Showing papers on "Social system published in 1984"

Rethinking Gossip and Scandal

Abstract: Publisher Summary The analysis of gossip and scandal suggests that formal and informal social controls are not distinct and unrelated processes. They have significant continuities. Informal gossip may lead to formal collective implementation or feed into formal institutions of social control. For example, when gossip leads to a consensus in small-scale societies, leaders convert this into a formal sanction such as banishment or execution. In complex societies, informal talk acquires power through its impact on formal agencies. Further, the role of gossip and scandal in social control does not differ sharply between small-scale and complex societies. Gossip and scandal flourish whenever there are close-knit social networks and normative homogeneity. In both urban and rural societies, it serves as a way of drawing a social map of reputations and as a means of political competition and conflict. In both urban and rural societies, those with power and wealth, those who are marginal, and those with contacts outside the local social system are insulated from the consequences of gossip and relatively indifferent to its pressures. From this comparative analysis of the role of gossip and scandal, several specific hypotheses emerge that suggest general conditions under which they lead to effective social control.

Mechanisms, organisms and social systems

Abstract: Summary To think about anything requires an imnage or concept of it, a model. To think about a thing as complex as a social system most people use a model of something similar, simpler and more familiar. Traditionally, two types of models have been used in efforts to acquire information, knowledge and understanding of social systems: mechanistic and organismic. But, in a world of accelerating change, increasing uncertainty and growing complexity, it is becoming apparent that these are inadequate as guides to decision and action. The growing number of social crises and dilemmas that we face should be clear evidence that something is fundamentally wrong with the way we think about social systems. In this paper we describe and try to explain the deficiencies of the two traditional ways of thinking about social systems. We then develop a third type of model, one we believe does not suffer from these inadequacies, a social system model which seeks to penetrate beyond the nature of machine and organisms to understand social systems in their own right.

Do We Need a Concept of Culture

Abstract: Rohner's analysis of the concept of culture is critically examined, considering in particular the distinction drawn between culture and social system. His view is contrasted with that of Segall, who regards the concept of "culture" as redundant for cross-cultural psychology. It is argued that neither of these positions is adequate, and suggestions are made for ways out of the dilemma.

Complexity and intersubjectivity: towards the theory of niklas luhmann

Abstract: go changes ? even radical ones - in the course of its development. This is certainly true in the case of as powerful and original a thinker as Niklas Luhmann.1 Yet despite the unavoidable developments one idea has remained fixed and constant for him as a theme unfying all his studies from the beginning to the present. This idea is expressed as the ultimate function of social systems: the grasping and reduction of complexity.2 Luhmann believes that social systems grasp and reduce complexity in a way that distinguishes them significantly from all other kinds of systems. I should like to explore now certain key con? cepts in his presentation and demonstrate how it, in Burkhard Sievers words, "...requires an a-cybernetic as well as an a-sociological theory of world interpretation."3 In so doing I hope to be able to indicate how, in some of his earlier writings, Luhmann believes that transcen? dental phenomenology is an indispensible means of uncovering this world interpretation. In order to demonstrate this phenomenological investigations, both of the later Husserl and Schutz, will be introduced to form the connection between Luhmann's concept of social com? plexity and the intersubjective constitution of the social world. We can begin with the concept of system itself. It possesses a history of its own, according to Luhmann, which develops in four stages, culminating in a cybernetic interpretation. The first ? "classical" ? concept of system reaches back to antiquity. Both Plato (1964, p. 484) and Aristotle (1963, p. 194) employ the word sy sterna in the sense of a whole compounded of several parts or members.4 And Aristotle (1961, p. 280), for instance, says that a, "'Whole' means...[t] hat which so contains its contents that they form a unity; and this in two ways,

Changing the Definition of the Situation: Toward a Theory of Sociological Intervention

Abstract: The sociological intervention is identified as (1) directed at the operational definition of the situation and (2) taking into account the multiple, interacting layers of social participation framing human predicaments and their resolution. These are further differentiated, employing case examples, in terms of mode of attack — direct, indirect, or cooperative — and level of social context at which the intervention is directed — the personal, group, organizational, or social world being described here as "quantum'' levels of interest. While others may conduct such interventions, the sociological intervention is characterized as the special domain of the clinical sociologist. Sociology, unlike medicine or psychology, has never sought to maintain the strong disciplinary boundaries typical of "a specialty." Rather, in its historical posture of a generalizing social science encompassing the subject areas of the other social/behavioral disciplines, sociology has freely disseminated to others its findings, concepts, and methods while maintaining only a marginal interest in "applied" work. Consequently, while our subterranean tradition of clinical sociology reemerged around 1978, we have found it difficult to specify exactly the special contribution or expertise of the sociological practitioner. To limit the domain of clinical sociology to what self-identified clinical sociologists do or have done would, if anything, be counterproductive, as Lee (1973) and others have argued. As one who has been intimately concerned with the problem of defining our field for some years now, I believe we are ready to move beyond presentation of the variety of roles enacted by clinical sociologists (cf. Straus 1979a) to tease out the underlying logic of approach characterizing the specifically sociological intervention. In this paper, then, I shall state my findings that, on the basis of analyzing the published and unpublished literature of the field, the sociological interven51 52 CLINICAL SOCIOLOGY REVIEW/1984 tion may be characterized as (1) directed at the operational definition of the situation, in such a way as to (2) take into account the multiple, interacting layers of social participation framing human problems and predicaments and their resolution. Contemporary practitioners of clinical sociology almost universally characterize themselves as humanists in Lee's sense of the term (1973). While extrinsic to my general definition, this value orientation is useful when differentiating clinical sociological practice from more conventional "applied social science" (Lee 1978). Our interventions are aimed at empowering clients instead of simply adjusting them to the "realities of life." Rather than adopt the expert's role of prescribing a better or more appropriate reality for the client, we strive to minimize interference with the client's worlds and values; rather than serve the needs of "the system," we attempt to serve the needs of the human beings comprising the social unit or system in question (Straus 1982). Operational Definition of the Situation Translation of social theory, concept, and method into practice necessitates both theoretical eclecticism and some reworking of our usual formulations. Thomas's "definition of the situation" (1931) is usually understood phenomenologically to mean that whatever a person or group believes or accepts to be so is real in its consequences. While it is important to deal with socially constructed realities at this intrapersonal level, since they form the basis upon which conduct will be constructed by human actors (Blumer 1969), redefinition of internalized meanings and cognitive maps is mainly a concern of sociological counselors working with individuals and primary groups (Straus 1982). Most sociological interventions are more concerned with the manifestation of these "realities" in patterns of conduct and joint conduct being enacted by the individuals, groups, and/or systems under scrutiny. Thomas's statement of the principle was somewhat ambiguous about the nature of the definition of the situation, but was clear about the dialectical relationship between the individual's definition and the definition of the situation presented by others. These concepts are neatly summarized in Sarbin's (1976) characterization of the dramaturgical perspective holding that actors not only respond to situations, but also mold and create them....The interactions of participants define the situation. The units of interest are not individuals, not organisms, not assemblages of traits, but interacting persons in identifiable contexts. CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF THE