This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Cf. Hall, A. D. and Fagen, R. E.: “Definition of System.” In: General Systems, 1(1956): 18–28. They give the following definition of “system”: “A system is a set of objects together with relationships between the objects and between their attributes.” (p. 18).
Ahby, W. R.: Introduction to Cybernetics. London, 1956;
Berrien, F. K.: General and Social Systems. New Jersey, 1968;
Bertalanffy, L. von: General Systems Theory. New York, 1968;
Churchman, G. W.: The Systems Approach. New York, 1968; For further references cf. the heading “systems analysis” in: International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 15. New York and London 1968, and General Systems. Year-book of the Society for General Systems Research. Ann Arbor, Mich., and Buckley W. (Ed.): Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist. A Sourcebook. Chicago 1968.
Gruner, R.: “Teleological and Functional Explanations,” in Mind 75(10/1966) pp. 516–526.
— Stegmuller, W.: “Einige Beiträge zum Problem der Teleologie und der Analyse von Systemen mit zielgerichteter Organisation,” in: Synthese 13(1/1961) pp. 5–40;
— With special regard to social systems cf. Buckley, W.: Sociology and modern systems theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1967;
and Jensen, S.: Bildungsplanung als Systemtheorie. Bielefeld 1970;
Parsons, T.: “Social Systems,” in: International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Bd. 15, pp. 458–472.
Luhmarm, N.: “Funktionale Methode und Systemtheorie,” in: Soziale Welt 15(1/1964) pp. 1–25.; and “Soziologie als Theorie sozialer Systeme,” in: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 19 (4/1967) pp. 615–644; and Vertrauen. Ein Mechanismus zur Reduktion sozialer Komplexität. Stuttgart, 1968.
Parsons, T., Shils, E. A., Naegele, K. D. and Pitts, J. R.: Theories of Society, New York, 1965.
Cf. Schutz, A.: “The reality of the World of Daily Life.” In: Collected Papers I, Den Haag, 1962. p. 208 et pass.
Cf. Adorno, T. W. et al.: Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie. Neuwied and Berlin, 1969.
Cf. Parsons, T.: “Social Systems,” in: International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. 15. New York and London, 1968, pp. 458–472.
The concept of “privacy” deserves some explication. “Privacy” refers to a well-known philosophical issue (the question of “inner experiences” and the related issue of physicalism versus phenomenalism) which was treated most specifically in the “Philosophical Investigations” of Wittgenstein. A very lucid analysis of the problem has been given by Moreland Perkins (“Two Arguments against a Private Language,” in: Morick, H. (ed.): Wittgenstein and the Problem of other Minds. New York, 1967, pp. 97–118). The argument runs as follows: Privacy is that realm of experience which is accessible only to the individual himself. To be aware of the fact that an experience is private the individual has to participate in social practice, because it is only through interaction and communication that he comes to know the peculiarity of “inner” states. “The ‘inner’ in me is (at least partly defined as) that which others can sometimes know about only if I tell them, and which may be inner in others, too, in the sense that I can sometimes know that others are having it only if they tell me” (Perkins: op. cit., p. 113). Thus, the concept of “privacy” refers to that which is communicated from one person to another in a special way without reference to something “outer.” “Private social practice” therefore, lies in social interaction processes which do not refer to the material (especially economico-technological) conditions of life, but essentially to those forms of living which must be experienced in the community.
Cf. Parsons, T.: “The Concept of Influence,” in: Public Opinion Quarterly. Vol. 27, 1963, p. 37 passim. We are using the concept in a slightly modified way.
Parsons, T., op. cit. (1963).
Baran, P. A., Sweezy, P. M.: Monopoly Capitalism. New York and London, 1966.
— Baran, P. A.: “Thesen zur Werbung,” in: Zur politischen Ökonomie der geplanten Wirtschaft, edition Suhrkamp. No. 277, 1968, pp. 124–135.
— Galbraith, J. K.: The Affluent Society. Boston 1958.
— Galbraith, J. K.: The New Industrial State. Boston 1967.
Cf. Parsons, T.: “On the Concept of Political Power,” in: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 107, 3, 1963, pp. 232–262; and “The Concept of Influence,” in: Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 27, 1963, pp. 37–62.
