Sanctions for violating communal norms are total exclusion, not tit-for-tat withholding

Evidence

Moreover, the sanction against you for violating our communal norm need not have anything specifically to do with the nature of your violation. We do not simply withhold help from you—you might not need help for a long time or ever. Instead, we shun you, perhaps mildly, but potentially so severely as to make continued life in our community difficult or untenable for you. We do not merely exclude you from a network, we exclude you from everything. — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 822

Categorization

• XREF: Directly parallels Saramago’s Blindness: when monitoring collapses, sanctioning shifts to total exclusion — and the wife’s role as sole sighted observer restores monitoring against exactly this kind of generalized sanctioning. — connects to: Blanket exclusion sanctions clash with communal settlement values and practical needs. — Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth, Institutional Bricolage and Commoning…, 123; Agrarian settlements reject external sanction frameworks, preferring graduated enforcement that preserves social cohesion — Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth, Institutional Bricolage and Commoning…, 129; Permanent-exclusion licensing sanctions are so powerful they are rarely invoked, weakening their deterrent value — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1099
• DEEPTHINKING: The shift from proportional tit-for-tat punishment to total shunning is a profound observation about how community-level norm enforcement differs in kind, not degree, from dyadic trust — bears on why small-community order cannot simply be scaled up.