Social Entropy Theory Research Articles

The Chaos Machine: The WTO in a Social Entropy Model of the World Trading System

This article applies social entropy theory to international trade law, suggesting that observed shifts in world trading system towards disorder are the consequence of insufficient ‘energy’ inputs in the form of an effective, centralized legal framework and focused authoritative organization. In support of this claim, the article draws attention to recognized, substantive deficiencies in the World Trade Organization (WTO). These include trade round negotiation impasse, the rise of bilateralism, indeterminacy in the treaty texts and inadequate enforcement procedures. These problems represent increasing disorganization, or entropy, in the world trading system, a phenomenon characterized most notably by growing income inequality between states and failure to achieve progress in further trade liberalization. While this article does not propose either specific predictions or comprehensive solutions to the dilemma of social entropy in the world trading system, it does suggest that a more robust, authoritative and trade-focused WTO is essential to counter the entropic tendencies within the supra-national trading system. This should help to ensure future growth and achieve the fuller distribution of economic prosperity through global trade.

The Chaos Machine: The WTO in a Social Entropy Model of the World Trading System

This article applies social entropy theory to the field of international trade law, suggesting that the observed degradation of the world trading system towards disorder is the consequence of insufficient 'energy' inputs in the form of effective, centralized legal and focused institutional frameworks. In support of this claim, the article draws attention to recognized institutional and substantive deficiencies in the World Trade Organization (‘WTO’) including trade round negotiation impasse, the rise of bilateralism, legal indeterminacy and inadequate enforcement procedures. These phenomena represent increasing disorganization, or entropy, in the world trading system, characterized most notably by growing income inequality between states and failure to achieve progress in further trade liberalization. While it does not propose either specific predictions or practical solutions to the dilemma of social entropy in the world trading system, the article does suggest that a more robust, authoritative and trade focused WTO is essential to counter the entropic tendencies within the supra-national trading system. This should help to ensure future growth and achieve the fuller distribution of economic prosperity through global trade.

Bailey’s social entropy theory as an explicit theoretical approach for an empirical assessment of security of contemporary societies

The aim of the article, based on my doctoral thesis (Mitar, Theoretical and Methodological comparison of selected approaches for assessment of security of modern society, Ph.D. Dissertation, 2005), is to present my slight modification of Bailey’s SET as an explicit theoretical approach for an empirical assessment of security of contemporary societies. I formed a model D=f(PLOTIS), in which component D was defined (various deviant or unwanted phenomena—in present article measured by the number of deaths in violent conflicts), which was conditioned by macro-societal factors (Population, Level-of-living, Organisation, Technology, Information, Space), denoted by acronym PLOTIS. The model is tested by cross-sectional design, 19 (non-random) chosen former European socialist countries are compared, available secondary data at the end of a period of transition (1989–2002) are used. The model is tested by different methods of analysis: descriptive statistics, qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and descriptive discriminant analysis (DDA). The comparison of results acquired by different methods confirmed usefulness of the modified SET as starting point for formation and testing of hypotheses about the influence of macro-societal characteristics (measured by PLOTIS) on unwanted phenomena. Last but not least, some proposals for further research are presented.

Boundary maintenance in living systems theory and social entropy theory

AbstractPast analyses of social systems have too often relied upon obsolete dualities such as open system/closed system. The purpose of this paper is to provide a more comprehensive analysis of the full range of boundary‐maintenance operations that are at work in the modern complex social system. I first analyse the role of the boundary in Living Systems Theory (LST), and then turn to the analysis and comparison of boundary maintenance in Social Entropy Theory (SET). Among the topics discussed are boundary control for matter‐energy (M‐E) flows, boundary control for information flows, types of information inflows across social‐system boundaries, types of information outflows across social‐systems boundaries and types of M‐E inflows and outflows across social systems boundaries. Among the types of information inflows discussed are neutral, fatal, catalytic and cancelling. Among the types of information outflows discussed are obligatory, routine and formatted. Finally, some of the M‐E inflows and outflows discussed are obligatory, optional and routine. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Living systems theory and social entropy theory

AbstractAlthough Living Systems Theory (LST) has been widely recognized for its major contributions to scholarship in general and systems theory in particular, the full extent of its contribution has never been explicitly presented. The purpose of this paper is twofold: first to discuss LST, and then to relate it to Social Entropy Theory (SET). The paper first presents 20 major contributions of LST. This is not an exhaustive list, but is simply designed to present simultaneously the wide range of contributions made by Miller, some of which have not been sufficiently recognized nor appreciated. Miller's contributions focused upon the actions of concrete components in fulfilling the critical subsystems processes required by systems at each level. He placed less emphasis on the key systems variables such as population and technology. Fortunately, Social Entropy Theory has explicated a set of key variables. The second part of the paper discusses Social Entropy Theory, and shows how it complements and extends LST. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Sociocybernetics and social entropy theory

PurposeTo present the contributions of sociocybernetics, particularly as developed by Felix Geyer, and to compare sociocybernetics with social entropy theory (SET).Design/methodology/approachThis paper first outlines the problems with earlier approaches, and then briefly discusses the four approaches constituting the “new” social systems theory: sociocybernetics, social‐autopoiesis theory, living systems theory (LST), and SET. Next the six chief contributions of sociocybernetics are discussed. Then sociocybernetics is compared with SET. The paper ends with a brief comparison of Geyer's sociocybernetics with the other two new approaches, social autopoiesis and LST.FindingsSociocybernetics is found to be a context‐specific, observer‐dependent approach that relies heavily on second‐order cybernetics. The comparison of sociocybernetics with SET also finds that the latter complements the former in valuable ways. Geyer's approach to sociocybernetics is also found to be compatible with both social autopoiesis and LST.Practical implicationsA very useful source of information for scholars interested in the comparative analysis of the new social‐systems theory.Originality/valueThis paper provides the first comparison of sociocybernetics with the other new social‐systems theories – SET, social autopoiesis, and LST. It clearly shows the value of Geyer's approach to sociocybernetics. It is valuable to all scholars interested in modern social‐systems theory. Sociocybernetics will be recognized as one of the great theoretical contributions of twentieth century sociology. It will also be forever linked with the names of its principal founders, Geyer and van der Zouwen. The numerous contributions of sociocybernetics are all the more impressive when it is recognized that they were made against a backdrop of widespread misunderstanding, mistrust, and outright rejection of its precursor approaches in social systems theory.

INTERNAL SOCIETAL REACTION TO EXTERNAL CHANGE: THE CASE OF THE KOREAN PENINSULA

As social systems increase in complexity, they must monitor the relationships among their internal components carefully, to see that their functioning is harmonious. The internal components must not only meet their own needs, but must meet the overall needs of the total society as well. If this is not done adequately, the society could face an alarming increase in internal entropy, to its great peril. However, in attending to internal needs, the complex society cannot neglect the need to monitor and reart to a variety of external flows, including monetary and information flows. This paper combines social entropy theory and autopoiesis theory to analyze the relationships between internal and external relations in a complex social system. South and North Korea are used as illustrations. An important issue is how a nation's boundaries are controlled. This is discussed briefly, and five models of boundary control are presented. North Korea is shown to have a model 1 system, while South Korea has a model 4 system.

System entropy analysis

A number of entropy models of social systems have been developed recently. Unfortunately, the complementarity of these approaches remains largely unanalysed, due to terminological and conceptual differences among them. There is an urgent need for a meta‐theoretical framework that will facilitate the analysis and comparison of all social entropy models. System entropy analysis (SEA), as presented here, is designed to fill this need. It is a second‐order, meta‐analytic tool which analyses each approach in terms of its major concepts, its basic units of analysis, its definition and measurement of entropy, and its specification of microstates and macrostates. First discusses the need for SEA, and then specifies its structure. Concludes with an application of SEA to the comparison and integration of three entropy approaches: synergetics, complexity theory and social entropy theory (SET).

Entropy, Social Entropy and Money: A Living Systems Theory Perspective

Entropy is a measure of system disorganization. This article discusses how entropy occurs and is measured in physical, biological and social systems, with particular emphasis on social systems. The role of money-information markers in the recurring organization and disorganization of social entities is identified as an important aspect of social entropy. The discussion integrates living systems theory, social entropy theory, and macro accounting theory. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Talcott parsons, social entropy theory, and living systems theory

