19
by being reduced to a single value or utility metric. What matters is how one person or party
stands in proportion to others, e.g. the ratio of what one pays versus what one receives in turn.
Relations involving rents, tithes, wages, interests, and taxes are all examples. Money is a
common Market Pricing metric but need not be in all cases. Trying to calculate how efficiently
people spend their work time in relation to each other, even if no money is involved, is an
example of Market Pricing.
On Fiske’s relational models theory, these models explain the particular ways in which
people interpret misfortune, structure their identities and systems of exchange, and make moral
judgments. Since our main concern here is with morality, let us consider how each model
produces a moral standard (1991: 116f).
As a moral ideal, Communal Sharing is the principle that people should share generously
with other group members. Community needs take priority over one’s own individual needs.
However, this sort of generosity does not fit every sense of the word “altruism.” It is not giving
to someone or something alien to oneself. To the contrary, on the Communal Sharing model, all
group members form a common substance. The individual identifies him- or herself with the
group. To give to others in the group is to give to those with whom one shares an identity.
Authority Ranking implies two different sorts of moral obligation, depending upon
whether one is, in the relevant context, superior or subordinate. The subordinate owes respect,
deference, loyalty, and obedience to those in authority. Authorities have a responsibility to care
for and attend to the needs of those subordinate to them. Those higher in rank are entitled to
receive more social benefits than those of lower position. Authorities are also looked upon as
shapers of norms.
Equality Matching motivates the desire for fairness and justice. This may include in-kind
compensation, including strictly reciprocal revenge as well as uniform contributions.