SOCIAL TYPES AND ROLES
"A sustainable human community is aware of the multiple relationships among its members"
- Fritjof Capra
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
This stewardship project, as part of its mission to explore the conditions for Responsible Stewardship in human affairs (see Mission Statement on Home Page) has set itself the task of challenging the underpinning values and philosophy of the Neoliberal project: a project aimed at securing a world ordered on its own values and priorities.
One of these Neoliberal pillars is the notion of an unstructured society of human individuals who are 'free' and 'equal'. In contrast we follow those who have argued that structure is an inescapable aspect of the life of social animals: whether organic or imposed; mutualistic or hierarchic. All social structure implies obligations, bonds - so social freedom is only approached in a disintegrating society.
We further assert that we humans are generally not equal - and for the most part we are not unequal either! In between the thresholds of true reciprocal equality (in which each could perform any role) and an inequality producing total dependency (as in infancy), there lies a broad spectrum or functional zone of complementary relations in which all parties have different contributions to make to the whole. [This is an example of Ivan Illich's two threshold theory, which is very helpful in exploring stability/instability in social, biological and ecological systems.]
This key notion of complementarity - i.e. we need each other and can complement each other, whether equal or not - leads on to an exploration of human social types, not just for description or classification but as drivers of the social dynamic and as elements of balanced social structure.
Type Theory, as a heading for this major exploration, is used to cover not just 'fixed' types but modes of being and their transitions, the social roles that invite type/mode responses, plus the memes and meme packages - sets of ideas and values - that both individuals and groups, as social actors, may carry. Together, all these interacting relationships maintain, develop, sometimes remake the structure of society.
It is partly over this territory that the contest between competitive and mutual values, between the organic pluralist vision and the Neoliberal hegemonic vision will be engaged.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
THE TWO BASIC TYPES
The importance of Convergent and Divergent 'Types' in the human social group has already been mentioned in the Democracy pages of the Devolve! Site and it has been argued on the Organic Democracy page of that Site that the complementary roles played by Convergents and Divergents is a key to understanding the small human group - rather than the human individual - as the basic unit of society.
That these traits do exist is a matter of observation, though some of the implications may be disputed.
The aim below is to develop a more sophisticated model of these behaviours, including an attempted explanation of their origins.
A NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY
The terms Convergent and Divergent have been in use for some decades to describe 'types' noted in educational psychology: convergents doing better in educational tests with definite answers while divergents scored better in tests with open ended answers.
The terms were adapted for present use out of experiences in social groups in the English communities movement of the 1970s.
WHEN IS A TYPE A TYPE?
In the discussion below the argument will refer to the human traits of Convergence and Divergence as 'types'. The word type implies fixed categories among those creatures (including humans) that require social organisation to survive.
This label is open to challenge on a number of counts. Whether 'types' are biologically or culturally fixed - the famous nature v nurture debate. Also whether roles that individuals can step in and out of (either by choice or force of situation) are not a more useful way of viewing Convergence and Divergence - at least in human social groups.
More recently, the revolution in science against reductionism [summarised brilliantly by Fritjof Capra in "The Web of Life"] argues that autonomous individual elements (whether creatures or humans) are illusions; that the reality is a web of interdependence and mutual creation. On this view a Divergent (say) is to some extent created by other members of the group.
Some of these points are touched on again later. Fortunately this debate on correct description does not invalidate the basic theory of Convergence and Divergence outlined now.
CONVERGENCE/DIVERGENCE THEORY
Most creatures most of the time respond positively or negatively - on the imperative of survival - to what scientists call external stimuli. Thus bacteria are smart enough to swim towards sugar and away from acid.
Science up to now has looked at and measured only the outside (the objective side) of the Universe. In Section II of The Heavy Stuff page it was argued that the Universe also has an inside: up to now below the radar of science. e.g. How it feels to be a bacteria in the above situation.
If we continue the story from the inside (the subjective side) of the Universe we should say that the basic instinct of all creatures - only over-ridden in special circumstances - is to move towards pleasure and away from pain.
No problem. Almost no decision to be made. Until the sources of pleasure and pain lie in the same direction!
As an example let us say that you are an African antelope, half crazy with thirst, and come to the edge of a lush water hole. No doubt that the water below you represents pleasure! But sniffing the air you catch the scent of a waiting lion. A wave of fear sweeps through you. Your deep instinct tells you that the lion represents pain and death. Whatever choice you make - a desperate dash for a drink or a retreat into the dry savanna - the hard decision is very real.
SUBLIMATION
In human societies, individuals and groups are deemed capable of sublimating their desires and drives. One form of sublimation is substituting a socially acceptable activity for a no longer tolerated one. Sublimation is a complex concept with links to the notion of defered gratification. Many of the 'highest' achievements of human culture - e.g. art - are claimed to arise from sexual or other drives or from inner distress.
A special dimension relevant here is the transformation of direct pleasure seeking into a potential to obtain pleasure, into power over one's situation. Due to sublimation this power becomes a source of pleasure in its own right. Note: this 'power to' does not have to mean power over others or domination: the sublimated drive is more accurately called avoidance of powerlessness.
Likewise, direct avoidance of pain is sublimated to avoidance of the risk of pain, of the potential for pain. In the social group (potential) pain is closely linked to responsibility. Hence expressions like: "biting the bullet"; "pulling one's chestnuts out of the fire" etc. So the sublimated drive becomes avoidance of responsibility.
THE HARD CHOICE
It is argued that avoidance of powerlessness and avoidance of responsibility have become core motivations for non-instinctual social animals, especially humans.
