||Social Cohesion Theory
Many people have a lot to say when it comes to population and crowd control, This article is designed to put across some of the deeper insight I have gained on these topics whilst studying social structures, their economic viability and the means by which the ruling classes use to manipulate and direct their subjects into some form of social order.
It has become increasingly apparent that despite the obvious complexities of the various social hierarchies, there are certain rules which invariably exert themselves, this article is less about the intricacies of the interactions between individual hierarchies or their nature, and more about how these rules can effect the level of economic sustainability to any given social structure.
There are vast quantities of information relating to social hierarchies, their organisation, names, groups etc., A quick glance through the dictionary page on organisations will give you a brief insight into some of the more popular systems. For simplicity this article defines three categories to which any social hierarchy can be organised using, these may appear controversial at first, but my reasons should hopefully be explained later on in the article.
These groupings are:
Leader (usually one)
Managers (usually no more than 60 to each Leader)
Slaves (usually between 2-30 to each Manager)
This social module, representing up to a maximum 311 people, is the basis by which all social groupings are formed, anything more than this and the communication efficiency of the social module is severely compromised and dissatisfaction will result in members leaving the social grouping. In reality, this number becomes more of a theoretical limit, Dunbars Number, 150 represents the lower bound, that is, somewhere between 2-10 Slaves to every manager, and 5 to 60 managers to every leader, making for easy communication and less distinction of boundaries (the jobs of managers and leaders and slaves becomes 'blurred')
Larger numbers of people tend to align themselves into sub groups of one of these categories. Which then tend to align themselves in the same pyramidal organisation.
The groupings are named to represent the role each member plays within any goal seeking activity the social module undertakes.
The Leader is the ultimate decision maker, it provides the overall direction the social module will take, has high if not ultimate authority over the control methods used to keep the social module working efficiently, and organises the managers to undertake a given task.
A Manager represents the middle man of the social group, ignoring the various levels of responsibilities each is assigned (by the leader, usually dependent upon skill) A managers primary goal is to act as a go between, disseminating information to the slaves, watching progress, and organising skill sets to attain the goals set out by the leader.
The Slave is the work horse of the social module. Simply put a slave is given a task by the manager and uses the skills it has to complete this task.
To properly fit this social module with a modern large population and the identity it holds. It is important to realise that within any population individual agents do not hold one particular designation, in actual fact at any one time each agent may fit into all three categories. Depending upon the number of goals, skill sets possessed and social environment the agent exists in. This model however does explain the time proportions involved of each category from goal inception to completion:
for example (rough).
1:150 goal definition
30:150 goal management (~40% time to social grooming, )
119:150 solution traversal. (~60% time to solution traversal, or 1 leader, 30 managers and 119 slaves)
obviously as the optimum times differ between different potential goals (consider a research goal vs. stitching clothing) so too will the proportions within each group.
This also explains why social modules tend to organise themselves to this hierarchy, if one agent exists for each of the optimum slots, a solution can be completed in close to optimum time.
These simple, if currently loose definitions provide the framework for explaining and understanding social cohesion, the purpose of which is to put in place some of the control structures that exist and help with the discussions on how these have changed over the centuries.
Faith is the oldest, and when used correctly the strongest of social control methods. It is important when trying to understand faith to understand that faith is not confined to religion and God, in actual fact faith is the founding principle of religious social groups, but this is where this link ends. There is little doubt that faith IN religion has been used for centuries for social control binding groups together and holding them apart, but for me at least faith in religion is less about submitting to social control, and more about what I call spiritual awareness. This of course is not what is being discussed here. Faith, in this article, is better defined as trust.
Whatever the purpose served by any social binding, trust is the bond that holds it together. Trust, in this respect is one of the most interesting topics when considering social cohesion theory. In modern, western society, the most prevalent form of trust to erupt in the mid 17th century is a concept known as money. Western cultures operate under a system known as fiat money, fiat money functions as a system of trust. Although most never realise it, there is no direct link between any kind of tangible asset and a fiat money system, rather, fiat money balances out under a supply and demand system with trust at its heart. Trust that the central bank will produce just the right quantity to provide a stable base with which to exchange trust. Trust that a job will be done, trust that it can be used effectively as a medium of exchange for whatever takes the holders fancy.
Previous to this, the most prevalent form of trust social bonding was given by religious organisations. This is the reason many people hold the believe that money has taken over from religion, in fact religion is still as strong, if not stronger than ever, money has merely replaced religion for the trust requirements of everyday living.
At any one moment in time, individuals are exposed to any number of trust issues, however, to function in any kind of normal manner they need to have an internal trust in a few key areas:
Trust in security – Their current position does not expose them to too many unpredictable variables.
Trust in mobility – Their actions are not unpredictably hampered.
Trust in unavoidable repercussions – Deviating from the expected/required path will have unavoidable unpalatable consequences and a negative impact on other trust requirements.
Trust and Social Control
These trust requirements form the basis of all forms of social control, they form the conduits by which the managers control their slaves, and the leader controls its managers. Without adequate provisions for at least these trust requirements agents will defect from their current goal in search of another which will provide these requirements. By far the most potent of these trust requirements is the unavoidable repercussions; This trust requirement can be used to quash all the other requirements, however it is also the most volatile, once an agent becomes aware repercussions are in fact avoidable, the control this provides dissipates quickly amongst a social grouping (as this information spreads) and if it was also used to prevent defection due to a deficiency in other trust requirements can lead to spectacular break downs in social groupings.
Terrorism and Social Cohesion
See Terrorists Objectives:
The behemoth of all social cohesion 'tools' or better 'strategies' to emerge in the early 21st century is that of terrorism. Fortunately for the world as a social grouping I doubt it is for the reasons that the terrorists, the media or leaders would like. Terrorism has drawn attention to social control in an unprecedented way that touches everyone who hears of the antics of the terrorists or the groups put in place to prevent their actions.
A less ambiguous definition of terrorism:
A leaders objective is to provide individuals in the lower ranks with the internal trust requirements to function normally in the quest for the leaders goal.
A terrorists objective is to weaken that trust and take over as leader when the social group defects.
What is interesting about internal trust requirements is that they form the basis for goal setting throughout the three levels of hierarchies within a social module, each agent within the social module forms goals to maximise its internal trust requirements. If security or mobility is threatened, it forms goals to fend off attack, in doing so it tests the level of unavoidable repercussions. For this reason, unsubstantiated threats of unavoidable repercussions will always be short lived, and enforcible threats will always tend to exert a strangle hold over a social module.
Social cohesion, control and ordering are a direct consequence of exchanges in trust. Social ranking is founded upon an agents ability to distribute strong trust based bindings, control the means of communicating and function effectively to meet the goals required by any social group.
Comment on this article (-1 Comments)
||Word of the week