Showing papers on "Social system published in 2004"

Social Capital and the Diffusion of Innovations Within Organizations: The Case of Computer Technology in Schools

Abstract: Although the educational community has learned much about better educational practices, less is known about processes for implementing new practices. The standard model of diffusion suggests that people change perceptions about the value of an innovation through communication, and these perceptions then drive implementation. But implementation can be affected by more instrumental forces. In particular, members of a school share the common fate of the organization and affiliate with the common social system of the organization. Thus, they are more able to gain access to each others' expertise informally and are more likely to respond to social pressure to implement an innovation, regardless of their own perceptions of the value of the innovation. This article characterizes informal access to expertise and responses to social pressure as manifestations of social capital. Using longitudinal and network data in a study of the implementation of computer technology in six schools, the authors found that the effects of perceived social pressure and access to expertise through help and talk were at least as important as the effects of traditional constructs. By implication, change agents should attend to local social capital processes that are related to the implementation of educational innovations or reforms.

Together at the Table: Sustainability and Sustenance in the American Agrifood System

Abstract: Together at the Table explores alternative food movements within the context of broader social movements. Patricia Allen, at the Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems at the University of California–Santa Cruz, argues that alternative food movements have emerged because of an “increased knowledge of the agrifood system and an increased understanding that the system can be changed” (p.1). To make this argument, Allen focuses on agriculture in California and the United States because of their dominance in the world market. Allen begins with the assumption that our current agrifood system is not sustainable and that it cannot meet global food security needs. In order to “achieve ecological soundness and social justice” (p.16), the current agrifood system must be altered on three levels: environmental, social, and economic—echoing John Ikerd’s contention that sustainable agriculture must be “environmentally compatible, socially supportive, and commercially competitive.”1 Allen further contends that these changes take place inside the farm gate and beyond—paralleling Thomas Lyson’s suggestion that we shift from the current industrial agriculture paradigm and adopt a “civic agriculture” that better links farms and communities.2 Chapter two, “Perspectives on Alternative Food Movements,” effectively draws linkages between seemingly disparate social movements based on women’s suffrage, the environment, and alternative food. Allen also establishes that alternative food movements tend to be against capitalism and the disparities that result from the social stratification of wealth and power. Chapter three explores how those involved in these movements benefit by challenging the status quo. There are practical ramifications of improving the food security and welfare of consumers. By changing their consumption patterns, Allen argues that individuals make a political statement about the status of their food system. In doing so, consumers recognize their power to alter the food system and become more willing to participate in other social movements. Chapter four examines how alternative agrifood movements are embedded within the existing capitalist system and hence do not challenge that system. This, of course, belies a core pillar of this social movement—anticapitalism. Allen goes on to suggest that political ecology represents a viable framework for examining both the environmental and social aspects of the agrifood system. While this position may be true, Allen does not fully use this framework to explore complex issues like gender and ethnicity that affect every agrifood system, including those in California. Chapter five explores how alternative agrifood movements may reproduce the same systemic problems they are trying to demolish. Chapter six explains that this result can occur because participants in the alternative agrifood movement come from middle-class backgrounds. This chapter shows how closely aligned privilege and power are to empowerment and social change. As an anthropologist and geographer, respectively, the reviewers found this discussion lacking, as it did not fully explore the historical and geographical specifics of California and how the variables of gendered and ethnic landownership, migrant labor, and environmental assets have allowed the agrifood movements to flourish in this setting. In chapter seven, Allen addresses the concerns some have about localized food movements. She deftly explores asymmetries of power within and between communities based on differences in access to resources. In chapter eight, “The Politics of Sustainability and Sustenance,” Allen succinctly explains how current agricultural policy is formed and argues that the agrifood movement must work with the environmental movement to change agricultural policy. By joining forces, a stronger coalition can reach more people to “‘transcend particularities, and arrive at some conception of a universal alternative to that social system which is the source of their difficulties.’”3 The final chapter, “Working toward Sustainability and Sustenance,” addresses the failure of social movements like the agrifood movement to fully examine the differences between reform and transformation. If the alternative agrifood movement wants to avoid further institutionalization, it must speak to some of the core issues inherent to our agrifood system and devise ways in which to address them successfully. Scholars, consumers, and activists interested in the alternative food movement will find this book useful. Allen does a fine job of addressing her objective: “to offer information and insights that can contribute to the reflexive efforts of the alternative agrifood movement as it continues to develop” (p.19). Ultimately, Together at the Table enables one to think about the agrifood movement in a more holistic manner, question our individual roles in the food system, and analyze our consumer nature and place in the world.

