102,829
edits
Changes
From Nordan Symposia
Jump to navigationJump to searchCreated page with 'File:Example.jpg ==Etymology== Latin reciprocus returning the same way, alternating *Date: 1570 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_century 16th Century] ==Definitions==...'
[[File:Example.jpg]]
==Etymology==
[[Latin]] reciprocus returning the same way, alternating
*Date: 1570 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_century 16th Century]
==Definitions==
*1 a : inversely related : opposite
:b : of, constituting, or resulting from paired crosses in which the kind that supplies the [[male]] [[parent]] of the first cross supplies the [[female]] parent of the second cross and vice versa
*2 : [[shared]], felt, or shown by both sides
*3 : serving to reciprocate : consisting of or [[functioning]] as a return in kind <the reciprocal devastation of nuclear [[war]]>
*4 a : mutually corresponding <agreed to extend reciprocal privileges to each other's [[citizens]]>
:b : marked by or based on reciprocity <reciprocal trade agreements>
==Description==
The social [[norm]] of '''reciprocity''' is the [[expectation]] that people will [[respond]] to each other in similar ways—responding to gifts and [[kindness]]es from others with similar benevolence of their own, and responding to harmful, hurtful [[acts]] from others with either indifference or some form of retaliation. Such norms can be crude and [[mechanical]], such as a [[literal]] reading of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye eye-for-an-eye rule lex talionis], or they can be [[complex]] and sophisticated, such as a [[subtle]] [[understanding]] of how [[anonymous]] donations to an international organization can be a form of reciprocity for the receipt of very [[personal]] benefits, such as the [[love]] of a [[parent]].
The norm of reciprocity varies widely in its details from situation to situation, and from [[society]] to society. Anthropologists and sociologists have often claimed, however, that having some version of the norm appears to be a social inevitability.[1]
===Reciprocity and Justice===
[[Standard]] usage of the term [[justice]] shows its close general connection to the [[concept]] of reciprocity. Justice includes the [[idea]] of [[fairness]], and that in turn includes treating similar cases similarly, giving people what they deserve, and apportioning all other benefits and burdens in an equitable way. Those [[things]], further, involve acting in a principled, impartial way that forbids playing favorites and may require [[sacrifices]]. All of those [[things]] are certainly in the neighborhood of the elements of reciprocity (e.g., fittingness, proportionality), but it is challenging to explain the precise connections.
[[Discussions]] of merit, desert, blame, and punishment inevitably involve questions about the fittingness and proportionality of our responses to others, and retributive [[theories]] of punishment put the norm of reciprocity at their [[center]]. The idea is to make the punishment fit the crime. This differs from utilitarian theories of punishment, which may use fittingness and proportionality as constraints, but whose ultimate [[commitment]] is to make punishment serve social goals such as general deterrence, [[public]] safety, and the rehabilitation of wrongdoers.
===Mutuality===
What is the [[relation]] between reciprocity and [[love]], [[friendship]] or [[family]] [[relationships]]? If such relationships are [[ideal]]ly ones in which the parties are connected by mutual [[affection]] and benevolence, shouldn’t justice and reciprocity stay out of their way? Isn’t impartiality inconsistent with love? Doesn’t acting on principle take the [[affection]] out of [[friendship]] or [[family]] relationships? Doesn’t follow the norm of reciprocity eliminate unconditional love or [[loyalty]]?
Some contemporary [[philosophers]] have criticized major figures in the history of Western philosophy, including [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ John Rawls]’ early [[work]], for making familial relationships more or less opaque in theories of justice. The [[argument]] is that families can be grossly unjust, and have often been so. Since the family is “the school of justice,” if it is unjust the [[moral]] [[education]] of children is distorted, and the injustice tends to spread to the [[society]] at large, and to be perpetuated in following generations. If that is right, then justice and reciprocity must define the boundaries within which we pursue even the most [[intimate]] [[relationships]].
A somewhat different thread on these matters begins with Aristotle’s discussion of [[friendship]], in ''Nicomachean Ethics'' 1155-1172a. He proposes that the highest or best form of friendship involves a relationship between equals – one in which a genuinely reciprocal relationship is possible. This thread appears throughout the [[history]] of Western [[ethics]] in discussions of personal and social relationships of many sorts: between [[children]] and [[parents]], spouses, humans and other animals, and humans and god(s). The question is the extent to which the kind of reciprocity possible in various relationships determines the kind of mutual affection and [[Goodness|benevolence]] possible in those relationships.
==Notes==
# Gouldner, Alvin. “The Norm of Reciprocity.” American Sociological Review 25 (1960): 161-78.
# Blau, Peter M. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley, 1964. Reprinted, with a new introduction, New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1986.
# Gergen, Kenneth J., Martin Greenberg, and Richard H. Willis, eds. Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research. New York: Plenum, 1980.
