; however, with each blessing
Jaques becomes incrementally more depressed, the state in which he is most rewarded, finishing with a predictive warning (based on Touchstone‘s earlier plans) that the marriage will not last. He ends with ―So to your pleasures, / I am for other than for dancing measures‖ (5.4.193-94). True to character and social exchange theory, Duke
Senior gives Jaques his reward, desiring him to stay. Robert Bennett states that ―in choosing the sober intellectual and religious life, he is choosing not to participate in the pleasures allied to court and marriage‖ (202). Jaques‘s melancholia does not allow him to be a part of such a grand celebration, but he takes pleasure in his lonely withdrawal, seeking ―to maximize for himself‖ the rewards he gains from such a life (Homans 606).
Besides his infamous melancholia, Jaques also is rewarded with entertainment.
And although entertainment might often be considered a distraction from sad or worrisome situations, Jaques‘s entertainment is intertwined with his depression. His seven ages of life, which he calls ―acts,‖ begin with Shakespeare‘s famous ―All the world‘s a stage,‖ connecting the idea of an entire lifetime with a stage performance
(2.7.139-43). Part of the entertainment reward Jaques receives from his time with the banished duke comes in the form of watching others in the forest for his own amusement.
Touchstone amuses him during their first meeting, and Jaques looks to repeat the encounter. However, when he finds Touchstone about to marry a country girl, he only observes, revealing himself as a last resort to stopping the show of the wedding, which

cannot go forward without someone to give away the bride (3.5.69). Until this point,
34
Jaques is happy to watch the show, with snide quips about the people involved, seemingly the actors in life as well as in the play.
Motive and Touchstone
Touchstone, as opposed to Jaques, finds the joyful side of his rhetorical abilities and even coaxes laughter from his melancholic counterpart upon their initial meeting
(Shakespeare 2.7.12-43). Furthermore, he jokes in the face of exhaustion when he first enters the Forest of Arden with Rosalind and Celia: ―For my part I had rather bear with you than bear you‖ (2.4.11-12). The three of them are hungry and tired, Celia can go no farther, and Touchstone makes a joke. This manner is the true reason Rosalind thinks he will be a ―comfort for their journey,‖ but for what reason does he choose to follow
(1.3.131)? Much like Jaques, Touchstone has personal reasons for going to Arden beyond, as Priest suggests, the ―authentic loyalty between him and the girls‖ (275). As
Jaques requires inner turmoil to reach the height of his major talent, rhetoric, so
Touchstone requires outer hardship to have material worthy of his patter. In court, he was well placed as suggested when he is discovered missing along with the girls: ―My Lord, the roynish clown, at whom so oft / Your grace was wont to laugh, is also missing‖
(2.2.8-9). But court was too easy. Touchstone puts himself in a position of hardship in order to make fun of his own circumstances and begins as soon as the trio reaches Arden:
―Ay, now am I in Arden, the more fool I. When I was at home, I was in a better place, but travellers must be content‖ (2.4.16-18). Not only does Touchstone‘s comment show that his world was made harder by their exodus, but he is ―the more fool‖ for having come to the forest. The obvious interpretation of this statement is that he has made a mistake in

35 coming with Rosalind and Celia, but the coupling of his decision to ―be content‖ and his humorous quips to his companions suggests that ―more‖ refers to the amount of material at hand. His circumstances have decreased, but his ability to use his greatest asset, his wit, has increased.
Touchstone‘s pleasure in his position as someone who ―must be content‖ is obvious in the fact that he plans to marry Audrey, a native of the area. But the joy he takes from his situation comes in his ability to make fun of it, as with his description of life in Arden:
Cor .
And how like you this shepherd‘s life, Master
Touchstone?
Touch . Truly, shepherd in respect of itself, it is
A good life; but in respect that it is a shepherd‘s life, it is naught. In respect that it is solitary, I like it very well; but in respect that it is private, it is a very vild life. Now in respect it is in the fields, it pleaseth me well; but in respect it is not in the court, it is tedious. As it is a spare life (look you) it fits my humor well; but as there is no more plenty in it, it goes against my stomach. Hast any philosophy in thee, shepherd? (Shakespeare 3.2.11-22)
Touchstone has reason to hate the situation; he is removed from court, doesn‘t get enough to eat, and is more isolated than he desires. However, Touchstone precedes each objection with a counter-balance, not only to entertain, but to explain why he chooses to

36 stay. The rough circumstances of ―this shepherd‘s life‖ allows him the freedom to pursue greater uses of his wit as opposed to ―the roynish clown, at whom [Frederick] was wont to laugh‖ (2.2.8-9). Touchstone misses the comforts (and meals) of the court; however, in the pastoral setting, he has found happiness in his philosophies and in his ability to speak and be taken seriously. Furthermore, the residents of the forest, including Jaques, have more respect for him than he has previously received. Homans specifically identifies
―symbols of approval or prestige‖ as mediums of exchange, and not only does Corin address him as ―Master Touchstone‖ in the passage above, but Audrey calls him ―Lord,‖ a title of respect (Homans, ―Exchange‖ 606; Shakespeare 3.3.5). Touchstone has prestige in the Forest of Arden and willingly exchanges the comforts of court for it.
Though limited space does not allow for a complete analysis of the characters in
As You Like It , this peek into the world of the bard suggests that future studies would show extensive use of behavior as social exchange in the works of Shakespeare and other early romance writers, whose insight into human behavior was apt though not labeled.
Jaques and Touchstone approach the use of their rhetorical abilities in diverse ways,
Jaques to cut and reprove and Touchstone to lighten and enlighten. But each uses these abilities as trade goods in order to gain status and acceptance in the Forest of Arden.

CHAPTER IV
UNEQUAL PAIRINGS IN JOYCE‘S ―LITTLE CLOUD‖ AND ―COUNTERPARTS‖
Eveline, at the close of James Joyce‘s story by the same name, discovers that ―It was impossible‖ to break ties of ―duty‖ with her domineering father to join ―Frank, steaming towards Buenos Ayres‖ (40-41). In Joyce‘s exploration of the Irish personality in Dubliners , he often uses seemingly unbalanced or unequal pairings of individuals to create binaries, highlighting different aspects of the characters: the protagonist and her father in ―Eveline,‖ the narrator and priest in ―The Sisters,‖ Chandler and Gallaher in ―A
Little Cloud,‖ Farrington and Alleyne in ―Counterparts,‖ and Mrs. Kearney and her daughter in ―A Mother.‖ In portraying these relationships, Joyce often leaves readers without simple explanations of why both the dominated character, faced with an overbearing partner, and the stronger character, having to support the burden of the weaker, choose to remain in the relationship. In Dubliners
, Homans‘s approach helps us discover why Joyce‘s characters remain in relationships despite an apparent disparity of power. Social exchange theory reveals why Chandler and Gallaher in ―A Little Cloud‖ and Farrington and Alleyne in ―Counterparts‖ continue in what, on the surface, seems unequal pairings, suggesting that each of Joyce‘s characters holds motivations not typically revealed through other readings of the texts.
Because Joyce‘s work hinges on the relationships he explores in Dubliners , social exchange theory is particularly appropriate for an analysis of that work. Carey Mickalites, in ―
Dubliners
' IOU: The Aesthetics of Exchange in ‗After the Race‘ and ‗Two Gallants,‘‖
37

38 states ―Joyce's psychological and narrative economy of exchange has a strong epistemological kinship with Georg Simmel's sociology of exchange, and Simmel's model offers a productive way to synthesize the economic and psychological—or materialist and phenomenological—poles of much recent Joyce criticism‖ (123). Because
Simmel is a predecessor to Homans in terms of sociology and exchange, Homans‘s ideas are applicable to Joyce‘s
Dubliners in the same way as Simmel‘s theories (Homans,
―Exchange‖ 587). Social exchange theory provides insight to Joyce‘s Dubliners, particularly concerning the seemingly unbalanced exchanges between Chandler and
Gallaher in ―A Little Cloud‖ and Farrington and Alleyne in ―Counterparts.‖
Social Exchange in ―A Little Cloud‖
Gallaher, in ―A Little Cloud,‖ is clearly the dominant personality in his relationship with Chandler, first shown by the repeated reference to Chandler as ―little‖ even though he is ―but slightly under average stature‖ (Joyce 70). Likewise, the beginning of ―Counterparts‖ offers an assertion of Alleyne‘s superiority, his ―furious voice [that] called out in a piercing North of Ireland accent: ‗Send Farrington here!‘‖
(86). Marilyn French in ―Missing Pieces in Joyce‘s
Dubliners
‖ couples the two stories, particularly the characters of Chandler and Farrington, as examples of ―sexual desire . . . sublimated into other emotions‖ (456), suggesting a close connection between the two characters as well as the two stories. French goes on to say:
Farrington has similarities and important differences from Chandler; both make them counterparts. Farrington is large, Chandler, small; he is brutal,
Chandler, gentle; he avoids his work, Chandler works assiduously. But both are sexually deprived; both channel sexual frustration into other

39 areas; and both, finally, take out their frustration and rage on their children. (459)
French‘s analysis suggests that only sexual repression is keeping Chandler and Farrington from reaching an unfilled potential; however, they are also repressed in other, more overt, ways than the lack of sexual release: Farrington is consistently berated by Alleyne, an overbearing English employer, and Chandler, whose relationship with his childhood friend seems more in Chandler‘s mind than in truth, is haunted by his lack of success compared to that of the visiting news writer Gallaher. This fantasy relationship is suggested by Chandler‘s thought that Gallaher ―did mix with a rakish set of fellows at the time‖ (Joyce 72). In his thoughts, Chandler does not include himself in Gallaher‘s circle, though previously he thinks, ―It was something to have a friend like that‖ (70). While some form of association links the two men in the past, Chandler sees a much stronger tie than Gallaher.
Gallaher returns none of the respect and admiration given him by Chandler and is, in fact, condescending in his discussion, stating that the Paris cafés are ―Hot stuff! Not for a pious chap like you, Tommy‖ (Joyce 76). Gallaher assumes that, despite his friend‘s interested questions about Paris and the fact that they grew up in the same Dublin neighborhood, Chandler would be unfit to visit such places. Chandler on the other hand rewards Gallaher with approval and the desire for extending the friendship with invitations to his home (79). Gallaher makes excuses not to attend, as he did for not having wished him happy nuptials the year before (78-79). The costs to Chandler in their relationship is especially prominent in their initial exchange of conversation in the bar, once Chandler is able finally to speak:

