Versión en español aquí.

Although a few weeks ago we published a post written by Michael related to this same theme, I want to dedicate my today’s article to deepen the subject. Michael’s short article consists of 8 paragraphs, yet it contains a lot of information that, from my point of view, deserves further explanation.

Social systems

Social systems are formed with at least two persons (the difference between Being Human and Person is explainded here) and these persons should share a purpose, however brief.

Suppose I travel to an unknown city and I do not know which way the nearest metro station is. When I come to ask a local where I should walk, I am making an offer to that person to create a social system, no matter if it is ephemeral and superficial, is an invitation to a social system full blown.

I can not make a social system alone, I must wait for his answer (contribution, we will dedicate another article to this subject) to know if he accepts. If he ignore me, the invitation declines and he does not share my purpose, there will be no social system. If he respond, accept the invitation and briefly this “local” person and my “tourist” person, share the purpose of helping me reach my destination. (Philosophical parenthesis: perhaps from the moment I ask for directions, there is an interaction (contribution) already, we could say it exists a social system already, whose purpose is to find out if we can form another. If he ignore me or if he does not answer me, it is obvious that we do not have the same purpose and that first social system, even shorter, is undone without giving way to the other. If he answer me or stop by, maybe in that second would be born a different social system in which we are “local” and “tourist” persons and we share the purpose of helping me find my destiny.)

As social systems grow in number of people and scope of purpose, their complexity also increases, however, they remain social systems. Hence, we say that teams, organizations and societies are also social systems.

Now, it is important to note that social systems are not static, they are changing and evolving as they transform the people who make them. A couple relationship is changing and evolving over time, and it is possible that the purpose is also changing. Separations of partners (beyond whether or not they divorce, there are couples that disappear but humans continue to live together in a different social system, usually called “family”) usually occur when a common purpose or agreement ceases to exist. (Philosophical parenthesis two: here we could open an interesting discussion on whether social systems can undergo adjustments or if each change creates a new social system derived from the previous one)

Social systems, human beings and persons

The same humans may have several social systems, but persons do not. To illustrate the point, let us turn once again to an example. My husband and I, two different human beings, share several social systems, but in each of these, we interspersed through different persons.

In the first social system, called “couple” he is “husband” and I am “wife”. The second social system is called a company and he is “client” and I am “provider”. A third social system could be the parents one (if we ever have children) and the persons would be “parenting co-responsible A” and “parenting co-responsible B” or something like that. (Not “dad” or “mom”, because we are neither dad nor mom between us, in order to create that social system, we would have to include children, and in this example I am using social systems in which we belong only two).

However, if I would divorced and remarried, I would establish with my new imaginary husband another social system that would also be called a “couple” whose persons would also be “wife” and “husband.” However, my “wife” person from my first marriage can NEVER be the same “wife” person of the second marriage, since although they share a name, their existence within the social system depends on the other “spouses” and two different human beings never will produce equal persons. And since persons are co-created, I will never be able to be the same “wife” from my first marriage to my second “husband”.

The issue can be even more complex, especially when two humans have several systems with persons of the same name, but have not realized that the surname is different. For example, my publisher and I. We share two social systems in which we interact as “writer” and “publisher”. However, the behavior of “writer” when it comes to project A is different (although the difference is subtle, there is, and indeed, the purpose also changes) to that of “writer” of project B. Making these distinctions. (another word that will have its own article for sure), or in other words, putting a surname, can help and clarify us in which social system we are at the moment and what are the appropriate behaviors for it.

Now imagine the complexity we deal with when we have social systems of five or six persons in it, whose purpose is to sell enough to keep a business profitable. Persons and contributions become more complex, a series of activities and goals have to be fulfilled before we can fulfill the main purpose and if we do not find a way to reduce this complexity (that is where Blumenstein Theory can work, inter alia), it is very likely that we will get unwanted results or that the process of obtaining them will be stormy for some, or in the worst case, for everyone.

Next week you can read the second part of this article. Keep in touch

By Katia

Recommended Posts

No comment yet, add your voice below!


Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *