repeated, the head no longer moves, but the ears might. The third or fourth time, the ears no longer respond, but the EEG instruments still go wild. How- ever, as the noise is repeated a few more times, the EEG waves decrease in intensity, until nothing responds to the noise. The cat is fu11y adapted to the new level of the auditory surrounds. Like us, its brain forgets about the background noise. And this is where the secret is.
If you can turn yourself from foreground into background in the perception of another organism, then it will automatically adapt to you and accept you as normal. Co-presence and repetition are the two methods I know that allow you to affect the adaptation level. Co-presence means that you arrange the environment so that the animal cannot pursue it's normal daily round activities without your being present. For example, you feed the animal and stay in its presence while it eats. Repetition means that the more times you have this exchange, the more the animal accepts you as normal background.
There are many factors to be considered (e.g., "generalization gradients'') and I 11 tell you about them in subsequent stories. But the essential is to know about and understand the animal's normal adaptation level and to work yourself into that background with co-presence and repetition.

Webster's reports the etymological derivation for social as related to Latin sequi and Indo-European *sekw, both meaning to follow. Apparently in 01d English, this rootappearing as secq, meant a man, a warrior. Thus, the idea of social which we inherit from tradition embodies the dynamic image of two individuals of unequal status, a leader and a follower.
Social psychologists use the term dyad (from Greek dyo, meaning "two") to refer to the simplest possible social arrangement: the pair. The Latin socius was reportedly used to refer to "companion." In contemporary Rumanian, socia is the word that appears on farms where we would use "spouse". The study of dyads is therefore the investigation of pairs, and this leads us to the human interaction processes: interactions, transactions, interpersonal relationships, role behaviors.
The idea expressed in the saying, No man is an island, is translated in social psychology into the single-member group, or monad. Monads, dyads, triads, dozens, companies, thousands, millions--these are some of the group units that enter into our daily conceptions. For example, we say that: the psychotic killer is a solitary monad; the couple plus mother-in-law is a troubled triad; dozens of people descended upon Long's Sunday Sale; two reserve companies were brought into action; thousands of people invaded Diamond Head crater on New Year's Day; millions of Jews were gassed to death in German concentration camps during the Second World War.
Grouping is a dynamic concept. Field theory principles give us the under- standing that all movement and change occurs in a unified system called region (or zone, place, locus, etc.). Regions are populated spaces, i.e., surfaces with spot locations; each spot has associated with it the local conditions of accessibility. In other words, regions are demarcated by lines and boundaries. A line, or boundary, is a separator: it changes accessibility to spots. For example, by putting up a fence, you change the accessibility of your property; by drawing county and country lines, communities set up regions with varying rules (laws) concerning property rights, taxes, degree of law enforcement, education, language, and so on. These rules define a locality as a sociodynamic region, and set the condition of life for its inhabitants. All movement and change within social systems is calculated as a resultant of sociodynamic forces acting upon the individuals. These forces are "on" and "off" depending on situational conditions. Hence, the study of local settings and circumstances ofactual events, leads us to identify the situational forces acting upon individuals. The forces of group structure will now be discussed.
Suppose you are in a large social psychology class and you are instructed to form "investigation teams." One effect you'd expect is group size: it makes a difference to you whether you're forming dyads, triads, or a team of a dozen. For example, in a dyad meeting for ten minutes, you're sure to find out some things about your partner; however, in a much larger group, no one may find out anything about you, because you may not get a chance to say anything at all. Another effect you'd expect is communication network: if a leader is elected or appointed, communication of ideas will be channeled towards the person occupying that position, and instructions will be channeled through the leader "out to" the members. A third effect you might expect is interpersonal relations. Some people get along, may like each other and form

"coalitions" or sub-groups. They talk more to each other, support each other, seek each other out, openly make declarations about each other that are favorable and binding, or bonding. Others may feel antagonistic, competitive they may express hostility, dislike, avoidance of one another. One member might be made into the excluded monad, and isolated from the rest of the group he may be a deviant through talk, gestures, or appearance.
These dynamic concepts are familiar to us because community life is group life, and our adjustments over the years have taught us the consequences of our interactions in many groups: nuclear family; extended family; job; friend, date; island; profession; etc. We are always members of many groups and our behaviors in each of these is influenced by the forces set up in them through interpersonal relationships.
Sociometry. Studying groups and identifying field forces in them requires particular techniques for keeping track: "what happened when" in the sequence of the 3roup's evolution in time. Social psychologists and sociologists use a technique called sociograms to obtain a dynamic map of the group region. Webster's reports that "sociogram" derives from socius (Latin meaning "social" and "companion") and -gram (Greek meaning "something written down or recorded.' Thus we inherit the idea in sociogram that the events of interpersonal relationships can be written out or a record made thereof. The word sociometry rhymes with geometry and shares with it the root of -metry,a/> (Greek meaning "measurement"). Webster's defines sociometry as "the quantitative study of group relationships." A second meaning is identified as an Americanism and says that sociometry is "a technique for measuring what members of a group perceive, think, and feel about other members of the group."
Newcomb, Turner, and Converse (1965)identify attraction as the most pervasive and general force influencing group structure. In field theory conception, attraction and repulsion, are basic (universal general) forces acting upon the objects in a region. Gravity and electro-chemical attraction operate at all levels of movement and change. Socio-dynamics identifies the forces of attraction in interpersonal relationships: liking, expressing attitudes, choosing others, agreeing with, supporting, and so on. Note that forces are directional: liking increases attractional forces as indicated by closer social distance and the sharing of intimacies--while dislike decreases the forces of attraction, imparting an opposite pressure leading to greater social distance, less sharing, etc.
According to Newcomb et al. (1965, p. 292), "The structure of anything refers to the relationships among its parts, and the attraction structure of a group is thus a description of interpersonal relationships of attraction and aversion among its members." How does one obtain the attraction structure of a group?
You may agree that the attractive force you feel towards another takes expressive forms: you express or show positive behaviors towards the person in some proportion to the strength of the attraction. The expression of positive behavior in interpersonal relationships manifests in several modalities of interaction: verbal statements of approval, choosing someone for a partner, accepting the person's presence, sharing and cooperating, supporting, and so on. One modality of interaction that has received a

great deal of attention by social psychologists, is that of cognitive dynamics. This includes the study of social attitudes. Here, attraction translates as the attribution of reward value to another person.
Interaction Process Analysis. Bales, and his collaborators, evolved a theoretical system for the understanding of personality in social interactional terms. The basic Meadian concept of the objective self is expressed by the idea that "We are what we are through our relationship to others" (Mead, 1934, p.379), and again, "The individual experiences himself as such, not directly, but only indirectly, from the particular standpoints of other individual members of the same social group, or from the generalized standpoint of the social group as a whole to which he belongs" (Mead, 1934, p. 138). This idea also forms the departing assumption for the work of Bales on personality and interpersonal behavior (Bales, 1970).
For Bales, personality is an abstract construct; it is made up of an individual's perceptions and evaluations of social stimuli. The way a person perceives and evaluates himself (self-concept, self-image) is precisely equivalent to the way others perceive him: the same stimulus dimensions are invoked in both cases. Therefore, an individual's personality is an expression of the effects he has on other individuals. These inter-personal effects are measurable in the context of a group through inter-personal rating techniques, or "sociograms," whereby every member of the group rates every other member, so that the composite ratings of others constitute the personality of each. In this manner, different composites emerge, each being a type distinguishable from other types. Bales' system offers a typology of 27 personality types. Through various rating techniques, an individual's effects on others can be summarized as falling into one of the 27 types called group roles. Once a person is typecast, one can state expectations and predictions about how this person would affect others in group situations.


1. Does he (or she) seem to receive a lot of interaction from others?
2. Does he seem personally involved in the group?
3. Does be seem valuable for a logical task?
4. Does he assume responsibility for task leadership?
5. Does he speak like on autocratic authority?
6. Does he seem dominating?
7. Does he seem to demand pleasure and gratification?
8. Does he seem to think of himself as entertaining?
9. Does he seem warm and personal?
10. Does he arouse your admiration?
11. Does he seem especially to be addressed when others hove serious
opinions about which they want confirmation?
12. Does he seem to stand for the most conservative ideas and beliefs
of the group?
13. Does he always seem to try to speak objectively?
14. Does he seem to feel that his individual independence is very
15. Does he seem to feel that others ere generally too conforming to
conventional social expectations?

16. Does he seem to reject religious belief generally?
17. Do you feel liking for him or her?
18. Does he seem to make others fee2 he admires them?
19. Does he seem to believe that equality and humanitarian concern
for others is important?
20. Does he seem very introverted, serious, shy, introspective?
21. Does he seem to believe that it is necessary to sacrifice the
self for higher values?
22. Does he seem resentful?
23. Does he seem to accept failure end withdrawal for himself?
24. Does he seem to withhold cooperation passively?
25. Does he seem to identify with some group of underprivileged person?
26. Does he tend to devaluate himself?

