Definition of a System (Theoretical Concept of a System)
A system can be defined in two very general, broad, and subjective ways or in a very detailed and concrete manner.
1. General and Subjective Definition
A system is a collection of components that can exist in various communicative states. Each of these communicative forms that the components take constitutes the structure of the system, and each structure requires a specific function. Therefore, the change in the status of the components can be studied and measured. That is, the components of the system can be treated as variables in a specific situation for study. Thus, the status of the system at any time depends on the way the components are connected and the level of complexity and the governing laws of the relationships between them, rather than on the inherent value of the components themselves.
This definition, although subjective, has a practical aspect. In reality, it is the researcher who decides whether to include a particular variable in the system they are studying or to disregard certain variables. This choice certainly depends on the goals of the research. Here, the study of a system enables the researcher to investigate the functions of societies that do not exist in reality and are entirely abstract and subjective. The researcher can organize social systems where certain components of specific societies are absent, or where variables are incorporated in a “soft” (theoretical) manner that do not exist in the actual societies.
2. Detailed and Concrete Definition
Here, a system is a collection of interconnected and interdependent components that have coordinated, logical, rational, and lawful relationships.
This short definition encompasses several key aspects, such as interconnectedness, interdependence, coordination, and lawfulness in the relationships between components, all of which are essential conditions for the existence of systems. In other words, if any of these conditions is absent, the real and actual existence of the system is questioned, negated, or incomplete. Therefore, no system—whether social or non-social (physical, natural, mechanical, electronic, nuclear, etc.)—can exist unless there is a logical, rational, lawful, and coordinated connection between its components.
– Conditions for the Existence of Systems
For any system to be formed, to have real and concrete existence, and to function, it must meet the following three conditions:
1. Communication
2. Interconnection
3. Dependence
Condition 1: Existence of Communication Between Components
Communication refers to real, physical, or mental connections that exist between the components of the system. No system can exist without communication between its constituent elements. Communication is the most important factor that shapes a system. A system will either completely disappear or cease to function if any communication is broken. For example, in the human body’s biological system, if the communication between the brain and heart is severed, the system collapses and disintegrates. Similarly, a mechanical system cannot exist without a regulated connection between its components. For instance, a car cannot be built or made to run without establishing communication between the fuel system and the electrical system, between the spark plugs and the distributor, between the steering wheel and the wheels, or between the wheels and the brakes, etc. If any communication in this mechanical system is interrupted, the car will malfunction, or its functions will be disrupted, endangering the passengers’ lives and property.
Social systems are no exception. Their existence also depends on real, physical, or virtual communication between their components, whether material or human. In these systems, labor is divided, structures are formed, and specific functions are carried out.
– Principles Governing Internal Relationships of Systems
Can any kind of communication form a system? In other words, what principles must govern the relationships between the components of a system to ensure its function, feedback, and continuity?
Three principles must govern the relationships between components in a system:
a. Principle of Lawfulness
b. Principle of Coordination
c. Principle of Logic and Rationality
a. Principle of Lawfulness
What is meant by lawfulness or laws here is scientific lawfulness, not legal laws enacted by a parliament, government, or any other official legislative body. Legal laws are merely social agreements or contracts that are created by representatives or lawmakers based on the circumstances of time and place. These laws are shaped according to the will and necessity of the lawmakers and do not have scientific validity. In contrast, scientific laws refer to a proven and established relationship between two variables. All sciences aim to discover their respective laws. Researchers, through scientific methods, prove hypotheses and uncover governing laws in various scientific fields. Science is a part of human knowledge that is characterized by lawfulness, order, and a methodical approach to research. Hence, having lawfulness is a fundamental condition for the existence of any scientific discipline. New discoveries in lawfulness expand the scope of science. Through the understanding and discovery of governing laws, humans gain control over physical, natural, organic, economic, and social phenomena. For example, when physicists discover that there is a relationship between temperature and the expansion of materials, they are able to change the volume of a metal sphere by increasing or decreasing the temperature. Similarly, when economists discover that there is a relationship between demand and price, they can manipulate the price of a good to affect demand. Likewise, when sociologists find a relationship between crime rates and unemployment, they can reduce crime by increasing employment and lowering unemployment. Through science and the discovery of laws, humans can control and guide all phenomena in existence. It is here that we can say that the limits of human will and control are defined by their understanding of the governing laws of the material and immaterial world.