SITUATION 53 It is the pattern of these interactions that corresponds to the operational definition of the situation and that is the target of sociological intervention. Levels of Social Context Both the original statement of definition of the situation and its dramaturgical operationalization are clear about the situated nature of conduct. They are not so clear about the complex and many-tiered nature of social ecologies and about how human behavior is situationally organized with respect to a subject's concrete location within that total social context. However, clinical sociologists are sensitive to the implications of how "social systems" at every level influence ongoing action. This sensitivity is then translated into practical actions designed to mitigate negative interlevel influences and/or to use these dynamics strategically to guide and stabilize positive change. As Freedman and Rosenfeld have put it (1983), the clinical sociologist uses a paradigm of "the integration of levels of focus" incorporating both "macro" and "micro" viewpoints. Thus, the characteristic sociological intervention combines multiple foci: "the group member, the groups to which the person belongs or desires to belong or not belong, organizations, committees, subcultures, culture, and society." In this paper it is necessary to adopt a typology of the various levels of social context; clearly, how one slices the social continuum represents a pragmatic choice relative to one's purpose. For example, Parsons (1951) selected a scheme appropriate to his theory of social action, while Lofland (1976) utilized an entirely different model of "human systems." As my purpose here is to describe sociological intervention generically, we will look at just four "quantum levels" of social participation: persons, groups, organizations, and worlds. The first two of these correspond to general usage. Persons are social actors defining themselves in conduct; for our purposes, they are their acts. The routinized patterns of conduct colloquially referred to as "one's act" are framed by (that is, organized in terms of) the culture of the worlds in which persons participate and the roles they play in the various groups in which they are involved. Each level of social structure is viewed as the emergent pattern of routinized conduct representing a dialectical synthesis between the next "higher" and "lower" levels. Groups, then, would be conceptualized as persons with more or less routinized social relations or roles. The actual role structure of the group operationally defines that group. As groups necessarily establish at least tacit patterns of relationship with other groups, they inevitably become tied into any number of formal or informal organizations. A special usage of organizations is employed here: this level of organized, identifiable intergroup relations is most often termed that of "social systems" 54 CLINICAL SOCIOLOGY REVIEW/1984 (Znaniecki 1934). However, since any interacting set of persons can be considered to form a "social system," and their relations can be analyzed in terms of systems theory (von Bertalanffy 1968), it seems best to employ another term for this structural level. Organizations, then, may range up through wider and wider scales of intergroup relations from "formal organizations," corporations, and associations to communities and governments. The operational definition of organizations consists of their institutions, meaning the routinized patterns of social relations often simply referred to as their "organization." The highest level of social context in this typology is the social world. This usage is adapted and expanded from Lofland's definition: "Complexly interrelated sets of encounters, roles, groups, and organizations seen by participants as forming a larger whole are often and properly thought of as 'worlds,' as in the phrases the business world,' 'the academic world,' the sports world'"(1976:29). In the sense employed here, a world is operationally defined by its culture, primarily the nonmaterial culture of norms, values, folkways, mores, language, and technology differentiating its participants from members of other social worlds. Those who share a subculture by definition share a world; larger-scale worlds might include the entire society, the civilization of which it is a part, and, possibly, Spaceship Earth itself. The Sociological Intervention If we identify the operational definition with the target of intervention, this scheme generates the following taxonomy of sociological intervention: Level of Target of Participation Intervention Persons Conduct Groups Role Structure Organizations Institutions