(This key is used for Forms A, B, C.)
1. No = D
2. No = DN
3. No = DNB
4. No = DB
5. No = DPB
6. No = DP
7. No = DPF
8. No = DF
9. No = DNF
10. No = N
11. No = NB
12. No = B
13. No =PB
14. No = P
15. No = PF
16. No = F
17. No = NF
18. No = UN
19. No = UNB
20. No = UB
21. No = UPB
22. No = UP
23. No = UPF
24. No = UF
25. No = UNF
26. No = U
Yes = U
Yes = UP
Yes = UPF
Yes = UF
Yes = UNF
Yes = UN
Yes = UNB
Yes = UB
Yes = UPB
Yes = P
Yes = PF
Yes = F
Yes = NF
Yes = N
Yes = NB
Yes = B
Yes = PB
Yes = DP
Yes = DPF
Yes = DF
Yes = DNF
Yes = DN
Yes = DNB
Yes = DB
Yes = DPB
Yes = D
The accompanying table presents one of the three basic forms used by Bales to obtain a person's group role. You may practice using the system by thinking of a particular person you know with whom you often spend time together along with others, as in a small group (family, friends, work, school). You must answer "Yes" or "No" for every item. Next you tally the scores using the accompanying key, provided by Bales. Total up the tallies for each of the six basic types. For example:

In this example, the rated person received 0 "Yes" responses falling in category U (see KEY),8 for category D, and so on. Next you subtract D from U, N from P, B from F, giving us 2U, 8P, l0F as the results of the subtraction. anything less than 3, gets dropped. The final estimate of this individual's personality style is therefore "PF." Now you look up "PF: in the detailed tables provided by Bales (not shown here) and read its specifications. Doing this for group role type PF, we read statements of the following type:
Type PF: Toward Altruistic Love

1. How He Sees Himself and How Others See Him.
- he seems himself as the good child of a good parent
- he sees the good in others rather than the bad
- he is likely to feel and express admiration for others
- he is unlikely to rate others as dominating

2. His Place in the Interaction Network.
- because he expresses positive attitudes towards others, he is
drawn into participation by others
- he functions in the group as a vehicle in the advancing of
others' ideas

3. What Ideas and Values Will He Express?
- expresses an attitude of devotional love
- all men are children of God needing care and affection (optimistic
- parents symbolize right authority
- trust, goodness, and self-knowledge can overcome anti-social
- group loyalty, solidarity and progress are desirable

4. The Quality of His Interaction.
- tends frequently to express agreement with others (friendly,
- evokes opinions from others and solicits interactions
- actively engages in group tasks
- does not express tension through laughing and dramatizing

5. Conflicts and Coalitions With Others.
- types DNB, DN, UNB, and UN do not like his "pie in the sky",
"do-gooder" attitude
- in general, he is resented by those who are dissatisfied with
the group (anti-conservative elements)

Personality Traits.
- conventionality (masculinity for males, femininity for females)
- repression of aggression
- moderately sociable and dominant

7. How He Sees His Parents.
- low discrepancy between parents
- parents are optimistic and for idealism
- parents are affectionate and loving

8. His Effect on Group Satisfaction.
- facilitates group's attainment of goals
- facilitates group's interpersonal relations
The summary characteristics of each personality type (or group role) were arrived at empirically through a statistical technique known as factor analysis By administering several hundred items under various group conditions, Bales and his co-workers were able to correlate them and note clusters of traits that go together ("factors"). When all the data are inter-correlated in a huge matrix, 27 clusters or typologies were identified and each type given a name. Now we need to explore the interactional characteristics of the 27 types. For this, Bales used an approach he called Interaction Process Analysis. A summary of the categories appears in the accompanying table (see next page):

An observer sits near-the group and with a specially prepared form records who talks to whom and the type of intervention it indicates: stating an opinion, asking a question, laughing, telling a story, and so on. The inter- action types for each group member are then tabulated and a key used for determining each person's type. For example:
InteractionLow ScoresHigh Scores
1. Seems Friendly
2. Dramatizes
3. Agrees
4. Gives Suggestion
5. Gives Opinion
6. Gives Information
7. Asks for Information
8. Asks for Opinion
9. Asks for Suggestions
10. Disagrees
11. Shows Tension
12. Seems Unfriendly
You can see from this table that the PF type reviewed earlier is characterized most centrally by his tendency to agree, as observed in his interactions in the group. Bales has demonstrated that sub-groupings, or coalitions within a group, are formed by individuals who have compatible personality types. He uses illustrative maps to plot each member's position in the group. A simplified example, appears below:

This map shows that coalitions (lines) tend to occur in a group as a function of the members' personality type. Cluster a, is made up of 3 individuals, all of whom are high on U. Cluster b is a loose organization of moderates in U, while cluster c and d are on the D and P sides, respectively. Isolate; (0) appear in the N part of the space. Also noticeable, are key individuals who belong to more than one coalition, their function being to keep the overall network in a communicative structure.

You will have noted the recurrence, in Bales' system of typology, of letters U, D, P, N, F, and B. These letters stand for what he calls the value direction within group "space." In other words, a group is defined in field theory terms as a sociocultural space or region. Movement within group space is possible only in three directions, according to this system of keeping track. The three directions are defined as follows:

Thus, a person's position in group space is to be plotted simultaneously within all three dimensions. A person high on U, P, and F earns the type UPF An opposite type to UPF is DNB, i.e., one who earns high scores on D, on N, and on B, simultaneously. Pure types such as U or P or N (etc.) are high in that direction while being insignificant (near zero) in the other directions. Some characteristics of the pure types are given by Bales as follows:
1. TYPE U = Upward Direction
- title: Toward Material Success and Power
- is seen by others as active, talkative, powerful
- either friendly or unfriendly
- in the realization of his values, moves toward success and power
- strong believer in science and money

2. TYPE D = Downward Direction
- title: Toward Devaluation of the Self
- is seen by others as passive, powerless, self-effacing, and non-
- accepts others but without enthusiasm or desire (inactive, inert)
- neither friendly nor unfriendly
- in the realization of his values, moves toward devaluation of the
- fatalistic outlook

3. TYPE F = Forward Direction
- title: Toward Conservative Group Beliefs
- is seen by others as primarily task- and value-oriented
- instrumental, analytical, and problem-solving
- tries to shape group beliefs, opinions, and precedent
- impersonal affectively neutral
- either religious or non-religious

The27 types (26 + 1 Average on everything) are thus combinations of the three basic dimensions. For example:
TYPF UF = Upward - Forward Direction

- title: Toward Group Loyalty and Cooperation
- takes initiative of leadership
- ascendent, value- and task-oriented
- impersonal, affectively neutral
- in the realization of his values, moves toward group loyalty
and cooperation

TYPE DNB: Downward-Negative-Backward Direction

- title: Toward Failure and Withdrawal
- is seen by others as passively alienated and unfriendly
- cynical toward values, rejects task-orientation
- discouraged, dejected, ready to resign
- in the realization of his own values, seems to be trying to
confirm his own failure and moves toward withdrawal
You may wish to pursue this interesting and productive system by studying Bales' book. Such an investigation is likely to give you a better understanding of group structure and individual behaviors within a group. The theme in this kind of approach is the idea that a person's behavior is to be assessed by the effects he produces on others, and that these effects fall into a relatively small numbers of types. Once an individual is typecast, his behaviors are to be understood as resultants of these group defined tendencies (directions).

Synopsis 9: Structures of Interpersonal Relationships.
Interpersonal relationships take the form of interaction at the dyadic level. A ''dyad" is a group of two; similarly, "triads" are three-person groups, and so on. Group structure is a function of interactional patterns: who talks to whom, when, and how, i.e. what are the transactions that take place in the group.
"Sociograms" are mappings of group structure, i.e. making a record of "what members of a group perceive, think, and feel about other members of the group." For example, by asking every member of a group to rank other members in terms of their "attractiveness", "liking", or other personal choice, one obtains a sociogram that maps the group's "attraction structure."
Sociograms reflect the principle that an individual's "personality" can be equated with the effects he has on other individuals. In the system of sociometry evolved by Bales and called "interaction process analysis," small task-groups are observed and the interactions are classified into types of exchanges (e.g. A talks to B, Asking a Question, or A makes B laugh by telling a joke, etc.). These interaction types are added up for each individual in terms of initiating and receiving. The resultant matrix is then transformed according to a table into "group roles." Each individual is assigned a group role from a limited set of group role types (27 in Bales' system of classification). Another method consists in assessing a person's group role indirectly through an interpersonal rating form answered by each member about every other member. The score each person gets is looked up in a table which then identifies the person's group role, as in the first method.

Bird Stories (8) by Leon James

A previous story (7) refers to the scientific concept of generalization gradients in adaptation level. This means that after a particular sensory stimulus (noise, sight of an object, taste, touch, movement) recurs unchanged, it quickly enters the range of perceptual normalcy or adaptation level. In other words, it fades into the background and is apparently forgotten. Now if you change the stimulus in some way, the adaptation to it ceases. However, if the change is very small, it only takes one or two repetitions to re-adapt; but if the change is large, adaptation level is disturbed and the organism now responds with full, or near full, intensity--until the new adaptation. This business of determining just how much or how little to change the stimulus to get particular effects, is called by learning theorists "gradients of generalization."
The operation of "gradients" of stimulus similarity and difference, and their effects on birds, is easily noted when observing a backyard aviary. Say you station yourself comfortably in front of the aviary. The birds stay away from the corner or side where you are. Clearly, your visual presence has disturbed their adaptation level, and this is visible in their behavior (avoidance). Less than five minutes later, the birds act like they've forgotten you, and you now form part of their background.
You change your position to another spot three feet away. Now the same things happen, but a little earlier, one minute instead of four. You move back and forth a few more times and you notice that, after a while, your movement has adapted. Now you can play a trick on them: you change your regular style of moving--say a little faster and jerky instead of smooth. suddenly the birds notice you again. Their activities are again disturbed or affected You can continue your antics in front of the bird cage, demonstrating the generalization gradient for adaptation level. Whenever you make a novel gesture or sound, the degree-of its "notice value" will be proportional to the degree to which the new stimulus departs from stimuli to which the birds are already habituated.
You can go inside the aviary and repeat the demonstrations. For example, if you sit or stand without moving, the birds will soon treat you as an inert post. If you control- your movements slowly enough, you'll be producing a smooth generalization curve ("gradient") so that you can sneak up on them without evoking the avoidance response. And that's a secret known to all bird lovers!

