Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 31, No. 2, Summer 1992
A Theological Perspective on Social Exchange Theory E. WAYNE HILL ABSTRACT: This article provides a brief review of the basic principles of social exchange theory with an emphasis on a social exchange model of conflict. The key concepts of justice, reciprocity, and equity comprised in social exchange theory are addressed from a social and theological perspective.
It seems that when people do a certain favor for a person of high position, that other person, no matter how exalted he happens to be, should, in common fairness, do something in return . . . . The laws of politeness advocate a prompt return of favors, as everybody knows; but some, whose names we would not dream of repeating, for fear they might hear us, and hold it against us, seem to be so old and discourteous that they've lost all the common decencies that others observe.' In the excerpt from October Island March elucidates a basic relational concept t h a t most societies adopt in one form or another. "Common fairness" includes each society's mores about equity, reciprocity, and justice operative in their social relationships. When individuals, families, groups, and even nations perceive or experience equity and fairness in their system of exchanges with others, order and stability tend to prevail. However, when people begin to perceive or experience inequity and injustice, conflict becomes inevitable. March's October Island illustrates the conflict and turmoil t h a t can arise when the "common decencies" of social exchange are perceived to be disregarded. Relational implications of social exchange, also known as equity theory, are cogent in the context of marital relationships. When relational exchanges within couples are perceived or experienced as injustices, conflict arises. The struggle and resistance t h a t often accompany conflict either yield resolution through successful negotiation, or the conflict becomes regulated and maintained by coercion and at times even violence. When the conflict is resolved, a E. Wayne Hill, Ph.D., is a pastoral counselor and Assistant Professor in the Department of Family, Child, and Consumer Sciences at Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida. 141
9 1992Institutes of Religionand Health
142
Journal of Religion and Health
new exchange emerges, and the relationship exchange continues with a renewed sense of fairness and equity which tends to promote goodwill between the exchanging parties. However, when conflict is regulated rather than resolved, individuals often experience hostility and resentment. When one spouse feelsthat he or she is being exploited, the satisfaction of the relationship diminishes. If one person continues to feel exploited, the relationship may terminate or the old exchange will continue to cycle with increasing feelings of resentment and hostility occurring. Figure 1 presents a diagrammatic description of this social exchange conflict model adapted from Scanzoni. 2 Contemporary theology has addressed itself well to the psychoanalytic and humanistic schools of psychology. There is further need, however, for contemporary theologians to respond to the social and psychological principles encountered in social exchange theory. Liberation theology has been the most helpful in elaborating on many of the principles common to social exchange theory in the context of addressing issues of justice for all oppressed people regardless of race, creed, color, or gender. Since theology is not static, one must take seriously the imperative that theologians address any and all sci-
FIGURE 1 A Social E x c h a n g e Model of Conflict Relationship Exchange
I Resolution
1
(negotiation)
Injustice Experienced
T
Old Exchange Continued
New Exchange
Conflict (Struggle, resistance)
of
Regulation Conflict (coercion, violence)
I
I Hostility Resentment (feelings of ongoing exploitation, discontent)
I
?
Termination of Relationship
k
?