Scientific laws exist outside our will and desire, whether we want them to or not—they govern the entire system of existence, both natural and societal. Humans must discover and apply these laws to gain control over their destiny.
The relationships between components in systems cannot occur without the application of the governing laws in the sciences. For instance, if we were unaware of Pascal’s law, and did not know how pressure on one part of a liquid affects other parts in a confined space, we would never be able to create a hydraulic brake system for a vehicle or a jack capable of lifting a car. Similarly, if we didn’t understand the relationship between temperature and the boiling point of materials, we could not build thermostats that are widely used in mechanical and thermal systems.
In any system, a network of relationships exists, each of which organizes and directs part or all of the system. Therefore, a set of laws must govern the different sections of the system. For example, in the car’s mechanical system, a combination of mechanical, physical, chemical, and electronic laws applies in different parts of the system. Similarly, an economic system in a free society follows the laws of capitalism. No one can manage or guide a social economy without understanding and applying these laws.
Today’s World is a World of Laws
The world today is a world governed by laws, and if these laws are not recognized or are ignored, they can lead to misfortune, dependency, humiliation, and suffering for nations. The difference between non-social systems—such as physical, mechanical, natural, and organic systems—and social and economic systems is that the former are entirely tangible, with their functions being observable and measurable. In these systems, it is clear whether the system is functioning, whether there is a malfunction in the system as a whole or in one of its parts, or if the system is not functioning at all. For instance, an experienced driver can immediately detect any malfunction in the car’s system by hearing an unusual sound. Similarly, a person, upon noticing the first symptoms of illness, realizes that the system of their body is malfunctioning.
However, in social systems, a certain level of disorder or dysfunction may persist in society for a long time without the authorities recognizing the need for correction. Interestingly, the authorities, often regarded as the saviors and wise thinkers of the society, are praised and honored by the people. The public may come to believe that this situation is how things are supposed to be, often blaming themselves for their own problems—such as a jobless person blaming their inability to find work or a sick person blaming personal negligence.
Although individual and psychological factors cannot be completely disregarded in the conditions that affect society, it is clear that, in most cases, if the economic and social systems are set right, many of the problems that humanity faces can be solved.
Therefore, in the formation of social systems, a network of interactions must be considered, which leads us to pay attention to the set of laws governing their formation. These include not only economic laws but also social, psychological, managerial, and other laws.
The Determining Role of Laws in Systems
The laws that govern systems are the determining forces that impose themselves on all of the system’s components. In other words, in a social system, individual behavior, actions, and social outcomes are shaped by the values, status, and roles that individuals fulfill in the society. This often leads individuals to become what society expects of them. In other systems, the components also follow the laws that govern the relationships within the system.
In a social system, individuals do not choose which family, social class, or caste they are born into or the social relationships they are born into. They are born into a society where the mode of production, class relations, values, norms, and culture have already been shaped, and they have little say in shaping them. Yet, they are compelled to follow all the social laws imposed upon them. For example, if a person is born into a slave society, they are forced to follow all the principles, customs, and traditions of that slave society. Humans, like gears in a mechanical system, do not determine how they move, but the relationships between the parts, such as screws and bolts, and the energy source, dictate their movement. Therefore, the laws governing the system determine the relationships between its components, and it is this social structure that imposes function on the system.
The Key Difference Between Natural and Social Systems
Despite the presence of laws in natural and social systems, which have large-scale structures, they differ fundamentally from artificial systems such as mechanical, physical, chemical systems, or organizations like political parties and governments. The key difference is that in large systems, the law precedes the structure, whereas, in artificial systems, the structure precedes the law. In large systems, the structure is shaped by the natural laws governing them, but in artificial systems, the structure is shaped based on an understanding of the laws that govern human relationships.
