Our purpose is to develop and analyze a model for the dynamics of political power and control in a social system. The significant feature of social systems is that they are neither purely competitive nor cooperative but some of each. Therefore this model must exhibit both qualities and balance them. It must also permit socio-political phenomena such as coalitions, alliances, anarchy, and revolutions and apply rather generally to various types of political systems. Using generalized logistical models we are able to encompass all these requirements for the case when the system is closed; that is, when all forces are internal to the system. The models developed also apply to shared market economies.
Motivation for the model.
One of the major historical difficulties in describing the notions of power and control is the inherent difficulty in describing the nature of the human being from this perspective. Interpersonal relations are impossibly complex. There are few if any general rules to guide the investigator. For example, a physical force when applied to one actor elicits a diametrically different response than when applied to another. An attempt to manipulate or persuade one actor may succeed at one time and not another. Induced, or compensatory power may affect two different actors in entirely different ways. Theories are wrought with qualifications and exceptions. One method to avoid such difficulties is to avoid people—as individuals. Rather, lump together all the people, or sets of people with descriptors such as the blacks, the poor, the Republicans, or the elite. The collective then responds to say, force or persuasion, in a much more describable and predictable manner. The collective can be attributed certain desires, goals and characteristics. The collective is, in short, a definable, quantifiable, and predictable entity.
It is this viewpoint that we assume here. Rather than discuss the interactions of actor A with actor B, we take a broader view of discussing the interactions of Structure with Structure . The structures considered must be sufficiently large so that general axioms about their behavior can be clearly defined. Our goal then is to identify the major structures of a society and another is to postulate their relations to each other.
We define the structures of a society to be its control holding, power wielding categories, which possess relative independence of the others. These categories exercise power through substructures, and the substructures exercise power through organizations. In every modern society there are numerous principal structures that exercise power to control the others, though often in different ways. Included among them are: People, Government, Church-Religion, Industry, Economy, Education, Courts, Labor, and Police.
Many other societies, some with advanced cultures, did not and do not possess some of these structures as independent entities. The structure Industry, for example, resulted as a consequence of the Industrial Revolution, remains insignificant in many modern government-dominated and totalitarian societies. The structure Labor is even more recent, it being a consequence of, or reaction to Industry. Education, as a preeminent controlling structure, is newer still. In some societies, various structures are subsumed by others. For example, the Soviet Union, industrialized as it is, has a relatively small Industry structure independent of the government. In France and England, Industry is somewhat larger. Larger still is Industry in Germany, Japan, and the United States. In Great Britain, the military is a substructure of the government, while in the United States and the Soviet Union, the same is true in theory but open to debate in practice.
Motivation for the model.
One of the major historical difficulties in describing the notions of power and control is the inherent difficulty in describing the nature of the human being from this perspective. Interpersonal relations are impossibly complex. There are few if any general rules to guide the investigator. For example, a physical force when applied to one actor elicits a diametrically different response than when applied to another. An attempt to manipulate or persuade one actor may succeed at one time and not another. Induced, or compensatory power may affect two different actors in entirely different ways. Theories are wrought with qualifications and exceptions. One method to avoid such difficulties is to avoid people—as individuals. Rather, lump together all the people, or sets of people with descriptors such as the blacks, the poor, the Republicans, or the elite. The collective then responds to say, force or persuasion, in a much more describable and predictable manner. The collective can be attributed certain desires, goals and characteristics. The collective is, in short, a definable, quantifiable, and predictable entity.
It is this viewpoint that we assume here. Rather than discuss the interactions of actor A with actor B, we take a broader view of discussing the interactions of Structure with Structure . The structures considered must be sufficiently large so that general axioms about their behavior can be clearly defined. Our goal then is to identify the major structures of a society and another is to postulate their relations to each other.
We define the structures of a society to be its control holding, power wielding categories, which possess relative independence of the others. These categories exercise power through substructures, and the substructures exercise power through organizations. In every modern society there are numerous principal structures that exercise power to control the others, though often in different ways. Included among them are: People, Government, Church-Religion, Industry, Economy, Education, Courts, Labor, and Police.
Many other societies, some with advanced cultures, did not and do not possess some of these structures as independent entities. The structure Industry, for example, resulted as a consequence of the Industrial Revolution, remains insignificant in many modern government-dominated and totalitarian societies. The structure Labor is even more recent, it being a consequence of, or reaction to Industry. Education, as a preeminent controlling structure, is newer still. In some societies, various structures are subsumed by others. For example, the Soviet Union, industrialized as it is, has a relatively small Industry structure independent of the government. In France and England, Industry is somewhat larger. Larger still is Industry in Germany, Japan, and the United States. In Great Britain, the military is a substructure of the government, while in the United States and the Soviet Union, the same is true in theory but open to debate in practice.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please Comment.