Yet, there always exists the risk that an individual (a rational egoist) will run off with the fund while it is their turn in the rotation to hold the money, thereby causing the group to collapse and leaving the others without access to credit. In this case, one can reason that deviation is less likely because each member of the group is highly interdependent on one another. Also, unless the deviant planned on completely disappearing from society he would have a hard time making future business transactions. Word of the deviant’s action would spread making it very unlikely for him to get involved with another credit association or business venture. Thus, remaining in good standing with the rotating credit association is in the best interest of the individual.
Now let’s turn to another example, insurance groups. We will focus on two such organizations, British friendly societies and American fraternal ethnic associations. In essence these groups were the first formalized insurance funds. Their main purpose was to offer payments to their members in the event of sickness, death, disability, a bad crop, or temporary layoff. In addition to their role as benefactors the insurance groups provided their members with other collective goods. The British friendly societies fostered a social environment in which their members would be able to have a release from their daily routine. The groups often staged their meetings in taverns, and held summer picnics and other such events for the members’ families. Similarly, the American fraternal ethnic associations provided a means for recent immigrants to stay in tune with their native culture through music, dance, and sporting events. Also, the ethnic associations offered educational and linguistic resources to assist their members with assimilating into their new environment in America.
As one can see the benefits of being a part of an insurance group were immense. However, keeping the insurance fund solvent was an equally immense undertaking. There were myriad problems the fund could encounter. If everyone in the insurance group was about the same age depletion of the fund would occur at or around the same time period. Thus, the insurance group had to maintain a steady flow of new entrants to guard against future collapse. If one or a few individuals had sole control over the insurance fund, fraudulent members could embezzle and figure that nobody will notice.
Thus, selection of trustworthy and upright officers was important in order to maintain the fund and safeguard against improper distribution. These two problems represent issues that required monitoring, and also sanctions if the situation warranted such action. In order for group solidarity to exist group members had to take a proactive role in the decision making process of issuing insurance benefits. Deviants could easily file a false claim, steal money from the fund, demand more money than they should, or even exhibit more careless behavior than they otherwise would without insurance (a phenomenon known as moral hazard). Yet, generally speaking, most insurance group members complied with their obligation to regularly contribute and enabled the insurance fund to persist.
Using the examples drawn from Hechter’s book in the form of rotating credit associations and insurance groups one can distinguish what factors affect some deviants to pursue their own individual self-interest. If an individual in a group feels as though the extensiveness of their obligations is too comprehensive they will no longer comply with the group’s rules. The deviant may decide to free-ride, in which he collects the group’s collective good without contributing. The deviant may leave himself open for an unfavorable response from other group members, which will eventually result in sanctions or removal from the group. The deviant may also decide to steal, or embezzle from the group, thereby solidifying their expulsion. The deviant may even decide to start a rival or competing group with more favorable conditions.
Conversely, other factors cause individual’s to remain reputable group members committed to the solidarity of the group. Basing this on rational choice theory it may be the case that an individual group member’s self-interest parallels the collective interest of the group. In this situation the individual is acting as a rational egoist in remaining aligned with the goals of the group. Pursuing the collective interest of the group maximizes the individual’s utility. Undoubtedly, this is the major reason individual’s form groups in the first place, to collectively obtain a desired good more effectively. Additionally, other factors including maintaining a good reputation in the community, and fear of sanctions, guide some latent deviants to pursue the collective interest of the group. They are better off as part the group. Going against the group will only serve to subject these individuals’ to undue hardship and ill-feelings from people whom they share common interests with.
However, without some sort of social control or peer pressure, it is likely to assume that more deviation from the pursuit of the collective good would exist. This notion is exhibited through Arthur Miller’s portrayal of the Salem witch trials in the movie “The Crucible.” For our analysis we will consider Salem, Massachusetts, a community that exhibited group solidarity. The entire town worked together to maintain a certain standard of living for their families. Salem had a carpenter, blacksmith, minister, sheriff, several farmers, and servants, all who worked together to produce a collective good for the community; a comfortable standard of living. Despite the group’s interdependence on one another, the system began to fall apart in the face of a crisis. When members of the community were faced with two opposing courses of action regarding communication with the devil, some chose to pursue their individual end, while others chose to pursue the course of action that benefited the group collectively.