Macromarketing: A Social Systems Perspective Macromarketing: A Social Systems Perspective

Abstract: The marketing system is a differentiated subsystem of the society, performing functions necessary if society is to adapt to its material environment. In the performance of these functions, the marketing system has an impact on other social systems, the cultural system, and the material environment. This dual relationship is derived from a modified social systems paradigm.

Talcott Parsons's Analytical Critique of Marxism's Concept of Alienation

Abstract: Parsons's approach to the problem of alienation is compared with the Marxian use of the concept, as illustrated by C. B. Macpherson's critique of power in liberal-democratic societies. Macpherson shows that disalienation is possible in Marxist theory only if material abundance or undifferentiated access to the means of production is provided. In contrast, Parsons's approach to the study of modern society emphasizes that differentiated responsibility and authority for production and organization are irreversible and increasing. Because of this systemic trend toward functional differentiation, a single normative standard for recognizing either necessity or abundance in absolute terms cannot be assumed. Parsons's analytical approach to the economic subsystem of the social system also moves him to reject economists' notions of consumer sovereignty and utility. Thus, his schema dismisses a anachronisms bothe the "absolutism" of the model of the free market.

Some Issues in the Archaeology of “Tribal” Social Systems

Abstract: Saitta's (1983) comments on a model of the evolution of tribal social networks (Braun and Plog 1982) are discussed. Aspects of the model are clarified and problems with Saitta's interpretations are noted. In particular, we focus on questions concerning the relationship between stylistic variation and social networks and several issues concerning tribal social organization. We also address weaknesses in the alternative approach that Saitta describes.

Cybernetic Principles for the Design, Control, and Development of Social Systems and Some Afterthoughts

Abstract: In the last few years, the theme of self-organization has provoked a considerable volume of research in the natural sciences, and important (but, to my mind, still too little known) progress has been made in this field. The main question for us was to what extent this knowledge about self-organization could be transferred to social systems, e.g. firms. Such transfers — often leading to far-reaching conclusions — are nowadays being made, at a rapidly increasing rate, by social and management scientists, who mostly, however, have insufficient knowledge of the basic theories. As with “social Darwinism”, there is a danger that starting from misinterpretations and incorrect analogies, untenable theories will be developed relating to the social sciences. If this danger is to be avoided, a more thorough understanding of the basic theories and research results concerning these phenomena is required than can be obtained by reading secondary literature and a few popular-scientific essays. Basically, the question is: what are the arguments for and against a connection between the management of social systems and knowledge in the natural sciences, and in what areas can the natural sciences contribute something?

Social Development in Childhood

Abstract: From the moment of birth, a child is enmeshed in a social milieu, a network that, ideally, will offer security, love, and intimacy but will also require the acquisition and maintenance of an entire repertoire of social behaviors deemed appropriate by a particular group or culture Social development encompasses the task of growing up within a social system such that one is able to behave in that system’s socially accepted ways (Lewis, 1982) Traditionally, the study of social systems has fallen under the purview of anthropologists or sociologists, the study of interpersonal relationships has been a major focus of clinicians, and the study of social behaviors (eg, aggression, empathy) has captured the attention of social and developmental psychologists The past few years have heralded the emergence of interpersonal relationships and social knowledge as relevant topics of inquiry for developmentalists of all persuasions (cf Hinde, 1974; Lewis & Brooks-Gunn, 1979; Youniss, 1980)

Some Explanatory Boundaries of Organismic Analogies for the Understanding of Social Systems

Abstract: A long tradition in the analysis of social institutions incorporates organismic analogies and metaphors as basic components into general conceptual frameworks which serve as the general conceptual context within which more specific theoretical propositions that can be empirically tested are derived. A part of this tradition involves the attempt to extend biocybernetic and general systems principles whose origin comes from research on natural systems, to the analysis of complex social institutions. To the extent that these general perspectives of social systems employ metaphors and analogies from natural systems, it is important to investigate the explanatory or theoretical benefit that they provide for a better understanding of social institutions.

The Study of Urban Sociology

Abstract: Urban Sociology has a long history since it originated in the Chicago School. In analyzing the city social system, Urban Sociology has not taken into full account the connection between its own system and the overall social system (nation state). If this is the case, where has this prevailing character of Urban Sociology come from ?From the point I have raised above, this paper attempts to explain the important problems of Urban Sociology. Above all, I question whether these characteristics of Urban Sociology have been caused by the actual form of the social systems of American cities, where there are peculiar features of American society. The existing local systems of American cities are characterized by decentralization of central authority and the autonomy of local government systems, which is symbolized by the >home rule< system.At any rate, American cities have unusual autonomy as compared to cities in industrialized countries. Recently these autonomous cities, working independently from the central governmont, are changing. Nevertheless the fundanmental type of traditional American city life system has remained unchanged.In conclusion I hope to emphasize the peculiar theoretical characteristics of Urban Sociology in relation to the overall social system (nation state) by analyzing the actual form of American city life system.

