User:Papersign/support

Support-Bargaining

Summary
Support-bargaining describes the relationship between individuals and society in terms of a bargaining process through which the individual modifies his or her opinions and behaviour to gain the support of friends, acquaintances and society in general.

The underlying psychological assumption is that individuals feel insecure and need the support of others to maintain their sense of physical, social and intellectual security. Support is understood as a substitute for actual violence. It functions as a bargaining counter analogous in some respects to money.

Support-bargaining provides the mechanism of democracy. Electoral processes can be understood as formalised support-bargaining processes. Majority support in a legislature permits a majority party to pass legislation in accordance with the aims it has formulated.

Support-bargaining is also the process by which theories about society are shaped and sustained. Intellectual support-bargaining involves the adjustment of theoretical positions so as to accumulate high volumes of support for a theory.

Support-bargaining is associated with money-bargaining. The theory of money-bargaining provides a more realistic account of economic transactions than neoclassical economic theory.

Origins and development of support-bargaining theory
‘A Theory of Support and Money Bargaining’ (TSMB) was published in 1984 following research at the London Business School. The book provides a basic account of the theory and identifies academic precursors. Peter Blau’s exchange theory is identified as the main academic precursor: ‘Nevertheless, Blau’s attempt to link group theory with general political, social and economic theory using ideas of exchange and power make it the most direct antecedent of the present theory.’ The links between Blau’s theory and support-bargaining are traced in an article, ‘Blau’s Exchange Theory, Support and the Macrostructure’. Support-bargaining theory is used to elaborate Lindblom’s account of merit in agreement (or ‘muddling through’) and Wildavsky’s account of support in budget processes in an article ‘Lindblom, Wildavsky and the Role of Support.’

A more developed version of the theory was published in 2004 as ‘Getting It Right: Economics and the Security of Support’ (GIR). This book contrasts situation-related consumer selection with neoclassical marginal theory. It links neoclassical theory with the support-bargaining process. In 2008 ‘Support-Bargaining: The Mechanics of Democracy Revealed’ (SB) was published. This developed the political aspects of support-bargaining and the idea of intellectual support-bargaining as the process by which social theories are formed. It shows how neoclassical economic theory, including foreign trade theory, has been designed to assemble support for the protection of individual interests in political support-bargaining.

Individual Need for Support
Support-bargaining rests on the psychological premise that individuals feel insecure and want the support of those around them to establish a sense of security. This insecurity has three main aspects. Firstly, there is physical insecurity, for which the remedy is a group standing as it were ‘shoulder to shoulder’ in defence, should the prospect of actual violence present itself. A gang provides this sort of reassurance. Secondly, there is social insecurity. We may feel uncertain about how to behave towards others. The uncertainties seem trivial in isolation – how to greet people with courtesy, how to behave at meals, who to give presents to. The great range of codes of behaviour in all societies nevertheless testifies to the importance of this kind of insecurity. Thirdly there is intellectual insecurity. The world and human society is complex and confusing, so humans form group theories to explain who they are and where they come from.

Allaying these insecurities requires that an individual forms around himself or herself groups of supporting friends and acquaintances. This is done by supporting the approved behaviour and opinions of colleagues and associates.

The individual will also seek the support of society in general by conforming to the patterns of behaviour that are known to be acceptable. Strong individuals who feel they have something special to offer their fellows may be inclined to strike out on their own, behaving as they please. They risk the pains of ostracism, though if a group really appreciates the qualities they have to offer, it will give the individual its support, accepting him or her into the group. This process means that individual opinion and group opinion are not separable. All individual opinion is conditioned by the need for support. Altruism is behaviour designed to gain support from the group.

Social support-bargaining
Support-bargaining results in the formation of numerous groups across society characterised by certain approved patterns of behaviour and opinion.

Groups will form most readily amongst those in similar situations. One of the basic principles of support-bargaining (and of money-bargaining) is that people act by reference to their situation. Interests are understood by reference to situation. Hence people in similar employment, with similar wages, will tend to form a social group amongst themselves more readily than with those in quite different employment, with different incomes. Factory workers will readily support opinion that suggests they are entitled to better working conditions. Wealthier people will readily agree that taxation is excessive and should be reduced. Groups form on the basis of shared interests and support a great variety of distinctive behavioural traits to identify their members and distinguish them from other groups.

