Tag: Culture

Categories
09 Motivated Symbolic Interpretation Theory

Understanding Why Words Work – or Don’t

Why do some words open doors while others close them? Why do some images attract and others repel? Why are some ideas welcomed and others dismissed; not because of their merit, but because of how they’re framed?

Over the past few months, I’ve been developing a theory that helps explain exactly that. It’s called Motivated Symbolic Interpretation Theory (MSIT). It explores how certain words, phrases, images, and symbols may, in the past, have become associated with satisfying or frustrating experiences, and how these associations shape our responses to new information, often before we’re even aware of it.

The theory is easily understood, and is outlined in a concise summary document that introduces its core definitions and propositions. It’s a practical, cross-disciplinary idea with applications in communication, education, psychology, therapy, and personal relationships.

This is just the beginning. I’m working on a fuller explanation, with examples and practical tools to help people use the theory to improve clarity, trust, and understanding in everyday life.

Read the summary here: https://rational-understanding.com/my-books#msitsummary

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Categories
13. Navigationg Cognitive Dissonance: A Personal Journey

Navigating Cognitive Dissonance: A Personal Journey

Introduction

This article marks a departure from my usual writing, as I delve into my personal experiences with cognitive dissonance. Readers familiar with my past work might wonder, “Does he practice what he preaches?” I hope to answer with a resounding “Yes, very much so.”

Recently, I encountered several instances of cognitive dissonance, a mental state in which something feels misaligned without a clear understanding of why1. These experiences were unsettling, eroding my confidence and leaving me feeling depressed. Resolving this dissonance became a priority, therefore, prompting me to draw upon my professional and theoretical knowledge.

Understanding Cognitive Dissonance Through Theory

My knowledge of the Morphogenetic Cycle2 provided a starting point. I realised that these dissonances stemmed from a conflict between my personal beliefs and practices and the apparent societal expectations surrounding me. Specifically, the culture of my society seemed to demand behaviours and values that clashed with my subconscious frameworks, known as schemata3.

Systems theory4 further illuminated the issue by revealing how levels of abstraction shape our understanding. Abstraction allows us to aggregate concepts into wholes (holism) or disaggregate them into parts (reductionism). For example, the concept of “justice” is the aggregate of many just acts, while a single just act can be broken down into components of legal and ethical processes5. Understanding these levels of abstraction helped clarify the disconnect between my thought processes and societal expectations.

The Role of Levels of Abstraction in Cognitive Dissonance

Societal norms often prioritise certain levels of abstraction. In Western culture, for instance, concepts like “holism” are favoured in addressing social issues. However, this term represents merely one level of abstraction among many6. My professional engineering background and systems thinking approach enable me to operate across multiple levels, from the granular (just acts) to the overarching (systems theory). This flexibility, while beneficial professionally, sometimes creates friction with societal norms that favour a narrower scope of abstraction.

Additionally, my exploration of ethical and moral terms, such as care, generosity, altruism, forgiveness, sacrifice, compassion, and benevolence, revealed further conflicts. While these terms align with the Christian values deeply ingrained in Western culture, they often obscure the transactional nature of human interactions7. For example, acts of benevolence may appear altruistic but often also satisfy spiritual or social needs for the benefactor. Recognising this transactional dimension can be controversial, as it challenges deeply held beliefs about what is good human behaviour.

Exploring Cultural Perspectives

To resolve my cognitive dissonance, I explored how other cultures frame these concepts. Other cultural traditions do, in fact, recognise their transactional. Sub-Saharan Africa’s Ubuntu philosophy emphasises communal well-being, where acts of kindness contribute to a better society8. Similarly, Confucianism in China focuses on societal structure and hierarchy, with moral behaviour reinforcing social harmony9. Unlike Western perspectives that emphasise spiritual rewards, these frameworks highlight social benefits.

This realisation was pivotal. By viewing human interactions through a transactional lens rooted in social rewards, rather than spiritual ones, I found a framework that resonated more closely with my values.

Personal Resolution and Future Directions

How does this relate to my cognitive dissonance?

Firstly, societal tropes10 often emphasise certain levels of abstraction, such as justice, while I operate across a broader spectrum. This led to concerns about being perceived as overly reductionist or excessively abstract. Secondly, my belief in the transactional nature of human interactions conflicted with societal narratives of pure altruism or spite. Finally, I questioned the utility of certain religious beliefs, which can obscure practical ways to improve society.

To reconcile these differences, I investigated whether the ethical principles of Ubuntu and Confucianism could be synthesised into a model acceptable to Western society. Ubuntu emphasises culture, one of the two key components of society, while Confucianism addresses societal structure, the other key component. Together, the two traditions provided a balanced ethical approach applicable to the realities of Western society; one that I and, hopefully, others could readily adopt.

Conclusion

By identifying the cultural roots of my cognitive dissonance and reframing my perspective, I have gained confidence in my approach. While criticism remains inevitable, I am better equipped to address it constructively.

In my next article, I will outline the proposed synthesis of Ubuntu and Confucian ethics in greater detail. For now, I leave you with the assurance that understanding and resolving cognitive dissonance begins with acknowledging its sources and embracing diverse frameworks to navigate complex societal challenges.

Finally, readers may have noticed that my process for resolving cognitive dissonance has been a practical reflection of the Morphogenetic Cycle, reinforcing my confidence in its truth.

Footnotes

  1. Cognitive dissonance: A psychological phenomenon identified by the American social psychologist, Leon Festinger (1919 – 1989) where an individual experiences discomfort due to holding conflicting beliefs or attitudes.
  2. Morphogenetic Cycle: Introduced by the British sociologist Margaret Archer (1943–2023), this concept explains the relationship between he structure and culture of society and individual agency. In this cycle the structure and culture of a society place demands on an individual. If those demands are satisfactory, the individual automatically affirms their society. If not, then they engage in reflexivity to identify solutions and then attempt to propagate those solutions into society. This process is continuously ongoing, a multitude of individual agents interact with society and there are time delays at each stage.
  3. Schemata: Subconscious mental frameworks identified by the British psychologist Frederic Bartlett (1886 – 1969) and used to organise and interpret information.
  4. Systems theory: An interdisciplinary approach to understanding complex systems by examining their components, relationships, and emergent properties.
  5. Levels of abstraction: The process of aggregating or disaggregating concepts to focus on broader wholes or detailed parts. What is considered holistic or reductionist is relative to the context, a “whole” at one level may be a “part” at another.
  6. Holism: A perspective that emphasises the whole rather than its individual components.
  7. Transactional relationships: Interactions where parties exchange resources or benefits, mutually satisfying their needs. Transactional relationships can also comprise an exchange of disbenefits together with various intermediate interactions of a more transient nature. There is considerable scientific evidence to support the view that all human interactions are transactional in nature.
  8. Ubuntu: A Southern African philosophy emphasising communalism and the interconnectedness of humanity. It suggests that “a person is a person through other people,” fostering mutual care and respect.
  9. Confucianism: An ethical and philosophical system originating in China, focusing on societal roles, relationships, and moral conduct. It emphasises hierarchy and the importance of family and social harmony.
  10. Trope: A shared cultural schema or pattern of thought that emerges as an aggregate of individual schemata within a society. Schemata are subconscious mental frameworks that individuals use to interpret and organise information, and when these frameworks are collectively aligned across a group, they form tropes. Tropes represent higher levels of abstraction compared to individual schemata and are more holistic, encapsulating collective cultural values, norms, and ideas.
Categories
11. A Deep Dive into Beliefs Schemata Tropes and Culture

A Deep Dive into Beliefs, Schemata, Tropes, and Culture

In today’s interconnected world, understanding how our beliefs, cultural frameworks, and social structures interact is more crucial than ever. In my latest article, A Deep Dive into Beliefs, Schemata, Tropes, and Culture, I explore these foundational elements of human cognition and culture, offering insights into how they shape individual behaviour, societal norms, and cultural evolution.

At its heart, the article examines the Modified Morphogenetic Cycle, an original extension of Margaret Archer’s framework, which includes the often-overlooked interplay between human cognition and the natural environment. This innovation provides a comprehensive model to understand how individual schemata, shared tropes, and societal culture influence, and are influenced by, our surroundings.

Key highlights include:

  • Schemata as Cognitive Foundations: How individual mental frameworks shape beliefs and behaviour.
  • Tropes and Cultural Patterns: The emergent collective structures that guide societal values and norms.
  • Dynamic Interactions: How culture and societal structures evolve through individual agency and collective action.
  • Implications for Change: Practical applications for interdisciplinary collaboration, problem-solving, and fostering innovation in an ever-changing world.

This article not only explains these concepts but demonstrates their application to real-world challenges, from gender equality to environmental sustainability. Whether you’re a researcher, educator, or curious thinker, this exploration offers tools to bridge divides and create meaningful change. For the full article, please visit https://rational-understanding.com/my-books#a-deep-dive or https://www.academia.edu/126718325/A_Deep_Dive_into_Beliefs_Schemata_Tropes_and_Culture

Categories
41. A Theory of Society Derived form the Principles of Systems, Psychology, Ecology & Evolution Part 4

A Theory of Society Derived from the Principles of Systems, Psychology, Ecology & Evolution, Part 4

Part 4 of this series of papers is open access and can be downloaded in pdf format free of charge at https://rational-understanding.com/my-books#theory-of-society-4

Part 1 discussed the structure of society, i.e., the relationships between human holons, such as individuals, organisations or nations, the various forms these relationships can take, and how they alter with time. It notes that, with a very few exceptions, human interactions are much the same as those encountered elsewhere in the animal world. Conventionally, the structure of society is taken to mean its network of cooperative relationships. However, in this series of papers, a much broader definition is used that includes non-cooperative ones. Thus, for example, ongoing wars are also considered a part of this structure. It is also acknowledged that it is not only human needs that dictate relationships and the way that they change but also the values, norms and beliefs held by the related parties. Thus, the subsequent Parts of this series discuss the latter in more detail.

Part 2 described the work of the English philosopher of science, Roy Bhaskar (1944 – 2014), and the English sociologist, Margaret Archer (1943 – 2023). Roy Bhaskar is regarded as the founder of Critical Realism, a philosophy that holds reality to exist and to be the source of truth. It also holds that our beliefs about reality are not necessarily true. Both Roy Bhaskar and Margaret Archer described how culture affects individual agency and how individual agency alters culture. Bhaskar referred to his model as the Transformational Model of Social Activity (TMSA), and Archer to her model as the Morphogenetic Cycle. Archer also described how reflexivity, i.e., an agent’s internal conversations, can lead to cultural and structural change.

Part 3 built on the work of Margaret Archer to describe the outcomes of those internal conversations in more detail. It explains that to satisfy our needs or to avoid contra-satisfiers, we can adopt, form and propagate beliefs that are not necessarily true, but ones thought likely to satisfy our needs. Furthermore, to avoid anxiety caused by circumstances beyond our control we can adopt beliefs that act as psychological defence mechanisms. These beliefs when propagated do, of course, influence culture and structure.

Part 4 now draws on the preceding three parts to discuss the nature of culture in more detail, together with the processes of cultural evolution, stagnation, regression and speciation.

Categories
40. Harmful Beliefs about Truth and Agency

Harmful Beliefs about Truth and Agency

I do worry about some of the opinions that have been coming out of the academic establishment recently. Unfortunately, they appear to be caused by cultural manipulation. That is, the fostering of cultural beliefs by minority vested interests, which can influence academia in the same way as everyone else. Some of these opinions can be extremely harmful to society. Consider for example, the popular view that we lack free will, and that everything is preordained. The justification for this view appears to come from a simplistic assumption about space-time and causality which, although commonly held, lacks empirical evidence. If we were to accept this opinion, then it would completely undermine our sense of agency, i.e., our ability to make decisions and act accordingly. This, in turn, would have an adverse impact on both our psychological wellbeing and our ability to deal with social and environmental problems.

Recently, I had a conversation with an influential academic who expressed the following opinion. “My issue with the concept of truth is that its temporariness tends to get lost as we speak of beliefs, reality and objectivity. … It is not a question of being agnostic (or not) about the knowability of an external, objective world; the question is irrelevant. … I worry that acceptance of an external, objective reality privileges those [who] can claim, based on their authority, to know that reality and dismiss those who do not. This then leads to a justification of oppression and violence.”

Personally, I do think that there is a reality, that we are a part of it, and that it defines what is true and what is not. I have also come to the conclusion that we interact differently with our natural and social environments. The former has no agency and hits us randomly with threats and opportunities that we have evolved to navigate. We do so quite well, in my view, and our success as a species is largely down to this. So, objective truth is important when dealing with the natural environment and this is reflected in our approach to the natural sciences.

On the other hand, our social environment does have agency, and we regard objective truth as being less important. So, we often engage in psychological defence mechanisms such as denial. We also often accept, form, and propagate beliefs that are not necessarily true, but rather ones that we feel are likely to satisfy our needs. So, interaction with our social environment can be very complex indeed. Nevertheless, we are a part of reality, governed by its rules, and there are techniques for identifying those rules, or something close to them, even though the endeavour is far more difficult than in the natural sciences.

However, the endeavour is worth pursuing. We now have a population of 8 billion and this, along with some of our behaviour, is unsustainable. So, if we are to have any hope of altering that situation, then we need to know the objective truth about human nature and our behaviour.

In view of the chaos of conflicting beliefs that we are currently presented with, we do need to find ways of coping. The strategy adopted by the academic referred to above is a good one, so long as it remains entirely personal. However, he is influential, and suggesting to others that  there is no objective truth or that it is irrelevant is not a good idea. If there is no objective truth, then all ideas, views, opinions, morals, ethics, etc. are equally valid, or should I say invalid? Because culture relies on shared values, norms, and beliefs, this can undermine the cultural consensus, leading to cultural disintegration.

Approximately 13% of the population are estimated to have dark personality traits such as narcissism, psychopathy or Machiavellianism. I should emphasise that these are personality traits rather than pathologies, and that the behaviour of people with these traits is otherwise normal. However, by virtue of reduced moral and ethical standards, those with such traits are more likely to ascend to positions of power than others. Unfortunately therefore, many of our leaders have these traits. We rarely oppose those with greater power for fear of reprisal. So, our response can be to support them in our personal interest, flight to other organisations or nations, but, in most cases, it is denial. That is, we do not consciously acknowledge the existence of dark leaders until, for example, such time as war breaks out. Such leaders do often falsely claim the truth and it is sensible to point this out. Personally, I would never knowingly follow one, but unfortunately, many do.

However, as well as engaging in other forms of cultural manipulation, it is possible for dark leaders to undermine a belief in objective truth and, for the reasons given above, this is dangerous too. The argument that a belief in the existence of truth empowers dark leaders is incorrect. Rather, a disbelief in objective truth makes their lies much easier to follow.

In summary, people do have a problem with discovering and expressing the truth, particularly in the context of society, and it’s fair for academia to say that. However, academia should also point out that reality defines the truth, and that some human beliefs are closer to it than others.

