The System of JUDGEMENT encompasses meanings which serve to evaluate human behaviour positively and negatively by reference to a set of institutionalised norms. The exposition here relies on work from the media project of the New South Wales Disadvantaged Schools Program (DSP) detailed in Iedema, Feez and White 1994, and on White 1998
The social norms at risk with JUDGEMENT take the form of rules and regulations or of less precisely defined social expectations and systems of value. Thus, under JUDGEMENT we may assess behaviour as moral or immoral, as legal or illegal, as socially acceptable or unacceptable, as normal or abnormal and so on.
We propose two broad categories of JUDGEMENT and five narrower sub-types within these two categories. It is necessary to stress, however, that since JUDGEMENT is so highly determined by cultural and ideological values, it should not be assumed the same sub-categorisations will apply in other cultural contexts, especially beyond the Western, English-speaking, essentially middle-class setting of the media analysis upon which the theory is based
We proposes the two broad categories of social sanction and social esteem. JUDGEMENTS of social sanction involve an assertion that some set of rules or regulations, more or less explicitly codified by the culture, are at issue. Those rules may be legal or moral and hence JUDGEMENTS of social sanction turn on questions of legality and morality. From the religious perspective, breaches of social sanction will be seen as sins, and in the Western Christian tradition as `mortal' sins. From the legal perspective they will be seen as crimes. Thus to breach social sanction is to risk legal or religious punishment, hence the term `sanction'.
JUDGEMENTS of social esteem involve evaluations under which the person judged will be lowered or raised in the esteem of their community, but which do not have legal or moral implications. Thus negative values of social esteem will be seen as dysfunctional or inappropriate or to be discouraged but they will not be assessed as sins or crimes. (If you breach social sanction you may well need a lawyer or a confessor but if you breach social esteem you may just need to try harder or to practice more or to consult a therapist or possibly a self-help book.)
We divide social esteem into the following three subcategories: normality or custom (how unusual someone is, how customary their behaviour is), capacity (how capable someone is) and tenacity (how dependable someone is, how well they are disposed emotionally or in terms of their intentionality).
The full system of JUDGEMENT, is set out below in Figure 1.
Social Esteem |
positive [admire] |
negative [criticise] |
normality (custom) `is the person's behaviour unusual, special, customary?' |
standard, everyday, average...; lucky, charmed...; fashionable, avant garde... |
eccentric, odd, maverick...; unlucky, unfortunate...; dated, unfashionable ... |
capacity `is the person competent, capable?' |
skilled, clever, insightful...; athletic, strong, powerful...; sane, together... |
stupid, slow, simple-minded...; clumsy, weak, uncoordinated...; insane, neurotic... |
tenacity (resolve) `is the person dependable, well disposed?' |
plucky, brave, heroic...; reliable, dependable...; indefatigable, resolute, persevering |
cowardly, rash, despondent...; unreliable, undependable...; distracted, lazy, unfocussed... |
Social Sanction |
positive [praise] |
negative [condemn] |
veracity (truth) `is the person honest?' |
honest, truthful, credible...; authentic, genuine...; frank, direct ...; |
deceitful, dishonest...; bogus, fake...; deceptive, obfuscatory... |
propriety (ethics) `is the person ethical, beyond reproach?' |
good, moral, virtuous...; law abiding, fair, just...; caring, sensitive, considerate... |
bad, immoral, lascivious...; corrupt, unjust, unfair...; cruel, mean, brutal, oppressive... |
Figure 1: JUDGEMENT (after Iedema, Feez, and White 1994)