Administrative organizations, though social systems, differ significantly from large-scale systems like society. The relationships and laws governing organizations are shaped by planners and managers, and as such, they are considered artificial systems. On the other hand, the laws governing society are not determined by anyone; rather, they emerge organically from the mode of production and class system in place, and they are imposed on the individuals in society. Of course, the thoughts and ideals of philosophers and social thinkers can, over time, influence social relationships and introduce new laws to a society, leading to social transformation. However, in the short term, even these thinkers, as members of society, are compelled to follow the same laws they did not help create. For example, Marx and Plato, though proposing theories for a classless society in a class-based society, were themselves subject to the laws and norms of their own class-based societies.
The Role of Human in Artificial Systems
In artificial systems like mechanical, physical, and cybernetic systems, as well as in administrative and production organizations created by humans, the laws governing the relationships can be employed by the creators or inventors of the system. For example, once a person understands the laws governing fluids and solids, they can use these laws to create, produce, or invent things. However, in natural and organic systems, such as the human body or society, humans have little or no role in the laws that govern their relationships. In other words, humans act passively when confronted with the natural world or society, which are large systems, and they are primarily engaged in studying and discovering the laws that govern these systems, so that they may use these discovered laws to create, change, or transform these systems.
For instance, in the beginning, humans encounter the unknown system of the human body. After studying and understanding its components and the relationships between them, they discover the laws inherent in its structure. Similarly, society presents an initially unknown structural relationship that must be studied so that humans can use these laws of communication to change, transform, or adapt the system. Since humans are usually born into a specific social structure that has been created over many years, they are born into a society with a particular mode of production, class system, and social relations, all of which were already established. Therefore, a sociologist must study the laws governing the communication relationships that were already established in the culture of society, critique them, and, if necessary, attempt to change them.
However, the existence of laws governing social relations within a given society does not imply that these laws are necessarily rational, logical, or correct. These relationships are social realities that may be far from rationality. For example, one can never consider the relationships or laws governing a slave society as rational or correct. Nevertheless, a sociologist studies these not as rational laws but as social realities, with the aim of using this knowledge to change or eliminate them. Critiquing and changing these laws is no easy task, as the public, and especially those in power, have accepted them as norms, and defying them is often seen as disrupting the social order.
B- Principle Two: Coordination
Coordination between the components is another principle that must be considered when organizing a system. If the time for the spark of a candle does not align with the time for the combustion and explosion of gasoline in a car, it will never start. In a living human organism, if the timing of food ingestion is not coordinated with the closing of the windpipe, choking and death will follow. Similarly, the timing of breathing and heartbeat rhythms, as well as the opening and closing of the heart’s atria, are all necessary to maintain balance and function within the system.
Therefore, in biological systems, there are numerous internal and external factors that can either promote coordination or, conversely, lead to disharmony. Various physical and psychological factors such as nutrition, interactions, stressors, and mental health issues can all influence the harmony or discord of an organic system.
The importance of coordination between functions and activities in the subsystems of a social system is no less crucial than in mechanical or natural systems. In closed or relatively closed systems such as mechanical, chemical, or physical systems, the factors causing disharmony are much fewer than in open systems. This is because the interactions between their components are primarily internal, and external factors have little influence on their operation and function. However, in larger systems such as society or organic systems, which are fully open, external factors can play a significant role in shaping their structure and functions. That is to say, the factors promoting coordination or, conversely, causing disharmony, are abundant and diverse.
Thus, in a social system, many factors can lead to coordination or disharmony in its structure and functions. For example, legal, organizational, cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors can all either promote or hinder the evolutionary movement of a social system, causing entropy or disorder within it. Below, we will discuss some factors of coordination in social systems.
1. Cultural Coordination
Culture in any society is a connected and interdependent system, where even the smallest change in the relationships, functions, structure, or variables within it, without proper coordination with other elements and variables, can cause disorder and imbalance within the system, resulting in a severe cultural lag for the society.
In other words, if one element of a cultural system changes, but no corresponding or necessary changes occur in the other elements of the system, a phenomenon known as “cultural lag” occurs. Cultural lag is often a painful and detrimental phenomenon in societies because it causes imbalance, chaos, and social problems. This imbalance due to the uncoordinated growth of elements can be observed not only in social systems but also in other types of systems.
