Needs – Rational-Understanding.com

My previous article ended with a discussion of the unconstrained pursuit of power and I will now explore this concept in more detail.

Power can be defined as the control of satisfiers and contra-satisfiers for oneself and others. Satisfiers are those external things that increase the level of satisfaction of our needs. Contra-satisfiers, on the other hand, reduce that level of satisfaction. Money is not in itself power, but rather something that can be traded for more tangible satisfiers and contra-satisfiers. Thus, it can be regarded as an undefined or general satisfier. The control of money is therefore equivalent to the control of satisfiers and is a component of power. As a side issue, all satisfiers and contra-satisfiers can be said to have a monetary value that depends on what people are willing to pay for them.

Individual people give a weight, and thus, a priority to the deployment of satisfiers and contra-satisfiers. This weighting depends on our relatedness to the recipients and our personality traits. Normally, greatest weight is given to ourselves, i.e., the home holon, followed by close family, followed by more distant relatives, followed by those unrelated to us. The rate at which this weighting tapers off with distance depends on factors such as empathy and whether we have dark personality traits. Priorities for the deployment of contra-satisfiers are, of course in the reverse order, with greatest weight being given to people most remote. The same is true of larger co-operative groups of people such as nations and organisations. For example, a business with a “bottom line” culture gives a very high priority to the needs of the home holon and a very low priority to those of others.

The amount of power that we have lies on a scale, from total powerlessness at the bottom, to absolute power at the top. Because of the way we weight its deployment, there is a point at which our power is just sufficient for the satisfaction of our own needs and those of our dependents. I will refer to this as Type A. Above this point, power can be used to increase or reduce the satisfaction of the needs of others. I will refer to this as Type B. We do not normally refer to Type A as power, however. In its absence, we are in a state of powerlessness and, in its presence, a state of freedom or independence. This use of words is an interesting indictment of present-day Western society.

Type B is excess power, i.e., more than is necessary to satisfy our own needs and those of our dependents. This excess power comprises the control of satisfiers and contra-satisfiers for others, and so, it can be used to control them. This control of others can become a need in its own right, and its satisfier is Type B power.

Type B power can be traded with others to yield a net benefit. That is, some can be delegated to others in return for support that brings with it greater power. To persuade others to trade in this way, it is necessary to demonstrate power by making overt displays of wealth. In this way, a hierarchy forms that is based on type B power and the control of others.

The control of others is an unsatisfiable need, because, in practice there is always another person or organisation with more power. As mentioned in my previous article, if we have people who prioritise their need for wealth or power and pursue it without restraint, then this will consume endless resources. However, the satisfiers that any cooperative can generate are finite. So, if cooperation were attempted with such people, then ultimately, we would face a situation in which the costs to us outweigh the benefits. Our share of the satisfiers would fall below the threshold necessary to satisfy our personal needs and those of our dependents. Thus, any cooperation would fail.

An unsatisfiable need for the control of others must, therefore, ultimately lead to attempts to coerce. Without resistance, coercion becomes the accepted norm. However, with resistance, attempts at coercion can fail, and the relationship remains one of cooperation. Alternatively, however, conflict can result.

The history of human society is largely one of the control of the many by an elite. In the past this has largely been through coercion. Fortunately, coercion is now largely illegal in the West. However, it remains possible to manipulate a culture, the needs of its members, and the priorities that we give to those needs through, for example, advertising. The needs, thus created, empower those who control the satisfiers for them, and so, sustain an elite. Resistance to such cultural manipulation is also needed, therefore.

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.