Building the Best (Dream) Team: Social Engineering Part 3
You can read the previous part of the article Here
In the previous parts, we touched on a number of properties of the Social Community (considered as a system), which form a clearly legible combination.
First of all, this is the surrounding world, reproduced as a property: Existence in a changing environment And affecting the Community as its Stimulability. External influence awakens in response the reaction of the Social environment, observed outside its boundaries, in the form Functionalities. In order for this very Functionality to manifest itself, the Environment must internally possess a certain organization of the interaction of its elements, inherent in the property – Structurability.
How are the conditions of this symbiosis regulated, based on the synthetic analysis of the listed properties?
Social organization, like any system, is characterized by the property ““Openness”From the point of view of general systems theory:
Openness – excluding the isolation of the system from the environment, but, on the contrary, realizing their connectedness and ensuring the exchange of any types of resources between them.
An open system intensively exchanges energy, matter or information with the environment, which imposes a number of restrictions on its stable existence surrounded by the outside world. For a Closed System, only energy is exchanged with the outside world (there is no exchange of matter). If there is no exchange of either matter or energy, such systems are isolated (conditionally).
Without going deep into the wilds of entropy in thermodynamics, epistemological constructivism and other vague principles, we will touch only on important applied points that clarify the essence of the property Openness.
In order to assess the aspects of the exchange of Community resources with the surrounding world, in conditions of some blurring of the generally recognized boundaries of the Environment, it is important to determine how the Social reality of the Community itself produces a demarcation between itself and the surrounding world.
In Luhmann's constructivist theory, the concept of operationally closed systems is introduced (as opposed to the openness/closedness aspect), based on the concept of self-reference, giving an answer to the question of how the system distinguishes itself from the surrounding world. After all, this determines what we will regard as external stimuli for the Environment and the functions it manifests in response, and what we will attribute to the internal activities of the Community. In this way, we will be able to separate the effect of external influence on the Community from the internal activities of the Residents and groups that form Structuredness Environments within its framework Integrity. This will also allow us to assess the response potential – Inherence.
Earlier, we already touched upon the thesis: “Self-organization” of the community. So, in relation to the aspect of Openness and exchange of resources with the outside world, an important condition of Self-organization is the ability of Social reality (formed by the Environment) to perceive itself in the surrounding world.
Along with how the Social Reality of the Community interprets its Self in the environment, it also forms an understanding of the rest of the world as such. Naturally, the product – the “Surrounding World” is constructed differently by different Environments. As a metaphor on this topic, we can cite Kant’s words:
Some people, looking into a puddle, see dirt in it, while others see stars reflected in it.
But it is important for us to establish the causes and methods of external influence that inspire in the Social reality of the Environment, awareness of the dichotomy: “Environment vs. World”. After all, the Outside World, at a certain level of openness of the Community, can influence the organization of its internal relationships, causing and StructuralityAnd Functionality.
Sometimes this manifests itself as a constructive influence, allowing for the development of capabilities or potential. Inherences. And sometimes destructive, capable of even influencing the perception of the Social reality of the Environment of its borders in the outside world, calling into question Integrityup to and including violation of the property Inseparability of parts.
According to Niklas Luhmann's first concept:
The External Environment is the environment surrounding the system – chaos And noiseswhich constantly interfere with the system’s life, but at the same time act as sources of matter, energy and information for it.
Thus the property Openness regulates the balance of two key characteristics of the Community:
Ability to evolve Functionality), due to complementary stimulation (resource consumption);
Ability to remain resilient (provide Inherence), by counteracting destructive stimuli;
Open communities have some specific features. One of these features is Confession interdependence between the system and the outside world. Since the Open Society is in dire need of resource and product exchange with the outside world, its recognition is required for the effective organization of mutual exchange. Recognition has a significant impact on the receipt of resources from the outside and, as a result, on the life of the community. Therefore, Recognition itself becomes an asset and has its own weight and, if you like, price.
