Dear FIS colleagues,
At the risk of adding to the current "entropy" of themes in the list, I
would like to enter a few points on networks in society, in economy and
elsewhere --just as a solo reflection!
To start with, why not discussing about the emergence of the social
networking phenomenon itself? Given that social networks are far beyond the
physicochemical happenstance (aren't they?), I think an interesting
"foundational" place to search by could be ethology, where we find a
relatively well-accepted concept to apply specifically to mammal groupings:
"attachment" (or inter-individual "bonds": materno-filial bonds, family
bonds, groupal bonds, etc.). It is a rather bizarre point, I can accept,
but it may be an interesting characterization for a basic level of
networking in all human societies: a basic fabric of primary, very strong
bonds --family ties-- we find everywhere. Also, one could take ideas from
Jared Diamond, and from many others, to argue about the existence of a
further level of natural grouping or networking, based on a more labile and
versatile level of "medium" bonds linking together, for instance, the
members of hunter-gatherer bands (e.g., relatives & 'friends').
Alas, with the creation of "artificial ecosystems" and the possibility to
complexify social nets, most societies have historically added a great
variety of new types of bonds. In my previous message I alluded to
"partitions" that imply very weak social bonds that we may somehow
experiment under the form of multiple "identities". Economy is basically
involved here, of course, as it becomes the main source of transient,
volatile, but overall very efficient and productive "weak bonds". Thus, the
"organizational revolution" as coined by Kenneth Boulding may also be seen
as a cacophony of multiple new classes of such weak bonds superimposed on
the primary level of medium and strong bonds. Retarded (or underdeveloped)
societies are unnatural, as much as are advanced societies --both depending
on artificial ecosystems and producing a very large ecological footprint--
but the former keeps a stronger net of primary bonds while the latter have
clearly less primary bonds and an extraordinary diversity of weak ones.
Amazing may seem, but statistics indicate that Nigerians have a higher
"index of happiness" than over-consumerism indulged US and Western citizens
(happiness would depend more closely on the structure of primary bonds
around oneself than on accumulation of techno-gadgets and obesity).
In the story of social networking, knowledge creation has also to be
involved, fundamentally, as the greatest transformations in social
networking have been preceded by great jumps in the social elaboration and
dissemination of knowledge --several scientific and industrial revolutions
as we have called them. let us note that, intrinsically, science and
technology partake the form of nets too, and some aspects of this very
discussion have already surfaced in previous fis discussions ("locality" of
sci. knowledge, interdisciplinarity, consilience...)
To sum up these crude reflections: ecological networks, social-economic
networks, scientific-technological networks, How are they related? Let me
finally suggest to our discussion chairs, Bob and Igor, that we look afresh
on these networks organizing principles, both specific and common--perhaps
among them: information, ascendancy, value... It may conduce to another
interesting approach to the sustainability theme.
best regards
Pedro
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu May 12 15:00:22 2005
