At 04:05 PM 1/8/98 -0800, Bill Burgess wrote: >This is not only too much faith in the equality of buyer and seller in the >market, it is too bleak a view of most (physical and emotional) relations >between men and women to be taken seriously. It is not the matter of faith in the market, but of the fundamental difference in cost/benefit calculation between transaction in the market vs. one in the so-called traditional social institutions. Assuming no relation between a sex worker and her client other than a "spot" transaction exchanging sex for money, there is little opportunity cost for a sex worker passing on a particular prospective client. However, the very nature of most social institutions is to increase the opportunity cost to motivate the actor to engage rather than not to engage in a particular sort of activity. In a marriage-type relationship that opportunity may vary form informal sanctions imposed by the husband who got a cold shoulder (ranging from displaying his dissatisfaction to getting physical) to ending the relationship. Thus, the opportunity cost of sex (emotional attachment, informal and formal sanctions) for a woman is considerably higher in marriage than in a "spot" sex-for-money transaction. Of course, that is not limited to marriage. By their very nature, social institutions impose opportunity cost on certain actions which does not exist from a rat-choice perspective (assuming no relationship among actors other than how they value the exchanged objects) - and that explains why people do what they should not be doing from a rat-choice point of view. Thus, most women have little to gain from marriage, both emotionally and financially -- and if they calculated the cost/benefit from a purely rat-choice perspective, few of them would marry. That, however, is not what happens, for there is a considerable opportunity cost attached to the institution of marriage in the form of a host of informal sanctions (ostracism, loss of status, ridicule, etc.) which alter the cost/benefit marriage for the woman and push her into a relationship in which she may have little to gain personally. >There is a very good reason for the 'socialist moralism' regarding >prostitution - it reflects the plebian horror of falling into poverty, >privation, dependency, lumpenization, etc. Perhaps, but that may or may not be an important factor. I think that the fear of falling down the social ladder is much greater in the middle class than in the working class - for two reasons: working class has much less to loose than the "middle" class, and working class has social mechanism to cope with life contingencies that the "middle" class is lacking. That mechanism is social solidarity or the obligation to aid another member of the community in need. The "middle" class, by contrast, tends to rely on accumulated wealth and formal agreements (insurance, retirement accounts) rather than informal social solidarity ties. That explains, for example, why working class is less attached to their material possessions and is more willing to share them (cf. on average working class contributes a higher share of their disposable income to public causes than the middle class). IMO, the main reason behind 'working class moralism' is that not playing expected social roles jeopardizes social solidarity ties - the main mechanism of coping with contingencies. Thus, prostitution threatens the unity of the household, just as homosexulaity and any other non-conventional gender role does. In the same vein, flag burning threatens the unity of the nation. Hence the staunch oppostion of the working class to non-traditional gender roles, falg burining, and other forms of individualism that intellectuals falsely interpret as "conservatism." Regards, wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233
