LAW vs Fairness: An anthropological perspective

A basic question for society is, "How does it balance the interests, needs, wants, and rights of the individual member with those of the group, or society? 

Further, "How does the society transfer its knowledge and solutions from generation to generation?"

 For thousands of years, humanity has evolved solutions to these questions. Each have been specific to the time and circumstance and have proven to be successfully passed on generation to generation. In the process, there have emerged thousands upon thousands of individual and distinct societies with their own distinct culture. And in each of these, the same questions are asked and answered. "How does the individual relate to the group, and how does the group relate to the individual? From a broad perspective, it has been through addressing the basic question of individual fairness versus the collective benefit or interests that we recognize the role Law plays in the evolution of culture.

What is a "fair share" and "how do we determine it?"

As anthropologists, we have found that there are a number of recurring solutions to the human questions of fairness. These solutions exhibit a similarity over time and space. In addition, they also reveal an underlying pattern of growth and focus. By growth, I am referring to the inclusion of situations that show a particular bias that favors the individual or the group. By focus, I am referring to the process of resolution -- fairness or law. The goal of any society is to create a method that the group, as a whole, will ues to create a sense of "fairness" among its members.

 Fairness comes in two forms -- situational and cultural.

 Situational fairness is the "deal" where two parties negotiate the costs and benefits of resolving certain points of conflict that prevent them from mutually benefiting from the situation. Each openly lays out its list of costs and benefits as its sees the situation. Then they begin a process of weighing their individual cost or benefit to accepting or rejecting the other's claims. Through this process, the parties arrive at a conclusion. That conclusion maybe either a deal, that each agrees satisfies their individual need, or no deal that may result in a simple agreement to disagree, or elevating the conflict into a violent confrontation using force to achieve "personal" objectives despite the objections of the other party.

 It is the latter outcome, passed on from situation to situation, from generation to generation, that leads from an individual to collective feeling of fairness and unfairness. Fair deals become routine. The beheavors become almost ritualistic. Like the Kula ring described by Malinowski, the Potlatch described by , or the Church offering described by , these acts are based on a culturally defined TRUST between the parties.

 Unfair deals are seen as threats or rights, Threats or rights depend on what outcome one might expect if the deal is not made. A threat is a potential loss of the status quo, property, identity or life. In modern society, the lose in a game may be seen by the parties to the game as a threat to status. The purchase of a house may be seen as a threat to the buyer and seller unless guaranteed by the bank writing the mortgage. The loss of a driver's license can be a threat to one's identity where such a license from the state is used to guarantee one's identity. And, the warning label on the dangers of a given product tells of the threat of misuse of the product can lead to death.

 A right, on the other hand, is the anticipated privilege or standing that one finds in the situation. When these expectations are passed on, generation to generation, they become normative expectations or cultural rules of fairness and unfairness. The right to own a house is guaranteed by the ability to get a mortgage, to buy liquor or board a plane is guaranteed by a driver's license, And the manufacturer's warranty or seal of approval is a guarantee of the safety of the product.

 Laws are the social and cultural counterparts to fairness. These are the elements of a deal that have been reached and accepted by the parties involved, who find themselves in a similar situation time after time. They are the solutions to situations that group members have resolved in the past. The most significant feature of the Law is how group authority is acquired and the degree to which it is legitimized. It is the individual granting authority to precedent. It is permission by the parties to a deal to accept past decisions as the solution to similar future problems or situations.

 Laws, if democratically debated and approved, is the compromise of a civil society. It is a compromise over a complex set of issues that otherwise could or would divide the public. It is the Art of the Deal that leads to shared actions and collective order. It is not the BIG LIE that "personal fairness" sometimes pretends to be.

 That is the point. Fairness is an individual and small group value and relates to a more personal interaction such as "a fair price" or "fair exchange". Lawful is a political term referring to a formal agreement that socially and culturally defines the Context and circumstances in which it is "FAIR" to do and act in a communal way. Fairness is more emotional, more personal, more immediate, and more idiosyncratic than the LAW. Fairness rest upon TRUST based on personal or family experience.

 The LAW is more abstract, more cultural, more dependent on literacy and most of all, on authority. It is abstract in the sense that it requires an analysis of the facts measured against some principle of fairness, shared or in conflict. It is cultural in the sense that it is historical built on group experience. It requires literacy since it is based on written rules of evidence and histories. And most of all, has the authority of the social order to determine priority the relative rights of the parties involved.

