Yes, it’s a word. But
let me introduce its use. To
review: I am in the midst of presenting
a list of functions that an organization or group, including a polity, needs to
satisfy in order to be classified as a federated collective. The list is accompanied by a set of questions
that a classroom civics teacher or a civics material developer might use to
study such groups with the aim of being able to identify any problems or issues
a collective might be facing due to any dysfunction. To date, I have reviewed the functions producing
and adapting – you are invited to click on those entries and become acquainted
with my take on those functions. In this
posting, I will present a third function:
sophisticating.
As with the last few postings, I am using the ideas of Samuel
P. Huntington.[1] He uses the terms “complexity/simplicity” to
capture the sophisticating function.
Simply stated, the sophisticating function refers to the need for a
collective to sufficiently complicate its operations. Reality offers complications or a group, in
order to take on more ambitions, needs to match the complications it is
facing. This is in terms of its structures
and processes. Why: in order to be able to act in a sufficiently sophisticated
fashion so that it can meet its survival needs and perform in such a way to
successfully attain its goals and aims.
Of course, this function is closely tied to its producing function. In both cases, the functions focus on the
group being able to produce those things, services, and/or environment that motivated
its creation or formation. But here the sophisticating
function further emphasizes its makeup as an organized entity. To make the point, let me share the example
Huntington uses to illustrate the function.
From Aristotle, we have a simple classification of all
polities. There is the rule of the one,
the rule of the few, and the rule of the many.
Each type leads to three different types of political systems or
constitutions: dictatorship (rule of the
one), oligarchy (rule of the few), and democracy (rule of the many). To choose one form to the exclusion of any of
the others will lead to serious problems emanating from the fact that those in
power will pursue their interests to the detriment of all other groups. So a pure oligarchy will pursue only the
interests of the few, the rich, to the detriment of the many. If in charge, the many will do the same at
the expense of the rich. The solution is
for the system to be complex enough so that the system can have elements of
both a democracy and an oligarchy. The system
has to enhance its structures and processes in order to make sure it does not
oppress and, in turn, give motivation for segments to pursue the system’s demise. The term mixed constitution is used to
describe this form of complexity. But
the need to sophisticate is not limited to political systems or governments; it
is something all organized entities have to address.
My teenage years were during the sixties. A lot of change took place during that decade
and many families found it difficult to adapt to those changes. One area of dysfunction was caused by
attempts of families to maintain views and practices that were
institutionalized during simpler times.*
For example, you could have a Methodist family who had fairly stable
religious beliefs. Then, due to an
explosion of ideas and their popularization, you might have a son or daughter
start questioning the firmly held beliefs.
The challenge is for the family to complicate their views to meet the
new perspectives. Many families failed
to do this and instead assumed an authoritarian posture and insisted that what
was believed was just the way the members of the family were to see
things. Relations could be strained and
the family could fall apart; many did during those years. So sophisticating or enhancing can be seen as
a special form of adapting; one focused on the trend toward complication with a
special concern for not so much what is done to meet change, but in how the
group arranges itself, structurally and procedurally, to meet change. This can include values and beliefs.
Questions an educator could use to analyze the enhancing
function are:
Is the group’s structure complicated enough to accomplish its
mission?
Are the processes practiced by a group complicated enough to
accomplish its mission?
Is the environment of the group becoming more complicated? If so, at what pace?
Does the group have the values that either fight or
accommodate complications?
Do the attempts by a group to become more sophisticated cause
disruptive tensions between members of the group or with those people with whom
the group interacts?
You might be able to think of more questions; I believe these
are a good start at analyzing whether a collective is enhancing –
sophisticating – its capabilities or setting itself up to do so.
*By simpler times, I am not making the claim that we live in
more complicated conditions across the board.
Times vary in terms of the complexity of specific areas of concern. In terms of some concerns we live in simpler
times, yet in others, we live in more complex times – it depends on what one is
considering.
[1] Huntington, S. P.
(1968). Political order in changing societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment