t~at of Indi~.or Malaysia for the simple. fact that t;be time!!! it has witnessed peaceful transfer of power outnumber the same in Ipdia or. ,Malaysia.
Most of the t~tructural variables discussed so far are iQterrelated, and together they are related to the chief varia~le of differentiation. For differen
tiation to proceed, for example, the structure needs to be of a certain size, activities have to be coordinated through hierarchical principles, and PQwer cannot be too dispersed. The ways the resources of a system are utilized can be thought of as the effect of these structural characteristics combined, but th~y also affect as the parametric forces the. str.J,lCture itself. However, as .tqe correlation is never one hunderd percent, it is still necessary to itwestigate eacq of. these variables separately for t~~ purposes of comparative analysis. Finally, we. have to justify why we make all these distinctions. for, as the philosophers are wont to say, being is not to be multiplied without necessity., We do so because they all intimately affect the stability ~:nd change potential of social
systems~, To this subject the discussion now tqrns .. -.
IV. Balancing, Equilibrium, and Change
In a very disfinguished 'article, the sociologist Gideon Sjober-g :propagates the notion of contradictory functional requ!rements in social .systems •. 1;le begins with the observatipn that all ~ocial systems are subject to basic instabilities and internal.conflict .. His explanation i~that ;some of. the: ;~un9:tip~l.requirements,
.~
-63;.,...
' : , I
I -
I
:(or imperatives) within ,a system might be not compatible and that the struc
turalarrangements that have developed to \neet these requirements would be,
·~~.herefore, necessarily mutually antagonistic. Nonetheless, i~ many cases, these ,'contradictory structures are' essential for the maintenance of the system. 22
While agreeing with his basic observations and sympathizing with his efforts to infuse some dynamism into the c1assicsystems theory, one still wonders whether Professor Sjoberg's theoretical formulation is a teleological one. One may legitimately ask, fQr example,. whether all antagonistic structures are desi
gned with purpose to meet the requirements of contradictory funtions,' or nether they may not have come together in a system to perform one and the same function, instead of' confradictory functions. In short, if one wants to
.
.study structural characteristics, one may as well start directly with the struc
.. tures,and does not have to complicate the matter by. first positing,the functional
• iI'
requirments.
Also, in expounding his theory, Professor Sjoberg·. seems to have stopped a
; step short of the point where it can be fruitfully· applied to explain the relative
\
stability and change tendencies of a system, For the theory to be operationally , fruitful, it should distinguish, among· other thiQgs, the relative degrees, or even kinds, of antagonism of structures, and clarify how the different kinds of , antagonistic strilcturesarebel6 together and how tbey operate within a social
system.
Let me put down my own speculations on this very important matter.
Just as individuals incorporate in their sentiments and cognitions many inconsistences, such as the sense of finitude and pride, commitment and feedom, spititfal needs and material desires, superego and ·libido, and so on, social systems often labor under inconsistent values and structures. And the larger imd more complex the 'systems ate, the greater the number of suchincompa
"
-69·
tiblevalues and structures. Examples ceme in tens, but let· me cite a few at
'.
randem. The· Chinese imperial bureaucracy since the Han tirries had incerperated,
. ,
and eperated through, a symbiesis ef two. evertly antagenistc pelitical phileso
phies: the humanitarian Cenfucianism and the scheel ef Fa er pewer pelitics/~8
The Thai seciety is said to. have been. characterized by beth ,hierarchism and a s~rong sense of individualism.24 And in the United States ef America, the ideal of equalitarianism and human dignity stands side by side with discri
minatery practices against the Negroes and ether racial minorities.
Here we like to. take a step back befere preceeding further, and cautien the readers that not all oppesite structures are necessarily antagenistic er are antagenistic to. the, same degree. As a 'matter of fact, they ,may be supplemental to. eacQ ether, e. g., the'. opposite sexes in thefam:ily and.the multifarious occupatiens in tQe ~eciety. In many cases antagenistic structures do. not. as
. \ ,
claimed by Pref~sor Sjoberg, fulfill' centradictory' functio~al < . requirements, but supplement each ether in performing the same :function. This idea is mest vividly 'depicted in the classical .Chinese philosephy of Yin and Yang, that sees all things and systems ascemposed ef diverse and oppesite principles~ harmen
iously balanced together to. make the whole viable. This idea prebably still
,
merits serious censideration. Also, values and structures may sometimes be made'te appear mere incempatible than they.in:fact are, simply because men, in their reasening and abstracting p~ecess, tend to. see 'and emphasize only ene aspect ef the reality. Thus, ene may righfully .wonder whether the pelitical doctrines ef. Cenfucianism and Legalism were really a~ dtastically incempatible as seme theerists have expeunded.
