- Email: [email protected]
Information in social systems: Implications for steering and regulation
BioSystems 38 (1996) 249-252
ELSEVIER
Information
in social systems: Implications for steering and regulation Robert
Agelink,
Nanneke
van der Heijden*
Universily of Amsterdam,Europa Inslituul. P.O. Box 19123. 1000 GC Amsterdam. The Netherlands
Abstract The concept of information seems applicable to investigate the internal organization of social systems, and specitically, to give insight into the possibilities as well as the limitations of processes of ‘steering and regulation’. It can play a crucial role in linking the structure of a social system to its actual capacity to steer and regulate its internal organization. Moreover, it seems promising in the understanding and explanation of the global dynamics of these social processes. Keywords: Information;
Structure;
Steering;
Regulation;
1. Introduction Although
the
information
concept
has
found
ready reception in such diverse disciplines as physics, biology and chemistry, in the social sciences the acquaintance with the concept has only just begun. Since information is generally being conceived as the degree of order or organization of a system, it also seems an interesting concept to ascertain the degree of order in social systems as well (Campbell, 1982; Stonier, 1990). In this paper we will try to show the relevance of the information concept specifically for processes of steering and regulation. Steering concerns the process through which a social system’s membership is being made to conform to some goal or standard. Regulation, as an adjacent problem, concerns the question how such behavioral standards * Corresponding author, Tel.: +31 20 525 2534/2951; Fax: +31 20 525 2900, E-mail: [email protected]. Published 0303-2647/96/%15.00 SSDI 0303-2647(95)01598-F
by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Social theory
emerge, develop and evolve, and how effective they actually are in making the behavior of the system-entities conform to these more or less explicitly formulated rules, moral standards, norms or juridical laws. The information concept contributes to acquire a more fundamental insight into the possibilities as well as the limitations of these processes. 2. Basic theoretical notions Like every system in nature, human beings are subjected to the threatening second law of thermodynamics which stipulates that every closed system moves irreversibly into the direction of disorder or entropy (Atkins, 1982). Should human systems not convert energy and ‘consume’ information, they would soon lack the capacity to behave or survive at all. Therefore, they must learn to value that which keeps them aloof from the dangerous state of maximum entropy. This leads
250
R. Agelink, N. van der Hetjden / BioSysrems 38 (1996) 249-252
us to postulate that the behavior of every singular individual must be geared to acquiring material resources and attitudinal information (ordered insights, concepts and expectations). Those two ingredients make up the power of an individual, which is the capacity to behave at all (De Vree, 1990; Coleman, 1990). The more power an individual possesses, the better he will be able to produce more power. Because every individual possesses power, he, wittingly or unwittingly, has the capacity to affect his social and physical environment. As a consequence of the behavioral postulate, an individual will try to influence the power of others in such a way that their reaction will contribute to, instead of reduce his own power. At the same time, however, the behavior of this individual is also dependent on the actions of these other individuals. The configuration of mutual dependences determines whether, and to what extent, people decide to behave positively (i.e. supporting) or negatively (i.e. harmful) towards each other. It is then the structure of the relations of power and interdependence that constitutes the form and directions of social interactions in a compound social system (Dagevos, 1994). Contrary to common usage, the concept of social structure does not imply a static characteristic of the system, but must be conceived in a dynamic way. On the one hand social structure determines the way in which people will react to each other. On the other hand, however, social structure is itself a product of all the previous interactions. Though this may sound like a circular line of reasoning, it is a manifestation of the inherently dynamic nature of social life: interactions at t - 1 will result in a structural arrangement at t, while this altered structure will have an effect on the proceeding of the interactions at t + 1. 3. Social structure and information Generalizing the original thermodynamic concept, a system will be said to contain more information to the degree that the components support each other in their functioning, instead of annihilating each other’s efforts (Stonier, 1990; De Vree, 1994). Applying this concept to a compound
social system, it means that a system is ordered when the individual actions lit in with each other, and at the same time counterbalance any possible damaging behavior. As a consequence of intense dependences, the individual’s choice of behavioral options will be more strongly determined by the behavior of others. The fact that the individual investments are led into a certain direction is a manifestation of ‘order’ in a social system. Although it may sound unpleasant that individuals are being constrained, as a result of this order, they may produce more realistic expectations regarding the yield of their behavioral investments. Having described social structure as the set of power and dependence relationships which connect the members to each other, the information concept seems applicable to reflect the degree of orderliness of these relationships. A compound social system will be said to contain more structural information to the degree that the coherence between the behaving individuals, and their joint productivity is larger (Adams, 1975; Corning, 1983). Just as information is a central ingredient of individual power, it also appears to be of the utmost importance for the power of a compound social system, which is expressed in its efficiency and stability. Despite the fact that an elaborated quantitative measure of structural information hasn’t been developed yet for social structures, we are able to indicate certain features that can be seen as representations of the degree of structural order. A social system will be said to contain a relatively large amount of structural information when the relations of power and interdependence exhibit the existence of a dominant coalition. The more powerful such a coalition is, the more easily it can impose restrictions on the behavior of other members, which is just what characterizes an organized system. Another exemplifying indication of structural information is the degree to which, as a result of qualitative power differences, the members interact more complementary than competitively. To the degree that a social system contains structural information, which itself is an emergent feature of individual actions, a system will be better capable to reach a ‘common’ goal (De Vree, 1990).
