text:
Tsai Ming-liang

Tsai Ming-liang (born 27 October 1957) is a Malaysian filmmaker based in Taiwan. Tsai has written and directed 11 feature films, many short films, and television films. He is one of the most celebrated "Second New Wave" film directors of Taiwanese cinema. His films have been acclaimed worldwide and have won numerous awards at festivals. In 1994, Tsai won the Golden Lion at the 51st Venice International Film Festival for the film Vive L'Amour.

Early life
Tsai was born in Malaysia, is of Chinese descent and spent his first 20 years in Kuching, Sarawak, after which he moved to Taipei, Taiwan. This, he said, had "a huge impact on [his] mind and psyche". "Even today", Tsai has said, "I feel I belong neither to Taiwan nor to Malaysia. In a sense, I can go anywhere I want and fit in, but I never feel that sense of belonging."

Tsai graduated from the Drama and Cinema Department of the Chinese Culture University of Taiwan in 1982 and worked as a theatrical producer, screenwriter, and television director in Hong Kong. From 1989 to 1991, he directed several telefilms. One of these, Boys, starred his muse, Lee Kang-sheng.

1992–1998
Tsai's first feature film was Rebels of the Neon God (1992). A film about troubled youth in Taipei, it starred Lee as the character Hsiao-Kang. Lee went on to appear in all of Tsai's feature films as of 2023. Tsai's second feature, Vive L'Amour (1994), is about three people who unknowingly share an apartment. The film is slow-paced, has little dialogue, and is about alienation; all of these became Tsai's trademarks. Vive L'Amour was critically acclaimed and won the Golden Horse Awards for best picture and best director.

Tsai's next film was The River (1997), in which a family has to deal with the son's neck pain. The family is similar to one that appears in Rebels of the Neon God and is played by the same three actors. The Hole (1998) is about two neighbors in an apartment. It features several musical numbers.

1999–2009
In Tsai's next film, What Time Is It There? (2001), a man and a woman meet in Taipei before the woman travels to Paris. This was Tsai's first film to star Chen Shiang-chyi, who starred in his next few films alongside Lee. Goodbye, Dragon Inn (2003) is about people inside an old cinema that is closing down. For this film, Tsai included even longer shots and fewer lines of dialogue than in previous films, a trend that continued in his later work. The Wayward Cloud (2005) is a sequel to What Time Is It There? in which Hsiao-Kang and Shiang-chyi meet again and start a relationship while Hsiao-Kang works as a pornographic film actor. This film, like The Hole, features several musical numbers.

Tsai's next film, I Don't Want to Sleep Alone (2006), was his first set in Malaysia and is about two different characters, both played by Lee. In 2007, the Malaysian Censorship Board banned the film based on incidents shown depicting the country "in a bad light" for cultural, ethical, and racial reasons, but later allowed it to be screened in the country after Tsai agreed to censor parts of the film according to the board's requirements. Tsai's next film, Face (2009), is about a Taiwanese director who travels to France to shoot a film.

2010–present
Tsai's next feature film was Stray Dogs (2013), about a homeless family.

Most of Tsai's output in the 2010s was dedicated to his exhibition films, in particular the Walker series (2012–22), the subject of which was a monk played by Lee who travels by walking slowly, usually surrounded by a busy background.

In 2020, Tsai released Days, which competed for the Golden Bear at the Berlinale film festival.

In 2021, Tsai released Wandering, a short installation film with no dialogue, which follows a woman visiting an exhibition of Tsai's "Walker" series in Taiwan.

Honours
Tsai's honours include a Golden Lion (best picture) for Vive L'Amour at the 51st Venice International Film Festival; the Silver Bear – Special Jury Prize for The River at the 47th Berlin International Film Festival; the FIPRESCI award for The Hole at the 1998 Cannes Film Festival; and the Alfred Bauer Prize and Silver Bear for Outstanding Artistic Achievement for The Wayward Cloud at the 55th Berlin International Film Festival; the Grand Jury Prize at the 70th Venice International Film Festival for Stray Dogs. In 1995, he was a member of the jury at the 45th Berlin International Film Festival.

In 2003, The Guardian voted Tsai No. 18 of the 40 best directors in the world. In 2014, he was named an officer of the Order of Arts and Letters by the government of France.

Personal life
Tsai is gay and has incorporated queer themes into his films. Since 2021, he has lived in the mountains near Taipei, where he renovates and lives in abandoned apartments. He shares his living spaces with his long-term collaborator, Lee Kang-sheng, in a platonic relationship.

Feature films
=== "Walker" series ===

Casting
Tsai frequently recasts actors he has worked with on previous films:

title: Tsai Ming-liang


text:
Liberals for Åland

The Liberals for Åland (Liberalerna på Åland) is a liberal political party on the Åland Islands. The party is an observer member of the Liberal International. The current party leader is Katrin Sjögren.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Liberals for Åland


text:
Social exchange theory

Social exchange theory is a sociological and psychological theory that studies the social behavior in the interaction of two parties that implement a cost-benefit analysis to determine risks and benefits. The theory also involves economic relationships—the cost-benefit analysis occurs when each party has goods that the other parties value. Social exchange theory suggests that these calculations occur in romantic relationships, friendships, professional relationships, and ephemeral relationships as simple as exchanging words with a customer at the cash register. Social exchange theory says that if the costs of the relationship are higher than the rewards, such as if a lot of effort or money were put into a relationship and not reciprocated, then the relationship may be terminated or abandoned.

The most comprehensive social exchange theories are those of the American social psychologists John W. Thibaut (1917–1986) and Harold H. Kelley (1921–2003), the American sociologists George C. Homans (1910–1989), Peter M. Blau (1918–2002), Richard Marc Emerson ( d. 1982), and Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908–2009). Homans defined social exchange as the exchange of activity, tangible or intangible, and more or less rewarding or costing between at least two persons. After Homans founded the theory, other theorists continued to write about it, particularly Peter M. Blau and Richard M. Emerson, who in addition to Homans are generally thought of as the major developers of the exchange perspective within sociology. Homans' work emphasized the individual behavior of actors in interaction with one another. Although there are various modes of exchange, Homans centered his studies on dyadic exchange. John Thibaut and Harold Kelley are recognized for focusing their studies within the theory on the psychological concepts, the dyad and small group. Lévi-Strauss is recognized for contributing to the emergence of this theoretical perspective from his work on anthropology focused on systems of generalized exchange, such as kinship systems and gift exchange.

Thibaut and Kelley
Thibaut and Kelley based their theory on small groups related with dyadic relationships. They used the reward-cost matrices from game theory and discovered some clues of individuals' interdependence such as the power of a party over each other, also known as the "correspondence" versus "noncorrespondence" of outcomes. Additionally, they suggest that an individual can unilaterally affect her or his own outcomes in a relationship through chosen behaviors. They could predict the possible course of a social interaction through the analysis of aspects of power in an encounter. They also experimented on how the outcomes received in a relationship could define a person's attractions to relationships.

Homans
Homans based his theory on concepts of equilibration, expectancy and distributive justice in dyadic exchange. With this, he tries to explain the social interaction in small groups and the rewards received proportional to their costs and investments. Homans summarizes the system in three propositions: success, stimulus, and deprivation–satiation proposition, described below.

 * 1) Success proposition: When one finds they are rewarded for their actions, they tend to repeat the action.
 * 2) Stimulus proposition: The more often a particular stimulus has resulted in a reward in the past, the more likely it is that a person will respond to it.
 * 3) Deprivation–satiation proposition: The more often in the recent past a person has received a particular reward, the less valuable any further unit of that reward becomes.

Blau
Blau's theory is very similar to Homans'. However, he uses more economics terms and it is based principally on emergent social structure in social exchange patterns in small groups. His theory analyzes the development of exchange theory in economics without emphasizing on the psychological assumptions. He contributed to the idea of distinguishing between social and economic exchanges and exchange and power. The goal of his theory was to identify complex and simple processes without ignoring emergent properties. Blau's utilitarian focus encouraged the theorist to look forward, as in what they anticipated the reward would be in regards to their next social interaction. Blau felt that if individuals focused too much on the psychological concepts within the theory, they would refrain from learning the developing aspects of social exchange. Blau emphasized technical economic analysis whereas Homans concentrated more on the psychology of instrumental behavior.

Emerson
Emerson was inspired by Homans and Blau's ideas. He focused on the interaction and relationship between individuals and parties. His view of social exchange theory emphasizes the resource availability, power, and dependence as primary dynamics. He thought that relations were organized in different manners, and they could differ depending on the type and amount of the resources exchanged. He poses the idea that power and dependence are the main aspects that define a relationship. According to Emerson, Exchange is not a theory, but a framework from which other theories can converge and be compared to structural functionalism. Emerson's perspective was similar to Blau's since they both focused on the relationship power had with the exchange process. Emerson says that social exchange theory is an approach in sociology that is described for simplicity as an economic analysis of noneconomic social situations. Exchange theory brings a quasi-economic form of analysis into those situations.

Lévi-Strauss
Strauss was a social exchange theorist in the context of anthropology. He is recognized for contributing to the emergence of this theoretical perspective from his work on anthropology focused on systems of generalized exchange, such as kinship systems and gift exchange. He based his kinship systems on Mauss's investigation. As it works in the form of indirect reciprocities, Levi-Strauss suggested the concept of generalized exchange.

Self-interest and interdependence
Self-interest and interdependence are central properties of social exchange. These are the basic forms of interaction when two or more actors have something of value to each other, and they have to decide whether to exchange and in what amounts. Homans uses the concepts of individualism to explain exchange processes. To him, the meaning of individual self-interest is a combination of economic and psychological needs. Fulfilling self-interest is often common within the economic realm of the social exchange theory where competition and greed can be common. In social exchange, self-interest is not a negative thing; rather, when self-interest is recognized, it will act as the guiding force of interpersonal relationships for the advancement of both parties' self-interest"—Michael Roloff (1981) Thibaut and Kelley see the mutual interdependence of persons as the central problem for the study of social behavior. They developed a theoretical framework based on the interdependence of actors. They also highlighted social implications of different forms of interdependence such as reciprocal control. According to their interdependence definition, outcomes are based on a combination of parties' efforts and mutual and complementary arrangements.

Basic concepts
Social exchange theory views exchange as a social behavior that may result both in economic and social outcomes. Social exchange theory has been generally analyzed by comparing human interactions with the marketplace. The study of the theory from the microeconomics perspective is attributed to Blau. Under his perspective every individual is trying to maximize his wins. Blau stated that once this concept is understood, it is possible to observe social exchanges everywhere, not only in market relations, but also in other social relations like friendship. Social exchange process brings satisfaction when people receive fair returns for their expenditures. The major difference between social and economic exchange is the nature of the exchange between parties. Neoclassic economic theory views the actor as dealing not with another actor but with a market and environmental parameters, such as market price. Unlike economic exchange, the elements of social exchange are quite varied and cannot be reduced to a single quantitative exchange rate. According to Stafford, social exchanges involve a connection with another person; involve trust and not legal obligations; are more flexible; and rarely involve explicit bargaining.

Cost and rewards
Simple social exchange models assume that rewards and costs drive relationship decisions. Both parties in a social exchange take responsibility for one another and depend on each other. The elements of relational life include:

Costs are the elements of relational life that have negative value to a person, such as the effort put into a relationship and the negatives of a partner. (Costs can be time, money, effort etc.)

Rewards are the elements of a relationship that have positive value. (Rewards can be sense of acceptance, support, and companionship etc.)

As with everything dealing with the social exchange theory, it has as its outcome satisfaction and dependence of relationships. The social-exchange perspective argues that people calculate the overall worth of a particular relationship by subtracting its costs from the rewards it provides.

If worth is a positive number, it is a positive relationship. On the contrary, a negative number indicates a negative relationship. The worth of a relationship influences its outcome, or whether people will continue with a relationship or terminate it. Positive relationships are expected to endure, whereas negative relationships will probably terminate. In a mutually beneficial exchange, each party supplies the wants of the other party at lower cost to self than the value of the resources the other party provides. In such a model, mutual relationship satisfaction ensures relationship stability.

Homans based his theory on behaviorism to conclude that people pursue rewards to minimize costs. The "satisfactory-ness" of the rewards that a party gains from an exchange relationship is judged relative to some standard, which may vary from party to party.

Reciprocity norm
Summarized by Gouldner, the reciprocity norm states that a benefit should be returned and the one who gives the benefit should not be harmed. This is used to stabilize relationships and to identify egoism. This norm suggests independence in relationships and invite the individual to consider more than one's self-interest.

Social penetration theory
Altman and D. Taylor introduced social penetration theory, which studies the nature and quality of social exchange and close bonds. It suggests that once the individuals start to give more of their resources to one another, relationships evolve progressively from exchanging superficial goods to other, more meaningful exchanges. It progresses to the point called "self-disclosure", where the individuals share innermost thoughts and feelings with one another.

Equity and inequity
In this process, the individuals will compare their rewards with others' in relation to their costs. Equity can be defined as the balance between a person's inputs and outcomes on the job. Some examples of inputs can be qualifications, promotions, interest on the job and how hard one works. Some outcomes can be pay, fringe benefits, and power status. The individual will mainly expect an equitable input-outcome ratio. Inequity happens when the individual perceives an unbalanced ratio of their outcomes and other's outcomes. This can occur in a direct exchange of the two parties, or there can be a third party involved. An individual's point of view of equity or inequity can differ depending on the individual.

Aging
The basis of social exchange theory is to explain social change and stability as a process of negotiating exchanges between parties. These changes can occur over a person's life course through the various relationships, opportunities, and means of support. An example of this is the convoy model of support, this model uses concentric circles to describe relationships around an individual with the strongest relationships in the closet circle. As a person ages, these relationships form a convoy that moves along with the person and exchanges in support and assistance through different circumstances that occur. It also changes through the directionality of support given to and by the individual with the people within their support network. Within this model, there are different types of support (social support) a person can receive, those being intangible, tangible, instrumental, and informational. Intangible support can either be social or emotional and can be love, friendship and appreciation that comes with valuable relationships. Tangible support are physical gifts given to someone such as land, gifts, money, transportation, food, and completing chores. Instrumental support are services given to someone in a relationship. Finally, informational support is the delivering of information that is helpful to an individual.

Theoretical propositions
Ivan Nye came up with twelve theoretical propositions that aid in understanding the exchange theory.
 * 1) Rewards being equal, they choose alternatives from which they anticipate the fewest costs.
 * 2) Immediate outcomes being equal, they choose those alternatives that promise better long-term outcomes.
 * 3) Long-term outcomes being perceived as equal, they choose alternatives providing better immediate outcomes.
 * 4) Costs and other rewards being equal, individuals choose the alternatives that supply or can be expected to supply the most social approval (or those that promise the least social disapproval).
 * 5) Costs and other rewards being equal, individuals choose statuses and relationships that provide the most autonomy.
 * 6) Other rewards and costs equal, individuals choose alternatives characterized by the least ambiguity in terms of expected future events and outcomes.
 * 7) Other costs and rewards equal, they choose alternatives that offer the most security for them.
 * 8) Other rewards and costs equal, they choose to associate with, marry, and form other relationships with those whose values and opinions generally are in agreement with their own and reject or avoid those with whom they chronically disagree.
 * 9) Other rewards and costs equal, they are more likely to associate with, marry, and form other relationships with their equals, than those above or below them. (Equality here is viewed as the sum of abilities, performances, characteristics, and statuses that determine one's desirability in the social marketplace.)
 * 10) In industrial societies, other costs and rewards equal, individuals choose alternatives that promise the greatest financial gains for the least financial expenditures.

In his article published in 1978, Nye originally proposed seven propositions that were common in all types of relationship. A few years later he would expand the propositions to a total of twelve. The first five propositions listed are classified as general propositions and are substance free-meaning, the propositions themselves can stand alone within the theory. Proposition number six has been identified by scholars as a notion that there is a general assumption of a need for social approval as a reward and can therefore act as a drive force behind actions. Proposition seven will only work if the individual has the freedom to be excluded from outside factors while in a social exchange relationship. The twelfth and final proposition is directed towards the way our society has a heightened value placed on monetary funds.

Homans
Even though Homans took an individualistic approach, a major goal of his work was to explicate the micro-foundations of social structures and social exchange. By studying such forms of behavior he hoped to illuminate the informal sub-institutional bases of more complex social behavior, typically more formal and often institutionalized. According to Homans, social structures emerge from elementary forms of behavior. His vision of the underpinnings of social structure and institutional forms is linked to the actions of individuals, for example to their responses to rewarding and punishment circumstances.

Homans developed five key propositions that assist in structuring individuals' behaviors based on rewards and costs. This set of theoretical ideas represents the core of Homans's version of social exchange theory.
 * The first proposition: the success proposition states that behavior that creates positive outcomes is likely to be repeated.
 * The second proposition: the stimulus proposition believes that if an individual's behavior is rewarded in the past, the individual will continue the previous behavior.
 * The third proposition: the value proposition believes that if the result of a behavioral action is considered valuable to the individual, it is more likely for that behavior to occur.
 * The fourth proposition: the deprivation-satiation proposition believes that if an individual has received the same reward several times, the value of that reward will diminish.
 * The fifth proposition discusses when emotions occur due to different reward situations. Those who receive more than they expect or do not receive anticipated punishment will be happy and will behave approvingly.