A community implies individuals living together. The morphemic element *co- can be found in a dictionary. It means "together with," as in ''co-owner" and 'co-operation.' Thus, community (*co= short for *com-) is the living together as in a city, group fellowship, i.e., being co-participants to a regular and recurrent form of exchange. The morphemic element "-munity means "public exchange", hence

CO-MUNITY = {*co- i.e., "together with"
{*MUNITY, i.e., "public exchange"

In summary, community implies a social setting for routine exchanges between individuals (= Daily Round).
Everyday routine exchanges between individuals form a socio-cultural environment. We may elevate this statement into a sociopsychological principle by saying that routine exchanges create social settings. Let us exp10re some of the implications of this principle.
One method is to do a discourse analysis of the sentence "ROUTINE EXCHANGES CREATE SOCIAL SETTINGS." Perhaps we could string it out downward and follow each component's semantic contribution to the whole sentence, thus:





repeated and practiced, hence, produces inter-personal

ritualized inter-actions, i.e., transactions; transactions
imply agreed-upon procedures, rituals, rules;

actualize or make real; the manifestation of natural phenomena;

non-solitary individuals; implies an instinctive tendency to
aggregate and do routine things together with others or in

the place and time where the co-participants interact, either
in reality, or, in supposition through symbolic access rituals
(e.g., having an exchange with someone in a daydream);

title given to the principle "ROUTINE EXCHANGES CREATE

The above analysis separates out the individual ideas that compose the "Daily Round Principle" but leaves out the specification of how the five component ideas add up to the principle titled "Daily Round." To see this composite structure we could transform the sentence into a conceptual diagram, thus:

The conceptual diagram or CHART makes visible important characteristics of community life as these are derivable from the Daily Round Principle. The diagram makes a number of stipulations or definitions which can be visually read:
(i) there are six stages to the daily round;
(ii) the daily round is a circular or cyclical process so that the end
of the 6th stage also begins the first stage;
(iii) the six stages succeed each other in a fixed order;
(iv) the first three stages form a class (unshaded or light) contrastive
with the last three stages (shaded or dark);
(v ) the light trigrammatic component ([I + II + III]) is called
"ethnodynamics" and comprises the complex concept of "transactional
rituals of groups in time and place," i.e., settings for social
(vi) the dark trigrammatic component is called "psychodynamics" and
comprises the complex concept of "behaviors situated in a frame
set up by symbolically expressed routines", i.e., presentations
occur within a context or access frame established by convention
or routine.
Let us recapitulate the argument thus far. We are discussing the dynamics of community life, or SOCIODYNAMICS. Since "community" means "public exchanges together", it is obvious that there must be a time and a place and a medium of exchange and, as well, a way of keeping track of the exchanges. These in turn may entail still further conditions and processes. The diagram attempts to summarize all the categories of conditions that are necessary to account for

the possibility of community life. As well, the diagram specifies the natural order of these conditions, from beginning to end, and recycled. Such a diagram will be referred to as a hexagram (*hexa- = 6; -gram = ordered components or stages). This particular hexagram is entitled "The Daily Round Principle" and can be adequately paraphrased by the sentence "ROUTINE EXCHANGES CREATE SOCIAL SETTINGS." This sociodynamic ecology is made up of "field forces" that act upon the individual and influence behavior. This influence manifests itself in framed sequences of behavior (Stages V + VI). This refers to the obvious fact that-individual behavior is sequenced in time and in order of component behaviors. As well, sequenced behavior components have natural "breaking points" where one sequence ends and another begins. These breaking points are boundary markers or lines, hence they frame the behavior sequences into a unit we can call "presentations," or behavioral presentations, or performances.
We've explored through discourse analysis and the hexagram system what the conceptual components are of the daily round in the context of community. Let us now apply these analyses to the actual world we know. Where do we find community? According to the Daily Round Principle we should find community life whenever and wherever routine exchanges occur between particular individuals. It is clear that a solitary individual does not live in community since there are no routine exchanges with others to create sociodynamic settings. Thus, our biblical forefather Adam, the First Man, did not live in human community though he may have shared daily rounds with beats, plants, and angels. When Eve was added to this world, the original human couple was formed The dyad creates a joint daily round as well as routine exchanges; yet one cannot imagine a planetary world that does not have external or additional elements to the dyad. In the case of Adam and Even, the humanized voices of God and the Snake make a verbal community of four. In the general sociobiological case, the reproductive couple always entails an earlier couple and a subsequent pair, i.e., a logical and genetic minimum of six. Thus, the community life of social settings always involves a multiplicity of individuals interlocked in a time/place sequence.
In actuality, our experience of community is always contemporaneous and synchronous. That means that in our observations of community life there is always a community already in existence, and thus, we cannot observe the creation of community, but only its survival. What we are observing when we are-analyzing community life is the process of culture, i.e., the survival attempts of individuals organized into a social system. That is, a society.
The daily routines of a group constitute a society within which community life exists. Society is thus a frame or context within which community life is encompassed and where it strives, maintains itself, acquires character and predictability. This we call traditions, and conventions, and rituals. Community life within human societies has traditions of ideas, conventions of conduct, and rituals of exchange.

Community vs. Society. Exchanges in social settings is the phrase we use to refer to societies that are accessible to our observation, and hence they constitute the context of social psycho1ogy. Exchanges in social settings are always perceived by the observer as occurring within natural units or episodes. These episodes form the subject matter of social psychology. Episodes appear to us as a narrative, i.e., a sequenced description whose components correspond to a sequence of events in time and place (see "dramatic movement"). We can listen to someone's narrative of an episode of events; we can also create a story-line in our imaginings as we observe our surround. In both cases we are acting as Witness, i.e., as self-observers, or as observers of our selves.
This point deserves emphasis. A society can function independently of being observed. Thus, ants continue with their business even though we observe them in a terrarium and human groups have survived for centuries without outside contact (observation). As well, societies thrive whether or not the events therein are recorded or kept track of either within or without. Human pre-literate societies have functioned prior to our own and are still being discovered today (e.g., in the Philippines). We are told by scholars that Ancient Hawaiians, like many pre-literate societies, had a complex family accounting system, OHANA. These "extended family" connections were kept track of through orally recited chants that were transmitted to the first born or his/her functional designate (Pukui, Haertig, & Lee, 1972). When LAJ was a child in a Chassidic family in Rumania in the 1930's, he remembers witnessing the practice of keeping track of charitable contributions through an oral incantation in the synagogue on Saturdays. Because pious Chassidim observe the Sabbath prohibition against writing and other weekly "chores", they are forced to adopt an oral method of accounting: a trained Leader, who must be familiar with the family structure of the congregation, incants the names of the contributor and his family along with the amount pledged during the ceremony. With each addition of a pledge, the Leader incants it out loud along with all the previous pledges. Later that evening, when Sabbath ends, the proceedings are written out.
These two cases document the possibility of oral traditions of accounting through recitation of chants containing information. However, a distinction needs to be made between observing societies from without and witnessing community life from within. If we observe an ant colony, we act as observers from without. As such, we can only observe societal behavior; we cannot account for the community life of ants. But when we observe our own activities and experiences, we are witnessing our community life, i.e., observing it from within. Thus, descriptions of societies will be different from descriptions of community life. The latter can be described and reported by witnesses only. This is not to deny that community life does not occur in ant societies but only to stress that since ants do not report, we have no access to what they witness.
The description of society and the description of community are the two objective methodologies available to social psychology. When a social psychologist talks about behavior in social settings as an outside observer, the account is about societal factors, when talking about behavior in social settings as an inside participant or witness, the account is about community life. The following diagram explores some of the differences between these two methodologies:


[=the study of routine behaviors in social settings]
SOCIETY Community
[=observer acts as if from
outside the group]
[=observer acts as a co-
participant, member from within]

The diagram depicts the methodology of social psychology to comprise five distinct technologies of investigation. Each technological approach yields its own particular information.
Experimental Set-ups. This investigative strategy can be outlined by the following diagram:

This frame diagram shows that observations of society through the experimental set-up ("results") simulates a social setting (shaded area) through instructions

(iv) which are acted out by subjects (iii) recruited within a research organization (ii) having a legitimate or recognized place in society-at-large (i). For this technique to work there must already be a tradition for experimentation creating the availability of individuals who are capable of acting out the role of Subject. This is true whether the Subject is to respond verbally or through a motor response that can be recorded visually by an observer or by an instrument. Note that experiments are set-up so that the investigator and the subject agree to ignore, or accept, tacitly, the existence of frames (i) through (iv) while the results are being produced during the experiment. Before and after "briefings" insure that the simulation comes off within legal and ethical bounds.
In is relevant to ask what happens to the individual Witness who acts in the role of a Subject. This interest has been made the central issue in cognitive social psychology, i.e. that branch of social psychology that attempts to map the mind by describing the symbolic activity of Subjects. The following diagram shows some of the topics of contemporary cognitivist social psychology:
The Subject as Witness. Let us now take some everyday examples that support the validity of our definitions. In lawcourts, a person's report doesn't count until he ascends the witness stand. Furthermore, and perhaps more centrally relevant, is the fact that the witness' testimony is "cleared" by the judge (= censored under sanctions of "contempt of court"). What gets censored, or treated as "inadmissible" evidence, is of course, as we all know, "judgmental values," "subjective perceptions," "personal opinions," etc. "Just stick to the facts!" is the socio-legal counterpart we encounter on the daily round!

An important question: Why are these excluded? The answer: because there is not an exact correspondence between the notation system (report) and the event ("what happened"). The up-grading of the Subject (any person, anywhere, any time) to that of Witness is empowered or enabled by the Court of Law (surrounding rules; Law and Order). Our society depends on the existence of Witnesses who are the architects of signed declarations, depositions, and observations under oath. Bank checks, citizenship papers, and promissory notes or contracts all depend on the validity of the assumption that there is an exact correspondence between the report and the event.
As we were interested in the objective description of behavior in social settings, we were quite naturally attracted to objective methods of reporting that already existed all around us, namely, the Witness' deposition. We realized at one point that we must separate out, as the legal community does, forms that are used to collect opinions/evaluations/judgments from formats of reporting that censor out these subjective reports, and retain only the objective report of the Witness. What kind of a format is that?
Again we took our cues from the surrounding community. Subjects turn into Witnesses as a result of training received from the lawyer! Of course, today, we meet the lawyers in our living rooms (more than an idiot box!!), and as the Watergate proceedings on T.V. have demonstrated, bureaucratic offices attract people who enact their roles on the Witness stand with admirable skill and verve. This socio-legal literacy allows the mere Subject to be empowered as the all important Witness without whom facts cannot be determined, and therefore, reality cannot be reconstructed. There lives or perishes history!
Thus, natural history (which is science) and history (which is reality reconstructed) share the central feature of being verbal discourse that allows for the possibility of reconstructing reality through Witnesses. The trick (or methodology) of maintaining capital "W", i.e. of achieving a reporting format that is objective and, has an exact correspondence to events, lies in a marking system: "legalese" is what we call the lawyer's "jargon." In our jargon of ethnosemantics and psycholinguistics, we call it saorogat; which is an acronym whose letters spell out the words self-analytic-objective reporting of on-going authentic transactions!!!
We've given a description of this technique elsewhere, and you may wish to consult the index of our book (James & Gordon, 1974). Here, it is necessary for you to see where the difference lies between a summative or recollected report, and a report that "authentically" reports what you're "witnessing" about what's going on. There are many examples from everyday life where the distinction is officially" or explicitly marked (annotated). For example, when you are asked to fill out an end-of-semester course evaluation form, you are provided with a notation system to encode your feelings and opinions about the course. You might, for instance, be instructed to circle a number from 1 to 5 indicating how strongly you agree or disagree with a statement of evaluation or opinion (e.g., "This is the best course I've ever taken" or "The instructor was not always prepared."). These are called summative evaluative reports in the literature on educational testing (they "summate" your recollected experiences into a general statement applying to

"the course as a whole") (see PP. ). Note very carefully the function of such forms: they gather declarations rather than objective descriptions. Since these declarations do not necessarily represent what happened, they cannot be used as objective, natural history data of students' actual experiences. To get at that, we need: (i) reports of on-going events as they occur, no later. As well, we need, (ii) to restrict the format of the students' reporting to records of their observations, not anything else.
A familiar format of reporting that meets these two criteria is the rapid fire description of the radio announcer covering an affair, game, or match. He reports observations of on-going events, and whenever he says anything else, he marks the difference so we know when he is recollecting, opinionating, or merely describing. The technique of mere description that is required in the socio-legal literacy of "saorogatese" is consonant with the definition of Mere Witnessing as presented in Buddha's teachings. As we interpret these scriptural writings, mere witnessing was employed as a daily round technique for the training of monks. Like the ethnomethodological trick of garfinkeling (after Sociologist Harold Garfinkel, 1967, who presented the technique), the Zen Buddhist practice of 24-hr.-a-day meditation, rests on a very astute principle, this could be phrased as follows:
The practice of reporting on-going
observations improves the observer's

As we see it, Buddha exploited this principle for pedagogic reasons. In our terms, we would say that training in socio-legal literacy--saorogatese--increases self-awareness. It is this very principle that we are applying in this course of study. The approach provides training in objectifying one's experiences on the daily round through the use of particular formats of reporting. These formats serve the role of specifying what you need to report, and in what detail. The reason you can use this format of reporting is the academic literacy you've already acquired. Academic literacy and socio-legal literacy share the basic feature of objective reporting: the writer and the reader use common agreements as to what an expression means and what conditions fulfill its validity. Psycholinguistics and ethnosemantics are study programs whose practice yield particular notation systems, i.e. formats of reporting events that correspond strictly to mere witnessings, and nothing else.

Synopsis 10: Community as Shared Daily Round.
Social settings are places where routine exchanges occur between individuals who share a daily round of existence. Thus, "community" implies a social setting for routine exchanges on the daily round. Routine exchanges create new social settings. This "Daily Round Principle" orders the character of a community setting. One method of analyzing community settings is to investigate one's daily round in six theoretical stages ordered sequentially (= hexagram). The properties of each stage are suggested in the meaning of the following six titles, one for each stage: [SETTINGS/SOCIAL/EXCHANGES//ROUTINE/ ACCESS/FRAMES/PRESENTATIONS]. A paragraph that uses all six terms may be the following: "Ethnodynamics is the study of how settings govern social exchanges. Psychodynamics is the study of standardized routines marked off by access frames and displayed as presentations to others or to the self. Ethnodynamics + Psychodynamics together give the laws of sociodynamics, i.e. the social forces that shape behavior on the daily round.
A community implies social settings for routine exchanges, but as well, it implies social forces shaping the behavior of its members. Hence behavior is the visible outcome of less visible sociodynamic forces. Sociodynamic forces are of two kinds: those that relate to the setting (ethnodynamics), and those that relate to the individual's performance (psychodynamics). Thus all behavior is "situated behavior", i.e. individual performances of standardized units occasioned by situational circumstances.
Two objective methodologies are available in social psychology for dis- covering the sociodynamic laws of behavior. The first, and oldest in tradition, is the method from within, i.e. training "witnesses" to record objectively their experiences on the daily round. (This is different from both subjective diaries and experimental introspection--neither of which produces objective records.) The second objective methodology is the method from without, i.e. training "investigators" to record other people's behaviors under controlled conditions of observation. The first methodology (objectivity from within) can be called "witnessing community life"; the second methodology (objectivity from without) can be called "observing societal behaviors." Combining the two objective methodologies leads to what we call "the daily round approach to social psychology" where students are both witnesses of their life in community and observers of societal factors. This is why students of Psychology 222 are called "Society's Witnesses."

Bird Stories (9) by Leon James

You already know the secret of adaptation level [see stories (7) and (8)]. Let me tell you a few interesting observations which show how this principle governs much of the life of birds in a backyard aviary.
You sit in a comfortable position next to the wire mesh of the aviary, watching the community in its regular daily round of activities. Suddenly a motorcycle zooms by on the street. The noise disturbs the birds: they stop eating or grooming, they freeze in position, and some individuals fly about in apparent panic, flapping their wings against the walls, or falling off perches. Two minutes later, the motorcycle returns from the opposite direction. You see a similar effect on the birds, but not as strong. Those who previously panicked, are now poised on their perch, as if tensing to take off, but holding it there. When the motorcycle goes by the third time, only the most reactive birds take heed and then, they too adapt. The same observations can be made about airplanes, helicopters, trucks, lawnmowers, outboard motors, and anything else that is unusually noisy.
Now let's move to the visual modality. After the birds adapt to your comings and goings around the aviary, you play a trick on them. The next time you reappear, you have a bright colored towel wrapped around you. Or a hat, or a mask, or anything that sticks out or flaps about. Or even just holding a stick or bright colored object. The birds have immediately noticed the change, and show it by avoidance. I ordinarily use a brown plastic pail to pour fresh water every day into the aviary dish and through the wire mesh. The birds are, of course, totally adapted to this procedure, showing no concern whatsoever, even when the falling water streams by them where they happen to stand, two inches away. One day, I happened to grab a yellow pail of the same shape and size as the brown one. As I approached the aviary in my usual movement, the birds suddenly panicked and flew wildly about. The unexpected switch from brown to yellow was too much for them. It fell outside the generalized gradient of smooth transition.
When a visitor is around our house, I sometimes send him to see the birds, while I stay behind, watching. In some cases the birds accept the presence of the visitor, but in other cases, they greet him with a show of panic. All the visitor sees, of course, is birds flying around and making characteristic noises. But to the knowing witness, the birds are reacting and having a particular exchange with the visitor. I've noticed that the birds show a resistance to adaptation with some people, but to know the cause of it, would take experimental observations. You would have to vary changes in appearance and timing in a systematic way so as to localize precisely along which dimension the differences occur: size, shape, color, movement, proportion, and so on. It would be interesting to find out whether the birds notice voice quality, facial expressions, eye movements, skin shade, and the other socially significant stimuli that humans pay attention to, and which are imbued with emotional significance.

George Herbert Mead (died in Chicago, 1931) is one of the Masters of Social Psychology and is the originator of Social Behaviorism. Most textbooks in Social Psychology and Sociology acknowledge his role in humanizing scientific behaviorism. In Sociology, his direct influence is recognized through the phrase symbolic interactionism, an expression Mead made up and which is now the title of a vigorously ascending paradigm. Mead was a friend and colleague of John Dewey, the eminent American Educator and teacher of William James; the latter is perhaps the most influential American psychologist spanning the l9th and 20th centuries.
Dewey and Mead pursued, each in his own realm, the functional approach of 20th century American pragmatism. Goals and consequences in the visible present, not abstract intangibles of rationcination. Value is function, and function is consequence, and therefore, the value of anything is to be determined by the consequences it brings about. That was pragmatism in Education (Dewey). and in Social Psychology. it was social behaviorism (Mead).
Mead humanized behaviorism in the sense that John B. Watson de-humanized it. Watson's elementary behaviorism summarily and foolishly excises self and consciousness, while Mead's social behaviorism provides a philosophic rationale for the empirical investigation of the self. Naturally, Mead's ideas-were productive in forming new insights about human behavior and life in community, while Watson's ideas led mainly to research with rats. Mead was a socia1 philosopher rather than a "social psychologist" as we would use the terms today. He continues the line of social philosophers that molded the modern Western era of science: Kant, Goethe, Leibniz, Spinoza, Hegel, Marx, Weber, Samuel Johnson, John Dewey, H. L. Mencken. Thus, Mead's contribution allows us to retain in modern behaviorism terms the essentials of psychology's evolution as the study of mind (psyche = mind, in Greek). It is important therefore that we investigate Mead's ideas in some detail. In doing that we set the modern stage that supports the edifice of behaviorism. This is a social behaviorism in that it is centered in community life rather than in the nerves or in the mind.
The accompanying diagrams are our reconstruction and elaboration of Mead's ideas on the origins of the self and current nature of consciousness. We consulted Mead's Philosophy of the Present (1932), Mind, Self, and Society (1934), and The Philosophy of the Act (1938). Though Mead uses such terms as mind, consciousness, experience, self, it should be well understood that he gives only behavioristic definitions for them. That is his great accomplishment.

The first diagram shows the genesis of the self.

Start reading the diagram in the lower right hand corner. There you notice familiar things on your daily round: EDUCATION, SOCIAL MEMRERSHIP, SUB-GROUPS, S0CIAL RELATIONS and PROJECTS. All of these involvements may be titled social participations.
Participation in community life provides direct experience of social environments, i.e. SOCIAL EXPERIENCE. As well, we are part of the social environment as physical organisms, i.e. SOCIAL STRUCTURES. Thus, as the diagram shows, social experience ("mind ") and social structure (physical organism or "body") become the two polar elements of the dialectics that sets up the existence of the self. In other words, the self is the resultant of the interaction between social experience s and social structures.
This entity of the self has a life of its own, called biography. You are a unique individual; there are no duplicates of you. Your biography (record of your life's details) makes a unique personal history. Your self has evolved since bir th, i.e. since the start of social experience. Mead provided a logical explanation for the self in behavioral terms. He taught that the self is an internalized microcosm of the community. Consciousness of the individual was the consciousness of the com munity. But in addition, the self had the property of reflection: it was both mirror and object. Imagine a tree whose trunk and branches are lined with mirrors. The tree will then reflect the objective world, as when a bird approaches or a dog

piddles on it. But it will also reflect itself: its branches will be seen on the trunk and they each will reflect each other's parts. In these reflections, what is "outside" the tree (environment) and "inside" the tree (structural parts), are treated alike--they are all the objects reflected in the mirrors. Thus it is that the tree reflects itself as it reflects other objects: the self is treated as object.
This is Mead's objective point of view. The human self acts as an object to itself--self-objectivity. Self-objectivity is the basis for self- consciousness. When you think, you are reflecting community consciousness, i.e., community as social structure is alive inside you.
Expression is a natural activity of organisms: the inside community exists, as it were, and makes a public impression. from self-expression to interpersonal impression--that is the interplay of social, group life, and is called interaction or transaction. Thus, the bases of human interactions lie in the connection between the selves through expression, i.e. interpersonal communication.
As the diagram shows, communication depends on the correspondence between how the self reacts and how other persons react: the system of reactions of people must be basically the same throughout the community. This, Mead called the generalized other.
In humans, the expressive functions are symbolic, i.e. based on a system of natural language. Thus, human interactions are communicative exchanges. This was Mead's doctrine of symbolic interactionism. Social behaviors were functionally conditioned to community situations through the laws of symbols and the economics of information exchange. Social settings are established by the reification of rules symbolically expressed: ROLES, RULES, GAMES, PRESCRIPTIONS--these symbolic vector forces were the constituent structures of functional behaviors: role taking, role behavior, personality trait, attitude, predisposition, style.
Mead placed the central focus of behaviorism on a principled, and empirically viable, distinction: the distinction between what is objective and what is subjective. This is explored in the second diagram. The objective property of social experience derives from the internalization of community, while the subjective property derives from privacy. Thus, community is objective and privacy is subjective, but both reside inside the individual, in social experience. This, we feel, is Mead's greatest contribution to behaviorism, i.e. the idea that experience has an objective as well as a subjective component. With this double feature, empirical1y distinguished behaviorism retains its humanism: psychology remains the study of mind, self, and consciousness, but as revealed in behavioral investigations. What Titchener's introspectionism could not accomplish, Mead's social behaviorism did, i.e. the experimental study of experience.

In this course of study, we are using our own term of SOCIODYNAMICS, to reflect the objective and subjective modalities of social experience. The objective feature we call ethnodynamics, and for the subjective feature, we use the commonly known term of psychodynamics. Thus, a social occasion is an event which affects your experience both objectively and subjectively. Objective experiential factors are ethnodynamic: they derive from the community: SYMBOLS, WORDS, MEANINGS, LOGIC, and their behavioral consequences in perceptions, interpretations, adjustments, interests, involvements, and soon. Subjective experiential factors are psychodynamic: they derive from private existence: EMOTIONS, FEELINGS, ILLUSIONS, and their behavioral consequences in perception, attention, interpretation, interest, etc.
Mead went to great lengths in his published lectures and writings, to translate the ideas of the great Western social thinkers: the nature of time and place; morphogenesis; epistemology; but as well--perception, imagery, communication, judgment, learning. The third diagram depics Mead's double feature for the individual's social existence: the biologic side in which man's behavior is a function of immediate physical survival mechanisms, and the consciousness side in which man's behavior is a function of reasoning mechanisms. Thus, for man, impulse and reason are the two governing vectors of social behaviors.

The fourth diagram depics Mead's interest in ethical and moral behavior. This gives rise to the double feature of accounting (i.e., symbolically explaining): indicative accounting is the title we use for what Mead himself called gestures following Wundt, for whose ideas he displayed great enthusiasm Indicative accounting is "straight": it says it like it is, was, or will be. It's complement of how it could be, or would be, or should be, can then be called modal accounting. The diagram explores some consequences of this dichotomy.

Synopsis 11: Social Behaviorism.

"Social Behaviorism" is a term originated by George Herbert Mead, a social philosopher of the "Chicago School" from around the turn of the century until the 1930's. John Dewey, founder of American pragmatism in education, and William James, influential member of the functional school in experimental psychology, were colleagues of Mead. John B. Watson, founder of American Strict Behaviorism, was a student in Mead's classes at Chicago (but it is reported they didn't get along intellectually).
According to Mead's-account, the genesis (= origin; etiology) of the "self" starts with social participation (= being a community member) which engenders social experience. The latter is framed, (or, occurs within a context of), social structures, i.e. all individuals develop a unique sequence of standard or common social experiences (= biography). These standard social experiences include the arousal of attitudes toward the self: the self is reacted to in the same manner as one reacts to others (other "selves"). This "self-reflection" is objective since the self is treated as an object to react to, just as one reacts to the self of another. This gives rise to the objective definition of consciousness", i.e. consciousness is the reflection of one's attitudes about the self, or "self-consciousness." Thus, community consciousness and self- consciousness are composed of the same phenomena: the individual internalizes consciousness of community so that it becomes co-extensive with consciousness of the self.
Human interactions are interpersonal expressions of selves communicating with each other through "symbolizing" processes--hence, "symbolic interactionism." The rules of interaction derive from particular social settings which specify role behaviors.

Bird Stories (10) by Leon James

I was curious about the extent to which birds are aware of the work surrounding the aviary. Information on this can be obtained in two ways One is to keep watching the birds, and noticing what they react to. this applies to the shared stimulus world only. You can detect change incoming sounds and noises, as well as see overflying birds, prowling mice, falling leaves, and what not. The second method is to cause some change in the environment and to control the change along known grading For example, by moving your hands and arms a certain distance I'll some of my observations with both these techniques.
The following chart summarizes some of the facts obtained through first method of observing natural stimulus changes in the environment their apparent effects on the birds.
Stimulus Change
Behavioral Effects
Cars, motorcycles, delivery trucks

Overflying birds (silent and

Overflying birds (calling out
and near)

Birds perching in the vicinity,
searching for seeds

Mice running about near or in food

Cat on a hot wire mesh roof

Bird in distress (broken wing,
inexperienced young birds, or the
born handicapped)

New object introduced into cage
( food dish, plaything, branches )
Almost always adapted except for
young birds who have just emerged
their nestbox.

The cockatiels (only) often moving
their heads, adjust their eyes
and appear to peer into the sky

The cockatiels (particularly)
excitedly, using a strident whistle

All adult birds act excited in
noises and flying about (untill

Al1 birds show total asaptation
than the mice who run when a bird
starts feeding ).

Panic when the cat jumps on or
total adaptation when cat sleeps
grooms itself.

Excited involvement by parents
mild interest by others. Quick
adaptation ( first few minutes,

Studied avoidance, adapting growth
depending on object and prior

The systematic change technique was tried with body movement. I stationed myself close to the aviary of the lovebirds, standing a few inches from the front grid. In a minute or two, adaptation occurred. Now I displace my foot two or three inches, keeping the rest of the body still. One of the male love- birds is watching, keeping me carefully in his eye. He cocks his head, peering towards my foot. Nothing moves, and he resumes grooming himself. I move my l foot back, he stops grooming, cocks his head, and peers to the ground.
Now I raise my arm slowly. He stops grooming abruptly and moves a few inches away (inward, on the perch). Now- I raise the other arm. The two arms together extended, appears too much of a change. He suddenly raises himself, flaps his wings, and acts aggressive while making a lot of noise. The other lovebirds immediately join in.
After quiet is restored, I move my hands slowly, while the arms hang by my sides. Similar reactions can be observed. I noticed under these conditions that the birds' reactivity is greatly affected by background conditions. Is it unusually noisy that day? Are the birds grooming, feeding, or actively doing things? The following chart shows a gradient of reactivity which characterizes the birds in our backyard aviary:

This bar graph is only approximate and needs to be checked out by systematic observations (in that case, the graph becomes the hypothesis or prediction). It shows the effect of an intervention such as an average size noise or novel sight during different activities in the aviary. Thus, panic (flying about in

discoordinated fashion) is evoked by an "average stimulus change" only during quiet perching or "sleeping." The same intensity disturbance has less of an effect, as you go to the right on the graph. The least reactive period occurs during an activity which I shall describe in a subsequent story (#12) and for which I find no better label than "praying!"

"Data" is the plural of datum, Latin meaning given (dare = to give). The data make up what is given for theorizing. Data are given in two modalities: observations and reports. Observations are summary titles for facts on a graph; reports are complex propositions for collections of inferences.
Let us examine how this differentiation works in actual instances of scientific theorizing. In the case of experimental data, the calculations are effected on individual numbers that stand for individual reports (not observations). The individual reports are collected either from a subject (person serving in an experiment) or from an experimenter (person serving as the investigator). In both cases the person recounts a message or some information that has been obtained within the context of the experiment ("report" = re- meaning "back," and portare = to carry). Thus, either the subject, or the experimenter, obtains information in the experimental situation, and "carries it back," as a message, for recording, and eventually, for turning into numbers. Reports are therefore informational messages obtained in an experiment by the subject or the experimenter. For instance, you place an "X" on a scale in an experimental procedure; this placement, or choice, is a number that indicates the quantitative aspect of your choice; you are making a report of your feeling, perception, or choice within the confines of the experimental conditions ("scale," "attitude questionnaire," "psycho- physical estimation," "choice within given alternatives"). Similarly, an experimenter may report the information he obtains when he applies an instrument, or measuring device, to a person: for instance, your weight or height, or, your motor response (eyeblink, rate of depressing a key, distance between you and the person you're speaking to, etc.). Thus, whether the information is carried back or recounted by the subject or by the experimenter, the resulting data are about inferences rather than descriptions.
On the other hand, if, instead of carrying back of some information ( - reporting), you encode it directly as it happens ( = description), you are neither acting as a subject, nor as an experimenter, but rather as a witness. The following diagram shows the relationships to be considered:

If you are wondering why all of this is necessary, you are like us who are wondering at times, sitting in a waiting room, why all of this waiting is necessary! Somehow there always manages to be a series of events which, "in retrospect," offers a rational explanation for the necessity of the waiting. So it is necessary for us to take refuge, for a little while longer, in the academic role relationship which forms our conduct: we have something complicated to present, and our presentation is time consuming, tediously eating away at one's faith in the authenticity of the enterprise. How do know this?
Not from experimental, analytic data. Run down the list under "subject reports" in the diagram, and exclude each item in turn, pausing for a moment to stamp in the impression of the nature of the item being excluded, and hence, the area of exclusion.
So our affirmation about the tediousness of the ground work and your failing faith, is not a report of our perceptions, opinions, focus of attention imaginings, etc. Neither is it a report which our instruments have originated ("experimenter report"). It is rather a description of the graphic model that we use in our understanding; they are our conscious knowings, creative symbo1s that trace their morphogenetic history to nature, or to natural existence in short, they are our witnessings.
"Witness," according to Webster's, derives from the Indo-European *weid, meaning to see. The Vedas (Indian Books of Science and Scriptures), derive their tltle from this word. From the Greek (idris = knowing), the idea was transmitted to Latin, videre = to see, whence English, "wise," meaning "the one who knows." Wit, wisdom, wise, and witness, are related through *weid = to know, in the reconstructed ancestral language of English known as *Indo-European (includes India, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, Russia, Europe)
Webster's also tells us that the art of witnessing means giving testimony to a fact or statement: it also means evidence. All communities function on this recognition: that fact is determined through testimony, not through experimental trial a proof!
But what of the expert armed with scientific facts? Is the determination of evidence not based on those scientific facts? The answer is, No. Instead, the facts are carried to the Court and there deposited as archival materials, called "written depositions" and "objects or displays taken in as court evidence." Now the scientist ascends the witness-stand; he is treated as any other person: sworn in, warned, questioned, grilled, counter-questioned, confronted with counter-facts by other scientists, and so on.
A couple of years ago, we attended a dinner meeting sponsored by the Hawaii Psychological Association There, the speakers were sharing their experiences as psychologists who were called into Court to testify as to the facts and evidence involving the degree of social competence of particular individuals. It was presented as a harrowing and anxiety-filled experience. Why? Because the experimental facts which made them experts, were only indirectly, distantly, and inexactly related to the individual whose competence they were asked to predict.

Note, therefore, that a community is run by the facts of witnesses, not by the reports of experiments. Scientific facts are either reports by subjects, reports by experimenters, or descriptions of knowledge by witnesses. For example, legislation, licensing, administrative and management policy, are all based on witness' knowledge as deposited, or transcribed, in established places (Courts of Law, Committee Meetings, Public Hearings, Archives). Even if the witness' testimony includes scientifically reportable facts, or data, nevertheless, it is the distillation or processing of these facts, that the witness is required to do. And furthermore, the witness is required in his testimony to show the relevance of the facts to the particular case under consideration.
Now we are getting to an all-important question for our argument: Where are the scientific data concerned with the longitudinal self? Where are the facts obtainable? There are plenty of "biographies" and "autobiographies," andeven "psychohistories." These are all reports.
For example, you might find, in an autobiography, diary, or journal, all sorts of reports about realizations, knowings, understandings, etc. Note very carefully that these reports are subjective: they are topics written about, cast in the language of giving opinions, making statements about all sorts of ideas, and giving all sorts of details about events, doings, topics, and so on. Similarly, with biographies, we get the biographer's perspective, his report prepared according to his training and audience. Finally, the psychohistorical studies of famous men give all sorts of details of order, quantity, and rated value of their products, deeds, and reputations. None of these reports would stand as testimony or evidence: they will only be subjective objective facts which help form the witness' testimony, but are not in and of themselves, that.
Where, then, are we to find the witnesses for the biographic dimension, and where, if such be found, are we to deposit their testimony and evidence of what it's like to be a person and to exist in a community?
Testimony as Data in Social Psychology. The answer we propose lies in the method of science known as morphogenesis, and discussed above. Aristotle, Goethe, and Rene Thom have already accomplished the technical side of this in biology. We only need to extend and apply these ideas to social psychology. What we need to do to accomplish this, is to investigate the phenomenon of testimony and how it is related to field theory concepts. This inquiry will lead to the vector values of a social occasion, i.e., the field forces that dct jointly to make up what we call "an event to be witnessed" or, a witnessable event.
We need to, first, consider the matter synthetically. "Testimony," which is what the witness presents on the witness-stand, comes from tres, meaning "three" (triad, triangle, triple, etc.). Thus, tradition gives us the idea that the witness, is present to the event in the capacity of "third" party. This shows that community life starts with the triadic group structure. With a dyad, no witnessing depositories are possible, but only subjective reports, agreement or disagreement. The presence of "God," or some deity or principle

of Honor, may serve as the Court, or as is more usual in the life of a society, a fourth person, forming a quartet, serves as the Court. Thus, the two parties having an exchange, plus the witness and the Court representative (officer, notary) form the minimal unit that can function as a community.
Next we need to consider the contextual requirements for the existence of testimony and community. Here we must examine synthetically the meaning of "being present as third party." Being present, i.e., social presence, requires that the third person be a party to the exchange. This means that the witness is subject to the objective forces in the situation, though this says nothing about the subject's reactions, perceptions, and reports thereof. In other words, the witness must be something in addition to the subject, and the testimony contains something additional to the report. What is this?
It must be a particular and special relationship the witness has towards the report. Let us give this relation the name of "annotation." Annotation has Latin ad-, meaning "to," and nota, meaning "mark" or "sign." "Nota," in turn, comes from gnoscere = to know (Greek and Latin). Thus, tradition gives us the idea that to annotate a report is to mark it in some way that indicates knowledge, wisdom, understanding. What we propose, therefore, is to equate testimony with annotated report! In other words, the witness annotates the report, and therefore, elevates its status to a testimony.
Social psychology can be redefined, for our purposes in the course of this study, as the systematic knowledge of social occasions. "Systematic knowledge" is to be found in Theory (Zone 5). Theory is fed by data from two sources, morphogenesis and empirical analysis. Empirical analysis yields reports by subjects and by experimenters. These reports are now annotated: the annotations of the subject of the report form the testimony. The following diagram depicts these relationships: (see next page)