R. Agelink. N. van der Heoden / BioSystems 38 (1996) 249-252
4. The structural conditions of steering and regulation of social systems The information content of the social structure can be considered as a crucial variable for attempts to keep the consequences of social dynamics in check, i.e. to steer and regulate the behavior of the system membership. These phenomena are crucial for any social system in order to channel social discord, decrease violent conflicts, raise productive interactions among the participants and dampen all kinds of disturbances, in short, to reach or maintain (more) order in the system. Initially, both topics may be associated with the activities of an authority, governing the system from the outside. However, we must quickly go beyond this intuitive idea, as steering and regulation are being defined as systemic phenomena. This means that they are the product of all the (inter)actions together. Steering and regulation are always to be treated as emergent products of system dynamics. As regulating and steering basically mean constraining the behavioral alternatives and changing the behavior of the system membership, we assume a connection between these governing activities and the amount of structural information of the system. The information of social structure, reflecting the actual configuration of power and dependences among the participants, gives an indication of the opportunities for steering and regulating social behavior. As the relations of power and interdependence in such a system will be characterized by complementarity, it implies that the interactions are so favourable to the power of many system members, that these are not willing to give up the status quo. Instead, they will tend to maintain and even standardize it. Moreover, in case of deviant behavior, a dominant coalition will enforce compliance with normative standards. In short, the information content of social structure can be conceived as the normative force guiding the behavior of individual members. To the degree that a social structure contains more information, processes of steering and regulation will be more elaborated and effective. This means not only that it will be better possible to outline a ‘goal’ or ‘norm’ to which the system moves. Also, the system membership will be more
251
systematically steered to conform to these standards. The engendering of what may be called the normative order forms, so to speak, the derivative of the information content of social structure. Having rather statically approached the subject up to now, we will try to give a more profound, dynamical insight into the co-evolution of normative and structural order. 5. Information and the evolution of normative order In principle, steering and regulating serve the function of institutionalizing the actual relations of power and interdependence; this objectification takes place more or less in accordance with the information-content of social structure. When the social structure contains more information - the relations of power and interdependence have become more clearly crystallized, e.g. when a powerful coalition has emerged - it will be rewarding for the existing coalition to invest in the formulation of a set of rules, standards or procedures, and in the development of the means to exact compliance with them. This explicit normative order enhances the transparency and predictability of social relations. The institutionalized normative order gives individuals a more profound insight in their mutual power, needs and wishes. They will learn which behavioral options are ‘right’, ‘desirable’ or ‘appropriate’ and which options will be considered ‘wrong’, ‘prohibited’ or ‘inadequate’. As a result, it is no longer necessary to spend resources in expensive trial-and-error processes to discover the systemic reactions to their behavior. Instead, individuals can apply their energy more productively, thus favouring their own power, and at the same time increasing the amount of structural information. Whether the establishment of rules, procedures and policy goals does in jixt raise the information content of the social system, is essentially a matter of the correspondence between the provided normative prescriptions and the prevailing structural information in the system. When the information content of a social structure is relatively low, the force with which newly established behavioral standards can be exacted, will be correspondingly
252
R. Agelink. N. van der Heoden / BioSysiems 38 (1996) 249-252
small. After all, for the continued functioning of the emerged institutions it is not beneficial that those who reject the normative prescriptions are powerful enough to successfully revolt against them. To be effective, the amount of order ‘promised’ by the institutions must be more or less a mirror image of the structural order, but certainly not be mistaken as equivalent to it. Only when there is already a substantial amount of structural order in the system, the formulation and tightening of explicit policy goals and behavioral norms can result in an increase in the amount of structural order. Order may engender more order, so to speak. However, the growth of order is not a linear process, continually accumulating to a greater amount of organization. In fact, it is conceivable that the institutionalized, as it were ‘frozen’ structure tends to rigidify past power positions. When obsolete institutions are being maintained despite the fact that they don’t reflect the current power distribution anymore, they impede the acquisition of insights into the actual relations. As a consequence, institutions may lose their pacifying capacity, or generally, their potential to steer or regulate social intercourse. Those individuals that have increased their position will serve their power better when they do not obey outdated institutions, but instead try to change them. When the social system lacks flexibility to adapt to structural transformations, and sticks to outdated rules, goals and procedures, the functioning of the system may be hampered - as we have seen happening in the former Soviet-Union. Normative order may destroy structural information.
