Emergent order
This article was entered on the quality assurance page of the wiki psychology project . This is done to improve the quality of the articles on the subject of psychology. Articles are improved or suggested for deletion if they do not meet the criteria of Wikipedia. Help with the improvement and take part in the discussion in the Psychology project .
As Emergent order (Engl. Emerging order , and emergent order ) the totality of order in social systems (of one relationships to general government classification systems) is holistic, made up, of traditions, cultures, moral values antiquated and so triggers and by the parties is constantly changing. It can be described as emergent because the changes are based on human involvement and they are therefore neither predictable nor retrospectively analyzable. Changes based on the emergent order are mainly found in societies that are based on individuality, for example in industrialized countries .
Since the term “order” often has negative connotations or is used exclusively, the term “emergent structure” can also be used synonymously. According to Luhmann, there can only be knowledge of regulatory structures for social systems.
Genesis of the term and the different basic assumptions
Niklas Luhmann coined this term in 1984 in his main work Social Systems and defined the emergence of an emergent order within the framework of systems theory . Since then, the term emergent order has been interpreted differently.
According to systems theory, this order arises in social systems in a self-referential manner (“out of itself”). From a constructivist point of view, every form of society is constructed, and individuality is also a constructed social system . All participants are only reactively involved in dyadic interactions ( double contingency with ego and age). However, Luhmann himself expressed "dissatisfaction" with some explanations.
Since 2009, however, will also be in action theory of Gesa Lindemann the concept constellation developed regulations for the development of Emergent based on active interactions between individuals based (Social Action), but here in triadic constellations with ego / age and (in addition) Tertius.
Other recent findings in no way question the existence (and also the emergent character) of this emergent order, but point to other possibly supporting phenomena that Luhmann expressly excludes. Above all, this includes narrative empathy and individuality. But also emotional contagion (sociologically) as a cause of social changes (social knowledge) may just as well be included in the genesis of an emerging order, as is the overlap with other models, e.g. B. swarm intelligence or the rhizo model .
The term emergent order is intended to model the emergence of social systems, but has so far only been analyzed theoretically in sociology, but not mentioned as a phenomenon that exists in reality with concrete consequences. Some approaches (dissertations in communication science) use this term in part for internal communication processes in an industrial society . Only for communication in interpersonal (two-way) relationships is there already a source that describes the emergent order as a real phenomenon (see below).
Emergent order in systems theory
As Emergent order one is social system called whose momentum (but not in the sense of unpredictable reducible) is based on emergent changes incurred. Any process of expanding consciousness in which people with individuality are involved can be described as strongly emergent in the sense of “unpredictable” . But especially in the sense of "not reducible", this is always a strongly emergent process, because it is completely impossible to retrace the individual steps of consciousness of people with individuality.
An emergent order is therefore the evolutionary expansion of a basic order - in today's reality the constitution of a state. The expansion consists in accepting new values and other changes inherent in the system , but not through e.g. B. democratic rules, but through the acceptance of spontaneous individual decisions, if these values are based on communication skills and thus have a greater social impact. Only when these spontaneous decisions are generally accepted do they become e.g. B. determined democratically as a "new basic order". Niklas Luhmann differentiates between systems (basic order) and subsystems. Although the latter arise emergent, they are always socially determined .
The prerequisite for an emergent order is double contingency . It describes the communication when two individuals make their actions dependent on the actions of the other. The basis of every social system is always the unpredictability ( contingency ) that occurs between two people. This then multiplies in every social system. If individuality is not encouraged, groups emerge with group identities to which the individual members are subordinate. Since communication tends to be hindered at the same time and becomes superfluous due to the presence of culturally determined identities , there is insoluble potential for aggression.
The traditional way of creating a regulation for this emerging aggression between groups (e.g. clans, tribes) is to build up "cultures" with norms and values that are as "forever" fixed as possible - often in the form of a religion . Talcott Parsons , who formulated the problem of "double contingency", sees here and then the need for purely democratic (foreseeable) changes in the decline of cultures in industrial societies.
In contrast to this, Luhmann recognizes that this double contingency in democratic reality is overcome by developing individuality and communication skills (see system theory ). Through observation of the other and through trial and error, an emergent order emerges over time, which Luhmann calls "social system":
"However, social systems arise from (and only from) the fact that both partners experience double contingency and that the indeterminacy of such a situation gives structure-forming meaning to both partners of every activity that takes place." "We call this emergent order a social system."
Luhmann sees the inexplicability of the resolution of the problem of double contingency as the explanation for the emergence of an emergent order:
“A social system is not based on it and is not dependent on the fact that those systems that are in double contingency can see through one another and make predictions. The social system is a system precisely because there is no basic condition certainty and no behavioral predictions based on it. "
According to Luhmann, an emergent order is at the same time the goal and prerequisite for a social system that increasingly delimits and individualizes itself and then stabilizes itself (emergent) by means of a willingness to communicate.
Another important element of an emergent order is therefore the self-reference of social systems, that is, the emergence of a new order out of the system itself, or, to put it more simply: "Law is what law defines as law."
Analogous to evolution, Luhmann differentiates between the following steps of an emergent order in the legal system:
a. Variation: This is where unexpected, surprising communication occurs between different social systems. Emergence plays a major role here, giving rise to new problems and new types of legal conflicts that are brought before the judges.
b. Selection: The selection is a reaction to the variation. The legal system decides whether or not to incorporate the new communication (the new problem) into the legal system. And if it is recorded, the code with which it should be assigned (e.g. Internet legislation, filling of gaps through judicial legal training).
c. Retention / stabilization: This decision made through the selection must then be incorporated into the system and thus stabilized in it. It is important that the unity of the system is retained.
Emergent order in action theory
Gesa Lindemann developed a completely new sociological concept for the emergence of an emergent order in 2009 in her work Thinking about the social from its limits .
In contrast to system theory, whose concept is based exclusively on reactive interactions (constructivism), according to Gesa Lindemann, an emergent order arises through active social action by those involved. Like Luhmann , she basically considers interactions microsociologically, but not like Luhmann as reactive between ego and alter (ego), but rather active on the basis of a three-scene interaction between ego, alter (-ego) and tertius. By expanding the circle of those involved, she deciphered the unexplained in the emergence of the already verifiable rudimentary emergent orders in existing industrial societies.
Their argumentation is also different from Luhmann's system theory. Gesa Lindemann assumes that conscious (active) irritation of those involved in a three-way interaction provokes changes. Although Luhmann also sees irritation as a trigger for communication , this should not be understood as automatic (active), but as a reaction to existing social constructions. While Luhmann basically verifies knowledge in his systems theory (and thus has to presuppose automatisms and reject free will), Gesa Lindemann is not bound by it in the field of action theory . She presupposes present and future and thus not subsequently verifiable free will and thus active irritation and from this develops her theory of the emergence of an emergent order. This theory can (and must) then according to the Falsifikationismusmodell of Karl Popper falsified in order to refute it.
In adding Tertius to the dyadic ego / alter constellation, Gesa Lindemann corresponds with more recent findings from psychology, e.g. B. those of Fritz Breithaupt , who also in 2009 defined the emergence of social empathy as "three-scene empathy " (in contrast to the "two-scene empathy" that also exists in non-human living beings). A connection between empathy and the emergent order is already suspected from various sides, but so far only in the form of “two-scene empathy”.
Emergence and order versus emergent order
Variation and order initially contradict each other; every change destabilizes an existing order. On the other hand, emergent variations can also stabilize an existing order.
What is special about an emergent order is that this order is constantly changing. In addition, the emergent order communicates with variables and provokes and produces them (self-referential).
An everyday example: A pupil's criticism (= variation) of a teacher (= order) can confirm and stabilize his authority even if it is serious and well-founded. The prerequisite is the strength of the authority (teacher) as well as the willingness of the other participants (classmates) to continue to recognize this authority.
Only when the individual's criticism of this authority is supported (here by classmates) and the authority (teacher) also shows willingness to change can the order change. In the ideal case, an emergent order arises (peacefully) in which all those involved receive authority depending on their knowledge and ability, but not by virtue of a basic order.
Example of evolutionary theory : The word "emergence" is of more recent origin, but neo-Darwinists also basically confirm that all variations in nature can be described as emergent; this emergence is even the most important prerequisite for evolution.
One principle in Darwin's theory of evolution is "surviving of the fittest" and involves selfish pursuit. Others argue that a theory of evolution could also be put forward that does not contain egoistic, but rather altruistically targeted variations and is based on cooperation.
In humane societies (like the school example above) it is individually presented variations that can change an order, regardless of whether one acts out of free will (action theory) or only from a constructed social context (system theory).
But the assumption of an emerging order could also be a better explanatory model in other living complex systems. The biologist Stuart Kauffman writes about the development of brain structures : "The order that arises in huge networks of stochastically linked binary variables is almost certainly just a pre-form of the similar emergent order in the most diverse complex systems".
The processes of emergent self-organization describe the development of the real world in terms of ontological naturalism. Individual parts combine to form systems by themselves due to the forces or interactions between them. Compared to the individual parts, these can have completely new, more complex structures, properties and capabilities. In the model of emergent processes, the emergent order corresponds to the partial aspect of emergent structures.
Empathy and Emergent Order
In borderless societies (especially: industrial societies since about 1970, where individuality is encouraged and required) are for several decades approaches to emergent order detectable, while not entirely the complexity of systems theory explain Luhmann, yet they are for a rudimentary understanding of how a Emergent order can emerge, helpful. These approaches to the emergent order must be called rudimentary above all if they are based on empathy or the ability to empathize. However, empathy is expressly excluded in systems theory.
On the other hand, Arno Gruen in An Unrecognized Pathology: The Mask of Humaneness , without fundamentally questioning Luhmann's systems theory, assumes that empathy will always be the prerequisite for an emergent order. However, it should be noted that Arno Gruen assumes a "natural" or "innate" empathy, which in today's "reality" has to be distinguished from the "cognitive" or inevitably "system-determined" empathy from which Luhmann basically assumes.
Even Wolfgang Schluchter seen by others - Max Weber - a development of emergent order based on empathy and perspective change or perspective taking is based: Max Weber speaks of "consent of action"; Ego and age (see double contingency ) learn from their own perspective, but also through the change of perspective, i.e. by adjusting to the other. Ego and alter enable an emergent order which, as an unintended consequence of deliberate action, cannot be calculated or controlled by them. Schluchter emphasizes, however, that Max Weber sees ego and alter as motivated actors, as subjects capable of speaking and acting. In contrast to this (according to Schluchter), these skills are not taken into account in systems theory.
Max Scheler (1874–1928) sees the reason for understanding in the phenomenon "empathy", which, however, since 1994 has been called " emotional contagion " in Scheler's use of meaning in order to clarify the ambiguity of this designation ( Theodor Lipps used the word "empathy" in 1906 "synonymous with today's word empathy, while Scheler used the same word synonymously with today's term emotional contagion).
Examples of emergent order and its formation
Historically, the model of the emergent order has so far fundamentally presupposed the existence of democracy . However, the emergence of an emergent order without democracy is also conceivable.
An emergent order is based on the individual and responsible decision, existing laws, traditions, norms, rules, etc. Ä. to question (the previous order), usually by neglecting and acting differently. This non-observance can be rejected or punished according to the existing order, but it can also be tolerated; the risk is initially borne by the individual independently.
However, on the one hand, the example of this individual can be imitated by other individuals; on the other hand, the behavior can be tolerated more and more often and - if it is relevant from the judiciary - can also be judged by judges. The judges' complete freedom of choice is helpful here. At higher levels, judges' decisions can then lead to a change in the interpretation of laws and are then the new legally established order or law.
The first step (variation, see above) emerges emergent, the provisional final execution (retention / stabilization, see above), however, on the basis of the (democratically) established basic order. This change is not emergent, but predictable.
Examples of legal and other changes on an emergent basis from the time after about 1970 in the western world are above all morally shaped earlier laws (regarding homosexuality, abortion, marriage law, illegitimate behavior, etc.) and civil law changes (regarding Shared apartments, road traffic, internet law, etc.).
Many social changes often arise (without making use of the legal system) through the mere acceptance of the behavior of individuals who only behave "differently" (e.g. flat shares, punks). So far, the decisive factor has been the ability to develop socially effective empathy.
Every spoken (living) language is not only a necessary prerequisite for emergent order, but is itself a classic example of emergent order. New word creations ( neologism ) initially arise individually and just as emergent, just as grammar or spelling change emergent (= variation) and are initially only used in smaller groups (= selection). Traditionalists sanction such changes (e.g. school, job), but still some prevail and are then recognized or even prescribed as new words or new rules (= stabilization) (e.g. through spelling reform ). This new understanding of the origin, analysis and further development of languages will acquire significantly different perspectives under this aspect.
Emergent order in two-person relationships
From various quarters (including Karl Lenz), two-person relationships are mentioned as the smallest social systems with an emergent order, especially since the double contingency can really be experienced here.
Here it is particularly clear - because many people experience it directly and understand it - how independent decisions of one partner are accepted by the other partner and how new agreements can be made in the following period that expand the existing basic order of the relationship.
However, it should be noted that two-way relationships are only very rudimentary social systems and the entire complexity of the " social system " that Luhmann describes is not explained here. As mentioned above, Luhmann's system theory assumes that individuality is also exclusively system-determined, so that there is no such thing as "free individuality". This approach also applies to relationships between two people.
It should also be noted here that in two-way relationships, an emergent change is usually based on mutual empathy and communication or mutual information is predominantly understood as an I-message . Both sets of systems theory not a requirement is also the contrary. Arno Gruen , the psychologically empathy as a prerequisite for all social systems - not only in one relationships - proves and vice versa sees problems due to lack of natural empathy of all social systems.
Given these prerequisites, two-way relationships can actually be viewed as the smallest emergent orders in superordinate social systems, even if only rudimentary. They are then the smallest “subsystems” (according to Luhmann, see above).
Emergent order in industrial production
After the craft with classic structures based on group identities ( guilds ), industrialization led to new types of structures from the end of the 17th century. The people involved, who were previously organized or integrated into groups such as families and craft guilds, came in (previously unnecessary) communication with members of other groups - initially during work or within production, then also in external conditions, e.g. B. in housing estates instead of village communities.
In the opinion of Uwe Schimank and Will Martens , there were only a few studies of communication in internal structures until 2003. Nonetheless, social interaction is a traditional topic in industrial sociology . The topic is now mainly dealt with in work and organizational psychology . Luhmann himself only touches on this point under the aspect of the environmental compatibility of industrial production.
It is largely unexplored whether the emergent order has long been a reality in every industrial company or whether it has always been and has always determined the success or failure of production. Also and especially in these subsystems there is a basic order that can be dynamically changed and also changed - especially in smaller companies, empathy and individuality (and the resulting creativity and innovative ability) are often the cause of new communication structures , new production methods and new products.
Emergent order basically requires free or (according to Luhmann) constructed individuality. It does not arise on the basis of an existing identity tied to small groups (classic groups such as peasant classes, craft guilds, traditional family structures).
While early economists like Adam Smith already recognized the then novel form of production, but saw individualism (in the sense of egoism ) as a driving force , it can be clearly seen in the early writings of Karl Marx , which are more influenced by Hegel , that he was in " Capitalism “sees new structures emerging - structures that are very similar to what Luhmann later called the emergent order. According to Uwe Schimank, Karl Marx sees “unintended action” on the basis of communication in internal company processes, which only then changes into “wanted (intended) action”. Schluchter attributes the same to Max Weber : "Ego and alter enable an emergent order which, as an unintended consequence of deliberate action, can neither be calculated nor controlled by them", whereby it should be noted that Weber was of course not yet familiar with the term "emergent order" .
It was only in later writings that Marx (and Friedrich Engels ) built up the classic division into groups (“wage labor and capital”), i.e. more classic group identities that require the strict exclusion of (free) individuality and call them “bourgoise” (in the sense defined by class hostile) property. This “class” perspective (striving for group identity) has determined the thinking of a large part of (“critical”) economists to this day, even if - to put it so exaggeratedly - it is of course not expressed in the respective theories, but rather in the practical Application comes to light (e.g. in the former GDR ).
In the course of the 20th century, the “non-critical” economists developed - in addition to short-term pragmatic approaches - many theories and theorems that tried to explain “the inexplicable” (Luhmann quote) of the internal order of industrial production. Except z. B. Kenneth Arrow with his " Arrow Theorem " (or paradox), in which he proves that it is impossible to always derive a clear preference of the group from the preferences of the individuals in a group, if this derivation is also some apparently obvious should meet ethical and methodological conditions - phenomena that allow the term emergent order to be explained.