They clinked glasses and drank the toast.
—I met some of the old gang to-day, said Ignatius Gallaher. O‘Hara seems to be in a bad way. What‘s he doing?
—Nothing, said Little Chandler. He‘s gone to the dogs.
—But Hogan has a good sit, hasn‘t he?
—Yes; he‘s in the Land Commission.
40
—I met him one night in London and he seemed to be very flush. . . .
Poor O‘Hara! Boose, I suppose?
—Other things, too, said Little Chandler shortly.
Ignatius Gallaher laughed. (Joyce 75-76)
Gallaher belittles Chandler through the subtle comparison to Hogan and then by laughing at the failure of someone once considered a friend, coming back to O‘Hara‘s misfortune though he seems already to know what has taken place. Gallaher goes on to make light of the little travel Chandler has done, advising him to go to Paris before hinting that he would be, as he is in Corless‘s, out of place.
Levinger suggests in ―A Social Exchange View on the Dissolution of Pair
Relationships‖ that when the comparison level of the present group is viewed negatively and the comparison level for alternatives is viewed positively, the individual will abandon the relationships within the current group in favor of more satisfying group relations, and Homans states that ―behavior changes less as profit, that is, reward less cost, tends to a maximum‖ (Levinger 171; Homans, ―Exchange‖ 606). These ideas imply that Chandler either has no other options for relationships—not a likely scenario since he was able to keep track of O‘Hara and others from his and Gallaher‘s Dublin past—or that

41
Chandler receives rewards that outweigh the costs in his relationship with Gallaher. The formula of P=R-C comes into play, for if no profit exists for one or the other group members in the relationship, that member will terminate the exchange; therefore, each member of the group, both Chandler and Gallaher, must be receiving rewards that outweigh the costs; they each profit from being together.
Gallaher puts no effort (cost) into his relationship with Chandler; therefore, any reward is considered profit to him: the idolic admiration, the rapt interest in overblown stories. Too, Gallaher doesn‘t bother to find Chandler when he comes to town, though he has met with ―some of the old gang‖ earlier in the day, and Chandler stands for more rounds than Gallaher despite the latter‘s apparent success, giving Gallaher ―material goods but also non-material‖ (Joyce 75; Homans, Exchange 606). For Gallaher, the relationship with Chandler is of minimal interest, with little or no investment for the return he gets from Chandler in terms of self-esteem and possible material gain.
The key to understanding Chandler‘s profit comes as he makes his way toward
Corless‘s and thinks about his past with Gallaher when ―For the first time in his life he felt superior to the people he passed‖ (73). Joyce shows no obvious reason this feeling should come from Gallaher‘s invitation, though it clearly affects Chandler, ―for his mind was full of a present joy‖ (72). The comparison between Gallaher‘s and Chandler‘s lives acts for Chandler simultaneously as both cost and reward. Chandler feels ―superior to those he passed‖ because he knows that although his comparative success is not as great as Gallaher‘s, he is better than Gallaher, the person who has held Chandler‘s respect and admiration for numerous years. Joyce uses Chandler‘s interiority to show this comparison:

He felt acutely the contrast between his own life and his friend‘s, and it
42 seemed to him unjust. Gallaher was his inferior in birth and education. He was sure that he could do something better than his friend had ever done, or could ever do, something higher than mere tawdry journalism if he only got the chance. (80)
If Gallaher, with his ―inferior . . . birth and education,‖ can succeed, then Chandler surely has the ability to do ―something better,‖ ―something higher.‖
Chandler‘s thoughts suggest that he lives in a fantasy world shown when, on his way to meet Gallaher, he composes lines of the reviews about his verse rather than composing lines of verse. In this fantasy world, ―If he could only write a book and get it published, that might open the door for him‖ (Joyce 83). This nonexistent book and the fantasy reviews are the ―something higher‖ he will never reach. After the eight-year hiatus from seeing Gallaher, Chandler begins ―to feel somewhat disillusioned‖ (76-77); however, he must maintain his relationship with Gallaher, the low-birth success story, in order to maintain his own fantasy. The relationship is as secure as eight years before, for
―the process of influence tends to work out at equilibrium to a balance in the exchanges‖
(Homans, ―Exchange‖ 606). Chandler remains in the relationship because he needs it to maintain his equilibrium, the fantasy that he could have some life other than the unbearable one in which ―the tears of remorse started to his eyes‖ (Joyce 85). Gallaher, in contrast, remains for the simplest of economic reasons; it costs him little compared to the profit he receives.

43
Social Exchange in ―Counterparts‖
In ―Counterparts‖ the most obvious relationship a reader might expect to see end is between the protagonist and his employer. Both Farrington and Alleyne have reasons to end the relationship (Farrington‘s employment) but remain together through motives beyond monetary need. Joyce gives multiple reasons Alleyne could justifiably terminate
Farrington‘s employment. Farrington repeatedly sneaks out to drink during work hours, and Alleyne berates Farrington for taking long lunches. Joyce gives only one example of the sneaking out, and the chief clerk calls attention to the habit: ―—I know that game, he said. Five times in one day is a little bit‖ (89). Instead of actually doing his work,
Farrington goes out for a drink. On the day recounted in this scene, he cannot get the copy done on time and delivers the material two letters short. Furthermore, Farrington‘s lack of competence in copying is emphasized when he writes ― Bernard Bernard instead of Bernard Bodley,
‖ reiterating his tendency to daydream, as expressed in his wandering thoughts of ―drinking with his friends‖ and in his wonderment at three words beginning with the same letter (89; 90). Both the consternation that Farrington creates in Alleyne and the money Farrington is paid counts as cost to Alleyne in the relationship and seems to go against Homans‘s presumption that a relationship will end if it does not tend ―to work out at equilibrium to a balance‖ (―Exchange‖ 606).
While the dominant Alleyne has clear cause to fire Farrington, the rewards in the relationship justify Farrington‘s continued employment. Joyce twice indicates Alleyne‘s lack of true authority in the company: The name is ―Crosbie & Alleyne,‖ showing that
Crosbie is the senior partner (87). This lower status requires that, instead of threatening to fire Farrington if the copy is not completed that evening, Alleyne must threaten to ―lay

the matter before Mr Crosbie,‖ emphasizing that Crosbie is the partner with real power
44
(87). Thus, Farrington, seemingly the most incompetent of employees, gives Alleyne an outlet for his frustration: ―Mr Alleyne did not lose a moment: —Farrington? What is the meaning of this? Why have I always to complain of you?‖ (87). In opposition to Charles
Mayer‘s assertion that Farrington acts as an ―automaton without volition or conscious control,‖ Farrington gives Alleyne the opportunity to display power in front of Miss
Delacour, whom ―Mr Alleyne was said to be sweet on‖ (Mayer 9; Joyce 90). This opportunity is exemplified when ―Mr Alleyne tapped a finger on the correspondence and then flicked it towards [Farrington] as if to say:
That’s all right: you can go ‖ (90). This display of power reflects Homans‘s description of ―non-material [profit], such as the symbols of approval or prestige‖ (―Exchange‖ 606). Profit is further realized for Alleyne when he confronts Farrington about the missing pages in front of Miss Delacour,
―glancing first for approval to the lady beside him‖ (Joyce 91). Here, Joyce and Homans use the same word, ―approval,‖ for the social exchange that takes place. Miss Delacour‘s approval is the reward Alleyne seeks, and his pleasure in the exchange is clear. The confrontation turns against Alleyne, but Farrington is ―obliged to make an abject apology for his impertinence,‖ allowing Alleyne once more to show his power over Farrington in front of the admired Miss Delacour (92).
In the same way that Alleyne allows Farrington‘s continued employment though
Farrington‘s actions are far from exemplary, Farrington also has reasons to leave Crosbie
& Alleyne, thus terminating the difficult relationship with his boss. Farrington‘s cost in his relationship with Alleyne, however, is revealed in more than just the berating he takes for substandard work. In truth, comments such as Alleyne‘s ―You have always some

excuse or another for shirking work‖ may be reasonably justified considering
Farrington‘s documented activities (Joyce 87). But Alleyne‘s comments extend past
45 harsh criticism into belittlement and deprecation in this exchange with Farrington:
May I ask why you haven‘t made a copy of that contract between Bodley and Kirwan? I told you it must be ready by four o‘clock.
—But Mr Shelly said, sir—
— Mr Shelly said, sir . . . . Kindly attend to what I say and not to what
Mr Shelly says, sir . (87)
Joyce establishes at the beginning of the story a relationship in which Farrington is demeaned, rather than corrected, by Alleyne‘s statements. The italicized ― Mr Shelly said, sir
‖ indicates that Alleyne is quoting Farrington. Furthermore, Alleyne seems to add a ridiculing tone, to which Farrington, in his subservient role, can make no response besides a straight ―Yes, sir‖ once the haranguing subsides (87).
In addition to such verbal attacks from his boss, Farrington must accept pay that is inadequate to meet his needs. The possibility of Farrington using his monthly salary for drink should not be ruled out, but his present lack of funds when the story takes place is indicated by a desire for an advance, since he had ―spent his last penny for the g. p.‖
(Joyce 92). Farrington thinks that if he gets the copy done in time, Mr Alleyne might tell the cashier to give an advance since the ―middle of the month had passed‖ (87). Through his belittlement by Alleyne and the lack of pay, Farrington pays a high cost for working as a clerk where he feels ―savage and thirsty and revengeful, annoyed with himself and with everyone else‖ (92).