This is net to. negate er minimize the fact, however, that 'truly ,incpmpa
tible values and structures are eften incerperated into. the same secial system~.
In all such cases the system concern&d will have to. solve the cenflict, and the
-70~..,., ,
a svstem balances the incompatible ~trilctures together ,cQnstitute manY' most important characteristics. The' pdssible ways this is done are toe to catalogue. The f!)llowing are giveu only as· illustrati~ns.
The latency-ascendency circle. A very common way in which incom
. values and structures 'are held together in a .system'is. for one, of them be held in lateney whlIe the other is on the ascent. Which structure shines , ,
'th~moment depends less on human design than on a combination ofa number environmental factors~ which may change again and reverse the order of the
• Often such contradictory structures subsist in an antagonistic symbiosis, 'the continuous predominance-of one structure may not only destroy the but brea~ down the very basis of the symbiosis. In a tradi)ional society;
~Jjftt... the external interference can be supposed to be minimal, two such prin
contradictory sructures may come into ascendericy and latency in' tum, ',nd the social system appears to move in a cycle. Needless to say, the system
;~ars more st~~le when one of the structure is in the relative ascendency when it is on the way dowI,1 and its ascendent position is being replaced tJte opposite structure. But in no case can a' social system be regarded as stable, sillce the contradictory structures' on which it rests caiUlot '.{)e 'Supposed to be unchanging: Diagram II illustrates this point.
.,
Diagram n:,
~~"
, ,
; ' ", ~ Appearance of...
, ,
", ", ( , . relative stabic,
", ", lity of systemsX
organized on",'" '" " "
..
two contradic'" ""
" , "
~
"
tory stuctural'" '" ~ " "
,
principles.o p " Q.
:rime sequence.
-71~--\
In the above diagram A and B represent two principal opposite structures of a social system. They may move along the parameter of ascendency and latency in either direction, but usually not simultaneously in the same direction., . The diagram indicates that when either of .them is in relative ascendency and the other :in relative latency, as,in points M, 0 and Q, the system appears relatively stabl~.1;lut when,' ~ne structure .is sliding down and the other is ascendiag, as in points Nand P,' the system will suffer ,greater tension, and will have an unstable, even chaotic, appearance.
The Kachin villagers of highland Burma, according to E.R. Leach.25recogni~e
only two contrasting principles for the political organization of their villages.
The gumsa conceive of themseles ,as ,being ruled by chiefs who are members'of an hereditary aristocracy; the gumlaorepudiate all.notions of hereditary class difference and rank. The two are represented in Kachin thinkillg as fundamex,tally
9Ppo~ed modes ,of I?rganisation, and tend to. regard, each other as traditional enemies. Yet both are consistent with" the . general $et of cultural· trappiI!is that are identified as Kachin, and hence ought to be thought to belong, to the same system. A1t~ough tpe 'principles of organisatiop are drastically distinct, il}divi....
dual villages' have in mythological and historical times. switched from one type of organization to another like in a pendulum. This. happens, L~chexplains,
because neither the gwnsa nor the gumlao structures are absolute, both contain tAe germ of the· opposite principle, and are inherently unstable,
In anecessarilysimplifed way,' the historian~ Franz Micha:el attempted to
"
explain· the famoue cyclical changes of dynasties in"China through their 'int~rnal
structural mstability.26 Briefly, the bureaucratic empire was conceived of being based ona symbiosis of the ·central governmet,represented by
the
emperor,:and the landed gentry which supplied the administrative personnel. The basis of 'the imperial power was . land tax, as China was primarily an agrarian society, while. I'
.,- 72 , "
/
I
the basis of the gentry's power was its privileged posifionof tax. exemption .
..
'rlle,two were mutually supportive, but al,o involved inherent confl~ct. At the f,irst signs of the weak~ning of tlieceI.1tJ.:al,Power, the gentry began to accumulate
/'
its Awn land holdings, ,and ,thus" increasec1 the tax burden of the poor.
