Abstract
AbstractUsing a set of six equations, I propose to model “interactions,” the “organization of meaning,” and “self-organization” as three coordination mechanisms among expectations; three further equations can be derived to operationalize “double contingency,” “identity,” and “reflection.” One can expect that the subdynamics update one another in co-evolutions as feedbacks and feed-forwards. Interfaces among two (sub)dynamics can be expected to operate with time differences (At). Interactions among horizontal and vertical time differences can generate hyper-incursivity in interhuman communications. Hyper-incursion enables us to reconstruct expectations. The social system is probably the only system which can be expected to carry “strong” anticipation while being reproduced as expectations. A system of expectations is not alive, is not constrained by a life-cycle, and does not need to “exist” otherwise than as expectations. The dynamics against the arrow of time are “cultural”: they rest on codes as the pillars of discursive knowledge driven upward into horizons of meaning.
Highlights
Parsons (1952) formulated a begin of an answer to this question, as follows: The inescapable conclusion is that moral standards, but all the components of the common culture are internalized as part of the personality structure
Cannot in this respect be dissociated from the content of the orientation patterns which they regulate; as I have pointed out, the content of both cathectic-attitudes and cognitive-status definitions have cultural, normative significance
Social differentiation is possible in the communication because communications can be coded in a variety of ways in language, and codes of communication can be generalized symbolically (Distin, 2010)
Summary
Using a set of six equations, I propose to model “interactions,” the “organization of meaning,” and “self-organization” as three coordination mechanisms among expectations; three further equations can be derived to operationalize “double contingency,” “identity,” and “reflection.” One can expect that the subdynamics update one another in co-evolutions as feedbacks and feed-forwards. Parsons (1968), argued that Freud himself—approximately at the same time as Durkheim (e.g., 1894, 1912)— had discovered the social as the proper subject of sociology He summarized Freud’s demarcation of sociology from psychology, as follows: Relatively early, Freud gained the insight that the expression of instinctual need was regulated by the society’s moral standards—often, but in no simple sense always, in conflict with instinctual needs—and that these standards were introjected into the personality itself, becoming components of its structure. A second contingency among expectations comes on top of the first contingency of empirical processes in the physical and biological domains In this model, both consciousness and communication develop in substantive and reflexive layers in parallel. 70) added to Parsons’ definition that “double contingency” can be considered as the auto-catalyst of social processes between reflexive individuals. Simulations can serve the analysis by pointing to the unexpected or unintended consequences of interactions among subroutines (Hedström 2005)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
