tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post5004290287203150147..comments2024-03-23T04:01:39.348-04:00Comments on Understanding Society: New metaphors for the socialDan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-84028288190277075902012-12-19T11:17:07.736-05:002012-12-19T11:17:07.736-05:00Yes and no! Of course it's true that there are...Yes and no! Of course it's true that there are natural systems that display complexity. That is an interesting fact. (Spin a plate with a marble on the surface; the stopping point for the marble is incalculable.) Ditto weather systems. This is all understood. But social aggregations are incalculable for different reasons! The plate and marble are fully mechanical objects. Unpredictability derives from issues about measurements and the effects of small differences. Human interactions are grounded in the natural body -- of course! But it is fruitless to attempt to reduce behavior to neurons. Dan Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-53402171600149385922012-12-18T10:34:13.031-05:002012-12-18T10:34:13.031-05:00You ask what metaphors and concepts do you find mo...You ask what metaphors and concepts do you find most helpful in thinking about the social world?<br /><br />I would take an inside-out approach to understanding social theory.<br /><br />1. A person perceives the world through their thinking. Even a person’s identity(ies) a thought-gemerated. A person has the power to think any thought.<br />2. A person tends to make unconscious sense of “reality” through embodied metaphors (prior to language) <br />3. A person becomes consciously self-aware of themselves and the reality around them through language, which is fundamentally metaphorical (it carries over meaning). Language surrounds a person like water surrounds a fish, such that we don’t even notice it.<br />4. A person can construct conceptual metaphors using language (to describe concepts that do not fit in a wheelbarrow) <br /><br />Thus I would agree with Tom that “social reality” itself is a construct of the mind; “Society” can exist in the mind at multiple levels of granularity and timespans from 2 people to everyone who has ever lived on planet Earth. I would also agree with Anonymous that nature is far more complex that what reductionist science claims, and indeed human society is part of nature.<br /><br />A person then has a *choice* of point of view given what they want to do next. Perhaps a person wants to simply “make sense” of society; or perhaps “predict” society; or perhaps “influence” society; or perhaps “respond to” society.<br /><br />Some metaphors that might usefully carry over might include:<br />- Society is like an organism<br />- Society is like an ecology<br />- Society is like a learning brain<br />- Society is like a mammalian political system<br />- Society is like a structure <br />- Society is like a river in flux<br />- Society is like the ocean currents<br />- Society is like a garden<br />- Society is like a machine (non-natural)<br />- Society is like a probability machine<br />- Society is like a spiral that cycles back around at higher levels<br />- Society is like a tribe<br />- Society is like the weather<br />- Etc<br /><br />As Anais Nin said “we don’t see the world as it is, we see the world as we are.”<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-11396712216879448092012-12-18T09:23:17.426-05:002012-12-18T09:23:17.426-05:00You ask what metaphors and concepts do you find mo...You ask what metaphors and concepts do you find most helpful in thinking about the social world?<br /><br />I would take an inside-out approach to understanding social theory.<br /><br />1. A person perceives the world through their thinking. Even a person’s identity(ies) a thought-gemerated. A person has the power to think any thought.<br />2. A person tends to make unconscious sense of “reality” through embodied metaphors (prior to language) <br />3. A person becomes consciously self-aware of themselves and the reality around them through language, which is fundamentally metaphorical (it carries over meaning). Language surrounds a person like water surrounds a fish, such that we don’t even notice it.<br />4. A person can construct conceptual metaphors using language (to describe concepts that do not fit in a wheelbarrow) <br /><br />Thus I would agree with Tom that “social reality” itself is a construct of the mind; “Society” can exist in the mind at multiple levels of granularity and timespans from 2 people to everyone who has ever lived on planet Earth. I would also agree with Anonymous that nature is far more complex that what reductionist science claims, and indeed human society is part of nature.<br /><br />A person then has a *choice* of point of view given what they want to do next. Perhaps a person wants to simply “make sense” of society; or perhaps “predict” society; or perhaps “influence” society; or perhaps “respond to” society.