46
Farrington‘s cost, however, is offset by prestige among his peers and approval of his witticisms in the same manner Alleyne receives approval for his flaunting of power.
Mayer suggests that Farrington is the ―victim of the coarsest desires and urges,‖ and while many of Farrington‘s thoughts attest to these desires, Farrington‘s reasons for remaining in his clerical position at Crosbie & Alleyne have more to do with the level of profit he receives from his relationship with Alleyne (9). Farrington was, prior to the narrative, rewarded for his actions through the amusement of his friend Higgins and Miss
Parker as he was ―mimicking [Alleyne‘s] North of Ireland accent‖ (Joyce 92). His greatest reward, according to Homans‘s formula, however, comes in the midst of his confrontation with Alleyne, and Joyce indicates that their previous conflicts have made a spectacle; ―all the clerks had turned round in anticipation of something‖ (91):
— You—know—nothing . Of course you know nothing, said Mr
Alleyne. Tell me, he said, glancing first for the approval of the lady beside him, do you take me for a fool? Do you think me an utter fool?
The man glanced from the lady‘s face to the little egg-shaped head and back again; and, almost before he was aware of it, his tongue had found a felicitous moment:
—I don‘t think, sir, he said, that that‘s a fair question to put to me.
There was a pause in the very breathing of the clerks. Everyone was astounded (the author of the witticism no less than his neighbours) and
Miss Delacour, who was a stout amiable person, began to smile broadly.
(91)

47
The confrontation begins with more cost to Farrington as Alleyne again imitates him with the ― You—know—nothing ,‖ emphasizing each word. Farrington‘s reward is getting the better of the exchange, for, by saying that Alleyne‘s question was unfair, Farrington was able to call Alleyne, without explicitly stating it, an ―utter fool.‖ Griffin posits that
Farrington is unsuccessful ―when he tries to take control of his situation using his wits‖
(111). Farrington‘s profit in this exchange, however, comes in the smile of Miss Delacour and the later approval of his drinking companions, including Higgins, who verifies the truth of his tale; as well as the drink purchased by Nosey Flynn, ―saying it was as smart a thing as he ever heard‖ (Joyce 93). Higgins‘s version of the tale includes Alleyne shaking his fist, and ―Then he imitated Farrington, saying,
And here was my nabs, as cool as you please , while Farrington looked at the company out of his heavy dirty eyes, smiling . . .‖
(94). Farrington indicates an early regret for the incident, but now, as his drunken smile shows, he is pleased with the results. The two men are certainly ―counterparts as abusers of authority,‖ but both Farrington and Alleyne profit from this exchange and from the relationship as a whole, making them counterparts in their need for approval as well
(Scholes 379).
Farrington‘s implication that Alleyne is an ―utter fool‖ does not elicit a firing or even a threat of firing. Alleyene‘s response is weak: ―You‘ll apologise to me for your impertinence or you‘ll quit this office instanter‖ (Joyce 91-92). This demand for an apology is telling when coupled with Alleyne‘s limited authority under Crosbie‘s senior supervision; even if Alleyne has the authority to dismiss Farrington, he chooses not to broach the topic. Additionally, Farrington anticipates future problems in his workplace when he thinks, ―Mr Alleyne would never give him an hour‘s rest; his life would be a hell

48 to him‖ (92). Already Farrington anticipates his future relationship with Alleyne, though the situation prior to their confrontation seems already be the ―hell‖ that Farrington envisions. Because ―behavior changes less as profit . . . tends to a maximum,‖ and, as the two men have achieved the best situation they can expect, Farrington and Alleyne will continue in the unchanging pattern of the behavior that Joyce portrays (Homans,
―Exchange 606).
In the complexity of Joyce‘s Dubliners , Homans‘s social exchange theory lends insight into the motivations of many characters, particularly Chandler and Gallaher in ―A
Little Cloud‖ and Farrington and Alleyne in ―Counterparts.‖ These four men, in their flawed relationships, need one another to complete their fantasies, boost their egos, or draw the praise or admiration from those around them, revealing, through the lens of social exchange theory applied in a mimetic context, as much about fictional characters as it could about living individuals, as much about the living as the dead.

CHAPTER V
RELATIONSHIPS IN TYLER‘S LADDER OF YEARS
Familiarity in the Works of Anne Tyler
Unlike the didactic focus of Afonsi‘s
Disciplina Clericalis , the pastoral romance of Shakespeare‘s
As You Like It
, or the dark realities of Joyce‘s
Dubliners , Anne Tyler‘s work often centers on average families, their foibles, and the troubles that befall them. In his discussion of Searching for Caleb , John Updike states that Tyler is able to place the reader in the position of recognition by using familiar details: ―the America they truck their fraying marriage through is our land, observed with a tolerance and precision unexcelled among contemporary writers‖ (118). The mimetic nature of Tyler‘s work, the precise use of familiar detail, allows an analysis of her work using the social exchange theory within a mimetic context, looking at the characters as real humans. Tyler often writes of typical nuclear families in Baltimore neighborhoods, living, until the time of her stories, what could be thought of as average American lives. While the relationships
Tyler portrays may not reflect the actual average family in the United States, they often reflect what people have considered the average American family: husband, wife, children, and pets, all in a comfortable house. Dale Salwak suggests this same sentiment in the preface to the collection of essays, Anne Tyler as Novelist :
If asked to give a general idea of Anne Tyler‘s novels, we would soon be talking about a steady concern with the American family; a quietly comic touch; an unobtrusive but perfectly controlled style; and a prodigious gift
49

for bringing to life a variety of eccentric characters, their fears and concerns, their longings for meaning and understanding. (ix)
Salwak‘s reference to Tyler‘s ―steady concern‖ indicates her repeated return to themes involving those ―family‖ relationships with which readers are most familiar.
50
In considering the relationships in Anne Tyler‘s Ladder of Years and Nick
Hornby‘s
A Long Way Down
, I use Homans‘s social exchange theory to give insight into the characters by looking at them through a lens not otherwise available through a normal reading of the texts. In the same way Homans is ―less interested in individual rather than in social behavior;‖ therefore, I focus on the exchange of behavior and goods between and among characters, their social interactions, and the results of those interactions in order to understand those characters more completely, and I avoid the character‘s thoughts or independent actions unless those thoughts and actions reveal part of an exchange (70).
Ladder of Years is the tale of Delia Grinstead whose dissatisfaction with her marriage and family lead her to abandon the group of six while on vacation with them and begin a separate existence without contact or explanation. During the time she is separated from her family, Delia finds a job and a place to stay, creates relationships with new acquaintances, and establishes an alternative life from that of her familial relations and previous social circle. The use of social exchange theory, in this particular application, reveals the causes or motivations of Delia‘s dissolution of the relationships she has prior to her personal exodus.

51
Typical Relationships in Ladder of Years
The Grinstead household represents one of Tyler‘s typical American households.
They are a middle-class Caucasian family in Baltimore, living in a two-story house inherited by Delia and her sisters, Linda and Eliza (sometimes Liza). Delia, the protagonist, works as secretary and assistant to her husband Sam, a doctor who took over his father-in-law‘s medical practice, which they operate out of the home. Eliza sleeps in the basement bedroom while Delia and Sam live upstairs with their daughter and two sons: Susie, the oldest, is a junior in college; Ramsay is a freshman in college; and
Carroll, the youngest, is still in high school.
The situation in the Grinstead household coupled with Delia‘s decision to begin anew elsewhere allows for analysis of typical relationships during the course of the novel, in particular husband-wife, parent-child, and heterosexual romantic relationships. By exploring these relationships with social exchange theory, we can see how the theory works with the kinds of relationships frequently encountered in contemporary literature.
From there, we can move on to the more unusual relationships in Hornby‘s
A Long Way
Down .
Spousal Relationships
Delia, at the opening of Ladder of Years , meets Adrian Bly-Brice in the grocery store, and he asks her to act as his shopping companion because he is about to encounter his ex-wife and her new boyfriend. She concedes and they complete the charade successfully. Meeting Adrian causes Delia to reconsider her current living situation:
Ever since she was seventeen, she had centered her life on Sam
Grinstead. She had not so much as glanced at any other man from the

52 moment she first met him. Even in her daydreams, she wasn‘t the type to be unfaithful.
Still, whenever she imagined running into Adrian, she was conscious all at once of the light, quick way she naturally moved, and the outline of her body within the folds of her dress. She couldn‘t remember when she had last been so aware of herself from outside, from a distance. (Tyler 27)
Being ―so aware‖ is the catalyst for Delia‘s reevaluation of her relationships, using
―comparison level‖ to determine the possible outcomes based on her previous experiences in similar situations (Levinger 171). Her only basis for comparing a romantic
(as she thinks of it) encounter with a man, however, is with Sam, who she met when her father hired the young doctor, 32 years of age, to assist in the Felson medical practice.
Delia‘s memory of meeting Sam is idyllic: ―Sunlight flashed off his clear-rimmed, serious glasses and glazed his sifted-looking blond hair‖ (Tyler 28). She goes on to think that ―it had ended like a fairy tale‖ (28). Adrian, however, has awakened the same ―root of longing‖ that she felt for Sam when she was seventeen, and she relives her conversation with Adrian, reviewing and analyzing his compliments (28).
Delia‘s current situation carries, for her, extensive cost with little in the way of reward. Delia considers her encounter with Adrian to be romantic, a notion reinforced by
―reading a paperback romance on the love seat in Sam‘s office—the house‘s only refuge‖
(Tyler 28). Delia envies the heroines of the romance novels: ―Never again would the women [the wealthy heroes] married need to give a thought to the grinding gears of daily life—the leaky basement, the faulty oven, the missing car keys. It sounded wonderful‖
(29). Delia craves the romance, which she considers reward, that has gone from her

