Advertisement
Hi Folks,
I'm contemplating submitting the following to CI Quarterly at the end of next month. I would appreciate any comments you have to give. The topic is a previous discussion in this forum.
Wynship
--------------------
The Values of Contact Improvisation
Some time ago, I participated in, and later facilitated, a discussion on tribe.net about values and contact improvisation (CI). At issue were economic considerations: the cost of classes, the ability of artists to make a living, the diversity of jams, etc. As someone with an advanced degree in an area closely related to economics (M.S. in Engineering-Economic Systems and Operations Research), I took particular interest in these issues. Practitioners in my field, among other talents, use mathematical analysis to spot inconsistencies in decisions, strategies, and daily policies that elude even experienced professional intuition. Occasionally, the opportunities for improvement are very large. For more about this little-known area, see www.scienceofbetter.com.
My contribution to the discussion began in the usual way, with a solicitation of answers to the question “what are we trying to achieve?” It had already led to a possibly-viable alternative – the creation of a membership program which would subsidize attendance of more-frequent dancers at festivals, etc., through a small increment in the cost of less-frequent dancers – when the discussion broke down for lack of participation. One discussant expressed disbelief that this method could lead to progress. This disbelief is as widespread as it is untrue. I could cite the many improvements that these methods have led to, or I could cite the Nobel Prize-winning research showing how great a potential for improvement exists (see Daniel Kahneman, Economics, 2002). Nevertheless, my area of expertise suffers from a crippling lack of exposure. I won’t address this issue, however. This article will deal, rather, with the “meta-issue” of values in CI versus those of economics in general.
It’s well-known that we’ve resisted economic pressures to turn CI into one of those actively-marketed performing art techniques that one occasionally sees with a trademark next to the name, an extra-expensive path for potential teachers, and the like. It seems obvious that we all agree, CI should never be about making money. Economic and statistical sciences, however, are much more pervasive than that. More and more, they are finding use in the nonprofit sector, where organizations compete for donors rather than customers, and struggle to show what bang-for-the-buck they can deliver, “bang” measuring whatever happens to be of interest. At an intra-organizational level, pricing and many other decisions can be manipulated to increase performance, however one chooses to define it. Profit is really just another objective. “Environmental sustainability” and “economic justice” are some others that are currently more popular. Combine your favorites. Invent your own. You’ll still be well within the purview of economic and statistical science.
Given this flexibility, it seems worthwhile to ask what “hidden” values these sciences themselves bring to the table, in order to evaluate whether they can be made of use to realizing other values more particular to our “tribe.” Inherent in all economic science is the concept sometimes called “economic man”. Economic man, often a straw man and object of caricature and ridicule for many on the political left, nevertheless has some appealing qualities. I will not pass judgment here on whether they are desirable for us. I only wish to make them apparent, so that choosing to accept or dismiss them will be done with consciousness.
“Economic man” is an intellectual. By that, I mean that he imagines things in his mind and calculates among them before consciously settling on a course of action. Already, the dissonance with CI is glaring, perhaps terminally so. This “perhaps” is precisely the issue. The issue is not whether such methods are fruitful. It goes without saying that they are. The examples, in every field, even the performing arts, are legion. The issue is whether we are even willing to consider the question – already adopting the stance of this man – whether using this mode of decision-making (a cost, because it is antithetical to CI principles) is worth its advantages (the exact extent of which are uncertain, but that uncertainty is not a critical issue for this particular entity, “economic man”). To go further, if we are willing to consider this question, how much of an advantage would it have to give? Such advantage could be stated in any concrete terms. Would it be worth it if the form were to die out for sure, without it? Etc. But I digress.
These imaginings of economic man bear further specification. They are images, specifically. They are images of objects, present at one time or another, and such presence or absence is apparent, or, in mathematical terms, decidable, whether logically or empirically. For example, the number of people alive with a given proficiency in CI, the number of people who have been to a CI jam within the past year, the amount of fees above which a given dancer will choose not to attend a given festival, or attend in a different capacity, or attend an alternative festival in its place, etc. Complication is not the issue, here. Far more complicated problems have been conquered by our friend homo economicus. In a sense, anything can be described in this way. Anything that cannot, due to the biases of our culture, has its status as “thing” (as opposed to nothing) drawn seriously into question. This, however, is another issue for decision. Is going along with this particular aspect of mainstream culture, i.e. its radical privileging of the present, of presence, of worldliness, if you will, this privileging that is absolutely necessary for science of any kind to be brought to bear, worth the advantages it brings? Again, the same sorts of questions can be asked. CI, as a counterculture movement, would prefer, ceteris paribus, to distance itself from science as much as possible. But what if the stakes of doing so were very high?
“Economic man” is more than just an intellectual and more than just a scientist in general. He not only imagines the multiplicity of outcomes that could result from his actions and the many ways of knowing. He – and this is what makes him specifically an economic scientist – has preferences among these outcomes, and these preferences themselves, in total, usually have particular qualities. There is some dissonance within and around the field of economics on this point. “Alternative utility theories” have been proposed. However, discussion of these goes beyond the scope of this article. We will consider only the orthodox model, here. Not to worry, because, of the issues presented so far, these are the least controversial.
These preferences have particular qualities. One of them is “transitivity.” This sounds more technical than it is. Suppose there are three mutually exclusive outcomes, each of which completely describe a state of affairs, in all its relevant aspects, and only one of which can occur: A, B, and C. Suppose we prefer A to B, all things considered. Suppose we also prefer B to C under the same condition. Transitivity means we no longer get to choose between A and C. Given our other preferences, we must prefer A to C, because we prefer A to B and B to C. Transitivity reduces the number of choices we have to make. Some consider this an advantage. Certainly, it solves a number of technical difficulties when making decisions. How does the CI community feel?
Another quality of the preferences of economic man is that they exhibit “independence of irrelevant alternatives.” This means, to use the above example, that if we take B out of the set of outcomes under consideration, our preferences regarding A and C don’t change. Again, this is choice-reducing, because it determines our preferences between A and C in the absence of B. When we above asked the question regarding A and C, B was considered part of the choice-set. Again, some consider this an advantage. What about the CI community?
Worthy of consideration, when considering the above choices, is also the political nature of decision-making. The more of the above that are accepted at some reasonable level, the greater the dependence on people, such as, I admit, myself, who have special decision-analysis and -assessment skills. The issue is not one of power – i.e. whose preferences are maximized – but of politics, i.e. who is doing the technical work that substantiates the decision, even if their particular preferences are expressly ignored? For instance, I am not a teacher of CI. Therefore, under current arrangements, I cannot participate in WCCIF decision-making processes. This rule, not without its reason, was made specifically in response to someone outside the WCCIF teacher community who attempted to take control of the WCCIF decision-making process. Such issues are of great concern in the CI community.
There are other meta-decisions that could very well be of issue for the CI community, of a yet more technical nature. However, this article has achieved its objective. The above-discussed issues need be not only decided, but evaluated, by the CI community. If it chooses not to do so, alas, it has still made a choice, and that choice will have material consequences.
I'm contemplating submitting the following to CI Quarterly at the end of next month. I would appreciate any comments you have to give. The topic is a previous discussion in this forum.
Wynship
--------------------
The Values of Contact Improvisation
Some time ago, I participated in, and later facilitated, a discussion on tribe.net about values and contact improvisation (CI). At issue were economic considerations: the cost of classes, the ability of artists to make a living, the diversity of jams, etc. As someone with an advanced degree in an area closely related to economics (M.S. in Engineering-Economic Systems and Operations Research), I took particular interest in these issues. Practitioners in my field, among other talents, use mathematical analysis to spot inconsistencies in decisions, strategies, and daily policies that elude even experienced professional intuition. Occasionally, the opportunities for improvement are very large. For more about this little-known area, see www.scienceofbetter.com.
My contribution to the discussion began in the usual way, with a solicitation of answers to the question “what are we trying to achieve?” It had already led to a possibly-viable alternative – the creation of a membership program which would subsidize attendance of more-frequent dancers at festivals, etc., through a small increment in the cost of less-frequent dancers – when the discussion broke down for lack of participation. One discussant expressed disbelief that this method could lead to progress. This disbelief is as widespread as it is untrue. I could cite the many improvements that these methods have led to, or I could cite the Nobel Prize-winning research showing how great a potential for improvement exists (see Daniel Kahneman, Economics, 2002). Nevertheless, my area of expertise suffers from a crippling lack of exposure. I won’t address this issue, however. This article will deal, rather, with the “meta-issue” of values in CI versus those of economics in general.
It’s well-known that we’ve resisted economic pressures to turn CI into one of those actively-marketed performing art techniques that one occasionally sees with a trademark next to the name, an extra-expensive path for potential teachers, and the like. It seems obvious that we all agree, CI should never be about making money. Economic and statistical sciences, however, are much more pervasive than that. More and more, they are finding use in the nonprofit sector, where organizations compete for donors rather than customers, and struggle to show what bang-for-the-buck they can deliver, “bang” measuring whatever happens to be of interest. At an intra-organizational level, pricing and many other decisions can be manipulated to increase performance, however one chooses to define it. Profit is really just another objective. “Environmental sustainability” and “economic justice” are some others that are currently more popular. Combine your favorites. Invent your own. You’ll still be well within the purview of economic and statistical science.