These are difficult concepts to accept, can undermine our self-image, and this in itself can lead to denial. However, once we are aware of the problem there are techniques that we can use to bring our beliefs closer to the truth than they might otherwise have been. The Buddha even taught this 2500 years ago. Ones worth mentioning are the sociologist Margaret Archer’s meta-reflexivity. This involves reflecting on decisions that we have previously made and beliefs that we already hold to ascertain whether they are associated with our needs. If so, we can make a conscious effort to disassociate and revise them. Then there is the consistency of reality. If two ideas contradict one another, one must be false. Another important technique is empirical evidence gained from observation. Academic, political or other authority is no guarantee of the truth. Psychological defence mechanisms, satisfying beliefs, and vested interests operate in those arenas too. All opinions should be questioned no matter what the source.

Finally, you may also find this entertaining “Beginners Guide to Critical Realism” by Tom Fryer helpful. https://tfryer.com/ontology-guide/

Categories
09. Cultural Speciation (Part 2)

Cultural Speciation 2

Introduction

This article comprises the posts that I made in Facebook’s Cultural Speciation chat from 11/9/23 to 25/9/23.

During my work on social systems theory, I have been struck by similarities between the behaviour of individuals, organisations, and nations, i.e., by the isomorphisms. An example is, personal denial vs. cultural denial. The latter is also known as co-denial or conspiracy of silence. Because of these isomorphisms, I now treat the organisation, in in its most general sense, as the fundamental holon in social systems theory.

The phrase “cultural evolution” is often thought of as being merely metaphorical. However, very real isomorphisms do appear to exist between biological evolution and cultural evolution. Examples include cultural speciation, cultural co-evolution, sub-cultures vs. sub-species, and so on. As cultural evolutionary principles appear to explain much of what is going on in the world today, I would like to begin a discussion with a view to developing the concept further.

More on this topic can be found at: the World values Surveys website at https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/ ; and in the excellent book “Cultural Evolution” by Ronald Inglehart.

Cognitive Physicalist Philosophy.

I developed this philosophy during my 23 years of work on mathematical logic. It was the only approach that enabled me to join up the various branches of logic into a single, consistent, and relatively simple system. This philosophy underpins the steps that will follow.

The cognitive perspective holds that we are our minds and cannot escape the constraints imposed by their biology and evolutionary history. Nevertheless, human cognition is a reasonably accurate representation of reality. If it were not, then it is unlikely that our species would have survived to be as successful as it is. Physicalism holds that space-time comprises the whole of reality and that everything, including abstract concepts and information, exists within it. Nothing transcends the laws of nature or occupies somewhere other than space-time.

The Nature of Information.

Information is physical in nature. It is not merely conveyed by matter and energy; it is integral to it in the form of order and structure. Information exists at source i.e., within the original physical entity. It is formed of meaningful component parts within that entity and the relationships between them. For an entity to be meaningful it must be structured in a way that recurs. This is an evolutionary trait that enables us to recognise recurring entities and, when we encounter them in the future, predict their behaviour, including any opportunities or threats. If an entity is meaningful, we associate the information that it contains with a sense image (icon) and in a symbolic form compatible with our minds. This enables us to remember entities and the associations between them. Finally, we translate information in that form into a symbolic form that can be communicated to others, e.g., words, thereby sharing our knowledge of an entity’s behaviour. In this latter form information can be replicated.

The ability to recognise and process information in this way is a property that emerges with life. This property applies only to living beings and some of their artifacts. It does not apply to other non-living physical entities.

Information at source is, by definition, always true. However, there are many ways in which mentally processed and communicated information can become false.

Basic Biological Evolution.

There are two main features of an organism: its genotype, i.e., the genetic constitution of the organism, and its phenotype, i.e., the manifestation of that design and the observable characteristics of the organism. The organism’s genotype is information that can be replicated and translated. It is the organism’s design. The phenotype is a consequence of this design as influenced by environmental circumstances.

Biological evolution has two main components, random mutation, and natural selection. Random mutation acts on an organism’s genotype and can, for example, be caused by radiation, viruses or copying errors during replication. Most random mutations are harmful, many are neutral and a few beneficial.

Natural selection operates on the phenotype. Under selective pressures from the environment organisms with harmful mutations often expire or fail to reproduce whilst those with beneficial mutations tend to propagate. Neutral mutations can persist in a population’s variable genome and can manifest themselves in the form of sub-species. Later, if the organism’s environment changes, they may prove beneficial or harmful and either propagate or expire.

Isomorphism between Biological and Cultural Evolution.

Society has two main features which are very similar in nature to those of the organism. Firstly, there is its culture. This includes values or those things that we hold good or bad; norms or codes of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour; and beliefs. They are all information held in the mind and socially propagated. They comprise a society’s design and are the equivalent of the biological genome.

Secondly, there is the practical manifestation of culture, in the form of society itself. This manifestation is a consequence of both culture and environmental circumstances. So, the manifestation of society can be regarded as the equivalent of the biological phenotype.

