Systems can be categorized based on various criteria, considering their extensive diversity:

a. Based on external interactions

b. Based on internal structure

c. Based on their functions

d. Based on their formation process

a. Types of Systems Based on External Interactions

The most common classification of systems is based on their interactions with the external environment. From this perspective, we encounter two types of systems: closed systems and open systems.

1. Closed Systems

Closed systems are those that have no exchange relationships—of matter or energy—with the external environment. Consequently, these systems operate under static equilibrium.

Closed systems consist of four components:

Input: The collection of energy and materials introduced into the system as data.

Process: Once inputs enter the internal processes, they undergo analysis and transformation.

Output: After internal processing, matter and energy are released as outputs or results.

Feedback: Part of the output is recycled into the system as input, ensuring continuity, while the rest is expelled from the system as feedback.

For example, consider a car as a closed system. Inputs such as fuel, oil, and water are introduced into the system with the driver’s deliberate actions. Internally, fuel undergoes compression to the point of combustion, ignited by the spark plugs, producing energy that powers movement. A portion of this energy is recycled as input, while the process repeats, ensuring continued operation.

However, no system can be deemed entirely closed. Even the most isolated system is subject to external influences. For instance, the car mentioned above can be affected by environmental factors such as extreme weather, natural disasters, or driver behavior. These external factors underscore the interconnected nature of systems, where the degree of dependency varies—minimal in closed systems but substantial in open systems.

This introduces the relativity of openness and closedness in systems. Closed systems, in adherence to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, exhibit entropy, which is the tendency towards increasing disorder.

2. Open Systems

Open systems engage in mutual exchanges with their surrounding environments. Their feedback mechanisms act as control processes that regulate and stabilize the system. These mechanisms continuously adjust the system’s interactions with external systems, reintroducing modified inputs to maintain equilibrium.

In open material systems, such as a planet, an atom, or an organic tissue, exchanges with the environment—of matter and energy—are relatively straightforward. However, in more complex open systems like societies, these exchanges involve intricate and multidimensional elements, including cultural and historical influences.

When studying societies as holistic systems, researchers often simplify analyses by isolating one or a few variables while keeping others constant. For example, in physics, variables like pressure and temperature are held steady, whereas in sociology, factors like education level or income may be controlled. While acknowledging the complex interdependence of variables within systems, this approach allows for manageable and focused study of specific elements.

Interconnection in Open Systems

The interconnectedness and interdependence of open systems are undeniable. Yet, due to the vast number of variables potentially influencing a given system, researchers often analyze limited subsets of variables, sometimes pairing them for quantitative modeling.

In biology and social sciences, unlike quantitative physical systems, the whole system is often studied as an entity independent of its components. For instance, an organism in biology or social organizations in sociology are analyzed as interconnected wholes, where the relationships between components determine the system’s functionality.

If the relationships between components are altered in a rational or structured manner, the system’s functionality will change accordingly. Therefore, while open systems are highly dependent on external interactions, they are often studied statically as cohesive wholes.

Dynamics of Closed and Open Systems

Closed systems tend to experience accelerated entropy, characterized by the gradual depletion of internal energy. For instance, a car ceases to function if the fuel, oxygen, or electricity needed for its operation is interrupted. In contrast, open systems, such as societies, display negative entropy, allowing them to resist disorder and sustain themselves more effectively over time.

The strength of negative entropy in a system correlates with its adaptability and complexity. Societies, as open systems, exhibit varying levels of negative entropy depending on their structure and stage of development. A rural society, for example, generally demonstrates stronger negative entropy than an urban one, while an industrialized society displays weaker negative entropy but greater potential for transformation than a developing society.

This classification highlights the dynamic interplay between system structure, external interactions, and functionality, emphasizing the interconnected nature of systems and their adaptability to changing conditions.

Walter Buckley’s Self-Adaptive Systems

Walter Buckley categorizes systems into two types:

Closed, Negentropic Systems (resistant to change and possessing relatively strong negative entropy).