Again, no problem. Until, like the antelope, you come up against a situation where you can't have your cake and eat it. What do you do? Your decision will reflect your type, at least in that social context.
DEFINITIONS
We can now offer basic definitions of Convergence and Divergence [A more analytical picture, showing four types around the power/responsibility axes, may be added later.]
THE SOCIAL MIX
The distinction between 'leaderful' (or brave) and 'followful' (or un-brave) behaviour has been known for some time to astute observers, often intuitively. Thus Ernest Hemmingway: -
"Most people die easy like rabbits, some people die hard like cats."
The few quantitive investigations (e.g. by Soviet psychologists on US POWs captured in the Korean conflict) suggest one in twenty or 5% may be Divergents in a random group. This sort of ratio is in line with the logic of small social groups discussed below.
CONSEQUENCES
Armed with these concepts it is now possible to solve a number of problems in social structure. But first it is important to make a distinction between, on the one hand, the small group that has been the bedrock of human society throughout most of our evolution (and will be again in the pluralist human societies that Devolve! and others are working for) and on the other hand the mass societies of the last few millennia in which central power hierarchies have over-ridden and eventually broken down the bonded human group.
Taking the last case first:
MASS SOCIETY
The first mystery solved is: "Why are tyranny and other authority structures so stable?" "How can the few rule the many?"
On the Convergent-Divergent model it is clear that a small number of brave and ruthless invaders or upstarts, equipped with the best weaponry, the best lines of communication and the best propaganda machine (historically, the churches) may subdue and govern a very large number of mainly convergent subjects, especially once their former leaders have been killed or driven off.
In fact, rule of the many by the few is even easier than this suggests - the iron fist seldom necessary - due to the psychology of Convergence. There are a number of perks for 'the Convergent many' to set against any material misery: -
So when Karl Marx said: "Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains!" he merely proved his ignorance of human psychology.
MASS 'DEMOCRACY'
This is strictly a contradiction in terms of course: human beings were designed to relate to each other. The Greek city states (women, slaves and foreigners excluded) were about on the numbers limit in their brief democratic periods.
The word democracy is mostly used today to refer to elected oligarchies. [See Exploring Democracy page.] The powerful networks are still there, but the political leadership can be replaced 'by the people'. You might think that there would be some pressure for responsible government at a time when population, resource and pollution melt-down looms.
Sadly, Convergent/Divergent theory explains why the expectations of early campaigners for 'votes for all' have not been met.
In England, as in the other people coalitions living under the British State, those of Divergent instinct - concerned, responsible, ready to be leaderful - can only watch helplessly as the unholy alliance between a small but powerful elite and sufficient numbers of the 95% Convergents (voting with their wallets) ... ensures a continued 'majority' for the road to ruin.
THE SOCIAL GROUP
The bonded human group - whether hierarchic or holarchic, ancient or modern - is best understood as an organism in its own right: a social person if you like. In it many human types - not just those considered here - play complementary roles in keeping it healthy. 'Healthy' for a group means (a) nourishing to its members, (b) above the 'survival' threshold while below the 'threat to the environment' threshold.
The group of the future (assuming that there is a future) will differ in at least one respect from the cohesive group of the past, apart from economic realities.
For early humans the group more or less defined their world, even though networked into wider clans and peoples. In the pluralist societies of the future individuals may belong to, be accountable to, more than one basic group; taking the cross-cutting identities and loyalties in their stride. The networked civil society will have an open feel without the individualism, isolation and fragmentation of existing mass society.
THE PARTNERS
Within any properly functioning group there can be many complementary informal roles, quite apart from any formal offices. Yet it is argued that the partnership of Convergents and Divergents is critical to the group dynamics.
Leaving aside the extent to which these traits may be chosen or partly chosen roles rather than permanent types, it would certainly be a big mistake to see Convergents as in any way inferior or second class participants.
The Divergents' strength of course is their social courage, their leaderful abilities. But they come with a downside - at least until we become enlightened beings! First, strong Divergents tend to have a strong ego and ego-conflicts are potentially disruptive: requiring the concilliation and mediation of other members according to their roles. Second, Divergents tend to be slightly neurotic in the sense of always striving for goals rather than being.
In contrast, most Convergents work well alongside each other. They also know best how to 'do their thing', to get on with simply being. And from a democratic standpoint their cautious stance does not imply any less wisdom about what should be done in a given situation. These qualities in addition to not competing for a leaderful role: a group of 20 (say) Divergents would be a nightmare!
Possibly the best way to see the mix is as Convergent dough and Divergent yeast: each needs the other.
HOLARCHIC DEMOCRACY
In the past the organic group has almost always been hierarchic, with either matriarchal or patriarchal 'elders' doing the leading. (The change to patriarchy among the Germanic peoples of North Europe took place around 4-5,000 years ago.) Looking to the future a more holarchic style is likely, with courageous leading preceded by open dialogue and consensing. In addition any member would have the permanent option to 'step up' to leaderful responsibility. Thus a normally Convergent member might take on a leaderful (Divergent) role around an issue that was a burning concern for them.
Beyond the basic groups, the networked dialogues toward wider decisions could reflect true synarchy (sideways power) since Divergents would be evenly spread throughout Civil Society - provided that there is no permanent central power structure for them to lodge in. Some options for relations between tiers or scales are covered on the Exploring Democracy page.
This combination of holarchic groups as the bedrock of society and synarchic networks linking them is the stuff that Organic Democracy is made of.