^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^* FROM CHUCK TUCKER 931223 *^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^
A few comments about "social contingencies" as noted by Bill
Powers (931210.1145) and Kent McClelland (931212)
Sometime ago (I don't remember the date) I put on the net a
list of statements with the title: STATEMENTS FROM A SOCIO-
CYBERNETIC PERSPECTIVE OF HUMAN CONDUCT which I use in my
classes to present some of what I consider the "basic" ideas
of PCT as they can be used to explain what human beings do, to
with, for and against one another (a phrase that I have taken
from McPhail). These statements are modifications of statements
used by Bob Stewart in his teaching to tell students what was
different about his approach from most of social psychology which
is based on either S-R or S-O-R formulations. THESE STATEMENTS
WERE FORMULATED BEFORE BOB KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT THE FORMULATION
OF POWERS CT AND WERE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTIONS OF "SOCIAL
BEHAVIORALISM" [a term we use to designate the ideas of G. H Mead
and John Dewey which Morris used to distinguish Mead's ideas
from Watson's "behaviorism"]. We see Power's CT (which we now
call PCT after McClelland's first paper on the subject) to derive
from the same assumptions and thus find no inconsistencies (yet!).
But it was not until Bill stated the ideas of social contingencies
did I see the similarity between the ideas he stated and those
which I summarized with my "sociocybernetic" list (BTW I use the
word "sociocybernetic" to avoid the word 'control' because of the
confusion the the word 'control' seems to have for most of my
students UNTIL I have explain what is meant by 'control' within
PCT [of course, the word 'control' has consensual meaning by all
who appear on this net :-> ]).
I use these statements to state the notion that "it is all
perception" or "perception = reality" or "perception = CEV"
Scientific facts and theories do <<not>> describe reality.
No scientist in any discipline, including physics, has
discovered, or can discover, any law or principle of
nature, or has or can gain knowledge of reality.
Scientists in all disciplines provide ways of solving
problems people are having.
Discovering the laws of social life is <<not>> possible,
or even sensible.
All of the above statements are based on the notion that human
beings can NOT find, discover, unearth, reveal or experience
REALITY apart from their experience; that is all there is. As
Mead stated: THE WORLD IS JUST THERE. The third statement in
the list above is a rather subtle way of stating the idea that
since scientists can't reveal reality they are left with the
task of solving problems; this is a statement of a pragmatic
(a la Mead and Dewey) view of both science and truth [see Mead's
"Scientific Method and the Individual Thinker" (p. 171 ff) and
"A Pragmatic Theory of Truth" (p. 320ff) in A. Reck. 1964.
SELECTED WRITINGS: GEORGE HERBERT MEAD. Indianapolis: The Bobbs
Merrill Company] Of course we all know of instances where
scientists have stated that they have revealed reality but I
consider such statements as rhetoric used to convince others to
consider their work as important and in most instances continue
to support it both social and financially (No, the Hubbell
Telescope even fixed to work will not reveal the "secrets of
the universe" but that work may be useful to solve some
problems like repairing machinery in a "outer space" setting).
Next, there are some statements which refer to "social
contingencies" the sociologists are fond of mentioning and
pointing out that they, like the environment, cause people
to do what they do. Of course, my view is that they do nothing
of the sort, in fact:
Society, social structure, social class, culture, or
group pressure [notice this one, Rick] do <<not>> make
people do anything.
Social norms, rules, values, beliefs, customs, traditions,
laws, or social sanctions do <<not>> make people do
anything. (Rather, these are devices people use to
facilitate living and acting together.)
Personality, socialization, and social background do
<<not>> make people do anything. (Rather, these provide
resources for action, but determine none of it.)
Biological agents such as germs or viruses, or chemical
agents such as alcohol or cocaine or steriods do <<not>>
make people do anything. (Rather these can affect
performance levels and the coordination and control of
behavior.)
Genetic inheritance or any other biological factors do
<<not>> make people do anything. (Rather, these permit
people to do what they do, and, undoubtly permit them
to do much that so far they have not done.)
Technology does <<not>> make people do anything. (Rather,
technology provides resources for action.)
Those statements are consistent with this one below which notes
the "self-regulation" [cybernetic] basis of purposive action:
People can <<not>> be made to do anything, unless they
are literally and directly and physically forced to.
Thus,
People are responsible for their action, but <<not>> for
everything that happens to them.
and
Social life, by which is meant living and acting together,
depends on arrangements people make.
and as life scientists
We can study arrangements and how they are made, and we
can improve upon them, and create new and more useful ones.
and understand that
Problems people have in social life are results of missing,
inadequate, or poorly implemented arrangements.
and comprehend that
Without making arrangements people are socially incompetent.
Now, having typed this I will make arrangements to put it on my
file on the mainframe and send it to the CSG-L.
Of course I would appreciate any discussion of these statements
and others I might make from time to time in the spirit of
advancing and developing our notions and knowledge of purposive
collective action.
A happy and delightful holiday season is my wish for all on this
net and elsewhere in this universe. I look forward to a pleasant
and peaceful new year for everyone,
Best regards, Chuck