Social system

About: Social system is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 2974 publications have been published within this topic receiving 92395 citations.

Social work practice : a systems approach

Abstract: Social Systems and Their Environments Some Characteristics of open Systems Additional Characteristics of Open Systems System Change Systems Analysis of Some Social Work Practices A Systems Model of Conflict Resolution Implications and Conclusions. Appendices: The Systems Approach as a Model Outline of a Suggested One-Semester MA.

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

Community, Caring And Outdoor Education

Abstract: In this article we discuss the close ties that exist between the concepts of community and caring on the one hand, and the teaching and learning strategies which are relevant to these concepts in the area of outdoor education on the other. We begin by gauging the extent of our human need for community. The existence of this need leads into an exploration of the ways in which this need can be met in our Western society, which tends to favour the individual. Caring is identified as a major method for achieving community. Ways of educating for caring and community are then revealed through the literature and these are placed, as one would a template, over the existing view of outdoor education to look for any connections and commonalities. These commonalities are identified. ********** The caring person is one who is genuinely other-regarding, who perceives and responds to the larger ecosystem in an empathic, nonprejudicial way. He or she acts in ways that will strengthen, both in themselves and in others, a developing capacity for the healthy expression of life. (Fuller, 1992, p. 74) Our need for community (and individuality) Human beings have a need for esteem and a need for belonging (Maslow, 1970). Human existence may be described, on one plane, as a balance between these two fundamental human needs: humans have an existential need for community as well as an existential need to be recognized as individuals. We have a need to identify with the larger purpose of the "cosmic process" as well as feeling the urge to be unique (Becker, 1973). These two human needs may create a tension because by meeting one we often feel that we are detracting from our ability to meet the other. A lifelong process seems to exist through which we are attempting to find an appropriate balance between these two needs so as to reduce this tension. The balance point between these two needs will, of necessity, be shifting as we mature through our lives (Fuller, 1992). Contemporary literature is replete with claims that the balance between individuality and community is not supported at its optimal point by Western culture. The use of community as a motivational factor in advertising, and the existence of individuals who experience feelings of alienation, are exemplars of this imbalance (Bellah et al, 1996; Nisbet, 1953; Schwartz, 1997). The Australian context does not go un-noticed, with relevant comment from social researcher Hugh Mackay: The story of Australia in the past 20 years has been a story of declining emphasis on personal relationships; a declining importance attached to being part of a family, a neighbourhood, a community; a declining awareness of shared culture. (Mackay, 1993, p. 271) This perspective on the Australian version of events is further amplified when we consider the young people in our society, as espoused by Richard Eckersley: The three features of modern western [sic] culture that I have discussed--our chosen dominant values, the rate and complexity of change, and the lack of a shared vision of society and its future--all tend to isolate individuals from each other and from society, increasingly leaving people with only their own personal resources to deal with life. These flaws mean young people, who are establishing their identities, values and beliefs, lack a social and spiritual context, a set of clear reference points, to help them make sense of life and their place in the world. (Eckersley, 1995, p. 16) A yearning for community, to complement our emphasis on individuality, seems close to the hearts of many people living in our contemporary society. Searching for a definition of community The concept "community" has been defined in many different ways. It can pertain to a place, a way of living, a social system, a social unit, a condition of relationship, and a territorial unit, (Poplin, 1972; Sanders, 1975) and this list is probably not exhaustive. …

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.