Bases of social obligation: the distinction between exchange and role and its consequences

Abstract

That obligations arise from both social exchanges and social roles is well established in sociology. Less appreciated is the fundamental and dichotomous nature of exchange obligation and role obligation. In the absence of an understanding of the distinction between them exchange and role obligations may be confused, as when Mauss believes the obligations he discusses come from social exchange when he in fact shows that they derive from the imperatives of social roles. Explicit awareness of the obligations associated with both social exchanges and roles can clarify and enhance ongoing research and research traditions, including social network analysis, as shown here. Discussion in the article of obligations of exchange and role affirms the unavoidability of social obligation in interactions and relationships. An irreducible distinction within the general category of obligation is also indicated.

KEYWORDS:

• Durkheim
• Goffman
• Marilyn Strathern
• Mary Douglas
• Mauss
• social exchange theory

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributor

Jack Barbalet is Professor of Sociology in the Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences at the Australian Catholic University and concurrently Visiting Fellow in the Department of Political and Social Change at the Australian National University. Barbalet has published in the areas of the sociology of emotions, political and economic sociology, sociology of contemporary China, and sociological theory.