Ken Hacker [920504]
Those of us who study human communication from a cognitive point of view,
are concerned with how cognitive representations diverge or converge during
social interaction. Rick's comments about the riots stimulated me to think
of how two extremes of explaining human behavior are both false. One says
that people are determined by external factors (behaviorism, cultural
studies). The other says that people are purely determined by internal
factors (cognitivism, some approaches to perception). Could it not be
that the study of social interaction as the interplay of control systems
and the study of control systems as the perceptions and regulation of
social interactions could lead to better theories of both perception and
social interaction?
Concerning control and influence, I see clear conceptual distinctions which
I have learned on this hotline. Yet the two are related, albeit in ways not
yet understood. Control is much more total and personal:
Control Influence
forcing persuading, coercing
total perception shaping, constraining decoding
internal reference external reference
I know I am speculating, so I will sign off now. Thanks again for some
great food for thought regarding the situation in LA.
Ken Hacker
···
---------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL NOTE RESPONDED TO:
[From Rick Marken (920501 17:00)]
Rick here, from riot central.
Spent the day at home today -- work cancelled due to "civic
unrest". Boy, are you social psychologists (and sociologists)
missing some interesting interactions between living control
systems.
I am motivated to begin another thread on social control --
but frankly, I'm a bit shaken now. So let me make some quick
comments on a couple of linguistics posts -- and then R&R for
a night. Suffice it to say that I want to talk about the fact
that people don't think they are controlling other people when
they are. For example, I have heard it said that it is not a
control strategy to give people the option of working or living
in poverty -- it's their choice. I think this is disingenuous;
and ultimately hurtful. But it does sound fair and humane -- not
like control. Just like operant conditioning really -- you can
press the bar or starve, it's your choice. We even can be nicer
and give you many ways not to starve besides pressing the bar;
what could be fairer?
------------------------------------------------------------