MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2298120567 · doi:10.29173/cjs18257

Theodore D. Kemper, Status, Power and Ritual Interaction: A Relational Reading of Durkheim, Goffman and Collins.

2012· article· en· W2298120567 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Johanne Jean‐Pierre

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Sociology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicContemporary Sociological Theory and Practice
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyReading (process)Power (physics)PsychoanalysisEpistemologyPhilosophyPsychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T he question of what influences our behaviours the most, individual factors, the social and structural conditions of the environment, or the interaction of both, is still a current sociological debate.Kemper proposes a theoretical model from a radical standpoint: our behaviours, choices, and motives are status-power relational products and the self is irrelevant for sociological analyses.This book has the potential to ignite passionate and constructive theoretical debates in the fields of social psychology and social inequality.Kemper considers that ritual as conceptualized by Durkheim, Goffman, and Collins, is incomplete since status-power dynamics are neglected.Using an axiomatic theoretical model, he suggests that all our actions, including the altruistic and compassionate ones, aim to enhance status and/or power.Our status and/or power motivated behavioural patterns are mediated through reference groups that determine our values, beliefs, and decisions.A reference group is defined as any individual or group with whom we have a real or imagined relationship (p.34.).By abiding to the values, norms and expectations of a reference group, we aim 1) to claim, confer, or consume status and/or, 2) to acquire and manage power for others or ourselves while avoiding sanctions or negative consequences from this reference group.The reference group seeks to civilize what Kemper calls the organism: the locus of our drives, passions, and desires (p.49), but this organism is not the self as defined by previous social scientists.Indeed, Kemper suggests that the theoretical concept of self is superfluous to understand human behaviours sociologically.Our motives, beliefs, and thoughts result from our relationships, not the self.We do not mobilize in conflicts because of our ideas and we do not bind together because of our beliefs.Rather, we strive to remain loyal to the reference groups to which we identify.When we behave, the reference group to which we identify influences our behaviour, not the self with its thoughts, beliefs, emotions, or cognitive processes.To illustrate the accuracy of his model, Kemper revisits Durkheim, Goffman, and Collins' definitions of

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of SociologySame topicContemporary Sociological Theory and PracticeFrench-language works237,207