Relational Models Theory

With just four fundamental forces nature creates hydrogen, hippopotami and hydrodynamics.  The entire human genome is accomplished with four bases. Prof Alan Fiske, author of RMT, says all our social interactions are managed by four, not five or three, four models that we mix, match and recombine.  Machines for connecting to the web should  be irrelevant.  Once you get online they are just browser containers.  But in addition a market price relationship based on rational value, I have a communal sharing relationship with my manufacturers, I feel like part of the team.  I’m happy to hear good news about our company and the products it sella sno ofter feel a vague or explicit disgust for those deluded zealots.

Fiske’s theory is a fun and powerful to analyze any relationship, except mine with chocolate which is simply submissive.

Relational Models Theory

Relational models theory posits that people use four elementary models to generate, interpret, coordinate, contest, plan, remember, evaluate, and think about most aspects of most social interaction in all societies. These models are Communal Sharing, Authority Ranking, Equality Matching, and Market Pricing. Scores of studies have demonstrated that people in all cultures use these models to organize much of their everyday social cognition. 

Communal Sharing  (CS) is a relationship in which each member of the group as equivalent and undifferentiated with respect to the domain in question. Examples are using a commons (CS with respect to the utilization of the particular resource), people intensely in love (CS with respect to their social selves), people who “ask not fro whom the bell tolls” common well-being), (CS with respect to shared suffering or common well-being) people who kill any member of an enemy group indiscriminately in retaliation for an attack (CS with respect to collective responsibility).

In Authority Ranking (AR) people have asymmetric positions in a linear hierarchy in which subordinates defer, respect, and (perhaps) obey, while superiors take precedence and take pastoral responsibility for subordinates.  Examples are military hierarchies (AR in decisions, control, and many other matters), ancestor worship (AR in offerings of filial piety and expectations of protection and enforcement of norms), monotheistic religious moralities (AR for the definition of right and wrong by commandments or will of God), social status systems such as class or ethnic rankings (AR with respect to social value of identities), and rankings such as sports team standings (AR with respect to prestige).  AR relationships are based on perceptions of legitimate asymmetries, not coercive power; they are not inherently exploitative (although they may involve power or cause harm).

In Equality Matching (EM) relationships people keep track of the balance or difference among participants and know what would be required to restore balance.  Common manifestations are turn-taking, one-person one-vote elections, equal share distributions, and vengeance based on an-eye-for-an-eye, a-tooth-for-a-tooth.  Examples include sports and games (EM with respect to the rules, procedures, equipment and terrain),  baby-sitting coops (EM with respect to the exchange of child care),  and restitution in-kind (EM with respect to righting a wrong).

Market Pricing (MP) relationships are oriented to socially meaningful ratios or rates such as prices, wages, interest, rents, tithes, or cost-benefit analyses. Money need not be the medium, and MP relationships need not be selfish, competitive, maximizing, or materialistic — any of the four models may exhibit any of these features. MP relationships are not necessarily individualistic;  a family may be the CS or AR unit running a business that operates in an MP mode with respect to other enterprises.  Examples are property that can be bought, sold, or treated as investment capital (land or objects as MP), marriages organized contractually or implicitly in terms of costs and benefits to the partners, prostitution (sex as MP), bureaucratic cost-effectiveness standards (resource allocation as MP), utilitarian judgments about the greatest good for the greatest number, or standards of equity in judging entitlements in proportion to contributions (two forms of morality as MP), considerations of spending time efficiently, and estimates of expected kill ratios (aggression as MP).

To learn more, go to this readable, non-technical introduction to relational models theory.

For social scientists, this 2005 chapter is an overview of relational models theory and research.

Here is a fairly complete bibliography of research on relational models theory, updated fairly regularly.

Relational models international Skype lab meeting schedule.

The original creator of relational models theory (and of this page) is Alan Fiske, Professor of Anthropology at UCLA.

Or straight from the horses’s mouth: 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s