greater or lesser extent. Furthermore, there can be no ‘static equilibrium’ between the ways of life in any given society; they are all in a perpetual state of flux. This perpetual dynamic imbalance is supposed to account for both observable differences between societal regimes and the change within regimes over time. The foregoing claims present a heady and attractive mix for scholars in a variety of social science disciplines. Using the typology, grid-group analysts can deduce preferences and attitudes, behaviours and likely responses to behaviours regarding all kinds of topics for each of the ideal types (i.e. the four types posited in the cultural map). It is for these reasons that the theory has attracted the interest of a plethora of social scientists. If the theory in fact lives up to its claims, then it offers something of a powerful predictive (though not deterministic) mapping tool that could be adapted to a number of areas of policy development, particularly in analysing the utility of different forms of law and regulation, their reception within various social and political groups and the extent to which it is likely to be perceived as useful, or legitimate, or indeed fit for purpose. 6.2.3 A Note on the Grid and Group Dimensions How one chooses to define the dimensions has important methodological consequences. Douglas herself defines the dimensions as ‘polythetic scales’. If the dimensions are in fact polythetic then they should be viewed as sharing a number of characteristics, which individually may not all be present in each observable case. For the Grid dimension, Douglas specifies four specific constituent elements: insulation, control, autonomy and competition. It is to be recalled that the Grid represents the extent to which an individual is circumscribed by regulation; the more binding and extensive the regulation, the less an individual’s passage through life is open to negotiation within social and political communities. Conversely, as one moves down the Grid dimension, the more s/he is expected to independently negotiate the nature of their relationships with others. For the Group dimension, the relevant constituent elements have been identified as frequency of group interaction, scope of group activities and the definable group boundary. For Group, the higher the level of group bondedness, the greater an individual’s incorporation, ultimately signifying the loss of individual choice to group decision. As one continues to move along the group dimension, the tighter the controls become over group
greater or lesser extent. Furthermore, there can be no ‘static equilibrium’ between the ways of life in any given society; they are all in a perpetual state of flux. This perpetual dynamic imbalance is supposed to account for both observable differences between societal regimes and the change within regimes over time. The foregoing claims present a heady and attractive mix for scholars in a variety of social science disciplines. Using the typology, grid-group analysts can deduce preferences and attitudes, behaviours and likely responses to behaviours regarding all kinds of topics for each of the ideal types (i.e. the four types posited in the cultural map). It is for these reasons that the theory has attracted the interest of a plethora of social scientists. If the theory in fact lives up to its claims, then it offers something of a powerful predictive (though not deterministic) mapping tool that could be adapted to a number of areas of policy development, particularly in analysing the utility of different forms of law and regulation, their reception within various social and political groups and the extent to which it is likely to be perceived as useful, or legitimate, or indeed fit for purpose. 6.2.3 A Note on the Grid and Group Dimensions How one chooses to define the dimensions has important methodological consequences. Douglas herself defines the dimensions as ‘polythetic scales’. If the dimensions are in fact polythetic then they should be viewed as sharing a number of characteristics, which individually may not all be present in each observable case. For the Grid dimension, Douglas specifies four specific constituent elements: insulation, control, autonomy and competition. It is to be recalled that the Grid represents the extent to which an individual is circumscribed by regulation; the more binding and extensive the regulation, the less an individual’s passage through life is open to negotiation within social and political communities. Conversely, as one moves down the Grid dimension, the more s/he is expected to independently negotiate the nature of their relationships with others. For the Group dimension, the relevant constituent elements have been identified as frequency of group interaction, scope of group activities and the definable group boundary. For Group, the higher the level of group bondedness, the greater an individual’s incorporation, ultimately signifying the loss of individual choice to group decision. As one continues to move along the group dimension, the tighter the controls become over group
PhD%20Final.docx