Introduction
Organizationalism is, in fact, a type of sociological system analysis, which emphasizes the organization as a cohesive whole, structured based on systemic principles and laws. It sees the organization as the strongest driving force for societal movement and development.
None of the production factors—such as land, technology, water, human resources, or capital—are capable of driving the development and movement of society without the establishment of an organized and law-governed structure of social relationships.
If human resources in society do not adopt a systemic structure, even the training of the best experts, the introduction of the most advanced technologies, and access to the best fertile land, water, mines, facilities, and production equipment will not lead to societal progress, transformation, or development.
A social organization can only have a tangible, sustainable, and efficient existence when the systemic conditions analyzed in this book are imposed upon it.
Although society is made up of various institutions, and each institution forms different organizations to achieve its goals, the law of the infinite and widespread interconnection of open systems demands that we view society as a unified and cohesive system, composed of lawfully connected subsystems.
Society is a system made up of various subsystems, such as family, economy, politics, education, and ideological culture, all of which are interdependent. If a change occurs in one of these components, it will affect the others. Thus, no component can be considered superior or more important than the others. This is like claiming that the digestive system is superior to the circulatory or nervous systems in the human body, whereas all systems are critically interdependent. If one system is removed, the others cannot function, and if one system changes, the others must adjust, or else the entire system will fall into disorder.
This is why we view the organization as a true social system—any change or movement in society cannot occur effectively without the support of this system. The parts of a system may have a trivial role outside of their systematized relationships, but their contribution is insignificant and can be ignored. The functioning of the system, however, is immense and infinite. For example, how can one compare the role of a subsystem, like a screw, in a mechanical system such as an airplane or a large factory, outside of their interconnected system? Or how can one compare the role of a human being, as a conscious, active, and rational organic system, with the functions of its parts, like the brain, without considering the systemic relationships among them? Functions such as thinking, loving, or hating are the result of the lawfully organized relationships between the components. Hence, it is the organization, as a social system, that matters—not the value of its parts when isolated from their structural connections.
Although the systemic study of society has been a topic of discussion in the social sciences for nearly a century, most theorists have focused on parts of the system and rarely treated society as a cohesive, interconnected, and fully law-governed system. However, a system should not only be analyzed as a theory but also as a methodology, because we believe that the systemic analysis of society is, in itself, a form of methodology. This approach helps us better understand and analyze modern society.
The systemic analysis of society enables us to not only master various sociological perspectives but also prevents us from treating any single theory as the ultimate or sole solution to society’s challenges, problems, and shortcomings. When a social structure cannot address societal issues, it is not necessary to insist on maintaining the old, weak, and inadequate structure. Instead, it is the change of that structure through social reforms that is essential.
Ultimately, systemic analysis provides a tool that enables sociologists not only to improve their understanding of sociological issues but also to better grasp the complex and multidimensional relationships of social components within modern society, thereby enhancing their ability to analyze sociological topics.
This multidisciplinary approach will allow us to study the different elements of a social body within a unified framework, with all its adaptability and self-regulating capacity. This method may, more than being a theoretical or descriptive approach, serve as a set of elements that can be predicted and directed.
Therefore, systemic analysis might be better understood as a method for a deeper comprehension of social phenomena rather than merely as a theory. Especially since the main goal of sociology is to illuminate concrete social forms, so that the intellectual members of society can organize their observations and interpret society in different ways.
However, we face some challenges. The first challenge is the alignment of theory and experience. In empirical studies, when data is abundant and scattered, it is difficult to fit them neatly within a single theoretical framework. On the other hand, a theoretical framework can only be applied to empirical data when the data is limited. As the number of data points increases, the diversity and plurality of perspectives in social studies grow, making it impossible to fit them within a single theoretical view. Thus, these studies require exploration from various perspectives and approaches.
Another challenge is the openness of systems, especially social systems, which are vast and unimaginable in scope, making it difficult to conceive any boundaries for them. Consequently, a sociologist conducting a systemic analysis of a social system will inevitably have to ignore the infinite influences of other systems or assume them to be constant. In other words, the researcher will always need to limit the system being studied, even as they acknowledge its openness. This limitation will lead the researcher to omit parts of a social body or a social subsystem from the larger, cohesive, and interconnected social system, thereby always presenting the risk of separating the social system from its true essence.
Preliminary Remarks
Systematization, in general, or the organization of the social system in particular, apart from the broad and vast functional effects it has, can itself be a guarantee for ensuring that certain key elements of the issue under study are not forgotten. However, such analysis inevitably leads us to prioritize one of the homogenous factors of the system. That is, focusing on the overall function of the system can lead to neglecting or disregarding the specific functions that arise from the subsystems within it.
Thus, the homogeneity of the system’s components should be sought elsewhere. A social system, or organization, is fundamentally different from a physical or mechanical system. Social systems are open systems that can be heavily influenced by external factors. Therefore, in these systems, in addition to carefully structuring and organizing the relationships between components, we must always, at all times, consider, study, research, or predict the factors of heterogeneity and disorganization.