The Mechanisms of Emergence

Abstract: This article focuses on emergence in social systems. The author begins by proposing a new tool to explore the mechanisms of social emergence: multi agent–based computer simulation. He then draws on philosophy of mind to develop an account of social emergence that raises potential problems for the methodological individualism of both social mechanism and of multi agent simulation. He then draws on various complexity concepts to propose a set of criteria whereby one can determine whether a given social mechanism generates emergent properties, in the sense that their explanation cannot be reduced to a mechanistic account of individuals and their interactions. This combined account helps to resolve the competing claims of methodological individualists and social realists. The author’s conclusion is that the scope of mechanistic explanation may be limited due to the extreme complexity of many social systems.

Can Social Systems be Autopoietic? Bhaskar's and Giddens' Social Theories

Abstract: The theory of autopoiesis, that is systems that are self-producing or self-constructing, was originally developed to explain the particular nature of living as opposed to non-living entities. It was subsequently enlarged to encompass cognition and language leading to what is known as second-order cybernetics. However, as with earlier biological theories, many authors have tried to extend the domain of the theory to encompass social systems, the most notable being Luhmann. The purpose of this paper is to consider critically the extent to which the theory of autopoiesis, as originally defined, can be applied to social systems-that is, whether social systems are autopoietic. And, if it cannot, whether some weaker version might be appropriate. It addresses this question by considering whether autopoiesis can be applied to the theoretical conceptions of Giddens and Bhaskar. It follows an earlier paper that evaluated Luhmann's autopoietic social theory.

On Financial Crises

Abstract: In the wake of September 11th, the crisis field has gained a great deal of relevance in both academic and practitioner circles. Suddenly, policymakers and managers have become interested in crisis research findings, funding is forthcoming, and academics of many a feather are flocking to the scene. Crisis used to be a ‘sexy’ topic, but it is now red hot. The crisis field is marked by ill-defined boundaries. It is made up of specialized academics drawn from many disciplines (i.e. disaster sociology, public administration, political science, international relations and management). They tend to define crisis in terms of some basic threat to the core values of a system, necessitating urgent response under conditions of severe uncertainty. It is this catch-all character of the crisis definition that allows for communication between these academics and makes for what I here refer to as a ‘generic’ crisis field. So what interesting research findings has this field yielded? This is best discussed and evaluated on the basis of two crucial questions, which, incidentally, signal the societal relevance of this research field. The first question asks why a social system – a firm, a town, a nation or a global network – experiences a crisis. The second question asks why some systems manage to minimize the crisis impact where others suffer severe damages. A general consensus is emerging in the crisis field with regard to these questions, and can be summarized in a handful of principles. The first principle, which can be considered the bottom line of this research consensus, holds that crises will always be with us. We may learn from previous out-of-the-box events and develop tailor-made coping repertoires only to discover that the nature of crisis is continuously changing. The implications are sobering: crisis prevention is a good idea, but it will never make us safe from new crises. Increased airport safety may be great, but it will not protect us from future terrorist attacks. The second principle is deduced logically from the first. If crisis prevention is essentially impossible, organizational and societal resilience must be the proper way to prepare for and deal with crises. The idea of resilience, perhaps explained best by the late Aaron Wildavsky (1988) in his classic Searching for Safety, directs our energy toward the design of organizational structures that facilitate flexible and resourceful answers to unknown future problems. This translates into a formidable challenge. Whereas modern organizations are typically geared toward routine production – effective and efficient – this principle of crisis management demands inherent redundancy. However, this is not something stockholders, stakeholders or voters tend to reward. British Journal of Management, Vol. 15, 191–195 (2004) 191