53 marriage, and even the ―house‘s only refuge‖ is disturbed by her husband finishing with a patient and needing Delia to write a referral for a specialist.
The interruptions indicate that Delia‘s work as her husband‘s assistant is not only a cost to her, but deprives her of the small reward she would otherwise get from the exchange, privacy and a place of peace in which she can read, escaping into romantic fantasy. Furthermore, Sam has hired numerous contractors to upgrade the house (adding air conditioning, reworking the electricity, landscaping the yard) even though the house belongs to her and her sisters, and ―She fancied she could hear the house groaning in distress—such a modest, mild house, so unprepared for change‖ (Tyler 27). This line hints that Delia, also unprepared for change, is moving in that direction. Although she asserts that her relationship with Sam ―ended like a fairy tale,‖ the next paragraph begins
―Except that real life continues past the end . . . ,‖ further confirming a loss of romance as reward and suggesting extensive costs on her part (28).
Homans‘s concept of distributive justice, wherein ―the value of what a group member receives from other members should be proportional to his investments,‖ is applicable to the comparison of Delia‘s costs and rewards of her present relationship with
Sam as opposed to the rewards she receives within the setting of the novel ( Social 237).
Three phenomena relating to behavior as exchange converge to suggest Delia‘s need to end the relationship with her husband: the lack of distributive justice, Delia‘s comparative level for alternatives in her fantasy romance with Adrian, and the principle that ―behavior changes less as profit . . . tends to a maximum,‖ for which the inverse is also true (Homans, ―Exchange‖ 606). Delia‘s cost in the relationship outweighs the rewards she once obtained through her romantic fantasies. Also, because her profit in the

relationship has been reduced by a lack of reward and increased costs, the social exchange theory formula of P=R-C suggests that change is inevitable unless the cost of
54 the change is greater than the cost of remaining in the group. Practical equilibrium for
Delia is broken and the cost of remaining in the relationship is greater than the cost of leaving it. The loss of profit is further suggested as she seeks her reward of romance elsewhere. Because Delia wishes to bring her fantasy in line with reality, she goes on walks, hoping to spot Adrian in the neighborhood; races for the telephone, hoping he has found ―Grinstead‖ in the phone book and called her; and spends an unusual amount of time in the yard or walking outside, supposing he might be sitting in his car trying to catch a glimpse of her.
Heterosexual Romantic Relationships
Once Delia makes contact with Adrian, she visits him regularly and on one of these visits is able to add more information to her ―comparison level for alternatives‖ as she determines whether or not to leave her family (Levinger 171). Tyler does not explicitly inform the reader that Delia is considering leaving Sam and the rest of her family for a life with Adrian, but she consistently visits him, incrementally increasing their physical interaction on each visit: ―they started with the breeziest peck on the cheek, pretending to be just friends; then day by day more parts of them became involved—their lips, their open mouths, their arms around each other, their bodies pressing closer . . .‖
(Tyler 49). Not only are the parts of their bodies becoming more involved, but they are becoming increasingly involved in one another‘s lives and each receives rewards for that involvement. For Delia, visiting the attentive Adrian is a dream compared to her home where ―Sam wasn‘t listening‖ and Carroll ―sent Delia a look of utter contempt‖ (25).

Adrian, on the other hand, needed another person to fill the void recently vacated by his
55 wife, and Delia is willing to take on that role. She asks about progress on his most recent issue of the magazine he currently publishes and listens as he tells about the author of a new article (49). Adrian has determined through the ―comparison level‖ the possible alternative outcomes from similar situations and decided that he wants a romantic relationship with Delia (Levinger 171). His alternative for comparison is being alone, which, evidenced by the way the house ―struck [Delia] as only marginally inhabited,‖ has for Adrian been mostly unsatisfying (Tyler 49). He tries to consummate his relationship with Delia sexually but she refuses. Delia tells Adrian that she needs to cook dinner for her mother-in-law, and although the reader is told that Delia fears undressing in front of a man eight years her junior, the emphasis in this section is placed on her observations of how Adrian lives, suggesting that the refusal is associated with Delia‘s decision as to whether or not she will leave her family for Adrian. These observations also indicate that the rewards for Delia‘s continued association with Adrian might not be as great as she had once conceived in her fantasies.
Delia goes upstairs to ―visit . . . Adrian‘s office as a ruse‖ in order to get into the bedroom (Tyler 50). However, she is not interested in sex, as a desire to get into the bedroom might imply; Delia wants information. She wanders the upstairs rooms, pretending to read an article that Adrian will publish in his magazine, noting that Adrian, since his wife left, now sleeps in a small dressing room. Furthermore, ―he seemed ignorant of the enormous space that children occupy in a life‖ (51). Delia, until this meeting, is excited about their budding romance, finding ways to escape her household alone so she could see Adrian, as she did this time, using the excuse of taking Linda‘s

daughters to local swimming pool as a chance to rendezvous with Adrian Bly-Bryce.
56
However, she sees some possible negatives in the exchange as she investigates the upstairs. Looking through the closet, she finds his wife abandoned all of her possessions when she left; the possible conclusions are that she thought getting out of the relationship was worth the loss, that Adrian would not allow her to take her possessions, or that
Ardrian‘s erstwhile wife wanted a new start. Furthermore, she and Adrian discuss his publication as they walk through the rooms, and he tells her that the magazine, a publication devoted to time travel, will have to fold soon, as did his two previous endeavors, a ―bulletin for rotisserie-baseball owners‖ (an early form of fantasy baseball) and ―a quarterly for M*A*S*H fans‖ (51). After pressing him, Delia finds that the couple had lived by using his wife‘s inheritance. The costs associated with the information gathered from her upstairs investigation weigh heavily against the potential profits of the romantic notions first sparked by meeting Adrian; however, the meeting was not without rewards. As she returns home she replays the scene in her mind:
Once again she heard Adrian say, ―Why do you always wear a necklace?‖
And then, ―Lie down with me Delia,‖ and just as in her high-school days, she felt stirred even more by the memory than by the event itself. If she hadn‘t already been seated, her legs might have buckled. (Tyler 53)
Delia returns to her house where she is mostly ignored unless a family member needs food or a problem resolved, and she immediately calls Adrian on the telephone. Delia‘s new information about Adrian‘s lifestyle and income have made her comparison harder rather than easier.

57
Parent-Child Relationships
In the same way Delia has reached a point in her marriage wherein practical equilibrium is broken, Delia‘s relationships with her children are also less than profitable in terms of social exchange theory‘s suggestion that ―[s]ocial behavior is an exchange of goods, material goods but also non-material ones, such as the symbols of approval or prestige‖ (Homans, ―Exchange‖ 606). Delia‘s youngest son, Carroll, is said to be the child most like her; however, she is disappointed that he has recently, now at fifteen years, taken on more of his father‘s traits. An early conversation with Carroll exemplifies
Delia‘s loss of reward in the exchange with her children:
His voice was Sam‘s too: deep but fine-grained, not subject to the cracks and creaks his brother had gone through. ―I hope you bought cornflakes,‖ he told her.
―Why, no, I—‖
―Aw, Mom!‖
―But wait till you hear why I didn‘t,‖ she said. ―The funniest thing,
Carroll! This real adventure. I was standing in the produce section, minding my own business—‖
―There‘s not one decent thing in this house to eat.‖
―Well, you don‘t usually eat breakfast on a Saturday.‖
He scowled at her. ―Try telling Ramsay that,‖ he said.
―Ramsay?‖

58
―He‘s the one who woke me. Came stumbling into the room in broad daylight, out all night with his lady friend. No way could I get back to sleep after that.‖
Delia turned her attention to the grocery bags . . . . ―But let me tell you my adventure,‖ she said over her shoulder. (Tyler 16-17)
Repeatedly, Delia is ignored by her son as he berates her for not giving him what he wants (more than cornflakes), her late father‘s old bedroom. During this conversation,
Delia fails to convey her story because the adolescent interrupts with demands and complaints. Furthermore, his accusation that she fails to provide worthwhile sustenance and his later insistence that he be allowed to occupy his dead grandfather‘s bedroom questions her abilities as a mother. Both older children are ―miffed that family finances force them to live at home,‖ and Susie turns up the volume on the television while Delia is trying to get messages from the answering machine (Tyler 18).
The attitudes reflected toward Delia, apathy and anger, are a removal of the reward she once felt in exchanges with her children as Tyler shows with the description of the change in the youngest son: ―And Delia‘s baby, her sweet, winsome Carroll, had been replaced by this rude adolescent, flinching from his mother‘s hugs and criticizing her clothes and rolling his eyes disgustedly at every word she uttered‖ (18). Not only have the rewards of hugs and respect been removed, but the anger and disrespect increase the costs of Delia‘s continuation in the relationship with her family. Furthermore, as these costs have increased with the children‘s ages, the rewards have decreased, suggesting the practical equilibrium once achieved in the Grinstead household is now in flux, and the influence and authority once held by Delia is lost.

59
Further Suggestions
When viewed through the lens of social exchange theory, Delia‘s relationships in the beginning of Ladder of Years provide a good example of how the application of
Homans‘s work to fiction reveals motives not seen through a surface reading of the text.
Delia‘s desire for the romantic coupled with the growing loss of affection from her children lead her to dissolve the relationships in search of comparably more rewarding relationships. While the analysis of spousal, heterosexual romantic, and parent-child relationships has successfully opened avenues for discussion about the functioning of groups in literature, much remains untouched. The groups with which Delia associates later in the book, those we have not explored, include employee-employer, tenantlandlord, homogeneous friendship, and grandparent-grandchild relationships, leaving ample opportunity for further exploration in Ladder of Years as well as Tyler‘s other work.
Social exchange theory provides clearer insight into typical relationships, allowing critics a realistic view of fictional characters within the mimetic context of the novel.
Further research in and application to contemporary American literature should extend the knowledge of modern characterization and development. With an understanding of how social exchange theory works with various periods and types of literature, as well as the typical relationships in Tyler‘s work, we can now look at the atypical relationships found in Hornby‘s
A Long Way Down .