Open, Self-Adaptive, and Entropic Systems (prone to change). (Buckley, W., 1967)

1. Relatively Closed and Negentropic Balanced Systems

As noted earlier, no system is entirely closed or open; this is a relative concept. All systems are influenced by external factors to some degree, but the extent of dependency on external factors determines whether they are relatively open or closed. Buckley’s relatively closed balanced systems are characterized by their constant quest for equilibrium, yet they lack the ability to restructure or generate new structural forms. Energy for transformation within these systems is minimized. They depend solely on external disruptions or structuring forces, as they lack internal resources for change.

These systems have relatively simple content, and interactions among their components primarily occur through energy exchange rather than information exchange. Their primary function is to preserve their initial stability and pre-defined limitations. This rigidity often restricts communication with the external environment, minimizing information and even energy exchange. However, this rigidity is what ensures self-regulation and preservation of internal structures against changes.

Concrete examples include mechanical systems like steam engines or electric, electronic, and gasoline-powered machines.

Some systems are neither fully open nor closed; they occupy an intermediate position and are referred to as semi-open systems, such as organic and homeostatic systems, like living organisms. While these systems are open, they are also negentropic, maintaining a moderate level of energy balance.

2. Complex Open and Self-Adaptive Systems

A wide variety of systems belong to this category, ranging from psychological to cultural and social systems. While open, these systems exhibit negative entropy and, in some cases, are highly negentropic. These systems exhibit negative entropy, meaning they can increase their potential energy.

Such systems are influenced both internally and externally. Interactions within their internal elements can drive fundamental changes, while external dynamics and interactions also impact their functionality. Buckley emphasizes that society is an open, complex, and self-adaptive system that operates in a heterogeneous and dynamic environment (Walter Buckley, 1967).

A social system does not evolve unless it is affected by a stream of successful environmental changes and organizational constraints. For success, such evolution requires a degree of flexibility and responsiveness in its relationship with its surrounding environment and the chosen mechanisms.

In self-adaptive biological and psychological systems, the environment-system relationship occurs through mechanisms such as DNA coding and learning. (Logan, p. 62) Similarly, in social-cultural self-adaptive systems that rely on symbols, there is a one-way flow of encoding and selection, despite prevailing heterogeneities. At the same time, symbolic behaviors of individuals or social groups respond to particular requirements (ibid).

This dynamic leads to the formation and transformation of culture and social organization. However, compared to other self-adaptive systems, social-cultural systems exhibit distinctive characteristics. For example:

The range of potential changes expands over time.

The role of genetic factors diminishes, while cultural elements gain prominence.

Internal changes, i.e., relationships among elements of the socio-cultural system, become more influential compared to external factors like environmental conditions.

These new social-cultural characteristics and comparative analyses of past and future trends enable broader and deeper analyses of social issues and the extension of societal goals.

Causality and System Stability

Buckley also focuses on the causal network governing systems. He posits that a fundamental system consists of elements interconnected through direct or indirect causal relationships, which contribute to its stability. This includes opposing and varying forces, whose combined effects often result in equilibrium. The ultimate outcome is relative stability within the system and the establishment of a somewhat stable reciprocal structure that defines it.

It is crucial to distinguish between the permanence of a system as a whole and the variability of its structure, which is shaped at a specific moment for a specific purpose. The continuity of a system lies in preserving the core variables that ensure its sustainability.

B. Classification of Systems Based on Internal Structures

When examining the internal structures of systems, we encounter various forms, each exhibiting a degree of coherence, interdependence, and rule-governed order. If we assume all systems represent an ideal and perfectly cohesive whole, where internal interactions are entirely structured and coordinated, we risk oversimplifying reality. Even in natural and organic systems, no such perfect system exists.

To adhere to the principle of systemic communication excellence, we must acknowledge the evolutionary principle and the entropy inherent in systems. Recognizing systems’ variability and developmental trajectory requires accepting that internal connections are relative rather than absolute.

Consequently, systems vary infinitely, with varying degrees of structured, rational, and coordinated interactions among their elements. Systems with weak or nonexistent structured connections among their components are disordered, dysfunctional, and chaotic—akin to dismantling and scattering the parts of a car.

