Comments on: Society as Choice http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/51 Notes from the intersection of law, society, technology, economics, and culture Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:50:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: Ben Samuel Nelson http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/51#comment-8773 Ben Samuel Nelson Fri, 19 Jan 2007 04:22:45 +0000 http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/51#comment-8773 Matt (Jan 16), the question for our purposes in this thread is, I take it, "What is society?" and "Is society choice?". Law (or norms) may be the glue that holds together "society", but to determine whether that even makes any sense, we have to have some idea of what "society" means. And if by "society" we mean something like "political institution" (in my sense), then we run into the logical puzzle I mentioned before. Questions like "What is law?" are always going to float in the background, of course; and they are closely relevant to the central concern; but they're not front-and-center for the purposes of this thread. You're right to be skeptical of the puzzle. I don't mean for it to be decisive, or demonstrate an impossible philosophical roadblock. And you're also right to point out that, in a sense, it only arises because we decide we don't want to pay attention, we just "assume away" the real factors beneath institutions. But my point is, if we fail to assume them away, then we fail to really grasp the phenomenon of "society" is. We're left talking about mere organizations without any theoretical end in view. At least one end, I think, is to explain interesting facts about institutions; but first we have to have some idea about what an institution "looks like", so to speak. I think we agree on many points. I'm especially impressed by cognitive and discursive accounts of these matters. But I don't know if they go so far as to recommend any stand on the positivist/nonpositivist debate, since I take our discussions at the present to be descriptive, i.e., "When do people regard the law as legit?" while the pos/nonpos debate is normative, i.e., "When should we regard the law as legit?". (But I've taken issue with the normative endorsement of the "moral override", even if the descriptive facts about how people really do make decisions based on a "cultural cognition" model are fairly clear.) I'm not sure where my view (which is more or less Russell's view) fits with your "coherance" view. I'd have to know more about it. I can still give first impressions though. I worry that your view implies that there is some united, cohesive story behind peoples's attitudes toward persuasion, both in terms of the means by which one persuades another, and the content which one intends to persuade another. There are qualitatively distinct ways that we persuade each other, and we'll be happier to use some over others (i.e., your partner will probably not torture you to death for cheating at Monopoly). Also, we can't presume people hold a cohesive story. Some conflate (for example) causation with moral blame, and the model of cultural cognition predicts that; but that doesn't mean everyone engages in that kind of conflation. Your reading of Aristotle matches mine (fwiw). I'm going off to watch "Carnivale" now, will reply to the second post later! Matt (Jan 16), the question for our purposes in this thread is, I take it, “What is society?” and “Is society choice?”. Law (or norms) may be the glue that holds together “society”, but to determine whether that even makes any sense, we have to have some idea of what “society” means. And if by “society” we mean something like “political institution” (in my sense), then we run into the logical puzzle I mentioned before. Questions like “What is law?” are always going to float in the background, of course; and they are closely relevant to the central concern; but they’re not front-and-center for the purposes of this thread.

You’re right to be skeptical of the puzzle. I don’t mean for it to be decisive, or demonstrate an impossible philosophical roadblock. And you’re also right to point out that, in a sense, it only arises because we decide we don’t want to pay attention, we just “assume away” the real factors beneath institutions. But my point is, if we fail to assume them away, then we fail to really grasp the phenomenon of “society” is. We’re left talking about mere organizations without any theoretical end in view. At least one end, I think, is to explain interesting facts about institutions; but first we have to have some idea about what an institution “looks like”, so to speak.

I think we agree on many points. I’m especially impressed by cognitive and discursive accounts of these matters. But I don’t know if they go so far as to recommend any stand on the positivist/nonpositivist debate, since I take our discussions at the present to be descriptive, i.e., “When do people regard the law as legit?” while the pos/nonpos debate is normative, i.e., “When should we regard the law as legit?”. (But I’ve taken issue with the normative endorsement of the “moral override”, even if the descriptive facts about how people really do make decisions based on a “cultural cognition” model are fairly clear.)

I’m not sure where my view (which is more or less Russell’s view) fits with your “coherance” view. I’d have to know more about it. I can still give first impressions though. I worry that your view implies that there is some united, cohesive story behind peoples’s attitudes toward persuasion, both in terms of the means by which one persuades another, and the content which one intends to persuade another. There are qualitatively distinct ways that we persuade each other, and we’ll be happier to use some over others (i.e., your partner will probably not torture you to death for cheating at Monopoly). Also, we can’t presume people hold a cohesive story. Some conflate (for example) causation with moral blame, and the model of cultural cognition predicts that; but that doesn’t mean everyone engages in that kind of conflation.

Your reading of Aristotle matches mine (fwiw).

I’m going off to watch “Carnivale” now, will reply to the second post later!

]]>