In the human body, for example, if one organ grows disproportionately, it causes organic imbalance and disorder. For instance, if one leg grows to one meter while the other remains 20 centimeters, the whole body’s locomotion system is disrupted. Similarly, in a mechanical system, if one component is changed without coordination with the others, the system becomes imbalanced and fails. Thus, disharmony in cultural elements of a society can disrupt and disorganize the social system.
2. Economic Coordination
In human systems, whether economic or social, it is essential that the activities, functions, and movements of the components and subsystems are all coordinated. Otherwise, like mechanical or natural systems, they will fail or be destroyed. For example, in a free-market economy, an economic system can only reach equilibrium when the level of investments equals the level of savings. (J.M. Keynes, 2013 – 4th ed) Because if there are savings but no investments, inflation will occur. Conversely, if there are investments but no savings, purchasing power will weaken, leading to economic recession.
Thus, if there is no coordination between investment and savings, supply and demand, consumption and income, employment and population, income and consumption, liquidity and production, etc., the economic system will face a crisis and disorder.
3. Social Coordination
In a social system, there must also be coordination between the activities and functions of one subsystem and those of other subsystems. For example, if the government or the private sector invests in the health and medical sector, mortality rates will decrease, and the population will grow. However, if other sectors and subsystems do not align with this population growth—meaning they do not create employment, consumption patterns are not adjusted, productivity in agriculture and industry does not increase, or the organization of the workforce does not change—then the society will face unemployment, poverty, and misery.
When there is disharmony between the activities or even between the growth and transformations of one economic-social sector and others, the social system will face disorder, crisis, and disruption. Even changes in the tools used by a society at a given time, without corresponding and coordinated changes in other components, can lead to disorganization and chaos. For example, if tools are changed but the culture of how to use them does not evolve, or if health and medical systems are reformed according to global advancements in medicine, but the society’s culture does not follow this transformation, and the fertility rate remains high, such disharmony can increase unemployment and disrupt the entire social system.
Therefore, maintaining coordination between the components and subsystems of a social system is much more crucial and sensitive than in mechanical or natural systems. This is because, in social systems, we are dealing with the entire society, and even the slightest neglect in organizing it can lead to the suffering, death, and misery of the whole community. In contrast, in organic or mechanical systems, when disharmony occurs and the system fails, only the death of a single component is involved. While this may be a loss for the individual component, when viewed from a broader perspective, the death or disruption of those elements may not significantly impact the overall stability of the economic-social system, and might even lead to greater equilibrium. This is because the survival of the fittest and the struggle for existence in nature can, from one perspective, bring about evolution and balance within the natural system.
A social system, like the human body, consists of five subsystems: family, economy, politics, education, and culture. For a society to progress, develop, and transform, coordination between these five subsystems is essential. Therefore, any one-sided movement or uncoordinated growth between these five subcomponents can cause disruption and imbalance in the entire social system. For example, if the educational system of society undergoes transformation (such as universities producing a large number of skilled workers) but the economic system does not align with it, there will be an increase in the number of educated unemployed people and a “brain drain.” As a result, frustration and hopelessness will rise among the educated intellectual class, and depression may increase. Conversely, if the economic system transforms but no changes are made in the educational system, this disharmony could lead to a shortage of skilled labor in the economy. In such cases, three potential outcomes could occur:
A – The social system does not react to this abnormal situation. (This often occurs in underdeveloped countries that lack a dynamic and active economic system.) In such a state of disorder, society may remain stagnant for years, with a lack of balance and the absence of coordinated growth between the two subsystems (economic and educational), and economic organizations will continue to struggle with a crisis in the shortage of skilled, local human resources.
B – Without taking steps to plan and educate the necessary human resources, society may respond to the demand for labor from production organizations by recruiting foreign skilled workers. (This situation is often seen in wealthy, underdeveloped countries such as oil-rich nations.) Although this may lead to relative and often short-term growth in the community’s economic system, it will increase the dependency of these countries and to some extent lead to the expansion of assembly industries, while society will continue to suffer from chronic cultural delay and imbalance.
C – The educational system of the society transforms according to the needs of the industrial sector and the prevailing economic system, focusing on training the specialized human resources required by the economic system. The third case is the best scenario, which is more commonly found in advanced and developed countries. In such cases, cultural delay does not hinder development; instead, it becomes a driving force for progress. When one component, part, or even an instrument undergoes transformation, the other components and parts of the social system will move, transform, and align themselves to avoid imbalance.
It should not be overlooked that in a dynamic and advanced society, although a delay in the change across subsystems causes imbalance, this very imbalance can be a factor for progress and development. This is because one of the self-regulating mechanisms of systems is their ability to bring about balance. Therefore, if one subsystem transforms and changes, the other subsystems, in order to escape or avoid the imbalance caused by this transformation, are compelled to change as well. Otherwise, the social system becomes unbalanced and moves toward its collapse.
One of the issues in third-world countries is this lack of coordination in the growth and transformation of various subsystems of a social system. In other words, the cultural delay, which is a driving force for transformation and advancement in dynamic and advanced social systems, can become a negative and effective factor causing long-term imbalance in these countries. That is, in systems that lack the necessary dynamism to respond to societal changes, cultural delay can lead to prolonged disorder and imbalance.
Another factor that can cause societal imbalance and disorder is the lack of coordination between political and economic institutions. For example, the production levels of society may grow as a result of improved productivity or transformation in production tools, while the political institutions may restrict the growth and flourishing of economic and social organizations. In such a case, monopolistic economies and single-party, single-ideology politics prevail, closing off any possibility of development or progress in society.
Here, we have only addressed the lack of coordination between the economic, educational, and political subsystems, while this imbalance can occur between other subsystems as well and lead to a social system’s instability. For example, imbalances can arise between the economy and culture, the economy and family, the family and politics, the family and education, etc. Therefore, to avoid prolonging the discussion, we leave the exploration of other types of imbalances within the social system to the reader.
4- Legal Coordination
Here, despite what we discussed under the topic of lawfulness, our reference to law concerns the principles and provisions agreed upon and enacted by legislative bodies such as parliament or other legislative institutions. No system should—or better yet, cannot—be formed without regard and coordination with the laws governing society. Such a system would have a structure that contradicts its functions. For example, in a communist society, it is impossible to set up capitalist private organizations because such an action would not align with the prevailing laws, leading to chaos and disarray. Similarly, in a free capitalist society, one cannot create state monopolies. Such actions would lead to the bankruptcy and dissolution of private production organizations, as they are incapable of competing with monopolistic organizations that benefit from state advantages. (Unfortunately, in our country, we sometimes encounter such paradoxes!) Such actions not only contradict the values of particular economic systems but also undermine the entire economic and social structure of society. Therefore, the lack of coordination between the values and actions of governments and the laws that ensure the maintenance and regulation of an economic system can lead to the collapse and disarray of the country or state, ultimately unraveling the entire economic and social system of society.
5- Administrative Coordination
Social systems must coordinate with the administrative and bureaucratic structures of society to avoid disorder. As we have said, in large systems like society, structure always precedes social lawfulness. That is, the researcher is always confronted with a constructed and pre-existing structure. Thus, they must first thoroughly identify and analyze the governing lawfulness and then, based on the discovered lawfulness, take steps to influence or alter the variables they can control. In other words, for administrative coordination in a social system, it is necessary to first recognize the entire system and its governing laws, then shape its administrative structure accordingly. Unfortunately, in third-world countries, this often does not happen because these countries face research deficiencies. Consequently, their administrative systems are often based on superficial and imitative forms of either Western or Eastern bureaucratic systems, rather than reflecting the actual realities of their own social system. (For example, military structures in these countries are either imitative of the East or West, or the initial organization of institutions such as customs, banks, and ministries of economics were established by Britain in colonized countries.)
