Chapter 10

Theory Building in Social Psychology

Notes on CHARTS


Dr. Leon James
Dr. Diane Nahl
(c)1976

Table of Contents
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6



[10. 1] CHART T/2

This CHART introduces a method or system for keeping track of the many aspects of the study of behavior. It is based on our work in ethnosemantics and represents a serious attempt in theory construction in social psychology. The theory, in social psychology, is an explanation of the basis for social acts. This explanation must be in dynamic terms, i. e., it must specify functional causes of behavior. As shown in Part A of the CHART, we use the terms "psychodynamics" and "ethnodynamics" to refer to the two components we envisage for the underlying explanation of social behavior ("sociodynamics”). The practice, in social psychology, is envisaged as reflecting local community standards of conduct ("ethnopractice"), which may be empirically investigated through two methodological approaches called "sociopsycholinguistics" and "ethnosemantics. "

Psychodynamics is the account of those dynamic features of behavior which pertain to psychological or psychical or subjective realms of study. We use the terms, "attribution, " "assessment, " and "judgment" to refer to the three major areas of research that may be found in the contemporary literature in social psychology. We specify the components of ethnodynamics as comprising three parallel phenomenal processes to those in psychodynamics: attribution, which is a psycho- dynamic process, depends on or rests on the process of "implicature. " As shown in Part B, implicature is derived from "CCP" or Community Cataloguing Practices. Thus, given a context of community practices in implication (the ethnodynamics of what leads to what), an individual can perform psychodynamic acts, such as attributing x to y (~., "It's late" involves the psychodynamic process of attributing a quality --lateness--to the on-going moment. Note that this psychodynamic process itself depends on a community context or ethno-dynamic field: the appropriate ways for implying facts or implicature (e.g., if it's 11 A. M. you cannot say it's late for lunch!). Similarly, assessment rests on presupposition: ~g., if you say "It's late" you presuppose or assume that whatever remains to be done will take longer to do than the amount of time left to do it in. Thus, the assessment of a chunk of time in terms of its sufficiency, is a psychodynamic process that itself rests on the ethnodynamic assumptions (community practices) concerning how long things take. Finally, the making of a judgment, such as the assertion that it is now late, rests on available expressions that are used in common by community members; this involves the ethnodynamic concept of "meaning, " which as the figure shows, is investigatable through reciprocally ratified recognitions ("RRR") or, more simply, through usage.

Part D presents a visual representation of the formal theoretical relations between the psychodynamic and ethnodynamic components of behavior in social settings. The "ethnosemantic hexagram" specifies six evolving phases that are superimposed on the psycho- and ethno-dynamic components, to yield a model that may be further explored in Part H and in CHARTS T/21 and T/23. This conceptual framework has strict formal definitions and requires study in its comprehension. Specific examples are glen which show how the formal features allow the enumeration of empirical propositions about behavior. The following definitions and expansions further elaborate on the six propositions:

1 [The FORM of behavior] = the description of the units of behavior, or the description of any possible act or state in a community (~ ~., units, sets, glosses, etc.).

[is given by] - can be defined by, or is fully specified by.

[TYPOLOGY] = the grouping of behaviors into sets on the basis of their characteristics, origin, or name ~., EATING includes chewing, tasting, swallowing, etc. vs. READING, which includes following the lines, commenting to oneself, turning the pages, keeping track of the topics, etc. ).

[TAXONOMY] = the arrangement of groupings of behavior (~ "typology") into a comprehensive system of classification (~., EATING, READING, WALKING VS. TALKING, DANCING, SERVING, where the first "class" denotes solitary acts while the second denotes interpersonal acts)~

[Glossary] = a cumulative list of explanatory statements, annotations or "glosses" amounting to a theory of behavior (e. g., this CHART --T/2, Part H).

The above can be summarized as follows:

"The form of behavior refers to any listings that specify name, type, classification, or annotation for the behavior, identifying it and showing its relation to other behaviors, similar or different. "

2. [The STRUCTURE of behavior] = the formal or "mechanical" explanation of the constitutive fragments that add up to behavior in social settings (e. g., [TALKING] = [MAKING SOUND WAVES IN THE AIR] + [CONTRACTING THE ARTICULATORY MUSCLES] + [\USAGE OF EXPRESSIONS] ) .

Thus: "All behavior is assumed to be explainable by mechanical, i. e., "formal" principles. These formal principles of the constituent structure of behavior fall into three types: "Nuclear/Mineral", viz., non-living objects; "Vegetative/Animal, " viz., living individuals and species; and "Spiritual/Intellectual," ViZ., human communities and their members. The explanations at each of these three levels are of a different type, though each nevertheless, is mechanical or formal. The structure of behavior is the second phase (=Y) in the full account of human behavior.

3. [The FUNCTION of behavior] = a sequential description of behavior amounting to an explanation of its specifiable consequences.

[PHYSICODYNAMICS] = the laws of motion of physical bodies and their extensions (~., pressure, energy, fission, etc.).

[SOCIODYNAMICS] = the laws of social transactions in & community (e. g., law and order, conformity, routine or standard procedures, etc. ).

[ASTRODYNAMICS] = the laws of transpersonal and transcendental or subtle relationships (~., certain forms of consciousness and non-ordinary accomplishments).

The above can be jointly phrased as follows:

"To explain behavior, we must give a sequential description of it in such a way as to specify the consequences of it; this is called the function of the behavior. For example, the function of saying, "Excuse me" in "Excuse me, do you have the time ?" is to signal to the other person that you're about to ask something or say some- thing. The consequence of saying "Excuse me" at that moment is that the other person is given information about what's going on, information that the person uses to react appropriately. (Compare to this, the function of saying, "This is a hold up. I've got a gun!" Think, also, of the function of such behavior sequences as: looking the other way [--so you won't have to meet someone]; lying about something [--so as to avoid being punished]; applying for a job [-- so you could be hired], etc. etc.

The function of behavior involves three distinct types of explanations. The first concerns the behavior of bodies as objects (e. g., planets, rocks, rockets, cars, runners, trapeze swingers, swimmers, molecules, etc. ). These types of explanations of behaving objects fall in the category of physicodynamics.

The second type is the category of sociodynamics and concerns the behavior of individuals as interactions and transactions (e g., the way a particular coastline is shaped by the action of the waves in that area, ~ ~., "the water has made the rocks smooth and slippery"; the way trees affect the growth of plants in its shade; the way animal species maintain territoriality relations; the way socialized persons follow conventions of conduct among each other; etc. ).

The third type of functional account--astrodynamics--concerns the behavior of species as a whole ~., lobsters have survived unchanged for millions of years; humans are existing within several separate realities irrespective of their awareness of this; knowledge comes from within; etc. ).

4. [The MEDIUM of behavior] = the observable features of behavior or, the manner of its manifestation.

[PHENOMENAL APPEARANCE] = any information directly or indirectly based on the senses: visual, auditory, touch, muscle sense, etc.

[RITUAL FRAMES] = conventional signals individuals use to identify and mark the shared meaning of what's going on ~., words, expressions, gestures, names, routines, etc.).

[PRESENTATIONS] = displays performed by an individual and observable by others either directly (when present) or indirectly (when reading or hearing of it) ~., actions, utterances, decisions, belongings, etc. ).

Putting the above together, we have:

"Behavior always implies that it is observable. Therefore, it must occur in a medium of observation. The senses (phenomenal appearance) form a medium for perception (noticing things). Conventionalized signals or routines (rituals or ritual frames) form a medium for reference or referring to things (talking about something, topic-alizing). Finally, situated displays (presentations) form a medium for performance (doing something or refraining from doing). Note that individual variations in perception, reference, and performance fully exhaust all the categories of behavior manifestations (medium). "

5. [The CONTEXT of behavior or the CONTEXTUAL FRAME of behavior] = the background of behavior, or its dramatic backdrop, i. e., its stage or its locale in place, time, and historical sequence.

[PLANETARY REGISTER] = the logic of reality as given in experience and formulated in intellectual endeavors (~., common sense; specialized senses--formal logic, mathematics, graphs, musical notation system; international phonetic transcription, drawings, blueprints, statistics, poetry, etc. etc.)~

[ETHNICITY REGISTER] = the habits and values that a person holds by virtue of one's daily round and expressed in style, pattern, and rhythm of behavior or appearance.

[IDEOREGISTER or INDIVIDUAL VARIATION] = whatever is personal, biographical, or unique to an individual ~., one's memory of an experience; one's desires; one's toothbrush; one's diary; one's viewpoint; one's mother; one's pinky; etc. etc. ).

Putting it all together, now:

"All behavior occurs in a natural setting; that is, it can always be localized in time, place, and historical context of situation, i. e., the circumstances that lead up to, and create, the social occasion. We can categorize the context of any behavior into three types: first, that pertaining to the necessary logic of reality ("Planetary Register"'; second, that pertaining to the particular community in which one manages one's daily round ("Ethnicity Register"); and third, that pertaining to the biographical sequence one calls "me" and "my--" ("Ideoregister" or "Individual Variation).

6. [The CONTENT of behavior] = the natural history of a community as it can be captured in memory, history, records, and reconstructions; the parts of the natural history of a community are visible as individual behavior occurring on one's daily round (e. g., John and Mary decided to get married; the snail was crushed by the falling coconut; people in California use less water since there's been a shortage there (according to the news today); Washington was given a very large household expense account by Congress according to several documents presented recently to the Library of Congress by the Espin Estate; etc. etc. ).

Part Four: Application

By way of illustration, consider the behavior of two people, Don and Mary, as reconstructed from a piece of a transcript (see CHART R/4, Chapter 10).

1. Don: You picked up the film?
2. Mary: Yes.

Ask yourself, what information would you have to reconstruct in order to render the exchange realistically meaningful ? Use the ethnosemantic model given in Part H of this CHART to organize your answer.

Parts
One Two Three

Sample Answer

The above can be further summarized or paraphrased, giving us a recognizable dramatic sketch of the social occasion recorded in the transcript segment:

"A real exchange is being reported between two people, Don and Mary. (54-52). The exchange is a normal one (51-49) and consists of Don asking Mary whether she picked up the film to which Mary responds affirmatively (48-46). Through reconstruction, we affirm that Don and Mary are unique individuals (45-43), are probably American co-habitants of similar age (42-40), and that they live somewhere in North America, possibly even in Hawaii (e.g., UH students!) (39-37). We can deduce that the exchange is indicative of their habitual mode of interaction (33-31) so that Mary can respond to Don's particular concern about the film being ready (36-34) as soon as she appears on the premises (30-28). Their readiness to share a common imaginary "world out there" (27-25), with its particular conditions and realities (24-22), has brought them face-to-face with each other, once more, on a routine basis (21-19): they act and react, each on their own (18-16), underneath the skin as well as in overt movement and gesture (15-13), producing and processing bits of information (12-10). The exchange amounts to a transaction that can be documented by supplying the background information (9-7), the type of moves exchanged (6-4), and their official status (3-1).”

Note that this version proceeds from the end (54-52) of the hexagram and moves upward towards the beginning (3-1). There is a relationship between the direction of analysis (upwards or downwards) and the purpose we have for doing the analysis: going from Phases I to VI (downward or forward) reveals a synthetic orientation towards the reconstruction of an event, while going from Phase VI to I (upwards or backwards) reveals an analytic orientation. In psychology, the latter is involved in the prediction and control of behavior, and the former involves the natural history of behavior (etiology, ontology, evolution). Both are necessary to gain an understanding of the sociopsychologlcal relation between setting and behavior, standardized and unique, community and individual.

[10.2] CHARTS T/7, T/8, T/9, T/11

These CHARTS depict the general plan we envisage for the empirical investigation of community practices through the analysis of records to be found as part of the day-to-day living procedures of individuals sharing a daily round schedule. This approach has been strongly favored by ethnomethodologically oriented social scientists (Chapter 8). This approach views records as codable features of one's experience in a community; thus, by studying naturally occurring records, we study the properties of experience as recognized by the community. "Anecdotes, " (CHART T/7) for example, are descriptive records people readily produce and which the community treats as either valid or invalid representatives of what happened (~ Chapter 9). "Lexical domains" or vocabulary (CHART T/8~ form a cross- cultural grid or semantic map that represents whatever information is coded and kept track of in a community. "Literacy" (CHART T/9) subsume an indefinitely large collection of items of information; each item is representable by an expression that is recordable and filable, and called "an orthograph " Individuals wishing to refer to a subjective experience may use orthographs to convey standard pieces of information to others who are familiar with the orthographic system used. Hence, the process of communicating depends on a pool of sharable orthographs. The shared pool of orthographs (CHART T/9) in a community coalesce and organize themselves into catalogued domains such as stories, proverbs, formulaic expressions, conventionalized usage, etc., all of which represent the community's habitual ways of cataloguing facts or information. We call this CCPs or Community Cataloguing Practices. The shared pool of orthographs may be termed the display repertoire. Thus, a dictionary for example, contains the total repertoire of Words available in the shared community pool. Members of a community may have access to all the catalogued items though their ability to use them in actual communicative acts may vary to considerable extent, as we know from everyday practice. Linguist Charles Fillmer (CHART T/ll) has elaborated methods for collecting data on individual knowledge of formulaic or conventionalized expressions in everyday circumstances.

[10.3] CHARTS T/12. T/14. T/15. T/16. T/17

The basic theoretical problem of meaning and communication is to explain how a conventional or standard item such as an orthograph, linguistic expression, or symbol, can be used by an individual to refer to a unique experience, observation, or event. How can the pre-established symbol (i. e., meaning) function as an indexical pointer in the here-Iam-now (i.e., referent)? CHART T/12 shows that reference or particular indication is achieved through the use of situational disambiguation. In other words, pre-established meaning attaches to catalogued orthographs: this meaning is general, i.e., ambiguous, non-identifiable, abstract, conceptual, ideal, ideational. Its existence makes up the field of linguistics and logic, both being the study of sentences. Mathematics is a general, multi-purpose notation system of orthographs. Other systems are musical, neurosemantic, biochemical, geometric, metaphoric, analogic, and 80 on. All of these involve the notation of the sentence or the proposition as the basic unit of expression In mathematics, propositions. are expressed as formulae; these are operational procedures specifying algebraic steps on two sides of an equation sign which serves as an assertion that the two independent operations are functionally equivalent. Functional equivalence is also the basis in, for example, the meaning of words, sentences, orthographs, titles, and so forth. Here the user asserts that there is an equivalence between thing signified and symbol: the process of signifying is thus the operational procedure for situational reference in everyday life. Now we must figure out or derive from the referring process that which it refers to: that i8 the equivalence relation we propose, assist, or affirm, when we predicate something to be true about the world (e.g., "It's late. " or "I found my mother's letter. ")

The study of the referential value of orthographs is called "semantics ~ Semantics has numerous aspects (conceptual, grammatical, neurologic, psychologic, ideologic, ethnologic, and so forth); in all of these, its investigation involves three standard components, as shown in CHART T/14. Note that the apparatus of communicating includes three components. Firstly, it includes pre-established elements (FORM or FORMS), that combine with each other to form compounds (STRUCTURE or STRUCTURES), which define or specify a particular situation or state (FUNCTION). In the example given, FORM identifies the orthographs (enclosed in square brackets and notated in capital script); STRUCTURE identifies the compounds through orthographic symbols ("punctuation marks"); and FUNCTION identifies the situational context (~ ~., husband says to wife, at home, at around 10:30 p.m.: "I am hungry" --which is interpreted as "I'd like to eat something, . . . and etc. "

Further facts and properties of orthographs are presented in CHARTS T/15, T/16, T/17. The facts in T/15 are verifiable by the reader. We present several illustrations to indicate the nature of semantic investigations. As can be seen, everyday situational semantics is rich, complex, formal, and conventionalized. We use the term register modality to refer to the various presentation channels available in the use of orthographs. Empirical research could disentangle the taxonomy of modalities for the occurrence of orthographs in a community. Such research amounts to the cataloguing of situational markers, i.e., a local ethnography.

CHART T/16 presents the program of research we are envisaging. The first edition of this Workbook (1977) was made up of 27 T/CHARTS, 29 R/CHARTS, and 32 E/CHARTS. We have retained this numbering and classification system in the current Edition, though space demands required us to reprint only some of these

(for the full picture, see the first edition, therefore). As can be seen in CHART T/16, the "T-CHARTS" are formal representations of our theoretical resolutions concerning the nature and character of social situations. The "R-CHARTS" are structural representations illustrating research strategies and involves notational proposals for the theory of expressions (i.e., community sanctioned taxonomies). The "E-CHARTS" are functional representations presenting actual selections culled from the daily round arena, hence possessing a historicalized existence (~., formulaic expressions, situationally and historically annotated). The social psychology of individual variation seeks to understand how the situation affects behavior while still allowing for individual style and uniqueness.

CHART T/17 shows a particular functional characteristic of situated orthographs (~ ~., historicalized). Note that orthographs independently presented by two individuals coalesce structurally to form a pair. Such pairs, or adjacency- pairs, constitute a molecule of interactional discourse, i. e., discourse chunks produced jointly by two or more individuals. You can appreciate the fact, in the light of this discussion, that conversation is a sociopsychological phenomenon comprising a ritual of taking turns at talk, as may be represented in a transcript. Note that in actual conversational episodes on the daily round, there are many occasions when the ideal or normative turntaking practice is replaced by irregular patterns of interactional discourse (e.g., people talking at the same time, or overlapping--see Winskowski, 1975). What is being said in a conversation can thus be represented in a transcript by notating the orthographs and orthographic collections produced through the interactional discourse accomplishments of two or more conversationalists engaged in a social episode on the daily round. The methodological problem exists as to the

interpretability of such notations of conversations. Naturally occurring speech tends to be indexical and elliptic; that is, the speakers point to features of the setting without using orthographs (indexicalizing) or complete orthographs (ellipsis). Hence, if only the orthographic content of a conversation is available, its inter- pretability is problematic, vague, subjective. This is clear from the "Nixon transcripts. " However, annotated transcriptions allow objective and empirical investigations for transcripts based on either audio and videotapes (or both).

One type of annotation is called stage directions. .This is familiar to us in fictional dramatizations where the convention is used to place content in quotation and stage directions in regular script (e. g.," 'Enough! ' he yelled with impatience and anger as if he couldn't take any more of it. "). The detailed description of annotated transcripts will be found in Chapter 9.

[10. 4] CHART T/18

This CHART represents an application of the double hexagram (see Index) to the problem of saying anything ("situational predications"). The CHART may be read by going from SITUATION (what, why, how; and who, when, where) to PREDICATION (it was, it is, it will be; and it could be, would be, should be). For example, what it was equals a MICRODESCRIPTION, or it would be equals a PROBABILITY STATEMENT, and 80 on. There are 36 locations within the four Cartesian quadrants enclosed within a double hexagram matrix. This CHART is therefore a general solution to all predications, i. e., it is an exhaustive catalogue. The CHART is not complete as marginal values are untitled. It awaits further research and contributors are welcome to contact us with new solutions. The student may wish to look up the 36 solutions in the dictionary and the thesaurus and in that light examine the validity of (1) the marginal definitions for each term, and (2) the progressions specified, both horizontally and vertically. ~ g., "Report-Judgment" is the third horizontal progression ("how it--"),- while Assessment-Reasoning is the fourth vertical progression ("--it could be"), and 80 on. The color coding corresponding to the six Phases are compatible with CHART T/2, hence the 36 solutions ought to be further supported by the content of the 54 categories there, as color coded. For further details on morphotopology and its relation to the genes of intellect, see cover design, Appendix, and Index.

[10.5] CHARTS T/19, T/20, E/9

These three CHARTS present a theoretical synthesis of the various views in our culture concerning the person, the individual, or the individual's "personality. " Part (a) shows our currently inadequate representation of the Ancient Hawaiian conception of the self in terms of three elements, each having their own function in living. The middle self is our talking or intellectualizing aspect: this implies that our actions and feelings are functional outcomes of our interior dialogue (see Chapter 9 for the role of interior dialogue on the daily round). The middle self relates through talk to the other two aspects of a person. The relation to the higher self is one-way, i. e., one is passively subject to beneficence or not. The other relation, to the lower or basic self, is reciprocal though dominant themes may render it one- sided. For example, teaching may be the function of the relationship flowing from the middle self to the basic self. Praying is expressed by the relationship between basic self flowing towards the high self. This sets up a political situation since the middle self can now attempt to affect events in the world by getting, cajoling, persuading, etc. the basic self to intercede through prayer. Thus there evolves a psycho- politics of praying which is vested in the knowledge of the kahuna, and his relation- ship to his own triumvirate of selves. In this manner, and by this mechanism, the community is weaved into a network of interdependent persons. Social identity is defined by interdependence status, especially and primarily, the family (both blood and adopted). Though social reality provides the appearance of independent individual activity on the daily round, in actuality, that appearance is maintained through con- sensus by means of the triumvirate of selves that constitute each person. However, the triumvirate of selves are not social selves: they are pure in form, each having

its own psychogenetic structure and sociopsychological function, hence "idealized, " relative to "us," as persons. The idealized relations are to be construed as ethno- dynamic and human community based. Hence, ethnodynamic and psychodynamic conceptions portray the world to the individual onlooker (see E/9).

Our representation of the Catholic glossary in Part (b), shows a more evolved, more complex, less primitive, schema: it embroils the socialized person into a fantastic confrontation. The person has a soul and the soul relates to God, therefore the person relates to God. This basic and simple doctrine is contextualized deep within the historicalized community. That is, there are provided social and sociopolitical mechanisms for reward and punishment of the person according to his accomplishments. That accounting is inescapable and belongs to the economics of birth on this planet. Four modalities of conduct on the daily round are provided as unavoidable media for existing: the person may pray, sin, suffer, or be redeemed. There are no other possibilities, whatever the person does or fantasizes. This quadrilateral of life themes adjoins the upper and lower worlds, or perhaps, the upper world and its detractors.

Part (c) portrays the individual in the grips of avoidance of relationship with the various selves. The outcome of inner fights, outer conflicts, incompatible dispositions, repressed emotions, or their opposites in balance, rationality, assuredness, spontaneity, determines the adjustment quality of the individual's life: low vs. high self-esteem, low vs. high vitality.

The psychodynamics of the behavioristic school eliminates the personified titles of the points of the triangle (Part [d]). Instead, we find processes that have operational definitions: first, learning, which is the topical focus of the interaction between the environment and individual variation in behavior; second, personality, which in the topical focus of social psychology relates communality socialization practices to individual variability; third, language, which i8 defined in behavioral terms as the mediator between community practices and environmental effects upon the individual.

Jewish Mystical tradition is portrayed in Part (e). The six points of the Star of David are titled to symbolize six daily round precepts of the Chassid or Practitioner: (1) The study of the teachings, which gives wisdom and enlightenment in daily living; (2) relationship with others and creatures within the social contract (society); (3) love, which is in the Heart and which stems from the soul, and the soul's direct and immediate connection with God; (4) the vitality which comes from spiritual practice and flows from divine energy; (5) unity and the human experience of consciousness are symbolized by breath which is imminent; (6) creativity which comes from meditating on the Holy Name, the source of all inspiration.

Part (f) shows the abstractness of God relative to the other systems. God is what's left over after everything has been defined. God is absolutely nothing. It It is the sound of AUM to which all progresses and from which all emanates, except God, which is nothing. This system shares, with Christianity, the notion of redemption, in this case viewed however from a transpersonal, rather than biographical perspective. Sinning is Karma, Suffering is Reincarnation, and Hell is the Astral Plane. When the Soul is ready to come in from the cold, so to speak, i.e., when it is redeemed, it too departs and only AUM is left. Unity of the Self through Atman and Buddah, educates man's consciousness towards unity and oneness. Meditation yields a frontier man's path towards perfect understanding, liberation, gratuitousness .

Finally, we present our own synthesis in CHART T/20. Here, human race is given an operational definition not unlike our elaboration of the theory of orthographs (CHARTS T/12-T/17); thus, human race is the idealized locus for sudden memory, where the latter i8 represented by billions of individual experiences symbolized by "I", in the English first person pronoun. These individual and subjective experiences coalesce into a bio-organism, called culture. The analogy drawn earlier is that of all orthographs being catalogued in a dictionary: here, all memories, all ideas, all sensations, summate into a display repertoire for the human race. From this pool, called Sudden Memory, and idealized as encompassing all historical times on the planet, springs all the available experiences, emotions, thoughts, themes, that an individual person has available. Transcendence of time and place, resolves the social person's memories; it re-connects fragments. Thus, when interior dialogue stops, fragmentation of the person ceases. The "I" becomes available to Sudden Memory: the individual person has transcended sociality. In the end, the solitary cell is there, there is no redemption, but the whole is also there, therefore obviating all along the need for anything at all.

Data in the DRA collection shows that praying and the use of elevated registers are common features of the daily round (see Chapter 9, Section [9. 3. III-V. 3]). Though our coins claim about this nation that "In God We Trust, " though our courts of law allow us to swear by the Bible, though the legislature opens its session with an invocation, yet all of this has left our scientists unimpressed. Prayer is not a scientific concept; in the eyes of scientific psychology praying is a superstitious practice whose efficacy cannot be proven under experimental conditions of testing. If praying is effective, why can't the scientist see it? Are we to say that praying, so common on the dally round, and officially a part of our local and national community, is a superstition? Perhaps the daily round approach may ultimately give us the answer to this intriguing puzzle. Systematic documentation of biographical records, deposited in archival collections, may contain the data that would surely illuminate the wisdom contained in all of man's fantastic elaborations in thought and word of man's own nature.

[10. 6] CHARTS T/21, T/23, T/24, T/25

These four CHARTS, along with CHART T/2, constitute the sketch of a unified theory in social psychology. CHART T/2 outlines the topical structure for the study of all aspects of behavior. It is based on developments from our work in morphotopology and outlines the hexagrammatic system in the functional analysis of behavior. CHART T/21 is a visual portrayal of the components needed in a sociopsychological theory of action. Our model clearly has topological properties, in which case we are on safe grounds with Eminent Social Psychologist, Kurt Lewin, who has invented field theory in social psychology (1954~. Further familiarity on our part is needed with both field theory and topography to profit from the work of others. Cooperation from mathematically oriented thinkers will be greatly welcomed.

CHART T/23 outlines a three-factor theory of social competence. It amounts to an ennead (=based on 3 x 3 = 9 components). The three wheels in Part 1, are each defined by three internal components:

wheel A --> SOCIETY/COMMUNITY/SETTING wheel B --> ETHNICITY/TOPIC FOCUS/ROLE COMMITMENT wheel C --> REPUTATION/STYLE/INTERPRETATION

The triadic components of each wheel are obtained from the list provided in CHART T/25. Wheel A derives from the zero element TERRITORIALITY (=social episodes + involvement). Wheel B derives from VARIABILITY (=involvement + spontaneity). Wheel C derives from BIOGRAPHY (=spontaneity + presentations). It is necessary to collate, in study, the various parts and sub-parts of the five basic CHARTS being discussed here.

Note that CHART T/25 organizes the three principal components of territoriality, variability, and biography at eight distinct levels. (This can also be seen from T/24) Thus:

Derivations for VARIABILITY and BIOGRAPHY can be similarly made at each of the eight levels. Further "peeling" or splicing of the system in other directions can be explored to great benefit in understanding.

We may now return to CHART T/21 which presents a particular application of the theoretical ideas outlined in the morphology CHARTS (T/2, 22, 23, 24, 25).

The Psychodynamic Phase: INVOLVEMENT
1. [SOCIAL SETTING] ___A___ [INVOLVEMENT]
2. [SOCIAL SETTING] ___B___ [CONVICTION]
3. [CONVICTION] ___C___ [INVOLVEMENT]

The definition of social setting as a "sociocultural field" (see Part 2), entails some dynamic notion related to the social environment. We call this dynamic field, sociodynamics, which includes two components: psychodynamics and ethnodynamics (~ CHART T/2). Now we raise the following question: what precisely is the mechanism (i. e., formal explanation) whereby an individual in a social setting behaves as if the setting was a dynamic field ? Proposition A, indicated by the "A" on the arrow, i8 an answer to this question: the mechanism in question is titled "involvement. " We can thus say that social settings create or, occasion the occurrence of, a dynamic relation or dependence between an individual and the setting.

Involvement is. thus. the name of the dynamic process whereby the setting occasions the individual's dependence on it.

Involvement is a crucial component of social action. It is the pre-condition for spontaneity (arrow AA), which is the immediate cause of action. In other words, social action may be conceptualized as analyzable into two phases: the involvement phase and the spontaneity phase. These two phases are dependent on different conditions, hence to understand or predict an act, the investigator needs to look at the functional antecedents of both the involvement and the spontaneity phases. The involvement phase is conditioned by a psychodynamic process we might call conviction, while the spontaneity phase is conditioned by an ethnodynamic process we might call precipitation.

The psychodynamics of conviction can be described as follows:

TABLE?

The antecedents of conviction (arrow B on the CHART) are psychodynamic, in the sense that they include such processes as set, habit, selective sensitivity, attentional filtering, hyper- and hypo-sensitivity, orientation reflexive. automatic sequences of focus, and other aspects of dynamic, information processing activities. Note that these attentional and orientation mechanisms are embedded into a background context of situation. We might call this the level of normalcy (Goffman). or the level of adaptation (Helson), or the line of sincerity (J.&G., 1975-77), or the ordinary, regular daily round environment of a socialized person.

The expression "daily round" indicates the re-current, re-gularized, routinized, schedule of an individual living in a community. This regularity entails a psychological dependence: the individual, once regularized or habituated to a social setting, becomes functionally connected to it through psychodynamic "hooks", which we have titled "involvement. " These hooks, or situational dependencies, need to be empirically investigated, and described. Much evidence has been accumulated by experimental psychologists on the nature of these "hooks. " Thus, the antecedents of conviction (B-->) are psychodynamic hooks linking the individual's attentional processes to setting factors or "stimuli. "

The description of the antecedents of conviction has been explored in two broad areas in psychology. One might be called implicit psychology, and the other, neurosemantics .

Implicit psychology is the term we use to refer to the research and theory, quite vast, dealing with such psychodynamic processes as: attitude formation; cognitive flexibility; imagery; problem solving heuristics; interpersonal perception; attribution; evaluation; judgment; and so forth.

Neurosemantics is the term we use to refer to the research and theory, also vast, dealing with the psychodynamic-neurophysiological interface of socialized behavior. Neurosemantics refers to the availability pattern of attentional mechanisms: i. e., whether you notice X or Y or Z in a setting depends functionally on prior (antecedent) habits of focus. These habits are viewed as grounded in neurophysiological function. Thus, one might say that the individual is hooked to a setting through connections established between situation cues ("semantic") and the body's connection is therefore a neurosemantic one - Jakobovits and Nahl, 1975-77, Vol. 3, Series I: Experiments in Neurosemantics).