CHAPTER VI
RELATIONSHIPS IN HORNBY‘S A LONG WAY DOWN
Atypical Relationships in Hornby‘s Work
Even though Nick Hornby‘s How to Be Good centers on a London nuclear family, most of the relationships in his novels have to do with unusual pairings and groups.
Hornby‘s debut
High Fidelity focuses on the mostly unsuccessful owner of a vinyl record store, his executive ex-girlfriend, his two music-snob employees, and his obsession with the top five songs for any occasion. About a Boy hinges on the relationship between a single man (in his search for consistently replenished female companionship) and a young boy (who quests for a husband who can comfort his suicidal mother). The characters of Slam could comprise the opening of a joke: A skateboarder, his friends, his mother, his pregnant ex-girlfriend, his new girlfriend, and a plumber walk into to a bar.
And of his latest novel, Juliet, Naked
, his website states that ―Nick Hornby returns to his roots—music and messy relationships . . .‖ (―Books‖). It is not surprising, then, to find at the center of Hornby‘s
A Long Way Down a group of individuals who would not normally be found in one another‘s company and have nothing connecting them other than their common meeting ground of London‘s popular suicide spot, Toppers‘ House, from which each plans to jump: Martin, a television talk show host; Maureen, a single mother whose son is in a vegetative state; Jess, a drug-using teenager who says any offensive thing that comes to her mind; and JJ, a failed American musician stuck in
London. Homan‘s social exchange theory helps shed light on why these atypical
60

61 relationships work within the context of the novel, allowing the characters to work together as a functioning group.
Despite the plethora of odd circumstances in his novels, Hornby asserts in an email interview that his characters respond in the same way as typical people react in various situations. He writes, ―It‘s not my intention to make my characters different from
‗actual people‘. They‘re real to me‖ (Interview). Hornby believes his characters to be mimetic, imitating life in their attitudes and actions within the context of his novels, and points to A Long Way Down among his examples. He begins the novel on New Year‘s
Eve as four individuals with diverse backgrounds and circumstances form the unusual group that carries the novel and, along with the emphasis on conflict and character development, creates a complicated and interesting read that contrasts the familiar details and relationships found in Tyler‘s work. In the initial meeting of the four protagonists
(Martin, Maureen, Jess, and JJ), we find the beginnings of exchange, even before the individuals reach Homans‘s definition of a true group with repeated cost and profit.
Hornby says, ―I think a recurring question in my books is, ‗How much do we owe people we don‘t know?‘ That‘s true of
About A Boy , ALWD , How To Be Good , even [ Juliet,
Naked ]‖ (Interview). While Hornby‘s question about obligation to strangers may indeed pervade the beginnings of his novels, once the characters have moved beyond the single instance of exchange and into ―a situation in which the actions of one person provide the rewards or punishments for the actions of another person and vice versa,‖ those individuals constitute a group with all of the expectations, demands, costs, profits, and rewards that come with that membership (Homans, Foreword xviii).

The use of Homans‘s social exchange theory helps explain the reasoning behind
62 the protagonists‘ connections, even though the characters of A Long Way Down are from diverse social strata. Hornby explains the phenomena this way: ―None of them is in a functioning relationship, so they form an awkward ad-hoc family that just about hangs together‖ (Interview). Social exchange theory reveals the reasons for the formation of the
―ad-hoc family‖ through the fulfillment of needs by various group members to the others.
Hornby structures his novel with first person narrators, who sometimes address the reader directly, using each of the four protagonists as participant-observers, with multiple alternating sections from the perspective of each main character. The descriptions of the characters, given by themselves or by other group members, often reveal the needs of the individuals, especially as related to their specific reasons for wanting to commit suicide, while further actions relate more directly to the exchange among them; therefore, considering each character as separate piece of the whole allows us to see how they fit as a group within the social exchange framework.
Suicide as the Dissolution of Relationships
Levinger‘s principles concerning how and why groups dissolve, when applied to
Hornby‘s characters of Martin, Maureen, Jess, and JJ, reveal in this particular case that suicide is the ultimate dissolution of relationships. The comparison level, ―the average value of all outcomes . . . in a comparable situation,‖ indicates to each character that the rejection experienced thus far in life will continue (Levinger 171). Levinger‘s comparison level for alternatives suggests that each of the protagonists has only dismal options available and indicates that the costs of any future relationships would be greater than the possible profits in their current situations or in any alternatives they can imagine (171).

Suicide, therefore, is the logical next step, thereby ending all current relationships and
63 preventing future costs, especially those incurring the emotional investment tied to forming new relationships.
Hornby uses Martin‘s initial section to explain the logic of suicide within the context of the novel: ―There simply weren‘t enough regrets, and lots and lots of reasons to jump‖ (4). In the text, Hornby suggests exchange in terms of positives and negatives.
The ―regrets‖ and ―reasons‖ present the same idea of behavior as exchange that is found in Homans‘s ―exchange of goods, material goods but also non-material‖ (―Exchange‖
606). Each of the characters has been involved in relationships, has been part of a group, wherein no reward, and therefore no profit, is forthcoming: Martin with his family, job, and society as a whole; Maureen with her non-communicative, invalid son; Jess with her erstwhile boyfriend Chas, Jen (her sister who has previously committed suicide), and her parents; and JJ with his band and girlfriend. In order to minimize the ongoing costs in terms of emotional pain, suicide becomes a reasonable alternative. Martin is the spokesperson for suicide as a viable alternative to life: ―Wanting to kill myself was an appropriate and reasonable response to a whole series of unfortunate events that had rendered life unlivable‖ (Hornby 10). Homans explains that ―When the costs of avoiding interaction are great enough, a man will go on interacting with another even though he finds the other‘s activity punishing‖ ( Social 187). The costs to each of the protagonists, however, have reached the point that ending their relationships with society as a whole through suicide is justified in their minds as ―an appropriate and reasonable response‖ to their past experiences and their comparable expectations for the future. Each of the main

characters has made a conscious determination to trade the costs related to continuing
64 their present relationships for the lesser, more economical costs of death.
Martin
Martin is a middle-aged minor celebrity from a morning television show whose life publicly came to ruin. Martin uses terminology appropriate to exchange theory when describing the loss of his former life:
I‘d had a life full of kids and wives and jobs and all the usual stuff, and I‘d somehow mislaid it. No, you see, that‘s not right. I knew where my life was, just as you know where money goes when you piss it away. I hadn‘t mislaid it at all. I‘d spent it. I‘d spent my kids and my job and my wife on teenaged girls and nightclubs: These things all come at a price, and I‘d happily paid it, and suddenly my life wasn‘t there anymore. (Hornby 11)
Here, Martin actually refers to those things he has lost as mediums of exchange that he has ―spent‖ or ―paid‖ in trade for the activities that ultimately resulted in his downward spiral. Martin reaches a point at which the ―process of influence tends to work out at equilibrium to a balance in the exchange‖ (Homans, Exchange‖ 606). Martin had gained the ―teenaged girls and nightclubs‖ but the balance cost him his family and career.
Each of the characters in A Long Way Down has experienced rejection before the beginning of the book, but rejection of Martin by his wife and the perceived rejection by his children are coupled with the public nature of his life to create rejection from the public as a whole. For Martin, the rejection by society—he hosts an insignificant program on a minor cable television channel for which he is paid 250 British Pounds a week— as

well as that by his family—his ex-wife refuses to allow him any contact with his children—represents a removal of any of the rewards he once had in life.
We see later that Martin is pleased when he believes his popularity has reached the Americas; however, that most people in England know his identity, as well as the
65 details of his crime, is among the driving forces behind his desire to commit suicide
(Hornby 27). At one point he explains, ―It‘s not just that anyway. It‘s the public thing.
The humiliation. . . . I‘ve run out of room. I can‘t see any way forward or back‖ (42).
Martin goes on to describe his present life as a ―dim form of consciousness and a semifunctioning digestive system‖ (11), but he seems to take some solace in the fact that
Maureen doesn‘t know anything about his troubles: ―It seemed impossible that there was anyone in Britain uninterested in what I had done, mostly because I had lived in a world where it was the only thing that seemed to matter‖ (21). Whereas publicity was once a reward for Martin, it is now a cost; therefore, Maureen‘s lack of knowledge about his trouble counts as profit as they begin their behavioral exchange.
Maureen
As opposed to Martin‘s decision to end his relationship with society as a whole,
Maureen‘s reasons for committing suicide may be less complicated than those of any other character. JJ describes her as ―A middle-aged woman who looked like someone‘s cleaning lady,‖ and she has spent most of her adult life taking care of her invalid son
Matty (Hornby 32). Her life has been frozen with the responsibilities of raising Matty, and the only option she can generate to remove herself from the situation is suicide.
Maureen explains it this way: ―But when I had Matty everything stopped and nothing ever moved on. It‘s the one single thing that makes you die inside, and eventually wants

66 to make you die on the outside too‖ (100). Homans suggests that each person in a group will attempt to ―seek a maximum for himself,‖ increasing profits or reducing costs
(―Exchange‖ 606). Suicide, then, is Maureen‘s way of ending the costs associated the relationship with her son wherein ―everything had stopped and nothing ever moved on‖
(Hornby 100). The excessively burdensome responsibility of taking care of Matty drives
Maureen to the precipice of suicide. When Jess suggests that the group could kill Matty for her, she begins to cry, but Maureen disputes, internally, the interpretation of her tears by the group as her being appalled at the suggestion: ―But that wasn‘t why I was crying. I was crying because all I wanted in the world, the only thing that would make me want to live, was for Matty to die. And knowing why I was crying just made me cry more‖ (39).
Maureen likes to think of herself as a good person, and this attitude is a reward to her.
She considers herself someone who would not ―look at that sort of newspaper‖ that would talk about Martin‘s dalliance, but the realization that the death of her son would bring her happiness is a shock (27). She sees that her profit in life could be increased by a cost different from suicide, the death of her son.
Jess
While the first two characters introduced in A Long Way Down are perfectly willing to help one another over the building‘s rooftop barrier in order to commit suicide, they are not so willing to assist Jess, a crass, 17-year-old girl seemingly interested in annoying anyone with whom she has contact. Martin and Maureen stop her from jumping, telling her, ―You‘re too young‖ (Hornby 22). Martin and Maureen have logically reasoned their suicidal endeavors and tied it to a cost-profit analysis over time, but Martin argues that at her age, Jess can‘t have already completely ruined her life.

67
Jess‘s stated reason for wanting to commit suicide is because Chas, a boy who has broken up with her, refuses to give her an explanation; however, Jess‘s sister, Jen, disappeared and was suspected of committing suicide herself. Repeated references to
Jen‘s leaving—Jess has created a fantasy scenario in which Jen lives in Texas—suggests that Jess‘s suicidal tendencies are rooted in her sister‘s end. Because Jen is dead, she cannot add any rewards to Jess in the relationship; however, Jess‘s relationship with her sister still demands the costs associated with being part of a group, even though the rewards are nil. While most people deal with death in stages that ultimately bring them to acceptance, Jess is unable to manage ending the relationship without ending her own life.
JJ
JJ initially states that a terminal disease is his reason for committing suicide, and gives the truth to the group late in the relationship, after realizing that he would be in an ongoing relationship with them: ―‗I want my band back,‘ I said. ‗And my girl. I want my band back and my girl back‘‖ (Hornby 258). These two things represent all of the rewards and profit JJ has had in his London relationships and, like the others, he cannot see his prospects improving in the future. JJ‘s failures personally and professionally lead him to wish for death.
JJ has an idealized version of suicide, thinking that it is reserved for suffering artists, ―people who were too sensitive to live,‖ and considers himself, a failed rock and roll musician, to be among that elite group (Hornby 31). He is shocked, then, to find on the roof of Toppers‘ House three individuals who distinctly do not fit into his preconceived category of suicidal perfection: ―A middle-aged woman who looked like someone‘s cleaning lady, a shrieking adolescent, and a talk-show host with an orange

face . . . It didn‘t add up‖ (32). Because he sees those who have committed suicide as
68 receiving ―symbols of approval or prestige,‖ he sees his own suicide as a reward, as well as a way to avoid further costs (Homans, ―Exchange‖ 606).
Atypical Relationships through Social Exchange Theory
Because of the unusual circumstance that begins A Long Way Down , consideration of what each group member contributes is important to understand the cohesion of the group. Even before they reach a point wherein they might be defined as a group, Hornby suggests that they have an awareness of their unusual gathering: ―We were in the process of turning a solemn and private moment into a farce with a cast of thousands‖ (25). The hyperbolic ―cast of thousands‖ only refers to the four, but already exchange has taken place. Huston and Burgess suggest that ―In the early stages of relationships, it is likely that attraction is based on the degree to which the partners find rewards in shared behavior,‖ and we see this shared behavior in the form of planning to commit suicide (17). Maureen borrows Martin‘s ladder and assists him in getting back over the barrier so she can jump from the spot, and these acts contain for each of the two both reward and cost. Martin and Maureen argue (cost), and they stop Jess from jumping and can feel good (reward) for having prevented a young person from doing what they believe should be reserved for those with a more mature sensibility. And, because
Homans points out that exchange can be ―material goods as well non-material ones‖ we should note that JJ brings pizza, which the four eventually share (Homans, ―Exchange‖
606; Hornby 25). Jess is the first to identify the four of them as an actual group, comparing them to the Beetles, but only when their behaviors become a recurring

69 exchange, in which their ―actions . . . provide the rewards or punishments‖ for others, do they meet Homans‘s definition of a group (Hornby 35; Homans, Forward xviii).
Berscheid and Graziano state that the existence of a group ―cannot be fully understood unless one also understands the conditions under which it was initiated‖ (32).
Martin identifies this initiation point of group formation as they leave Toppers‘ House to go find Chas so that Jess will have a reason not to jump:
Even though we had nothing in common beyond that one thing, that one thing was enough to make us feel that there wasn‘t anything else—not money, or class, or education, or age, or cultural interests—that was worth a damn; we‘d formed a nation, suddenly, in those few hours, and for the time being we wanted only to be with our new compatriots. (Hornby 58)
The need and fulfillment of being a part of this group reaches Homans‘s definition.
Martin‘s assertion that they ―wanted only to be‖ together indicates that each of the members are rewarded emotionally from their mutual association. Martin‘s ―one thing‖ that held them together at the beginning of the group‘s formation is equivalent to the
―attention‖ that Berscheid and Grazio point to as the initiation of exchange in relationships (58).
Their new relationships with one another flounder at times, as seen in JJ‘s reflections after they had vacationed together, but each time they part, the rewards of being together outweigh the ―costs of avoiding interaction‖ (Homans,
Social 187):
It was on the bus that we started to recognize that maybe we wouldn‘t be hanging out so much.
―Why not?‖ said Jess.

―Because we have nothing in common,‖ said Martin. ―The holiday proved that.‖
―I thought it went OK.‖
Martin snorted. ―We didn‘t speak to each other.‖
―You were hiding in the toilet most of the time,‖ said Jess.
―And why was that, do you think? Because we‘re soul mates? Or
70 because ours is not one of my most fulfilling relationships?‖
―Yeah, and what is your most fulfilling relationship?‖
―What‘s yours?‖
Jess thought for a moment, and then shrugged.
―With you lot,‖ she said.
There was a silence that that was long enough for us to see the truth of
Jess‘s observation as it applied to her. And luckily for us, Martin spoke up just as we were starting to see how it might possibly apply to us, too.
(Hornby 226)
By stating their need for ―fulfilling relationships,‖ Hornby‘s characters give conscious attention to the principles of social exchange theory wherein ―Social behavior is an exchange of goods, material goods but also non-material ones, such as the symbols of approval or prestige‖ (Homans, ―Exchange‖ 606). This need for ―fulfilling relationships‖ or ―approval‖ is what each of the characters lacks in their situations before the beginning of the novel and what is filled in their unusual group.

Martin
Martin, presumably because of his previous status as a television personality,
71 tends to be the leader of the group. He receives respect and esteem, even from Jess who tries to make everyone uncomfortable or self-conscious by making fun of them or by merely pointing out their flaws. Various group members make suggestions, but those suggestions are seldom acted on without Martin‘s agreement, showing that he holds authority, the ability to exert influence over multiple group members (Homans, Social
286). Martin, because of the higher status he carries in the group, is able to influence it.
Despite his assertion that the relationships with the other group members was unfulfilling, Martin agrees to and meets with them the following Valentine‘s Day on the roof of Toppers‘ House, where they witness another person who actually jumps to his death, and he agrees that they should meet again the day after. His description of their comparative statuses while on vacation is perhaps most telling: ―They‘d done nothing at all, and it was not difficult to imagine that they would continue to do nothing at all, and they made me look and feel like a world leader who runs a multinational company in the evenings and a scout troop at weekends‖ (Hornby 220). Martin‘s status as a public figure, as tarnished as it was, remains ―both rare and valuable to others‖ (Homans, Social 147).
Jess recognizes the need for Martin to remain part of the group when they discuss meeting for coffee regularly and Martin protests, saying ―it wasn‘t a question of time actually it was a question of choice . . .‖ (Hornby 186). Martin‘s leadership makes him more valuable to the group—he carries a higher sentiment—than the others; therefore, the cost to meet regularly with them is greater for him than for the others. However,
Martin also needs the group, and as Homans points out, ―For a person engaged in

exchange, what he gives may be a cost to him, just as what he gets may be a reward‖
72
(―Exchange‖ 606). Martin‘s personal cost and reward system is revealed further as he tutors a young man at a school near his home as an effort to feel better about himself:
―It‘s a currency like any other, self-worth. You can spend years saving up, and you can blow it all in an evening if you so choose‖ (Hornby 322). The ―cost‖ is the time Martin gives as well as the possible scrutiny for teaching someone of about the same age as the girl he slept with. The ―reward,‖ he hopes, is the replenishment of his ―self-worth,‖ which, according to his analogy, is gone.
Martin incurs other costs as well through his association with the group. As discussed, the public nature of Martin‘s profession, and therefore his crime, is a source of consternation and discomfort to the point that he wishes to commit suicide, and because he is in public with the group, he is recognized and treated with contempt. At the party where they hope to find Jess‘s ex-boyfriend, an anonymous man, thinking that Martin only looks like the television personality, tells him, ―Bad luck, though. Of all the people on TV, you end up looking like that cunt‖ (Hornby 63). Not only is Martin forced to accept the abuse, he is unable to acknowledge his own identity. At one point, JJ compares
Martin‘s choice to go along with the group to Carton, who takes his friend‘s place at the guillotine in A Tale of Two Cities
, saying that he ―wore an expression of a man about to have his head sliced off for the greater good‖ (Hornby 167). Martin is well aware of the costs he pays as a member of the group, but he also aware of the rewards he receives through this involvement.
The most obvious reward for Martin, as well as for any of the protagonists, is for close contact with people who cannot take more from him (cost) than is returned (reward

73 and profit). The first example comes from Jess‘s perspective at the party where they have been looking for Chas: ―I went over and put my hand on his shoulder, and he looked at me as if I were a person rather than an irritation and we almost had a Moment of some description—not a romantic Ross-and-Rachel-type moment (as if), but a Moment of
Shared Understanding‖ (Hornby 70). Martin, until this point in the novel, resists close connections of any sort, but the physical contact fulfills a need for ―Shared
Understanding‖ and the sympathy he receives from Jess has not been experienced since his incarceration. This need and its fulfillment continues throughout the novel and Martin restates it while the group vacations together: ―So in some ways it was a mistake, checking out of the hotel and going off on my own, because even though Jess irritated the hell out of me, and Maureen depressed me, they occupied a part of me that should never be left untenanted and unfurnished‖ (219). Even though Martin is their unelected leader and often acts as defender and protector (for Jess and Maureen) and corrector-advisor for
Jess, he remains with the group because nowhere else is he able to fulfill his need for companionship, to have that place in him ―occupied‖ by others.
Maureen
In the same way Martin provides an informal leadership for the group, Maureen acts as a moral compass or conscience for the group. The most repeated phrase in A Long
Way Down is ―Sorry, Maureen‖ after various profanities. At one point JJ addresses the reader directly, as each of the protagonists do during the course of the story, to explain that a profanity and ―Sorry, Maureen‖ is used each time he speaks even though it is no longer written in the text (Hornby 147). Maureen is the first to suggest that this is her role in the group through her observations of the others: ―I‘m not saying they‘re bad. I‘m

saying they‘re different . . . . They don‘t have the church. They‘d just say ‗What‘s the
74 difference?‘ and leave it at that, and maybe they‘re right, but they‘re not me, and I didn‘t know how to tell them that‖ (52-53). For Maureen, this role exacts a high cost. The other group members, especially Jess, are sometimes critical of her proprieties, but the highest cost has to do with her beliefs; in order for her to commit suicide, to remove herself from an unbearable position in her life, she must commit a mortal sin, for which she expects no forgiveness. The constant guilt about abandoning her son by committing suicide weighs on her conscience throughout the novel.
The group, despite their sometimes critical comments, respects Maureen for holding to her values, which is a reward for her role. Maureen‘s statement that the group makes things easier for her moves Martin to agree and settles the argument of whether or not they will meet on a regular basis. JJ explains how Martin, who is against a regular gathering, reacts to Maureen: ―‗Oh, for Christ‘s sake, said Martin. He was using profanity because he knew then he was beaten: Telling Maureen to go fuck herself required more moral courage than any of us possessed‖ (110). Like Martin, the group holds Maureen in high esteem. Even though none of them ―have the church‖ as she does, or perhaps because none of them have it, her contributions are highly valued by each.
Further evidence of Maureen‘s value to the group is their response to discovering that she has never been on holiday; they plan one and take her to the Canary Islands
(Hornby 198). Though the trip goes awry as their personalities clash, Maureen says this about their first evening together: ―It was the nicest meal I‘ve ever had in my life, and perhaps the nicest evening I‘ve ever had in my life‖ (202). That particular meal, in
Martin‘s opinion was ―so-so‖; however, the same activity or behavior for one person can