Bridging the Micro–Macro Divide: A New Basis for Social Science

Abstract: A ‘pervasive’ problem in the social sciences, referred to as the ‘micro to macro problem’ concerns our capacity to explain the relationship between the constitutive elements of social systems (people) and emergent phenomena resulting from their interaction (i.e. organizations, societies, economies). Without a capacity to explain this relationship there is, in effect, no substantive theory of sociality. In this article, we explore the potential of a synthesis between autopoietic and complexity theory for understanding social systems in a way that addresses this issue. It is argued that autopoietic theory provides a basis for understanding the characteristics of the microlevel agents that make up social systems – human individuals, whereas complexity theory provides a basis for understanding how these characteristics influence the range and type of macro-level phenomena that arise from their interaction. The synthesis proposed here provides the basis for a theory of sociality that deals consistently with th...

The Social Differentiation of the Educational System

Abstract: In line with a long sociological tradition, Niklas Luhmann has analysed the basic characteristics of modern society in terms of social differentiation. Luhmann has focused on the forms of differentiation, and argued that modern society is differentiated according to subsystems that concentrate on one function (e.g. the economy, law, science, politics, education). In the first part of the article, I explore the backgrounds of this systems-theoretical framework. In the second part, this framework is used to analyse the structural characteristics of the educational system. This system has its basis in the school’s complexes of interaction and organization. But education is also confronted with the consequences of its own autonomy, its own mode of operating. It is suggested that these secondary effects have more impact on the evolution of this system than its societal environment.

The Emergence of Trust Networks under Uncertainty: The Case of Transitional Economies—Insights from Social Psychological Research

Abstract: When uncertainty and risk are associated with economic and social transactions, relatively closed trust networks often emerge to facilitate various types of informal cooperation. In Russia, for example, “blat” is an extensive form of informal exchange that emerged to provide scarce resources and services or favors (Ledeneva 1998; Lomnitz 1988). Moving from a social system in which the dominant mode of interaction is closed groups or networks to more open networks, such as those required to support the transition to a market economy and democratic institutions, is likely to be difficult. Our main claim is that uncertainty and risk (such as that created by corruption and dishonesty) lead to the formation of trust networks that are narrow and closed. One disadvantage of such closed networks of exchange is that they limit access to opportunities outside the network.

Governance, microgovernance and health

Abstract: Governance, by which I mean the management of the course of events in a system, is an overarching issue of concern to health from an ecological point of view. Governance consists largely in the policing social relations, environmental conditions and the allocation of resources essential to well-being. Who decides, and how they decide, are key drivers of substantive policy. Moreover, there is at least some epidemiological evidence that the ability of people to participate in the governance of their communities is in itself significant for health. This paper offers an emerging theory of "nodal governance" to describe the management of events in social systems. The use of this theory in mapping, assessing and then productively "destabilizing" these systems is discussed, with particular attention to the extent to which promoting "microgovernance" institutions is a plausible strategy for improving population health. Nodal governance focuses attention on how governance happens - how power is wielded - at specific points within a system, and thus raises essential normative questions about democratic decision making. But the theory, with its obvious intellectual debts to network theory, systems theory and the work of Hayek, also seems to imply a challenge to the sort of thinking about regulation and law often encapsulated in the idea of the "risk society." In the final section of the paper I conclude with some speculations about new, constitutive paradigms for social governance.

Observing International Relations. Niklas Luhmann and World Politics

Abstract: 1. Introduction Part 1: Luhmann and IR: A worthwhile encounter? 2. On the Modern Systems Theory of Society and IR: Contacts and disjunctures between different kinds of theorizing 3. Politics, Modern Systems Theory and the Critical Purpose of International Relations Theory 4. 'Corpus Mysticum': Niklas Luhmann's evocation of world society Part 2: Competing Notions of World Society and World Society as the 'Largest Social System Possible' 5. The 'English School' and World Society 6. Sociological Institutionalism and the Empirical Study of World Society 7. World Society from the Bottom Up 8. World Society, Systems Theory and the Classical Sociology of Modernity Part 3: Bringing Modern Systems Theory to the study of IR: Concepts and questions 9. Systems and Sovereignty: A systems theoretical look at the transformation of sovereignty 10. 'World Opinion' and the Turn to Post-sovereign International Governance 11. Society's War: The evolution of a self-referential military system 12. Organizations in/and World Society: A theoretical prolegomenon 13. Governance in a World Society: The perspective of systems theory 14. Constructivism and International Relations: An analysis of Luhmann's conceptualization of power 15. Concluding Remarks