Implicit psychology and neurosemantics are, thus, two psychodynamic accounts of the antecedents of conviction.

The consequences of conviction (C-->) are also psychodynamic processes. They include behavioral characteristics such as persistence, motivation, drive. Purposive behavior, goal orientation, strategy, and so forth. These psychodynamic consequence of situational reactivity are the empirical, observable indices of involvement. In summary, then, we can say that involvement is a psychodynamic hook governing the individual's attentional conduct in a setting through habituation and imparting a coherent direction to the sequencing of acts. This statement is represented in the CHART by the triangle [A. B. C, ].

The Ethnodynamic Phase: SPONTANEITY
4. [INVOLVEMENT] --AA--> [SPONTANEITY]
5. [INVOLVEMENT] --BB--> [PRECIPITATION]
6. [PRECIPITATION]--CC--> [SPONTANE ITY]

The ethnodynamic phase of spontaneity is represented in the CHART by the triangle [AA. BB. CC. ]. The pathway, AA, is a possible occurrence. This is a direct route coupling the two sociodynamic phases. Automated programs in behavioral sequencing, i_, spontaneity, has two antecedents: one, psychodynamic, which proceeds from involvement (AA), and leads to spontaneous action. For example, judgemental acts in B, or goal-directed orientations in C, produce involvements which directly trigger spontaneous acts of movement of the eyes, head, and face, or voicing in talk. Think of tasting your soup as a situation: as you place it in your mouth, you assess, evaluate, and judge the sensations; that produces involvement which can be observed by the goal-directedness of the activity. At the next phase, you react spontaneously by running off automatic sequences such as swallowing, managing the food in the mouth, placing more soup in it, and so on. Should anything occur that yields an involvement incompatible or conflictual with the on-going one, the spontaneity of the on-going behavioral sequence is interrupted and a new sequence is initiated, governed by the new involvement (~., you find a stone in your soup, or you find it too salty, etc. ).

This direct route between involvement and spontaneity may be conditioned by other factors to be mentioned; these are added on as contextual features of any particular social occasion, and we title these, precipitation. The antecedents (BB-->) and consequence (CC-->) of precipitation are interposed between involvement and spontaneity and act as a ethnodynamically charged "buffer zone" between the two. That is, the psychodynamic consequences of involvement and conviction are modifiable through ethnodynamic antecedents and consequents of precipitation. The latter is thus the link between a pre-established habit and its applicability to any particular occasion. Precipitation modifies the character and style of spontaneous acts, which otherwise would have a rigid character or one-to-one relation.

Antecedents of precipitation (BB-->) include emotionalizing episodes; discourse thinking reports; interior dialogue; and other forms of microdescrlptions and annotations, including indexing and cataloguing. Consequents of precipitation (CC-->) include presentations, performances, enactments, records, and so forth. These are topological phenomena in that they are transforms of involvement such that an underlying or deep level mechanical process (A, B, C) is transformed into a surface, visible process (AA, BB, CC. ). The underlying level is both psychodynamic and pre-topical (~ CHART T/2; and HEXAGRAM in Index): the surface level is ethno- dynamic and topical.

Conditions for the etiology of individual variability may be found in both phases of an act. In the psychodynamic phase of involvement, habituation phenomena to topic focus (i.e.,what we notice on any particular occasion) operate cumulatively; hence, individual history or biography sets up implicit and neurosemantic patterns of automatic adjustments to a setting. These patterns are unique and difficult to recover or reconstruct. In the subsequent ethnodynamic phase, spontaneity is conditioned by topicalization phenomena (~, what we represent symbolically or through content) which operate ritually, i.e., by conventionalized routines; hence, individual uniqueness in cumulative history gets transformed into the standardized, according to transformation procedures dictated by community prac- tices in language use, meaning, interpretation, coherence, continuity, precedence, and so on. All of these imply that precipitation is a phenomenon closely related to what we've called ethnicity, local ethnography, style, standardized imaginings (see these in the Index ).

Note, finally, the term enactology, which is defined in the glossary (part 2) as the topological study of social settings. The drawing in the CHART (T/21) attempts to symbolize the notion that the two phases of an act are solid, even if formal, mechanism--the two triangles; these are then projected onto a surface, i. e., they undergo a topological transformation--striated surface. Thus, acts occur in a field whose dimensionality is fundamentally altered. This alternation is seen, in ethnosemantics, as a quantum jump, from the pre-topical to the topical, and is represented in the hexagrammatic morphology by the double line (~ cover design and Appendix for details on this). The theory of social acts is thus an accaunt of the details of how ethnodynamic rituals spontaneously condition svchodvnamic involvements and habits. This i8 essentially and purely the problem of how the standard conditions the unique, how, in other words, the social occa- sion demands the adaptation of learned habit and style to the particular set of conditions.