Frazer
Based on economics, Frazer's theory about social exchange emphasizes the importance of power and status differentiations in social exchange. Frazer's theory had a particular interest in the cross-cousin marriage.

Malinowski
With his Kula exchange, Malinowski drew a sharp differentiation between economic exchange and social exchange. Using his Kula exchange, Malinowski states that the motives of exchange can be mainly social and psychological.

Mauss
Mauss's theory tries to identify the role played by morality and religion in the social exchange. Mauss argues the exchange found in the society is influenced by social behaviors, while morality and religion influence all aspects of life.

Bohannan
Bohannan focuses his theory on economic problems such as multicentrism, and modes of exchange. He contributed to the social exchange theory finding the role and function of markets in tribal subsistence economies, makes a distinction of economic redistribution and market exchange from social relationships.

Polanyi
He proposes three principles to create a new idea for socioeconomic change, transforming traditional economies, and political economic development. These principles are: reciprocity, redistribution and marketing.

Sahlins
He presents the idea that the economy is a category of behavior instead of just a simple category of culture.

Assumptions
Social exchange theory is not one theory but a frame of reference within which many theories can speak to another, whether in argument or mutual support. All these theories are built upon several assumptions about human nature and the nature of relationships. Thibaut and Kelley have based their theory on two conceptualizations: one that focuses on the nature of individuals and one that describes the relationships between two people. Thus, the assumptions they make also fall into these categories. The assumptions that social exchange theory makes about human nature include the following:

 * Humans seek rewards and avoid punishments.
 * Humans are rational beings.
 * The standards that humans use to evaluate costs and rewards vary over time and from person to person.

The assumptions social exchange theory makes about the nature of relationships include the following:

 * Relationships are interdependent.
 * Relational life is a process.

The prisoner's dilemma is a widely used example in game theory that attempts to illustrate why or how two individuals may not cooperate with each other, even if it is in their best interest to do so. It demonstrates that while cooperation would give the best outcome, people might nevertheless act selfishly. All relationships involve exchanges although the balance of this exchange is not always equal. We cannot achieve our goals alone so as humans sometimes we have to become actors. In the world today we see actors as unemotional people but that is not the case once we reach our goals in the end.

Comparison levels
Social exchange includes "both a notion of a relationship, and some notion of a shared obligation in which both parties perceive responsibilities to each other". John Thibaut and Harold Kelley proposed two comparison standards to differentiate between relationship satisfaction and relationship stability. This evaluation rests on two types of comparisons: comparison level and comparison level for alternative. According to Thibaut and Kelley, the comparison level (CL) is a standard representing what people feel they should receive in the way of rewards and costs from a particular relationship. An individual's comparison level can be considered the standard by which an outcome seems to satisfy the individual. The comparison level for alternative (CLalt) refers to "the lowest level of relational rewards a person is willing to accept given available rewards from alternative relationships or being alone". In other words, when using this evaluation tool, an individual will consider other alternative payoffs or rewards outside of the current relationship or exchange. CLalt provides a measure of stability rather than satisfaction. If people see no alternative and fear being alone more than being in the relationship, social exchange theory predicts they will stay.

Modes of exchange
According to Kelley and Thibaut, people engage in behavioral sequence, or a series of actions designed to achieve their goal. This is congruent with their assumption that human beings are rational. When people engage in these behavioral sequences, they are dependent to some extent on their relational partner. In order for behavioral sequences to lead to social exchange, two conditions must be achieved: "It must be oriented towards ends that can only be achieved through interaction with other persons, and it must seek to adapt means to further the achievement of these ends". The concept of reciprocity also derives from this pattern. The reciprocity principle refers to the mutual reinforcement by two parties of each other's actions. The process begins when at least one participant makes a "move", and if the other reciprocates, new rounds of exchange initiate. Once the process is in motion, each consequence can create a self-reinforcing cycle. Even though the norm of reciprocity may be a universally accepted principle, the degree to which people and cultures apply this concept varies.

Power dependence relations
Several definitions of power have been offered by exchange theorists. For instance, some theorists view power as distinct from exchanges, some view it as a kind of exchange and others believe power is a medium of exchange. However, the most useful definition of power is that proposed by Emerson, who developed a theory of power-dependence relations. According to this theory, the dependence a person has on another brings up the concept of power. Power differentiation affects social structures by causing inequalities between members of different groups, such as an individual having superiority over another. Power within the theory is governed by two variables : the structure of power in exchange networks and strategic use. Experimental data show that the position an actor occupies in a social exchange network determines relative dependence and therefore power.

According to Thibaut and Kelley, there are two types of power: fate control and behavior control. Fate control is the ability to affect a partner's outcomes. Behavior control is the power to cause another's behavior to change by changing one's own behavior.

Matrices
People develop patterns of exchange to cope with power differentials and to deal with the costs associated with exercising power. These patterns describe behavioral rules or norms that indicate how people trade resources in an attempt to maximize rewards and minimize costs. Three different matrices have been described by Thibaut and Kelley to illustrate the patterns people develop. These are given matrix, the effective matrix and the dispositional matrix.

 * The given matrix represents the behavioral choices and outcomes that are determined by a combination of external factors (environment) and internal factors (the specific skills each interactant possesses).
 * The effective matrix "which represents an expansion of alternative behaviors and/or outcomes which ultimately determines the behavioral choices in social exchange"
 * The dispositional matrix represents the way two people believe that rewards ought to be exchanged between them.

There are three forms within these matrices: Reciprocity, Generalized Exchange, and Productive Exchange. In a direct exchange, reciprocation is confined to the two actors. One social actor provides value to another one and the other reciprocates. There are three different types of reciprocity:
 * 1) Reciprocity as a transactional pattern of interdependent exchanges
 * 2) Reciprocity as a folk belief
 * 3) Reciprocity as a moral norm

A generalized exchange involves indirect reciprocity between three or more individuals. For example, one person gives to another and the recipient responds by giving to another person other than the first person. Productive exchange means that both actors have to contribute for either one of them to benefit. Both people incur benefits and costs simultaneously.

Another common form of exchange is negotiated exchange which focuses on the negotiation of rules in order for both parties to reach a beneficial agreement. Reciprocal exchanges and negotiated exchanges are often analyzed and compared to discover their essential differences. One major difference between the two exchanges is the level of risks associated with the exchange and the uncertainty these risks create (ref). Negotiated exchange can consist of binding and non-binding negotiations. When comparing the levels of risk within these exchanges, reciprocal exchange has the highest level of risk which in result produces the most uncertainty. An example of a risk that could occur during the reciprocal exchange is the factor that the second party could end up not returning the favor and completing the reciprocal exchange. Binding negotiated exchanges involve the least amount of risks which will result the individuals feeling low levels of uncertainty. Whereas non-binding negotiated exchanges and their level of risks and uncertainty fall in between the amount of risks associated with reciprocal and binding negotiated exchanges. Since there is not a binding agreement involved, one party involved in the exchange could decide to not cooperate with the agreement.

Critiques
Katherine Miller outlines several major objections to or problems with the social exchange theory as developed from early seminal works
 * The theory reduces human interaction to a purely rational process that arises from economic theory.
 * The theory favors openness as it was developed in the 1970s when ideas of freedom and openness were preferred, but there may be times when openness isn't the best option in a relationship.
 * The theory assumes that the ultimate goal of a relationship is intimacy when this might not always be the case.
 * The theory places relationships in a linear structure, when some relationships might skip steps or go backwards in terms of intimacy.

Russell Cropanzano and Marie S. Mitchell discuss how one of the major issues within the social exchange theory is the lack of information within studies on the various exchange rules. Reciprocity is a major exchange rule discussed but, Cropanzano and Mitchell write that the theory would be better understood if more research programs discussed a variety of exchange rules such as altruism, group gain, status consistency and competition. Meeker points out that within the exchange process, each unit takes into account at least the following elements: reciprocity, rationality, altruism (social responsibility), group gain, status, consistency, and competition (rivalry).

Rosenfeld (2005) has noted significant limitations to Social Exchange Theory and its application in the selection of mates/partners. Specifically, Rosenfeld looked at the limitations of interracial couples and the application of social exchange theory. His analysis suggest that in modern society, there is less of a gap between interracial partners education level, socioeconomic status, and social class level which in turn, makes the previously understood application of social exchange moot.

Applications
The most extensive application of social exchange has been in the area of interpersonal relationships. However, social exchange theory materializes in many different situations with the same idea of the exchange of resources. Self-Interest can encourage individuals to make decisions that will benefit themselves overall. Homans once summarized the theory by stating:

 * Social behavior is an exchange of goods, material goods but also non-material ones, such as the symbols of approval or prestige. Persons that give much to others try to get much from them, and persons that get much from others are under pressure to give much to them. This process of influence tends to work out at equilibrium to a balance in the exchanges. For a person in an exchange, what he gives may be a cost to him, just as what he gets may be a reward, and his behavior changes less as the difference of the two, profit, tends to a maximum ("Theories Used in Research").