Social sciences are branches of biology

Abstract: Since biology is the study of living organisms, their behaviour and social systems, and since humans are living organisms, it is possible to suggest that social sciences (the study of human behaviour and social systems) are branches of biology and all social scientific theories should be consistent with known biological principles. To claim otherwise and to establish a separate science only for humans might be analogous to the establishment of hydrogenology, the study of hydrogen separate from and inconsistent with the rest of physics. Evolutionary psychology is the application of evolutionary biology to humans, and provides the most general (panspecific) explanations of human behaviour, cognitions, emotions and human social systems. Evolutionary psychology’s recognition that humans are animals can explain some otherwise perplexing empirical puzzles in social sciences, such as why there is a wage penalty for motherhood but a wage reward for fatherhood, and why boys produce a greater wage reward for fathers than do girls. The General Social Survey data illustrate the evolutionary psychological argument that reproductive success is important for both men’s and women’s happiness, but money is only important for men’s.

Why I Stopped Trying to Understand the Real World

Abstract: Years ago, I believed that rationality could manufacture understanding. I lived in physical and social environments that were real and I wanted to understand the social realities. I wanted to create a genuine ‘behavioral science’ based on mathematical models, computer simulation, and systematic experiments. Various experiences over the years have challenged these beliefs. I discovered that rationality can not only be a deceptive tool but a potentially dangerous one, and I learned a few techniques to help me challenge my rational thought. I discovered that research findings have very low reliabilities, that some fields make no discernible progress over many decades, and that societal cultures strongly influence researchers’ judgments about what constitutes useful knowledge. I saw that much that passes for research is merely random noise dressed up in pretentious language. Rather than realities, the social systems I was studying proved to be arbitrary categories created by observers or social conventions. I became an advocate for research that actively attempts to change situations rather than merely to observe what happens spontaneously.

The footprint of complexity: the embodiment of social systems

Abstract: This paper deals with organisational complexity, seen from the perspective of its unfolding from global to local concerns. Historically, this unfolding has produced rigid social systems, where those in power positions have forced unfair constraints over the majorities at the local level, and often excluded them. There is a need to move towards flexible, fair, social systems, inclusive in character. This transformation requires an increasing appreciation of communication problems in society and the embodiment of effective social systems. This transformation is presented as a problem‐solving paradigm which requires social systems with capacity to create and produce their own meanings, with capacity to manage necessary structural couplings among existing social systems, thus making this management a heuristic to produce necessary social differentiation to overcome communication failures among existing self‐producing, operationally closed, social systems. A key construct used in this paper to practically produce this management is the viable system model, developed by Stafford Beer.

The Antagonistic Self-Organization of Modern Society

Abstract: Christian Fuchs seeks a new theoretical approach to understanding the body politic. He is interested in theories of self-organization—how social systems and societies reproduce themselves—and Marxist theories of social conflict that emphasize change and discontinuity as well as reproduction of social forms. He argues that integrating concepts from the regulation school into a theory of social self-organization may help to avoid problems of reductionism and determinism when theorizing the self-reproduction of societies.

Marx and the Education of the Future.

Abstract: With reference to Karl Marx's writings on education, this article outlines the education of the future as anti-capitalist education. In starting out from a conception of communism as the ‘real move...

Expectations of Technology

Abstract: This article presents a preliminary analysis of the political and educational systems as regards their respective expectations of information technology and teachers’ and students’ use of personal laptop computers in high school, where they are regarded as two differentiated social functional systems. The theoretical basis is inspired by the German sociologist and system theorist Niklas Luhmann, and this analysis is rooted in the concept of systems, where the central concepts are learning and teaching. Thus in theory it is a question of operationalising Luhmann’s cognitive and communicative theories and his theory of social systems, focusing on the two mutually dependent concepts of learning and teaching, or in other words, the concepts of the construction of evidence and the specialised form of communication known as teaching.Assumptions regarding new technology have not been met to the degree expected. The present empirical study demonstrated that the concept “revolution,” used by the political ...

