Reciprocity in Close Relationships ““There is no duty more indispensable than that of returning a kindness,” says Cicero.” (Gouldner 161). What is reciprocity? According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, reciprocity is “a situation or relationship in which two people or groups agree to do something similar for each other, to allow each other to have the same rights.” What is reciprocity in a close relationship? Reciprocity in a close relationship is similar to just reciprocity in any nature but in a close relationship people give back the same kind of treatment they receive from someone else. It is similar to the golden rule, “treat others how you want to be treated.” We are known to repay favors, invites to events, gifts etc. Reciprocity has always been something my parents have told me make sure I stay on top of. They have always told me, “treat others how I want to be treated”, it is something to remember and live by because it is important if one of your friends or romantic partner remembers your birthday and gets you a gift or even as simple …show more content…
There are two specific “demands” that Gouldner writes about reciprocity and how it should be in its universal form. These two demands are “people should help those who have helped them and people should not injure those who have helped them.” The norm of reciprocity is viewed as something that is supposed to be in everyone’s values and hope that everyone is taking this into consideration when they are going through their life. But people have different views and see their own form of reciprocity; they have been brought up to think a certain way. They have seen how family members, friends and acquaintances treat reciprocity, so they take that view and that is how they also do it when they grow
“Treating others the way you wish to be treated” is a saying that is very often thrown around. In Carson McCullers’ short story, I found that she used her characters to show her readers that by not treating others the way you wish to be treated that they too will forget how to treat you properly. I felt that this was a very important message throughout the short story for many reasons.
Morality evolved to solve this problem of cooperation. The essence of morality is altruism, however there is a tendency for people to prefer group affiliations rather than individual interests or the interests of other groups (23). Morality helps avoid the Tragedy of the Commons, but not the Tragedy of Commonsense Morality (26). The Tragedy of Commonsense Morality is the separation between Us vs. Them outlined in the Parable of the New Pastures (15). In order to thrive with Commonsense Morality, humans developed a metamorality that allows conflicting moralities to live together
...same favors nor appreciate it. Thus, we can finally conclude that being kind and nice can in return be risky and “counter beneficial”.
... disposition to help those whom they have established personal contacts. However, one’s obligation over remote strangers is less demanding. To Miller, giving less aid to distant strangers because one is favoring those whom he is closely connected to does not fail to show equal respect. A person only needs to fulfill what Principle of Sympathy demands to be moral.
For the purpose of this essay, this writer will define reciprocity as the expectation or ‘norm’ that people will respond to another party in the same manner in which the other party has treated them. So, for practical purposes, this means rewarding a good deed with another good deed, and punishing a bad deed with another bad deed. Of course, in order for a system like this to produce a favorable outcome, both groups must start out with good deeds, otherwise the system will only lead to relatively permanent hostilities.
Travis Hirschi presented a social bonding theory in 1969. The main idea of the social bonding theory is that each and every individual has a drive to act in selfish and even aggressive ways that might possibly lead to criminal behavior. Social bonding theory is somewhat have similarities with the Durkheim theory that “we are all animals, and thus naturally capable of committing criminal acts” (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 162). However, the stronger a person is bonded to the conventional society, for example, family, schools, communities, the less prone a person is to be involved in criminal activity. The great example of this would be the serial killer Nannie Doss. Since early age she did not have any bonds either to her family with an abusive father or to community she lived in. Most of the time during her childhood she was isolated from any social interactions with her schoolmates or friends.