Culture is also subject to mutation. This can be caused by new knowledge, ideas and understanding; changes in the social and natural environment; communication errors; and even deliberate interventions such as propaganda and advertising.

Again, some of these mutations are harmful, some neutral and others beneficial. Theoretically, social processes should tend to cause those that are beneficial to propagate, those that are harmful to expire, and those that are neutral to remain as variations. However, deliberate intervention can propagate harmful cultural mutations. It is noteworthy that our interventions have also been biological. We have deliberately intervened in the genome of some organisms via selective breeding and, more recently, direct genetic modification has become possible.

In some circles culture is known as a memeplex with individual parts known as memes. However, the meaning of the word meme has changed with the advent of the internet, so I now avoid using it.

Biological and Cultural Speciation.

Biological speciation is the formation of new and distinct species through the process of evolution. Two main factors are involved, the accumulation of viable genetic mutations and geographical or environmental separation. In the case of geographical separation, members of a species come to occupy different parts of the world and can no longer interbreed. In the case of environmental separation, they come to occupy different environments, e.g., the trunk or branches of a tree, and again can no longer interbreed. This allows different mutations to accumulate in each group.

Initially this can result in a sub-species. That is, a group of organisms with identifiable differences from the parent species, but which nevertheless hold most of their genome in common with it and remain able to interbreed with it. If separation ceases a sub-species may be absorbed into the parent species. If separation continues it may diverge from the parent species as genetic differences accumulate, and ultimately may be unable to interbreed with it, thus forming a separate species.

A similar process can occur in society. Geographical separation is the same but environmental separation can be social as well as physical. Initially, a sub-culture can form with its own distinct cultural features but nonetheless holding much in common with the parent culture. If geographical or social separation ceases, then the sub-culture can be re-absorbed into the parent culture, but if separation persists, cultural speciation can occur such that it becomes difficult for the two cultures to interact. Differences in language, values, and norms form the basis for these difficulties.

Other Support for Cultural Speciation

Another interesting parallel is as follows. Culture is held in the minds of individual people. Together these people form society. The genome is held within individual cells. Together these cells form the organism.

Cultural speciation is thought to precede biological speciation and to have occurred in early hominids. The Italian scientist, Fiorenzo Facchini suggests that “Culture probably played a double role in the process of human speciation: (1) in isolation and differentiation from other groups of hominids that did not have such behaviour; and (2) in adaptation to the environment and in communication between groups that had the same cultural behaviour, thus slowing down or preventing the conditions of isolation that lead to new species.” (Facchini, 2006)

Application of The Biological Evolution/ Cultural Evolution Isomorphism.

At present (Sept 2023) I am working on interactions in the natural world, both human and non-human. This is going well, and I am finding strong isomorphisms. The same small range of interactions exist between: different species; groups within a species, including human organisations and cultures; and individuals within a species, including people. These interactions, which include co-operation, are both consequences and drivers of the evolutionary process. So, it does appear possible to unite the social and biological sciences in a way that allows knowledge to be transferred between disciplines.

Regarding cultural evolution, this is often thought to be merely a metaphor. However, biological evolution and cultural evolution are so similar in nature that they are almost certainly the same process. So, it is likely that the knowledge that we have gained of biological evolution can be applied to society.

Finally, I should perhaps mention that, although humanity comprises different cultures, this is merely an observation. I make no value judgements as to which culture is better. In fact, such value judgements are themselves cultural.

Categories
08. Cultural Speciation (Part 1)

Cultural Speciation

Cultural speciation is the formation of separate and distinct cultures in human society and is a product of cultural evolution. Just like biological evolution, cultural evolution comprises two main features: random mutation and natural selection.

What evolves is not the subject itself but rather its design, i.e., the information that determines how it is formed. In the case of a living organism, this design is its genotype or genetic constitution. Together an organism’s genotype and its environment determine its phenotype, i.e., its observable characteristics. In the case of society, the equivalent of the genotype is its culture, that is, its values, norms, beliefs, and symbols, all of which are, of course, information. This culture together with its environment determine society and the latter is the equivalent of an organism’s phenotype.

Only living things and some of their artifacts can recognise and process information. Thus, evolution applies only to living things and potentially the artifacts that they create. Furthermore, for evolution to take place the entity must be capable of self-assembly from its design. Only living organisms are capable of this and not, for the present at least, their artifacts. In the latter case, an external agent is still needed to carry out the assembly.

Random mutation in living organisms is due to changes to the genome, caused for example by duplication errors, radiation, or viruses. Many of these changes are harmful, a few are neutral, and even fewer beneficial. Human society is a living thing, and it too is subject to random changes in its equivalent of the genome, that is, its culture. These random mutations take the form of new theories, opinions, attitudes, lies, etc. Before the advent of the internet they would propagate quite slowly and often die out. However, the internet has subjected society to a form of “radiation” that has accelerated the rate of random mutation enormously. New ideas proliferate and propagate at a rate never before seen. The effect of this has been to accelerate cultural evolution.