E. Wayne Hill
i43
entific fields of study that seek to illuminate an understanding of the human condition. The main purpose of science is to discover and understand the various principles and laws that govern the universe that enable us to come to a more comprehensive understanding of our world and how it functions. As a scientific discipline, social exchange theory endeavors to discover laws and principles that operate in regard to human relationships. As such, social exchange advocates take seriously the idea that, for the most park human beings live in a world that has a certain environmental order that operates by certain laws and principles. Some would find it difficult to conceptualize human beings as natural organisms whose behavior and pattern of relating can be determined and predicted by certain principles or propositions. The distaste often created by this viewpoint is understood from perceiving such a view as too mechanistic and deterministic. We are distrustful of any view that implies a limitation on our freedom for selecting options and making our own choices. In our day-to-day existence, however, we find a great deal of security in knowing that certain principles and laws are operative in our universe which allow us to function consistently and safely. For example, to deny or to defy the law of gravity is to run the risk of experiencing disaster. Recognizing and respecting the laws of the universe enables us to live more securely. The Genesis account of creation depicts God as bringing order out of chaos: " . . . the earth was without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep; and the Spirit of the God was moving over the face of the waters." In His wisdom, God established our universe in such fashion that various laws and principles are operating continually. In the realm of human relationships, social exchange theorists suggest that there are certain principles and laws that operate in the interaction patterns of human beings. An exploration of the nature of social exchange theory in the context of theological reflection is therefore warranted. Social exchange theory is a relatively broad theory which subsumes some of the principles of behaviorism in its understanding and explanation of human interactions. It assumes, on the one hand, that human beings seek to maximize their rewards and minimize their costs in personal, corporate, and political relationships. Social behavior will not be repeated unless it has received positive reinforcement or unless it is perceived to bring the least costalternative behaviors. Individuals, however, vary the meaning or value they place on specific objects, experiences, positions, and relationships. What may be reinforcing and considered a reward for one may not be for another. Social exchange theorists also view conflict as inevitable and even predictable. When individuals, groups, or nations experience or perceive inequity or injustice in their system of exchanges, conflict will arise. This conflict may be expressed openly and resolved, or it may be internalized and regulated by the individuals, groups, or nations with the greater power (ability to obtain in-
144
Journal of Religion and Health
tended results)2 The diagram in Figure 1 indicates how the interaction and exchange cycle can become destructive when injustice and inequity continue to be experienced. Although this diagram provides a perspective for couples, the principles conveyed are certainly applicable for other groups and nations. Social exchange theorists maintain that as humans we choose what we wish, but what we wish to choose can be determined by our previous responses to various contingencies (costs/rewards) in our environment. The more we know what those contingencies are, the better we can understand and predict human behavior. There is growing evidence that individuals are attracted to and marry other individuals who reinforce and maintain the traditional behavior and exchange patterns of their family of origin. To say that couples are in collusion is to suggest a pattern of behaviors and exchanges that are maintained by mutual reinforcement. It is not always easy to know what the reinforcements are, although we often presume to know. One noted behavioral researcher, Donald Baer, reported on an experiment with school children using M&M candies as reinforcers.4 One child gave the required behavior, and when offered the M&Ms as a reward, refused by saying, "But I have eleven cavities!" This story humorously illustrates that it is difficult at times to know what behaviors can be reinforced or extinguished by certain contingencies. Nevertheless, this does not mean we should neglect seeking to discover what these contingencies are as well as how they operate in our social exchange networks to create and shape our varied personalities, family systems, and various social institutions. The more we understand the social exchange principles that operate in the world of human interaction, the more potential we have to guide humanity toward health and wholeness. Within families certain principles or laws operate to maintain a particular family system. The literature on depression, for example, has traditionally focused on the individual and the symptoms that confirm a diagnosis of individual psychopathology. More recent investigation has shown that in a number of cases depression can be related to dysfunctional interaction patterns between the depressed family member and those significant others in the family system2 Certain types of depression, therefore, can be viewed as coming from a system that both produces and contains reinforcers for the state of depression. Specific interaction patterns and communication styles have been identified that operate in circular fashion to maintain the depressive response. The growing field of family therapy demonstrates how various forms of interaction patterns between family members reinforce a particular member's problem. The family can be viewed as a system that is maintained by each member contributing reinforcement behaviors (cost/reward exchanges) in a complex series of communication styles and interaction patterns. As a therapist joins the family system, he or she is better able to identify the family process or "dance" and to shift the emphasis from one family member