My attention was also drawn to several questions in this podcast, which made me eager to find the answers to these questions. For example, one interesting question I heard was “when you do see generosity how do you know it’s really generous” (Levy, 2010). This question stood out to me because it is one particular question I don’t think about often and made me wonder whether people help someone out because they see it as a duty. However, I believe the best answer to this question is the portrayal of the concept of norm of reciprocity, which indicates “the expectation that helping others will increase the likelihood that they will help us in the future” (Akert, Aronson, & Wilson, 2013, p.303). This is true because “generosity” happens when both persons are nice to each other and if an individual helps another person then it’s easy to assume that the person who was
The inferential and implicit motives are connotative aspect of the gift, social bonds being by that created and reciprocation encouraged. The requirement to give might be ingrained in religious or moral necessities, with an obligation to recognize to maintain and establish social ties, or merely the expectation of reciprocal giving. These motives, which do not acknowledge purely selfless giving, become ingrained in the essence of society so that under appropriate conditions an individual is socially obligated to give gifts. The majority of gift exchanges that are intended to forge social bonds come about within the framework of ritualized occasions and special events, such as at birthdays or during religious celebrations (Cheal, 1988). These ritualized occasions usually play a high important role in maintaining established relationships (Bourdieu, 1986). Gift-gifting could be also used to reflect and maintain both social integration and social distance. The work of Mauss (1924) remains fundamental to contemporary interpretations of gift-giving and has revealed his own interpretation to gifts as he explained the act gifts giving according to the three forms of obligation; to give, to receive and to repay, it is reciprocity, or the sense of indebtedness, that guides the gift exchange system. Explicitly, it is the aspiration to achieve “balanced reciprocity”, the symmetry between giver and receiver achieved through role cancellation (Roberts, 1990). According to an assumed norm of reciprocity elaborated later by Gouldner, an individual is obliged to give, to receive, and to reciprocate (Gouldner, 1960). The imperative nature of the form of obligation derives from their cultural embeddedness . Mauss acknowledge gifts as total social facts. Building on this notion
Most people can not relate so something unless they have personally also gone through it, so when someone does evil things to others they are mostly unaware on how it affects others negatively. In the article "What Makes us Moral" Kluger states "The deepest foundation of morality is built is the phenomenon of empathy, the understanding that what hurts me would feel the same way to you" (Kluger,8). Once someone is able to relate and empathize with another person they are less likely to enact on something evil , because they know how it would feel if it was to happen to them. The people of this world also try to determine who is worthy of doing a good deed for. If people began to see each other in the same light and all as equals there would be more kindness in the world. In "What Makes us Moral" Kluger also says is " Our species has a very conflicted sense of when we ought to help someone, and when we ought not, and the general rule is. help those close to home, and ignore those far away" (Kluger,16). This goes on to show that people are taught that they can only do good for those who do good unto them, or those who are close to them. Society teaches us when it is okay to do kind things and when it is "okay" to make a evil
All six rules that we generally follow that Cialdini pointed out is irrational. Firstly, reciprocity is irrational because not because someone did something for you does not mean you necessarily should do something in return. For example, while I was reading chapter 2 it mentions that we as human do thins not because of the goodness of our hearts but because we are self-regarding. How we are going to feel in the end is what matters to. If we did not do something in return for someone then we would feel guilty and for that reasoning alone is irrational.
Before a case can be made for the causes of altruism, altruism itself must first be defined. Most leading psychologists agree that the definition of altruism is “a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing another’s welfare.” (Batson, 1981). The only way for a person to be truly altruistic is if their intent is to help the community before themselves. However, the only thing humans can see is the actions themselves, and so, selfish intent may seem the same as altruistic intent. Alas, the only way that altruism can be judged is if the intent is obvious. Through that, we must conclude that only certain intents can be defined as altruistic, and as intent stemming from nature benefits the group while other intent benefits yourself, only actions caused by nature are truly altruistic.
Reciprocity is symbolic of creating, maintaining, or strengthening social relationships as well as satisfying the material needs and wants of someone in need. It refers to the exchange of objects without the use of money or other media of exchange. It can take the form of sharing, hospitality, gifts, or bartering. Anthropologists identify three forms of reciprocity.
As I experience college life, I realize my morals are different from others. When crossing the street, I always wait for the cars to pass and if I do cross I make sure they see me. This is also a safety precaution that I was taught because drivers are frequently distracted and do not see pedestrians walking. On University of Northern Iowa’s campus, drivers are used to waiting for pedestrians; instead, I find myself waiting for the cars to go when really they are waving me to cross. Other students mindlessly walk across the street not even thinking about the cars. Another moral of mine is the golden rule; treat others how you would like to be treated. However, other kids did not grow up in a town that taught this. So, I let others in the door first, open the door for others, or let them cut in line. While everyone else takes advantage of what I am doing for them and do not receive a “thank you” back I brush it off because I know better. For my culture system to survive and thrive well we need to treat others well. This is part of the functionalist perspective that Emile Durkheim describes with the Arunta tribe. He understood the role that religion had on
We had to ask ourselves, would we accept the actions of others if they were placed in our predicament. His philosophy mirrored the “golden rule” of doing unto to others, as you would have them do unto you. However, on the same note: one cannot base everyone’s actions on the actions of one person. These actions are used when determining moral right and wrong. Categorical imperative determines moral rights based off universalizability and reversibility. Universalizability speaks to the reason for one’s actions must be reasons that everyone would act on, or principle. The other hand, reversibility speaks to how the action reflect on a whole. Would you be willing to have others treat you the way you were going to treat someone
As human beings, the author says we are like other creatures on earth that are governed by laws of gravity, or certain biological laws that govern things on this earth; we have no choice but to obey. There is, though, one law that we can choose to obey or not. It is a law that we call the law of human decent behavior. It doesn't matter what part of the world we live in, Dr. Lewis says, people differ very little when it comes to right and wrong as related to the law of human decent behavior. We do not always take it into consideration when we should be doing it to other people; nonetheless, we recognize indecent behavior when we are expecting it and do not receive it. There are two things, the author points out, that all human beings all over the earth have in common: (1) this idea that they are to behave in a certain way, and they cannot really get rid of it; and (2) they do not in fact behave in that way — they know the law of nature and they break it.