The question of change has always fascinated me. So much so that I constantly try to alter the tools and approaches available to me to get even deeper into understanding how change happens and how often we should expect it to happen. In this short essay I intend to first make some comparisons between change in physical and social systems and then draw some useful conclusions about facilitating desirable change.
Consider a physical system, a volume consisting of gas molecules. Imagine that you can take a photo of all of these molecules at a certain moment. Therefore you can register the location of every and each molecule moving in this volume of gas at that time. Next, instead of all molecules select a group of them or even one molecule. Try to keep a track of their movements and locations in the gas volume during a sufficiently long time interval. If you compare the results of the former observation with that of the latter you will see that they are almost identical. The point is that the average locations and the movement pattern of a representative group of molecules in the long run is well equivalent to the locations and the movement pattern of the whole molecules in the gas volume. Put it another way, one can say that, for a sufficiently long time, a molecule or a group of molecules’ pattern of movement is a good approximate of the whole volume of molecules’ movement. Technically speaking, in the long run, all of plausible configurations among the molecules are likely. Or, the probability that a certain configuration will never happen again is zero.
Now consider a social system, for example, the citizens of a society. Imagine that you can take a photo of all the citizens currently visiting the city malls. Suppose you have registered the amount of population present at each city mall so that you can determine which one is the most crowded and which one is the least at this moment. This is similar to the first observation that was mentioned in the gas volume above. Now, instead of all citizens, pick one person or a small group of persons, and keep track of their presence in the city malls during, say, a year. Do you think that the result of the instant photo of the citizens in the city malls is almost identical to the result of the average archived file of a small selected group of citizens? Specifically, could you say with confidence, based on what you have seen about a small group of citizen behavior, which city mall is the most crowded and popular? The answer is definitely no. In other words, all plausible configurations among the citizens who visit malls are not probable. Or, the probability that a certain configuration will never happen again is not zero. Thus, there are some configurations, arrangements, and micro states within an overall system of people that the probabilities of them recurring or even occurring and emerging is zero.
In physics, it is a well established notion that the entropy is increasing unless you want to reverse the arrow of time which means that the number of micro states associated with a certain macro state will increase as the time passes. Although it is likely that a broken egg become an intact egg again, the probability is infinitesimal. To see that happening you will have to wait longer than the age of the universe. When you try to estimate the entropy of a physical system you have to ask if its macro state is still the same while the micro states are taking all plausible configurations. For example, when you are stirring your cup of hot chocolate and milk with the spoon you do not care about the exact location of every and each chocolate and milk molecules as long as you can observe in the cup that it is still the same hot chocolate and milk. Because in a physical system the probability that a certain configuration will never happen again is zero one should expect that the overall and macro state remain the same until all numerous and probable configurations and microstates occur, emerge, and recur.
However, in systems consisting of people, regardless of how many are the members, I mean no matter a several person group or million persons group, because the probability that a certain configuration will never happen again is not zero one should expect that a significant number of micro states will never recur, or even emerge and occur. Thus, to remain the same system it should be altering the internal configurations among a limited number of micro states. Naturally we ought not to wait too long to see that a social system changes a lot so that we can say it is not the same any longer. That means we should expect that social systems be capable of total and radical changes within much shorter time intervals relative to what we see in physical systems.
An important question now is raised. What we should do for or in social systems so that they will not be the same any more, any longer? To answer this I will use two rather complementary approaches to obtain some helpful insights.
I learned the first approach from a futurist colleague,
Roberto Poli, while presenting his talk on anticipation in the last summer in Sweden during
WFSF conference. When addressing the difference between the dynamics of a system and the reproduction of a system, he presented the system thinking in sociology according to Pareto, Parsons, and Luhmann works. Social systems, as the time passes, reproduce their members, the individuals. Also the system is reproduced by reproducing the roles of individuals. Finally the system is reproduced by reproducing the sense (meanings or functions) of the roles. Sometimes the exact roles are not reproduced but essentially the same meanings are reproduced. For instance, in some so-called democracies the role of a monarch or king indeed disappears after a revolution but instead of him a lifelong president takes office. We can conclude that while the role (of king) has not been reproduced the meaning of the dead role has been reproduced. This reminds me of a nice quotation from French Futurist, Michel Godet, saying that “far too often the impression of novelty is acquired at the least cost by renaming an old concept.” Apparently, to enable change at the macro level in a society we should try to stop any kind of reproducing. Thus, we can expect to see that a social system changes substantially so that we say it is not the same any longer.
The second approach is based on and inspired form advances in cognitive science.
Hmelo-Silver and Pfeffer propose and use a theory for examining individuals’ representation of a system from the perspective of structural (elements of a system), behavioral (mechanisms), and functional aspect while making sense of a complex system. The functional aspect covers the fundamental objectives and values that are germane to the system and are achievable by the structural elements through behavioral mechanisms.
Obviously, each and every person who is born and eventually dies in a social system is in fact an element-individual that is reproduced. The roles of individuals will not be clear unless you determine the mechanism of relationships and connections between the individuals. Thus, reproducing the roles of individuals implies that the mechanisms among the elements are still intact. If we establish a link between functional aspect and collective goals of people and the meaning of their roles in society then the two approaches seem to be even more complementary.
Now let us look again to the question of what we should do for or in social systems so that they will not be the same any more, any longer? The problem statement can also be rephrased to when is the most proper and easiest time to intervene so that the overall and macro state of a social system significantly change? And a related question is that what are the differences between internal and external triggers for change?
It is clear that if the individuals, the connections among individuals, and the values of individuals change altogether then the most ideal condition for a leap change will be prepared, from an old system to a new one. But this is not a realistic expectation. The fact is that simply reproducing the individuals and elements of a social system will automatically results in reproducing the roles, connections, and mechanisms on one level and reproducing the meanings of roles, values, and function on the other level. Hence, one can argue that the most ideal condition and the most proper time for enabling change in the macro state is to avoid, resist, or ban the reproduction of individuals and structural elements. Such an event can only happen by an external intention and force. But in a less ideal condition, the one which admits some maneuver space for internal intention and agency, individuals within a system can themselves resist against the reproduction of roles and mechanisms on the one hand and against the reproduction of the meanings of roles and values and function on the other hand.
As a matter of fact the natural and significant disappearance of some connections and roles by any reason, for example, because people become old as the time passes or some roles becoming obsolete because of non-social changes, will provide a suitable condition for facilitating change in the macro state of a society. The good news is that, as mentioned above, in social systems because the probability that a certain configuration will never happen again is not zero one should expect that a significant number of micro states of roles and mechanisms will never recur, or even emerge and occur.
So far I simply discussed the issue of change at a macro level regardless of whether it is temporarily and precarious. Nonetheless, sometimes we seek stable change and it is desirable to maintain the system in its new state. Without doubt, even if internal and/or external agency and force accomplish to transform roles, behaviors, connections, and mechanisms without changing the meanings of roles and major values and fundamental objectives, then it is always probable that the changed macro state will return to its previous macro state, sooner or later. In other words, although any circumstances that will allow us to reconfigure the roles, connections, and mechanisms are indeed golden opportunities to change the whole system but the stability and the impossibility to return to the previous macro state of the system is only guaranteed by stopping the reproduction of the meanings of roles and also be encouraging and enabling significant changes in the values and fundamental objectives of individuals making up the whole social system.