Parsonian functionalism popularized grand, macrosociological systems theory in sociology, and dominated the field for over two decades. Unfortunately, it was heavily criticized as teleological, tautological, static, untestable, and conservative. The criticisms not only hastened its demise, but left a harsh legacy in which contemporary systems approaches are often labeled as “functionalism” and thus diminished or even dismissed. Living Systems Theory (LST) has contributed greatly to sociological thought, but it too, is in danger of being labeled as functionalist. In order to make clear the sociological contributions of LST, this paper first briefly compares it with Parsonian functionalism, and then with the major postfunctionalist sociological systems approach, Social Entropy Theory (SET). The analysis shows that not only are LST and SET complementary, but that both generally escape the pitfalls of functionalism. Thus, macrosociological systems theory is once again on solid ground. However, many social scientists do not realize this, and are not yet aware of the contributions of the newer systems approaches. This paper and a companion paper seek to make the contributions of contemporary macrosociological approaches such as LST more familiar and accessible to social scientists.

Prescience or serendipity? Parallelism in living systems theory and modern sociological theory

During the 1950s and 1960s, Parsonian functionalist systems theory was the dominant theory in American sociology. Since that time, the systems perspective has waned in sociology. Functionalism was widely critiqued, and no other systems theory has emerged (until recently) within sociology to take its place. However, there are still remnants of systems theory in contemporary sociological theory, and still some interest in the perspective. In fact, there are major points of congruence between prominent aspects of contemporary social theory and the “new” systems theories such as Living Systems Theory (LST), social entropy theory and autopoietic theory. There is also a great deal of interest in micro-macro linkages among contemporary sociological theorists. The purpose of this paper is to integrate LST and contemporary sociological theory. I will show that both approaches have a number of points in common, such as emphases on time, space, process, structure, and concrete systems. In addition to this basic congruence, I will also show that LST covers a number of areas not sufficiently dealt with in contemporary sociological theory, thus adding breadth and richness to it. Among the important contributions made by LST that are either entirely missing or relatively neglected in contemporary sociological theory are the analyses of types of systems (abstracted, concrete, conceptual), the 20 subsystems, the eight levels, the concept of organizational pathology, the study of information-input overload, and the concept of a social marker. Thus, I will demonstrate that LST and contemporary sociological theory are congruent in many ways, and compatible or complementary in many others. There are no or few real points of conflict between them. The major problem to date is that so few sociologists have a working knowledge of LST. Social theorists can benefit greatly from an understanding of LST, and this integration of LST and contemporary sociology is designed to, among other things, further that goal. Specifically, I will integrate LST with key mainstream sociological theories including Alexander's neofunctionalism, Giddens' structuration theory, and Collins' conflict theory.

BOOK REVIEWS

Book reviewed in this article: Artificial Experts: Social Knowledge and Intelligent Machines, by H. M. Collins. Cambrige, MA and London, England: MIT Press, 1990, 266 + XIII pages, $19.95, hardback. Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems, edited by Joel Best. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1989, 258 pages, $34.95, hardback, $16.95, paper. An End to Shame: Shaping Our Next Sexual Revolution, by Ira L. Reiss with Harriet M. Reiss. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1990, 287 pages, $21.95, hardback. Structures of Power and Constraint: Papers in Honor of Peter M. Blau, edited by Craig Calhoun, Marshall W. Meyer, and W. Richard Scott. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, 495 pages, $65.00, hardback. Social Entropy Theory, by Kenneth D. Bailey. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990, 310 pages, $54.50, cloth, $17.95, paper. Sociological Theories in Progress: New Formulations, by Joseph Berger, Morris Zelditch and Bo Anderson (eds.). Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1989, 416 pages, $42.00.

Review of Social Entropy Theory.

Review of Social Entropy Theory.

Social Entropy Theory.

Social Entropy Theory.

Social Entropy Theory: An overview

Social Entropy Theory (SET) is a very general macrosociological systems theory. The present paper is an overview which presents selected salient features of the larger model. Special attention is given to the specification of macrosociological variables which can serve as social indicators in a comparative framework of societal development. First, the goals of the SET model are stated. Then the basic model is sketched, and entropy is discussed as a measure of system state. Attention then turns to the specification of a holistic set of macrosociological systems variables. By seeking all correlates of the level (L), six salient global components are developed. These are population (P), information (I), spatial area (S), technology (T), organization (O), and level of living (L). This PISTOL (or PILOTS) model seems to be exhaustive and forms a comparative framework (when suitable indicators are specified for all components) for the analysis of social systems at all levels of development. A distinction is made among global, mutable, and immutable properties.