E. Wayne Hill
145
(the identified patient) to other family members by changing the cycle of interaction patterns and reinforcement behaviors. The behavioral principle of operant conditioning suggests t h a t when certain operations or responses are made toward something or someone, certain consequent responses will follow. In time these exchanges or response patterns reinforce certain behaviors and at other times extinguish certain behaviors. When Jesus said, "Judge not, t h a t you be not judged . . . . give and to you shall be given . . . . ask and you will receive . . . . seek and you will find. 9 knock and it will be opened to you . . . . and love your neighbor as you love yourself," was he not suggesting certain "operations" t h a t influence social relationships? To judge, to give, to ask, to seek, to knock, to love are all operations or behaviors t h a t imply exchanges between people. The choices people make in their behavior patterns are often determined by the kinds of responses they have seen lived out in their parental models. Sometimes the "fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge." Jesus sought to enable persons to realize t h a t when basic principles and laws of social exchange are ignored or defied, social relationships become strained and anxiety escalates. When people experience a sense of equity and fairness in their relationships with others, there is a greater potential for stability and cohesiveness in the relationships. However, when persons experience little or no reciprocity in their relationships, conflict, turmoil and even the dissolution of the relationship ensue. People need mutual, reciprocal, and just exchanges for relationships to endure and to grow. Scanzoni supports and illustrates this perspective when he asserts: It is a general sociological principle that associations are formed and maintained on the basis of reciprocity--exchanged rewards and benefits. A love relationship is no exception. To be sure, since it is primarily an "intrinsic" relationship, persons are not overtly being "used" as means to extrinsic ends. But to conceive of love and marriage as purely altruistic is to miss the point that rarely, if ever, can human love be sustained unless it is requited? In reviewing Erikson's psychosocial stages of h u m a n development, Wise elaborates Erikson's view of the reciprocal needs of children and parents. Wise declares: The child needs a relationship of nurturing trust and autonomy, and the parent, if he is an emotionally healthy person, needs to give such nurture. Thus there is a reciprocity of need. When the individuals in a family are controlling themselves in a manner appropriate to age and status, mutual regulation results. Any pattern of relationships that depends on exploitation, domination, or possessiveness destroys mutuality. What are usually taken as "behavior problems" in children may be symptomatic of a breakdown of mutuality between parents and child. 7
146
Journal of Religion and Health
Individuals who experience genuine reciprocity in their social exchanges feel satisfaction or a sense of "wholeness," while those who experience deprivation feel anger and resentment. On the other hand, individuals who receive more than they feel they deserve often experience guilt or seek to justify their "prosperity" by their own merits, creating a false sense of pride and security. Jesus, for example, frequently condemned the self-righteous attitudes of the Pharisees. The eighth-century B.C. prophets were especially concerned about reciprocity and equity in relationships, and although they did not use those terms, the word justice carried their meaning forcefully. Amos boldly declared, "Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Micah answered his own question, "What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with God?" To establish justice is to bring a genuine sense of reciprocity and equity in relationships, and without this it is difficult to maintain healthy and vibrant relationships. This is not only true of intimate relationships as in families or close-knit social networks, but it is also true in a more global sense such as within and between nations. When viewed from this perspective, the Iranian hostage crisis that afflicted the Carter administration can be better understood. For a long time the people of Iran experienced injustices and inequities in their system of government, supported from their perspective by the United States. The conflicts and disagreements that inevitably arose were regulated or controlled by the Shah of Iran by coercion and violence. Eventually the injustices and inequities were so overwhelming to the Iranian people that the Shah's power to regulate the conflict was