Systemic analysis inevitably places us on a scientific path. The scientific method should not—and indeed cannot—be confined to an objective existence. As Yves Barel states:
“What is, always leaves room for the choice of what could have been. The ruling existence is always one type of the many potential existences that could have been.”
(Y. Barel, 1973)
The study of potential possibilities is part of the scientific method because such study allows us to gain a clearer and more justifiable understanding of the ruling existence. This precise understanding of what exists facilitates the recognition of potential possibilities that currently lack objective existence. This is why systemic study is inherently tied to the analysis of potential conditions. Today, the social sciences are more capable than ever of addressing the questions and mechanisms of contemporary societies, even if these sciences show that the prevailing deficiencies in society have fostered these observations within a relatively unified theoretical domain.
However, such expectations in studies largely stem from various forms of society, to the extent that social actors, due to advancements in media capabilities and the rapid dissemination of information (digital media), are quickly influenced. This issue, which seems entirely natural today, demonstrates that the method of analysis must accept its specific limitations, particularly with respect to its minimal dependency on theoretical ideologies. That is, it must avoid falling into the social philosophy dominant in the 19th and 20th centuries, as well as non-scientific future projections.
Moreover, within the social framework, the multi-layered and profound method of analysis of the whole or homogeneous subsets must be reinforced. These forms of collections or subsets can, in fact, be constructed through systemic analysis. Ultimately, the analysis of a social system should emphasize the following issues:
The relationships and mutual dependencies between variables.
The classification of these correlations, as it seems that within social systems, we observe various forms of interactions, such as linear, non-linear, dynamic, cybernetic, etc.
Measuring interactions in terms of intensity or phase delay arising from the interaction.
Observing numbness and resistance to some elements or variables related to action and the converging or diverging reactions to that action.
Critically reviewing the system with an emphasis on an objective viewpoint, particularly by selecting strategic variables.
Therefore, systemic analysis should not be considered a grand theory capable of synthesizing the vast array of human sciences. Instead, it is more a collection of practical methods, many of which remain unknown and diverse.
Systemic analysis of society may serve as a tool to better explain data within analytical theorization. A theory that can examine, critique, and review the relationships between the components and parts of a system, aiming to increase and maximize their functionality. It is a theory that can reveal the relationship between the development of one part or a subset of a system and the overall development, transformation, or change of the entire system. For example, it can show the relationship between regional development and the development of society as a whole, along with the systemic connection between them.
Here, the term “system” refers to a collection of tools and resources, both human and non-human, that serve to achieve a specific goal or fulfill a predetermined function.
The Marxist methodology emphasizes contradiction, considering it the driving force for societal change and transformation. In contrast, organizational sociology, or “organizationalism,” emphasizes balance. Here, society is viewed as a system that must always maintain its balance for survival and movement. Whenever this balance is lost, it engages in efforts, both internally and externally, to restore it, or else it risks extinction. This is the driving force behind societal change. Systems avoid imbalance because it leads them to death and destruction. Therefore, they fight to maintain stability and balance, sometimes resisting any change, or conversely, they may accept transformation to achieve a new balance. Thus, they inevitably become more flexible and adaptable in structure.
In any case, the methodology of systems analysis is based on the following hypotheses:
Emphasis on the relationship between elements as primary data, not as isolated and independent components.
Understanding the system as a totality and unity.
The logic of the relationship between part and whole.
Acknowledging the significance of multi-level diversity.
Recognizing the inadequacy of purely systemic analysis methods and the potential use of causal theoretical analysis (cause and effect) in light of the needs of social sciences.
Ultimately, the system theory must be able to combine theories of social equilibrium with those of social conflict, even if this integration creates complex issues. (J.C. Lugan, p. 63)
From our perspective, the positive aspect of the aforementioned viewpoint is its interdisciplinary potential. That is, systemic analysis can, in the near future, unite all sciences. However, our systemic approach forces us to pay attention to other areas of social sciences to foster progress within those fields as well.
Thus, if we analyze society from a broad systemic perspective, we can end many of the theoretical disagreements and biases prevailing in sociology and other theoretical sciences. Cultural theorists, with their theoretical biases in their respective fields, shout that the root of all the issues and deficiencies in society lies in cultural factors, and if cultural problems are solved, we will have a prosperous, advanced, and developed society. Economists, too, see the root of all societal problems solely in the economy, claiming that if economic issues are resolved, society will be prosperous and successful. Because, they argue, the economy alone can resolve social, political, and cultural issues. Politicians prioritize political activities and seek the root of societal problems in the irrationality of politicians and political actors. Psychologists see the root of issues in individual behaviors, believing that if individual behaviors change, society will transform. Beyond that, within each of these fields, contradictions and intellectual divides are observable. For instance, functionalists and structuralists oppose one another, one viewing religion as a driver of progress, the other seeing secularism as essential. One praises money, the other values human existence above all. One emphasizes reason, the other emotion.
Our case resembles the parable of the blind men describing an elephant, where each one, depending on their position, describes the elephant differently. It seems that each of their descriptions of the part they touch is correct, while none of them has seen or understood the elephant in its entirety.