[From Rick Marken (930614.1200)]
In the discussion of social control systems, I heartily align myself with
the positions expressed by Tom Bourbon and Bill Powers (why am I not
going to have a heart attack and die from the surprise!) as opposed to
those of Bruce Nevin and Bob Clark (who seem to believe that social
control systems either exist or are useful metaphores). In particular,
I like these comments from Tom and Bill:
Tom Bourbon (930614.0840)
Bob, I think Bill is saying they [social control systems] do not exist
because they do not exist, not because of their reliance on force.
"They" (entities called social control systems -- social systems
that control) are actually individuals, each of whom has goals or
intentions that bring them into common action around a set of
shared variables in their environments.
Bill Powers (930613.2200 MDT)] --
People often try
to use the concept of social rules and social demands as a way of
avoiding responsibility for the things they do with their own
arms, legs, and voices. They like to pretend that they are
governed by something outside themselves; in that way they can do
what they really want to do, but when problems or objections
arise they can pass the buck. "I'm only following orders."
I would like to contribute a personal anecdote that confirms some
of Bill's opinions about social control systems.
When I was moving back to LA from the mid west I interviewed
for a job with a law firm. It was never clear what the job was to be
but they wanted a psychologist for some reason. One of the questions
during the interview was something like "do you believe that companies
or the individuals in those companies are responsible for what the company
does". I had not thought much about the issue currently being discussed
on this net (social control systems) but it seemed pretty obvious to me
that companies ARE the individuals in them. So it's the individuals, not
the company, that is responsible. I recall explaining this fact to the
interviewers at some length (it seemed like an important issue to them).
I, of course, didn't get the job. I now realize that this was probably
a law firm that was busy trying to get individuals (like the president of
Union Carbide) off the hook for the disasterous consequences of his or her
actions (or lack thereof) by saying that it was really "the company" that
did it. While I'm not a big fan of punishment, I do think that people try
to get away with doing some pretty miserable things by claiming that it
was really the "social system" (of which they are just a thoughtless cog)
that "did it"; they were "just following orders", as Bill said.
Social systems are real perceptions -- they are an important and
interesting byproduct of many people simulaneously controlling
their own perceptions. But social system's (and what they do) are
just a side effect of the operation of individual control systems.
These side effects can be quite useful to many of the individuals
involved in creating the side effects of their mutual efforts-- for
example, the bridge that get's built, the opera that get's performed,
etc. But the explanation of the social phenomenon exists in each of
the individual control systems and their (mutual) realtionship to the
variables they are controlling.
Tom Bourbon (930614.0920) --
Great discussion of imitating vs repeating!
Best
Rick