History UsefulNotes / RelationalModelsTheory

The core moral principle of MP relationships is ''Proportionality'', which demands that each party is rewarded or punished in proportion to their contributions, efforts, merits, or guilt. Conversely, cheating -- that is, gaining benefits that exceed what one deserves (according to one's cultural standards) -- is seen as highly immoral. Accordingly, the notion of "fairness" in MP demands that resources are allotted in proportion to individual efforts and merits. Violence in MP is justified when it is committed to TheNeedsOfTheMany, which has an unfortunate tendency towards [[WellIntentionedExtremist Well-Intentioned Extremism]].

The core moral principle of MP relationships is ''Proportionality'', which demands that each party is rewarded or punished in proportion to their contributions, efforts, merits, or guilt. Conversely, cheating -- that is, gaining benefits that exceed what one deserves (according to one's cultural standards) -- is seen as highly immoral. Accordingly, the notion of "fairness" in MP demands that resources are allotted in proportion to individual efforts and merits. Violence in MP is justified when it is committed ForTheGreaterGood, which has an unfortunate tendency towards [[WellIntentionedExtremist Well-Intentioned Extremism]].

The conformation system associated with CS is known as ''consubstantial assimilation'' and often involves connecting participants' physical bodies via direct contact, contiguity, or similarity. Like CS itself, it can take many forms, such as {{sex|AsRiteOfPassage}}, birth, nursing, [[TastesLikeFriendship feeding]] (drinking from the same cup, eating from one pot), simple touch (caressing, hugging), modifying or coloring one's body surfaces (e.g. {{tattoo|AsCharacterType}}s, genital modification, wearing a {{uniform|Tropes}}), and rhythmic synchronous movements (such as dancing or military drills). In terms of [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotic_theory_of_Charles_Sanders_Peirce (Piercean) semiotics]], consubstantial assimilation is an indexical process, with an individual's body and its relation to others' bodies serving as an ''index'' for their CS relationships.

The conformation system associated with AR is known as ''iconic physics of magnitudes'', wherein one's position in the hierarchy is tied to some observable quantity: superiors can be perceived as [[LargeAndInCharge bigger]], [[CoolChair higher up]], further ahead (e.g. in formal processions) or behind (e.g. [[UsefulNotes/TheGloryThatWasRome Roman Triarii]]), more numerous (RoyalWe, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-V_distinction respectful "you"]]), having greater force/[[AsskickingEqualsAuthority power]] (as in "forceful leader"), brighter (cf. the [[UsefulNotes/LouisXIV Sun King]]), or even louder than the subordinates. Semiotically, this process is (unsurprisingly) ''iconic'', with an individual's social position (authority) being iconically mapped onto some physical quantity.

In RMT terms, the sociological notions of [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinschaft_and_Gesellschaft Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft]] ("community" and "society"), introduced by Ferdinand Tönnies and popularized by Max Weber, correspond to CS and MP. Similarly, political scientist Francis Fukuyama has [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origins_of_Political_Order posited]] "kin selection" (CS) and "reciprocal altruism" (EM) as the default, natural forms of human sociability[[note]]i.e. the skill of interacting socially, as opposed to "sociality", which encompasses said interactions themselves[[/note]], standing in direct competition with the much more complex and impersonal MP frameworks of modern states and societies.

* Wiki/TheOtherWiki's [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_models_theory article on RMT]]

* '''Authority Ranking (AR)''' is an unequal relationship where those higher up in a hierarchy are entitled to deference from but are also responsible for those lower down. ''Archetypal example'': Military chain of command.

* TheCon: The relationship between a ConMan and [[TheCon their mark]] is inherently asocial from the former's side (unless he falls InLoveWithTheMark), even though the latter may believe it to be anything but.

* TheCon: The relationship between a ConMan and TheMark is inherently asocial from the former's side (unless he falls InLoveWithTheMark), even though the latter may believe it to be anything but.

CS also comes in many forms, such as "[[Literature/TheThreeMusketeers all for one and one for all]]" (i.e. CS in regards to mutual defense and collective responsibility), in-group favoritism and out-group hostility (frequently expressed in asocial interactions with outsiders), shared production and consumption, communal property and collective goods ([[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons "commons"]]), identification with groups and solidarity, [[UsefulNotes/{{Socialism}} ideal communism]], one shared world, etc.

''Authority Ranking'' (AR) concerns asymmetric relationships wherein participants are ranked along some linear hierarchy, creating "superiors" and "subordinates". In an AR relationship, superiors are viewed as legitimately, naturally, and necessarily entitled to their subordinates' respect, deference, and even obedience; [[TheChainsOfCommanding conversely]], superiors are also responsible for wisely guiding, leading, protecting, standing up and speaking for their subordinates. AR relationships are therefore distinct from coercive control by force and individual power of social influence, and aren't necessarily exploitative.