For example, a mention by a well-known media figure of a little-known broadcast channel can increase the number of its subscribers, and therefore its monetization.
Niklas Luhmann's third concept sees:
the environment as a set of systems that compete with a given one, exchange resources with it, trying to survive in this struggle by resolving contradictions in your favor.
Since the ability to survive of an Open System is determined by constant interaction with the environment, there is a high probability for it to be influenced by the outside world. For example, by manipulating the measure of Community Recognition in the outside world, limiting (isolating) the flow of resources (incentives) from the outside.
For example, restrictive sanctions could be imposed on the entire Community.
More sophisticated intervention is also possible, by influencing the internal operations of the Social Environment. Let us consider in more detail the nature of the deliberate influence of surrounding systems on the Environment, with the good goal in some way of its “balance” and “stabilization”. How does this happen, what lies behind it and how does the level of openness of the Community influence this process?
To understand, let's quickly go over the theory.
The third principle Cybernetics states: Information is considered by cybernetics as a means of control. In order to manage an object, you must have:
communication between the controlled and the controlling objects (feedback),
The source of information
the information itself.
The functioning of the control system is based on the fact that there is a control object that reads information about the parameters of the controlled object via a communication channel, analyzes them, and generates them according to a specific algorithm. control information and by communication channel passes it on to the managed object. The managed object, in accordance with the information received, changes its state (or the state of some of its parameters). After which the cycle repeats.
In order to present the context in question in the same way, let us define what we mean by the term “Control Information”. One of the definitions of Information from the sociological point of view by Niklas Luhmann states:
Information – this is a positive meaning, an objective meaning with the help of which the system marks the possibility of its own functioning. The system should have, if possible, a transformable set of rules that resolve the paradox of the informativeness of the uninformative.
Now about some aspects of social interaction in the format of external control. It may turn out that the surrounding systems (as a metasystem) perceive the Community as a resource necessary for their existence. At the same time, it is important for the external environment that the Social Environment is in a certain state and demonstrates a certain functionality. Thus, the environment tries to assimilate the Social Community to itself. Such relationships represent interdependence coming from top to bottom.
If the Community's movement vector does not suit the Surrounding systems (capable of influencing it), then they will try to influence the Environment and bring it to a trajectory acceptable to themselves. The impact can be either differentiated (from case to case), or carried out permanently, firmly fixing the Environment in their “embrace” throughout its entire life. In this case, the trajectory of the Community's life will already be artificial-natural, that is, a trajectory that arose due to the control effect of the surrounding systems.
For example, to influence the Community Residents personally, stimulating them individually, and expect a response in the form of actions that often run counter to the goals of the Environment and the internal organization of its structure. In this case, the Resident, as a rule, does not realize that he is deviating from the goals of the Community.
In this form, the process of transferring the reasons for making a decision from the Outside World to the Community is called Reflective Management.
According to V.A. Lefebvre:
Reflexive control – this is an influence on subjects that inclines them to make decisions prepared in advance by the managing party.
Most often, four types of reflexive control are distinguished:
manipulation through influence (direct influence, Stimulation);
manipulation by changing relationships (internal Structure);
manipulation of the order of significance;
impact on the unconscious sphere of subjects
Therefore, for effective influence, the controlling Supersystem must have knowledge of how it functions and what is the Structure of the internal interaction of the controlled Element System.
At the same time, as we said above, the System-element strives to maintain independence, to increase the number of degrees of freedom. Victor Pelevin, interestingly described a case that resolves this dilemma:
The main problem is to get rid of freedom of choice, to strictly lead to the right decision, while maintaining the confidence that the choice is free. In scientific terms, this is called forced orientation.
It is generally accepted that open societies are more capable of survival, and closed ones less so. But as follows from the above, it is important to take into account the proprietary aspirations of the external environment. In times of global crises (economic, epidemiological, political, etc.), forcing each system to aggressively fight for its own survival, closed communities are often better able to withstand challenges.
In the next part we will present the Community as a living organism.
A brief overview of the material can be found on my YouTube channel.