resisted. Much of the Iranian people's anger was subsequently directed toward the United States for supporting the Shah as well as protecting him and granting him sanctuary. The hostage crisis arose out of what the Iranian people perceived as their opportunity to "balance the books," that is, to restore equity and to establish justice. Although the particular crisis that arose from Iran could not have been predicted, an eventual crisis of some nature was inevitable as viewed by social exchange theorists. Commentaries on the Middle East crisis related to Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait often suggest perceived inequities on the part of Iraq which were used to justify Hussein's so-called annexation of Kuwait. Much of the unrest in the world among nations and various groups can be attributed to real or perceived inequities and injustices. Whether it was the race riots of the 1960s or the move to pass the ERA in the 1970s, both have their impetus from injustices and inequities felt among the minorities and women in general. While there are those who view this perspective as mechanical and somewhat insensitive, there are others who find it logical and compelling. It is presented to suggest the concept that the God who has created an orderly world out of primordial chaos has also created the creatures
E. Wayne Hill
147
of the world, including humans, in an orderly fashion. In Christ God has demonstrated in a clear, cogent, and persuasive manner some basic exchange principles and laws designed to direct people in the world of relationships. Perhaps we can even come to understand better the nature of suffering when we begin to view some, and perhaps a great deal of it, as the inevitable consequence of the violation and disregard of laws and principles governing social exchange. Recognizing that basic inhumanity is the product of disregarding principles of reciprocity, justice, and equity enlightens our understanding of humanity's difficulties but does not address the issue of how to overcome them. Here the gospel speaks the "good news" of going beyond "an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth" to the law of Christ, which is "to bear one another's burdens." The prophet Micah recognized in his day that people fail "to do justice," making "to love mercy" far more essential. Injustice has a way of escalating dramatically, while justice doing and mercy granting are much slower in their effects, but nevertheless reinforcing and much more powerful. It is only when people love mercy more than justice that relatedness and community can be established. In the parable of the prodigal son the elder brother was unable to celebrate the younger son's homecoming. He was angry that mercy had been extended rather than justice. In his legalistic system of justice there was no room for forgiveness and, therefore, no experience of relatedness to his family. In the final analysis, genuine forgiveness which involves mercy and not legalism must be the ultimate solution to humanity's inhumanity. Until that time, fairness, reciprocity, and equity will not prevail. The aforementioned events in the Middle East provide sad but cogent examples. Nowhere was there greater injustice than that which was demonstrated in the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. Forgiveness (mercy granting) was how Jesus chose to respond to the world's injustice. He believed, taught, and demonstrated in his own life that God elects to deal with our inability "to do justice" by extending us mercy. To follow Jesus is to extend mercy to others rather than to cry for justice. Only in this is there hope for the cessation of our inhumanity to one another. The Cross stands as a focal point of history, suggesting to all people that the way to justice is through the door of mercy. To establish justice in this fashion is costly. It costs all that we are and have because it demands that we go beyond the "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" in extending mercy when what we really desire is revenge. There are many aspects of social exchange theory that are open to further empirical investigation as well as theological reflection. Nevertheless, theologians need to acknowledge the insights inherent in viewing human relationships as operating in the context of social exchanges. It is imperative that we continue to reflect upon the idea of human beings as cost-avoiding and reward-seeking creatures who discover "wholeness" when they experience justice, equity, and reciprocity in their relationships, and, at the same time, acknowledging that true justice comes at the price of mercy.
148
Journal of Religion and Health
References 1. March, W., OctoberIsland. Boston, Little, Brown and Co., 1946. 2. Scanzoni, J., "Social Processes and Power in Families." In Burr, W. R.; Hill, R.; Nye, F. I.; and Reiss, R. L., eds., Contemporary Theories About the Family, Vol. 1. New York, Free Press, 1979, pp. 295-316. 3. Ibid. 4. Baer, D., lecture given at the University of North Carolina Greensboro, Department of Child Development and Family Relations, Greensboro, North Carolina, April 1980. 5. Pukatch, M. E.; Messano, S.; Connell, G. W.; and Nannan, T. E., "An Analysis of Interaction Patterns in Depressed Marital Dyads: A Research Proposal," Auburn University, Department of Marriage and Family Therapy, November 1982. 6. Scanzoni, J., Sexual Bargaining. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. 7. Wise, C., The Meaning of Pastoral Care. New York, Harper and Row, 1966.
