Forms of social relationships in distinct cultural settings Maroussia Favre1,∗, Didier Sornette1,2,† 1 ETH Z¨urich, Department of Management, Technology and Economics, Scheuchzerstrasse 7, 8092 Z¨urich, Switzerland 2 Swiss Finance Institute, c/o University of Geneva, 40 blvd. Du Pont d’Arve, CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland ∗ Corresponding author: [email protected] † [email protected] Abstract We contribute to the understanding of social relationships within cultural contexts by proposing a connection between a social theory, relational models theory (RMT: Fiske, 1991, 1992) and a social and political one, cultural or plural rationality theory (PRT: Douglas, 1978, 1982, Thompson et al., 1990). Drawing examples from the literature of both theories, we argue that each relational model of RMT may be implemented in ways compatible with each cultural bias of PRT. A cultural bias restrains the range of congruent implementations of relational models, but does not preclude any relational model altogether. This stands in contrast to earlier reconciliation attempts between PRT and RMT. Based on hypothetical one-to-one mappings, these attempts expect each cultural setting to be significantly associated with some, but not all, relational models. The framework we develop helps explain the findings of these previous attempts and provides insights into empirical research by clarifying which associations to expect between relationships and cultural contexts. We discuss the theoretical basis of our framework, including the idea that RMT and PRT apply to different levels of analysis: RMT’s relational models are tied to relationships between two actors and PRT’s cultural biases to structures of social networks. Keywords: social relationships, culture, social networks, relational models theory, plural rationality theory, cultural grid-group theory JEL classifications: D71, A13, Z13, M14, L14, F51 1 Introduction 1.1 Motivation We propose a connection between relational models theory (RMT: Fiske, 1991, 1992) and plural rationality theory (PRT: Douglas, 1978, 1982, Thompson et al., 1990). These two theories connect to the works of social and political theorists and anthropologists such as Durkheim, Weber, Piaget, Marx, Polanyi, Sahlins, Evans-Pritchard, L´evi-Strauss, and a number of others, and can be called theories of constrained relativism1 (Verweij, 2007, Lockhart and Franzwa, 1994, 176). arXiv:1604.08825v1 [physics.soc-ph] 29 Apr 2016 The idea behind constrained relativism is that the variety of social life emerges from just a small number of fundamental options, and that the particular choice of an option may be largely influenced by the cultural context. This contrasts with the post-structuralist view, which holds that social life derives from an infinite diversity of options, such that each person is unique and only individual descriptions make sense. Constrained relativism also departs from 1The tradition of constrained relativism goes back to Maine, Tonnies, Durkheim, and Weber. Other theories that can be said to belong to constrained relativism are, for example, Jonathan Haidt’s moral foundations theory (Haidt, 2007), Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1984), Triandis’ culture orientation scales (Triandis, 1995), Richard Shweder’s tripartite theory of morality (Schweder et al., 1997) and Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of practice (Bourdieu, 1977). Except for Triandis’ constructs, to which we come back in section 4, the description of these theories is beyond the scope of the present work. 1 rational choice theory, insofar as the latter posits that people behave as if they had access to and processed all information instantly, and used this ability to form preferences obeying well-defined axioms. Recently, Verweij et al. (2015) argued that rational choice theory, post-structuralism, and additionally behavioral economics, are inconsistent with the way our brain functions according to processes described by affective and social neuroscience. These authors propose that PRT and generally theories of constrained relativism are compatible with the findings of neuroscience. By reconciling two theories of constrained relativism, our hope is to contribute to strengthening it. When one is confronted with the PRT and RMT typologies (to which an introduction is given in sections 1.2 and 1.3), it immediately appears that they should be related. One may intuitively imagine one to be a simple transformation of the other. Indeed, RMT and PRT seem to describe the same fundamental ingredients of social life. PRT posits that there are four ways of organizing social relationships, each of which is associated with a compatible set of individual norms, values, perceptions, beliefs and preferences (called cultural biases). RMT postulates four models of relationships, the relational models, and recently examined their combinatorics (Fiske, 2011) as well as the moral norms and values associated with them (Rai and Fiske, 2011, Fiske and Rai, 2014). Moreover, each theory claims its fourfold typology to be exhaustive and universal: in each and every social domain, people are supposed to attend to the types defined by the theory, singly or in combination. As a result of the similarities between these two important theories, several researchers have previously attempted to unite them, or one of them and concepts present in the other. These efforts, which we review in section 4, face related issues. Vodosek (2009) and Realo et al. (2004) seek associations between RMT’s typology and the typology introduced by Triandis (1995, 1996), which can be argued to closely parallel the PRT typology (Verweij et al., 2014, 87-9). Vodosek (2009) tests hypotheses expressed by Triandis (1995, 50-1) connecting relational models with Triandis’ constructs, but Vodosek’s empirical results only partly confirm these hypotheses. Realo et al. (2004), for their part, conclude that there is no one-to-one mapping between the typology of RMT and social contexts in general, but do not propose any other model. Verweij (2007) undertakes a reconciliation attempt of PRT and RMT at a theoretical level, which brings out several apparent inconsistencies. Finally, Brito et al. (2011) empirically test for a subset of associations between relational models and social contexts, but without constructing a complete theoretical explanation for their results. Our approach not only reconciles RMT with PRT, but also provides interpretations for the results of the aforementioned earlier attempts, as we argue in section 4. Before presenting our framework in section 2, let us give an introduction to both theories. 1.2 Relational models theory (RMT) Relational models theory was introduced by Fiske (1991, 1992) in the field of anthropology to study how people construct their social relationships. RMT posits that people use four elementary models to organize most aspects of most social interactions in all societies. These models are communal sharing (CS), authority ranking (AR), equality matching (EM), and market pricing (MP). • In CS, people perceive in-group members as equivalent and undifferentiated. CS relation- ships are based on principles of unity, identity, conformity and undifferentiated sharing of resources. Decision-making is achieved through consensus. CS is typically manifested in close family or friendship bonds, teams, nationalities, ethnicities or between soldiers exposed to stressful conditions. • In AR relationships, people are asymmetrically ranked in a linear hierarchy. Subordinates are expected to defer, respect and obey high-rankers, who take precedence. Conversely, 2 superiors protect and lead low-rankers. Subordinates are thus not exploited and also benefit from the relationship. Resources are distributed according to ranks and decision- making follows a top-down chain of command. • EM relationships are based on a principle of equal balance and one-to-one reciprocity. Salient EM manifestations are turn-taking, democratic voting (one person, one vote), in-kind reciprocity, coin flipping, distribution of equal shares, and tit-for-tat retaliation. • MP is based on a principle of proportionality. Relationships are organized with reference to socially meaningful ratios and rates, such as prices, cost-benefit analyses or time opti- mization. Rewards and punishment are proportional to merit. Abstract symbols, typically money, are used to represent relative values. MP relationships are not necessarily indi- vidualistic; for instance, utilitarian judgments seeking the greatest good for the greatest number are manifestations of MP. The four relational models (RMs) have in common that they suppose a coordination between individuals with reference to a shared model. To these, Fiske adds two limiting cases that do not involve any other-regarding abilities or coordination (Fiske, 1991, 19-20): • In asocial interactions, individuals exploit others and treat them as animate objects or means to an end (as in psychopathy, armed robbery, pillage); • In null interactions, people do not interact at all (they do not actively ignore each other, which still requires a coordination), as can be the case of two inhabitants of the same building who never cross each other’s way or fail to notice each other’s existence, and thus do not adapt their actions to each other. Any relationship generally consist in a combination of RMs (Fiske, 1991, 155-168). For example, “roommates may share tapes and records freely with each other (CS), work on a task at which one is an expert and imperiously directs the other (AR), divide equally the cost