Taking Uncertainty Seriously: Complementarity as a Moving Target

Abstract: In the following I will discuss a few conceptual issues related to the notion of complementarity between economic institutions. My brief notes are not meant to debunk the concept. Quite to the contrary, they are a plea for more sophistication in its use. My central claim is that current usage of the concept makes too demanding assumptions on the rationality of the actors designing and enacting economic institutions. Moreover, it suggests too static a view of institutions. In both respects, it seems necessary to rethink and make explicit the microfoundations of the concept of complementarity, grounding it in both a realistic theory of rational action on the one hand and a dynamic theory of social institutions on the other.

Is autopoietic systems theory alexithymic? Luhmann and the socio-psychology of emotions

Abstract: After a critical examination of Luhmann’s observations concerning the emotions, a theory is developed according to which emotional processes are situated in the zones of structural coupling between organic, psychic and social systems. The theory draws attention to a substantive historical link between rights and emotions. This link is illustrated with some broad examples dealing with specific emotions, and with the generic concept of emotion.

Runaway Youth System Dynamics: A Theoretical Framework for Analyzing Runaway and Homeless Youth Policy:

Abstract: System dynamics models help explain why intuitive, well-intentioned solutions to social problems go awry when introduced into complicated social systems. In this article, the author develops a dyna...

Social Systems Theory as Theoretical Framework for Human Resource Management ? Benediction or Curse? Introduction to the Special Issue

Abstract: Social systems theory as developed by Niklas Luhmann is an option for the theoretical foundation of Human Resource Management (HRM). After clarifying the advantages of using a grand (social) theory as the basic theoretical perspective, the roots of this social systems theory ? the deterministic view of systems as machines, the open systems approach and non-linear systems theory ? are addressed. Based on the view of social systems as autopoietically closed systems, five major contributions to a theoretical foundation of HRM are identified: (1) the conceptualisation of organising and managing human resources as social processes, thus overcoming an individualistic angle; (2) the new importance of individuals as essential element in the system?s environment; (3) the abstention form far reaching or highly unrealistic assumptions about the ?nature? of human beings; (4) the interaction between various levels and units of analysis built into the theory which is essential for comprehensive and in-depth analyses of HR phenomena and (5) the openness for additional theories for which social systems theory provides the overall framework.

Advocacy in Organizations: The Elements of Success

Abstract: From the Gray Panthers to the National Alzheimer's Association, what creates the power to bring about a change? As soon as several of the inhabitants of the United States have taken up an opinion or a feeling which they wish to promote in the world, they look out for mutual assistance and, as soon as they have found each other out, they combine. From that moment they are no longer isolated men but a power seen from afar, whose actions serve for an example and whose language is listened to. -Alexis de Tocqueville Advocacy is the reason most nonprofit organizations are created. The desire to bring about a change in a human life or in the lives of a community is most often the driving force for creating an organization in the first place. Individuals can and do advocate, but organizations can do it better. They are able to muster resources and focus energy toward a goal, thereby increasing the chances of making change and improving lives on a large scale. Organizations, through advocacy, can change entire social systems and even cultures to make life better for one person or millions. For many people outside of Washington, D.C., however, the words advocacy, lobbying, and public policy are viewed as slightly suspect. These refer to mysterious concepts that suggest shady practices, special interest, influence peddling, and back-room deals. Advocacy, from this view, is something done by lobbyists or lawyers to ordinary unsuspecting people. It is about changing the natural order of things. The public, however, expects that nearly everything an organization does will include advocacy in some shape or form. And the more that fact is recognized and appreciated by organization leaders, the more effective an organization will become. A homehealth agency that brokers resources from other agencies is doing advocacy. A daycare center that draws press attention and in turn receives donations and support is doing advocacy for its clients. A national organization advocating for research funding or improvements in healthcare practices is providing a service to its constituents. What is advocacy in organizational life? What does it look like? What role does it play in successful organizations? What are the inherent conflicts surrounding advocacy, and what are the key elements that characterize effective advocacy? These are THe questions I will address here. Most of the observations in this article are based on my own personal experiences as an advocate over the past 30 years in a variety of organizational settings, from the university to Congress to the Gray Panthers to the Alzheimer's Association. Not all organizations approach advocacy in the same way. In fact, I believe that organizations engage in different forms of advocacy in part based on the stage of their organizational development or maturity. But, some elements of organizational advocacy are common across organizations. WHAT IS ADVOCACY IN AN ORGANIZATION? From the Advocacy Institute (2004), a Washington-based organization dedicated to social justice that advises other organizations on how to advocate, comes this concise definition: "Advocacy is pursuit of influencing outcomesincluding public policy and resource allocation decisions within political, economic, and social systems and institutions-that directly affect people's lives." 1 The definition goes on to note that advocacy is about moving from "what is" to "what should be" and that it is accomplished by, among other tilings, drawing attention to underlying or "submerged" issues, influencing public attitudes, and changing policies and practices. If we extend this definition, an advocacy organization influences outcomes affecting people's lives by attempting to alter the current policy or practice environment. While most organizations employ advocacy to some extent, some organizations make advocacy a central part of their culture, thereby becoming an "advocacy organization. …