6. Conclusion Since steering and regulation concern typically systemic processes, information seems to be a useful measure to express the degree to which social systems are able to govern and constrain the behavior of the system membership. We argued that the capacity for steering and regulating is a function of the information content of social structure. Moreover, to the degree that a social structure contains more information, the more probable it is that the social system will further increase its internal organization. Although the information concept is promising, theoretical advancement concerning the formalization of the relations of power and interdependence is a precondition before a subsequent mathematical elaboration is possible at all. References Adams, R.N., 1975, Energy and structure: a theory power (University of Texas Press, Austin).
of social
Atkins, P.W., 1982, The second law (Freeman and Company, New York). Campbell, J., 1982, Grammatical man (Simon and Schuster, New York). Coleman, J., 1990, Foundations of social theory (The Belknap Press, Cambridge). Coming, P.A., 1983, The synergism hypothesis: a theory of progressive evolution (McGraw-Hill, New York). Dagevos, J.C., 1994, Naar een sociaal interactiemodel: over de dynamiek van wetenschap, macht en afhankelijkheid (Prime Press, Bilthoven). De Vree, J.K., 1990, Order and disorder in the human universe: the foundations of behavioral and social science, 3 ~01s. (Prime Press, Bilthoven). De Vree, J.K., 1994, Information in nature, human behavior, and social life. Behav. Sci. 30(2), 117-136. Stonier, T., 1990, Information and the structure of the universe: an exploration into information physics (Springer, London).
ELSEVIER
Information
in social systems: Implications for steering and regulation Robert
Agelink,
Nanneke
van der Heijden*
Universily of Amsterdam,Europa Inslituul. P.O. Box 19123. 1000 GC Amsterdam. The Netherlands
Abstract The concept of information seems applicable to investigate the internal organization of social systems, and specitically, to give insight into the possibilities as well as the limitations of processes of ‘steering and regulation’. It can play a crucial role in linking the structure of a social system to its actual capacity to steer and regulate its internal organization. Moreover, it seems promising in the understanding and explanation of the global dynamics of these social processes. Keywords: Information;
Structure;
Steering;
Regulation;
1. Introduction Although
the
information
concept
has
found
ready reception in such diverse disciplines as physics, biology and chemistry, in the social sciences the acquaintance with the concept has only just begun. Since information is generally being conceived as the degree of order or organization of a system, it also seems an interesting concept to ascertain the degree of order in social systems as well (Campbell, 1982; Stonier, 1990). In this paper we will try to show the relevance of the information concept specifically for processes of steering and regulation. Steering concerns the process through which a social system’s membership is being made to conform to some goal or standard. Regulation, as an adjacent problem, concerns the question how such behavioral standards * Corresponding author, Tel.: +31 20 525 2534/2951; Fax: +31 20 525 2900, E-mail: [email protected]. Published 0303-2647/96/%15.00 SSDI 0303-2647(95)01598-F
by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Social theory
emerge, develop and evolve, and how effective they actually are in making the behavior of the system-entities conform to these more or less explicitly formulated rules, moral standards, norms or juridical laws. The information concept contributes to acquire a more fundamental insight into the possibilities as well as the limitations of these processes. 2. Basic theoretical notions Like every system in nature, human beings are subjected to the threatening second law of thermodynamics which stipulates that every closed system moves irreversibly into the direction of disorder or entropy (Atkins, 1982). Should human systems not convert energy and ‘consume’ information, they would soon lack the capacity to behave or survive at all. Therefore, they must learn to value that which keeps them aloof from the dangerous state of maximum entropy. This leads
250
R. Agelink, N. van der Hetjden / BioSysrems 38 (1996) 249-252
us to postulate that the behavior of every singular individual must be geared to acquiring material resources and attitudinal information (ordered insights, concepts and expectations). Those two ingredients make up the power of an individual, which is the capacity to behave at all (De Vree, 1990; Coleman, 1990). The more power an individual possesses, the better he will be able to produce more power. Because every individual possesses power, he, wittingly or unwittingly, has the capacity to affect his social and physical environment. As a consequence of the behavioral postulate, an individual will try to influence the power of others in such a way that their reaction will contribute to, instead of reduce his own power. At the same time, however, the behavior of this individual is also dependent on the actions of these other individuals. The configuration of mutual dependences determines whether, and to what extent, people decide to behave positively (i.e. supporting) or negatively (i.e. harmful) towards each other. It is then the structure of the relations of power and interdependence that constitutes the form and directions of social interactions in a compound social system (Dagevos, 1994). Contrary to common usage, the concept of social structure does not imply a static characteristic of the system, but must be conceived in a dynamic way. On the one hand social structure determines the way in which people will react to each other. On the other hand, however, social structure is itself a product of all the previous interactions. Though this may sound like a circular line of reasoning, it is a manifestation of the inherently dynamic nature of social life: interactions at t - 1 will result in a structural arrangement at t, while this altered structure will have an effect on the proceeding of the interactions at t + 1. 