Self-organization Of Social Systems Research Articles

Self-organization of public life of the Ukrainian people in the second half of the XIXth – the beginning of the XXth century: historiographical map

The article analyzes the state of the study in the contemporary historiographical discourse of the problem of self-organization of Ukrainian public life in the second half of the ХІХth – the beginning of the XXth century. It has been found that democratization of the political system and renewal of the methodological tools provided an opportunity for historians to view the social life of the given historical period on the basis of a synergistic methodology of self-organization of social systems. It has been discovered that the historiographical position on the dynamics of social self-organization of the Ukrainians ranging from cultural life to the institution of political parties is considered legitimate among scholars. It has been proved that in contemporary historiography the processes of the contemporary self-organization of the Ukrainian society are considered in three specific historical areas, namely socio-civic, national-political and spiritual-cultural, the relationship between which was sometimes both consistent and synchronous. The development of them demonstrated the emergence of new organizational forms of social self-organization and institutionalization of civil society and political system in Ukraine in the XIXth century. Studying both theoretical and methodological, as well as definite historical dimensions of the Ukrainian national movement, the researchers agree that the cultural and educational content of national revival under the influence of objective circumstances has evolved into political one. Much attention is given to the analysis of the historians’ vision of the content of socio-civic self-organization, which was represented by the development of public organizations and movements grounded on the ideas of civil society but lacked political requirements. Among them scientists single out such factors as hlopomanstvo, social movement, organization "Prosvita", the establishment of Shevchenko scientific society, the publication of socially significant newspapers and journals ("Gromada", "Kievskaia Starina", "Delo", "Zoria"), the establishment of a cooperative movement ("Dnister", "The farmer"). The dynamics of the social organization have determined the politicization of the national movement, which allows scientists to speak about national and political self-organization. Establishment of political parties, active participation of the Ukrainians in the activities of the imperial representative bodies of the government, the spread of social and democratic political ideology, the emergence of political leadership and others are considered its institutional representatives. Researchers emphasize that in the late ХІХth and early XXth centuries, national revival entered the political stage, which became a prerequisite for the beginning of the Ukrainian National Democratic Revolution of 1917–1921. It has been found out that the concept "self-organization" reveals the essence of the socio-political and socio-cultural processes of the time, since the Ukrainians established cultural and educational societies, public organizations and political parties contrary to the imperial and anti-Ukrainian policy of the Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires. It was outlined that the spiritual and cultural aspects of self-organization were illustrated by the activities of Ukrainian cultural and educational societies, the development of Ukrainian periodicals, the commemoration of the anniversaries of Ukrainian writers and artists, the activities of Ukrainian theater, etc.

SELF-ORGANIZATION IN SOCIAL SYSTEMS: ESSENCE, FEATURES AND PURPOSEFUL NATURE

The urgency of the research of self-organization of social systems is, firstly, due to the incompleteness of the social-humanitarian theory of this concept and, secondly, to the objective necessity to increase the level of organization and the orderliness of social systems, their controllability through self-organization as a way of overcoming the grand and local challenges. The aim of this paper is to investigate the essence, the features and the purposeful nature of self-organization as a social activity, which is aimed to order the social systems. It is specially noted that multidisciplinary methodological tools in socio-humanitarian researches, with Mathematics at their core, are not sufficient for revealing the universal essence of self-organization and its characteristic features in the social systems. Therefore, it has been suggested to supplement the synergetic conceptualization by using the heuristic potential of the third-generation system method as a methodological basis for studying the essence and peculiar properties of self-organization of social systems. It has been allowed to consider the groundwork of the second-order cybernetics, the theories of living systems and the emergence. It is pointed out that a citizens’ initiative is a basic form of self-organization in the social systems and its elementary action. The paper presents the differences between a civil initiative, as affective and traditional unconscious action, and a citizens’ initiative whose emergent effect is the individual's formulation of goals. It is specially noted that citizens’ initiative streamlines social systems and is differ from the spontaneity of civil initiatives. It is concluded that the proposed interpretation of self-organization of social systems and citizens’ initiative as its structural element allows to understand the mechanism of quality upgrading of self-organization and the controllability of social systems more deeply. It is of particular importance in the context of overcoming the socio-economic crisis and pandemic, searching for global challenges solutions, returning the personality to Ukraine on the global stage with the prospects for democratization of the whole socio-political system and joining the number of developed countries.

