</a>Distinguishing varieties of value hardness and softness

Topology of Valuing: dynamics of collective engagement with polyhedral value configurations (Part #5)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

The rows in the above table highlight the potential value of distinguishing "adherence" to values in some way. Metaphors to assist in this articulation might include adherence (stickiness) itself or classifications of "hardness". The latter might then be fruitfully contrasted with the "flexibility" typically associated with respect for values.

As noted in Wikipedia, in the case of solids, hardness refers to various properties that give it high resistance to various kinds of shape change when force is applied. Macroscopic hardness is generally characterized by strong intermolecular bonds. Such hardness might then be compared with the rigid values associated with ideological fundamentalism that are indeed characterized by mutually reinforcing bonds between a set of principles.

In the case of solid materials (and potentially with values), behaviour under force is complex, resulting in three distinct scientific definitions of what might be called "hardness" in everyday usage.

• Scratch hardness: Resistance to fracture or plastic (permanent) deformation due to friction from a sharp object. This is indicative of the cognitive response to shorter-term (targetted) impact of contrasting perspectives and initiatives, namely the vulnerability to arguments from another value framework. This might be a way of framing response to a media presentation implying some other value set.
• Indentation hardness: Resistance to plastic (permanent) deformation due to a constant load from a sharp object. This is indicative of the cognitive response to longer-term susceptibility to contrasting perspectives and initiatives, namely the vulnerability to contextual pressures from another value framework. Again this might be a way of framing cultural pressures challenging a particular value set.
• Rebound hardness: Height of the bounce of an object dropped on the material, related to elasticity. This is indicative of the cognitive ability to proactively reject contrasting perspectives and initiatives and recover from any destabilization, namely the ability to reflect back contrary value initiatives.

An important scale between "hard" and "soft" -- in the case of values -- might be usefully clarified by exploring the other end of the spectrum in the case of solid materials, namely the varieties of "soft matter". The argument being that the values with which people and groups associate in society might in some cases indeed be "soft" rather than "hard" and be valued precisely for that reason -- hence perhaps the exploration of "soft power" initiatives. "Flexibility" itself is a value under some circumstances, where "rigidity" (and other forms of resistance to deformation) are problematic -- a point relevant to the case below for "robust" value sets. In the physical case, soft matter comprises a variety of physical states (such as liquids, colloids, polymers, foams, gels, granular materials) that are easily deformed by thermal stresses or thermal fluctuations -- as with a number of biological materials. It might be argued that value sets may also be deformed when in "heated" contexts.

The physics of soft matter is of interest because it highlights the range of unpredictable behaviours associated with the looser molecular bonding -- suggesting that this might offer a way of thinking about values "flexibly" held. In the physical case this is due to the propensity of soft matter to self-organize into mesoscopic physical structures that are much larger than the microscopic scale (the arrangement of atoms and molecules), and yet are much smaller than the macroscopic (overall) scale of the material. It is precisely such thinkinbg which could be fruitfully brought to bear on value imbued psycho-social structures, their tendency to self-organize, and the nature of their value-based identity.

Of relevance to further reflection, in exploring this metaphor, is the variety of internationally recognized systems of soil classification. These are of interest because one implication of their variety (despite the extremely tangible nature of soil) is as a basis for understanding why there is so little consensus on the intangibles of value classification. Soil is also of interest because of the manner in which various understandings of values use soil as a metaphor. (rock-like integrity, feet of clay, standing on sand, etc). The behaviour of soils, if only its susceptibility to erosion, is also a rich guide to reflection on values and their propensity for erosion. The value analogues to thixotropic soils and soil liquefaction are especially of interest in reflecting on potential challenges to value foundations considered "solid".

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]