Conversely, stronger, more cohesive, and more rationally organized interactions result in more robust systems with broader functionality.

Thus, in organizational and systemic studies, absolutism should be avoided. The pursuit of an ideal, flawless model negates the fundamental principle of evolution evident in nature, humanity, society, and the universe. Accepting systems’ evolutionary and entropic capacities allows us to comprehend and actively foster their transformation and development.

All systems, while finite, possess entropy, meaning they are dynamic and evolution-driven. A natural system is always changing—it is born, grows, and ultimately ceases to exist. Death is part of the evolutionary law. From a broader perspective of systemic openness, the demise of a smaller system does not halt or alter the progression of the larger system. For example, the death of an individual marks the end of their biological evolution but neither disrupts nor halts the broader system of nature. Rather, the individual remains integrated within the evolutionary order of creation. Thus, Darwin’s theory of evolution and the natural progression inherent in biological and human systems remain indisputable.

Among various systems, one encounters a wide range of structures that exhibit varying degrees of systemic interconnections. In some systems, the interactions are more lawful, robust, cohesive, and coordinated, while in others, they are weaker. For instance, organizational systems in developed nations are significantly stronger than those in third-world countries. Similarly, the organizational frameworks within a capitalist system are far more robust and cohesive than those in a feudal society. This explains the significant differences in the functionality and diversity of organizations across nations and historical periods.

The same principles apply to non-social systems, such as mechanical or organic ones. For example, the structure of a modern and advanced car is far more complex, cohesive, and powerful than that of an older, simpler vehicle, resulting in vastly different functions. Similarly, the complexity of a unicellular organism differs greatly from that of an advanced biological system like the human body. Yet, even the unicellular organism falls within the definition of a system. It cannot be excluded from the broader category of systems, although it demonstrates weaker and simpler systemic connections between its components.

Organizationalism teaches us to focus on structural transformation and the development of stronger, more effective connections among the components and members of social systems to improve their functionality continually.

Progress in natural systems and development in social phenomena—including economics, society, and politics—emerge from greater coherence and more systematic relationships among the elements of a social organization. One cannot expect a single structure to perform two completely distinct functions. However, within a single system, various subsystems may exhibit diverse functions. These functions reflect the performance of individual subsystems, which can be studied as independent systems, rather than the holistic function of the overall system. The overarching system has a unified function resulting from the interactions among its subsystems. For example, a social system may encompass economic, educational, ideological, cultural, and political functions, driven by its corresponding economic, educational, cultural, and political subsystems. However, the overall functionality of the social system is determined by the unified structure resulting from the relationships among these subsystems. This holistic structure can either facilitate or hinder social and economic development.

Each structure—defined as the lawful relationships among the components of a system—produces a specific feedback. This feedback manifests as energy and matter, where energy drives movement, and movement catalyzes change and transformation.

Just as the structure of a car is expected to generate energy and facilitate movement upon activation, a social system can be expected to create energy aligned with its social structure, fostering societal and economic development or enabling social movements and transformations. The stronger, more cohesive, and more lawful a social structure is, the greater and more effective its functionality will be. For instance, the economic structure of a developed nation significantly outperforms that of a less developed country due to the differences in their organizational frameworks. Hence, in one scenario, we witness the accumulation of production, whereas in the other, there is a shortage.

Classification of Systems Based on Functionality

Another criterion for classifying systems is their functionality. Scholars from various disciplines who employ systemic analysis attempt to categorize systems according to their diverse functions. Enumerating all such classifications may be unnecessary and would only prolong the discussion.

François Meyer categorizes sciences into micro and macro levels, identifying disciplines such as biology and physiology at the micro level and behavioral and sociological sciences at the macro level.

Marnay and Smith (1964) classify systems based on their adaptive capacity into four categories:

Non-organic systems: such as physical and chemical systems.

Organic systems: including natural organisms and biological entities.

Perceptual systems: such as psychological and social systems relying on symbolic interactions.

Artificial systems: man-made constructs such as machines.

