Social Contagion theory

[marct]

Hi Tom,

The social constructivist paradigm is weak because it fails to give any obdurate (how I've longed to use that word in some forum) status to norms and roles. And forgive me if I'm stomping all over someone's favorite paradigm here, but people like Joel Best see norms as always emerging and roles as constantly entered and exited. They see society as always in flux, a fiction if you will, that only exists in peoples' minds. Hence, contagion for them is only useful as a concept which explains consequences of action, not as a concept which helps understand the causes of action.

I think you are misreading social constructionist theory here, mainly by conflating it with symbolic interactionism and social constructivism (BTW, its not my favourite paradigm at all, I just find it a simple and useful tool ). A couple of points that are worth bringing out here.

Norms: The first point I'd like to make about norms is that they are a statistical construct based on a frequency distribution of a given norm amongst a population (the Parsonian version of the older concept of "mores and folkways". They are not a thing in itself but, rather, a frequency characteristic of a population. Since their originating source is individual members of the population, the frequency distribution of any given norm will fluctuate as members of that population change their perceptions and ways of doing things. Giving an obdurate status (love that word too ) to a norm is the analogic equivalent of measuring solar radiation at one point in time and saying that it is the constant.

Roles: Social roles are similar to social norms in that they are also population level frequency distributions that are subject to change based upon changes in the social structure, organizational structures and/or environmental variables.

Obdurate status of rules and norms: certain types of roles and norms are more persistent than others, and some could be classified as obdurate. In particular, these would be the norms and role expectations (not the roles themselves) that have direct ties to the biological reality of humanity. The examination of this type of roles and norms is what led E.O. Wilson to start thinking about, and formulating, sociobiology in the earl 1970's. For a much better, and more modern and enlightened view, take a look at Jerome H. Barkow, 2001 Universalien und Evolutionäre Psychologie. In Universalien und Konstruktivismus, pp. 126-138. Peter M . Hejl, Hg. Universalien und Konstruktivismus. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag (English language version here).

On the question of causation, I really think you are wrong. The concept of contagion is used extensively by some of the constructionists as a way to understand social action. Take a look at The Satanism Scare (Best, Richardson and Bromley, 1991: Google books Amazon) for an example of this, especially the chapters in part 3.

It seems what the whole rhetoric of fear crowd is missing is what attribution psychologists call "veridicality" or what Walter Stephan (2000). "Intergroup relations" pp. 333-336 in A. Kazdin (ed.) Encyclopedia of psychology. Washington DC: APA calls "realism" as in realistic threat assessment. This constitutes the role of leaders to realistically characterize the threat and not cater to symbolic overtones. Interactionists firmly believe symbolic communication is more powerful than realistic communication, and that is both their virtue and vice.

Tom, I think you are totally misreading the assumption about symbolic communications: constructionists assume that all communications are "symbolic". If by "realistic" you mean an objectively valid, 1:1 mapping of language and reality, then they would reject this as totally naive and unsupported in philosophy, biology or linguistics, and I would agree with that position. If by "realistic" you mean using words and producing analyses in what Kuhn termed a "normal science" manner, they would certainly agree that it exists, but they would note that it is a limited "map" of "objective reality" - it's why the constructionists spend so much time analyzing the operational definitions in social rhetoric.

In sum, contagion is an energy source for the causes of action. It can be managed, sure, but I think it has to be treated as a structural phenomenon if we are ever to understand its true nature. Thanks for letting me share.

Now who's reifying ! I certainly agree that you can't really understand contagion without analyzing the social and communicative structures. I will point out that there are methodological problems in doing so; specifically if you treat contagion as an "energy source", how do you measure it? Most of the major attempts I'm aware of go back in one way or another to Korzybski's General Semantics and, specifically, his concept of semantic indexicality. But this puts you firmly back into an examination of the bio-physiological roots of thought which, if we want to update the scientific basis of Korzybski, means that we end up examining cognitive schemes.

Now, personally, I'm fine with that - I've been doing it for quite a while now.

You know Tom, I suspect that this entire conversation would do better over beers .

Marc