When ~ nahlral c~18mity intervened at this ,q'.itical '-stage, the balance.might
. I
-break, and· the' poor rebeL" As the chaos spread, the ,. need for;. the "proteCtion of. the.ir property might induce some .gentry members to 'giv.e, support to a
il~ndit lea~er; who, if successful, would, establish a new dynasty and impose ..stricterc{)ntJ;oIover the gentry. After a-, number of gener(,ltions, the process ,Iitcpeflted" '
''In.the case under review, the emperor's power and the gentry's intersts ,', ~~~re"evidently not, of the same order,.¥ the·l~ter had always'to be thought of as . ·&ubsidiary anQ.c1ependent on .the former. The gentry's interests could never, go
,
up too far in the latency-ascendency axis for a long time. (Should this., happ.en,
,t~·character -.~ ',- , of the empire woufd have been' substantially, altered and become ' - . '
a,feu~listic state,j. e" the bureaucratic system wou!d h~vecollapsed for good.) , '~r;were they recognized by the participants,themselves as' drastically opposed
~. in the case of ,the Kachin village organization Nevertheless, the, facts that
.tAA1
w~re involved in an antagonistic symbiosis, that they tended to varyin~~te :direction ,on theascendency-lat~ncy a~isj and, that inbalance between
I
'. :the, tw.Q tended to cause the, society, to move in a cyclical fashi.on, appear ·tobe
,-;" II), The mediating fa~tors. Two or .more antagonistic structures are often , , bddtogether in the same social system through a number of mediating, factors, so ' . , .
that direct confrontation between them is lessened, submerged, or, avoiOed. If
tM,~,Xtre:me eff.ects of either structure are thereby extenuated or even neutralized,
r~i~¥~teO) may escape the tendencies of cyc1jc~l fluctuations discussed above, ..,... 73
\
and app~ar pretty stable.
. We mentioned earlier that the Thai society contains within its,elf both stropg individualism and explicit hierarchical stratification, which are apparently inco
nsistent. How'the two are reconciled and made to function in the same society . has been described in a superbly perceptive way by Professor william J. Siffin in a recent book, The ThaiBureaucracy.t7 First, he says, contradictory values can flourish together as long as they are not commonly called upon at the same time, in the same type of situation, as the criteria for inducing or assessing behavior. In the Thai. case, stress on hierarchical status and individualism are buf
fered furthermore by two prominent features of the society: a loose structuring, or high degree of permissivity of the social system, and the shallow paternalism in the reciprocal relationships among superiors~nd subordinates. 'F,he two are interrelated. and together ,are related to t'Qe deeply internalized tenets of tlie Therevada Buddhism.
Looseness of the SOCial structure suggests' a . certain separateness betw~en
the man and the system,' 'wherein individual self-defense mechariism may operate to minimize the full impact of the hierachicalauthority. At the same time, although a superior's relationships with his subordinates may be broad and wide, social norms require that he be protective and permissive.
--He may demand outer deference and receive it. But as this is onl1 attansitory world, and as final salvation is each individuars own 'r.eSponsibility, a good' superior should also respect the personal autonomy of his subordinates,. and avoid interferring too much in their private life. Thus in a very subtle way,
,
social hierat~bization in Thailand has proceeded to a great extent without destroying the individual sense of integrity and autonomy.
A corollary is ,PertiI}ent here. It is easy to see that the chance that allta
." gonistic structures' will' be bu.ffered pnd ameliorated by "some intermediary
I
\
proportionate~y greater inqigger, decentralized, and relatively ldifferentiated systems than in opposite casea. This fact explains partially, other equal, why comple~ multi structured systems -with a number of
~tonoinOUS subsystems are generally more stable than small and simple systems.
/ ( I
IIl)/ ·Ratioalization . ·and suppression. Rationalisation is here taken to mean
.
•'process of explaining away a not very pleasant fact by arguments that rational but are actually' irrational. It is a very c~mmOn,self.:,.defense :flC\;uumsm, enabling i:me to preserve personality integrity (and, alas, personal atRnity) in face of conflicting values and actions. Like color glasses, it presents . th.e. subjec only those aspects of the situation that fit together and sijunts that logical analysis will reveal incongruent. It makes possible for one ..~shout: "Go to hell, Nigger" , on the way to the Sunday church service YWtthout a pinch on the conscience. Inconsistences of social structures are often
~ .
'tovere<l up by rationalizations in similar way. This is not' to say, however, that
.
.
such'self-justifying acts are expressed on the conscious. level. formulated in
. , "" j
mailY words. More often· than not they are only implicit, lingering in ·the nebulous domain of the subconscious. But the fact that they are there can often eaSily be inferred from the actio~s and occasional pronouncements of the actors.
How long a system is a~le to hold together conflicting structures through the use of rationalisation depends on many factors, inCluding the nature of the
"conflict, the hierarchical positions of the strlictures.concerned, the extent to
"~hich they' are broug.ht out to the open,. the strength and resilieacyof the subordinate structure; and other outside influences.. In tbe process, some con.,..
fIicts may be resolved in an enlightened and'logical way, while others intensified
. .
into violent struggles. But that social system will continue to seek temporary
" balance among old and new antagonistic structures by rationalization seems to be
a
fact of life.-75 -
FinaHy,in treating antagonistic structures that come within the same system, theposssibility that one structure may suppress another should not be over- '
,
.
looked.' Suppression can, and often does, take place when two antagonistic structures begin to accelerate in the latency-ascendency cycle, when a structure feels itself threatened by a former subordinate structure or tries to prevent the emergence of a new structure, and when the usual, symbiosis is believed to be no longer logic~l or necessary. A structure can suppress another by outlawing it tbrough'legi~lative acts, by social discriminatory plactices, by physical force, or byariy other means presently at its commancl. It can use, to borrow'soIne felicitous terms from an organization. thebrist,28 either coercive assets, utili-
tarim assets, normative assets, or any combination of the three.
Some suppressive actions are used only to keep down an antagonistic structure i1) itsplace,while in other cases the aim is not less than its total elimination from the system. Whether, a.' structure will' be completely eliminated by ,force seems to depend less on its own strength-it counts, of course-:-than on whether substitute structures can, and soon enough, be f~und to provide the functions which it used to perform. Take an example. The symbiosis prevailing in many developing areas between the political elites and the. pariah entrepreneurs
ha~ weakened considerably in recent times. In many cases, however,pariah entrepreneurship is still.tolerated, ,though subjected ,to increasing, harassments, because it is found still profitable to the burgeoning national elites, and because suitable substitutes fail to develop as quickly as wereexpeced.29 In those cases where it was forcibly, expunged, like in Turkey in the 1920's and in Indopesia in this decade, the econ9mic systems seem to have suffere4 considerably.
The whole mechmism of suppression -and reaction is too complicated to allow detailed analysis within the limits of spac'e available. Suffice· it to say
.
that as the structures that are b~ing suppressed geperally 00 not ta~e their -7&
10tIlying low, a system will experience: more or less tension proportionate to the violence of suppression taking plaCl:e w4hin it, and that it is lik,ely to • change in face of high tensions. There is no way to: tell, however, in which direction it will change, because old and conservati:vestructures as well as. new . forces may resort to suppressive tactics and there is no· way to predict which . will come out triumphant; ,
we have discussed at some length the various ways by w·hich· different, ~ even antagonistic, structures can be held together· in· a social system. Insofar
,
f .
as the structures, are accommodated iil such ways that the system appears relatively stable, we may ,say that they are balanced. No social system, of course, is absolutely stable. But we may argue thatin'most traditional ;systems, change generally. iilvoled only a rearranging of old structures, and didn ot ' include essentially' new types of' behavior patterns. These did not appear unless
there occurred also some disturbingly new forces in the environment, eitIter . endogenous or exogenous in origin.
, ' As to. the stability potential of the different kinds of structures studied . above, it is easy to see, first, that structur.s of considerable size and age would be more stable than' smaller and newer ·ones. We may further hypothesize that those structures which are relatively high in the scale of hierarchization and able to effectively utiliZE: the environmentat., resources are more diffiauIt" to' ,
'.
dislodge.
The question of comparing differentiated and ,undifferentiated' structures in this'respect is more difficult to answer. My hypotb~8i$ is that if the enviroment
't ; '-' '. ~ ,"" .
remains relatively. constant, a differentiated structure should be more powerful and stable; first, because it has been developed to deal Jith one· particular aspect of the environment, and hence more efficiently; secondly, because it' has, cu'ltivated a quasi-organic interrelationship with other structures as to; become
-7~-··
••
almost. iridispensable: But should the environment change drastically, a highly differentiated, structure may become more vhlnerable in the sense that its continued existence has come to depend on larger and specific inputs, and on relationships with other structures and the general environment that have become so delicately complicated as to
..
,be able t()bear much disturbance. An undifferentiated structure, on the other hand, tends to be less stringent on its input , ' .
entiated structure, on the other hand, tends to be less stringent on its input , ' .