In principle, the development and advancement of societies result in greater clarity in their administrative systems. In underdeveloped or less developed countries, administrative relations are often vague and unclear. In a feudal system, despite a high percentage of society being rural and the agricultural system having a long historical background, one encounters a lack of clarity in property rights. In these countries, the administrative system often fails to resolve the confusion and ambiguity in legal concepts, leading to the dominance of tradition and custom, which determines relations between landlords and peasants. As a result, when changes are made in the ownership system (for example, land reforms), these societies may continue to suffer from disarray and ambiguity for decades due to cultural delays and stagnation from pre-capitalist eras.
One of the causes of disarray and disorder in third-world countries is this lack of coordination, particularly the mismatch between bureaucratic structures and the structural changes in society.
C – Third Principle: Logic and Rationality
Logic and rationality is another principle that should be considered in the relationships between components of a system, especially within social and economic systems.
When Plato envisioned his “Ideal City,” he was severely criticized by his disciple Aristotle because Plato sought to describe a society that did not exist, or one that was unimaginable and illogical. In other words, Plato’s vision was of a fictional, unrealistic, and completely illogical society.
How could Plato imagine a classless society in a feudal society, particularly a slave-based one, where collective and cooperative ownership would prevail?
“In Plato’s ideal society, ownership is collective and cooperative, and there is a strict regulation of individuals’ private lives. The wealth and property of individuals are limited, and there are severe regulations concerning freedom of speech and opinion. Plato believed that true happiness in society could only be achieved if such a cooperative system were established, even including communal ownership of women. According to Plato, the ruling class of this communal society should be composed of philosophers. However, in his later works (such as The Laws), Plato modifies his ideal communal system and removes the communal ownership of women.” (Vahidi, Hossein, p. 19)
In contrast, when Marx discovers the dialectic of history and the law-governed movement of historical periods, and describes the formation of a classless society through the dictatorship of the proletariat and centralized state planning, he is, in fact, aiming to create a system where the relationships governing it can be rational and logical. It is at this point that almost half of the world’s countries experience a workers’ revolution, and efforts are made to establish such societies. Therefore, when establishing communications, logic and rationality must also prevail. Plato’s views are essentially the same as Marx’s, but they are presented in an irrational and illogical form. As a result, they cannot serve as the foundation for a social system.
Regarding the relationship between the components of an automobile system, a mechanic can establish a connection between the electrical system and, for example, the spark plugs and the fuel tank, and this system will indeed have explosive functionality. However, establishing such a connection cannot be rational and logical, as it would completely contradict the intended function of the vehicle.
In a free-market economy, the increase in agricultural production is necessary for the country’s economic development and prosperity. However, when this production exceeds a rational and logical limit, prices drop to a level that leads to the bankruptcy of some producers, resulting in unemployment and economic problems. This is where planning comes into play to prevent such crises and ensure maximum income for producers. In this case, destroying part of the product created by producers with great effort might seem irrational and even foolish to an average person unfamiliar with the free-market system. But for someone who aims to organize the economic system of society and prevent its collapse, it is a rational and logical decision. In such a system, not producing or producing less is also irrational because it would lead to increased unemployment and poverty, which in turn would cause crime, corruption, delinquency, and many social harms.
In a free-market economy, there must be a rational connection between prices, production, consumption, and the income of producers and consumers. For example, if farmers have a very good harvest in a rainy year or if their productivity significantly increases due to mechanization, an overproduction of rice will flood the market, causing its price to drop sharply. Many rice producers who have invested heavily will go bankrupt and exit the production process the following year, leading to a decrease in production. As a result, the decrease in production will drive the price of the product up again. If we do not understand the economic system of society and fail to establish a logical and rational connection between its components, we not only create a crisis in the system, but we also harm the entire society.
In other words, God bestows upon us a blessing, and a lot of rain falls. Increased rainfall leads to more crops, and increased crops drive prices down. The unexpected drop in prices causes the bankruptcy of some producers. This bankruptcy leads to increased unemployment, and in the next agricultural year, a sharp decline in production will occur. This sharp decline in production drives prices up significantly. The increased prices provide an excuse for so-called “service-oriented” governments to import more goods from foreign countries, ultimately increasing economic dependence, destabilizing the economic system, and causing widespread poverty and unemployment in society. This is the result of not understanding how to establish logical relationships between the components of the economic system. Those who are familiar with and proficient in the capitalist economic system would never allow the blessings of God, such as rain or increased productivity, to become a negative and destructive factor. Instead, they would first focus on capturing foreign markets, increasing the motivation for export among producers, and exporting as much of the product as possible. If all markets, both domestic and foreign, become saturated or are unreachable, they would maintain the price at a level where demand elasticity equals -1 by destroying excess production and removing it from the distribution cycle, which is something advanced countries typically do through cooperative production systems.