Anthropology
Other applications that developed the idea of exchange include field of anthropology as evidenced in an article by Harumi Befu, which discusses cultural ideas and norms. Lévi-Strauss is considered as one of the major contributors to the anthropology of exchange. Within this field, self-interest, human sentiment and motivational process are not considered. Lévi–Strauss uses a collectivist approach to explain exchanges. To Lévi-Strauss, a social exchange is defined as a regulated form of behavior in the context of societal rules and norms. This contrasts with psychological studies of exchange in which behaviors are studied ignoring the culture. Social exchanges from the anthropological perspective have been analyzed using the gift-giving phenomena. The concept of reciprocity under this perspective states that individuals can directly reward his benefactor or another person in the social exchange process. Lévi-Strauss developed the theory of cousin marriage based on the pervasiveness of gift-giving in primitive societies. The basis of this theory is the distinction between restricted exchanges, which is only capable of connecting pairs of social groups, and generalize exchange, which integrates indefinite numbers of groups.

Relationships
Throughout the theory, one can also end up losing relationships that were already established because the feeling of no longer being beneficial. One feels as if there is not longer a need for a relationship or communication due to lack of rewards. Once this happens, the process of looking for new partners and resources occurs. This allows a continuation of networking. One may go through this process quite frequently. A study applied this theory to new media (online dating). The study discovers the different factors involved when an individual decides to establish an online relationship. Overall the study followed the social exchange theory's idea, "people are attracted to those who grant them rewards".

Another example is Berg's study about development of friendship between roommates. The research found how social exchange processes changed during the year by measuring self disclosure. According to the study, the amount one person rewards another and the comparison levels for alternatives become the most important factors in determining liking and satisfaction. Auld, C. and Alan C. conducted a study to discover what processes occur and what is experienced during social leisure relationships. They use the concept of reciprocity to understand their findings. The study concluded that meeting new people is often given as a major reason for participation in leisure activities, and meeting new people may be conceptualized as an exercise of reciprocity. In this case, reciprocity is perceived as a starting mechanism for new social relationships because people are willing to be helped by others, expecting that the help will eventually be returned. A study conducted by Paul, G., called Exchange and access in field work tries to understand the relationships between the researchers and subjects. This study concludes that Bargaining helps to satisfy the more specific needs of the parties because greater risks are taken to obtain more information. This study also introduces the concept of trust (social sciences) to determine the duration of relationships.

Interracial marriage
Patterns of interracial marriage have been explained using social exchange theory. Kalmijn suggests that ethnic status is offset against educational or financial resources. This process has been used to explain why there are more marriages between black men and white women than between white men and black women. This asymmetry in marriage patterns has been used to support the idea of a racial hierarchy. Lewis, however, explains that the same patterns of marriage can be accounted for in terms of simple facial attractiveness patterns of the different gender by race groupings. Recent changes have seen an increase in black women marrying white men and a decrease in raw prevalence of interracial marriages when it comes to black women. There has also been a shift in the concentration of interracial marriage from mostly being between those with low education levels to those with higher levels of education.

Business
Social exchange theory has served as a theoretical foundation to explain different situations in business practices. It has contributed to the study of organization-stakeholder relationships and relationship marketing. The investment model proposed by Caryl Rusbult is a useful version of social exchange theory. According to this model, investments serve to stabilize relationships. The greater the nontransferable investments a person has in a given relationship, the more stable the relationship is likely to be. The same investment concept is applied in relationship marketing. Databases are the major instrument to build differentiated relationships between organizations and customers. Through the information process, companies identify the customer's own individual needs. From this perspective, a client becomes an investment. If a customer decides to choose another competitor, the investment will be lost. When people find they have invested too much to quit a relationship or enterprise, they pour additional resources into the relationship to salvage their initial investment. Exchange has been a central research thrust in business-to-business relational exchange. According to the study conducted by Lambe, C. Jay, C. Michael Wittmann, and Robert E. Spekman firms evaluate economic and social outcomes from each transaction and compare them to what they feel they deserve. Firms also look for additional benefits provided by other potential exchange partners. The initial transaction between companies is crucial to determine if their relationship will expand, remain the same or will dissolve.

Work settings
A study conducted by A. Saks serves as an example to explain engagement of employees in organizations. This study uses one of the tenets of social exchange theory to explain that obligations are generated through a series of interactions between parties who are in a state of reciprocal interdependence. The research identified that when individuals receive economic and socioemotional resources from their organization, they feel obliged to respond in kind and repay the organization. This is a description of engagement as a two-way relationship between the employer and employee. One way for individuals to repay their organization is through their level of engagement. The more engaged the employee are to their work, the greater amounts of cognitive, emotional, and physical resources they will devote to perform their job duties. When the organization fails to provide economic or emotional resources, the employees are more likely to withdraw and disengage themselves from their roles.

Another more recent study by M. van Houten which took place in institutions for vocational education shows how, in social exchange relationships between teachers, reciprocity and feelings of ownership, affection and interpersonal safety impact on individual professionals´ decisions on what to share with whom. Colleagues who never ´pay back´ and make actual exchange happen (that is, who consume rather than produce and share), risk being left out. The study also points out the possibility of ´negative rewards´: exchange of one's knowledge, materials or otherwise may enable someone else the misuse that what was shared and/or take credit somewhere in the team or organisation. As such, interpersonal relationships and ´fair´ exchange appear important, as does some kind of mechanism for rewards and gratitude (possibly organisation-wide), as these impact on individual professional discretion and the degree and success of exchange.

Citizenship behavior
Social exchange theory is a theoretical explanation for organizational citizenship behavior. This study examines a model of clear leadership and relational building between head and teachers as antecedents, and organizational citizenship behavior as a consequence of teacher–school exchange. Citizenship behavior can also be shown with employees and their employers.This is shown through organizational identification which plays an important role in organizational citizenship behavior. An employee's identification with their employer plays a significant role in supporting and promoting organized citizenship behavior, serving as a mediating mechanism with citizenship behaviors, perceived organizational justice, and organizational support based on both the social exchange and social identity theory.

Online social networking and self-disclosure
Understanding interpersonal disclosure in online social networking is an ideal application of social networking theory. Researchers have leveraged SET to explain self-disclosure in a cross-cultural context of French and British working professionals. They discover that reciprocation is the primary benefit of self-disclosure, whereas risk is the foundational cost of self-disclosure. They find that positive social influence to use an online community increases online community self-disclosure; reciprocity increases self-disclosure; online community trust increases self-disclosure; and privacy risk beliefs decrease self-disclosure. Meanwhile, a tendency toward collectivism increases self-disclosure. Similar research also leveraged SET to examine privacy concerns versus desire for interpersonal awareness in driving the use of self-disclosure technologies in the context of instant messaging. This study was also a cross-cultural study, but instead compared US and Chinese participants.

Affect theory
The actors in social exchange are normally viewed as unemotional beings who have information, cognitively process it, and make decisions concerning the pattern and nature of exchange with others. Affect theory of social exchange complements social exchange theory by incorporating emotion as part of the exchange process. Formalized by Lawler (2001), the affect theory examines the structural conditions of exchange that produce emotions and feelings and then identifies how individuals attribute these emotions to different social units (exchange partners, groups, or networks). These attributions of emotion, in turn, dictate how strongly individuals feel attached to their partners or groups, which drives collectively oriented behavior and commitment to the relationship.

Assumptions
Most social exchange models have three basic assumptions in common: behavior in a social sense is based on exchanges, if an individual allows someone to receives a reward the person then feels the need to reciprocate due to social pressure and individuals will try to minimize their cost while gaining the most from the reward. The affect theory of social exchange is based on assumptions that stem from social exchange theory and affect theory:

 * There are three or more individuals who have the opportunity to make exchanges with one another. These actors are able to make decisions about whether to exchange, with whom to exchange, and under what terms to execute an exchange.
 * Social exchange produces emotions that are positive to negative
 * Emotions can be construed as reward or punishment (i.e. feeling good has a positive value and feeling bad has a negative value).
 * Individuals try to avoid negative emotions and to reproduce positive emotions in social exchange.
 * Individuals will try to understand the source or cause of feelings produced by social exchange. In this way, emotions become attributed to the object that caused them.
 * Individuals interpret and exchange their feelings with respect to social relationships (e.g. partners, groups, networks). Positive emotions produced by exchange will increase solidarity in these relationships, while negative emotions will decrease solidarity.