<br /><br />Some metaphors that might usefully carry over might include:<br />- Society is like an organism<br />- Society is like an ecology<br />- Society is like a learning brain<br />- Society is like a mammalian political system<br />- Society is like a structure <br />- Society is like a river in flux<br />- Society is like the ocean currents<br />- Society is like a garden<br />- Society is like a machine (non-natural)<br />- Society is like a probability machine<br />- Society is like a spiral that cycles back around at higher levels<br />- Society is like a tribe<br />- Society is like the weather<br />- Etc<br /><br />As Anais Nin said “we don’t see the world as it is, we see the world as we are.”<br />Ianhttp://twitter.com/corlettinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-91410633725963046302012-12-18T09:21:31.680-05:002012-12-18T09:21:31.680-05:00You ask what metaphors and concepts do you find mo...You ask what metaphors and concepts do you find most helpful in thinking about the social world?<br /><br />I would take an inside-out approach to understanding social theory.<br /><br />1. A person perceives the world through their thinking. Even a person’s identity(ies) a thought-gemerated. A person has the power to think any thought.<br />2. A person tends to make unconscious sense of “reality” through embodied metaphors (prior to language) <br />3. A person becomes consciously self-aware of themselves and the reality around them through language, which is fundamentally metaphorical (it carries over meaning). Language surrounds a person like water surrounds a fish, such that we don’t even notice it.<br />4. A person can construct conceptual metaphors using language (to describe concepts that do not fit in a wheelbarrow) <br /><br />Thus I would agree with Tom that “social reality” itself is a construct of the mind; “Society” can exist in the mind at multiple levels of granularity and timespans from 2 people to everyone who has ever lived on planet Earth. I would also agree with Anonymous that nature is far more complex that what reductionist science claims, and indeed human society is part of nature.<br /><br />A person then has a *choice* of point of view given what they want to do next. Perhaps a person wants to simply “make sense” of society; or perhaps “predict” society; or perhaps “influence” society; or perhaps “respond to” society.<br /><br />Some metaphors that might usefully carry over might include:<br />- Society is like an organism<br />- Society is like an ecology<br />- Society is like a learning brain<br />- Society is like a mammalian political system<br />- Society is like a structure <br />- Society is like a river in flux<br />- Society is like the ocean currents<br />- Society is like a garden<br />- Society is like a machine (non-natural)<br />- Society is like a probability machine<br />- Society is like a spiral that cycles back around at higher levels<br />- Society is like a tribe<br />- Society is like the weather<br />- Etc<br /><br />As Anais Nin said “we don’t see the world as it is, we see the world as we are.”<br />Ianhttp://twitter.com/corlettinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-44331762883496497392012-12-17T18:04:30.594-05:002012-12-17T18:04:30.594-05:00It may inform to discuss Christopher Alexander'...It may inform to discuss Christopher Alexander's theory of "good fit". If you look at people and society as a design problem you will rank three needs high on the list to satisfy. 1. Safety in action and rest 2. Time for Entertainment 3. Access to Resources - The boundary between our context and that of the environment as a function of theses three needs are weighted will unveil many familiar patterns. The resulting topology of theses boundaries we can call history. Eduado Sciammarellahttp://protohaus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-7836333427474743582012-12-17T12:12:09.428-05:002012-12-17T12:12:09.428-05:00I guess the idea of a non-self is post-Cartesian i...I guess the idea of a non-self is post-Cartesian in the West.<br /><br />This idea that the unified self is merely an illusion is a pretty old Buddhist idea (probably one of the oldest Buddhist ideas). When Buddhists claim that there is no self, that's what they mean. There is no unitary self: we just have a cognitive illusion that there is a unitary self. <br /><br />This cognitive illusion is partly created because we use language to understand reality. We have to use subjects and verbs to communicate, but using language ironically hinders our understanding because there is no unitary subject. (It's also partly created because people want to believe in an eternal soul, but that's a whole another set of discussion. Also Hinduism rejected this theory as heresy so it's probably not going to be a popular thought in the West too.)<br /><br />That is why you can't use words to explain in Zen and why you should meditate. Because according to Zen Buddhists, meditation leads you to understand viscerally that there is no unitary self. <br /><br />[Of course I don't meditate, I just read some of the stuff so I could be wrong...]<br /><br />I find it fascinating that people can get to similar ideas from very different starting points.