It is evident that all relationships within social and economic systems must be rational and logical to ensure the system continues functioning lawfully, effectively, and correctly. Otherwise, it will face a crisis and collapse.
Second Condition: Cohesion and Integration of Components
The second essential condition for systems is the cohesion and integration of their components. In sociological theories, cohesion has a broad, objective, and practical meaning. For example, when Ibn Khaldun talks about the cohesion among people in primitive societies, and discovers the social law that there is an inverse relationship between civilization and urbanization and the level of social cohesion, he is, in fact, understanding the role of cohesion in societies. Ibn Khaldun equates civilization with cowardice, disorder, and corruption, whereas he associates nomadic and primitive life with bravery, fearlessness, courage, and social cohesion. He states that in among nomadic and desert tribes, social cohesion, bolstered by tribal solidarity, forms a powerful unity that conquers urbanized societies weakened by moral decay and weakened social cohesion. He argues that throughout history, a cyclical process has occurred where nomadic tribes continuously conquer and dominate civilized urban societies. Thus, he sees tribal solidarity as the most important factor in the social cohesion and driving force of these nomadic tribes to establish primitive and initial states in place of the established urban ones throughout history.
This is an experience that has been repeatedly tested in Iran, such as when the Mongols or Arabs invaded Iran, and the country, due to the weakness of its social cohesion, was unable to resist the invading forces. The Arabs, with the most primitive weapons, attacked Iran’s advanced society and its so-called “immortal” army, destroying the entire social system and establishing a new Islamic society with new ideological and religious values. When social cohesion weakens in a society, that society loses its ability to resist invaders who are supported by a strong sense of tribal solidarity and social cohesion.
Now, the question arises: why doesn’t this repetitive cycle, as described by Ibn Khaldun, of strong tribal solidarity dominating a modern society happen in advanced countries that have reached a high level of urbanization and civilization? This is because a barbaric and semi-wild tribe, backed by powerful cohesion, can dominate disorganized, fractured societies. Today’s advanced world has managed to organize society through various political parties, the independence of the three branches of government, the freedom of the media, and the autonomy of national media from the state, thus reaching a level of self-control where, firstly, the corruption and degradation that Ibn Khaldun associated with civilization are minimized or controllable, and secondly, society has achieved a form of invincible power through organization.
Social organization in advanced societies ensures that, apart from sporadic terrorist attacks, no concentrated, organized power will be able to invade such societies. If a society is organized with multiple political and social parties and organizations, not only does it gain immense self-regulatory power, but it will also have the strength to resist any invasion. For example, ISIS may attack countries like Iraq and Syria, which lack such organization, and occupy parts of their territory. However, organized countries are only vulnerable to scattered, disorganized terrorist attacks.
The determining role of cohesion between the components in maintaining and ensuring the integrity of systems can be observed not only in social systems but also in other systems as well. Although the term “cohesion” is inherently social and sociological, if we define cohesion as the unity and integration of the components of a system to achieve a particular function, we must acknowledge its decisive role not only in maintaining the integrity of social systems but also in other systems such as mechanical, organic, economic, natural systems, and more.
For instance, how can we think about the life of the human body’s system without considering the unity and interconnection of all its organic, psychological, rational, circulatory, and physical systems? The physical and organic balance of a human is solely the result of the cohesion and integration of the constituent elements that directly or indirectly lead to specific behavioral functions.
Even in the human brain system, if this unity and coherence between the mental faculties, cognitive assets, circulatory secretions, and digestive absorption and excretion processes are disrupted, we would face a person lacking reason and potentially insane. It is even possible for the consumption of just a few milliliters of alcohol to disrupt the unity and coherence between the internal components of the human nervous and brain systems, causing behaviors and movements that would never occur in a normal and natural state.