Theoretical propositions
Affect theory of social exchange shows how the conditions of exchanges promote interpersonal and group relationships through emotions and affective processes. The theoretical arguments center on the following five claims:

Emotions produced by exchange are involuntary, internal responses

Individuals experience emotions (general feelings of pleasantness or unpleasantness) depending on whether their exchange is successful. These emotions are construed as a reward (or punishment) and individuals strive to repeat actions that reproduce positive emotions or avoid negative emotions.

Individuals attempt to understand what in a social exchange situation produces emotions

Individuals will use the exchange task to understand the source (partners, groups, or networks) of their emotions. Individuals are more likely to attribute their emotions to their exchange partners or groups when the task can only be completed with one or more partners, when the task requires interdependent (nonseparable) contributions, and when there is a shared sense of responsibility for the success or failure of the exchange.

The mode of exchange determines the features of the exchange task and influences the attribution of the emotion produced

The mode of exchange (productive, negotiated, reciprocal, or generalized) provides a description of the exchange task. The task features are defined by the degree of interdependence (separability of tasks) and shared responsibility between partners to complete the task. These features influence the strength of the emotion felt. Productive exchanges are interdependent and this high degree of nonseparability generates the strongest emotions. Reciprocal exchanges are separable which reduces the perceptions of shared responsibility. The exchange produces little emotional response, but individuals instead express emotions in response to the asymmetrical transaction. Generalized exchanges do not occur directly, but interdependence is still high and coordination between partners is difficult. Because there is no direct emotional foundation, emotions produced are low. Negotiated exchanges may produce conflicting emotions due to the mixed-motive nature of negotiations; even when transactions are successful, individuals may feel like they had the ability to do better, creating emotional ambivalence. Overall, productive exchanges produce the strongest attributions of emotions, generalized (indirect) exchange the weakest, with negotiated and reciprocal exchanges in between.

The attribution of emotions resulting from different exchange modes impact the solidarity felt with partners or groups

The different types of exchange (productive, reciprocal, and generalized) also impact the solidarity or identification that an individual will feel with their exchange partners or group. The different exchange types help dictate the target of felt emotions and influences an individual's attachment. Affective attachment occurs when a social unit (partner or group) is the target of positive feelings from exchange; affective detachment (alienation) occurs when a social unit is the target of negative feelings from failure to exchange. Affective attachment increases solidarity. Similar to the attribution of emotion, productive exchange produces the strongest affective attachments, generalized exchange the weakest, and negotiated and reciprocal exchange are in between.

One condition for how social (partner or group) attributions can increase solidarity is by reducing self-serving attributions of credit or blame for the success or failure of the exchange. When individuals have group attributions for positive emotions stemming from success, this eliminates any self-serving biases and enhances both pride in the self and gratitude to the partner. However, group attributions for negative emotions stemming from failure do not eliminate self-serving biases, resulting in more anger toward the partner or group than shame in the self.

Lawler also proposes that the persistence (stability) and ability to control acts by the exchange partner (controllability) provide conditions for affective attachment by attributing credit or blame for the success or failure of the exchange. Following Weiner (1985) affect theory of social exchange extrapolates that the combinations of stability and uncontrollability elicit different emotions. In social exchange, social connections can be sources of stability and controllability. For example, if an exchange partner is perceived as a stable source of positive feelings, and the exchange partner has control in the acts that elicit those positive feelings, this will strengthen affective attachment. Therefore, affect theory of social exchange proposes that stable and controllable sources of positive feelings (i.e. pleasantness, pride, gratitude) will elicit affective attachments while stable and uncontrollable sources of negative feelings (i.e. unpleasantness, shame, anger) will elicit affective detachment.

Through these emotional processes, networks can develop group properties

Repeated exchanges allow a network to evolve into a group. Affect theory highlights the contributions of emotions in producing group properties. Successful interactions generate positive feelings for the involved individuals, which motivates them to interact with the same partners in the future. As exchanges repeat, the strong relationships become visible to other parties, making salient their role as a group and helping to generate a group identity that continues to bind the partners together in a network. Affect theory predicts that networks of negotiated and reciprocal exchange will tend to promote stronger relational ties within partners; productive or generalized exchange will promote stronger network or group-level ties.

title: Social exchange theory


text:
Lua language

Lua may refer to the following languages:

African

 * Luba-Kasai language (ISO 639 code: lua), a Bantu language of Central Africa
 * Niellim language, also known as Lua, a Niger–Congo language of southern Chad

Austroasiatic

 * Lawa language, or La'wa/L'wa, a Mon–Khmer language of Thailand
 * a collective term for Mon-Khmer languages of the Lua people, namely:
 * Mal language
 * Phai language

Computing

 * Lua (programming language)

title: Lua language


text:
User talk:Jasonjanofsky

Don't remove Votes for Deletion headers from articles that have been listed for deletion. If you feel that the article doesn't deserve to be deleted, please discuss it at Votes for deletion. RickK 22:04, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jasonjanofsky


text:
User:Gsgeorge

New articles

 * Ann Arbor Film Festival
 * Cass Lake (Michigan)
 * Highland Park Ford Plant
 * John Cabot Lodge
 * Kill the Moonlight
 * Madonna University
 * Michigan Military Academy
 * Michigan State Highway 10
 * Michigan Theater (Ann Arbor)
 * Michigan Theater (Detroit)
 * Orchard Lake
 * Saint Mary's College
 * SS. Cyril and Methodius Seminary
 * Saint Mary's Preparatory
 * U.S. National Lakeshore

Major contributions

 * Ann Arbor, Michigan
 * Metro Detroit
 * The Microphones
 * North Manitou Island
 * South Manitou Island
 * Renaissance Center
 * Woodward Avenue

Contributed to

 * 2001: A Space Odyssey
 * 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake
 * Albert Kahn
 * Arcadia Township, Manistee County, Michigan
 * Assembly line
 * Barton Hills, Michigan
 * Battle Royale (movie)
 * Bob Dylan
 * Britt Daniel
 * Chuck Palahniuk
 * Clio, Michigan
 * Commerce Township, Michigan
 * Compuware
 * David Hahn
 * Detroit, Michigan
 * Detroit Institute of Arts
 * Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
 * Experimental Film
 * Ford Motor Company
 * Ford Model T
 * General Motors
 * Give Peace a Chance
 * Gravity Hill
 * Grosse Pointe (disambiguation)
 * Highland Park, Michigan
 * In Cold Blood
 * Indonesia
 * Leland, Michigan
 * Lower Peninsula of Michigan
 * Mackinac Bridge
 * Mackinac Island
 * Michigan State Highway 8
 * Michigan State Highway 185
 * Orchard Lake Village, Michigan
 * Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
 * Public Ivy
 * Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore
 * Spoon (band)
 * Stanley Kubrick
 * Stardust Memories
 * Subterranean Homesick Blues
 * Suspension bridge
 * University of Michigan
 * University of Michigan Business School
 * West Bloomfield Township, Michigan

Images uploaded
All of my uploaded images are released under PD-self if not otherwise noted.
 * Image:Ann_Arbor_at_Liberty_Street.jpg
 * Image:DetroitDownBrushSt.JPG
 * Image:Detroit-Griswold_st.jpg
 * Image:Detroit-Skaters in front of Compuware.jpg
 * Image:DetroitCMSA.jpg
 * Image:Detroitonmap.jpg
 * Image:DIAfront.JPG
 * Image:DIAhall2.jpg
 * Image:Kill_the_Moonlight.jpg
 * Image:M185mackinac.jpg
 * Image:Mackinacbridge.jpg
 * Image:MapSleepingbear.jpg
 * Image:Microphones_glow_pt2.jpg
 * Image:MichiganRegions.jpg
 * Image:MichiganTheaterlobbyDetroit.jpg
 * Image:Stmarysprepmi.jpg
 * Image:Stmarysprepmiseal.jpg
 * Image:Southmanitoulighthouse.jpg

title: User:Gsgeorge


text:
Oral Torah

According to Rabbinic Judaism, the Oral Torah or Oral Law (Tōrā šebbəʿal-pe) are statutes and legal interpretations that were not recorded in the Five Books of Moses, the Written Torah (Tōrā šebbīḵṯāv), and which are regarded by Orthodox Jews as prescriptive and given at the same time. This holistic Jewish code of conduct encompasses a wide swathe of rituals, worship practices, Godman and interpersonal relationships, from dietary laws to Sabbath and festival observance to marital relations, agricultural practices, and civil claims and damages.

According to Rabbinic Jewish tradition, the Oral Torah was passed down orally in an unbroken chain from generation to generation until its contents were finally committed to writing following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, when Jewish civilization was faced with an existential threat, by virtue of the dispersion of the Jewish people.