The environment in which these cultural mutations operate is the natural one, the social one and their prevailing states. Together these environments exercise the equivalent of natural biological selection. In principle, cultural mutations that are clearly true to reality and of benefit to society should be selected for by this environment; others that are neutral should persist perhaps to come to the fore if the environment changes; and those that are clearly harmful should expire. However, vested interests can influence the propagation of information. This occurred before the advent of the internet when, for example, the Catholic Church supressed scientific discoveries. More recently, commercial, and political interests have promoted information on the internet that supports their objectives and supressed that which does not. To some extent this alters the direction of cultural evolution by accelerating the rate of propagation in some directions, e.g., consumerism, whilst slowing it in others, e.g., environmentalism.

In living organisms, evolution leads to speciation. Successful mutations accumulate on different lines, and these lines become increasingly different. Initially, they form sub-species that can interbred but eventually, they become entirely separate species that cannot. The same is true of culture, initially cultural mutations lead to sub-cultures which operate largely within the main one. Interaction between the sub-culture and main culture slows the rate of divergence. However, as mutations accumulate, it becomes increasingly difficult for the sub-culture to operate within the main one, and a separation can occur. An example is the migration of religious groups from Europe to the USA.

Such speciation is thought to have occurred in early hominids. The Italian scientist, Fiorenzo Facchini suggests that “Culture probably played a double role in the process of human speciation: (1) in isolation and differentiation from other groups of hominids that did not have such behaviour; and (2) in adaptation to the environment and in communication between groups that had the same cultural behaviour, thus slowing down or preventing the conditions of isolation that lead to new species.” (Facchini, 2006)

When migration is impossible and a distance between the cultures cannot be achieved, then they will compete, often negatively, as for example in the case of political polarisation in the USA and the Russia/Ukraine war.

Finally, in humans, cultural evolution is thought to be a precursor to biological evolution. So, if geographical separation is possible in the long term, then biological speciation will eventually occur.

References

Facchini, F. “Culture, Speciation and the Genus Homo in Early Humans.” Human Evolution 21, 51–57 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11598-006-9004-y

Nazari, V. & Belardinelli, S., 2023. “Speciation and Cultures: The Interplay of Biological and Cultural Diversity”. Conference: Speciation: The Origin and Persistence of Species (Gordon Research Seminar) At: Lucca (Barga), Italy; 28–29 January 2023 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367280120_Speciation_and_Cultures_The_Interplay_of_Biological_and_Cultural_Diversity

Categories
10. Culture and Interaction Style

Culture and Interaction Style

Culture

Culture is learned and comprises values, norms, beliefs, knowledge, and symbols. It is, therefore, information. A culture can be shared by the members of any organisation small or large. Culture, especially values, along with inherited predispositions affect a person’s behaviour, and thus, the “style” of interactions between and within organisations. The style of interaction also affects the culture of an organisation and there is, therefore, a degree of feedback between the two.

The social environment in which an organisation operates has a strong bearing on its culture. However, not all organisations operate within a single environment. Some, for example, operate globally. Furthermore, not all individuals or organisations concur with the culture that prevails in their environment. Leaders of an organisation also have a strong influence over its culture. These factors can result in conflicting values, the consequences of which will be discussed in a future article.

Interaction style

Organisations are predisposed to interact in one of three basic styles: co-operation, for example, helping one another over the finish line in a race; positive competition, for example, running as fast as we can to be first over the line; and negative competition, for example, kicking the legs out from one another on our way to it. This predisposition is based on past experience and  learning from others in the community but actual interaction style also depends on circumstances.. In the case of co-operation and negative competition, the two organisations interact directly with one another. Co-operation involves an equitable exchange of satisfiers; negative competition involves an exchange of contra-satisfiers. However, in the case of positive competition, the two organisations do not interact directly, but rather with a third party. This is usually a precursor to co-operation between the third party and the successful competitor.

In practice, the predispositions of organisations are often a mix of the three interaction styles, each predominating in different circumstances, as shown in the diagram below.

The style of interaction is usually, but not necessarily, defined by the attitudes of the component organisations or individuals directly involved in the interaction and te circumstances. However, more senior leaders can have an influence through their leadership style, the culture they promote within the organisation, and their distance from the interaction.

Interactions can be vertical, i.e., between individuals or organisations above and below one another in a hierarchy. They can also be horizontal, i.e., between individuals or organisations at similar levels, but on different branches, of a hierarchy. Thus, for example, the interaction between a manager and a junior member of staff is vertical, and the trade between nations horizontal.

Vertical Interaction Style

Vertical interaction is a special case of interaction in general. True leadership and followership are co-operative, but this form of interaction does not always exist between senior and junior individuals or the components of organisations. A leader must be accepted by followers to gain their willing support. If the leader is appointed by a bottom-up process, i.e., if followers agree their leader, then co-operation will normally ensue. However, if a leader is appointed by a top-down process, then co-operation is not inevitable, and positive or negative competition may occur. Examples of top-down appointments include not only appointments made by senior managers, but also business takeovers and the invasion of nations.

In positive competition, the two parties do not interact with one another but compete for satisfiers from a third party. An appointed leader and an unwilling follower may, for example, both compete for recognition by a more senior person.

In negative competition, contra-satisfiers are exchanged but the leader or parent organisation is normally in a more powerful position, and thus, able to coerce the follower with threats of contra-satisfiers. Fortunately, extreme examples of such behaviour are now largely illegal, but mild versions persist in many organisations.

The style of vertical co-operative interaction varies on a scale. At one end is the personal contract, i.e., trading of personal benefits, such as power, wealth, and influence for support. At the other end of the scale is Rousseau’s social contract, which states that followers are willing to give up some of their rights in the communal interest. However, the definition of communal interest can vary, and so the social contract can be defined in several ways. Thus, this definition should be revised as follows: people are willing to support a leader, and thus, give up certain rights if that leader acts in a way that delivers benefits to:

  • the individual supporter (personal contract);
  • the supporting team (team contract);
  • the sub-organisation (sub-organisational contract);
  • the organisation (organisational contract);
  • the super-organisation (super-organisational contract);
  • the nation (national contract);
  • humanity (species contract); or
  • the ecosystem (environmental contract).

The style of contract sought and offered will depend on the follower’s and leader’s attitudes. In general, the weight given to each type of contract, i.e., its relative influence on their interaction style, generally decreases from personal, to social, to species, to environmental. This decrease is consistent with the multilevel selection theory of evolution. We place greatest weight on immediate personal interest, but do not neglect our longer-term interests gained communally. The actual weights applied by an individual or organisation depend on their attitude. Generally, those with a right-wing attitude will place greater weight on the personal contract, and less weight on other contracts, than those with a left-wing attitude.

Categories
05. A Summary of Social Systems Theory

A Summary of Social Systems Theory

In this short series of articles, I will summarise the basic principles of Social Systems Theory. Full details are given in previous or subsequent articles.

The fundamental component of society or holon

The term holon was coined by Arthur Koestler in his 1967 book, The Ghost in The Machine. It refers to any entity that can be recognised as a whole in itself and which constitutes part of a larger whole. In social systems theory the fundamental component or holon of society is the organisation, that is, any group of people who work together with a common purpose. Organisations can be of any type and can range in size and extent from an individual, through clubs, businesses, sectors, political parties, governments, nations, and groups of nations, to the global community.

Family relationships between organisations

All organisations form a nested hierarchy. The structural relationships between them are similar to those in a family and the same names can be used. Thus, for example, child organisations are components of a parent one, and parent organisations are components of a grandparent one. Two organisations that are components of the same parent are known as sibling organisations. This nested hierarchy continues upwards until an isolated organisation or the global community is reached.

Every organisation comprises a number of component or child organisations, and this nested hierarchy continues downwards until individual people are reached.

Recursion

Recursion means that similar rules and principles can explain the behaviour of organisations irrespective of their size. Thus, for example, a department in a government agency has a leader, and so too does the entire agency.

The control component

All organisations have a control component, e.g., leadership or management, to co-ordinate their activities. Due to recursion, control components have their own control components until we arrive at the individual person. This creates a leadership or management hierarchy comprising individuals. It is natural to select leaders using a bottom-up process, i.e., followers choose a leader thought to be best qualified to co-ordinate their activities. However, managers are also frequently chosen by a top-down process whereby senior managers select junior ones thought to be best suited to the role.

Needs, satisfiers, and contra-satisfiers

All organisations have needs similar to those of individuals. These needs are prioritised using the same categories for individuals identified by Abraham Maslow and Clayton Alderfer, i.e., ERG or existence, followed by relatedness, in particular family relatedness, followed by growth. These priorities are consistent with the multilevel selection theory of evolution. This holds that we place greatest weight on personal survival and reproduction, followed by that of the community upon which we depend, followed by people more remote.

Satisfiers are those external things that increase the level of satisfaction of our needs, for example, food for hunger, or resources for manufacturing. Both individuals and larger organisations endeavour to gain satisfiers as efficiently as possible. Contra-satisfiers, on the other hand, are those external things that reduce the level of satisfaction of our needs and which we endeavour to avoid.

The applicability of systems science, function, and causality to organisations

All organisations are systems and comprise inputs, processes, and outputs. The fundamental principles of systems science apply to them, therefore.

Causality also applies to organisations. The combination of an input and the process is equivalent to a cause. The combination of the process and an output is equivalent to an effect. An organisation’s processes and outputs are also referred to as its function. Because causality applies to organisations we can, for example, say that a number of necessary causes or inputs are together sufficient for an effect in which the organisation carries out its function of producing outputs.

Matter, energy, or information is transferred from every organisation’s inputs to its outputs. This takes place within the region of space-time defined by the organisation’s process. Thus, the latter provides the overlap in space-time needed for a cause to be related to an effect.

All organisations comprise a group of people who work together with a common purpose. This purpose is also the organisation’s function, and the ability to carry out its function is an organisational need.

The applicability of motivation theory to organisations

All interactions between individuals, organisations, and parts of them comprise an exchange of satisfiers or contra-satisfiers for each other’s needs. These satisfiers and contra-satisfiers also take the form of matter, energy, or information. A satisfier or contra-satisfier received is an input, and one provided is an output. Thus, motivation theory also plays a key role in social systems theory.