A Theological Perspective on Social Exchange Theory E. WAYNE HILL ABSTRACT: This article provides a brief review of the basic principles of social exchange theory with an emphasis on a social exchange model of conflict. The key concepts of justice, reciprocity, and equity comprised in social exchange theory are addressed from a social and theological perspective.
It seems that when people do a certain favor for a person of high position, that other person, no matter how exalted he happens to be, should, in common fairness, do something in return . . . . The laws of politeness advocate a prompt return of favors, as everybody knows; but some, whose names we would not dream of repeating, for fear they might hear us, and hold it against us, seem to be so old and discourteous that they've lost all the common decencies that others observe.' In the excerpt from October Island March elucidates a basic relational concept t h a t most societies adopt in one form or another. "Common fairness" includes each society's mores about equity, reciprocity, and justice operative in their social relationships. When individuals, families, groups, and even nations perceive or experience equity and fairness in their system of exchanges with others, order and stability tend to prevail. However, when people begin to perceive or experience inequity and injustice, conflict becomes inevitable. March's October Island illustrates the conflict and turmoil t h a t can arise when the "common decencies" of social exchange are perceived to be disregarded. Relational implications of social exchange, also known as equity theory, are cogent in the context of marital relationships. When relational exchanges within couples are perceived or experienced as injustices, conflict arises. The struggle and resistance t h a t often accompany conflict either yield resolution through successful negotiation, or the conflict becomes regulated and maintained by coercion and at times even violence. When the conflict is resolved, a E. Wayne Hill, Ph.D., is a pastoral counselor and Assistant Professor in the Department of Family, Child, and Consumer Sciences at Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida. 141
9 1992Institutes of Religionand Health
142
Journal of Religion and Health
new exchange emerges, and the relationship exchange continues with a renewed sense of fairness and equity which tends to promote goodwill between the exchanging parties. However, when conflict is regulated rather than resolved, individuals often experience hostility and resentment. When one spouse feelsthat he or she is being exploited, the satisfaction of the relationship diminishes. If one person continues to feel exploited, the relationship may terminate or the old exchange will continue to cycle with increasing feelings of resentment and hostility occurring. Figure 1 presents a diagrammatic description of this social exchange conflict model adapted from Scanzoni. 2 Contemporary theology has addressed itself well to the psychoanalytic and humanistic schools of psychology. There is further need, however, for contemporary theologians to respond to the social and psychological principles encountered in social exchange theory. Liberation theology has been the most helpful in elaborating on many of the principles common to social exchange theory in the context of addressing issues of justice for all oppressed people regardless of race, creed, color, or gender. Since theology is not static, one must take seriously the imperative that theologians address any and all sci-
FIGURE 1 A Social E x c h a n g e Model of Conflict Relationship Exchange
I Resolution
1
(negotiation)
Injustice Experienced
T
Old Exchange Continued
New Exchange
Conflict (Struggle, resistance)
of
Regulation Conflict (coercion, violence)
I
I Hostility Resentment (feelings of ongoing exploitation, discontent)
I
?
Termination of Relationship
k
?