Alternative Theory And Utopian Models

Abstract: A theoretical model of human systems is presented based on the basic paradigms upon which families, groups, and social systems can be organized. Four fundamentally distinct paradigms are described and the interrelationships among them explored, with special consideration given to the “social evolution” of systems organized on these paradigms. Implications for the study of alternative lifestyles and utopian societies are discussed.

The Social Network as an Etiological Factor in Mental Illness and as a Therapeutic Approach

Abstract: Although this paper has a number of aims and objectives, perhaps the most important objective is to show how the concept of the “Social Network,” as we have come to use it, evolved. In addition, we will show how the concept influenced the research program, that we have been carrying out, and its development. At the outset, it is necessary to indicate how our use of the concept differs from the prevailing usage in the literature. For our purposes, the “Social Network” is a group of individuals who interact with each other, and maintain an ongoing stable set of relationships. The network, as a consequence of the sustained interaction, takes on some of the qualities of a social system, e.g., class and status characteristics, value consensus, a system of rewards and punishments, cohesion, goals and aspirations, etc. The social network may also be seen as a micro social system. This concept is to be distinguished from the macro social system concept which refers to larger segments of society or even to the total society in which an individual is functioning.

Complexity and intersubjectivity: Towards the theory of Niklas Luhmann

Abstract: go changes ? even radical ones - in the course of its development. This is certainly true in the case of as powerful and original a thinker as Niklas Luhmann.1 Yet despite the unavoidable developments one idea has remained fixed and constant for him as a theme unfying all his studies from the beginning to the present. This idea is expressed as the ultimate function of social systems: the grasping and reduction of complexity.2 Luhmann believes that social systems grasp and reduce complexity in a way that distinguishes them significantly from all other kinds of systems. I should like to explore now certain key con? cepts in his presentation and demonstrate how it, in Burkhard Sievers words, "...requires an a-cybernetic as well as an a-sociological theory of world interpretation."3 In so doing I hope to be able to indicate how, in some of his earlier writings, Luhmann believes that transcen? dental phenomenology is an indispensible means of uncovering this world interpretation. In order to demonstrate this phenomenological investigations, both of the later Husserl and Schutz, will be introduced to form the connection between Luhmann's concept of social com? plexity and the intersubjective constitution of the social world. We can begin with the concept of system itself. It possesses a history of its own, according to Luhmann, which develops in four stages, culminating in a cybernetic interpretation. The first ? "classical" ? concept of system reaches back to antiquity. Both Plato (1964, p. 484) and Aristotle (1963, p. 194) employ the word sy sterna in the sense of a whole compounded of several parts or members.4 And Aristotle (1961, p. 280), for instance, says that a, "'Whole' means...[t] hat which so contains its contents that they form a unity; and this in two ways,

An analysis of research institutional roles in developing countries

Abstract: Five distinct roles have been identified for research institutions in a representative developing country. The analysis is based on a framework which combines a social research and development model with a social systems engineering model. The result suggests a complementarity of roles to be played by universities, research centers, and government authorities.

Synthesis of the Theory of Action and the Theory of Social System

Abstract: According to my opinion, the construction of the social theory needs to synthe-size the theory of action and the theory of social system.This view agrees with Parsons' conception. But the theory of Parsons fails to explain fully the interrelations of action and “Handlungszusammenhang” i.e. social order.This task is, however, the problem assigned to Parsons but also to the modern sociology as a whole. For the basic feature of the social theory lies in the attempt to set both “Subjektiv gemeinter Sinn” and the social structure into the view.N. Luhmann suggests that in order to explain actions, the theory of social system in general should be integrated with the conception of action, which pays attention to actors' “Subjektiv gemeinter Sinn”, and that at the same time the theory of action needs to be based on the theory of social system. Anyway, Luhmann thinks of “Konstitutionszusammenhang von Handlung and System” with the help of concepts of “Selbstreferenz” of the social system and “Basale Selbst-referenz” of actions.From this perspective, Luhmann thinks that the basic conception of the theory of social system makes a new approach to “actions” possible.In this thesis, an attempt is made to discuss the central point of Luhmann's theory.