Introduction Human beings are motivated first and foremost by self-interest (Hobbies) in ordinary language and it refers to ‘reciprocal reasoning’ which has been used to explain empirically observed individual behaviour in many contexts and in particularly helping in the workplace (Frey 1993), public good provision (Hollander 1990) and gift exchange (Kranton 1996) as an important mechanism for producing collective goods (Anthony 2005). This making ‘Reciprocity’ the central concept in anthropology, where sociologists define it as an inner fact and essence of a human being in the society acting as glue that holds individuals together (Gouldner 1960; Kolm 1994; Komter 1996). This claims reciprocity as “the vital principle of society” (Hobhouse …show more content…
(2002) reciprocity has been defined as –“an act of voluntary repaying a trusting move at a later point in time, although defaulting on such repayment is in the short-term self-interest of the reciprocator”. Theoretical perspectives of ‘Reciprocity’ as a social capital dimension Reciprocity is a core part of building trustful relationships (Weber and Carter 1992) and reputations in a society (Lyon 2000) and a customary drift in economic and social domains (Neo et al. 2013). Although trust and reciprocity are intertwined (Song 2008) but unlike trust, reciprocity has received relatively less attention in the literature in the past (Song 2009). But more recently it has been examined both theoretically and empirically as a separate construct, yet closely linked to trust (Brandt and Sola 2001; Falk and Fischbacher 2006, Malhotra 2004 and Pillutla et al. 2003). In actuality, although trust and reciprocity behavior are defined to present together, however reported not with a same level/intensity (Chaudhuri et al. 2004). Since it does not come in immediate and formally accounted exchange of legal or business contract but a combination of short term …show more content…
Thus, reciprocity interlocks the status duties which people owe one another (Malinowski 1932), leading to actions to be kind in kind manner, and to actions perceived to be hostile in hostile manner (Rabin 1993; Segal and Sobel 2004; Dufwenberg and Kirchsteiger 2004; Falk and Fischbacher 2005). Basically the type of behaviour depends on the type of benefactor- either there are chances for an individual to behave kindly towards a spiteful person and hostilely towards an altruistic person (Levine 1998), or can connote making cooperative choices who acted cooperatively and making competitive choices towards an opponent who acted competitively (Beggan and Allison 2012). All these choices show varied two-way transfers in between gift and exchange in elementary form, but having a steady relationship (Kolm 1994). These variations expressed derive many types’ of reciprocities modelled using conventional game theory (Ahmed 2011). They are; 1) ‘Conditional reciprocity’ being the most prominent approach for evolution of cooperation (Smith 2010) and its defining feature is that the individual cooperates if other participants to do the same, otherwise it withholds cooperation; 2) ‘Positive reciprocity’ is a motivation to repay generous or helpful actions
Ara Norenzayan asserts that religion is not necessarily a basis for morality. Norenzayan is a psychology professor at the University of British Columbia, giving him the credentials to discuss humans’ moral compass and its origins. However, his judgements on religion are not completely justified as he is not a religion expert. This said, Norenzayan argues that “foraging societies that give… clues… of ancestral human conditions” show they do not have religions with a basis in morality. He also gives an account of a psychological study by Henrich that uses 15 pastoral and horticultural societies that showed “greater prosocial behavior” most prominently when experiencing “economic exchange with strangers” and not just a religion.
Katy Waldman’s article, “Is Anybody Watching My Do-Gooding?” elucidates the kindness and selflessness in people to prove the claim that humans are admirable. Waldman calls to attention that humans are “reflexively pure and kind” and unfortunately are in fact shaped by and “corrupted by our hyper-rational, transactional society” (Waldman). The use of the word “reflexively” indicates automatically, or without conscious thought. This implies that humans are without a doubt, born good and pure and that, without society, humans will evidently be kind and not be shaped into embodying an evil sense.
The Pueblos felt that actions that furthered the community were the most significant actions that a person could make. This included sharing food and goods with the community rather than keeping them solely for themselves. This ties in closely with reciprocity. Ellis explained, “When an individual gave another person a good or labor, the receiver was expected to reciprocate” (2007). This helped to make sure that all members of the community had their basic needs met.
After reading the chapters and articles on reciprocity I was really intrigued by the idea of reciprocity. I have been to Africa many times and I was reminded a lot of the Senegalese people when reading the articles. Many people in America do not really understand how much of what they get is so good when compared to other countries. We live in a place where we think we are the best and deserve everything and expect everything to get handed to us. An example of Generalized reciprocity in America are the farmers of our world.
“Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is” (Albert Camus qtd. in Goodreads). Throughout history, the essence of human nature has been meticulously questioned and debated by philosophers, scientists, believers, and all other manners of individuals. Some argue that humans trend towards altruism, having a natural desire to provide assistance and aid to others. However, this viewpoint is quite rare when compared to its counterpart.
“If civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that people must learn to reject.” -Ayn Rand. To be compassionate and unselfish seems to be a noble and magnanimous pursuit. Altruism is admired, it is beautiful, and it is praised.
The article “Adventures in Good and Evil,” written by Sharon Begley explores the rationale behind people’s altruism. She references a study that determined most people would shock an innocent person past the point of extreme pain when told. She then attempts to explore the bias of those who shocked compared to those who refused to shock. She finds: our will to forgive or to seek vengeance roots in our evolutionary history with similar behavior also found in other primates; however, these evolutionary roots fail to explain those who refused to shock. To explain these people, she explores how these people achieved their level of indiscriminate compassion, finding that what you see, your life experiences, and emotional stability shape your level of altruism.
For example: If a foreign tribe attacked their camp circle each person knew their role and what to do. As a consequence their long-term success would be very likely to happen and a happiest live with less casualties would take place. The philosophy behind Generosity is really important as it makes everyone feel valued and happy. By receiving and giving the relations
David Brooks in his New York Times article “The Power of Alturism” states that “the push of selfishness is matched by the pull of empathy and altruism” (Brooks,2016) in the beginning of his article. His thesis makes it very clear that he believes that people become selfish versus selfless when receiving reward for what humans do naturally without reward. Basically people are naturally altruistic without having to be rewarded for acts of selflessness and kindness. Brooks also argues that we should pursue altruism more. He backs this up multiple times in his article by providing examples.
Selfishness and selflessness can be balanced, and this balance is crucial to a functioning
Actions delivers consequences Luck is a phenomenon present in our lives in very different ways, so much so that it is not easy to imagine a world without it. But, even so, it seems that when it comes to making moral judgments about the actions or beliefs of other people we want to find ways to neutralize it. Our main guide is the purpose of being fair to those we judge and, therefore, we want to set aside what does not strictly depend on them, aspiring to eliminate any possible distortion of this goal. However, the nature of luck is such that it makes it difficult to neutralize it in any sphere of human life.
The word altruism may come to mind for some. When performing acts of kindness we
Social Exchange Theory Introduction I. I am going to start my speech with a corny joke. What do you call the “Children of the Corn’s” father? Popcorn. II.
His findings indicate that children are naturally helpful and cooperative, and as they grow, their outlook and behavior is modeled by their surroundings. Children base their behavior on the social values of their society; for example, neither a child nor an adult is likely to simply walk away from an interaction in the middle with no warning. Apes, on the other hand, demonstrate the ability to share and cooperate, but often choose not to. They do not seem to have the same sense of community or social responsibility that Tomasello believes is innate in humans. That natural sense of community is one reason Tomasello believes that we see pro social behavior so early in human
If someone was to ask me what anthropology was, prior to this assignment, I would have probably taken an educated guess such as “the study of life”. In a sense that is correct but not entirely accurate. Anthropology is defined as, “The study of human kind in all times and places” (Haviland, Prins, McBride, & Walrath, 2017). After an extensive analyzation of my experiences, I concluded that I don’t practice anthropology in my life enough. In addition, I discovered that my life doesn’t have much diversity in it.