First I will discuss metaphors for "constraint" and then I will discuss
whether all higher-level properties (such as "constraints") are emergent.
Which metaphor should we use for the link
between the social and the individual?
**************************************
Metaphor 1
There once was a person who every day roamed a beautiful, wide open field.
One day a big group of people walked over and said to the person,
"We are your social group, and we're putting this fence around you to constrain
your actions. As of today, you should remain within the fence."
The person is sad that this social group has come along and restricted the
perfect, beautiful freedom of being alone. But then the person thinks, "Well,
at least I can use my new social network to obtain information. Maybe one
of my new acquaintances is a cattle expert who can tell me how to raise
cows on my field."
Metaphor 2
Society is like the skeleton in our bodies. It's in us from the start.
We can't live without it. As we grow up, it grows in us. The type of
exercise we do affects how it grows. It enables us to move better than a
mollusk which lacks bones. It can break if we are not careful. It
requires individual intention and muscle-power to make it do anything
interesting.
(This metaphor makes us reconsider whether society should really be seen as
existing only on a higher level than individuals.)
Any other metaphors out there?
Is emergence the only mechanism for higher levels?
**************************************************
Several people have suggested that social constraints-- and more generally
higher-level phenomena-- can ONLY be emergent from lower-level
interactions. I am sure this is not true in mathematics, and it may not be
true in society.
The mathematics example was first proposed by Nils Baas. Let's regard the
"truth value" of a mathematical statement as a higher-level property; the
lower level entities are axioms and they interact by the steps required to
build a proof or disproof. In most cases, the truth value of a statement
emerges from the lower-level interactions. But Goedel's Theorem guarantees
that (as long as we are consistent at the lower level) there will be at
least one true statement that we cannot prove. That is, Baas explains,
math has some higher-level properties that are NOT derivable from the
lower-level entities and their interactions. (We can use means OUTSIDE of
the system to show that the statement must be true.)
It is difficult to come up with social examples. I have a few candidates
in mind, but I could never PROVE they are not derivable from lower-level
interactions. But in any case I am not sure that we should always assume
that a higher level property is emergent from the lower-level interactions.
I hope these comments are stimulating without creating yet more
misunderstood definitions and confusions!
Cheers,
Jean
Jean Czerlinski, graduate student
Department of Sociology
The University of Chicago
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|