 On a personal level, fairness and lawful are the same. But on the social level there can be a wide difference between the two. Lawful justice weighs the claims of "fairness" of both sides in order to render a decision that should "always" be applied to such an issue. It does this to the determine and weigh the facts in the situation, i.e. the evidence. The question that the LAW must answer is, Who or What will administer the process?

 This is the challenge facing the professional applied anthropologist both morally and ethically.

1. Should the anthropologist working on a principle of fairness? And if so, "fair" to whom?

2. Should the anthropologist work as an expert witness, adding clarity to authority of the LAW.

3. Should the anthropologist serve as advocate, and if so for whom or what?

 The anthropologist can never separate his or herself from the fact they are human, cultural beings, and actors in the situations they seek to study. They are in many ways their own subjects.

Like the society that they are a part of, anthropologists find themselves tools of the authority structure they live in as human beings. Among western applied anthropologist, there is a bias toward "fairness" embodied in the idea of "do no harm."

 The conflict between what is "fair" and what is "legal" is the challenge of Democracy. A democracy is "fairness" under law. All other social orders are "law" under what is "fair" to those who are in power and with the power.

 We live in a binary world of reality. What is personal is only half of the equation. What is professional is another part of the equation.

 

SIZE MATERS

Human beings fear failure and seek security. The smaller the social group the more conservative the group is. It is the radical, the one who will question the status quo, and risks failure who advances the group and the human race.

Socialism as an economic system is an example of the former. Capitalism as an economic system is an example of the latter. The former is the society of conservatives. The latter is the society of the radicals. Yet, we seem to confuse the two. We call Socialists, left wingers radicals. And we can Capitalists, right wingers and conservatives. As anthropologists, we should be more careful in our use of these terms. When we look at human history we find that there is a constant pushing and pulling between the individual and society, between the fear of failure and the desire to take risks in order to win. 

The Socialist wants security by insuring winning and by avoiding all risks. The Capitalist is willing to lose everything in order to win something new. The larger the society, the greater and more intense the struggle between the forces of the fear of failure and the forces willing to take risks. This is the world today.

We are in the Twilight Zones and the New and Old Normal are at war.

It is time for INVESTMENT and that means GOVERNMENT must think in terms of INVESTING IN THE FUTURE rather than worrying about maintaining the past with minimum investment and by cutting taxes.

The one of the first great Constitutional Issue faced by the Supreme Court, was McCulloch v Marshall in 1819. It dealt with the right of the Federal Government to form a National Bank in addition to the State's right to establish and manage a banking system. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland)

It is an has been the evolution of the Federal Government's role as the Investor of first and last resort that has built America and made it possible for the Nation to grow. The Government has become the underwriter that makes Capitalism successful. Not what the Greedy beneficiaries of these investments would have taxpayers believe. 

Individual taxpayers benefitted by the Louisiana Purchase from France by opening up the Mississippi Valley and the Mid-west to settlement and investment by ordinary citizens. The purchase of northern California from Russia put America on both Coasts and created a Continental Power in the 19th Century.

In the 20th Century, Federal Investment during the Great Depression helped to save the country and instituted a tremendous investment in Capital projects through the New Deal. (see https://www.history.com/news/new-deal-infrastructure-projects-fdr). The Cold War was a major driving force through DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Project) and later ARPA in the civilian sectors.

The Federal bailout of the Savings and Loans in the 20th Century and the Mortgage Crisis of the 2007 point to the importance of the Federal Government investment to save the Capitalist System. It is Federal Investment through the Tax System that enables the Rich to risk their wealth in new ventures.

It is our Government, that takes the risk of failures that WE, as citizens, are afraid to take. Government in Capitalistic society is the Investment BANK and Not the Savings and Loan in a Socialistic society. This is the difference between the Left and the Right. The Left would risk failure to win the long game. The Right is afraid of losing any gain from the past if it means risking the future.

As Anthropologists,and social scientist, we should know that civilization advances when the resources of society expand. And that civilizations collapse and die when the voice of capitalism at the highest level becomes to afraid of taking chances. 

Qanon -- An Anthropological Perspective

 Qanon is a rich field of study for the anthropologist to understand what is happening today in American politics and comparatively with the rest of the world. Life has sped up and the result is psychological and cultural stress and fear. Where once culture and society advanced slowly throughout human history often shared by generations of the local community, today in many places it is not even shared between generations of the same nuclear family.

