The original message was received at Wed, 8 May 1996 19:13:40 -0500
from 200.16.3.238
----- The following addresses had delivery problems -----
<PRNCYB-L@BINGVMB.BITNET> (unrecoverable error)
----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 <PRNCYB-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>... Host unknown (Name server: bingvmb.bitnet:
host not found)
----- Original message follows -----
Return-Path: jearls@macareo.pucp.edu.pe
Received: from picasso.pucp.edu.pe ([200.16.3.238]) by macareo.pucp.edu.pe
(8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA13518 for <PRNCYB-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>; Wed, 8
May 1996 19:13:40 -0500
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 19:13:40 -0500
Message-Id: <199605090013.TAA13518@macareo.pucp.edu.pe>
X-Sender: jearls@macareo.pucp.edu.pe
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
To: Principia Cybernetica Project <PRNCYB-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: jearls@macareo.pucp.edu.pe (John Earls)
Subject: Re: Hierarchies, sanctity, and social systems
>I am afraid that John Earls' response on this thread has made me more
>confused, because I am unsure about the meaning of some of the propositions
Paul:
I'm sorry for introducing more confusion to all this, since what I did was
to chuck in a block of theoretical observations having their origens in
different disciplines, but mostly in anthropology, without giving
illustrations or much explanation. I will try to make myself clearer.
>John wrote:
>~
>~ I now think the McCulloch heterarchy structure is an
>~essential component of hierarchy genesis, and perhaps coexistent in all
>~*adaptive* social hierarchies. This would allow the evolution of viable=
path
>~dependence since otherwise the evolution would be locked in to its=
earliest
>~manifestations which may not be adaptive.
>~
>
>>>From the PCP Dictionary:
>
>HETERARCHY - a form of organization resembling a network or fishnet.
>Authority is determined by knowledge and function
Dictionary definitions by their nature must simplify that which is defined.
The definition of heterarchy is obviously correct but doesn't let one do
much with it. Some time ago (in PCP I think) someone mentioned how Warren
McCulloch illustrated the notion of heterarchy in terms of how the US fleet
essentially won the battle of Midway even though their flagship was sunk in
the firsy Japonese attack -- i.e. the naval hierarchy was beheaded. However,
as the battle went on "command" within the US fleet was continually
transferred to the ship which at a given moment was in the best position
(usually nearest) to percieve and evaluate the current disposition of the
Japonese fleet. This ship was allocated the authority, in terms of its
knowledge, to function as a tempory flagship and direct the operations as it
best saw fit. As the battle configuration changed this authority was assumed
by other ships. So the overall control system did exhibit a network-fishnet
organisation.
This kind of situation is characteristic of clusters of small social units
(which may be formally organised within some hierarchical scheme) when faced
with unanticipated bursts of internal or external generated high
uncertainty: excessive floods; droughts; an attempt by any particular unit
to *impose* itself over the others outside of the consensually accepted
limits of the authority and function as recognised by the others, i.e., of
the activity domain considered appropriate to it by the others (within the
limits of the *estblished* hierarchy in which these groups are organised).
Given that such bursts of high uncertainty in time will become recurrent,
and that hierarchy genesis and elaboration seems to be intrinsic to all
evolutionary process (cosmological, biological, and sociocultural), the
heterarchical process provides the means to continually try and test out new
forms of organisation which can lead to greater stability and will take the
form of a new emergent hierarchy. This is only a general trend since
heterarchical organization in social systems can persist for thousands of
years without any modification to the exixtant hierarchy, as with such New
Guinea groups as the Maring (of which the Tsembaga a just one of the
subgroups), or the Australian Aborigines. It strikes me that terrestial
social organisation now and into the next centuries is essentially
heterarchical since the institutional hierarchies (incl. the UNO, but not
limited to it) are incapable of dealing with the current and persistent
non-computably high uncertainty that characterises the world.=20
>HIERARCHY (l) A form of organization resembling a pyramid. Each level is
>subordinate to the
>one above it. See HETERARCHY. (Umpleby) (2) An organization whose
>components are arranged in levels from a top level down to a bottom level.
>(Arbib) (3) A partially-ordered structure of entities in which every entity
>but one>is successor to at least one other entity; and every entity except=
the
>basic entities is a predecessor to at least one other entity. (Rogers) (4)
Narrowly, a group
>arranged in order of rank or class; we interpret it to denote a rank
>arrangement in which the nature of function at each higher level becomes
more broadly
>embracing than at the lower level. (Iberall) <<
>
>So, heterarchies emerge based on function and then form the basis of a
>hierarchy, for social control purposes, which relies on sanctification?
Broadly speaking, yes. That has been the pattern of social evolution in
human society (it would really be pushing it to seek analogies to
sanctification in biological sustems).
>
>Are "boss" hierarchies more or less primitive than more generalized
>hierarchies? Are they closer to the underlying heterarchy, ie X bosses Y
>because X has knowledge that Y needs?
>How are general hierarchies *more* interesting? Because roles get confused
>and intermediaries come into the picture? Does the sanctification process
>move the system away from a mostly functional structure, and if so, to what
>end? Is this the way that more "words" are written into the system's
>"vocabulary"?
I would say that viewed from a general evolutionary perspective "boss"
hierarchies are "more primitive" since they emerge when existing control
hierarchies lack the variety (the necessary options) to attenuate the
uncertainty in which the system, or some group of subsystems, find
themselves subjected to. This sort of authority (the right to boss) gets
delegated from one group to another in heterarchies, and if sanctified is
only transiently so (here in the Andes it usually involves brief offerings
to the Mountain Spirits (the Apu) for their help during the extension of the
crisis only). In the Battle of Midway probably at most the Captain and crew
of the current boss ship may have said a brief prayer or saluted the flag,
who knows? But what ever they did wouldn't have been known to the rest of
the fleet. On the other hand, boss hierarchies which try to establish and
perpetuate themselves by coercion (sorry, I misspelled this as "cohersion"
which surely added to the confusion) emerge when one component subgroup
identifies it's interests with those of the whole group. Rappaport cites
"what's good for General Moters is good for America" as a typical example of
this. It is transient bossing and is now probably adapted as the motto of
Microsoft for the world. While there are lip service appeals to sanctity
("America", "Civilisation", etc.) it is certainly nothing to do with the
genaralised sanctity which is necessary for the adaptive viability of the
system at large. The transient imperialist hierarchies that emerge on the
breakup of long established control hierarchies (Alexander's Empire,
Mayapan, Napoleon and his "successors" in Europe, etc.) are other examples.
They are all (for the better or the worse) heterarchical systems that are
part of the process of social evolution. That is why I say that a boss
hierarchy is not a genuine social control hierarchy, though it *may*
participate in establishing the path dependence of new emergent metasystems,
but I don't wish to enter this here.
The issue then becomes: what is sanctification and how did it arise?.=20
>~>>> Is this sanctification an emergent property of hierarchies? Is it
>~>>> essential?=20
Yes, I think that sanctification is an emergent and necessary property of
viable social control hierarchies. However, it is necessary to broaden the
idea of sanctification to see how it can be relevant to the current world
process. Sanctification (following Rappaport) refers to personal experience
that is felt as a "response to the enunciation of a sacred proposition or
occurs in a place or in a ritual associated with such a proposition, that
proposition partakes in the same sense of truth". The idea is that sacred
propositions are unquestionable, unfalsifiable, non-discursive propositions
that are *felt* -- "God exists", "I am possessed by the ancestor spirits",
"Gaia acts throughout all Earth" (this latter as an emergent proposition). I
can write these statements here because to me they are not unquestionable
truths, but to the believer they are non-discursive self evident statements.
The point is that this sort of proposition is given as an affirmation in a
ritual context (in which the participants feel their participation in these
truths), it becomes discoursive to others ("I or we affirm the sacred
propositions"), and other messages transmitted in the same context ("we
commit ourselves to accorded actions") the unquestionability is also
transmitted; the truth of the commitment is "certified". People tend not to
lie in such circumstances, and even if they do it will be taken as true and
so still cohese social action. The sacred propositions are of a higher
logical type, they are meta-propositions and so cannot be argued about at
lower levels -- the level of the social actions of concern to that level.
This all acts as a powerful attenuator of false information, at least at the
level of socially coordinated activity, circulating through the society and
between it's subgroups. As to how it arose: it arose in language cum social
organisation and the adaptive need to control the near infinite variety that
language can give rise to..
If so, in what important ways do the trappings of
>~>>> "heterarchies" differ? that is, what tells an actor that an incoming
>~>>> "message" is from either (1) a "superior" or (2) a "colleague". How=
is an
>~>>> order distinguished from a cooperative effort?
>~>>>
>~>>> And how do these play together?
These "natural" social hierarchies break down in many ways, but perhaps
basically because the world in which the societies are embedded is in
constant change -- order from entropy. Heterarchies are always working along
*within* the different levels because new things are always happening, and
reinterpretations of the sacred propositions happen though usually slowly.
DEsanctification tends to be associated with increased pace of change and
the appropriation of the ritual sanctifying process by new subsystems that
emerge below the limits of closure of the system. The levels get jumbled so
that logical hierarchy of the distinctions between "superiors" and
"colleagues" get lost, and these get replaced by boss type relations which
attempt to substitute for those distinctions, and that is where coercion
takes hold and cohesion lost. This process has about reached its limit today
and that is why we are looking to a new and adaptive emergent metasystem.
I hope I haven't added more confusion, the whole thing is very complex
precisely because these questions are so basic.
John
John Earls
jearls@pucp.edu.pe
Pontificia Universidad Cat=F3lica del Per=FA
John Earls
jearls@pucp.edu.pe
Pontificia Universidad Cat=F3lica del Per=FA