Understanding the mechanisms and laws governing society has enabled social planners to resist the collapse of capitalist societies that have reached the point of explosion and disintegration, and to extend their lifespan significantly, or conversely, to initiate predicted transformations or even artificial revolutions in peripheral or subjugated countries.
According to Marx’s theory of historical dialectics, when the external class contradiction in society reaches its peak, the society approaches its point of death, and an explosive revolution will occur, resulting in the collapse of the ruling and exploitative class and the ascension of the oppressed and exploited lower class. He even predicted that England would be the first country to experience such a social revolution, as the class contradiction there had reached the highest possible level. However, this event did not occur because capitalist society was able to reduce class conflict and prevent the predicted explosion. Thus, understanding and recognizing the laws governing social systems allows sociologists and social planners to predict and even alter the trajectory of society.
While social classes are highly structured, they remain disorganized except in times of social revolutions, when the lower class often becomes organized and in such cases, this class organization gains such power that no force can resist it. In advanced societies, this organization has already taken shape through the establishment of political parties and trade unions, which have accumulated years of experience. For this reason, in these societies, democracy has prevailed, and before society reaches the point of explosion and revolution, social reforms reduce class contradictions and restore balance to society. Therefore, modern advanced societies have found social cohesion not in blind ethnic solidarity but within political-social organizations. This is because any social group that structures itself in pursuit of a goal, or goals, also enjoys a relatively strong social cohesion.
In fact, the interconnection of system components is not something that is always apparent or visible to all; rather, it is a relationship that researchers can discover and study. A precise understanding and knowledge of these lawful and structural connections between the components of a system enables a researcher, manager, social planner, or any scholar studying the system’s structure, to manipulate the structural connections and adjust variables. Any change in any of these components, whether it occurs naturally and without the intervention of the researcher and planner, or artificially through a precise understanding of the governing laws, must be followed by a corresponding, coordinated change in the other components to prevent the system from experiencing functional disruption, crisis, or collapse. Certainly, the researcher’s systemic perspective will help them better understand, discover, and study these connections.
The Third Condition: Interdependence of Components
As mentioned earlier, systems are formed through a logical, rational, and lawful relationship between their components. In other words, it is the structure — the relationship between components and subsystems — that shapes the system, not the nature of its individual components. This is why when the structure of a system is changed, without altering the nature or substance of its components, a new system with a new function is formed.
The nature of the components determines the type of the system, not the quantity or quality of its functions. For example, a mechanical system is composed of hard materials and bolts and nuts, an organic system is made up of soft tissues and living cells, and a chemical system consists of materials, fluids, and molecules.
One can form thousands of different systems with distinct functions from the same basic components. The relationship between components indicates a certain degree of dependency, showing that the components are interdependent and complementary. This means that if one component of the system changes, the other components must change accordingly. Otherwise, the balance will be disrupted. Thus, the members of a social system, in terms of their functions, are interdependent. The way in which the components are connected and dependent on each other does not necessarily indicate a stable or unchanging relationship. Some relationships may be contradictory to the system’s movement, or exhibit a reverse interaction. In favorable conditions, these relationships are balancing, but in adverse conditions, they may cause disturbances and imbalance in the system, and in such a case, the survival of the system depends on its ability to maintain balance, flexibility, and self-adjustment.
The degree of interdependence and aggregation of variables also implies their relative independence. A variety of relationship patterns between variables can emerge:
Y depends on X.
Y depends on two different values of X, in which case the value of X changes according to a constant value of Y.
Y relates to many values of X or any amount of X.
This is where we encounter two types of systems: organized and balanced, and disorganized and unbalanced. When the relationship and interdependence of components is strong and lawful, the system is balanced. Conversely, if the relationship between components is fragmented, weak, and unlawful, the system will be disorganized and unbalanced. Every system consists of different subsystems, each of which forms a relatively independent system.
The relationship and interdependence between subsystems is much stronger than the relationship between the components of one subsystem and the components of another subsystem.