Scott wrote:
> Bruce's point about money as a social constraint is a very good one. But
> I think it does not support the utility of his definition of social
> constraint.
>
> Some 30 years ago, Gurley and Shaw argued that some part of the money
> supply is endogenous ... <detail snipped out>
> .... Certainly that has
> happened in very rfecent history in countries with high rates of inflation.
What you say seems true and adds interesting detail to the picture, but
is besides the points I was making.
I made two points.
The first was a clarification of the way I use the terms 'individual
constraint' and 'social constraint', which might well be different from
others - my intention was not normative. The model was to clarify
these, so whether it was over simple or not is irrelevant to this point.
The second point was pointing out the lack of evidence of the increase
in predictability of social level phenomena with increased constraints
upon individuals. The fact that individuals seek to avoid such
constraints does not mean they totally succeed! After all if their
strategems were 100% successful why did the hyperinflation cause such
misery? Usually if people can choose to avoid misery they do. Thus
despite the strategems involved, individuals were still more greatly
constrained (all things considered) than before the hyperinflation.
Thus my second point holds.
> The point is that institutional forms change in response to emergent social
> phenomena and that a key goal in much human behaviour is actually to find
> ways of avoiding or eliminating the most binding constraints.
And creating constraints! Luhman pointed out how people actively
*create* constraints in order to simplify their environment.
> .... "Society"
> does not create constraints but there are clearly constraints in the sense of
> limits on individual behaviour and therefore social outcomes which cannot
> be understood except in the context of the feedback relationship between
> individual behaviour and social consequences.
I am a little unclear here of your intention. Are you denying the
existence of "society" and putting forward a (slightly) more
reductionist approach with "emergent social phenomena" and "feedback
realtionships" only?
> PS: Isn't that a feature of what Bruce calls social embeddedness?
No. I call would call this being 'socially situated' and I (personally)
use 'socially embededness' as indicating a stronger situation.
Regards.
(and I thought it would be safe to put forward a quasi-economic example
given scott was out of the office!)
--------------------------------------------------
Bruce Edmonds,
Centre for Policy Modelling,
Manchester Metropolitan University, Aytoun Bldg.,
Aytoun St., Manchester, M1 3GH. UK.
Tel: +44 161 247 6479 Fax: +44 161 247 6802
http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/~bruce
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|