Showing papers on "Social system published in 1981"

Social Network Influences on Morbid Episodes and the Career of Help Seeking

Abstract: Just over a decade ago, Mitchell (1969) presented a timely review of the history and uses of the concept of a social network. As a metaphor depicting a complex set of interrelationships in a social system, it has a long history. But he distinguished this purely metaphorical usage “… from the notion of a social network as a specific set of linkages among a defined set of persons, with the additional property that the characteristics of these linkages as a whole may be used to interpret the social behavior of the persons involved”. Mitchell traced the emerging popularity of network studies to two main sources: (a) a dissatisfaction with structural-functional analysis and the consequent search for alternative ways of understanding social behavior; and (b) the development of mathematical approaches to social phenomena — particularly graph theory and probability modeling. Reflecting Mitchell’s concerns, Granovetter (1973) argues that a weakness in current sociological theory is its failure to relate micro-level interactions to macro-level patterns in any convincing way. He suggests, and I concur, that the analysis of processes in interpersonal networks can provide a fruitful micro-macro bridge.

On Talcott Parsons

Abstract: Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) was usually thought of as quintessentially sociologist's sociologist, and so he was in a sense. Ever since he published“The Structure of Social Action”(1937), he put forward a definition of sociology as a special science and continued to fight against all kinds of synthetic sociology from his stand-point of analytic realism.However, so far as we can conclude from reading his books and articles, it cannot be denied that his scientific concern was directed not so much to sociology itself in his sense than to social system theory which embraced not only sociology, but also economics, politics and religious study, just as in the case of synthetic sociology. Hence he might well be said to have gone far beyond sociology alone. But it is, of course, very questionable whether he could be credited on that account as an excellent sociologist in his sense, because it is too clear that his contributions in this field was far fewer and devoid of qualitative brilliance to be compared to those in the social system theory. In a word his most enduring legacy to us is presumably not his sociology, but his social system theory.And this is the very final and unexpected conclusion to which I reached after having reflected over his lifelong work in its totality.

Indicators of social change: Developments in the United States of America

Abstract: The median income of families in the United States doubled and the country’s Gross National Product more than doubled (in constant dollars) between 1950 and 1970. Yet crime, drug use, racial unrest, demonstrations and environmental degradation prompted doubts in this period about the easy equation of economic growth and social progress, and there emerged a sense that economic indicators did not suffice to measure progress, and a renewed interest in social measurement more broadly conceived. In the mid-603 this interest was expressed in calls for the development of %ocial indicators”, “social accounting”, “measuring the quality of life”, “monitoring social change”, and “social reporting” (Sheldon & Moore, 1966), interest which was reflected in the research and statistical activities of scholars, research institutes, and governments in many countries and in the work of international organizations such as the United Nations and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (UN. Secretariat, 1976). The term “social indicators” became widespread following the publication of the book of that title edited by Raymond A. Bauer (1966). Seeking to find ways to assess the social impacts of the space program, Bauer brought together several social scientists whose work came to be focused on questions of social measurement and its use in assessing the state of society relative to national goals. Albert D. Biderman showed that pertinent statistical indicators were available for only about half of the goals identified by the President’s Commission on National Goals (1960). Bertram Gross, in a chapter on social systems accounting, called for the development of comprehensive models describing the structure and performance of entire social systems. Such models might serve to counter what Gross called the “new Philistinism”, the tendency of hard measurements, usually in dollars, to dominate equally important, but softer, measurements. At about the same time, the President’s Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress called for the development of a system of social accounts (1966, pp. 96-97); and Senator Mondale proposed a council of social advisors and an annual social report from the President to Congress. Under the supervision of Assistant Secretary William Gorham and his successor, Alice Rivlm, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare produced Toward a Social Report (1969), an influential statement of the need for social indicators, written chiefly by Mancur Olson. The report said, “We have measures of death and illness, but not measures of physical vigor or mental health. We have measures of the level and distribution of income, but no measures of the satisfaction that income brings” (p. xiv). The volume defined social indicators as “in all cases . . . direct measure(s) of welfare”, and contrasted them with the more readily available measures of government expenditures and other “inputs” of various kinds (crime rates versus number of police officers, for example) (p. 97). This distinction, roughly that between outputs and inputs, has been influential but controversial, because it is neither exhaustive nor unambiguous. The output of one social process may be the input to another. For