Structuration Theory and Self-Organization

Social systems theory is dominated by a reductionistic individualism and a dualistic functionalism. Especially the latter does not, adequately integrate the human being. In order to avoid dualism, mechanistic determinism, and reductionism, a dialectical concept of social systems that is based on the notion of self-organization seems necessary. In order to establish a dialectical theory of social self-organization it is appropriate to integrate aspects of Anthony Giddens' structuration theory. Giddens acknowledges the importance of knowledgeable human actors in society and argues that structures are the medium and outcome of actions (theorem of the duality of structure). Structures both enable and constrain social actions. This idea corresponds to saying that social systems are re-creative, i.e., self-organizing social systems. Re-creativity is based on the creative activities of human beings. Social structures exist in and through the productive practices and relationships of human actors. The term evolution can be employed in a nonfunctionalist way that acknowledges the importance of knowledgeable human actors in social systems by conceiving the historical development of society based on a dialectic of chance and necessity and theprinciple of order through fluctuation in situations of instability and bifurcation. All self-organizing systems are information-generating systems. Giddens' concept of storage mechanisms that allow time–space distanciation of social relationships helps to describe the relationship of information and self-organization in social systems.

Luhmann, Habermas and the theory of communication

In his critique of Luhmann’s sociology, Habermas (1987) argued that individuation and socialization are possible on the basis of linguistic structures. This critique touches the blind spot of sociological systems theory as a meta-biology. Whereas the paradigm shift from action theory towards communication theory was fully reflected in Luhmann’s sociology, the difference between the self-organization of social systems and the autopoiesis of biological systems remained underspecified. Social systems allow for communication about observations from within the system and/or from another perspective. Observers are able to participate both in the variation and in the selection; Giddens (1976) introduced in this context the metaphor of a ‘double hermeneutics.’ Through language the distinction between uncertainty and meaningful information is communicated reflexively, and the consequent codification may be changed without becoming confused. The implied communicative competences can be specified from the perspective of communication theory.

Luhmann, Habermas and the theory of communication

In his critique of Luhmann's sociology, Habermas (1987) argued that individuation and socialization are possible on the basis of linguistic structures. This critique touches the blind spot of sociological systems theory as a meta-biology. Whereas the paradigm shift from action theory towards communication theory was fully reflected in Luhmann's sociology, the difference between the self-organization of social systems and the autopoiesis of biological systems remained underspecified. Social systems allow for communication about observations from within the system and/or from another perspective. Observers are able to participate both in the variation and in the selection; Giddens (1976) introduced in this context the metaphor of a ‘double hermeneutics’. Through language the distinction between uncertainty and meaningful information is communicated reflexively, and the consequent codification may be changed without becoming confused. The implied communicative competences can be specified from the perspective of communication theory. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The emergence of a social representation of human rights via interpersonal communication: empirical evidence for the convergence of two theories

To test the common assumption that social representations originate in ordinary communication, ten 24-person groups of American college students exchanged messages for 2 1/2 weeks about six specific issues drawn from a 21-item questionnaire previously used by Clemence, Doise, & Lorenzi-Cioldi (1994) in a cross-cultural investigation on human rights. As expected, interpersonal communication led to increased spatial clustering (neighbors in social space became more similar) and enhanced correlations among these issues, leading to a more coherent factor structure of human rights conceptions. Clustering and correlation simultaneously illustrate the emergence of self-organization in social systems and are taken as evidence for the social origin of social representations. These findings show how Latane's Dynamic Social Impact Theory complements Moscovici's Social Representation Theory, providing a mechanism for understanding how and criteria for knowing when social representations arise from communication. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Self-organization of social systems—a new challenge for organization sciences and systems design

article Free Access Share on Self-organization of social systems—a new challenge for organization sciences and systems design Author: Michael Paetau View Profile Authors Info & Claims ACM SIGOIS BulletinVolume 17Issue 1April 1996 pp 4–6https://doi.org/10.1145/236410.236415Published:01 April 1996Publication History 1citation350DownloadsMetricsTotal Citations1Total Downloads350Last 12 Months17Last 6 weeks5 Get Citation AlertsNew Citation Alert added!This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.Manage my AlertsNew Citation Alert!Please log in to your account Save to BinderSave to BinderCreate a New BinderNameCancelCreateExport CitationPublisher SiteeReaderPDF