3. Social structure and information Generalizing the original thermodynamic concept, a system will be said to contain more information to the degree that the components support each other in their functioning, instead of annihilating each other’s efforts (Stonier, 1990; De Vree, 1994). Applying this concept to a compound
social system, it means that a system is ordered when the individual actions lit in with each other, and at the same time counterbalance any possible damaging behavior. As a consequence of intense dependences, the individual’s choice of behavioral options will be more strongly determined by the behavior of others. The fact that the individual investments are led into a certain direction is a manifestation of ‘order’ in a social system. Although it may sound unpleasant that individuals are being constrained, as a result of this order, they may produce more realistic expectations regarding the yield of their behavioral investments. Having described social structure as the set of power and dependence relationships which connect the members to each other, the information concept seems applicable to reflect the degree of orderliness of these relationships. A compound social system will be said to contain more structural information to the degree that the coherence between the behaving individuals, and their joint productivity is larger (Adams, 1975; Corning, 1983). Just as information is a central ingredient of individual power, it also appears to be of the utmost importance for the power of a compound social system, which is expressed in its efficiency and stability. Despite the fact that an elaborated quantitative measure of structural information hasn’t been developed yet for social structures, we are able to indicate certain features that can be seen as representations of the degree of structural order. A social system will be said to contain a relatively large amount of structural information when the relations of power and interdependence exhibit the existence of a dominant coalition. The more powerful such a coalition is, the more easily it can impose restrictions on the behavior of other members, which is just what characterizes an organized system. Another exemplifying indication of structural information is the degree to which, as a result of qualitative power differences, the members interact more complementary than competitively. To the degree that a social system contains structural information, which itself is an emergent feature of individual actions, a system will be better capable to reach a ‘common’ goal (De Vree, 1990).
R. Agelink. N. van der Heoden / BioSystems 38 (1996) 249-252
4. The structural conditions of steering and regulation of social systems The information content of the social structure can be considered as a crucial variable for attempts to keep the consequences of social dynamics in check, i.e. to steer and regulate the behavior of the system membership. These phenomena are crucial for any social system in order to channel social discord, decrease violent conflicts, raise productive interactions among the participants and dampen all kinds of disturbances, in short, to reach or maintain (more) order in the system. Initially, both topics may be associated with the activities of an authority, governing the system from the outside. However, we must quickly go beyond this intuitive idea, as steering and regulation are being defined as systemic phenomena. This means that they are the product of all the (inter)actions together. Steering and regulation are always to be treated as emergent products of system dynamics. As regulating and steering basically mean constraining the behavioral alternatives and changing the behavior of the system membership, we assume a connection between these governing activities and the amount of structural information of the system. The information of social structure, reflecting the actual configuration of power and dependences among the participants, gives an indication of the opportunities for steering and regulating social behavior. As the relations of power and interdependence in such a system will be characterized by complementarity, it implies that the interactions are so favourable to the power of many system members, that these are not willing to give up the status quo. Instead, they will tend to maintain and even standardize it. Moreover, in case of deviant behavior, a dominant coalition will enforce compliance with normative standards. In short, the information content of social structure can be conceived as the normative force guiding the behavior of individual members. To the degree that a social structure contains more information, processes of steering and regulation will be more elaborated and effective. This means not only that it will be better possible to outline a ‘goal’ or ‘norm’ to which the system moves. Also, the system membership will be more
251