Development Without Communities: Social Fields, Networks, and Action in the Mambila Grasslands of Nigeria

Abstract: TTEMPTS TO DESCRIBE, UNDERSTAND, and A explain small-scale and/or local social systems have been a major part of research by many anthropologists and other social scientists for several decades. Both improved data bases and conceptual advances, particularly since 1950, now enable better analyses to be made. Several significant changes have occurred in theory and methodology, including the construction of new paradigms and models. Today, there seems to be a growing consensus that many assumptions about the nature of social systems commonly made by social structuralist and functionalist approaches should be modified, possibly even reversed, and certainly made problematic. Rules, norms, ideology, patterns, equilibrium, integration, stability, boundedness, corporateness, and systemness are among the many attributes of social systems that are progressively being conceptualized to be variable, impermanent, and sometimes elusive. Furthermore, it is widely held that improved understanding and explanation of social systems can be attained if they are studied in wider spatial (regional, continental, and worldwide) and temporal frameworks (M. G. Smith 1966; C. A. Smith 1976).

Social systems and learning systems

Abstract: In today's social and behavioral sciences, the complexity of many problems requires the development of a number of highly specialized disciplines. However, the cost of such development is the obscuring of the relationships between these disciplines. This dilemma calls for a "mixed strategy" that combines the advantages of specialization with those of a unified viewpoint. The purpose of this book is to provide the connective tissue that is needed to obtain an overall view. The principles of general system theory naturally lead to a framework that includes many known models and content areas; our intention is to strike a balance between generality and plain usefulness. The first part of this book introduces a social system as a network of inter acting decision makers. This general framework allows a classification of a num ber of more specific structures, which include autocratic and democratic systems, systems with collective and individual decision making, and systems with and without coalitions. In the second part, various psychological schools are seen as specific instances of a general paradigm, which is consequently a point of departure for a taxon omy of learning systems. For a full understanding of this matter, we recommend a careful study of the first four chapters as an introduction to the concepts elaborated in the second part of the book. ix PREFACE x Though the subject matter has a formal background, it does not require a mathematical knowledge in depth; familiarity with elementary probability theory and linear algebra is enough."

Community studies: the social anthropological heritage and its popularity in ireland

Abstract: A Community Studies tradition based on the theory and methods of a functionalist social anthropology has since the 1930's been the dominant one in both characterising the social structure of rural Ireland and in theorising social change in Ireland in general. This social anthropological method, while of possible utility in the study of primitive cultures and peoples, confronts certain difficulties when attempts are made to employ pure ethnographic analysis as a method for studying social change in either urban or rural settings in industrialising societies like Ireland. Despite attempts to do so, the Community Studies tradition has been unable to establish a coherent method for the study of local social systems and their structural relations of dependency on wider social, economic and political forces at play in capitalist social formations. Instead, it has fallen on an isolationist approach to studying local areas. In Irish sociology this abstractionism is inevitably undergirded by some variant of the modernisation thesis in which ‘traditional life and culture’ is progressively ‘threatened’ by the onslaught of urban‐industrial modernity.