# Axelrod, Robert. The Evolution of Cooperation. Revised edition. New York: Basic Books, 2006.
# Becker, Lawrence C. Reciprocity. London and New York: Routledge, 1986. Contains bibliographic essays.
[[Category: Sociology]]
[[Category: Anthropology]]
==Etymology==
[[Latin]] reciprocus returning the same way, alternating
*Date: 1570 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_century 16th Century]
==Definitions==
*1 a : inversely related : opposite
:b : of, constituting, or resulting from paired crosses in which the kind that supplies the [[male]] [[parent]] of the first cross supplies the [[female]] parent of the second cross and vice versa
*2 : [[shared]], felt, or shown by both sides
*3 : serving to reciprocate : consisting of or [[functioning]] as a return in kind <the reciprocal devastation of nuclear [[war]]>
*4 a : mutually corresponding <agreed to extend reciprocal privileges to each other's [[citizens]]>
:b : marked by or based on reciprocity <reciprocal trade agreements>
==Description==
The social [[norm]] of '''reciprocity''' is the [[expectation]] that people will [[respond]] to each other in similar ways—responding to gifts and [[kindness]]es from others with similar benevolence of their own, and responding to harmful, hurtful [[acts]] from others with either indifference or some form of retaliation. Such norms can be crude and [[mechanical]], such as a [[literal]] reading of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye eye-for-an-eye rule lex talionis], or they can be [[complex]] and sophisticated, such as a [[subtle]] [[understanding]] of how [[anonymous]] donations to an international organization can be a form of reciprocity for the receipt of very [[personal]] benefits, such as the [[love]] of a [[parent]].
The norm of reciprocity varies widely in its details from situation to situation, and from [[society]] to society. Anthropologists and sociologists have often claimed, however, that having some version of the norm appears to be a social inevitability.[1]
===Reciprocity and Justice===
[[Standard]] usage of the term [[justice]] shows its close general connection to the [[concept]] of reciprocity. Justice includes the [[idea]] of [[fairness]], and that in turn includes treating similar cases similarly, giving people what they deserve, and apportioning all other benefits and burdens in an equitable way. Those [[things]], further, involve acting in a principled, impartial way that forbids playing favorites and may require [[sacrifices]]. All of those [[things]] are certainly in the neighborhood of the elements of reciprocity (e.g., fittingness, proportionality), but it is challenging to explain the precise connections.
[[Discussions]] of merit, desert, blame, and punishment inevitably involve questions about the fittingness and proportionality of our responses to others, and retributive [[theories]] of punishment put the norm of reciprocity at their [[center]]. The idea is to make the punishment fit the crime. This differs from utilitarian theories of punishment, which may use fittingness and proportionality as constraints, but whose ultimate [[commitment]] is to make punishment serve social goals such as general deterrence, [[public]] safety, and the rehabilitation of wrongdoers.
===Mutuality===
What is the [[relation]] between reciprocity and [[love]], [[friendship]] or [[family]] [[relationships]]? If such relationships are [[ideal]]ly ones in which the parties are connected by mutual [[affection]] and benevolence, shouldn’t justice and reciprocity stay out of their way? Isn’t impartiality inconsistent with love? Doesn’t acting on principle take the [[affection]] out of [[friendship]] or [[family]] relationships? Doesn’t follow the norm of reciprocity eliminate unconditional love or [[loyalty]]?
Some contemporary [[philosophers]] have criticized major figures in the history of Western philosophy, including [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ John Rawls]’ early [[work]], for making familial relationships more or less opaque in theories of justice. The [[argument]] is that families can be grossly unjust, and have often been so. Since the family is “the school of justice,” if it is unjust the [[moral]] [[education]] of children is distorted, and the injustice tends to spread to the [[society]] at large, and to be perpetuated in following generations. If that is right, then justice and reciprocity must define the boundaries within which we pursue even the most [[intimate]] [[relationships]].
A somewhat different thread on these matters begins with Aristotle’s discussion of [[friendship]], in ''Nicomachean Ethics'' 1155-1172a. He proposes that the highest or best form of friendship involves a relationship between equals – one in which a genuinely reciprocal relationship is possible. This thread appears throughout the [[history]] of Western [[ethics]] in discussions of personal and social relationships of many sorts: between [[children]] and [[parents]], spouses, humans and other animals, and humans and god(s). The question is the extent to which the kind of reciprocity possible in various relationships determines the kind of mutual affection and [[Goodness|benevolence]] possible in those relationships.
==Notes==
# Gouldner, Alvin. “The Norm of Reciprocity.” American Sociological Review 25 (1960): 161-78.
# Blau, Peter M. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley, 1964. Reprinted, with a new introduction, New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1986.
# Gergen, Kenneth J., Martin Greenberg, and Richard H. Willis, eds. Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research. New York: Plenum, 1980.
# Axelrod, Robert. The Evolution of Cooperation. Revised edition. New York: Basic Books, 2006.
# Becker, Lawrence C. Reciprocity. London and New York: Routledge, 1986. Contains bibliographic essays.
[[Category: Sociology]]
[[Category: Anthropology]]