The major repositories of the Oral Torah are the Mishnah, compiled between 200–220 CE by Judah ha-Nasi, and the Gemara, a series of running commentaries and debates concerning the Mishnah, which together form the Talmud, the preeminent text of Rabbinic Judaism. In fact, two "versions" of the Talmud exist: one produced in the Galilee c. 300–350 CE (the Jerusalem Talmud), and a second, more extensive Talmud compiled in Jewish Babylonia c.  450–500 CE (the Babylonian Talmud).

Belief that at least portions of the Oral Torah were transmitted orally from God to Moses on Biblical Mount Sinai during the Exodus from Egypt is a fundamental tenet of faith of Orthodox Judaism, and was recognized as one of the Thirteen Principles of Faith by Maimonides.

There have also been historical dissenters to the Oral Torah, most notably the Sadducees and Karaites, who claimed to derive their religious practice only from the Written Torah. The Beta Israel, isolated from the rest of world Jewry for many centuries, also lacked Rabbinic texts until they made Aliyah in mass in recent years.

Components of the Oral Torah
The term "Oral Torah" should not be understood as a monolith. The Jewish Encyclopedia divides the Oral Torah into eight categories, ranked according to the relative level of authoritativeness, which are found within the Talmud, the Tosefta and the halakhic Midrashim.
 * 1) Explanations of those laws of the written law, which are not fully intelligible without the explanations, and therefore presuppose an oral interpretation. Such explanations are connected in some way with Scripture.
 * 2) Ancient halakhot which have no connection with Scripture and can not be connected with it, thus deriving their authority only from the tradition which ascribes them to Moses on Sinai. (In the case of these two groups, it is impossible to ascertain which elucidations and rules were really given to Moses on Sinai, and which were added later.)
 * 3) Laws found in the prophetic books. Some of these originated at the time of the Prophets; but others are much older, perhaps having been transmitted orally, and committed to writing by the Prophets. They are called also "Dibre Ḳabbalah" (Words of Tradition).
 * 4) Interpretations and regulations defining many written laws, as well as new laws, formulated by the early scribes, beginning with the time of Ezra. These are called also "Dibre Soferim" (Words of the Scribes).
 * 5) Interpretations and regulations covering the written law, as well as new halakhot, which the Tannaim deduced from Scripture by means of hermeneutic rules or by logical conclusions. There are differences of opinion among the scholars in regard to most of these explanations and definitions; but they are of equal weight with the written law, and are called also "Debar Torah" (Regulation of the Torah).
 * 6) Customs and observances ("taḳḳanot") which were introduced at various times by different scholars. They are ascribed partly to Moses, partly to Joshua, but chiefly to the members of the Great Synagogue or the Soferim ("Scribes"), and are called also "Dibre Soferim" ("Words of the Scribes").
 * 7) Statutes and decisions ("gezerot") decreed by the Sanhedrin or court, and generally accepted. Such laws could be abrogated only by another court greater than the first one in numbers and scholarship.
 * 8) Statutes and regulations for which the scholars had no tradition or allusion in Scripture, but which they accepted as standards after deriving them from the customs and laws of the country in which they were living. These are called "Hilkhot Medinah" (Statutes of the Country).

The laws in the last three groups were not considered equal in validity to the written law ("De'oraita"), but were regarded merely as rabbinical regulations ("de-rabbanan").

Source and transmission
According to modern scholarship, the traditions embodied in what later became known as the "Oral Torah" developed over generations among the inhabitants of Judea and Israel and were passed down through various modes of cultural transmission, including but not restricted to oral transmission. It is hypothesized that, sometime prior to the Babylonian exile of 586–530 BCE, in applying the Mosaic code to daily life and Temple worship, "a multitude of usages arising out of practical necessity or convenience or experience became part of the routine of observance of the code, and, in the course of time, shared the sanctity and authority which were inherent in the divinely inspired code itself."

Such practices experienced exponential growth from the time of Ezra to the Romans' destruction of the Second Temple due to the changing social and religious conditions experienced by inhabitants of Judea. Many of these practices were advocated by the Pharisees, a sect of largely lower- and middle-class Jews who stood in opposition to the Sadducees, the priestly caste who dominated the Temple cult. The Sadducees rejected the legitimacy of any extra-biblical law or tradition, as well as increasingly popular notions such as the immortality of the soul and divine intervention. Danby notes the following:

It is a reasonable hypothesis that a result of this controversy—a controversy which continued for two centuries—was a deliberate compilation and justification of the unwritten tradition by the Pharisean party, perhaps unsystematic and on a small scale in the earlier stages, but stimulated and fostered from time to time both by opposition from the Sadducees and by internal controversy (such as, e.g., the disputes between the Houses of Hillel and Shammai) within the ranks of the Pharisees, culminating in the collections of traditional laws (Halakoth) from which the present Mishnah draws its material.

With the destruction of the Second Temple around 70 CE, the Sadducees were divested of their main source of authority, without which their theology could not survive. On the other hand, the Pharisees became the progenitor of the rabbinic class, who formalized the traditions of their predecessors. Following the fall of the Temple, it appears that the Pharisaic leader Johanan ben Zakkai (30–90 CE) settled in Yavneh, where he established a school that came to be regarded by fellow Jews as the successors of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin. Upon this Council of Jabneh fell the duty of administering and interpreting religious law, conserving tradition, and solving problems that arose by the past dependence of numerous observances on the existence of the Temple and priesthood. Thus, from 70 to 130 CE, when the Bar Kochba revolt further decimated the Jewish community, the Oral Law experienced a significant period of development and an unprecedented level of legal and religious authority among the populace.

The Mishnah
The destruction of the Second Temple and the fall of Jerusalem in the first and early second centuries CE devastated the Jewish community. The First Jewish–Roman War of 66–73 CE and the Bar Kokhba revolt cost hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives, the destruction of leading yeshivot, and thousands of scholars and students. At that point, it became apparent that the Hebrew community and its learning were threatened, and that publication was the only way to ensure that the law could be preserved. Thus, around 200 CE, a redaction of the Oral Law in writing was completed. Both Rabbinic tradition and scholarship ascribe this effort to Judah HaNasi. The product of this effort, the Mishnah, is generally considered the first work of rabbinic literature.

"Mishnah" is the name given to the 63 tractates that HaNasi systematically codified, which in turn are divided into six "orders." Unlike the Torah, in which, for example, laws of the Sabbath are scattered throughout the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, all the Mishnaic laws of the Sabbath are located in a single tractate called Shabbat. Moreover, the laws contained in the 24 chapters that make up that tractate are far more extensive than those contained in the Torah, reflecting the extensiveness of the Oral Law. Some authority suggests HaNasi made use of as many as 13 separate collections of Halakhot from different schools and time periods, and reassembled that material into a coherent whole, arranged it systematically, summarized discussions, and in some cases rendered his own rulings where alternative traditions existed.

The Mishnah does far more than expound upon and organize the Biblical commandments. Rather, important topics covered by the Mishnah "rest on no scriptural foundations whatsoever," such as portions of the civil law tractates of Bava Kamma, Bava Metzia and Bava Batra. In other words, "To perfect the [Written] Torah, the Oral tradition had to provide for a variety of transactions left without any law at all in Scripture." Just as portions of the Torah reflect (according to the documentary hypothesis) the agenda of the Levite priesthood in centralizing worship in the Temple in Jerusalem and legitimizing their exclusive authority over the sacrificial cult, so too can the Mishnah be seen as reflecting the unique "program" of the Tannaim and their successors to develop an egalitarian form of Judaism with an emphasis on social justice and an applicability throughout the Jewish diaspora. As a result, the Talmud often finds the rabbis combing scripture for textual support to justify existing religious practice, rather than deriving the practice organically from the language of scripture.

The Gemara
HaNasi's method of codification, in which he often included minority viewpoints and citation by name to rabbis who championed different viewpoints, became a template for the Gemara, a compendium of discussions and commentaries on the Mishnah's laws by generations of leading rabbis during the next four centuries in the two centers of Jewish life, Syria Palaestina or "Judea" and Asoristan or "Babylonia". The Gemara with the Mishnah came to be edited together into compilations known as the Talmud. Both the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud have been transmitted in written form to the present day, although the more extensive Babylonian Talmud is widely considered to be more authoritative.

The Talmud's discussions follow the order of the Mishnah, although not all tractates are discussed. Generally, a law from the Mishnah is cited, which is followed by a rabbinic deliberation on its meaning. The discussion often, but not always, results in a decision regarding the more persuasive or authoritative position based on available sources or anecdotal evidence. (See Aliba dehilchasa.)

Rabbinic thought
Rabbinic tradition considers the Oral Law to be of divine origin. The divinity and authoritativeness of the Oral Law as transmitted from God to Moses on Mount Sinai, continues to be accepted by Orthodox and Haredi Judaism as a fundamental precept of Judaism. The Oral Law was the basis for nearly all subsequent rabbinic literature. It is therefore intricately related to the development of Halacha. As such, despite codification, interpretation of the Oral Law is likewise required.

