The Social Web - A rough first draft.

Here is a claim, an assertion – institutions, organisations, cultures, societies and so on do not really exist. They are genuine social constructions, narratives, discourses, ‘spooks’ in the words of Max Stirner.

Physical, material, reality does really exist whether we like it or not and cannot be ignored. Many different perceptions of physical reality exist. But it is possible to establish a truth about physical reality distinct from these perceptions.

For the most part, the most paramount elements in a human beings life are the socially constructed elements. Physical reality intrudes occasionally.

The institutions, organisations and other such constructions are made up of the individuals who constitute them and who to a greater or lesser extent believe in them. The daily interactions between these individuals constitute the ‘reality’ of these structures.

This is an old idea of course, and I claim no originality here. The origin of this can be traced a long, long time back in intellectual history. Relatively recently I would point to the work of Max Weber, George Herbert Mead and the symbolic interactionist tradition within sociology which was inspired by this work.

Deriving from the SI tradition other concepts may also be useful, such as negotiated order, the ecology of games and, even though he is not within the SI tradition, C. Wright Mills’ vocabulary of motivations. One could even draw on elements of the work of Michel Foucault, especially those to be found in his work Discipline and Punish. I cannot forget Erving Goffman of course and even, maybe, the early J-P Sartre, the Sartre of Being and Nothingness.

Now, I realise that I am just throwing out names and concepts here, name dropping in fact. I can, however, ground all these elements and concepts in a pretty thorough knowledge of the field. Right now I am just drafting areas to look at. When I get around to writing a more serious piece I will support all this with proper references and sources.

I also realise that, at this stage, I am not considering if these positions are even consistent with each other, or compatible.

One serious problem with this entire field, however (except, perhaps, Weber) is that it can so easily slide into a totally relativistic social constructionism. In fact, that is what has largely happened, especially since postmodernism reared its ugly head.

One of the reasons for this is that SI has no ground on which to stand. It is not rooted in anything outside of itself. This can be seen, for example, in Mead’s extremely woolly notions of the Me and the I.

Attempts have been made to ground SI on, for example, Freudianism and even Marxism. However, this is, ultimately, to try and base chalk on cheese, or cheese on chalk, whichever. These imported positions are fundamentally incompatible with SI.

I was, and to a degree still am, a big fan of SI, starting 40 odd years ago in my University days. So I am, basically, sympathetic to it as a field of study.

So, I would ground it in physical reality, specifically the reality of biology and evolutionary processes. This is the basic foundation upon which human behaviour and social interaction rests.

There is a great deal, a very great deal, to unpack in that claim I know. I hope to achieve that unpacking one day.

Elements of human social interaction – first draft:

1. Behaviour – biology, evolved, neuropsychological mechanisms (linking us to the world), = perception – non-conscious and fast.
2. Hormonal
3. Emotion
4. Personal belief system - ‘ideology’
5. Action – goal oriented, has meaning
6. Social action – stance, attitude towards the other, goal-oriented, has meaning
7. Rules of the game, available verbal motivations, explanations, resources …e.g., institutional ‘rules’
8. Goals – Cooperation – Conflict; Dominance – Submission; Persuasion – Resistance;

COMMUNICATION and how it rarely succeeds as intended.

I have also considered the notion, from Sartre, of the fundamental project. I don’t know. It may not be compatible. BUT – the idea that people live their lives forward, are always ‘becoming’ (not meant in some mystical or spiritual way by the way) is important in understanding individuals and social interaction.

However, human beings are not as unified as this concept implies. I once saw the human being described as a republic of separate systems working, more or less, towards the same goal just on different time scales, and with different histories. I cannot remember where I saw that, but I rather liked it.

An episode of human social interaction thus involves many elements. This is a field that has been covered in many ways elsewhere, and it is a topic of great interest to me. I admit that I have made, again, many claims here that need exploring and unpacking. Hopefully, when I get the time, I will do that.

I retire in 5 months time. Maybe then.

Out of these episodes of human interaction arises a web of social connections. This web IS the institution, society, culture or whatever. And this web creates the institution etc., etc.

Insofar as people are committed to the rules that nominally govern them, to the degree that they conform to these rules, and to the degree that they submit to these rules, the institution exists.

This means that change can come suddenly. Unexpectedly. The institution is, in principle, unpredictable and not fully understandable. The charts and diagrams, the descriptions of ‘social structure’ are simply rough maps of the social network.

And the map is often mistaken for the territory.

We humans like narratives and ‘stories’ are often created to ‘explain’ events. Such stories are highly selective, ignoring vast swathes of peoples lives and experiences and cannot possibly know all the details and, even more so, cannot know what is unknown.

Again, a lot of huge claims here, that require a great deal of work to flesh out and I hope to do so.

These, then, are some ideas that I am working on and thinking about. A series of potential hypotheses that require some empirical support.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the work of Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Ralph D. Stacey as sources of great intellectual inspiration.