Given this flexibility, it seems worthwhile to ask what “hidden” values these sciences themselves bring to the table, in order to evaluate whether they can be made of use to realizing other values more particular to our “tribe.” Inherent in all economic science is the concept sometimes called “economic man”. Economic man, often a straw man and object of caricature and ridicule for many on the political left, nevertheless has some appealing qualities. I will not pass judgment here on whether they are desirable for us. I only wish to make them apparent, so that choosing to accept or dismiss them will be done with consciousness.
“Economic man” is an intellectual. By that, I mean that he imagines things in his mind and calculates among them before consciously settling on a course of action. Already, the dissonance with CI is glaring, perhaps terminally so. This “perhaps” is precisely the issue. The issue is not whether such methods are fruitful. It goes without saying that they are. The examples, in every field, even the performing arts, are legion. The issue is whether we are even willing to consider the question – already adopting the stance of this man – whether using this mode of decision-making (a cost, because it is antithetical to CI principles) is worth its advantages (the exact extent of which are uncertain, but that uncertainty is not a critical issue for this particular entity, “economic man”). To go further, if we are willing to consider this question, how much of an advantage would it have to give? Such advantage could be stated in any concrete terms. Would it be worth it if the form were to die out for sure, without it? Etc. But I digress.
These imaginings of economic man bear further specification. They are images, specifically. They are images of objects, present at one time or another, and such presence or absence is apparent, or, in mathematical terms, decidable, whether logically or empirically. For example, the number of people alive with a given proficiency in CI, the number of people who have been to a CI jam within the past year, the amount of fees above which a given dancer will choose not to attend a given festival, or attend in a different capacity, or attend an alternative festival in its place, etc. Complication is not the issue, here. Far more complicated problems have been conquered by our friend homo economicus. In a sense, anything can be described in this way. Anything that cannot, due to the biases of our culture, has its status as “thing” (as opposed to nothing) drawn seriously into question. This, however, is another issue for decision. Is going along with this particular aspect of mainstream culture, i.e. its radical privileging of the present, of presence, of worldliness, if you will, this privileging that is absolutely necessary for science of any kind to be brought to bear, worth the advantages it brings? Again, the same sorts of questions can be asked. CI, as a counterculture movement, would prefer, ceteris paribus, to distance itself from science as much as possible. But what if the stakes of doing so were very high?
“Economic man” is more than just an intellectual and more than just a scientist in general. He not only imagines the multiplicity of outcomes that could result from his actions and the many ways of knowing. He – and this is what makes him specifically an economic scientist – has preferences among these outcomes, and these preferences themselves, in total, usually have particular qualities. There is some dissonance within and around the field of economics on this point. “Alternative utility theories” have been proposed. However, discussion of these goes beyond the scope of this article. We will consider only the orthodox model, here. Not to worry, because, of the issues presented so far, these are the least controversial.
These preferences have particular qualities. One of them is “transitivity.” This sounds more technical than it is. Suppose there are three mutually exclusive outcomes, each of which completely describe a state of affairs, in all its relevant aspects, and only one of which can occur: A, B, and C. Suppose we prefer A to B, all things considered. Suppose we also prefer B to C under the same condition. Transitivity means we no longer get to choose between A and C. Given our other preferences, we must prefer A to C, because we prefer A to B and B to C. Transitivity reduces the number of choices we have to make. Some consider this an advantage. Certainly, it solves a number of technical difficulties when making decisions. How does the CI community feel?
Another quality of the preferences of economic man is that they exhibit “independence of irrelevant alternatives.” This means, to use the above example, that if we take B out of the set of outcomes under consideration, our preferences regarding A and C don’t change. Again, this is choice-reducing, because it determines our preferences between A and C in the absence of B. When we above asked the question regarding A and C, B was considered part of the choice-set. Again, some consider this an advantage. What about the CI community?
Worthy of consideration, when considering the above choices, is also the political nature of decision-making. The more of the above that are accepted at some reasonable level, the greater the dependence on people, such as, I admit, myself, who have special decision-analysis and -assessment skills. The issue is not one of power – i.e. whose preferences are maximized – but of politics, i.e. who is doing the technical work that substantiates the decision, even if their particular preferences are expressly ignored? For instance, I am not a teacher of CI. Therefore, under current arrangements, I cannot participate in WCCIF decision-making processes. This rule, not without its reason, was made specifically in response to someone outside the WCCIF teacher community who attempted to take control of the WCCIF decision-making process. Such issues are of great concern in the CI community.
There are other meta-decisions that could very well be of issue for the CI community, of a yet more technical nature. However, this article has achieved its objective. The above-discussed issues need be not only decided, but evaluated, by the CI community. If it chooses not to do so, alas, it has still made a choice, and that choice will have material consequences.
Advertisement
Advertisement
