Ranching, Whaling &... Hugging?

I love advice columns and it only donned on me after reading this one that they are a hotbed of social control.

This specific entry is really interesting to me. The woman who writes in is the victim of her father-in-law's uncomfortably long and close hugs. We all know exactly what she's talking about when she says that. There are certain kinds of hugs that are reserved for friends, certain hugs for family members and then there are the hugs that are only for our romantic partners. Everyone has had the unfortunate experience of being on either the giving or receiving end of the wrong kind of hug and most of us know it instantly. There are, however, a few people who seem to not notice or to not care when their hug falls outside of the prescribed norm for the relationship.

The letter writer in this column was determined to try and deal with the situation on her own. Interesting since the norm defiance seems so great, yet on the other hand, it was a personal issue and so the attempt was made to deal with it on her own. That effort was not effective and so, now all bets are off. She has called in support to ensure that the uncomfortable hugging comes to an end.

This, to me, correlates back to "Order Without Law". All of the understood norms about hugging that aren't actual laws that are written down anywhere, the attempt to solve the problem on a personal level first and then the escalation to outside assistance if the personal attempts fail. Interesting that this phenomenon is the same on a small familial scale as it is in Shasta County.

Ellickson, Robert C. (1991). Order without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Yoffe, Emily. (11.16.2009). "Must We Bear Hugs?" Dear Prudence Chat Room. (http://www.slate.com/id/2235822/)

Miracles Happen Everyday

So I just got to school and I'm amazed that anyone makes it anywhere alive when traveling on the freeway. Everyone is in their own personal steel box moving at speeds between 60 and for some 90 miles per hour. It's a miracle that everyone, for the most part, follows the rules and avoids disaster.

Maybe all the talk of welfare maximization has something to it after all. Since it works out best for everyone, not just the individual, to follow the rules when it comes to driving, it becomes the rational thing for all of us to do. It wouldn't help anyone if I were to get onto the freeway and drive in circles, nor would it work if I decided to drive 15 miles per hour. That sort of driving is irrational and that's why we rarely, if ever, see it.

Game Theory

So we have begun to tackle game theory in class, and while I was more than a little intimidated by the prospect of studying something that's usually reserved for mathematicians, I'm truly enjoying it.  Game Theory, while typically used by economists, biologists and engineers of all varieties, is understandably connected to sociology and more specifically social control.  The mathematical theory is used in an attempt to explain or predict human choice making.

The system of mapping out possible options and then analyzing the outcomes of each could be used not only to predict human behavior but also to simulate social models to ensure the best possible outcomes.  If, as sociologists, we are attempting to create a program to improve educational options for low income students, we could use game theory to help us map out the options that these students have to see where they are likely to end up, if that outcome is not favorable then we could work to create more positive options for a more positive outcome.

Which came first Law or Society?

2 Articles to discuss: One from Lawrence Friedman and the other from Susan Sibley. Each author explains the legal system and its functions within society as a whole. The field of Law and Society seems to be a study of this relationship and an ongoing attempt at contextualizing legal systems and practices within society.

Friedman seems to feel that while the field shows promise, a new framing of practice is necessary for it to be taken seriously or to be effective. Sibley, on the other hand, is much more assured of the field in its current state and even argues that it is the only field that appropriately acknowledges law as a social system.

Both articles fit in well with the reading of Order Without Law. Both Sibley and Friedman seem to be tackling the same issues as Ellickson, yet from a different angle.

Ellickson, Robert C. (1991). Order without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Friedman, Lawrence, M. "The Law and Society Movement". The Stanford Law Review. Vol. 38. No. 3. p. 763-780.

Sibley, Susan S. "Law and Society Movement" Legal Systems of the World: A Political, Social, and Cultural Encyclopedia. Kritzer, Herbert. Santa Barbara: ABC CLIO

What happens when there are too many cows and not enough fences?

People deal with it themselves.

Ellickson challenges the traditional idea that law is the loudest and most final voice when it comes to conflict resolution.  He charges that the residents of Shasta county manage their own issues without the assistance of legal intervention.  When someone's cows trespass onto their property they deal with it themselves instead of calling the police or their attorney.  

In other words, people often resort to the use of self-help methods first in an effort to resolve disputes. People exercise "... options of 'exit' 'voice' and 'loyalty' to influence others around them. ... The legal-centralist assertion that the state monopolizes, or even aspires to monopolize, the use of force is patently false"(p.143).

Ellickson, Robert C. (1991).  Order without Law:  How Neighbors Settle Disputes.  Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Cows and Fences

Ellickson begins with an introduction to Shasta county and the history of cattle ranching laws in the area.

There are two major distinctions, open range and closed range.  Open range places the legal burden on land owners to keep cattle out off of their land.  Closed range places the legal burden upon the cattle rancher to keep their cattle out of other's property.

There are laws around all of this and yet most of the people in the region do not fully understand them.  Instead they have their own version of what they think the laws are and they settle most disputes without legal intervention.  This means that disputes are settled based on a convoluted version of the law, which because it is used most often is far more important (and interesting) than actual law.

Ellickson, Robert C. (1991).  Order without Law:  How Neighbors Settle Disputes.  Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

I'm Back!

Okay so, I haven't been blogging for a while.  Whether it's senioritis or simply an overloaded schedule I 've been avoiding all things that are not in my face and screaming to be done.  Mind you that all along I've had the intention of "catching up on my blogging".  Yet I had a conversation with the lovely and wise Shanah and she suggested that I just start blogging from where I'm at now.  "But, but, but..., " I said.  She then went on to explain that if I keep telling myself that I need to catch up the issue will only grow and become more daunting, which means that it probably won't ever happen.  She said that if I start from where I'm at I'll be able to move forward, and if the catching up eventually happens then that will be an added bonus.

So, there you have it.  I'm moving forward, catching-up may or may not take place, and I'm okay with that.  Let's just hope that you are too.

Side note:  Interested self-rationalization that I was going through with the whole catching up thing and an even more interesting intervention on Shanah's part.  If social control is a dependent variable, and we all know that it is, my reaction of rationalization must be due to the aforementioned senioritis/overwhelming sense that there is never enough time for everything.

Google is the New Looking Glass

This article in Slate.com is fascinating.  It discusses the results of a contest to see who could come up with the most interesting (or unfortunate) differences in results from Google Suggest by entering slight differences in spelling or using different words that mean pretty much the same thing.  

What I find interesting are not necessarily the contest results but the idea of Google is suggesting searches for me in the first place.  Say I'm going to search for one thing, but as I start to type that in Google suggests that I might be searching for something else based on the fact that so many other people have searched for it.  

The sociological concept that the self is created by observing and taking into consideration the reactions of society is taken to a whole new level with the internet and with Google specifically.  Before I even hit enter Google tells me what I could be searching for and therefore, what I possibly should be searching for based on the idea that since the majority of other people are.  

The extreme suggestions in the article illustrate the danger in such rationality.

Agger, Michael.  (November 10, 2009).  "Is it Wrong to Sleep With Your Sister?"  Slate.com.  (http://www.slate.com/id/2234738/).