From an anthropological perspective, Qanon is like any other messianic movement that frequently arises or arose among "native peoples"​ when the IMMIGRANT (political, economic, and/or technologically) dominant took control of the NATIVE's land, culture, and children's education.

Messianic movement are the history of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, that arose when traditional religions failed to adapt to the "new"​ reality. In modern times these have been in Europe -- the many forms of Protestantism which lead to the break with Catholicism and the settling in North America of the multitude of Protestant Sects.

This lead to American Indian societies response with Handsome Lake, Peyote, Ghost Shirt, etc, movements. Trumpism is messianic in that it builds on the fears of white, christian fears of the OTHER. We saw this earlier in the popularity of the American Democracy, Communism, Nazism. And more recently, we see it in the USA in the Left Behind phenomena, beliefs in the Rapture, Jim Jones and Other Cults.

The Movements create an audience, first of "True Believers" that then attracts the False Prophets, the Greedy and the Scammers. All of those who seek to profit from the fears of True Believers. In the past these movement were local and only the strongest that survived over time and through generations became a major Religion or Philosophy. Today, aided by a global technology, they spread like wildfire and engulf whole communities of believers, foster insurrections, and capture governments.

For anthropologists, this is a goldmine. For politicians and governments it can be a tool and route to power or the very threat they fear most.

CONSUMPTION PATtERNS: NOW, SOON, LATER -- Part 5

 

               As we go through life, we encounter persons who are living in the NOW. Taking life as it is and making the most of it. This is frequent saying among youth. Others, generally older, are living in the SOON, planning and preparing for events. And some even live in the LATER , when things uncertain today maybe more certain LATER.

                Things happen in life. Some are happening NOW. Some happen in the near future. And some happen much later. We can try to control what is happening now because NOW is the present and the impact of the past. NOW is the result of events that happened and their consequences on our lives today. NOW is our Fate. If we can deal with NOW, we can begin to control SOON.

                SOON is the short time horizon when NOW is beginning to take form. SOON is the opening of the possibilities of the NOW.  It is open to choices, as much as it is open to fate. This is the universe we  live and operate in every day. The circumstances we face are the reality we accept. If this reality calls for actions, then we have the option of acting or not acting. If we have the option of acting, we also have the choice of what action we will take. It is like coming to a crossroad. You decide which way to go. The choice determines the path of your SOON.

               LATER is the future that becomes real as SOON becomes the NOW and NOW becomes the consequences of your past decisions. Life is the cycle of NOW, SOON, and LATER. It is the life cycle of the self, the individual. Reality for the individual, is the NOW of the moment. It is both the choices made and the consequences of all of the forces present at the time of the choice. These forces are the universe in which we are living, in which we are both aware and unaware.

                Those elements we are aware of, set the tone for how we approach and deal with the NOW. They are influenced by the NOW of others whom we encounter in the NOW and with the choice(s) we make in the NOW. The choices are based on the individual perceived needs, wants and desires of each member of the group. When these correlate for the members, we have a shared “culture”, or in Spicerian terms “a persistent culture”. When these do not correlate, we have a mob or crowd. If we take this as a model of the situation, we can see that our choices are determined by the situational context.

               The situational context is the correlation between our perception of what we might gain or lose in the situation and when that might happen. It determines our freedom of choice. We can envision a 3x3 matrix where freedom of choice is plotted against time.

                               NOW                    SOON                   LATER   

NEEDS

               --------------------------------------------------------------------

WANTS

              --------------------------------------------------------------------

DESIRES                                                                                         

              ---------------------------------------------------------------------

               We might expect that as we move from left to right that certainty diminishes, while as we move from top to bottom our freedom of choice increases, albeit it may not be the choice we make. This is like predicting the path of a hurricane, where the future course of the storm is projected as an ever- widening cone as current conditions are extrapolated into the future. This establishes a zone of probability and allows managers (among others) to plan for future contingencies. When applied to human behavior, we need to know both status and roles of the key players and the strength of those bonds.

               The strength of the bonds is measured by formal and informal relationships between the actors and the powers assigned to the actors. The former is determined by the scope of the interactions between the parties, i.e. where is the line drawn between official and the social relationships? And the latter by the formal power assigned to status. Put another way, how much freedom does the individual have to make a choice and how much is assigned to or delegated to the status/role?

               The more structured the status/roles are and integrated into a coordinated system the more “sociological” the structure is to perform the prescribed actions assigned to the position. That is, the actions and sequence are “programmed” into the system and the individual will be evaluated for his/her performance of the program, rather than their idiosyncratic solution to the problem. This is often referred to as a “bureaucratic” performance and normally established, by law or policy. This generally found in government programs or agencies. But also found in older and larger private organizations. It reflects both an aging of the organization and smoothing out of rights and responsibilities of the organizational units, especially in reference to their place within a larger structure.

               In a “private” organization, there is a much wider scope of action in the early stages of development where solving the problem is valued more than simply adhering to the rules. In a free capitalistic society this is the source of tension, for fairness – the government should act according to the law, rules established and enforced equally and fairly in reference to all parties. Yet, the organizations established under a capitalistic model depend upon and are encouraged to seek out opportunity in the production, assembly, distribution and marketing of products that serve a basic need of the public (or a public). This means finding unorganized or underexploited areas of activity, more efficient means for doing the activity, or more market focused activity.

               This is outlined in the elements of the organizational life cycle, e.g. Adize. The burden on management is to grow the business or activity to a point of where it is self-sustaining and yet adaptable to the changing environment. And to maintain this posture is the NOW and SOON while planning for the LATER.

               It is the test that time and nature have created for all the natural world. Humans and Human Institutions are exempt from these tests, as human history will attest.

Are You Planning a Career as an Applied Anthropologist?

 Are You planning a career as an Applied Anthropologist? 

If so, are you also an entrepreneur? Is this why you have chosen to apply your anthropological training and interest to creating a career for yourself?

The biggest challenge in starting a business is CAPITAL. Do you have access to enough Capital to invest in the start-up costs AND to pay yourself as an employee? What you would require to maintain a minimum life-style for as long as it takes to become profitable? And, Where will this come from, for how long?

This is really the owner-operator problem. To do it alone is a real challenge. To do it so income exceeds expenses in time to prevent running out of capital is a challenge to your scheduling skills. You may want to consider a partnership either with an inside and outside division of responsibility (managing the business vs. selling the product). Or a silent partner who guarantees your expenses in return for a long term buy-out agreement and interest payment.

Be aware of your scale -- how much business can you really do in a unit of time? What will you do if you exceed your ability? What will you do if you don't make your targeted need?

Ask the right questions and get the right (real) answers. Be aware that usually it costs more than you planned and you earn less than you hoped for in the beginning.

And Good Luck!

An Anthropological look at the World

On March 27, 2021,  The Wall Street Journal carried an article by Lisa Ward reporting on the discussion between AI researchers and Therapists focused on the question: "Can AI make mental-health treatment more accessible?"

This article points to a real problem facing humankind that requires an anthropological study and debate. AI machines are NOT humans. It may replace Humans, taking advantages of the distinctions and evolving to fill many of the roles considered too dangerous for human animals. Just as in Nature, human evolution has adapted to the context in which events occur and a drive toward efficiency. Efficiency is measured by the numbers. The number is determined by the rate and volume of reproduction over time. 

H. G. Wells was on target in the "Time Machine". He envisioned the evolution of the human animal and the AI machine with his characters of the Eloi and Morlocks. Two species will evolve, each filling a different ecological niche but tied together by a common origin and distinguished by different functions.

As pointed out in the article -- AI is being used as a method for discovering ways to identify and treat human mental health problems. But when machines begin to perform human functions, what is left to being human, or for that matter, distinguish the animal from the machine?

AI researchers and human psychological therapists must wonder what happens when AI is designed to mimic and adapt to more animal-like means of independence -- such self-containment, self replication, and mobility? But most of all, complete "self-awareness"?

Do they change into an alternative to the human animal? Does self-awareness mean the AI device is now part of its environment, rather than just an instrument to measure it? Will they or can they become the trainer of the human animal or the environmental threat to the human animal?

AI may learn to domesticate humans in the same manner that humans have domesticated many lower animal species. Some of these as work animals, some as food animals, and others as "emotional support" animals. Of course, the latter assumes AI will develop "emotions of empathy." That is, can and will AI replace humans at the top of the evolution chain. Interesting article! How and when will we know it happened?

The question is: How does it relate to anthropology?

Specialization is something that has come to the human species slowly. The past two hundred years has seen the rapid radiation (expansion and diversification) in society. This has been created by our increase in knowledge leading to technology and leading to human specialization in activities. It is in this context that we must view the raise of AI as both the benefits and the tensions between the haves and the have nots. What will be the anthropological impact of AI on Society and Culture?

Nature has evolved through a matter of layering from the single cell to the complex integration of cells  that form an individual organism. Anthony F. C. Wallace has identified two key processes which drive the integration of the individual (the bio- psychology evolution) and society (collective cultural evolution) of the human species, (Wallace 1961 ). These are The organization of diversity and uniformity of replication. 

Raised to the macro-level of the universe, these process suggests that evolution takes place through two processes: Individual replication and environmental diversity.

The first operates on an individual life-cycle basis with the replication of uniformity, within the current conditions and constraints of the event environment. The replication of uniformity, which is a time limited variable, is the tension between cloning the original vs. the statistical differential between clones within the population group. This latter affects the rate of individual traits within the environment. The replication of uniformity is like the odds in a game of cards, e.g. getting four of a kind in poker or making a  grand slam in bridge in no trump.

The second level, the organization of diversity is domain sensitive. That is, do the physical and/or cultural elements produce an organizational unity or chaos.  The former works within the critical uniformity of the organization's population (society's statuses) and the latter in the transmission of content (roles) that favors the organization of diverse statuses that society requires to survive in a stable environment. The organization of diversity is a variable limited by the degree of compatibility. It is the difference between dumping the puzzle out of the box (chaos) and the assembled puzzle (organization of uniformity).

Non-life becomes life, but that does not stop non-life from forming. In fact, "life" depends upon it. Life builds on non-life in specific contexts and not in others. Life itself is the story of this layering over time on this planet.

An example I witness in my own backyard is the Oak Tree, every three years it seems to have an abundance of acorns (replication). This is a time of plenty for the replication Oaks in the form of acorns.  But it also creates an abundance of food for squirrels this year. And more acrones being buried by squirrels increases the chance for more young shoots appearing next year.

Meanwhile, more buried acorns also means that more squirrels survive the winter and to reproduce next spring. These added squirrels make available more food to be prayed upon by the fox and coyote in the second year. This, in turn, means more foxes and coyotes will be replicated to survive the winter and be born in the spring. Meanwhile the oak trees are now just beginning their third year of of the cycle, and producing an abundance of new acorns. This mass replication will be seen next year in the number of squirrels, etc, etc.. 

The cycle of oaks, squirrels, and fox/coyote is the layering. This is the layering of  acorns, grazers, and predictors in nature. What will be the layering of humans and AI is the anthropological question?

-------------------------------------

Ward,  Lisa  3/26/2021, "Can Artificial Intelligence Replace Human Therapists?", Wall Street Journal

Wallace, 1961,  Culture and Personality, New York: Random House.

CONSUMPTION PATTERNS - NEEDS, WANTS, DESIRES -- Part 4

CONSUMPTION PATTERS --- NEEDS, WANTS, AND DESIRES   -- PART 4

 

Consumption is proceeded by a NEED to satisfy some DESIRE and results is a WANT on the part of the Consumer.  Proceeding up the consumption chain of an organization we find that the paradigm, NEEDS, WANTS, and DESIRES, repeats itself at each stage of the transactional cycle. A transactional cycle is the sequence of Seller-Buyer links that take place between the initial acquisition of a good or service that functions as an input to the production another good or service and the last link when the good or service is finally consumed to satisfy the NEED that created the transaction.

NEEDS

The most basic motivator at any level of consumption is NEED. “What will solve a consumer’s immediate survival problem?” The reference point is the consumer or buyer. The question that a researcher or Seller must ask is, “What is the problem that the consumer feels a NEED to resolve in order to “survive” the particular situation?”  

Survival is the critical emotional or psychological response to a NEED. It is the basic motivator of any individual or group, whether an animal, the human animal or a human population. NEEDS are basically the PERCEIVED threat to SURVIVAL in the moment. Without the perception of a threat, no matter how intense, there is NO NEED. Response to a NEED arises in the CONSUMER, creating a product that will fill that NEED is the role of the SELLER.

The PRODUCT is a specific item that the customer PERCEIVES that will meet or satisfy that NEED. The product may be a real or physical object, e.g. oxygen, food, wages, etc., or it may be for the human or human group ideational service, e.g. emotional support, religious or political belief, economic security, etc.  Generally, it is a combination.