easily be a reward for another (203). Homans explains that ―For a person engaged in
75 exchange, what he gives may be a cost to him, just as what he gets may be a reward‖
(―Exchange‖ 606). Maureen, who has never been on holiday, considers a reward the very meal that Martin counts as a cost, but the real cost for Maureen is leaving Matty while she goes on vacation. While the break from Matty and the responsibilities of caring for him might seem to a reward for Maureen, the guilt that accompanies her freedom does not allow her to profit from the situation.
Jess
While Martin and Maureen have certain roles they fill that increase their authority and esteem, causing others to desire their company, Jess offends, attacks, or argues with almost everyone with whom she comes in contact. Jess explains what happens in her relationships and her desire to remain with the group this way: ―I didn‘t want them to get sick of me. People do get sick of me, I‘ve noticed. Chas got sick of me, for example. And
I really need that not to happen anymore, otherwise I‘ll be left with nobody. . . . I think
Jen got sick of me, too‖ (Hornby 69). In terms of social exchange, the costs for being associated with Jess steadily increase while the rewards are minimal. While on vacation,
Jess tries to make up to Martin for having been returned to the hotel by the police and claiming that he was her father. Martin, in an argument as he attempts to distance himself from Jess, responds with ―I‘m sorry to say it, but I think our relationship is over‖ (223).
Similarly, in her relationship with Maureen, Jess‘s language and actions are a repeated cause for discomfort on Maureen‘s part, and although JJ tries to mediate between her and the others, she belittles him for having failed as a musician and in his relationship (213).
The entire group both suffers cost and receives reward for one of Jess‘s actions; she tells

76 a reporter that while on the roof waiting to jump they saw an angel who told them not to commit suicide. Eventually, they give an interview, for which they receive the reward of money (167). Jess, however, reveals on Martin‘s television show that the angel is a hoax, causing Martin to be fired from his job.
Jess, aware of her annoyance to others, wishes to remain part of the group and feels she must do something of value. Homans explains, ―Persons that give much to others try to get much from them, and persons that get much from others are under pressure to give much to them‖ (―Exchange‖ 606). Jess feels ―pressure‖ to contribute because while her rewards from being part of the group are great, she gives little. To create balance, Jess devises a plan to bring all of the people from the group‘s past relationships together for an ―intervention,‖ which predictably ends in disaster (Hornby
268). Unknown to Jess, however, she is valued by the group for the very things that tend to get her in trouble. Maureen wants to talk to Martin‘s ex-wife, but only after enlisting
Jess‘s help is she able to accomplish that task, and Jess is rewarded for her part in the form of personal growth and the pride she feels in that small accomplishment (248).
Furthermore, Jess‘s outspoken nature, her tendency to say whatever comes to mind, works sometimes as a contribution to benefit the group rather than a cost, as seen the morning after they meet when Maureen realizes that she left her purse on the roof of
Toppers‘ House:
She got to her feet and then sat down again on the floor.
―What am I going to do? About the bag?‖
It was a question for all of us, but Martin and I looked to Jess for the answer. Or rather, we knew the answer, but the answer would have to

come in the form of another question, and we had both learned, over the
77 course of the night, that Jess would be the one who would be tactless enough to ask it.
―The thing is,‖ said Jess, right on cue, ―do you need it?‖ (Hornby 104-
05)
Though early in their association with one another, the group already finds Jess‘s
―tactless‖ personality valuable in that she is the only one who has the nerve to suggest that they might still commit suicide right away. Although Jess is an integral part of the group, the fact that she is aware of the costs others pay to be in her company makes her legitimately concerned that she could be excluded. However, her value to the group is greater than the ―costs of avoiding interaction‖ on the part of the other members (Homans
187).
JJ
When JJ first joins Martin, Maureen, and Jess on the roof of Toppers‘ House, he brings only pizza, a lie about having a brain disease, and his desire to end his life.
However, he is soon part of the gathering as they pursue Jess‘s estranged boyfriend. The group itself is JJ‘s reward. He needs to belong to something, and as an American stuck in a foreign country, even one in which the language is the same, JJ is alone. When Ed, his friend and former band member, comes from the states to visit at Jess‘s request and asks
JJ to come back with him and start a new band. JJ declines saying, ―‗I have one here‘‖ in reference to his relationships with Martin, Maureen, and Jess (Hornby 322). Besides the monetary gain received by all members of the group for their interview and brief television appearance on Martin‘s show, JJ‘s greatest reward is acceptance.

78
Many of JJ‘s costs involve regret for things he has done: On New Year‘s Eve, he left the pizza restaurant owner‘s bike where it got stolen; he lied to the group about his disease; and he has quit playing music. Each of these things add to the cost of his continued association with the group. As part of the group, however, his costs also come in the things the other members need from him. He acts as an intermediary for Jess and as an advisor, at times, to the entire group. Jess indicates this, saying, ―JJ probably would have helped smooth the conversation along a bit, I think. I wanted to talk because I was nervous, and that probably made me say stupid things‖ (Hornby 140). JJ, if present, would have acted as a buffer between the middle-aged television personality and the rebellious teen. For Maureen, JJ suggests that a way to conceptualize what you really want is to imagine a person of power who could change situations. For this purpose he creates a character they refer to as ―Cosmic Tony,‖ after Prime Minister Tony Blair
(176). Through this fictional (for them) character, Maureen, as well as the others later, is able to verbalize her wants and needs. JJ‘s interaction with her leads to the group‘s vacation together. His greatest contribution is seen in the conversation wherein they discuss the holiday and Maureen starts to cry: ―‗No, no,‘ said Maureen. ‗I took no offense. Not much anyway. And I know nobody wants to go on holiday with me, and that‘s fine. I just got a bit weepy because JJ suggested it. It‘s been a long . . . Nobody‘s
. . . I haven‘t . . . It was just nice of him, that‘s all‘‖ (197). JJ‘s contribution to the group, whether to help ―smooth the conversation‖ or suggest a vacation is being, as Maureen terms it, ―nice.‖

Further Suggestions
While this analysis is limited to the reasoning behind the suicidal intentions of
Hornby‘s protagonists and how and why they function as a group or ―ad hoc family,‖ many aspects of A Long Way Down have yet to be explored. The relationships between
79 the protagonists and others can yield interesting and enlightening material. Martin‘s relationship with his wife and girlfriend seem rather pedestrian; however, the relationship between him and the general public is an ongoing exchange that precedes the beginning of the novel. Maureen has an entire fantasy life built around a son who is unable to understand anything she says to or does for him, though she actively and consciously treats him as though he can. Furthermore, the relationships between Martin and Jess could be studied more exhaustively using only their interactions with one another. Each of the protagonists in Hornby‘s book carries wonderful material for exploration with social exchange theory, and though the author says in his interview that he ―tend[s] not to do a whole lot of research,‖ I cannot resist.

CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSION: SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY AS LITERARY CRITICISM
Social Exchange theory explains human motivation and behavior in terms of how individuals function within groups, and applications within the mimetic context of literature allow us insight into a broad range of literary work: Petrus Alfonsi‘s Disciplina
Clericalis is medieval children‘s literature, William Shakespeare‘s
As You Like It is a
Renaissance period play adapted from Lodge‘s pastoral romance novel, Joyce‘s
Dubliners is a collection of short stories from one of the earliest modernist authors, and
Anne Tyler‘s
Ladder of Years and Nick Hornby‘s A Long Way Down are contemporary works portraying respectively typical and atypical relationships. The value of applying social exchange theory to these works fluctuates according to what relationships are examined and the type of literature considered; the more mimetic a work is, the closer to reality it comes, the more applicable social exchange theory is for understanding motives and relationships within the groups being studied.
The Range of Applicability
In Alfonsi‘s
Disciplina Clericalis , the most interesting relationship is the between the teacher and pupil. A feminist reading of that text, or any reading, reveals the patriarchal attitudes of the time period. Furthermore, historians may not be surprised by the revelation of how a father teaches his son to value friendship and how he teaches the difference between true friends and those who are not; however, the negotiation between the teacher and pupil for what is taught reveals a closeness and communicativeness not
80

readily understood without the application of social exchange theory. An application to
81 modern children‘s literature, whether didactic like the Disciplina Clericalis or merely for entertainment purposes, could expose numerous attitudes in contemporary society and literature.
An application of Homans‘s theory to the work of Shakespeare reveals the motivations of Jaques and Touchstone, allowing the reader a greater understanding of characters unique to the play and reveals their value to the group. That value, combined with the fact that they are unique to the play, rather than pulled from Lodge‘s
Rosalynde , suggests that Shakespeare himself valued wit greatly. While the idea that Shakespeare valued wit or rhetorical abilities is no surprise, the revelation that he threaded that concept into his plays is intrinsically valuable to Shakespearean scholars.
The harsh realities of Joyce‘s Dubliners have been thoroughly documented with numerous articles detailing the possible meanings of the various stories. Using social exchange theory, however, allows an understanding of individual motivation and behavior, a deeper insight into those Irish who fascinated both Joyce as author and current scholars. The exploration of Gallaher and Chandler in ―A Little Cloud‖ and
Farrington and Alleyne in ―Counterparts‖ reveals more of the tragic Irish personality that has come to dominate their literature throughout the years. These literary traits, the focus on death, war, and poverty coupled with the beauty of place and language, could be explored more extensively using social exchange theory, not only in Dubliners or other of
Joyce‘s works, but in much of the literature produced by the Irish.
In dealing with typical relationships of the contemporary era, the application of social exchange theory to Tyler‘s
Ladder of Years shows the motivations and causes of

82 the dissolution of relationships. When used with the atypical relationships in Hornby‘s A
Long Way Down , social exchange theory suggests how the inner workings of small groups are dependent on the needs of and fulfillment of needs by the individuals within those groups. Each of these analyses suggests further use of Homans‘s theory to contemporary literature as a way to understand the workings of both simple and complex relationships.
A New Literary Theory
To introduce critical theory to the novices of literary study, Lois Tyson suggests that students ―Think of each theory as a new pair of eyeglasses through which certain elements of our world are brought into focus while others, of course, fade into the background‖ (3). Social exchange theory meets the challenge of focusing on ―certain elements‖ but does not diminish the findings of other theoretical viewpoints when used in concert with them.
Feminist theory, for example, stands in contrast to the patriarchal domination of literary criticism, sometimes rejecting outright the ideas presented in the past. In A
Vindication of the Rights of Women , Wollstonecraft advises women not to read novels; however, a feminist reading of Tyler‘s Ladder of Years could add to the depth of understanding in regard to its protagonist, whereas social exchange theory explains her behavior in relation to the groups in which she is involved (Wollstonecraft 446). Each of these theories presents different aspects of the same material, showing the value of having additional viewpoints. The starting point of the reader, or critic, produces differing results in the interpretation of the material.