Divine source and transmission
Rabbis of the Talmudic era conceived of the Oral Torah in two distinct ways. First, Rabbinic tradition saw the Oral Torah as an unbroken chain of transmission. The distinctive feature of this view was that Oral Torah was "conveyed by word of mouth and memorized." Second, the Rabbis also viewed the Oral Torah as an interpretive tradition, and not merely as memorized traditions. They saw the written Torah as containing many levels of interpretation. It was left to later generations, who were steeped in the oral tradition of interpretation, to discover those ("hidden") interpretations not revealed by Moses. Instead, Moses was obligated to impart the explanations orally to students, children, and fellow adults. It was thus forbidden to write and publish the Oral Torah; some rabbis kept private notes of their teaching, but only for their personal convenience.

Jewish tradition identifies the unbroken historical chain of individuals who were entrusted with passing down the Oral Law from Moses to the early rabbinic period: "Moses received the Torah and handed it down to Joshua; Joshua to the Elders; the Elders to the prophets; and the prophets handed it down to the men of the Great Assembly." Similarly, Maimonides provides a generation by generation account of the names of all those in the direct line that transmitted this tradition, beginning with Moses up until Ravina and Rav Ashi, the rabbis who compiled the Babylonian Talmud.

The interplay of the Oral and Written Law
According to Rabbinic Judaism, the Oral Law must have been disseminated at the same time as the Written Torah because certain Torah commandments would be indecipherable without a separate explanatory codex (and, presumably, God would not demand adherence to commandments that could not be understood). Many terms used in the Torah are left undefined, such as the word totafot, usually translated as "frontlets," which is used three times in the Pentateuch (in Exodus 13:9 and Deuteronomy 6:8 and 11:18) but only identified with tefillin in the Mishnah (see Menachot 3:7).

Similarly, many procedures are mentioned without explanation or instructions, or assume familiarity on the part of the reader. For example, the discussion of shechita (kosher slaughter) in Deuteronomy 12 states "you shall kill of your herd and of your flock which God Lord has given you, as I have commanded you," without any clear indication of what had been "commanded"; only in the Oral Torah are the various requirements of ritual slaughter explicated. Similarly, Deuteronomy 24 discusses the laws of divorce in passing; these laws are set forth with great specificity in the Mishnah and Gemara. Another example: the blue string of tekhelet on the tzitzit is to be dyed with an extraction from what scholars believe to be a snail; a detail only spoken of in the oral Torah. For other examples and further discussion here see Kuzari 3:35.

Moreover, according to the rabbinic view, without an Oral Law, blind adherence to the plain text of certain Torah commandments would lead to unethical acts, or would cause the practitioner to violate a commandment elsewhere in the Torah. Neither of these results could have been intended by God; and thus, a priori, a set of supplementary "instructions" must have been provided. A classic example involves the phrase "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot" is held in the oral tradition to imply monetary compensation – as opposed to a literal Lex talionis. Further, the interpretation as "monetary compensation" is borne out by, implying that only in the case of murder is Lex talionis applied; this relationship paralleling the logic of the preceding paragraph.

Finally, and similarly, the Oral Torah is needed to explain actions of biblical actors, seemingly discordant with other verses. For example, the marriage of Boaz to Ruth appears on its face to contradict the prohibition of against marrying Moabites ; however, the Oral Torah explains that this prohibition is limited to Moabite men. Similarly, the rabbinic practice for the Counting of the Omer is at odds with the Karaite practice, which appears to accord with a more literal reading of these verses, but is in fact borne out by. Much Talmudic analysis similarly demonstrates how the Mishnah's rulings, and / or disputes, in fact derive from—and are hence consistent with—the much earlier Biblical texts; see Gemara. Relatedly, the 1st century Targum Onkelos is largely consistent with the oral tradition as recorded in the midrash, redacted into writing only in the 3rd or 4th century.

Complementary to the above textual and internal evidence, archaeologists have uncovered various physical evidence relating to religious rituals and practices which were current prior to the codification of the Mishnah; from which it can be inferred that Judah HaNasi and his contemporaries recorded, rather than innovated, normative Judaism as practiced during the 1st century CE and prior. For example, excavations at Qumran (Cave 4) have yielded specimens of tefillin and parchment scrolls which reflect later Talmudic discussion. Likewise, the structure and placement of ritual baths at Masada appears to be consistent with the rabbinic requirements per the Mishnaic tractate Mikvaot, although they were constructed approximately 120 years before the Mishnah was compiled. A clay seal discovered in Jerusalem in 2011 is consistent with the tradition recorded in tractate Shekalim chapter 5. The Elephantine papyri include a "Passover letter" (419 BCE) which already included many of the Pesach observances of today, and the first known text of a Ketubah (about 440 BCE). The Qumran Halachic Letter, which records approximately a dozen disputes regarding the application of halakha, also testifies to the evolutionary process of the Oral Law.

In rabbinic literature and commentary
This section, discusses the Rabbinic treatment of the Written Law in light of the Oral Law, and the consequent overlap of the oral and written, and is not a general discussion of rabbinic Literature, per se.

As above, the Oral Law is recorded in the Midrash and Talmud, while later rabbinic literature builds on these works. Here, these source, "oral", documents, are nevertheless intimately connected to the written. Thus, the midrash provides a verse by verse discussion of the entire (written) Tanakh, per the oral Torah. Similarly, the Talmud, although applying a different framework, discusses and analyses the written Torah—both from an aggadic and halakhic perspective—drawing from (and recording) the oral tradition; here the discussion is organized around the Mishnah, and the discussion does not proceed verse-wise as with the Midrash.

The era of the Rishonim sees the Oral Law incorporated into the first formal Torah commentaries, where the biblical text is discussed and / or analysed based on the various Midrashic and Talmudic traditions. The chief of these is perhaps Rashi's commentary on Tanakh. This work clarifies the "simple" meaning of the text, by addressing questions implied by the wording or verse or paragraph structure, by drawing on the Midrashic, Talmudic and Aggadic literature. It has given rise to numerous counter- (e.g., Ramban) and super-commentaries (e.g., Mizrachi), all similarly drawing on the Oral Torah, and widely studied to this day (see Mikraot Gedolot, Yeshiva ).

In more recent times, Acharonic times, several (Orthodox) commentaries have been produced, which, in some sense, reverse the direction of the analysis. These originated in response to the (erstwhile) challenges of haskalah and Biblical criticism, and were intended "to demonstrate the indivisibility of the written Torah and its counterpart, the oral Torah", and in so doing, "showing the organic relationship between the Written Law and the Oral Law", often in the light of the above. Given this purpose, these provide a further detailed and explicit analysis here. The main of these: A more recent work of this type is the Israeli Da'at Miqra (and to some extent Da'at Sofrim by Chaim Dov Rabinowitz); see also Mordechai Breuer.
 * Ha'amek Davar ("Delve into the matter") on Torah, and Davar Ha'amek on Nevi'im and Ketuvim, by Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin, the "Netziv"
 * Haketav VehaKabbalah ("The Written [Torah] and the [Oral] Tradition") on Torah, by Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg
 * HaTorah vehaMitzva ("The Torah and the Commandment") by Meïr Leibush, the "Malbim", covers all of Tanakh except Kohelet and Eicha.
 * Uebersetzung und Erklärung des Pentateuchs ("Translation and Commentary of the Pentateuch") by Samson Raphael Hirsch.
 * Torah Temimah ("The Perfect Torah") on Torah, by Baruch Epstein.

Contemporaneous with, and complementary to these commentaries, were specific, monograph-like works discussing the Oral Torah in concept and historically. These included: Other well known works here, if perhaps less modern in orientation, include Maimonides' (Rambam's) Introduction to the Mishnah—dealing with the nature of the Oral Law, the distinction between the prophet and the sage, and the organizational structure of the Mishnah—as well as Isaiah Horowitz's ("The Shelah") Introduction to the Oral Torah in part 2 of his Shenei Luchot HaBerit
 * Dor Dor v'Dor'shav ("Each generation and its Scholars"), by Rabbi Isaac Hirsch Weiss, a five volume history of the Oral Law, Halakha and Aggada, from Biblical times until the composition of the Shulchan Aruch.
 * Mevo Hatalmud ("Introduction to the Talmud") and Torat Neviim ("Teachings of the Prophets"), by Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Chajes. The first, a detailed history and classification of the Talmud and its underlying oral tradition, formulating the nature, extent, and authority of tradition. The second, treatises on the authority of Talmudic tradition, and on the organic structure and methodology of the Talmud.
 * Die Erste Mishna (The First Mishna), a historical and linguistic analysis of the Mishna by David Zvi Hoffmann, positing an early, uniform, undisputed, and therefore authoritative collection of the Oral Law. (R. Hoffmann also authored a Torah commentary addressing some of the same issues as those mentioned.)
 * Matteh Dan (or Kuzari Hasheini; London 1714) written by Rabbi David Nieto demonstrates the authority of the Oral Law, and defends the tradition against attacks by Karaites and skeptics.
 * Several works by Rabbi Immanuel Aboab, especially his Nomologia, defend the traditional law and discuss its chronology.