VARIETIES OF HUMAN BRAIN ORGANIZATION AND THE HUMAN SOCIAL SYSTEM by J erre Levy

Abstract: The core of any social structure, from ant to man, is the differentia­ tion of social roles such that each member of the group contributes his special skills and abilities while receiving from others the benefits of theirs. It is this role differentiation and mutual interdependence that constitute the definition of social organization and that provide for its maintenance, stability, and quality. In the case of the social insects we have a pretty fair understanding of the mechanisms responsible for the critical diversity of roles, but in the case of our own species there has been litde attempt to acquire evidence since, for the most part, the answer has been assumed. Typically man has been viewed as an infinitely plastic clay to be molded at will by social forces, and the diversity of human social roles has been seen as a direct consequence of the social system. Even from the perspective of sociobiology, although the social structure itself is attributed to evolutionary factors, the human infant born into that structure is perceived as having an invariant set of characteristi cs that define his species identity and that make it possible for him to be conditioned by the extant social forces into any role demanded by the culture. In this view the etiology of human social differentiation is assumed to differ little from that of the social insects. Indeed what we call moral or ethical behavior, or more narrowly "altruistic" behavior, is, as for the insect, a result of kin selection: There is no real altruism, only the selfish gene's attempt to preserve itself. SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AND BEHAVIORAL DIVERSITY The idea that each human being is unique in his skills and propen­ sities, that he seeks to find his own niche where his special abilities

Values and Rights Underlying Social Justice

Abstract: A society is judged by the norms that govern the lives of its members. The part of the norm structure that is enforced by the state is the legal system, which reflects the rights, privileges, and obligations of the citizens. Ideally the legal system is expected to preserve individual interests of the citizens as well as collective interests of the community. This structure is judged in its entirety or in part by reference to some fundamental values. The value which immediately strikes us is the satisfaction of interests; the two other values recognized as fundamental in social evaluation are freedom and justice. The concept of justice—the focus of this essay—is not a simple one; it is multidimensional. One of its dimensions we characterize as social justice. In this essay we shall be concerned both with the general problem of how these values are employed in the evaluation of a social system and with the more specific role of the value of social justice in that scheme. A decision to change the social structure, particularly by changing its legal system, is a political decision and must be examined as such. However, the scheme for evaluation that will emerge will set the limits of rationality to political decisions and hence their justifications.

Revolution, reaction, and reform: the change theory of parsons's middle period

Abstract: The “conflict school” in contemporary sociology emerged in large part as a critique of the theory of social change that Talcott Parsons developed during his middle period, which began with the empiricallyoriented essays that appeared after The Structure of Social Action (Parsons, 1937), and extended through the simultaneous publication of Towards a General Theory of Action (Parsons and Shils, 1951) and The Social System (Parsons, 1951). The conflict critique, now enshrined in textbook lore and highbrow writing alike, accused Parsons of a static, idealist bias that ignored issues of process, conflict, and change. While Parsons's attitude toward change, during this and later periods of his development, was complex and often ambiguous, this evaluation was certainly incorrect. I will demonstrate, in fact, that in this middle period Parsons actually produced a more systematic and compelling approach to conflict and change than the theories produced by the conflict critics themselves. In the first part of this paper, I will present the formal elements of Parsons's change theory. The second part will add substance to this theory by showing how Parsons applied it to the empirical problematics of recent Western development. In the third section, I will relate this formal and substantive theorizing to the vastly misunderstood deviance paradigm from The Social System. In conclusion, I will return to the question with which I began: What is the real relationship between the conflict theorists and their very useful straw man, “Talcott Parsons”?1

Social Network Analysis: A New Tool For Understanding Individual and Family Functioning