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-56064580295822852602012-12-17T08:12:06.122-05:002012-12-17T08:12:06.122-05:00I would add Bernard Lahire's metaphor that the...I would add Bernard Lahire's metaphor that the social world (social structures, institutions, groups, fields, worlds, domains, systems, interactions etc.) is like a paper or a piece of cloth (a flat surface) and each individual is comparable to a crumpled sheet of paper or a creased piece of cloth. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-62318942942278875842012-12-17T04:15:39.967-05:002012-12-17T04:15:39.967-05:00How about Bakhtin's dialogic concept of hetero...How about Bakhtin's dialogic concept of heteroglossia which is applicable to the self as well as language; where the self is made up of a polyphony of many voices from our past experience. In principle I don't separate Bakhtin's concepts from Vygotsky's developmental view of psychology where language and attendant psychological functions are formed through interaction. A Mother and Child interacting is the model for how psychological functions are shaped through dialogue (though Vygotsky did not emphasize that term). Psychology is not all that there is, but it serves to create higher level functioning by which we shape and transcend both our biological and neurological selves.Howard Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09426998835138855839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-36703736150053598152012-12-16T18:54:49.889-05:002012-12-16T18:54:49.889-05:00Human society is part of nature, it is not differe...Human society is part of nature, it is not different from nature. It is wrong to say that nature is predictable. Complex systems are not predictable, and nature is made up of complex systems. Just consider how hard it is to make long term weather predictions.<br /><br />The author is misinformed about nature. It is infinitely more complex than what reductionist science tells us.<br /><br />The behavior of human societies is unpredictable for the same reason weather is hard to predict. All of nature, including ourselves, is made up of complex systems. The organization of a system is above and beyond the components it is made of.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-66544000840822665402012-12-16T17:22:08.684-05:002012-12-16T17:22:08.684-05:00My two cents. A "society" is a system co...My two cents. A "society" is a system comprised of elements, which are individuals, e.g., humans or other primates, bees, ants, etc, arranged in hierarchies of relationships, such as nested sub-systems in complex societies. Individuals may play roles in different groups and thus contribute to the system in diverse ways. In defining a system, the relationships among elements are as significant as the elements, and in a sense even more so than the elements, although in another sense the elements are more intrinsically important, being substantial, e.g., human beings are considered to be "moral" agents. These relationships may be informal, e.g., cultural rituals, or formal, e.g., institutions operating in terms of legally defined rules.<br /><br />The study of society is a subset of what Ludwig von Bertanalffy called "general system theory," and the method applicable to such study is systems analysis. General system theory is a bridge that brings together system theory, the physical sciences, life science and social sciences in terms of similarities and differences. The social sciences, including economics, have to deal with higher degrees of complexity and emergence than is usual in the other sciences and therefore social science is less precise and amenable to explanation that is predictive in the causal sense.<br /><br />Some of the difficulties in the study of social systems in particular arise not from the complexity of data but from the methodological assumptions. Methodological assumptions are often connected to ontological, epistemological, and ethics assumptions embedded in an ideology that defines a worldview in Wittgenstein's sense. That is, "reality" is itself a logical construct and different constructs are not only possible but operative in the same society. Thus, the perspective of those studying the society impinges on the study through POV, presumptions, and assumptions.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-52037623522132676432012-12-16T14:57:59.584-05:002012-12-16T14:57:59.584-05:00A very powerful alternative view on this question ...A very powerful alternative view on this question can be derived from Postone's interpretation of Marx in <i>Time, labor, and social domination</i>. Modern society <i>is</i> a system, but it is a relentlessly differentiating and internally contradictory system, which accounts for the unevenness and inconsistency we see all around us. Postone's work also provides a sophisticated approach to making sense of the seemingly irreducible gap between the individual and society: both sides of the opposition are generated by the structure of modern social life, and the conflict between them is one expression of the insuperable contradiction within modern social forms.