According to these sociologists, three fundamental types of adaptability exist within systems:

a. Reactive Adaptability: A type of adaptability where the system exhibits consistent and uniform responses to a predefined set of inputs.

b. Conventional Open Adaptability (Second-Order): In these systems, functionality varies, allowing for at least two possible outcomes for a given input.

c. Structural Open Adaptability: In these systems, the lawful relationships among components are dynamic and constantly evolving.

Reactive adaptability is observed in organic systems, while the other two types are prevalent in perceptual systems. For instance, in psychological and social systems, one cannot anticipate a consistent, predefined reaction to a specific action or input. In contrast, such predictability exists in the first type of system.

In social sciences, two analytical models stand out: Talcott Parsons’ structural-functional model and Walter Buckley’s self-adaptive systems theory.

From the perspective of their functionality, systems can be categorized into social, mechanical, physical, electronic, organic, botanical (ecological and natural), chemical, nuclear, spatial, and other types. Each functional type can, in turn, be divided into subcategories. For example, social systems may include economic, political, and cultural systems, while organic systems can be divided into biological and psychological types. Similarly, an economic system may include micro and macro subsystems.

D: Classification of Systems Based on How They Are Formed

In terms of how systems are formed, we encounter two categories of systems:

Natural Systems: These are systems in which human involvement in their formation is either nonexistent or minimal, such as organic systems, ecosystems in nature, and spatial systems like stars and galaxies.

Artificial Systems: These are systems created by humans, such as social, economic, political, and cultural organizations, as well as mechanical, chemical, nuclear, and virtual systems.

Natural systems are considerably more flawless than those created by humans. Humans often model artificial systems after these natural systems, learning from them in order to shape social organizations and other man-made systems in ways that make them more durable, balanced, and capable of maintaining entropy. This enables these systems to be more flexible in the face of internal and external changes, allowing for self-regulation and adaptation.

Social systems, such as economic, political, and cultural organizations, are all artificial systems created by humans. Therefore, the more organizational principles and structural laws are imposed on them, the more extensive and effective their functions will be.

During the feudal era, social organizations had weak and rudimentary structures. For example, in the economic organizations of that time, the primary focus was on achieving subsistence equilibrium. The landowner, as the sole organizer of the production system, managed the human resources within their domain, such as forming a crew of laborers.

With societal progress, changes in the mode of production, and the advent of advanced industry, the organization of human resources evolved accordingly.

For instance, the structure of economic organizations at the beginning of capitalist production was influenced by the theories of classical theorists like Taylor and Max Weber. These theorists emphasized division of labor, work discipline, bureaucracy, and rigid administrative relationships akin to those in military organizations. However, as society advanced and fundamental changes occurred within capitalist production systems, the shortcomings of classical theories became apparent. This called for a new organizational structure based on the theories of neoclassicists or behaviorists, or a combination of the two. As a result, the organization of human resources in Western production organizations underwent changes.

Neoclassicists focused more on human psychological and social relationships.

Between these two schools of thought (classical and neoclassical), which represent two different approaches to the formation of organizations, a third form of organization based on Marxist theory emerged. This approach emphasized the state-controlled organization and the dictatorial dominance of the proletariat over organizations.

This change in the organization of human resources demonstrates an undeniable reality: no organization is flawless enough to guarantee continuous and everlasting societal progress and development. Social organizations, like other systems, are subject to the law of perishability, and no ideology, whether feudalism, capitalism, socialism, or communism, can permanently guarantee the movement, transformation, or development of society. Therefore, expecting one of these ideologies to provide eternal happiness and development for society, or to consider one as the only way to save humanity, is an unrealistic and misguided expectation. Social planners can only extend the lifespan of social systems or improve their functions by altering structural relationships, but they cannot ensure the eternal survival of any single social structure.

Whether we like it or not, all systems, just as they are governed by the laws of shape transformation (entropy), negative entropy, equilibrium creation, and self-regulation (which will be discussed in later chapters), are also subject to the law of perishability. Whenever disorder within a system reaches a point where it can no longer restore balance, that system is doomed to decay. This principle applies not only to social organizations but to all systems, whether natural or artificial.