All tropes on the IndebtedIndex that don't rely on MP fall under EM by default -- in fact, the base notion of "debt" is an EM idea. Likewise, pretty much all of RevengeTropes are predicated on the EM notion of PayingEvilUntoEvil. Finally, almost all GameMechanics rely on that of players being equal before the rules. Beyond that:

Pretty much all of RevengeTropes are predicated on the EM notion of PayingEvilUntoEvil, while almost all GameMechanics rely on that of players being equal before the rules. Beyond that:

* IOweYouMyLife: While a lot of debt-related tropes can fall under MP (if the debt is denominated in money), a "life debt" is clearly an EM idea, since everyone has exactly one life and you cannot well put a price tag on it.

The core moral principle of CS relationships is ''Unity'', which compels all members of the in-group to feel responsible and to provide for each other, to mount collective defense in response to an external aggression, to sacrifice themselves for the in-group, but also to harshly deal with any member whose actions threaten its cohesion. Conversely, it is seen as immoral to perform good deeds in expectation of a later reciprocation (an EM notion) or to account for individual past contributions when allocating resources (an MP idea). Also, since many CS relationships are tied to the participants' bodies, they often assign a high value to their "purity" -- typically expressed in dietary and sexual restrictions, -- and any defilement thereof, whether deliberate or against one's will, is strictly punished.

The core moral principle of EM relationships is ''Equality'', which compels reciprocity, equal treatment, equal say, equal opportunities, equal chances, even shares and contributions, etc. from everyone involved. It is seen as immoral to give anyone preferential treatment for any reason and to violate another's trust by ''not'' reciprocating in kind -- both good things ''and'' [[{{Revenge}} bad]].

''Equality Matching'' (EM) relationships involve keeping track of some kind of balance or additive difference between the participants, with each one knowing what is required to restore the balance. Typical EM relationships include any form of turn-taking, tit-for-tat in-kind reciprocity (the basis for EnlightenedSelfInterest), an-eye-for-an-eye {{revenge}}, but also [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice restorative justice]], equal contributions, even division of work responsibilities, even distribution of spoils, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_exchange_theory social exchange]], randomization with equal chances (DrawingStraws, any lottery), [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_savings_and_credit_association ROSCA]], one-person-one-vote, equal rights, as well as the vast majority of rules in games and sports.

More potential for {{Conflict}} exists in characters [[PoorCommunicationKills mentally applying different models]] to their relationship. Fiske's favorite example has two roommates arguing over who has to wash the dishes: one believes they are in a CS relationship regarding house chores, so whoever has the time does them, while the other sees it as an EM relationship and keeps track of how often the other has "shirked their duties". Both are morally right within their respective relational model, but the models themselves are at odds in this particular situation.

The core moral principle of CS relationships is ''Unity'', which compels all members of the in-group to feel responsible and to provide for each other, to mount collective defense in response to an external aggression, to sacrifice themselves for the in-group, but also to harshly deal with any member whose actions threaten its cohesion. Conversely, it is seen as immoral to perform good deeds in expectation of a later reciprocation (an EM notion) or to account for individual past contributions when allocating resources (an MP idea). Many CS relationships also assign a high value to "purity" -- typically expressed in dietary and sexual restrictions, -- and any defilement thereof, whether deliberate or against one's will, is often punished harshly.

Relational Models Theory (RMT) is a theory of human sociality and, particularly, of interpersonal relationships, proposed by the American anthropologist [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Fiske Alan Fiske]]. It posits that every social relationship between humans falls under one of only four elementary "relational models" that are innate, intrinsically motivated, and culturally universal. RMT is of particular interest to writers as a framework for thinking about character relationships, though of course, like other theories that make such sweeping claims about the human condition, it should be taken with a pinch of salt.

The core moral principle of MP relationships is ''Proportionality'', which demands that each party is rewarded or punished in proportion to their contributions, efforts, merits, or guilt. Conversely, cheating -- that is, gaining benefits that exceed what one deserves (according to one's cultural standards) -- is seen as highly immoral. Accordingly, the notion of "fairness" in MP demands that resources are allotted in proportion to individual efforts and merits. Violence in MP is justified when it is committed ForTheGreaterGood, which has an unfortunate tendency towards WellIntentionedExtremist.

The core moral principle of MP relationships is ''Proportionality'', which demands that each party is rewarded or punished in proportion to their contributions, efforts, merits, or guilt. Conversely, cheating -- that is, gaining benefits that exceed what one deserves (according to one's cultural standards) -- is seen as highly immoral. Accordingly, the notion of "fairness" in MP demands that resources are allotted in proportion to individual efforts and merits. Violence in MP is justified when it is committed ForTheGreaterGood, which has an unfortunate tendency towards WellIntentionedExtremism.

''Authority Ranking'' (AR) concerns unequal relationships wherein participants are ranked along some linear hierarchy, creating "superiors" and "subordinates". In an AR relationship, superiors are viewed as legitimately, naturally, and necessarily entitled to their subordinates' respect, deference, and even obedience; [[TheChainsOfCommanding conversely]], superiors are also responsible for wisely guiding, leading, protecting, standing up and speaking for their subordinates. AR relationships are therefore distinct from coercive control by force and individual power of social influence, and aren't necessarily exploitative.