Social System

Conceptual Overview

In organization studies, the term social system is often used in a loose way to denote the social embeddedness of human activity, in contrast to rationalistic approaches that treat organizations as mechanically controllable objects. However the same term has a very specific meaning in systems theory, where it refers to a particular approach to studying social phenomena: Social activity is explained on the basis of its contribution to a greater network of social activities. Many different theories of social systems exist. They can be distinguished according to how they conceptualize the social component in the term social system. In this respect, there are three types of theories. First, some simpler versions treat the human being as the basic element of social systems. The problem with those approaches is that the social aspect as such is not clearly differentiated from the biological, psychological, and social aspects that are combined in a human being. Second, a more sophisticated type of systems theory suggests treating action as the basic element. Social systems are consequently conceptualized as action systems. Third, the most advanced theories speak of communication as the basic element. Proponents of this type of theory argue that in contrast to action, communication presupposes inter action and in this sense is genuinely social. Social systems are consequently conceptualized as communication systems.

Theories of social systems also can be distinguished according to how the systemic component in the term social system is conceptualized. In this respect, one speaks of three phases of systems theory. First were the theories of closed systems, which focused exclusively on the relations between the elements of the system, blinding out the environment surrounding the system. Realizing that systems depend on their environment, the closed-systems approach was replaced in the 1950s by open system theories, which described the system as transforming an input from the environment into an [Page 1437]output (input-output model). Arguing that opensystems approaches cannot explain how systems can prevent their dissolution, precisely because of their openness to the environment, the theory of self-referential, autopoietic systems was developed in the late 1970s, which combines openness and closure. The system is treated as a network of elements that reproduces its own elements (operative closure). However, this reproduction takes place in response to perturbations from the environment (interactive openness). This is also referred to as autopoiesis (from the Greek autòs, meaning self, and poíesis meaning production).

The works by Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann are exemplary of the more-advanced conceptualizations of social systems. In line with the open-systems approach, Parsons developed a theory of action systems. For him, action only exists within a system of actions. He identified four functions (AGIL functions) that every system needs to perform if it is to persist: adaptation (the ability to adapt to changing external conditions), goal attainment (the ability to set and achieve goals), integration (the ability to create cohesion between the different elements of the system), and latent pattern maintenance (the ability to maintain the system's structure and order). This AGIL framework has been applied to organizations in two ways (functional analysis): First, analyses of how the four functions are, or can be, realized within the organizational system. Second, analyses of what functions particular organizations serve within society; accordingly one can distinguish four types of organization.

...