E. Wayne Hill
i43
entific fields of study that seek to illuminate an understanding of the human condition. The main purpose of science is to discover and understand the various principles and laws that govern the universe that enable us to come to a more comprehensive understanding of our world and how it functions. As a scientific discipline, social exchange theory endeavors to discover laws and principles that operate in regard to human relationships. As such, social exchange advocates take seriously the idea that, for the most park human beings live in a world that has a certain environmental order that operates by certain laws and principles. Some would find it difficult to conceptualize human beings as natural organisms whose behavior and pattern of relating can be determined and predicted by certain principles or propositions. The distaste often created by this viewpoint is understood from perceiving such a view as too mechanistic and deterministic. We are distrustful of any view that implies a limitation on our freedom for selecting options and making our own choices. In our day-to-day existence, however, we find a great deal of security in knowing that certain principles and laws are operative in our universe which allow us to function consistently and safely. For example, to deny or to defy the law of gravity is to run the risk of experiencing disaster. Recognizing and respecting the laws of the universe enables us to live more securely. The Genesis account of creation depicts God as bringing order out of chaos: " . . . the earth was without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep; and the Spirit of the God was moving over the face of the waters." In His wisdom, God established our universe in such fashion that various laws and principles are operating continually. In the realm of human relationships, social exchange theorists suggest that there are certain principles and laws that operate in the interaction patterns of human beings. An exploration of the nature of social exchange theory in the context of theological reflection is therefore warranted. Social exchange theory is a relatively broad theory which subsumes some of the principles of behaviorism in its understanding and explanation of human interactions. It assumes, on the one hand, that human beings seek to maximize their rewards and minimize their costs in personal, corporate, and political relationships. Social behavior will not be repeated unless it has received positive reinforcement or unless it is perceived to bring the least costalternative behaviors. Individuals, however, vary the meaning or value they place on specific objects, experiences, positions, and relationships. What may be reinforcing and considered a reward for one may not be for another. Social exchange theorists also view conflict as inevitable and even predictable. When individuals, groups, or nations experience or perceive inequity or injustice in their system of exchanges, conflict will arise. This conflict may be expressed openly and resolved, or it may be internalized and regulated by the individuals, groups, or nations with the greater power (ability to obtain in-
144
Journal of Religion and Health
tended results)2 The diagram in Figure 1 indicates how the interaction and exchange cycle can become destructive when injustice and inequity continue to be experienced. Although this diagram provides a perspective for couples, the principles conveyed are certainly applicable for other groups and nations. Social exchange theorists maintain that as humans we choose what we wish, but what we wish to choose can be determined by our previous responses to various contingencies (costs/rewards) in our environment. The more we know what those contingencies are, the better we can understand and predict human behavior. There is growing evidence that individuals are attracted to and marry other individuals who reinforce and maintain the traditional behavior and exchange patterns of their family of origin. To say that couples are in collusion is to suggest a pattern of behaviors and exchanges that are maintained by mutual reinforcement. It is not always easy to know what the reinforcements are, although we often presume to know. One noted behavioral researcher, Donald Baer, reported on an experiment with school children using M&M candies as reinforcers.4 One child gave the required behavior, and when offered the M&Ms as a reward, refused by saying, "But I have eleven cavities!" This story humorously illustrates that it is difficult at times to know what behaviors can be reinforced or extinguished by certain contingencies. Nevertheless, this does not mean we should neglect seeking to discover what these contingencies are as well as how they operate in our social exchange networks to create and shape our varied personalities, family systems, and various social institutions. The more we understand the social exchange principles that operate in the world of human interaction, the more potential we have to guide humanity toward health and wholeness. Within families certain principles or laws operate to maintain a particular family system. The literature on depression, for example, has traditionally focused on the individual and the symptoms that confirm a diagnosis of individual psychopathology. More recent investigation has shown that in a number of cases depression can be related to dysfunctional interaction patterns between the depressed family member and those significant others in the family system2 Certain types of depression, therefore, can be viewed as coming from a system that both produces and contains reinforcers for the state of depression. Specific interaction patterns and communication styles have been identified that operate in circular fashion to maintain the depressive response. The growing field of family therapy demonstrates how various forms of interaction patterns between family members reinforce a particular member's problem. The family can be viewed as a system that is maintained by each member contributing reinforcement behaviors (cost/reward exchanges) in a complex series of communication styles and interaction patterns. As a therapist joins the family system, he or she is better able to identify the family process or "dance" and to shift the emphasis from one family member