Daily Round Techniques For Keeping Track

The daily round approach to social psychology follows the schema depicted in this diagram. Empirical analysis is the context for prearing, obtaining, and collecting reports, either by the subject, the experimenter, or the

"participant-observer"' acting as either subject (as in self-modification of behavior) or experimenter (as in experimental results, or in ethnographies, or in investigatory reporting). Thus, the student of social psychology must first learn the literacy skills that allow him to be an objective reporter of his own subjective life and experiences. This is facilitated through the use of standardized formats of reporting: tables and forms to be filled in with Information about one's biography--coupled with the abi1ity to read these data, i.e.,. give a numerical characterization of them through statistics. Once the report is finished, it is annotated: the two together form the witness' testimony. The Daily Round Archives (DRA) was the name we thought of to title such a collection for testimonial data contributed by students of the daily round approach to social psychology. We call depositors Society's Witnesses (SW's) to reflect the idea that community life can be transformed into scientific data through the evidence established by individuals acting as witnesses, in addition to acting as subjects.

Synopsis 12: The Nature of DRA Data: Reporting and Witnessing.
"Data" refers to what is given for theorizing C= inspecting data). Data are either reports or observations. Reports are informational messages given by either a subject or an investigator within an experimental context or setting. Observations are summary titles for facts on a graph. Thus, reports are inferences while observations are descriptions.
To act as a "Subject" is to give inferential reports of one's experience within the context of experimental instructions. To act as a "Witness" is to give objectified descriptions of one's experience within the context of one's natural daily round. Though experimental reports are standardized, they are not treatable as objective facts about the community as shown by the disagreements among "experts" as to how experimental findings relate to a particular case. Instead, objective facts concerning actual community cases are always obtainable only through the description given by Witnesses. Thus, the experimenter or expert must turn his inferential reports into community facts by becoming a Witness.
Reports can be turned into witnessings through the process of ''annotation Annotated reports are equivalent to witnessings. "Society's Witnesses" (SW's) refers to students of social psychology who use Forms to make annotated reports about the natural history of their daily rounds. The witnessings are deposited in a cumulative archival collection called "the Daily Round Archives' (DRA).
"Annotations" are objective categorizations a witness makes in response to an event to which one is present. For example, marking readings, taking notes, writing commentaries, are common examples of annotations that depend on the prior acquisition of oral and written academic literacy skills. More advanced forms of annotations include the use of a special "notation system" such as graphics, math, logic, and the like.
DRA data are in the form of annotated reports: the format of reporting specifies through the use of "titles" what information is specifically to be included. For example, under the title of "community connections," with sub- titles in various categories (e.g. "People I Socialize With"), the witness presents natural history facts about the daily round. In general, a social fact is rendered meaningful only if it is presented within the context of "titles."
Reporting a conversational event can be accomplished through the presentation of a transcription. However, the conversationalists have to annotate the "transcript" if it is going to be meaningful to a third-party witness (or reader). Transcript annotations are given as commentaries of explanation on topical exchanges, on rhythm, and any other feature not directly available in the transcription itself. Annotations are not subjective, introspective reports; rather, they are interpersonal presentations, public, and objective, i.e. they use standard titles for identifying (to a third-party witness) the contextual relevance of the report.

Bird Stories (11) by Leon James

Life in the backyard aviary is organized by the community's regular daily round. To understand, or be able to witness, some of the significant events occurring there, you must first make yourself into a regular of the community (vs. "visitor," "foreigner," "stranger"). This is surely true of any new group you're trying to get to know (school, job, neighborhood, country). Until you've adapted to the same level and range of change in stimuli, you cannot note contiguities, i.e.,-antecedents "causing" consequents. Becoming a regular of the community or group, means, foremost, knowing the members' regular daily round pattern, and the normal a reactivity of its individuals (how they define and perceive the state of "normalcy").
The following chart presents the activity pattern of a regular daily round in our backyard aviary.

Notice the information contained in this graph. Highest activity levels occur after sunrise and after the midday break. Lowest levels occur during the hot hours around noon, and after sunset. The curve is "bimodal" and "inverted" (like two inverted "U" curves next to each other). This circadian bi-modality can be seen more easily by plotting a longer time curve, as follows:

One of the most intriguing phenomena I've observed about the birds is the "praying" activity they engage in during the mid-day low. I shall describe this activity in my next story [no. (12)].

Let us examine the various ways academic literacy has already taught us the skills of annotating reports, i.e., witnessing. A most impressive demonstration of annotating skill occurs when you highlight (underline, mark) sentences in a book, or when you take lecture notes in a class. To realize that this skill you possess is advanced and specialized, you need only to ask your siblings, or older parents and family, to sit in a class taking notes for you, or to underline the-"important" sentences in your textbook. Or, another way, is for you to try to-mark the important places in a friend's textbook outside your "field." These demonstrations will no doubt convince you that annotating a lecture, or readings, depend on complex literacy skills you have had to acquire. Some of the skills are general, i.e., transferable or usable in more than one type of course or field. Others are specific to a particular field.
As your academic literacy skills build, you are capable of annotations of greater depth. For example, you begin to write footnotes to something you've written, you begin to write comments you have in the margin of the text you're reading; you can write a summary, and even an abstract to a paper. As well, you gradually learn how to write new paragraphs that take off on old paragraphs you've written. In other words you can footnote, comment, write abstracts, precis, synopses, summaries, and evaluative commentaries and reviews. All of these general literacy skills are annotations of one kind or another. You can see that reading and writing are annotation skills, in the sense that one comments silently on what one reads as a way of processing and comprehending it, and, one usually writes in response to some other piece of text, including when one reads and edits one ' s own writing . The accompanying diagram lists some annotation skills in each of four modalities involving verbal skills.

There is also a specialized component in academic literacy skills. These forms of annotation are graphic are exemplified by charts, figures, diagrams, and other visual displays that transform verbal propositions into graphic notations. You are already familiar with many reading annotation skills as demonstrated when you read the calendar, T.V. and school schedules, baseball scores, or a bar graph in a newspaper article on the-economy. College texts are typically filled with visual displays of verbal arguments (figures, desk. diagrams, charts). A more advanced level of specialized annotation skills consists of your making the charts and graphs, not just reading them when someone else makes them. Finally, you learn the most advanced annotation skills when you study formal notation systems such as logic, algebra, topology, schematic drawings, draftings, perspective drawing, computer graphics, syntax, programming language, musical notes, phonetics, etc. The following diagram lists the more common specialized annotation skills:

You can see that logic, grammar, math, art, and poetry, among others, fall in the category of advanced annotations. You may agree about algebra and music notes, but what about poetic and thematic "patterns"? Why not? The phenomena of semantics, metaphor, versification, and "themes" are also annotations because they involve the phenomena of arrangement, hierarchy, and proportionality, no less than taxonomy, or for that matter, the algorithmic, recurrent marks or drawings that underlie the work of artists (shapes, ratios, colors, patterns).

Now that you have a better comprehension of annotation skills, we may go into some concrete examples showing how reporting and its annotation together form the witness' testimony, or evidence.
Assume you are instructed to make an inventory of the objects on your desk. You might come up with a list, such as this one:
Inventory of My Desk Top


index cards

ashes and dirt
some typed
some carbons
some written out

some, in piles
some, by themselves

some, written on
some, blank

paper clips
scotch tape dispenser

Let us call this a report. To generate this report, one must have used some general annotation skills: counting, labeling, writing, editing, arranging, and so on. Now let us annotate this report using more specialized techniques. We can classify the items in the report, and show the relations between them, as follows: (see next page)

or Typed
index cards
index cards
ashes and dirt
Many such arrays are- possible, of course, and the annotation given is thus a record of what was chosen by the witness in this particular case. Note that the report itself is not variable in the same sense as the annotations are: anyone instructed to report the items on a desk, would be able to construct the identical, or near-identical list.
It is important to understand that formalized procedures can be set up to control the direction and format of annotations. For example, Mendeleev's Chart of Chemical Elements was set up before all the "boxes" in it could be filled in; later discoveries allowed the rest of the chart to be filled in. In this sense, the unfinished chart was a formal annotation which specified the procedures to be followed for newer annotations. Their direction was controlled.
Mathematics represents another instance; some equations are not solved until later, and in the meantime, those that are around control the new annotations to be made (or "discovered"). The basic structure of the DNA was discovered to be a particular diagram known as "the double helix." This annotation set the format for subsequent discoveries on the structure of the genes. Once in a while, scientific revolutions, or "paradigm switches" occur: witness those created by Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Descartes, Plank, Moebius, Einstein--to mention but those known commonly. In these revolutionary instances, the innovator proposes a new, formal type of annotation for the same reports (empirical data). As well, the new annotation can apply to new reports which contain data that the older form of annotation did not organize as well, or as usefully, or elegantly.

