|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figures accompanying Part
II [248] |
|
|
|
Fig. 2 DERIVATION OF THE PATTERN VARIABLES |
|
|
|
|
|
SUBJECT |
|
|
|
|
|
Orientation of the
Actor-Subject |
|
Three Pattern Variables
Derivable from the Orientation |
|
|
|
The actor-subject is
analyzed with respect to the modes of his orientation. (These Orientations, taken in
Constellations, make up the ''roles" in Fig. 1.) |
|
|
|
A. Motivational orientation |
|
No.1 |
|
|
1. Cognitive |
|
Affectivity:
cognitive-cathectic modes determine behavior without evaluation. |
|
|
2. Cathectic (Inseparable modes) |
|
Affective
neutrality: behavior does not occur until after evaluation has occurred (and
thus, usually, some of the value-orientation standards invoked). (Cognitive -cathectic modes of course, are
also active.) |
|
|
3. Evaluative: brings in thought for
consequences and can invoke value standards. |
|
|
|
|
No.3 |
|
|
B. Value-orientation |
|
Universatism:
whether or not moral standards have primacy in an evaluative situation,
cognitive standards have primacy over appreciative. |
|
|
1. Cognitive standards |
|
Particularism:
whether or not moral standards have primacy, appreciative standards have
primacy over cognitive ones. |
|
|
2. Appreciative standards |
|
|
3. Moral standards |
|
No.2 |
|
|
a. ego-integrative |
|
Self-orientation:
whether or not evaluation occurs, the actor does not give primacy to
collective moral standards, but instead to cognitive or appreciative or
ego-integrative moral standards, or no standards are invoked. |
|
b. collectivity-integrative |
|
Collectivity-orientation:
evaluation occurs and the actor gives primacy to collective moral standards. |
|
|
|
OBJECT |
|
|
|
|
|
Alternatives within the
Class of Social Objects |
Two Pattern Variables
from these Alternatives |
|
|
|
Only
the class of social objects is relevant here, since all pattern vagiables are
in one sense modes of relationship between people. Two distinctions which cross-cut each other can be applied to
the category of social objects: |
|
|
|
A. The quality-performance distinction |
|
No .4 |
|
|
1. A social object may be a complex of
qualities. |
Ascription: the actor
chooses to see a social object as a complex of qualities. |
|
|
2. A social object may be a complex of performances. |
Achievement:
the actor chooses to see a social object as a complex of performances. |
|
|
|
B. The scope-of-significance distinction |
|
No. 5 |
|
|
1. A social object may have diffuse
significance. |
Diffuseness: the actor
chooses to grant a social object alt requests that do not interfere with
other obligations. |
|
|
2. A social object may have specific or segmental significance.
|
Specificity: the actor
grants a social object only such rights as are explicitly defined in the
definition of the relationship between them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|