This same effect on the reader is seen in the application of Marxist ideology.
83
Social exchange theory reveals in Shakespeare‘s Jaques and Touchstone the value of their rhetorical abilities, but if we started with a Marxist viewpoint, Jacques and Touchstone become less important because neither is interested in ―getting and keeping economic power‖ suggested as the basis for society (Tyson 52). Social exchange theory draws on economics to assist in understanding group behaviors; however, the focus of social exchange is the behavior itself rather than purely monetary or class struggles.
Social exchange theory expands on the other disciplines of psychology, economics, and small group research in the same way family systems theory
―incorporates the benefits of sociological, psychological, and biological research to come to theoretical conclusions that are grounded both in scientific analysis and in humanistic inquiry‖ (Schiff 26). Social exchange theory provides a lens without which many facets of literature might go unexplored: the negotiation between pupil and teacher, the value of myriad abilities seen in characters throughout literature, the fulfilled needs for one another in seemingly unequal pairings, the struggles to maintain and end relationships, and the cohesiveness of unusual groups. In the same way ―family systems theory offers much potential for doing literary criticism beyond the psychoanalytic framework,‖ social exchange theory goes beyond applications of economic or psychoanalytic theories in providing a clearer understanding of motives and relationships of the characters and their groups in literature when viewed in a mimetic context (44).
The suggestion, and acceptance, of a new way of looking at literature does not come lightly. However, Homans‘s social exchange theory brings too great a benefit to be ignored when looking at literature within a mimetic context. Social exchange theory, in

addition to the many other theories, philosophies, or ideologies, can be one of Tyson‘s
84 lenses, focusing the reader or critic on particular aspects of a text.
George Homans began his scholarly endeavors at Harvard, studying English literature. He wrote poetry and ―planned to become a political journalist,‖ but he was sidetracked by sociology (Skinner 8). The application of social exchange theory brings his work full circle, back to the literary world where he began before exchanging one field of study for another more rewarding to him.

WORKS CITED
Adams, Gillian. ―Medieval Children‘s Literature: Its Possibility and Actuality.‖
Children’s Literature
26 (1998): 1-24. Project Muse . Web. 31 Mar. 2009.
---. ―A Medieval Storybook: The Urban(e) Tales of Petrus Alfonsi.‖ Children’s
Literature Association Quarterly 23.1 (1998): 6-12. Project Muse . Web. 1 Apr.
2009.
Alfonsi, Petrus. The Disciplina Clericalis of Petrus Alfonsi . Tran. and Ed. Eberhard
Hermes. Trans. P.R. Quarrie. Berkeley: U of California P, 1970. Print.
Baldwin, Edward. Introduction. Rosalynde or, Euphues’ Golden Legacy . By Thomas
Lodge. Boston: Ginn, 1910. vii-xxi. Print.
Barton, Anne. Introduction. As You Like It . By William Shakespeare. The Riverside
Shakespeare . Ed. G. Blakemore Evans. Boston: Houghton, 1974. 365-68. Print.
Bennett, Robert. ―The Reform of a Malcontent: Jacques and the Meaning of
As You Like
It .‖ Shakespeare Studies 9 (1976): 183-204. MLA International Bibliography .
Web. 30 Oct. 2010.
Berscheid, Ellen and William Graziano. ―The Initiation of Social Relationships and
Interpersonal Attraction.‖ Burgess and Huston 31-58.
―Books.‖ Nick Hornby’s Official Website
. Penguin, 2009. Web. 14 Mar. 2010.
Burgess, Robert, and Ted Huston, eds. Social Exchange in Developing Relationships .
New York: Academic, 1979. Print.
Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury Tales . Ed. Lesley Coote. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth
Poetry Library, 2002. Print.
French, Marilyn. ―Missing Pieces in Joyce‘s
Dubliners
.‖
Twentieth Century Literature
24.4 (1978): 443-72. JSTOR . Web. 07 Aug. 2010.
Gittes, Katherine. ―The Canterbury Tales and the Arabic Frame Tradition.‖ PMLA 98.2
(1983): 237-51. JSTOR . Web. 3 Apr. 2009.
Grav, Peter. Shakespeare and the Economic Imperative: “What’s aught but as ‘tis valued
.‖ New York: Routledge, 2008. Print.
85

86
Griffin, Paul. ―Chances of Being Kind: Rorty, Irony, and Teaching Modern Literature.‖
College Literature 18.2 (1991): 107-18. MLA International Bibliography . Web.
07 Aug. 2010.
The Holy Bible, New International Version . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Print.
Homans, George. ―Social Behavior as Exchange.‖
The American Journal of Sociology
63.6 (1958): 597-608. JSTOR . Web. 28 Feb. 2009.
---. Foreword. Burgess and Huston xv-xx.
---. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms . New York: Harcourt, 1961. Print.
Hornby, Nick. High Fidelity . New York: Riverhead, 1995. Print.
---. Email interview. 17 Sept. 2010.
---. A Long Way Down . New York: Riverhead, 2005. Print.
Joyce, James. Dubliners: Text, Criticism, and Notes . Ed. Robert Scholes and A. Walton
Litz. New York: Viking, 1969. Print.
Keesey, Donald, ed. Contexts for Criticism . Mountain View: Mayfield, 1994. Print.
Levinger, George. ―A Social Exchange View on the Dissolution of Pair Relationships.‖
Burgess and Huston 169-93.
Lodge, Thomas.
Rosalynde or, Euphues’ Golden Legacy
. Ed. Edward Baldwin. Boston:
Ginn, 1910. Print.
Mayer, Charles. ―
Dubliners
: The Marriage Center and ‗A Little Cloud.‘‖
Eureka Studies in Teaching Short Fiction 7.2 (2007): 6-18. MLA International Bibliography .
Web. 07 Aug. 2010.
Mickalites, Carey. ―
Dubliners ' IOU: The Aesthetics of Exchange in ‗After the Race‘ and
‗Two Gallants.‘‖ Journal of Modern Literature 30.2 (2007): 121-38. Humanities
Full Text . Web. 07 Aug. 2010.
Priest, Dale. ― Oratio and Negotium : Manipulative Modes in As You Like It .‖ Studies in
English Literature, 1500-1900 28.2 (1988): 273-86. MLA International
Bibliography . Web. 30 Oct. 2010.
Salwak, Dale, ed. Anne Tyler as Novelist . Iowa City: U of Iowa P, 1994. Print.

87
Schiff, Sarah. ―Family Systems Theory as Literary Analysis: The Case of Philip Roth.‖
Philip Roth Studies 2 (2006): 25-46. Print.
Shakespeare, William. As You Like It . Dir. Basil Coleman. BBC and Time-Life Films,
1978. DVD.
---. As You Like It . The Riverside Shakespeare . Ed. G. Blakemore Evans. Boston:
Houghton, 1974. 369-402. Print.
Scholes, Robert. ―‗Counterparts‘ and the Method of Dubliners
.‖ Joyce 379-87.
Skinner, B. F. ―Preface: George C. Homans at Harvard.‖ Behavioral Theory in
Sociology: Essays in Honor of George C. Homans . Ed. Robert Hamblin and John
Kunkel. New Brunswick: Transaction, 1977. 7-11. Print.
Stand by Me.
Dir. Rob Reiner. Act III, 1986. Film.
Thron, Edward. ―
As You Like It
: Jacques and Touchstone.‖ Diss. U of Nebraska, 1968.
Dissertations and Theses . Web. 30 Oct. 2010. Web.
Tyler, Anne. Ladder of Years . New York: Ballantine, 1995. Print.
Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide . 2nd ed. New York:
Routledge, 2006. Print.
Updike, John. ―Family Ways.‖ Salwak 115-19. van Elk, Martine. ―‗Our Praises Are Our Wages‘: Courtly Exchange, Social Mobility, and
Female Speech in
The Winter’s Tale .‖
Philological Quarterly 79.4 (2000): 429-
57. Humanities Full Text . Web. 27 Oct. 2010.
Wollstonecraft, Mary. ―from
A Vindication of the Rights of Women
.‖
Critical Theory
Since Plato . 3rd ed. Ed. Hazard Adams and Leroy Searle. Boston: Thompson,
2005. 442-46. Print.

VITA
Billy Joe (Bill) Lancaster grew up in Texarkana and New Boston, Texas where he completed ninth grade and joined the U. S. Army 1976. He received his General
Education Diploma in 1980 and attended Christ for the Nations Institute in Dallas. He earned his Bachelorette in English at East Texas Baptist University in 1986 and his elementary teaching certificate at East Texas State University-Texarkana in 1994. He has taught public and private school as well as adult computer training classes. After earning his Master of Arts in Literature at Texas State University-San Marcos, he will begin the
Ph.D. program at Texas A&M University-Commerce. He writes literary short fiction and commercial and literary novels.
He can be contacted at:
Bill Lancaster
P. O. Box 1751
San Marcos, TX 78667
Or by email at: blancaster99@gmail.com
This manuscript was typed by Billy J. Lancaster