This is an iteration of the social transaction model I’ve been thinking about. In brief, I am trying to develop a simple model which I can use to map and reason about more complex social transactions. The model is below
First of all, what do I mean by social transaction? A social transaction is an interaction between two actors (a back-and-forth interaction) that results in a change of state or relationship between these actors. For example, I, as A in the model, lend B $5 — the resulting state change is that I now owe B $5. Similarly, I (as A) tell B I have a university degree — the resulting state change, is now B believes I have a university degree. If you look at the many social interactions that you have in your day-to-day lives, I am sure you can characterize many of them as social transactions.
The social transaction model, pictured above) has three principal actors: A, B and C. The model says nothing about which actor is the ‘authoriative party’, only that, when you scale any social transaction, a third party (C) usually comes into the picture. However for many ‘local’ social transactions, a third party, C is not required (nor even desireable).
Let’s have a look at the A-B transaction. There is a present interaction and an accept interaction. A presents something to B, if B likes its, they accept it. I go out for lunch, I present to my friend (B) that I forgot my wallet and will pick up the tab next time. They accept this offer and pay the full tab, knowing that I will pick up the tab next time. An easy social transaction between A and B, no third party required.
It’s a different story when I present my passport for travel purposes. In this case B, is not my friend, but rather a border control officer. In this case, a B-C transaction is required. B must take my passport, verify it with C (in most cases with the government), and once a confirm is received, only then, the border control officer (the B in this case) will accept my passport and allow me to transit the border.
This latter case, however, would not have been possible, unless the A-C transaction had taken place. That is, I registered with a government authority (C ) who, after some due diligence, affirmed that I had the right to travel under my own name.
Who is, or can be A, B, or C? Depending on the context, anyone. In a lot of cases C is completely unecessary. But when the context scales (e.g., to the scale of a country), C, or a third party needs to be introduced. Usually this is a government, but it doesn’t have to be — it can be a society, club or sports federation. The point is that this model can be applied to any context, and where its value is realized, is helping to deconstruct complex interactions into simpler parts.
So there you have it — a simple social transaction model. I am not saying it is perfect, but it you look at any social transaction you can break it down to these basic patterns.
The next installment of this model, I will be talking about the X,Y and Z operators. These are the parties that exist in between the A-B-C social interactions. They provide great value in facilitating social transactions, but watch out, when they they pretend to be principal actors — not facilitators. More to come.