<br /><br />Reading Marx as Postone does, and as his predecessors Lukács, Adorno, or Horkheimer did, opens up a difficult but fascinating, theoretically extremely rich, and to most readers refreshingly novel Marx to grapple with. It displaces forever the vulgar Marx of the Marxists or the bloodless Marx of the sociologists, which is generally the Marx that shows up on this blog.Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06912406198051338502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-446671385453383002012-12-16T13:59:18.220-05:002012-12-16T13:59:18.220-05:00Re Mike Huben and Daniel Little: I would agree wi...Re Mike Huben and Daniel Little: I would agree with Mike and disagree with Daniel in the following sense: <br /><br />Natural selection, and the concepts of species, niche, etc. are our constructs to make sense of the complexity of real ecosystems. <br /><br />Real ecosystems like real societies are heterogeneous and complex. However we have found organizing concepts that give us a rough grasp of the complexity of ecosystems -- only rough because in applying this to any real situation we must deal with a lot of aspects that don't fit into our organizing concepts. But this is even true of physics experiments. <br /><br />I see no principled reason to believe that we can't find such organizing concepts for social systems. I think there are candidate building blocks around, but we have a way to go before they can be assembled into conceptual structures that are as adequate as models of ecology. <br /><br />So the reminder that existing proposals are grossly inadequate is good. Studying examples that demonstrate their inadequacy is good. Adopting an ontology that says such the search for such organizing concepts is hopeless is bad. jedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11258416181053973027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-15516526094366880192012-12-16T13:31:45.665-05:002012-12-16T13:31:45.665-05:00I am an amateur at sociology; but one thing I reca...I am an amateur at sociology; but one thing I recall from the university is that Durkhiem posited social facts to rival physical facts; are you undermining his idea as social facts as copying the physical sciences and characterizing social reality falsely?<br />Thanks the works cited sound interestinghoward Bermannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-6062378744715044062012-12-16T10:37:20.080-05:002012-12-16T10:37:20.080-05:00Doug Hofstadter, of G.E.B. fame, not a sociologist...Doug Hofstadter, of G.E.B. fame, not a sociologist or philosopher, but a (spiritual) cognitive scientist, wrote the book "I Am a Strange Loop." For me, that remains the single best explanation of how we form as individuals, and how larger groups form (though he focuses on the first).<br /><br />He explains that our behavior is individually represented by internal symbol networks which are not deterministic, exhibit emergent behavior, and that they are shared with our lovers, loved ones and tribes. And my sense is that they are also, non-deterministically, shared with our larger tribes (nations, for example), usually exhibiting emergent behavior at every higher level of sharing. Steve Bannisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14466785184416801339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-57318014585345503942012-12-16T09:43:43.857-05:002012-12-16T09:43:43.857-05:00Mike, that's a good question. Here's part ...Mike, that's a good question. Here's part of a reply: in an ecology organisms compete for space, niche, and resourced. Their success is measured by reproductive success. We have one overriding mechanism to work with, natural selection. So even though an ecology is extremely complex with many species interacting, it lacks dimensions of complexity and heterogeneity possessed by a society. Would you disagree?Dan Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-36825499238491872332012-12-16T08:05:45.203-05:002012-12-16T08:05:45.203-05:00Stefan S has left a new comment on your post "...Stefan S has left a new comment on your post "New metaphors for the social": <br /><br />Carol Rovane, The Bounds of Agency<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-46692716136274041032012-12-16T07:58:00.069-05:002012-12-16T07:58:00.069-05:00How is the social world not like an ecology?How is the social world not like an ecology?Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-34136369615913551932012-12-16T07:45:31.989-05:002012-12-16T07:45:31.989-05:00Thanks, Diogo.Thanks, Diogo.Dan Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-83082663239435196022012-12-16T07:35:30.234-05:002012-12-16T07:35:30.234-05:00My preferences for possible answers: Searle "...My preferences for possible answers: Searle "The Construction of Social Reality" (2006) and Boltanski and Thévenot (1991) "On Justification".Diogohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08021892586763284358noreply@blogger.com