Abstract: During the last decade, social work, along with the other helping professions, has moved toward conceptualizing practice within a social systems framework. Intrapsychic variables are still important but, increasingly, the emphasis is on the clients' intimate social network as both cause and solution of a wide range of social problems. It is now widely believed that clients' well-being is enhanced when system functioning is enhanced (Gitterman and Germain, 1976). Most of what social workers know about social systems theory comes from the sociological literature, particularly the social action system of Talcott Parsons. Although this orientation has great heuristic value for social work practice, it has been limited in its ability to generate new practice theory because of its high level of generality. For social workers, like sociologists before them, Parsonian systems theory has proved so difficult to operationalize that the hoped-for linkages and the anticipated development of new theory from the general theory have not materialized (Pfouts and Galinsky, 1976). The authors believe that an important movement towards clarification of system properties and relationships is currently under way in the form of social network analysis. In recent years, a number of researchers from a variety of disciplines have explored the use of social networks and the specific properties of those networks as a means of operationalizing and expanding upon our intuitive understanding of the importance of social bonds. The result of this effort is a growing body of knowledge which draws not only upon systems theory but also upon previous research in other areas such as kinship, support systems, adaptation to stress, organizational theory, and information exchange. The Meaning of Social Network The concept of a social network was first employed by the anthropologist J. A. Barnes in his pioneering study of a Norwegian island parrish (Barnes, 1954). In defining network, Barnes said: Each person is, as it were, in touch with a number of people, some of whom are directly in touch with each other and some of whom are not. . . . I find it convenient to talk of a social field of this kind as a network. The image *An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, Boston, Massachusetts, March 1979.

Social System Framework and Causal History: Part I, Learning Processes

Abstract: This paper aims to begin to construct a framework for developing “causal history.” By causal history I mean the understanding (and not just the depicting) of processes that take place in space and time which bear upon the historic record of man’s habitation of the planet Earth. Implicit is the assumption that, in the narrow sense, causes of these processes can be discovered-whether these processes are broad sweeping and take place over centuries or are much shorter and pertain to day-today decisions of significant moment. Viewed in the above manner, causal history is only part of the larger set of processes taking place over time and space, which is usually taken to constitute evolution. Evolution covers both adaptation (nonmotivated behavior) and motivated behavior. According to the synthetic theory of evolution and its recent extensions, the forms and structures of matter (including human societies) that have survived at any point of time and space are those that have met the competition. It would be extremely convenient if we could limit causal history to processes generated by motivated behavior, were we able to define that concept. But we cannot. Motivated behavior takes place in an environment where adaptation (and hence change) is omnipresent. Therefore, such change must be taken into account when we try to understand and then desirably forecast motivated behavior and the processes consequent to it. Nonetheless, as a working definition we can narrow our exceedingly difficult task and view causal history as motivated behavior within a setting of constant, ongoing adaptations. The realm of motivated behavior is not only immense, but complex beyond description. All that any one can legitimately aspire to do is to

The myopia of social systems

Abstract: The policy and decision-making processes of modern economically developed societies are essentially dominated by an internal dynamics, comprising information flows and feedback mechanisms all directed to maintain or if possible extend growth. It is as though the cybernetic law of the System is PIPO, i.e. Paradigm In-Paradigm Out. Thus our social system is programmed by the total permeation of a dominant social paradigm of growth and progress resting on the acquisition of technology. Each of the major sub-systems, i.e. politics, economics, culture and technology are integrated to the total system by adaptive and reinforcing information flows, in effect locked into the growth imperative. The entire system is plagued by a number of informational cybernetic and analytical malfunctions including the current dominant linear reductionist mode of thinking leading to a tendency to maximize the rate of return on investment (political, military and economic). There is also a conflict of time-frame, i.e. between short-term positive returns and long-term negative impacts. The future is thus effectively discounted as quantity consistently defeats quality. The paradigmatic infection spreads to policy and regulatory tools and techniques. Quality of Life (QOL) Indicators and environmental protection generally are effectively deoperationalized and tend to be tokenistic. Bad quantity, in effect, drives out good quality. KEY PHRASES Cybernetic dysfunctions of social and policy systems; Policies and paradigms; Epistemological and entropic limits; Omniscient reductionist rationality; Ideology of progress; Elite accommodation; “Faustian bargains”; Reductionism ad absurdem; Paradigmatic infection; Dominance of positive feedback; Discounting the future; Quantity drives out quality; The quantitative bias; Quality of life equals quantity of life.