systematically steered to conform to these standards. The engendering of what may be called the normative order forms, so to speak, the derivative of the information content of social structure. Having rather statically approached the subject up to now, we will try to give a more profound, dynamical insight into the co-evolution of normative and structural order. 5. Information and the evolution of normative order In principle, steering and regulating serve the function of institutionalizing the actual relations of power and interdependence; this objectification takes place more or less in accordance with the information-content of social structure. When the social structure contains more information - the relations of power and interdependence have become more clearly crystallized, e.g. when a powerful coalition has emerged - it will be rewarding for the existing coalition to invest in the formulation of a set of rules, standards or procedures, and in the development of the means to exact compliance with them. This explicit normative order enhances the transparency and predictability of social relations. The institutionalized normative order gives individuals a more profound insight in their mutual power, needs and wishes. They will learn which behavioral options are ‘right’, ‘desirable’ or ‘appropriate’ and which options will be considered ‘wrong’, ‘prohibited’ or ‘inadequate’. As a result, it is no longer necessary to spend resources in expensive trial-and-error processes to discover the systemic reactions to their behavior. Instead, individuals can apply their energy more productively, thus favouring their own power, and at the same time increasing the amount of structural information. Whether the establishment of rules, procedures and policy goals does in jixt raise the information content of the social system, is essentially a matter of the correspondence between the provided normative prescriptions and the prevailing structural information in the system. When the information content of a social structure is relatively low, the force with which newly established behavioral standards can be exacted, will be correspondingly
252
R. Agelink. N. van der Heoden / BioSysiems 38 (1996) 249-252
small. After all, for the continued functioning of the emerged institutions it is not beneficial that those who reject the normative prescriptions are powerful enough to successfully revolt against them. To be effective, the amount of order ‘promised’ by the institutions must be more or less a mirror image of the structural order, but certainly not be mistaken as equivalent to it. Only when there is already a substantial amount of structural order in the system, the formulation and tightening of explicit policy goals and behavioral norms can result in an increase in the amount of structural order. Order may engender more order, so to speak. However, the growth of order is not a linear process, continually accumulating to a greater amount of organization. In fact, it is conceivable that the institutionalized, as it were ‘frozen’ structure tends to rigidify past power positions. When obsolete institutions are being maintained despite the fact that they don’t reflect the current power distribution anymore, they impede the acquisition of insights into the actual relations. As a consequence, institutions may lose their pacifying capacity, or generally, their potential to steer or regulate social intercourse. Those individuals that have increased their position will serve their power better when they do not obey outdated institutions, but instead try to change them. When the social system lacks flexibility to adapt to structural transformations, and sticks to outdated rules, goals and procedures, the functioning of the system may be hampered - as we have seen happening in the former Soviet-Union. Normative order may destroy structural information.
6. Conclusion Since steering and regulation concern typically systemic processes, information seems to be a useful measure to express the degree to which social systems are able to govern and constrain the behavior of the system membership. We argued that the capacity for steering and regulating is a function of the information content of social structure. Moreover, to the degree that a social structure contains more information, the more probable it is that the social system will further increase its internal organization. Although the information concept is promising, theoretical advancement concerning the formalization of the relations of power and interdependence is a precondition before a subsequent mathematical elaboration is possible at all. References Adams, R.N., 1975, Energy and structure: a theory power (University of Texas Press, Austin).
of social
Atkins, P.W., 1982, The second law (Freeman and Company, New York). Campbell, J., 1982, Grammatical man (Simon and Schuster, New York). Coleman, J., 1990, Foundations of social theory (The Belknap Press, Cambridge). Coming, P.A., 1983, The synergism hypothesis: a theory of progressive evolution (McGraw-Hill, New York). Dagevos, J.C., 1994, Naar een sociaal interactiemodel: over de dynamiek van wetenschap, macht en afhankelijkheid (Prime Press, Bilthoven). De Vree, J.K., 1990, Order and disorder in the human universe: the foundations of behavioral and social science, 3 ~01s. (Prime Press, Bilthoven). De Vree, J.K., 1994, Information in nature, human behavior, and social life. Behav. Sci. 30(2), 117-136. Stonier, T., 1990, Information and the structure of the universe: an exploration into information physics (Springer, London).