Finally, other major works discussing the Bible as based on the Oral Torah include the following.
 * El Conciliador ("The Conciliator"), by Rabbi Menasseh Ben Israel, a work written to reconcile the apparent contradictions in numerous passages throughout the Bible by utilizing "an astounding range of sources", primarily the Talmud and the classic Jewish commentaries. It was written in Spanish, in Amsterdam, 1632, primarily to strengthen the faith of the Marranos.
 * Weiss' Dor Dor v'Dor'shav similarly discusses apparent divergencies in the Pentateuch and the various books of the Prophets.
 * Me'am Lo'ez, begun by Rabbi Yaakov Culi in 1730, a detailed explanation of each chapter of the Torah, explaining it from "countless approaches", especially according to the Midrash and Talmud; also discusses the relevant Halacha as based on the Shulchan Aruch and Mishneh Torah. The work was intended as a "compendium" of the major fields of Torah study, for the Ladino-speaking community.

Dissenting viewpoints
From the Second Temple era, there has always been some level of opposition to the concept of a "Dual Torah" within the umbrella of Judaism, although today only the small Karaite sect formally opposes the incorporation of any extra-biblical law into their practice.

Sadducees
Sadducees rejected the Pharisaic oral traditions. They based their interpretations on their own traditions emphasizing a more literal understanding of the verses. In many respects, this led to a more severe observance than that of the Pharisees especially as regards purity laws and temple practice. Most aspects of Sadduceean law and methods of interpretation are not known.

Essenes
Essenes, a monastic group of people, had a "monastic organization". Though they had non-biblical rules and customs, they differened significantly from the mainstream Rabbinic tradition.

Samaritans
The Samaritans, an ancient sect that has survived in small numbers to the present day, have their own rich interpretative tradition, as reflected in the Medieval Samaritan legal collection called the Hilukh, which shares etymological roots with the term Halakhah. However, the concept of a divinely ordained Oral Law having equal value with the written one is foreign to Samaritan theology.

Karaites
Karaite Judaism or Karaism is a Jewish denomination that began in eighth century Baghdad to form a separate sect that rejected of the Oral Torah and Talmud, and placed sole reliance on the Tanakh as scripture. Thus, for example, Karaites understood Exodus 35:3 ("Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day") as forbidding the use of any kind of fire on the Sabbath, including fires lit before the start of the Sabbath, which are permitted by the Oral Law. Karaites also do not adhere to widespread customs such as the donning of tefillin and the prohibition against eating milk and meat together on the grounds that such practices are grounded in the Oral Law.

The Reform Movement
Influenced by the Haskalah, and under sociological pressure to assimilate to the Protestant and secular culture of European and North American urban elites, Reform Judaism came to reject the binding authority of the Oral Torah and systematically stripped its liturgy and pratices of Rabbinic tradition.

Torat Eretz Yisrael
According to Torat Eretz Yisrael and Minhagei Eretz Yisrael, it is important to notice that Torah sages can err, just as the Sanhedrin could (Leviticus 4:13).

Conservative Judaism
Conservative Judaism (also known as "Masorti" outside North America) takes an intermediate approach between the Reform Movement and Orthodoxy, claiming that the Oral tradition is entitled to authority, but regarding its rulings as flexible guidelines rather than immutable precepts, that may be viewed through the lens of modernity. Jewish scholar and philosopher Ismar Schorsch has postulated that Conservative Judaism is tied to "sensing divinity both in the Torah and in the Oral Law," but not in a literalist manner. Rabbi Zecharias Frankel, considered intellectual founder of Conservative Judaism, was respected by many Orthodox until writing in 1859 that the Talmudic term "Law given to Moses at Sinai" always meant ancient customs accepted as such. His opponents demanded that he issue an unequivocal statement of belief in the total divinity of Oral Law, yet he refrained from doing so. He was consequently ostracized and declared a heretic by several authorities.[citation needed]

title: Oral Torah


text:
Gina Torres

Gina Torres (born April 25, 1969) is an American actress. Her starring roles include Zoe Washburne in the science fiction series Firefly (2002–2003) and its feature film sequel Serenity (2005), and as Jessica Pearson in the legal drama series Suits (2011–2018) and its spin-off series Pearson (2019). She currently stars on the series 9-1-1: Lone Star.

Early life, family and education
Torres was born in New York and was raised in The Bronx. Her parents were natives of Cuba. Her father worked as a typesetter for La Prensa and the New York Daily News. Torres speaks fluent Spanish.

Torres is a mezzo-soprano. She began singing at an early age and attended Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School of Music & Art and Performing Arts in New York City. She trained in opera and jazz and performed in a gospel choir. Torres applied and was accepted to several colleges but could not afford to attend. She chose instead to pursue a career as an actress.

Career
In 2001, Torres won the ALMA Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Syndicated Drama Series for her role in Cleopatra 2525. She starred as Zoe Washburne in Fox's short-lived Firefly series, which lasted only one season, in 2002.

In 2004, Torres appeared in seven episodes of the third season on 24 as Julia Milliken, a woman who has an affair with the White House Chief of Staff and becomes involved in a presidential scandal. In 2005, she was tapped for the pilot episode of Soccer Moms. In that same year, Torres was nominated for the International Press Academy's Golden Satellite Award for Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Series, Drama, for her role as Jasmine in Angel. Her film appearances have included the science fiction films The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions (both 2003), the drama film Jam (2006), the romantic comedy film I Think I Love My Wife (2007), the independent drama film South of Pico (2007), and the drama film Selah and the Spades (2019).

Throughout her acting career, Torres has appeared in supporting roles in numerous television series, including Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, Xena: Warrior Princess, Cleopatra 2525, Alias, Angel, 24, The Shield, Gossip Girl, The Vampire Diaries, Hannibal, Revenge, and Westworld.

In 2005, she voiced the character of Vixen in numerous episodes of the animated series Justice League Unlimited and replaced the voice-over of Jada Pinkett Smith's character Niobe in The Matrix Online. She also reprised her Firefly role as Zoe in the film Serenity (2005). In 2006, Torres began her role as Cheryl Carrera in the short-lived drama series Standoff on the Fox network. Torres appeared in the film I Think I Love My Wife, playing the wife of Chris Rock's character.

She was cast in Washington Field, a 2009 CBS television pilot from executive producer Edward Allen Bernero, about the National Capital Response Squad, a unit of the FBI made up of elite experts in different areas who travel around the world, responding to events that affect American interests.

She was the voice of Wonder Woman in DC Universe Online massively multiplayer online role-playing game until mid 2013 when the part was recast, as well as Airachnid in the Transformers Prime cartoon.

In 2011, Torres was cast as main character Jessica Pearson on the USA Network legal drama Suits. In 2016, it was announced that Torres would be leaving the cast of Suits following the summer segment of season six. In addition to her contract being up, Torres stated she had grown tired of traveling between Toronto, where Suits is filmed, and her home in Los Angeles. She joined the season two cast of ABC's The Catch, which was filmed in L.A. Torres returned to Suits for the season six finale, which aired on March 1, 2017. Following ABC's cancellation of The Catch in May 2017, Torres has returned to Suits as a recurring cast member in season seven.

Torres plays the role of CAPCOM in the updated version of Walt Disney World's Mission: Space.

In March 2018, it was announced Torres would executive produce and star in Pearson, a Suits spin-off centered on her character, Jessica Pearson.

It was announced on March 2, 2020, that Torres has been cast to portray Cleo Phillips in the drama pilot The Brides, which is written by Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, but the series was not picked up by ABC.

On September 3, 2020, she was cast as Tommy Vega in the Fox drama series 9-1-1: Lone Star.

Personal life
Torres and Laurence Fishburne were engaged in February 2001, and married on September 22, 2002, at The Cloisters museum in New York City. They have a daughter together. Torres was also the stepmother to Fishburne's two children from his previous marriage to actress Hajna O. Moss. During their marriage, Torres and Fishburne played a married couple on the show Hannibal (episodes in 2013–2015).

In September 2017, Torres announced her separation from Fishburne. Fishburne filed for divorce on November 2, 2017, and the divorce was finalized on May 11, 2018, after Torres and Fishburne reached a final settlement on April 16, 2018.

On January 1, 2020, Torres was a Grand Marshal of the 2020 Rose Parade.

title: Gina Torres