The Epistemology of ‘Analytical Realism’

Abstract: It will have been clear from Chapter 1 that the analysis of Parsons attempted here does not begin with the epistemological theses which Parsons has advanced and treat them as a ‘foundation’ from which his work flowers. We have seen that Bershady’s reading of Parsons operates on precisely such a basis: the analysis attempts to relate and compare epistemological objectives with their realisation or non-realisation in Parsonian social theory. Against this, the analyses of action, the social system, the structural-functional theory of the economy and social change which are developed in the following chapters deny the determinant status of epistemology over discourse-in-general. These areas of theory are treated internal to themselves, not as substantive reflections of epistemological objectives; they are treated as concepts and not as products.

Toward a Social Reporting System : A Critical Assessment of Its Current Status, Republic of Korea

Abstract: This study is designed to review, for the purpose of establishing a social reporting system in the Republic of Korea, (1) theoretical and methodological considerations, (2) the development of the social indicator movement in Korea, (3) the current status of the social indicator system, and (4) the quality and suitability of various data available for measures of social indicators. Three major arguments are presented in this paper. A social reporting system, first of all, has to be designed in such a way that it ref/ects and measures social welfare. Welfare is regarded more as a collective social condition than as a summation of the psychological dispositions of individuals. Therefore, emphasis must be given to the collection and presentation of data which allow us to appraise the complex problems of large-scale' social systems and the collective activities of a society. It is also stressed that subjective indicators consisting of individual perceptions, evaluations and attitudes should be used only sparingly and with great discretion since problems of improvement of welfare conditions and equity cannot be reduced to those of satisfaction and happiness at the individual level. Second, the necessity of institutionalizing the system of social reporting is highlighted. The ongoing method of data collection has to be critically reexamined and a new way of data compilation has to be pursued since government data-mostly of the "aggregated" type-fail to meet the needs for more practical and refined information. Finally, having raised the question of the purposes underlying the establishment of a social reporting system, two possible and mutually reinforcing alternatives are presented; i.e., to inform citizens and to guide policy planning.

Marginalization, reproduction and assaults against teachers: Ideas on the contradictions of ideological social control

Abstract: We have analyzed school stratification and delinquent behavior by demonstrating that the connection between the two can be explained more completely by reference to the nature and functioning of American capitalism. By way of a thorough analysis of the reproduction forces at work today in American capitalism, as well as the way consciousness is formed through the satisfaction and fulfillment of species needs and powers, our investigation linked delinquent behavior (assaults against teachers) and school stratification with the social system of which they are embedded. Concentrating initially on the structural forces at work within the labor market, we were able to uncover the foundations which mold the social relations of production. We then turned our investigation to the school, revealing how the underlying function of secondary education today is the reproduction of the social relations of production. With a thorough understanding of these two interrelated phenomena, we were then able to explain why minority students attack secondary school teachers at a higher rate than other students. Specifically, it is because of thecontradiction between the creation of a personality possessing autonomous and independent behavior traits, with emphasis on violent behavior patterns as a means of solving interpersonal problems (marginalization), and the austere authoritarian and control mechanisms of the school (reproduction).

Beyond the image paradigm: Systemic evolution through participative planning

Abstract: This paper is an attempt at introducing a formal framework for societal, participative, anticipatory, inner‐change oriented and open‐ended ‘’ learning for evolution.” The key point of our approach is that it considers the evolution of a social system not exclusively as an appropriate result of the given system structure, operating and behaving under external constraints; but mainly as an outer (or observable) consequence of some inner changes brought about from within the system of heterogenous actors‐designers in their effort to cope with complexities generated equally by external constraints and by the network of mutual relationships between them. The actors‐designers are thus trying to assess critically the courses the system could possibly take in the future and also to isolate —through a dialogue between them—the so‐called “evolutionary” ones. Consequently, a policy‐oriented approach to “social homcorhesis” is obtained. It opens the way to a participative planning outlook on societal learning.