Now let us take another instance, where a general type of annotation (non-specialized) serves to increase the value and utility of the report. shall use examples from the DRA.
Example 1. Titling biographic record. The following two lists are taken from Zone I of Research Report #1, Spring 1978 semester:
List 1List 2
Okinawa, Summer 1967

Okinawa, Summer 1971

Big Island, Spring 1972

California and Nevada, Spring 1973

California, Summer 1973

Maui, Spring 1974

Washington, D.C. and California, Spring 1974

Maui, Spring 1978

California, Texas and Arizona, Summer 1978
Kuhio Elementary School

Kaahumana Elementary School

Washington Intermediate School

McKinley High School

These two data-segments of the overall report, were annotated by a title. You can no doubt guess, that the title annotation for List 1, turns out to be TRAVEL, and for List 2, EDUCATION. You can know this because you recognize the places and can figure out backwards, what the items were given for. However, there were additional annotations which it would be next to impossible for you to guess. Thus, the two lists quoted here formed part of a much larger table; there were in fact a total of 43 categories to be reported on. By knowing what categories there are, and which ones fall next to each other into sub- groups; it is possible to gain additional understanding of the significance of the items separately. Here is a partial breakdown:
1. Name of Person

2. Psychology 222

3. Spring 1978

4. Research Report #l

5. Zones of Reporting
Name; Address; Birthdate; etc.

Ethnicity; Education; Jobs; etc.

Hobbies; Interests; Travel; etc.


Annotated Talk; Community Connections

Logging Activities; Responsibilities; etc.


Some of the title annotations, or format of reporting (same thing), are shown in this diagram. As you go towards the right, the organization becomes more embedded. Thus arabic numerals are at the outermost level. Five categories fully exhaust the system. One step to the right, yields Roman numerals; here, three of the total of six are shown. One more step to the right, yields capital alphabets; three of the four are shown (A-C) for Category "I," and more occur with categories "IV" and "V," not shown. One more step to the right, and we get to the categories (unmarked) that also contain the two titles of Example 1 (Education and Travel). By knowing the location of a report within its larger segment, or format, the meaning of the content is rendered more interpretable. Thus, you know through the annotations, that the two lists in Example 1 are the places of travel and the educational background, as reported by a student in this course last semester for one of the Research Reports. These annotation facts allow you to relate to the information given, to decide whether it is relevant to you--for example, whether you can contrast it with your own lists you can make up.

Example 2: Community Connections
a. Mr. C. Y.

b. Mrs. C. Y.
c. C Y.

d. Mrs. T.






Dept. of Agriculture
College Student
(on the mainland)

What is this list? At the moment you only know (i) that they are people, possibly local residents, and (ii) that they are probably "connections" some- body has in this community. Now let's fill in a few more annotations:

Community Connections

(i) Category of People
1. People I Live With
2. People Who Are My Immediate Family
3 People Who Are My Extended Family
4. People Whom I Know As Acquaintances of the Family
5. People I Know From Work
With these additional annotations, you can see that the information given in Example 2 belongs to one of the sub-categories of this student's "Community Connections," namely, ". . . Acquaintances of the Family." This more precise localization within the body of the report helps you make the data more meaningful. Now there are two additional categories nested within each of the a Categories of People":
Category of People
4. ". . . Acquaintances of the Family"

(1) Age
(2) Sex
(3) Ethnic Group
(4) Occupation
(5) How I came to know the person
(6) How well I know the person

By providing two additional titles, sub-categories (5) and (6), the information in sub-categories (1) through (4), as given in Example 2, may be rendered even more meaningful. For example, item "b," sub-categories (5) and (6), contain the following information:

(5) "I came to know Mrs. C. Y. because she is our neighbor, and
although my family is not related to her by blood my sisters
and I call her "aunty."'

(6) "I've known Mrs. C. Y. far about 14 years, ever since my fami1y
and I moved into our present home. I know Mrs. C. Y. better
than I know her husband because as females, we can relate to
each other better. (. . .)"

Example 3:

1. "Julie: You know, since we're going to be traveling all over . . .
We get to ride the train! I can't wait to ride the train!

2. "Sandra: Oh, you guys going ride to--the Am Trak? (Julie nods.)
Yeah (knowingly).

3. "Julie: Yea, from . . . Texas to, uh, Phoenix, Arizona. So that's
about 10 hours.

4. "Sandra: And Jeana's going to meet you over there? (Julie nods.)
So it's going to be good.

5. Julie: (to Jan) Yeah, huh?

7. "Jan: I was going to tell you . . . You know Anaheim? What we
did was we got this, um, I don't know if we have the cards,
even, but, like, . . . what we did was for.-we stayed in,
um, this hotel called--I forgot . . . Oh, you gotta ask
Lisa, but . . .

7. ''Julie: Motel or hotel?"

With no additional annotations than the above, you can no doubt recognize this as a transcript segment of a conversation in which at least three people take part. The annotation "transcript segment" is essential, otherwise you would not be able to interpret "what it is." Now consider what you can tell about what's happening in the transcript segment. You might say that in "talking turn" (TT) 1, a person called "Julie" mentions a train she'll get to go on. What train? Does she like that idea? Has she been on one before? In TT 2, "Sandra" identifies the train. But to where? With whom? In TT 3, Julie- gives details about where to and how long. Sandra's intervention in TT 4 adds information about whom Julie will be meeting in Phoenix. ''Jan" comes

into the picture in TT6. She seems to know something about the place Julie is going to. Who is Lisa? Etc.
Note that when people are engaged in a conversation, the onlooker or ''third party" (or fourth, or fifth, etc.), gets glimpses of what the conversationalists are doing, can make all sorts of guesses, etc. "Cues" are used to help interpret what's going on. The preparation of a usable transcript, or transcript segment, includes encoding enough cues for the third party or onlooker, in this case the reader of the report. Encoding cues is a form of annotation. In this case, the student used ordinary orthographic and punctuation marks ("annotations"), as well as arrangement of the words on the page. We call these cues provided by the reporter (transcriber, subject, participant-observer) transcript annotations: who speaks what, when; how were the words spoken (emphasis, hesitation, timing); what gestures went along ("Julie nods" or "Yea (knowingly)"). However, one tends to feel that these cues, though necessary, are not sufficient. Additional annotations make the events more visible. For example, this student added an explanatory note to TT 1 and TT 6:
TT 1, Annotation:
"Julie is really excited about riding in a train because she's never
ridden in one before and it will be a different experience for her."

TT 6, Annotation:
"Jan has gone to the mainland with Lisa before this, last summer,
and is talking about their experiences then."
These additional cues help the reader home in on the significance of the conversational events, since this "background" information is part of the perception of the participants, and hence their responses to each other's topical interventions. This next example, taken from another student's report, shows additional features of "annotative explanations."
Example 4: Transcript Annotations.

"l. RS: Okay, you ready?

2. FN: I'm tired already.


16. (Sound of a motorcycle)

17. RS: Ah! Your heart.

18. FN: Did you hear the motorcycle?


31. RS: Watch this. (Makes motorcycle noise and laughs.) I'll show you
the difference. This is a car (Makes the same noise.)

32. FN: Oh God!

33. RS: Oh man!"

(end of transcript segment)
The punctuation marks, the talking turn numbers, and the gestural information ("stage directions") allow us to recover some of the events, but not some others. What's happening in TT's 1 and 2? In TT 17? In rT's 32 and 33? Additional annotations clarify further:
Transcript Annotations:

TT 1: "This statement is made while RS turns on the tape recorder."

TT 2: "This refers to the fact that previously two tapes were made which
were junked because of defects and the frustration is reflected
in this statement."

TT 17: "This statement refers to a new subject imposed by RS. He has
just heard FN's heart beat as he is lying very close to her."

TT 32: "Is in response to RS's behavior with the toy motorcycle and car.
This is not true disgust, as it may sound to be; it is rather a
sarcastic statement and FN is actually amused."

TT 33: "This starts a new topic. (. . .) This statement is made while
RS is lying down and he is becoming comfortable in his-new position."
An important type of transcript annotation is exemplified in the student's commentary on TT 32 ("This is not true disgust, as it may sound to be; . . ."). This explanation shows the student's awareness of what the lines may sound like to the reader. This sense of "objectivity" is part of academic literacy skills and is essential in reading, writing, and communicating.

Annotations about timing of the spoken- lines provide additional cues about affect, style, emotional involvement, impact. For example, this student provides the following timing information on TT's 1 and 2:

Transcript Annotation: Timing

Okay I'm tired already----------------(gap)--------------->



This graph shows that TT 1 took only half-a-second, or less, while TT 2 took over two seconds, despite the fact that both lines contain five "syllables" each.
Example 5: Logging Activities

In this section ("III. Role"), another student reports a minute-by-minute
record of her activities through a chosen day:

"Time Length Activity
"10:00 A.M.

"10:50 A.M.

( . . . )

"6:25 P.M.

"8:30 P.M.
30 min.

10 min.

5 min.

10 min.
Alarm went off, woke up to turn it off and
went back to sleep.

L. finally comes out of the bathroom. Now,
it's my turn to use it. Brushing my teeth
and washing my face.

Opening a can of corn and putting it into a
sauce pan to cook on the stove.

Back down in the laundry room and taking my clothes out of the dryer. Met a girl there and interviewed her.

Go To Pages 151 to 200