414 Locating the Conflict in the Problem Format

A key device we use for analysis in PS 414 is the “problem.” Specifically, it is the normative (not the frictional)problem and the notation looks like this.

NS = Normative Standard

Something is said here to have “ought” value. There ought not (should not) be trash on the Park Blocks. If you are pushed on a norm, you lodge it in a more encompassing norm or one that is uniformly held.

FO = Factual Observation

It is asserted that the standard is contradicted. If you are pushed, you cite the source of this “fact,” a personal observation or a series of anecdotes or a study that has been done. The best form is simple contradiction, “But there is.” “But” grants that a norm would be expected to be followed but asserts that in this case, it is not being followed.

CA = Causal Attribution

Not, please note, “casual.” We don’t allow casual attributions of causality; they are too important for that. The CA says what the cause is of the conflict described. The question could be put, “Why, since there ought not be trash on the Park Blocks, is there trash there?” It is the second element, in other words, that directs the statement of cause.

Here are some alternative CAs. 1. Because there are not enough trash containers. 2. Because students have not been told to put the trash in the containers. 3. Because students are expressing their grievances against the university by their behavior. 4. Because the Trash Crews, which are supposed to pick up the trash, have been seriously underfunded. 5. Because the Trash Police, whose job it is to monitor compliance and to punish noncompliance, are not diligent in doing their job.
This post is going somewhere else, but I will detour briefly here to note that the problem and the solution mutually imply each other. For every problem—focused by the CA—there is a natural—an implied-- solution. For every solution, there was an implied problem. We will be using the designations IS (implied solution) when referring to problems and IP (implied problem) when referring to solutions. In Political Psychology, we used the more specific “solution implied by the problem) or SIP, but we won’t need to be that specific here. I hope.

Now to the question. Given that the problem is about a conflict and given that the nature of the conflict (what the CA is about) is specified by the second term (FO), what would happen if we switched the order of the two terms? Now we would have some observation, e.g., there is trash on the Park Blocks (FO), followed by the relevant norm, e.g., there should not be trash on the Park Blocks (NS) and a CA. Notice that the question as I put it above was, “Why, since there ought not be trash on the Park Blocks, is there trash there?” Now the question is, “Since there is trash on the Park Blocks, why do we hold that it ought not be there?” Now, we are asking that the norm be justified. We might ask why the questioner thinks the Park Blocks ought to not have trash. We might wonder if that is an appropriate norm for an urban university. We might suspect that the maker of the problem is a cleanfreak who ought not to be unleashed in reasonable company. Does he scrape gum from the underside of the tables, too? Clean up pigeon droppings? And so on.

Here is where that leaves us, I think. If you want to presume the norm and question the condition that contravenes it, put the norm first: NS/FO/CA. If you want to presume the condition and question the norm that condemns it, put the norm second: FO/NS/CA. That ought to work.