Social Systems Theory as Theoretical Framework for Human Resource Management – Benediction or Curse?

Abstract: Social systems theory as developed by Niklas Luhmann is an option for the theoretical foundation of Human Resource Management (HRM). After clarifying the advantages of using a grand (social) theory as the basic theoretical perspective, the roots of this social systems theory – the deterministic view of systems as machines, the open systems approach and non-linear systems theory – are addressed. Based on the view of social systems as autopoietically closed systems, five major contributions to a theoretical foundation of HRM are identified: (1) the conceptualisation of organising and managing human resources as social processes, thus overcoming an individualistic angle; (2) the new importance of individuals as essential element in the system’s environment; (3) the abstention form far reaching or highly unrealistic assumptions about the ‘nature’ of human beings; (4) the interaction between various levels and units of analysis built into the theory which is essential for comprehensive and in-depth analyses of HR phenomena and (5) the openness for additional theories for which social systems theory provides the overall framework.

A reconsideration on the method of economic and social sciences: Procedure, rules, classifications

Abstract: This essay begins with an examination of the differences between natural reality and social reality, but along lines different from those of the traditional Methodenstreit. The aim is to clarify the methodological implications of these differences, which appear essential to proper motivation of the objectives, purposes, and the very existence of social economics. The analysis pays a particular attention to identifying some procedures useful in formulating general principles and, more broadly, to achieve some robust notions notwithstanding the growing intensification, in modern society, of innovation. A main result of the research is that it permits an unambiguous distinction between the aspects that express necessity and those that can be the object of choice in the organization and development of economic and social systems, and a peculiar treatment of ethical‐ideological aspects.

Action theory and communication research: Recent developments in Europe

Abstract: The action theoretical approach has already proved its value as a framework for communication research, most especially in the study of media audiences and media use. It has deep roots in Weberian sociology, symbolic interactionism and phenomenology and it has been a robust survivor of the various storms that have beset the practice of the social sciences since the collapse of structuralist and social system paradigms. The social action approach privileges the perspective of the acting individual but offers guidelines for connecting the subjective orientation with networks of social interaction and for treating 'behaviour' as a social process. Research within this framework takes account of the wider social context and calls for a careful combination of empirical observation and interpretation, with a corresponding diversity of methodologies. The appeal of the approach stems also from its flexibility, wide range of applications and sensitivity to cultural and social meanings. The contributions assembled in this book, despite their diversity, can all be placed within the framework of social action theory. Some are reports of empirical inquiries, others reflections on theory but each one sheds some light on the significance of media use in everyday experience and contributes to an understanding of communication in society.

Social Protection in Europe: A European Trade Union Perspective

Abstract: Governments and social partners in the European Union (EU) look for ways and means to adapt welfare systems to new needs, to keep expenditure under control, and to find alternative and supplementary financial resources in order to cope with future financial commitments. The EU is actively involved in the search for solutions to these common problems. It becomes more and more evident that only an active economic, budgetary, taxation and social policy mix can provide a solid base for safeguarding social systems. The author presents the most recent figures relating to actual and future social protection expenditure in the EU, disaggregated according to function and showing significant differences between gross and net figures. Attention is also paid to coverage and replacement rates of social benefits and to the availability of social infrastructures. The article then shows the shifts in implicit tax rates on labour in comparison with the rate on other factors. The conclusion outlines a European trade union view on the future of social protection in Europe and suggests possible issues for social benchmarking.