The applicability of information theory to organisations

Information passes between organisations and flows within any organisation’s processes. Thus, information theory plays an essential role in social systems theory. Fundamentally, information is organised or structured matter or energy that we recognise due to its recurrence. It can exist “at source”, i.e., as the original structure perceived in the physical universe. It can also be translated into various symbolic forms capable of being transmitted, stored, or remembered. Importantly, information at source is, by definition, always true. However, information acquired in other ways, for example, from another organisation, can be false.

Direct interaction can only take place if two organisations are aware of one another, and for this to be the case, information must pass between them. However, organisations can be aware of one another but not interact. These criteria simplify the web of interactions in a social system.

Culture & interaction style

The ways in which individuals and organisations interact are determined by their culture and interaction style. These topics will be covered in a forthcoming article.

Categories
06. Culture, Sub-cultures and Cultural Evolution

Culture, Sub-cultures, and Cultural Evolution

Introduction

As mentioned in a previous article, an organisation is any group of people who work together with a common purpose. Every organisation has a culture comprising values, norms, beliefs, operational knowledge, and symbols.

Sub-Cultures

In common parlance during the 1960’s, the word “sub-culture” was associated with rebellious, western, youth cultures. More recently, it has become associated with style-based cultures, predicated on fashions in music and clothing. However, these are merely the most overtly expressed sub-cultures. The more general definition used in this article is a group of individuals within a parent culture who, whilst largely subscribing to the latter, deviate from some of its norms, values, beliefs, and symbols in an identifiable way.

The parent culture can be that of an organisation of any scale, from a club, through a nation, to the global community. However, we most often tend to think of sub-cultures as being relative to national culture. The most significant national sub-cultures are political, ethnic, religious, regional, gender based, age based, occupation based, class based, and so on.

How Sub-cultures Arise

There are three main ways in which a sub-culture can arise.

  1. Organisational Emergence. A sub-culture can arise in the same way as any other organisation. A group of individuals who identify a common threat or opportunity come together with a common purpose. Within such a group, a common culture arises, and a leadership hierarchy can also arise. It is worth noting, however, that there also exist interest based sub-cultures, e.g., sports and hobbies, which do not necessarily become organized. Thus, whilst an organisation always has a culture, a culture is not necessarily part of an organisation.
  2. Cultural Migration. The anthropologist, Roland B Dixon, noted that ethnic migration can also result in cultural change. However, more general cultural migrations can also occur, for example, when one business is taken over or merged with another.
  3. Top-down Design. Present day marketing specialists are well aware of the importance of sub-cultures as consumers, and are capable of promoting a designed sub-culture via the internet and social media. Many, but not all, Western sub-cultures are now consumer based, therefore. This is an example of how an improved knowledge of social systems can alter a culture.

Counter-Cultures

In extreme cases, the parent culture can be regarded as a threat by a group of individuals. So, they may come together to form a counter-culture, which seeks to radically alter the parent culture. Counter-cultures are normally political in nature and organised.

Sub-cultures and Cultural Evolution

Sub-cultures play an important part in cultural evolution. A sub-culture may be relatively minor at first, but can grow and ultimately become absorbed by the parent culture. Recent examples in the West include the absorption of the following sub-cultures: women’s rights, LGBT rights, ethnic minority rights, religious rights and so on.

Historically, due to the prevalence of authoritarian regimes, sub-cultures tended to emerge in hiding at first. This is because authoritarian regimes tended to regard them as a threat to the status quo, and because sub-cultures were, initially, relatively powerless and easily eradicated. For example, in the dark ages, people who did not conform to religious norms, or who questioned the social hierarchy, could be burnt at the stake. However, the Renaissance sub-culture later emerged. It sought the reinstatement of knowledge lost following the collapse of the Roman Empire. This ultimately led to a more rational approach to theology, the natural world, and the arts. The Renaissance was followed by the Reformation, a reaction against the Catholic Church’s doctrine. It led not only to religious change but also to more general social change. It highlighted corruption in the Catholic Church hierarchy, afforded women a greater role in society, helped to spread literacy, and weakened the relationship between church and state. The subsequent Age of Enlightenment, in which philosophy, logic, and reason flourished, resulted in major political changes that formed the liberal democracies that we see in the Western world today. All of these changes originated with a sub-culture.

Alongside the decline of authoritarianism, there has been growing tolerance for sub-cultures.  Increasingly, they have been allowed to grow or expire with relatively little interference from established institutions. The effect of this has been to increase the pace of cultural evolution.

Despite this growing tolerance, social pressures remain. We all hold our culture in mental schemata, and these can cause us to behave towards others in a way that encourages them to adopt the same culture. That is, we aim for cultural homogeneity or the sharing of a common culture. Inevitably, the likelihood of such homogeneity decreases with organizational size.

On the other hand, cultural entrenchment, i.e., the unchangeability of an organisation’s culture, generally increases with size. Our cultural schema can also cause us to regard people who hold a different culture or sub-culture as a threat and we can, therefore, attempt to stifle emerging sub-cultures. The larger the group of people who hold a culture the more successful this will tend to be.