Conclusion

In Organizationalism, the organization is not presented as a simple unit composed of individuals and tools. Instead, it is viewed as a collection of people and tools that have taken on a systemic structure. In other words, merely having people in proximity and establishing communication to achieve a specific goal in a particular place does not automatically make an organization a system. This is because individuals can be placed together in such a way that their actions are not complementary, but rather contradictory to each other. In this case, we can say that there is an organization, but it is not a system. This means that the connections between the components are not coordinated, rational, or governed by rules.

In this book, we have approached the organization from a systemic perspective and have linked it to the larger systems of creation. Therefore, with this definition, an organization must be regarded as part of a vast hierarchy of systems. Systems, whether natural or artificial, are coherent wholes with logical, rational, coordinated, and rule-bound connections between matter and energy. Their power and functionality can be immense depending on the coherence and orderliness of their structure.

We find common characteristics across all systems—whether economic, social, physical, mechanical, natural, botanical, nuclear, or celestial. One of these shared traits is the regulated connection between their components. It is this structure that gives the system its particular function, independent of the functions or activities of its components.

In Organizationalism, after defining systems and their types, we analyze the principles governing them and describe the common laws that the entire system inevitably follows. Here, society is analyzed from a systemic perspective, and it is found to be a vast, rule-bound system, much like the universe itself, with many unknowns. Therefore, sociologists must uncover these laws more thoroughly in order to harness them for social change and transformation. Society is made up of individuals who have developed a culture over hundreds or thousands of years, within an ocean of social interactions that conceal hidden laws. Thus, in order to create change or impose a social phenomenon, we must inevitably discover and understand these laws—specifically, how the variables within the system are connected.

Therefore, no one can claim to bring about social and cultural changes without understanding the laws that govern them and applying them accordingly. Social, economic, cultural, and natural phenomena are all dependent variables, and the only way to change them is by understanding the independent variables connected to them.

Cultural and social phenomena are never formed or changed by the commands or desires of a single individual. This is why, in some societies, a behavior or cultural phenomenon is sometimes imposed on the society by force. However, when the pressure is lifted, the society often reacts with extreme, contradictory behavior, and all the previously imposed actions are forgotten.

Society is made up of individuals, and over time, this social body has taken on a systemic form. In other words, society cannot be seen as a mere collection of individuals without structure. Rather, over the years, this collection has become a system, and thus we must study how its variables interact in order to uncover and apply them.

An organization, on the other hand, is formed by the will, desire, and decision of an individual or a few individuals with the goal of achieving a specific objective. An organization can take on a systemic form, and if it does, it can function relatively well (depending on the coherence and complexity of the rule-bound connections established within it), or it may take on a disordered or chaotic form, in which case its functionality could be zero or even negative. Many organizations collapse or fail shortly after they begin, or after years of operation, they disintegrate due to a lack of necessary adaptability and failure to adhere to systemic principles.

Therefore, if we expect an organization to produce outputs beyond its inputs, we must consider the establishment of regulated and planned relationships between its components—such as labor, capital, energy, and other factors—and structure them accordingly. The more complex and rule-bound the organizational structure, the broader and more extensive its function will be.

In Organizationalism, although movement arises from conflict, a conflict can be seen as positive, constructive, and in the direction of transformation, development, and evolution when it is controlled, directed, and brought to equilibrium. Otherwise, uncontrolled conflict will eventually lead to explosion, disarray, and disintegration, resulting in destruction and annihilation, with its ultimate function being zero or even a regressive return of society. The only outcome of such an explosion is the release of enormous energy, which can have devastating destructive effects. History reminds us of this, as millions of people in the last century alone perished as a result of the structural explosions of societies. After years of chaos, turmoil, misery, terrorism, and insecurity, the ideologies of destruction and explosion were abandoned, and people easily admitted the mistakes of their own or past generations.

Much like the inappropriate use of nuclear energy, when all the latent potential in matter is ignored and only its explosive power is utilized. If this energy is controlled and directed toward balance, evolution, and development, it can have tremendous constructive power.

Therefore, a sociologist or social planner can use conflict as a driving force for change and transformation in order to bring the social system to equilibrium, creating the conditions for social development and human well-being. Otherwise, they may merely stand by and watch the uncontrollable, destructive conflict within the system. In this case, there will be no escape from the cyclical, law-bound explosions of social systems, as conflict, when undirected and unplanned, becomes a force of destruction and annihilation in all systems. Humanity may pay a tremendous price for this lack of planning.

Thus, Organizationalist sociology is not sociology of conflict; it is sociology of equilibrium. It recognizes the laws governing the social system and the conflicts within it, and works toward reducing the force of conflict and restoring equilibrium to society. For instance, when a sociologist observes the imbalance caused by class conflict in society (which they can identify through the relevant indices), they will open the social system’s safety valves and attempt to reduce the conflict and restore equilibrium through reforms.

Revolutionaries, without understanding or contemplating the consequences of the chaos, turmoil, and explosion caused by conflict, or the cost that people will pay for this explosion over years and even centuries, shout slogans and wait for the explosion to happen. And if they have a hand in politics, they may even fuel the explosive energy to make it more intense. They never ask themselves if the new situation, with the weak organizational power of a class that has been deprived of education and wise thinking over years, will be better than the old one. What will happen when an uninformed, power-hungry class takes control? Will this emergent class resort to violent repression and establish a system of terror and personal dictatorship out of fear of losing power?

This thinking among revolutionary intellectuals stems from their belief that they are unable to plan or restore balance in society. As a result, feeling powerless, they wish for society to explode, unaware that the cost of this explosion will be far heavier than the effort needed to restore social equilibrium.

They view revolution as the only solution to societal progress and transformation, whereas Organizationalism does not recommend disorganization or chaos and sees revolution as a source of turmoil and disorder. Organizationalism aims to understand and harness conflict for the movement and transformation of society, bringing balance back to it.

For Organizationalism, it does not matter what theory or ideological view governs society; the aim is to restore equilibrium to an unbalanced society. This is not a dogmatic or ideological theory, but rather a scientific theory that studies the social system in whatever structure it may have, identifies its laws, and creates a prescription for balance based on them. When a society as a social system loses its equilibrium, it becomes plagued by poverty, misery, despotism, oppression, injustice, and many other social and economic afflictions. It no longer matters whether the society is a free-market capitalist one or a communist one with centralized planning.

The imbalance in society cannot be solved by force and repression, nor can it be solved by more disorganization, lawlessness, and injustice. It can only be addressed by accurately understanding and changing the variables that are directly or indirectly responsible for society’s imbalance.

Although proponents of this view acknowledge the mortality of systems and regard death and extinction as their ultimate fate, they believe that by utilizing the governing principles within systems, it is possible to maintain them in balance for years and even centuries. This balance can then be used to foster the development and progress of society, ultimately leading to planned and long-term fundamental and structural changes.

In the final chapter of the book, the influence of social systems on individual and social actions is also explored. This perspective suggests that individual actions are influenced by the systemic constraints present in the society in which they live.

Thus, this book forms a self-contained system, with the first four chapters dedicated to its structure, while the final chapter focuses on the functions of social systems.