 The idea of a system is central to dealing with complexity as it offers us a very abstract model and a solid basis on which to structure our reasoning about complex social systems. In this video, we'll be taking a very high-level view of what we mean by this term social system and then we'll be digging further into each aspect of it in coming videos. So we'll be outlining our basic model as consisting of social actors called agents and a set of relations between them. We'll talk about the idea of social agency and the different types of relations between these agents. Finally, we'll talk about the type of social structure that emerges out of these relations and the dynamics of social systems as they change over time. A system is a set of parts called elements and the connections between these parts called relations. Through these relations, the elements are interdependent in affecting a joint outcome. By interdependent, we mean that if we change the state of one element, this will affect the state of other elements within the system. We can contrast a system with a set, where a set consists of a group of independent elements, such as a bowl of fruit. If we changed one of the fruit, this would not affect any of the others because the variables associated with each element are independent. A social system is then a set of actors and the relations or ties between them. Again, we could contrast a social system with a simple set of people, such as a group of people waiting for a bus. They are simply a collection of unassociated individuals. But now imagine that when the bus arrives, there is an elderly lady that needs help getting on the bus. So one person comes to hold the door open and two others give her support on each side. Now we have a social system because the individuals are interrelated and interdependent in affecting a joint outcome. All individuals are arranged in a particular fashion or occupy a particular state in order to perform a collective function. As such, the individuals are interdependent. And this is the same for all social systems, such as a corporation, that has well-defined roles and relations between those roles, through which they perform a collective function of producing some good or service. Or a government would be another example of a social system, with well-defined, differentiated roles that relate to each other and are interdependent in performing the collective function of social governance. Social systems are made up of social actors, or what we call agents within complexity theory. Agents are abstract models of individuals or organizations that have agency, meaning the capacity to make choices and to act independently on those choices to affect the state of their environment. In order to make choices, agents need some set of rules under which to make those choices. This set of instructions or rules can be based upon some simple linear cause and effect, such as a trader choosing to sell a stock if it goes below a certain price. This basic set of linear rules we would call an algorithm. But these choices may be much more complex, such as a person choosing whether to change career. These more complex decisions are the product of many interacting factors. They are not the product of a simple cause and effect dynamic, but they emerge out of the agent's representation of its environment, what is called a schema and some set of values. With this capacity of agency comes autonomy. In choices and actions, agents define themselves as independent from other things, and thus define their own identity with associated responsibilities for their actions. Agency is then not just the property of an individual, but collections of individuals can have agency that is to say we as individuals can give over our agency to other people or organizations. For example, let's take a shop owner, Kate, who is taking inventory realizing that she needs more stock. She sends one of her employees, James, to make this order. James is now acting on the behalf of Kate. He is a legal agent, a party that is legally authorized to act on the behalf of another. Kate is considered the principal in this relationship, meaning that she has given authority to another to act on her behalf. Both principal and agent can be individuals or organizations. Or to take another example, this agent-principal relation is the one that we have with our politicians within democratic republics. We hand over our choices within the political decision-making process to our representatives. In the same way that we end our organizations with agency and in so doing we hand over our choices and actions to them. The reverse is also true. Once organizations have agency, they then endow this upon roles within that organization. The individuals fulfilling those roles are then empowered with that combined agency. They can make choices and act on behalf of the organization. A commander of an army can tell his troops what to do, because they have given that organization their agency. That is to say their independent choices and actions and the organization has endowed anyone occupying the role of the commander with the authority to make choices and guide their actions for them. Agents within social systems have agency. They act based upon their representation of the world or schema in order to affect some desired outcome. And thus as soon as we have two or more agents we may have some form of interaction between them as they both follow their agendas. In this interaction agents become interdependent. This dynamic of interdependence is described within social interdependence theory, which posits that there are two different types of social interdependence, positive and negative. Positive interdependence exists when there is a positive correlation among individuals' goal attainments, meaning that individuals perceive that they can attain their goals if and only if the other individuals with whom they are cooperatively linked also attain their goals. Inversely, negative interdependence exists when there is a negative correlation among individuals' goal achievements. Individuals perceive that they can obtain their goals if the other individual with whom they are cooperatively linked failed to obtain their goals. Along with these two different types of interactions we may also have an interaction of simple exchange. This type of interaction is described within standard economics by rational choice theory. Agents are simply swapping one thing for another in a linear fashion. These interactions can be formalized in game theoretical terms. Positive interdependencies are zero or positive sum games, meaning that the whole pie may get bigger through cooperation. Negative interdependencies are zero or negative sum games, meaning the whole pie is getting smaller through this interaction. Exchange interactions give us zero sum games. The whole is not changing, we're simply moving things around, changing who gets what. These different types of interdependencies create attractors towards fundamentally different types of interaction between agents, that of cooperation derived from positive interdependency, that of competition or conflict as derived from negative interdependencies, or that of trade from interactions of exchange. Conflictual relations are zero or negative sum interactions where the interests of one agent are pitted against those of another. Relations of conflict arise when agents with divergent agendas interact over some rival resource. By rival we mean that the resource that each agent desires is exclusive. Only one agent can own or occupy that resource at any given time. This may be some physical resource, some social status, ideology etc. This interdependency coupled with excludability means one agent can obtain more of some rival resource by reducing another's access to it and this creates the dynamic of conflict or competition. When agents agendas are aligned towards a common outcome we can get cooperative relations. Cooperation is the process of groups or social actors working or acting together for their common mutual benefit or that of others. Cooperation is often the product of needing to perform some function that requires individuals with different capabilities to coordinate their activities towards some common outcome. In such a dynamic for any one agent to achieve the desired outcome every other agent has to also achieve it, meaning that each agent will be equally interested in the fulfillment of their own role and agenda as that of others. For example if a father or a mother is interested in providing a good family context for raising their child they will have to be equally interested in the fulfillment of their role as much as the fulfillment of the role of their partner and this creates a strong attractor towards cooperation. When agents with different capabilities coordinate their activities we get what is called a synergy. An interaction of exchange involves a two-sided mutually rewarding process that engenders a trade-like transaction where agents are simply swapping things. This relation is formed out of the agent's subjective cost-benefit analysis and their comparison of alternatives. Self-interest and rationality are central properties of an exchange interaction. Social exchange theory features many of the main assumptions found in rational choice theory whereas the first two types of interaction will typically give us nonlinear results meaning that relations of conflict or cooperation will add or subtract significant value from the whole system. Exchange will typically give us near linear results because we are simply swapping things around. No great value to the whole system is being added or subtracted through the exchange because exchange can be best described with reference to linear models it is understood very well within standard economic theory and during our course here we'll be focusing more on the other two nonlinear forms of interaction. Out of these different types of relations develop some form of enduring structure to that system what is called its social structure. In the social sciences social structure is the patterns of social arrangement in society that are both emergent from and determinant of the actions and relations between the agents. As enduring patterns of behavior and interaction they define some form of order to the overall system. Again the type of social structure that emerges is largely a product of the type of interaction between the agents. With relations of negative interdependence because the resource is excludable the net result will always be one of the agents assuming a dominant position while the other assumes a subordinate position thus defining a power dynamic. By power we mean the capacity to direct or influence the behavior of others irrespective of their personal agenda. The power dynamics that holds a particular social structure within a particular configuration are an organic product of agonistic interactions between agents over excludable resources. The social structure that emerges out of this conflict or competition will be the formation of some kind of stratified social system based upon access to the rifle good. This may also be called a hierarchy which arises when members of a social group interact to create a social structure with a linear or near linear ranking system. With that ranking system directly correlated to the distribution of some underlining desired resource within the system such as economic value social prestige etc. The conflictual relations that are an inherent part of this type of social system are a constant potential for disorder and it is seen that there needs to be some countervailing force exerted in order to maintain the social structure. Order is typically derived from the exercising of authority through some form of centralized control system. Cooperation gives rise to collaborative organizations where agents self-organize around a common function. Cooperation gives rise to peer dynamics when the realization of each agent's agenda is recognized as being important in the realization of the combined agenda and when there is limited hierarchical structure based upon consumption then relations are horizontal in nature creating a network social structure. Order within this type of system is seen to derive from their interconnections and positive interdependencies between agents. It is these interdependencies that bond the system into an integrated whole and thus maintain some form of structure and coherence. From this perspective the greater the differentiation and specialization between the agents the greater the positive interdependency between them and the greater the glue binding them into some state of order. The net result of collaboration is what is called emergence the synergistic relations are non-linear they add value to the whole system. Out of this added value we get the emergence of a new level of organization a collective function. For example through all the ants performing differentiated functions and coordinating these individual functions within the whole colony we get the emergence of a complex society whose capability and structure is qualitatively different from that of any of its components. That is to say out of these synergies a new level of organization has emerged this phenomenon of emergence is ubiquitous across all types of social systems from families to communities to business organizations. This emergent phenomena creates a structure that is not associated with any of the individual properties of the parts that form it. Relations of exchange give us a market like social structure. This social structure will often have some centralized third party that mediates and facilitates the exchange like a bank that takes in deposits and hands out loans. All of these three parties are engaged in this interaction out of their own self-interest and the net result is a market structure that has some kind of equilibrium that represents a balance between all of these different parties self-interest like that between supply and demand within an economy. These different social structures have very different internal dynamics that is to say the processes through which the internal social structure changes over time. The dynamics of a hierarchical social system composed predominantly of competitive or conflictual relations are described within sociology by conflict theory. Conflict theory posits that the dominant stratas within the hierarchy will use their position and resources to maintain their privileged position in so doing they will systematically reduce social mobility. People of merit will not be able to rise meaning those in the upper stratas become less competent and there is also the accumulative effect what is called the rich get richer as the whole system becomes more polarized ultimately leading to some abrupt discontinuous change. As such conflict is seen as an inherent part of the social dynamic as Karl Marx put it without conflict no progress. This is the law that civilization has followed to this day from the conflict perspective societies develop because for every action of oppression there is an equal and opposite force that accumulates over time as the two become more diametrically opposed ultimately leading to a state of complete conflict and an ensuing regime shift through revolution and this is considered the primary dynamic driving this type of social system as it develops over time. Collaborative organizations can be more adaptive when the ultimate aim is not to maintain one's social status and access to rival goods but to enable the operation of a shared function. Agents can adapt their role and relations to that of other agents in order to best facilitate the joint outcome. When the ultimate aim of the agents or organization is to perform some collective function the emphasis is placed on a person's competency in performing that function resulting in a more meritocratic system an important mechanism for social mobility and integration between different levels within the social system. Lastly this whole social system exists within some environment and is subject to long-term evolution as that environment changes this change may be in technology and economic conditions such as the rise of capitalism during the early modern period it may be some change in the natural environment or change within the culture and beliefs of that society either way the whole system goes through long-term processes of change where new functions are required to be performed whilst others become redundant. Through this process of evolution the system has to adapt by producing new variants to see which of these are best suited to meeting the changing context new roles within organizations new jobs and institutions within society or new ideas within the culture with those new social phenomena that are most functional in enabling people and organizations to adapt to the new context being retained integrated and shared and with those that are not becoming less prevalent within the future life cycle of the system. In such a way the whole social system can evolve in a distributed fashion through this process of evolution the society can successfully adapt to new changes as it develops new specialized subsystems as it becomes both more differentiated and integrated leading to what we might call greater complexity. In this module we've been laying down the very basics of a model to social systems which we described as a set of social actors or agents and a set of relations between them through which they are interdependent in performing some collective function. We talked about agency as an individual or organization that acts to produce a particular result. We briefly looked at the different types of relations between agents and broadly defined these different relations as being of cooperation conflict or exchange. We looked at how relations of competition and conflict lead to zero and negative sum games of exclusivity with one agent coming to occupy a position above or below another creating a stratified social structure that defines the agent's access to some rival resource. Inversely we talked about cooperative relations called synergies where individuals both differentiate and coordinate their activities towards some common end the results in a networked peer social structure. We finally talked about the dynamics of these different types of social systems and the process of evolution as it acts on the entire social system in order for it to adapt to some changing environment.