Obligation

Pericles did an interesting job readjusting Lakoff's strict father/nurturant parent pair of models into something related, the important idea of obligation. Traditionally, everyone believe in obligation, at least supposedly. Most acknowledge it's right to be obligated in some circumstance.

The dichotomy that Pericles proposes as models are related to how obligation is viewed. In one the obligation is inherited, and this is the traditional or conservative model, and in the other obligation is negotiated, ties can be severed, to put it most bluntly. Of course, arbitrary obligation is akin to slavery.

But there you have the the gist of it. Slavery. There is a kind of slavery called indentured servitude, in which, of course, the slave has sold themselves into slavery for some cost. For example, people used to do this to get passage to America, after a period of time, the servant was free to go, and of course this kind of slave sometimes achieves more rights than other kinds of slaves, and in deed there were a wide variety of types of slaves and various sort of obligation were expected.

The modern perspective, of course, does not recognize that sort of obligation, not even voluntarily engaged or by any means. And socially, there is a lot of controversy where obligation ends. Some feel obligated to their children. Other's do not. Some feel obligated for their debts, some do not, while still others feel obligated... except... there are exceptions, there are literal interpretations of the risks that were understaken and in fair circumstances, perhaps certain obligations can be void.

But when we allow that in general, then we find that it's true that there is no obligation at all. So there is in fact a question "is obligation the right concept for its function?" And of course, "what is its function"?. But equally, "Is obligation perhaps abolute after all?", and "Is obligation possible to inherit?"

The reason for obligation in social networks is, I think, consistency... obligation is how honest deals happen, because deals are spread out in time and commitment obligation is how these trades appear simultaneous from an economic point of view. There should be no question of completing the deal, of course there is, but it works more often than not, amazingly enough.

I suspect every kind of obligation is a deal of this sort, the completion of some transaction, although the matter of opinion remains as to what types of transaction incur obligation, or if any do, or even if perhaps all do.

But as a skeptic I have to admit also that every obligation can in fact be broken as a practical observation. They have. So it's worth noting that obligation is an arbitrary quality which is attributed to the situation by a mind. A sociopath can feel no obligation. Strong instinct for obligations, if they exist, have good reason, and in my view some obligations are certainly trained by the culture, but become like instinct for the individual, and I would not be surprises if some were genetically encoded at well. And still, I cannot think of any potentially genetic motivation to some obligation has not been broken many times by more than a few individuals... feelings of obligation is not particularly universal. I think there are built in feelings of obligation, but they are merely such that individuals can overrule them, like breathing is an automatic reflex but when you consciously think about it you control it.

And in the end your politics will depend to a large degree on what sort of obligations you allow.