Paradox, Time, and De-Paradoxication in Luhmann: No Easy Way Out

Abstract: This article consists of three parts. The first explores the relation between paradox, de-paradoxication, and time, which I hold to be a relatively unattended yet very important tandem of concepts in Luhmann's work (Luhmann, 1993, 1995; Rasch, 2000). The second part will try to theoretically think through (de-paradoxicalize) a conundrum of present time: globalization and its opponents. In the third and last part, I briefly explore the paradox of conscious evolution, taking into account the specifics of the relations between social systems of communication and individual psychic systems in Luhmann's theory.

Presidential Address How Does Economics Fit the Social World

Abstract: This paper considers the present state of applied economics and the difficulties of integrating its findings and insights with those of other social sciences. The philosophical basis of social science is re-considered as a route to resolving these difficulties. Without a more integrated narrative about how our social systems work, applied economics, and all applied social sciences, run the substantial risk of being considered part of the world’s problems, rather than offering serious routes to their solution. Some possible strands of a more coherent and integrated framework are outlined, which indicate some potentially fruitful avenues for further development. The paper concludes with illustrations of this outline for the food chain and land use agenda of the Research Councils’ Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) initiative

Women Market of Manipur: An Anthropo-Historical Perspective

Abstract: Human beings live and have live together in societies under a wide variety of cultural arrangements. In any social system the quality of institutional roles and individual personality is related to the ethos of the particular culture and the specific role expectations and personal dispositions to the value of this culture (Kluckhohn 1961). Moreover human being is activated by various needs. As to fulfill his needs he has to exert power on the nature on the society and on other group-mates thereby develop diverse types of institutions and organizations. Similarly social roles and functions are also determined by cultural background. In every society there are some conventional or customary roles and functions which every individual is to follow. On the other hand sometime specific social situations are responsible for the emergence of new roles and functions. (excerpt)

Turning points towards sustainability: integrative science and policy for novel (but real) landscape futures

Abstract: Non-metropolitan landscapes are the major theatre of interactions where large-scale alteration occurs precipitated by local to global forces of economic, social and environmental change. However, these regional landscape effects are critical also to local natural resource and social sus- tainability, ecosystem health through to larger scales of biospheric functioning. The institutions con- tributing pressures and responses consequently shape future landscapes and in turn influence how social systems, resource users, governments and policy makers perceive those landscapes and their future. These are, in essence, complex social-ecological systems intertwined in a multitude of ways at many spatial scales across time. Over time, the cycles of complex social-ecological systems also reach crossroads, which might be crisis points at which future options are no longer available (possibly because of resource degradation or loss), or turning points where opportunities arise when it is easier to change direction towards more sustainable activities. This paper provides some examples of inter- disciplinary research that has provided a holistic integration through close engagement with resi- dents and communities or through deliberately implementing integrative high-risk 'on-ground' experimental models to 'learn by doing'. In the final analysis, each project has characteristically, how- ever, sought to integrate through spatial (if not temporal) synthesis, policy analysis and (new or changed) institutional arrangements that are relevant locally and corporately, as well as at broader levels of government and geography. This has provided transferable outcomes that can contribute real options and adaptive capacity for suitable positive futures.

Social Equivalent of Free Energy

Abstract: Characterisation of unbounded resources of a social system within the sociological interpretation has resulted in a large number of different notions, which are relevant in different situations. From the view point of statistical mechanics, these notions resemble free energy. In this paper the concept of social free energy is introduced and first steps toward its development presented. The social free energy is a function equal to physical free energy appropriately determined for the social system, with intrinsically sociological interpretation as a measure of social action obtainable in a given social system without changes in its structure. Its construction is a consequence of response of a social system to recognised parts of environment dynamics. It is argued that development of a social system response resembles exciting the normal modes of a general, physical system. Classification-ACM-1998: J.4; Social and behavioral sciences - Sociology