The support convention
Support is conceived as having some of the psychological implications of violence. Where non-negotiable interests are not threatened, and there is widespread abhorrence of violence, it is possible to establish a support convention. This convention means that volumes of support are accepted as decisive on communal issues. Majority support is normally accepted as entitling the majority group to advancement of the interests of its supporters. The larger army can be expected to win a battle. It saves bloodshed and grief if the larger numbers are deemed to be entitled to advance their interests, within limits, without fighting. The support convention in Britain up to the twentieth century covered only support that was backed by property or income. In 1918 the Representation of the People Act extended the convention to all men and to women over thirty years of age.

Electoral structures and legislatures
With a support convention, many people can be involved in the process of government. Elections can be seen as support-bargaining in defined bargaining sets based on geographical location. Support-bargaining structures give opportunities for groups to attain majorities in legislatures.

Political parties
Both in support-bargaining and money-bargaining organisations are understood as the strongest bargaining agencies. In support-bargaining political parties are formed to bring organisational bargaining strength to the process. A political party unites candidates in a permanent organisation to take advantage of the opportunities offered by electoral systems. Party candidates successful in constituencies cohere in a legislature to form a majority. A crucial element of organisation is the establishment of money-budgets, so that professional organisational staff can be employed and costs of territory-wide advertising of the policies and measures they offer in exchange for support can be met.

Flexibility of Groups
Support-bargaining theory makes it clear that for a ‘democracy’ to function effectively, social groups have to have a degree of flexibility. Rigidity of groups means that support cannot flow from group to group in response to changing situations. Without such flow, the support convention is likely to be abandoned. Traditional groups are rigid, war-ready groups, so transitions in group commitments are required before traditional societies establish the conditions for democracy.

Theory formation
Intellectual support-bargaining develops group support for certain ideas or theories about the world and human society. By bringing wide support together it provides intellectual security. Beyond that, it assembles large volumes of support that can potentially be used in political support-bargaining for the advancement of interests. Theories in support-bargaining societies form reservoirs of support that can be tapped to support measures proposed in the political support-bargaining arena.

In the twentieth century two theories about human society commanded widespread support. Capitalism sustained ideas of individual freedom and free enterprise, while socialism sustained ideas of equality and communal endeavour. Within Western European nation states factions committed to these theories competed for political ascendancy. Internationally, capitalist and communist theories were central to the ‘cold war’ that dominated international relations from the end of the Second World War to 1990.

Foundations of theory
There are advantages in holding theories that are ‘true’ in an absolute sense. Firstly, and most obviously, following a false social theory may lead to material damage, just as ignoring the law of gravity may lead to harm. Secondly, a true theory is non-negotiable, just as the law of gravity is non-negotiable. A theory group with a true theory cannot be expected to concede theoretical ground. Theory groups commonly seek to base their theories on true understandings of the nature of existence, or at least to convince themselves and others that there theories have such solid foundation. Much social theory is based on the idea that a divine being revealed the truth about the world in scriptures transmitted to humanity. Economic theory emphasises that its analysis is based on rigorous logic and mathematics. It commits also to natural scientific method as the test of truth. Karl Marx endeavoured to base his theory on scientific facts regarding the historical evolution of human societies.

It is apparent, however, that the theories widely held in society rest principally on the common interest of those holding them. Economic theory advances interests in individualism and free enterprise against the threat of dominance by the masses. Socialism advances the interests of the masses in equality and a transfer of wealth to the poorer sections of humanity. Marxism, as well as being ‘scientific’, is explicitly designed to advance the interests of the industrial proletariat. People in similar situations find it easy to group together on the basis of theories that seem likely to advance their interests.

The echo-chamber effect
The formation of theories through group support-bargaining amongst people in similar situations means that the foundations of the theories, the theories themselves, and the social prescriptions derived from them are all formed in the same process and are harmonious in their advancement of the group interest. Members of the theory group will see, interpret and understand what is around them by reference to their theory. Hence theory groups tend to operate in echo-chambers, where they observe by reference to their theories, and what they observe confirms the validity of their theories. Economists see and interpret society in terms of market theory, and their observations confirm the validity of their theory. The echo-chamber effect in economic theory is sharply apparent when the marginal model of consumer choice is contrasted with situation-related selection. Support-bargaining incorporates a theory of theory-formation, and consequently provides a ‘frame of frames’.

Institutionalisation of theory-making
The bargaining strength of organisations is apparent in the control of institutions of learning over theory formation. The theory of intellectual support-bargaining suggests that the isolation of these institutions from ordinary life and the attractive career paths they offer has led to the production and protection of unrealistic theory. Theory has become frozen in institutional moulds.