The Transactional Society: Recognize Its Dangers

In the past couple of months, many of us have added a new word to our vocabularies. Relationships, we are told by some, should be “transactional.” That is, they should be seen as exchanges of valued goods and services.

This vision applies especially to business relationships, where people commonly buy and sell commodities at agreed-upon prices. But it can range into other forms of human relating. Perhaps your employer asks you to document just what it is you’ve been doing in the past week to merit your contracted salary and benefits. Perhaps they decide that your current position should be “rethought,” with a new set of duties and payment scheme. Or that you should be cast aside for someone who is younger, healthier, and less well-positioned in the company. As the saying goes, “Business is business.”

There’s no reason to limit this viewpoint to economic matters. Think about friendships or other group memberships. “Just what are we getting from that relationship with Bill and Betty?” you ask your life partner. “I know we’ve been friends for years—but are they worth it?” “And those dues at the club; they’ve gotten too high.”

Add political relationships. Transactional thinkers determine that some of our old allies aren’t doing that much for us anymore: “We give; they take. Let’s find ways to rebalance things."

Exchange theory

Of course, this style of thinking—everything as a case of “tit for tat” or “quid pro quo”—isn’t new. Most of us make decisions of that sort each day, deciding perhaps to buy tires at one store rather than another or to shop for a better insurance plan. Our competitive, market-oriented society encourages us to be shrewd managers of our lives.

One shouldn’t be surprised to learn that most disciplines in the social sciences have some version of exchange theory, as an explanation of why people—or other social actors—behave as they do. All of them stress that those actors make quite specific cost/benefit calculations to decide if they want to get involved with someone else and if they want to continue those relationships. But money isn’t the only consideration. Power, status, knowledge, and even physical satisfactions intrude.

In discussing this theory with my students, I sometimes used the example of “dating” on a college campus. A long-ago study by Penn State professor Willard Waller found that most of the students he surveyed were guided by rather selfish interests. They wanted excitement, romance, or at least the satisfaction of a “good time.” More profoundly, they were interested in status enhancement, being with someone who would inflate their own standing and move them into social circles where other high-status people might be found.

As my own students explained, there are various “costs” to dating, not just the financial outlay but the time spent preparing and then being on the actual date. Going on a date means that one is not doing other pleasurable activities. It means one is missing a chance to be with someone they might like better. Moreover, the date might turn out badly, effectively ruining a weekend night.

Still, most felt the activity was worth it. A “good time” might be had. A promising relationship might develop. Other people might be met at the occasion. Plus, being out and about in this way displays oneself as a dateable person, who can hold their own in such circles.

As Waller noted, students typically saw casual dating of this sort as a stage in their social lives. Most wanted to move on to more stable, committed relationships. But some did not. And the qualities that make one marketable—beauty, brains, money, transportation, family reputation, and high-status associates—continued to be themes in the romantic calculation.

There is a dark side to such trading. When someone is no longer “doing it” for us, we decide the relationship “isn’t worth it.” As we see it, it’s time to “move on.” Ideally, we “trade up.” In our modern world, that viewpoint applies not only to romantic liaisons but also to marriages, jobs, housing, friendships, political allegiances, and even religious affiliations.

Dangers of transactional relationships

Whether we move on to new, more stimulating relationships or not, there are problems with this view of life. Consider some of these below.

• Exchanges are often imbalanced. We like to think that the bargains we make are agreements between equals or at least between “consenting adults.” But rarely are the two parties equally positioned. Typically, one is playing with better cards—money, status, power, and knowledge—than the other. The less advantaged person accepts the terms that are offered (perhaps they need a job or medical procedure) because they have no better option.
• Exchanges may be coercive or deceitful. Sometimes, we agree to an arrangement because we know that our trading partner has other, unspoken forms of influence. Like a weak nation accepting import/export conditions from a strong one, we know that the party we’re dealing with could effectively destroy us if they wished. Add the problem of dealing with someone who withholds important information. Like a bride or groom at the altar, we want to believe we know what we are getting into. But do we?
• Agreements may shift or weaken. Who of us hasn’t made an agreement with someone only to find out that that other person has no real commitment to honor it? They claim they never agreed to any such thing. They explain that circumstances have changed. They accuse us of failing to uphold our end of the bargain. Oral agreements are especially problematic in this regard (“not worth the paper they’re printed on,” to repeat the adage). But even written contracts can be gotten around. People take each other to court, and those with the deeper pockets can prevail or delay.
• Transactors commonly disregard consequences for other people. We think of exchanges as involving only the negotiators themselves. However, the choices we make influence wide ranges of people. In many cases, those affected people are not represented “at the table” or even consulted.
• Selfishness undermines trust. When people proclaim a “What’s in it for me?” attitude, they make clear the extent of their commitments to others. They will maintain their role only as long as they see its benefits. They’ll keep their eyes open to other prospects. This selfish spirit also makes commitments to regulations, even laws, problematic. Such devices are largely just constraints for the transactor to “work around.” In extreme cases, they may feel they are “above” such entanglements.
• Relationships matter. Ultimately, the great danger of the transactional approach is that it disregards the importance of key groups and institutions. Think of families, schools, communities, churches, governments, businesses, and unions that are fundamental to the way society is organized and maintained. The transactor sees these as temporary arrangements to be modified by negotiators. Similarly dismissed is the history of these institutions as bastions of support and as sources of values and guidelines for social living. Instead, the transactor sees only new “deals,” shinier and more promising than what has come before.