Since Survival and NEED are effectively equal from a CONSUMER point of view, the PRODUCT and/or PRODUCER of the PRODUCT has an opportunity to occupy a MONOPOLY position relative to the CONSUMER. From the point of view of the SELLER, this is the BEST POSSIBLE DEAL. From the BUYER’s point of view this is the only DEAL.

There are several ways for the SELLER to gain a monopoly position all of which are a function of time, or the duration of the NEED. The SELLER or PRODUCER obtains a monopoly by becoming the ONLY SUPPLIER in the transaction situation where SURVIVAL depends upon resolving the problem that created the NEED. When SURVIVAL is less of an issue, the SELLER may achieve a monopolistic position by becoming the preferred SUPPLIER of the solution to the BUYER’s specific NEED. Finally, the SELLER may stimulate an unanticipated NEED in the BUYER by offering a PRODUCT that in new or unique to the BUYER’s experience and thereby create a “monopoly” or “brand loyalty.”

 WANTS

WANTS are NEEDS that arise when there is one BUYER and several SELLERS. This transactional situation of NEED creates the psychological state of CHOICE. Given a specific NEED and a range of alternatives for resolving the NEED, CHOICE becomes a factor in determining the consumer’s behavior. When PRODUCTS compete as solutions to the NEED, both the CONSUMER AND PRODUCER are faced with CHOICE. CHOICE, in turn, depends upon knowledge and experience of each actor. Where the motivational NEED can be met by a range of Suppliers, the BUYER and SELLER each competes to make the “Best Deal.” CHOICE introduces CHANCE or PROBABILITY into the CONSUMPTION DECISION. The criterion for both parties to a DEAL changes from the BEST POSSIBLE for one or the other into what is a POSSIBLE DEAL that is acceptable to both.

At the human and group level, one of the most basic factors in WANTS is the choice between Prices and Desired results. This is where the CONSUMER and PRODUCER meet. CHOICE then creates a situation where the individual interests of CONSUMER and PRODUCER compete. It is here, in this TRANSACTIONAL space, that marketing and advertising become critical for a PRODUCER’s survival. It is here that the CONSUMER gains leverage over their NEED and SUPPLIERS.

DESIRES

DESIRES are cultural choices. DESIRES represent the group ideals, meanings, and values held by a CONSUMER CLASS of individuals. Here the CONSUMER’s goal is the SURVIVIAL of his/her STATUS within his/her primary reference group and with reference to the society as a whole.

STATUS is a NEED, in Maslow’s hierarchy of NEEDS. STATUS is also driven by the NEED to REPLICATE one’s position through their behavior as a member of a GROUP of CONSUMERS.  

DESIRES are the criteria one uses to define CULTURAL NEEDS. DESIRES, unlike WANTS, are EXCLUSIONARY CHOICES. DESIRES exclude BUYERS and SELLERS from those who CONSUME certain products that bestow unique or special STATUS on the CONSUMER.

CONSUMERS in this GROUP feel that they have earned or deserve their status. Their NEED is to PRESERVE their STATUS at all cost. In effect, they hope to create a monopoly on their STATUS through their consumption behavior. This is a behavior pattern that reflect the cultural ideals, meanings, and values of the society’s STATUS structure.

 DESIRES reflect the way members of one group compete with members of other groups. Products and services that symbolize STATUS, such as housing, entertainment, recreation, style, etc. becomes NEEDS for STATUS SURVIVAL. Where Money is involved, such STATUS is often gained from wealth and maintained by Price.

In this transactional space of DESIRE, the CONSUMER has power over the PRODUCER. The PRODUCER’S ECONOMIC  SURVIVAL is dependent on the DESIRED CHOICES that the CONSUMER makes. Since STATUS is relative, the PRODUCER is challenged to offer the CONSUMER a selection of CHOICES that address the specific  STATUS NEED and to define who is to be accepted and who is to be excluded from the STATUS group.  The PRODUCER must replicate the STATUS symbols that address in the NEEDS of this transactional space or MARKET place. DESIRES can be manipulated through FASHION, symbolic signs of STATUS that change over time and social space.

These three factors, NEED, WANTS, and DESIRES, apply both to the individual and the group consumer. It is here that the anthropologist with their holistic perspective have a competitive advantage to distinguish the physical, social, and cultural elements that pertain to a specific Transaction Situation and Space.