Basically, it can be stated that the existence of an emergent order was suspected very early (including Karl Marx) and is today generally socially described by many sociologists who build on Luhmann's systems theory, and that this then in principle (as an incidental consequence) of course also the Include industrial production and its internal processes.
The special features of an emergent order, especially in internal communication processes (including the resulting creativity, personal responsibility, empathy, etc., but also negative consequences such as "mobbing") have so far been little discussed under the aspect of "emergent order". It is precisely this micro-social (in-house) emergent order in industrial production (in contrast to the rather sluggish effects of macro-social order that sociologists have so far mainly described) very direct and very short-term consequences for everyone involved (sales or no sales, profit or loss for or Wage increase or dismissal within this group or this industry).
Conversely, the analysis of the emergence of emerging orders within existing industries (and their effects of all kinds, not only financially but also generally sociologically) could also explain the success or failure of the societies surrounding them as a whole.
See also
literature
- Niklas Luhmann : Social Systems . Outline of a general theory. Suhrkamp , Frankfurt am Main 2008, ISBN 978-3-518-28266-3 .
- Gesa Lindemann : Thinking the social from its limits. Velbrück, Weilerswist 2009, ISBN 978-3-938808-61-0 .
- Karl Lenz: Sociology of the two-way relationship . An introduction. 2nd Edition. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften , Wiesbaden 2003, ISBN 978-3-531-33348-9 .
- Arno Gruen : Love betrayed - false gods . Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag , Frankfurt am Main 2006, ISBN 978-3-423-34342-8 .
Individual evidence
- ↑ Luhmann, Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft, p. 134
- ↑ Luhmann: Sociological Enlightenment 6: The Sociology and Man , Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen 1995, p. 30
- ^ A b Gesa Lindemann: Thinking about the limits of the social. Velbrück: Weilerswist, 2009
- ↑ Niklas Luhmann: Social Systems . 1984, p. 154.
- ↑ a b Niklas Luhmann: Social Systems . 1984, p. 157.
- ↑ Niklas Luhmann: Social Systems . 1984, p. 233 ff.
- ^ Niklas Luhmann: The right of society . 1993, p. 143
- ^ Niklas Luhmann: The right of society . 1993.
- ↑ Gesa Lindemann, Thinking about the limits of the social. Velbrück: Weilerswist, 2009, p. 7 ff
- ^ Richard Dawkins , The Selfish Gene, 1976
- ↑ Joachim Bauer, Principle Humanity: Why We Cooperate By Nature, 2007
- ↑ Stuart Kauffman, quoted in: Günther Stark, 2009, A species is visited, page 398
- ↑ Günter Dedié: The power of natural laws - emergence and collective abilities through spontaneous self-organization, from the elementary particles to human society. tredition, Hamburg 2014. ISBN 978-3-8495-7901-2 .
- ^ The Journal of Psychohistory. 30, 2003, pp. 266-272
- ↑ Wolfgang Schluchert, "Fundamentals of Sociology, Volume 2", 2007, page 235
- ↑ Ernest Mandel : Power and Money . 1993, p. 264.
- ^ The Emerging Order, Jeremy Rifkin , 1979, p. 227
- ^ The Knowledge Economy, Language and Culture, Glyn Williams, 2010, p. 243 ff
- ^ Karl Lenz: Sociology of the two-way relationship . 2006.
- ↑ Arno Gruen: False Gods . 1997, p. 14 f.
- ↑ Greshoff, Rainer (editor): The transintentionality of the social - a comparative consideration of classical and modern social theories. Wiesbaden 2003, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, ISBN 978-3531140377
- ↑ Keyword industrial sociology in the dictionary of sociology , edited by Wilhelm Bernsdorf , Fischer handbooks, paperback edition with permission from Enke-Verlag 1972, volume 1, page 109 f.
- ↑ Niklas Luhmann: Ecological communication: Can modern society adapt to ecological threats?
- ↑ Uwe Schmink: The Transintentionality of the Social, p. 26
- ^ Schluchter, Fundamentals of Sociology, Volume 2, p. 239