Real freedom for all turtles in Sugarscape? - Presses universitaires ...

348A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t i c eHuman beings believe that they are cleverer than animals and that theirinteractions are more subtle and elaborate than those between a man and hisdog or between animals. They like to think that if their relations areharmonious, it is because they are able to understand each other, to explainthings to each other, and even to explain scientifically how they are able tounderstand each other and act in concert. So, Alfred Schütz (1967) showedthat a situation of collaboration (let’s say a university course, familyholidays, or some other collective undertaking) could functionharmoniously only because all of the partners, each of whom was there for adifferent reason, managed nonetheless to behave as if they had cometogether for the same reason (such as learning sociology, having fun as afamily, or manufacturing fully equipped kitchens). They could functionbecause all partners could step into each others’ shoes and understand whythey were there. Schütz calls this ‘reciprocity of perspective’. Such ahypothesis rests upon the basic assumption that a relatively fineunderstanding of another person is a realistic ideal and human interactionsare harmonious if each person strives to achieve this ideal.Several scholars feel that one must also search for the sources of asuccessful interaction in the forms that it takes and that the partners haveadopted. For example, Goffman (1959) thinks that a successful interactionentails, amongst other things, each of the protagonists’ avoiding making theothers lose face; each one, in a way, guarantees the other’s face. In this way,the interaction can be harmonious without the protagonists’ understandingeach other perfectly. It is important above all that they master certain codesand take pains to heed them.Human interactions effectively involve a very great number of elements,especially unconscious biological and mental elements (including some towhich one could sometimes never confess) that would immediately shatterany interaction that did not take place within the limits of the social scriptsthat the partners took up in the course of their socialization. The trickier andmore uncertain the interaction is, such as difficult negotiations, a universitytest, or a first sexual experience between two people, the more theprotagonists will tend to cling to specific scripts. In the area of intimaterelations, for example, these scripts will concern in particular the respectiveroles and behaviours expected of men and women (cultural scripts), thesequences to follow when going from seduction to sex (semi-structuredinteraction scripts), and even the fantasies and imaginary representationsthat are linked to sexual activity (psychic scripts). Thanks to these ‘sexualscripts’, as Gagnon and Simon (1986) call them, two partners can make lovemost pleasantly without having to delve too deeply into each others’ hearts