E. Wayne Hill
145
(the identified patient) to other family members by changing the cycle of interaction patterns and reinforcement behaviors. The behavioral principle of operant conditioning suggests t h a t when certain operations or responses are made toward something or someone, certain consequent responses will follow. In time these exchanges or response patterns reinforce certain behaviors and at other times extinguish certain behaviors. When Jesus said, "Judge not, t h a t you be not judged . . . . give and to you shall be given . . . . ask and you will receive . . . . seek and you will find. 9 knock and it will be opened to you . . . . and love your neighbor as you love yourself," was he not suggesting certain "operations" t h a t influence social relationships? To judge, to give, to ask, to seek, to knock, to love are all operations or behaviors t h a t imply exchanges between people. The choices people make in their behavior patterns are often determined by the kinds of responses they have seen lived out in their parental models. Sometimes the "fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge." Jesus sought to enable persons to realize t h a t when basic principles and laws of social exchange are ignored or defied, social relationships become strained and anxiety escalates. When people experience a sense of equity and fairness in their relationships with others, there is a greater potential for stability and cohesiveness in the relationships. However, when persons experience little or no reciprocity in their relationships, conflict, turmoil and even the dissolution of the relationship ensue. People need mutual, reciprocal, and just exchanges for relationships to endure and to grow. Scanzoni supports and illustrates this perspective when he asserts: It is a general sociological principle that associations are formed and maintained on the basis of reciprocity--exchanged rewards and benefits. A love relationship is no exception. To be sure, since it is primarily an "intrinsic" relationship, persons are not overtly being "used" as means to extrinsic ends. But to conceive of love and marriage as purely altruistic is to miss the point that rarely, if ever, can human love be sustained unless it is requited? In reviewing Erikson's psychosocial stages of h u m a n development, Wise elaborates Erikson's view of the reciprocal needs of children and parents. Wise declares: The child needs a relationship of nurturing trust and autonomy, and the parent, if he is an emotionally healthy person, needs to give such nurture. Thus there is a reciprocity of need. When the individuals in a family are controlling themselves in a manner appropriate to age and status, mutual regulation results. Any pattern of relationships that depends on exploitation, domination, or possessiveness destroys mutuality. What are usually taken as "behavior problems" in children may be symptomatic of a breakdown of mutuality between parents and child. 7
146
Journal of Religion and Health
Individuals who experience genuine reciprocity in their social exchanges feel satisfaction or a sense of "wholeness," while those who experience deprivation feel anger and resentment. On the other hand, individuals who receive more than they feel they deserve often experience guilt or seek to justify their "prosperity" by their own merits, creating a false sense of pride and security. Jesus, for example, frequently condemned the self-righteous attitudes of the Pharisees. The eighth-century B.C. prophets were especially concerned about reciprocity and equity in relationships, and although they did not use those terms, the word justice carried their meaning forcefully. Amos boldly declared, "Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Micah answered his own question, "What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with God?" To establish justice is to bring a genuine sense of reciprocity and equity in relationships, and without this it is difficult to maintain healthy and vibrant relationships. This is not only true of intimate relationships as in families or close-knit social networks, but it is also true in a more global sense such as within and between nations. When viewed from this perspective, the Iranian hostage crisis that afflicted the Carter administration can be better understood. For a long time the people of Iran experienced injustices and inequities in their system of government, supported from their perspective by the United States. The conflicts and disagreements that inevitably arose were regulated or controlled by the Shah of Iran by coercion and violence. Eventually the injustices and inequities were so overwhelming to the Iranian people that the Shah's power to regulate the conflict was