There is a profound dialectic of complementarity and reciprocity in this relation between the setting and the individual, the ethnodynamic and the psycho- dynamic, the standardized and the particular. This figure attempts to specify this interesting conceptual dialectic or form. On the right, you see depicted the fact that the antecedents and consequent9 of conviction are etiological or formative processes, e. g. personality, individuality, uniqueness, style, subjectivity, etc. These pertain to biographic records, psychohistory, and other psychodynamic records. The outside frame of ethnodynamics encompasses 'personality' and surrounds it with reference points, norms, standards, conventions, rituals, etc. Now, however, moving over to the left, the particular vs. the standardized dialectic takes a reciprocal transformation (as in a/b = b/a relation). Now you'll note that the psychodynamic involvements in a setting (triangle ABC on the CHART - T/21) eventuate from setting factors already in the field (light striations on the left of CHART T/21). For example, you bring the soup to your mouth, you notice the color, vapor, etc., and you think about the T. V. program last night where the person was poisoned by something in the soup ! This particular and unique setting or social occasion--i. e., your thinking about the poison while tasting the soup today--is unique with respect to the episode and its official history, but is standard with respect to the settin~ involvement. The latter assertion (underlined) is justified by the concept of STANDARDIZED IMAGININGS (see Index) which designate implicit psychological or cognitive processes involving private speech, interior dialogue, discourse thinking, and so forth. These cognitive processes are standardized versions of dramatized interpretations of on-going features of a setting. In other words, the "stories" or narrative sequences that occur to one in a setting are standardized versions of norms, models, themes, etc., which are familiar to regulars on a daily round. Hence the poison story that occurs to you as you taste the soup today. The story line is standard ("Maybe It's Poisoned ! ") but the occasion or episode is unique ("This one, today, right now!"). Thus, there is a reversal in the polarity of the two dynamic processes with respect to the dialectics of unique vs. standard:

There are interesting deductions here, which will only be briefly mentioned. This theory called enactology implies that behavior in social settings has at least two independent aspects or versions. The forward version is explanatory in the synthetic sense: it offers a progression, a development, a phasal notation. It is the study of morphology, of etiology, of growth, of evolution, of metamorphosis, of transformation and so forth. In the hexagrammatic structure of behavior (see Index) outlined in CHARTS [T/2; 22-251, the forward progression is indicated by the ranking of the six components from Phase I ("White") to Phase VI ("Black"). In the writings of 19th century humanists, the morphology of the forward progression of behavior wa9 referred to as necessity and contrasted with choice.

"Choice" in behavior entails a psychology of predection. Predictability implies degrees of it, hence, unpredictability, as well. For the humanists of our twentieth century, scientific rigor a~l prediction are anti-freedom, hence, anti- choice. Thus we are caught on the pendulum between necessity and choice.

Choice and prediction imply the possibility of "control. " In the hexagrammatic system, the backward direction entails choice, hence predictabilitv This is the analytic technique, from Phase VI to Phase I. Different methodologies issue from the two directions. (~ additional discussion on this in Jakobovits and Nahl, 1975-77, Vol. 1, Series II, Appendix. )

One final note. CHARTS [T/2. 21-25] are keyed to one another using the hexagrammatic notation system we've described. There are many implications and deductions that may be drawn from such a conceptual framework, some of which may be empirically demonstrable. To practice the extraction of proposi- tional relations, note how correspondences in morphological structure lead to new statements of conceptual relations now otherwise apparent--thus justifying the efforts in learning the notation system.

For instance, the triangles [A . B. C. ] and [AA. BB. CC. ] in CHART T/21 summate to produce the triangle [A. B. C. ] in CHART T/23. Therefore, we can note further properties of [involvement] and [spontaneity] which are not apparent in T/21; namely, that

[SOCIAL SETTING] ------A------> [INVOLVEMENT] is a dynamic that has three components: [community/setting/society] (T/23). Going further, we note that

[ COMMUNITY/SETTING/SOCIETY]

is a trigrammatic conceptual unit corresponding to the light trigram, i. e., Phases [I/II/III]. This may now be taken in at at least two directions. One is to go to CHART T/2 and explore the morpholofical properties of this trigram (i.e., it corresponds to

[FORM/STRUCTURE/FUNCTION]

of behavior). Or, a second direction is to note that it is titled territoriality (Part 2, T/23) which then leads to strung out propositions in the form seen in Part 6, T/23.

Parts One Two/TD>



ThIs algorithmic procedure may be followed with the other components and subcomponents in any direction. The gain in conceptual power is considerable. For instance, in the example traced above we started with the gross notion that the setting somehow get us involved, and end up with more specific and complex notions such as:

- our involvement in the setting is a function of territoriality;
- territoriality has three dynamic components called community, setting, and society;

- community is territoriality that is operative for all and is

investigatable through the study of typology, philology, psychology, etc.;

- setting is territoriaIity that implicates traits ascribable to people generally, and is investigatable through sociodynamics, engineering, pragmatics, etc.

-society is territoriality that encompasses the setting of an event, and is investigatable through glossaries, statistics, jurisprudence, etc.;

-explanations about involvement that employ the forward progression of territoriality ([COMMUNITY --> SETTING --> SOCIETY]) implies a necessary developmental sequence from formative components (W= Phase I) (i.e., TYPOLOGY OPERATIVE FOR ALL), to functional components (G = Phase III) (i.e., DAILY LOG ENTRIES FOR THE SETTING OF AN EVENT). These functional components of territorality thus illuminate the further workings of involvement in settings.


back to my homepage Dr. James' Homepage Back to Leon James Articles