Widmaier, H. P. et al.: “Public Expenditure and Private Consumption,” in: The Future is Tomorrow. M. Nijhoff, The Hague, 1972.
Gf. Servan-Schreiber, J. J.: Le défi américain. Paris, 1967.
Mandel, E.: Die EWG und die Konkurrenz Europa — Amerika. Frankfurt, 1968.
This contrasts with the concept of “participatory democracy” as outlined by McCoy and Playford, J.: Apolitical Politics. New York, 1967.
For a summary cf. Dahl, R. A.: Modern Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, 1963, pp. 55, 56.
This corresponds to the “reductionist model” of the traditional concept of democracy, cf. Cnudde and Neubauer: Empirical Democratic Theory. Chicago, 1969.
Cf. Bachrach, P.: The Theory of Democratic Elitism. Boston, 1967.
Cf. Bendix, R.: “Bureaucracy and the Problem of Power,” in: Merton, R. K. et al. (eds.): Reader in Bureaucracy. Glencoe, 1960, pp. 114–135.
Flechtheim, O. K.: Dokumente zur parteipolitischen Entwicklung in Deutschland seit 1945. Berlin, 1962, pp. XV,
Flechtheim, O. K.: Dokumente zur parteipolitischen Entwicklung in Deutschland seit 1945. Berlin, 1962, pp. XVI.
Cf. Black, D.: The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge, 1958;
Buchanan, J. N. and Tullock, G.: The Calculus of Consent. Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor, 1962;
Downs, A.: An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, 1957.
It has often been pointed out that the democratic institutions, in particular the parliament, increasingly lose their function of control and assume a new, hidden one: that of stabilizing the existing distribution of power (“Herrschaftsverhältnisse”). Cf. Basso, L.: Zur Funktion des politischen Konflikts. Frankfurt, 1969.
“Ist der Profit erst einmal als der Motor der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung an-erkannt, so werden alle Probleme der Gesellschaft in “verwaltungsmässigen” oder “technischen” Begriffen definiert, das heisst: neutralisiert; die von den Erfordernissen der Technik oder der Verwaltung diktierten Entscheidungen sind nicht Ausdruck politischer Demokratie, sondern der geplanten Entpolitisierung gesellschaftlicher Konflikte …”. Basso, L.: op. cit., pp. 126,
Cf. Basso, L.: Zur Funktion des politischen Konflikts. Frankfurt, 1969. 127.
Cf. Berger, P. and Luckmann, T.: The Social Construction of Reality, for the general socio-philosophical foundation of this kind of thinking cf. Schutz, A.: Collected Papers, I. Den Haag, 1962.
Cf. Parsons, T.: “Introduction” (to Part 4 on Theme “Culture and the Social System”) in: Parsons et al. (Eds.): Theories of Society. New York and London, 1961, pp. 963–993.
This kind of legitimation is much more general and much more fundamental than “political legitimation” mentioned earlier. “Political legitimation” is only part of the general process of justifying social order and as such rooted in the former. Cf. Weber, Max: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Tübingen, 1964, Kap. I, §§ 6, 7.
Cf. Weber, M.: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Tübingen, 1964, pp. 874–922.
The close link between power and the respective “dominating lines of thought” was emphasized by Marx: “Die Gedanken der herrschenden Klasse sind in jeder Epoche die herrschenden Gedanken, d.h. die Klasse, welche die herrschende materielle Macht der Gesellschaft ist, ist zugleich ihre herrschende geistige Macht.” Die deutsche Ideologie. Frühschriften, S. 373.
For example cloisters and sects — possibly demanding oaths of silence — “ivory tower” universities or departments, etc. Cf. Troeltsch, E.: Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen. Tübingen, 1912,
and Muhlmann, W. E.: Chiliasmus und Nativismus, Berlin, 1961.
This is most clearly illustrated by the connection between the natural sciences and the technology of war. Cf. Kuhn, T. S.: The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago, 1962;
and Toffler, A.: Future Shock. New York, 1970.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1972 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jensen, S. (1972). A Systems Prognostication of the European Social System. In: Possible Futures of European Education. Plan Europe 2000, Project 1: Educating Man for the 21st Century, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2375-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2375-7_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-247-1293-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-2375-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive