Topic
Social system
About: Social system is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 2974 publications have been published within this topic receiving 92395 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, a sociological concept of crisis is proposed, defined as the expected yet non-lineal outcome of the internal dynamics of modern societies, which builds on the synergies between critical theory and systems theory.
Abstract: The main aim of this article is to offer a sociological concept of crisis that, defined as the expected yet non-lineal outcome of the internal dynamics of modern societies, builds on the synergies between critical theory and systems theory. It contends that, notwithstanding important differences, both traditions concur in addressing crises as a form of self-reproduction of social systems as much as a form of engagement with the complexities and effects of such processes of reproduction. In order to make our comparison exhaustive, this article explores critical and systems theories’ notions of crisis at three levels: (1) their conceptual delimitation of crises; (2) their methodological proposals to empirically observe crises; and (3) their normative attempts to contribute to their resolution. As crises remain a distinctive structural feature of the social world and a rich source of knowledge about it, reflexivity must be seen as a crucial form of engagement with the negative expressions of social life itself.
23 citations
TL;DR: It is argued that current terminologies and methods for dealing with non-hierarchical societies are not well suited for such comparative approaches to social evolution and proposed solutions are a re-sampling method to assess investment asymmetries and the introduction of the term “casteless” to encompass forms of social organization.
Abstract: There has been considerable debate surrounding the evolution of eusociality, which has recently increased in vigor with regard to what actually constitutes eusociality. Surprisingly, there has been little discussion on terminologies for describing social systems that are more-or-less egalitarian, yet such societies form an obvious contrast to eusociality, and transitions between these two forms of social organization appear to be common. We argue that current terminologies and methods for dealing with non-hierarchical societies are not well suited for such comparative approaches to social evolution. We outline three problems for comparative approaches (identifying egalitarianism, implied egalitarianism and taxon-specific terminology) and propose two solutions. The first solution is a re-sampling method to assess investment asymmetries, and the second is the introduction of the term “casteless” to encompass forms of social organization where there is no lifetime commitment to queen-like or worker-like roles, but where skew in reproduction or alloparental tasks may nevertheless be apparent at any one time. Our suggested terminology avoids the implied egalitarian nature behind the terms communal and quasisocial, which place undue emphasis on specific nesting biologies and which have the potential to impede ‘bottom-up’ comparative studies of social evolution. Such non-eusocial groups provide the best insights for understanding how social behavior evolved and our suggested approaches should enhance future investigations.
23 citations
03 Aug 2020
TL;DR: In the third decade of the 21st century, the social contract between science and society is undergoing major changes and the whole paradigm of open science and its social contract is being challenged by various adversaries such as (a) market-based privatized commercial science, (b) industry 4.0 advanced technologies, and (c) a new iron curtain on the free flow of science data and information.
Abstract: Science as a social institution has evolved as the most powerful, highly influential, and sought out institution after the conflicts between science and religion following Galileo. Knowledge as a public good, scientific peer review of science, the prominence of open publications, and the emphasis on professional recognition and scientific autonomy have been the hallmark of science in the past three centuries. According to this scientific spirit, the scientific social system and society formed a unique social contract. This social contract drew considerable institutional and state legitimacy for the openness and public good of science in the service of state and society, all through the post-war period. Openness and public good of science are recognized and legitimized by the scientific community and science agencies at the global level. This paradigm of open science, in varying forms and manifestations, contributed to the progress of systematic knowledge at the service of humankind over the last three centuries. Entering the third decade of the 21st century, the social contract between science and society is undergoing major changes. In fact, the whole paradigm of open science and its social contract is being challenged by various “enemies” or adversaries such as (a) market-based privatized commercial science, (b) industry 4.0 advanced technologies, and (c) a “new iron curtain” on the free flow of science data and information. What is at stake? Are there major changes? Is the very social institution of science transforming? What impact will this have on our contemporary and future sustainable society? These are some important issues that will be addressed in this article.
23 citations
TL;DR: In this article, 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.
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 ...
23 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: In this article, the authors show that Luhmann fundamentally misunderstood Maturana and Varela's autopoiesis by thinking that the self-observation necessary for self-maintenance formed a paradoxically vicious circle.
Abstract: Knowledge and the communication of knowledge are critical for self-sustaining organizations comprised of people and the tools and machines that extend peoples’ physical and cognitive capacities. Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela proposed the concept of autopoiesis (“self” “production”) as a definition of life in the 1970s. Nicklas Luhmann extended this concept to establish a theory of social systems, where intangible human social systems were formed by recursive networks of communications. We show here that Luhmann fundamentally misunderstood Maturana and Varela’s autopoiesis by thinking that the self-observation necessary for self-maintenance formed a paradoxically vicious circle. Luhmann tried to resolve this apparent paradox by placing the communication networks on an imaginary plane orthogonal to the networked people. However, Karl Popper’s evolutionary epistemology and the theory of hierarchically complex systems turns what Luhmann thought was a vicious circle into a virtuous spiral of organizational learning and knowledge. There is no closed circle that needs to be explained via Luhmann’s extraordinarily paradoxical linguistic contortions.
23 citations