resisted. Much of the Iranian people's anger was subsequently directed toward the United States for supporting the Shah as well as protecting him and granting him sanctuary. The hostage crisis arose out of what the Iranian people perceived as their opportunity to "balance the books," that is, to restore equity and to establish justice. Although the particular crisis that arose from Iran could not have been predicted, an eventual crisis of some nature was inevitable as viewed by social exchange theorists. Commentaries on the Middle East crisis related to Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait often suggest perceived inequities on the part of Iraq which were used to justify Hussein's so-called annexation of Kuwait. Much of the unrest in the world among nations and various groups can be attributed to real or perceived inequities and injustices. Whether it was the race riots of the 1960s or the move to pass the ERA in the 1970s, both have their impetus from injustices and inequities felt among the minorities and women in general. While there are those who view this perspective as mechanical and somewhat insensitive, there are others who find it logical and compelling. It is presented to suggest the concept that the God who has created an orderly world out of primordial chaos has also created the creatures
E. Wayne Hill
147
of the world, including humans, in an orderly fashion. In Christ God has demonstrated in a clear, cogent, and persuasive manner some basic exchange principles and laws designed to direct people in the world of relationships. Perhaps we can even come to understand better the nature of suffering when we begin to view some, and perhaps a great deal of it, as the inevitable consequence of the violation and disregard of laws and principles governing social exchange. Recognizing that basic inhumanity is the product of disregarding principles of reciprocity, justice, and equity enlightens our understanding of humanity's difficulties but does not address the issue of how to overcome them. Here the gospel speaks the "good news" of going beyond "an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth" to the law of Christ, which is "to bear one another's burdens." The prophet Micah recognized in his day that people fail "to do justice," making "to love mercy" far more essential. Injustice has a way of escalating dramatically, while justice doing and mercy granting are much slower in their effects, but nevertheless reinforcing and much more powerful. It is only when people love mercy more than justice that relatedness and community can be established. In the parable of the prodigal son the elder brother was unable to celebrate the younger son's homecoming. He was angry that mercy had been extended rather than justice. In his legalistic system of justice there was no room for forgiveness and, therefore, no experience of relatedness to his family. In the final analysis, genuine forgiveness which involves mercy and not legalism must be the ultimate solution to humanity's inhumanity. Until that time, fairness, reciprocity, and equity will not prevail. The aforementioned events in the Middle East provide sad but cogent examples. Nowhere was there greater injustice than that which was demonstrated in the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. Forgiveness (mercy granting) was how Jesus chose to respond to the world's injustice. He believed, taught, and demonstrated in his own life that God elects to deal with our inability "to do justice" by extending us mercy. To follow Jesus is to extend mercy to others rather than to cry for justice. Only in this is there hope for the cessation of our inhumanity to one another. The Cross stands as a focal point of history, suggesting to all people that the way to justice is through the door of mercy. To establish justice in this fashion is costly. It costs all that we are and have because it demands that we go beyond the "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" in extending mercy when what we really desire is revenge. There are many aspects of social exchange theory that are open to further empirical investigation as well as theological reflection. Nevertheless, theologians need to acknowledge the insights inherent in viewing human relationships as operating in the context of social exchanges. It is imperative that we continue to reflect upon the idea of human beings as cost-avoiding and reward-seeking creatures who discover "wholeness" when they experience justice, equity, and reciprocity in their relationships, and, at the same time, acknowledging that true justice comes at the price of mercy.
148
Journal of Religion and Health
References 1. March, W., OctoberIsland. Boston, Little, Brown and Co., 1946. 2. Scanzoni, J., "Social Processes and Power in Families." In Burr, W. R.; Hill, R.; Nye, F. I.; and Reiss, R. L., eds., Contemporary Theories About the Family, Vol. 1. New York, Free Press, 1979, pp. 295-316. 3. Ibid. 4. Baer, D., lecture given at the University of North Carolina Greensboro, Department of Child Development and Family Relations, Greensboro, North Carolina, April 1980. 5. Pukatch, M. E.; Messano, S.; Connell, G. W.; and Nannan, T. E., "An Analysis of Interaction Patterns in Depressed Marital Dyads: A Research Proposal," Auburn University, Department of Marriage and Family Therapy, November 1982. 6. Scanzoni, J., Sexual Bargaining. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. 7. Wise, C., The Meaning of Pastoral Care. New York, Harper and Row, 1966.