The predominant reason that allowed such a large faction to pursue their individual end revolves around the court’s decision to believe Abigail Williams and her crew. By and large, these girls did not contribute to the welfare of the community; they acted as free-riders. For the girls, non-compliance with the group’s obligations was easy. They were rarely monitored, and stringent sanctions could result in their families acquiring a reputation for producing deviants. Thus, most conflicts were pushed under the table or out of sight, to save face in the community. Furthermore, even the court failed to follow proper procedure. The trial consisted of the accused either agreeing to prior communication with the devil, or denying the accusation and facing the consequence of death. There was no middle ground, no logical though process, the girls had created hysteria in Salem. Several group members were hung based on the whimsical testimony of a group of deviants.
Not surprisingly, Abigail and the girls initially picked on the group members with the lowest levels of status in the community including, beggars and peasants. By establishing their accusations on these unfavorable group members the girls were able to create a snowball effect, in which more and more people began to believe that certain members did in fact participate in communication with the devil. Before too long the girls were in too deep to ever admit guilt. In turn, they created their own group, with their own interdependence rested solely on the premise of not getting caught. At this point a traitor from within would result in death for them all. When Mary Warren, under the supervision of John Proctor, attempted to rectify the girls’ wrongs, Abigail led a flamboyant reprisal which made Mary Warren look like she had lost her mind. Eventually, once Abigail realized these trials could not persist indefinitely she decided to flee Salem and deviate from yet another group. During her rampage in Salem, Abigail’s relentless pursuit of her own individual end transformed the culture of the community.
While Abigail and her crew of deviants broke down the community, others including John Proctor, and Reverend Hale gave their all to pursue the collective end most beneficial to the solidarity of the group. If we look back on Hechter’s factors that affect group solidarity (the extensiveness of each individual’s obligations, and each individual’s compliance with their obligations), we can see why these individuals fostered the collective interest of the group. Proctor, despite his relations with Abigail, represented the community member who looked out for the well-being of his group members. Proctor understood that interdependence of the group, and maintaining a good reputation for his family, would benefit the community and his family in the long run. When faced with the ultimate question, death with dignity or life with disgrace, Proctor chose the course of action that would eliminate these problems for Salem in the future. He took the ultimate sacrifice for the good of the community.
Similar to Proctor’s course of action, Reverend Hale, realized that something must be done to suppress the deviants from creating any further problems. Having prior experience in uncovering witchcraft, Reverend Hale was initially called in to assess the situation and if the need existed, eradicate the devil from Salem. Unexpectedly, once he had a chance to fully analyze the situation it became clear that the girls who were allegedly suffering from witchcraft were the source of the problem. In an effort to comply with his obligations to Salem, Reverend Hale urged Judge Danforth to see beyond the girls’ deviant actions. He knew John Proctor was telling the truth, he knew Abigail was lying when she alleged Elizabeth Proctor’s spirit stabbed a needle in her abdomen, he knew the situation in Salem was out of control. Individuals were being put to death and Reverend Hale was trying his hardest to correct the situation.
Relating John Proctor’s and Reverend Hale’s actions to Hechter’s reasoning, one would conclude that as the Salem witch trials progressed the extensiveness of their obligations to the community increased. These two men realized that the welfare of the community rested on their shoulders. In order for Salem to remain solvent in the years to come, free from the grips of the deviants who preached witchcraft, John Proctor needed to stand up against Judge Danforth and set an example. To John Proctor, his strong personal ties within the group, the cost of moving away from Salem, and the value he placed on his family’s good name, were stronger than life itself. To Reverend Hale, the pursuit to benefit the collective welfare of Salem, his original mission, was of the utmost importance.
As we have now seen through several examples, group solidarity varies for two main reasons; the extensiveness of each individual’s obligations, and each individual’s compliance with their obligations. When group members are faced with two opposing courses of action, one which will benefit their individual end and the other that will benefit the group collectively, the individual subliminally considers each variant and chooses a course of action. Based on factors including, the interdependence of the group, the visibility of each group member, the probability of getting caught (monitoring), and the probability of facing a sanction, the rational egoist “choose[s] the course of action that …they think will produce maximum utility.” (Hechter, 30) Hence, in each group there exist members who will always be more inclined to deviate than others. The degrees to which these factors are employed within the group determine the actual level of deviation from the pursuit of the collective interest of the group.
I am particularly happy with the way that I make sure each topic/example relates to the thesis and gives examples to substantiate the claim. As far as I’m concerned the paper flows well from one thought to another.
I didn’t necessarily have any trouble writing the paper, although there were times when I did not think that I would be able to reach about 9 pages. Based on my outline, I figured I’d have to cut down, or simplify the paper, but that proved not to be the case.
