Orderliness of the system. Patterns of hierarchical ordering of systems
The properties attributed to self-organizing systems by various sources are presented. The fundamental ones that constitute the essence of the self-organization process have been identified
Guest page
Publications
Economy
Control
Ecology
Story
Philosophy
Right
! ! ! Buy a book! ! !
Beginning of section
|
Theoretical approaches to self-organization |
|
|
Order increases (entropy decreases) .
Spontaneity of appearance .
Flicker- the ability to spontaneously cease to exist.
Threshold nature of appearance - upon reaching the threshold condition.
The need for a “control parameter” for the appearance - necessary to start the process, sufficient even with weak manifestations.
Complexity- the presence of a large number of elements and connections.
Openness- exchange of resources with the external environment.
Dynamism (disequilibrium) - change of elements and connections over time.
Synergistic effect - 1) the appearance of new properties in the system that are not observed in any of the totality of its elements; 2) increasing the efficiency of the functioning of elements when they are combined.
Operational closure of the system (autonomy, autopoiesis) - the system reacts differently to the same influences.
Positive Feedback - the system is able to enhance favorable deviations in its functioning, bringing them to a change in structure.
Negative Feedback - the system is able to correct unfavorable deviations in its functioning.
Dissipation (nutrition) - the system constantly dissipates energy and needs to be replenished from the outside.
Non-hierarchical - predominance of horizontal connections.
Adaptability- the ability to adapt to unfavorable changes in the external environment.
Spasmodic development - sudden changes in structure.
The significance of fluctuations and mutations - the significance of minor changes for the development of the system.
To determine self-organization, two points are of greatest importance: the orderliness of the system and the spontaneity of the ordering process.
Orderliness is a certain state of the system, which can be defined as follows:
1) Subjectively, the state of the system is more orderly when there is less uncertainty and the following is known: a) the position of all its elements; b) the speed and direction of change in their position (order is when everything is in its place).
2) Objectively, the state of the system is more ordered if, in its given state, the elements of the system have fewer degrees of freedom - options for location and movement (a tethered herd is more orderly than an unattached herd). In physics, the concept of “entropy” is used, which characterizes the probability of the state of a system (the number of degrees of freedom of the elements). The greater the entropy, the less order.
3) The most practical criterion for the orderliness of a system is the presence and strength of connections between its elements. The more connections and the stronger they are, the more ordered the system is (fewer degrees of freedom and uncertainty).
Spontaneity of ordering is often given a subjective character, i.e. the system (structure) arose independently of human will and actions. The principle of increasing entropy states that in closed systems entropy does not decrease (order does not increase). Everyday experience also shows that without human intervention, more orderly systems do not arise. Therefore, when processes were discovered in physics and chemistry that lead to the emergence of ordered structures without human intervention, they were defined as “self-organizing.”
But in reality, in the world there are many ordered processes and systems that appeared without human participation (from galaxies, planetary systems, to living organisms and atoms). In addition, the application of the subjective criterion of spontaneity leads to the conclusion that in human society there cannot be self-organization (or vice versa, everything is self-organization, since, from the point of view of chemistry and biology, a person is a self-organizing system chemical reactions or biological cells).
That is why the criterion for determining self-organization is not related to human factor, but lies in the presence of the properties indicated above. Spontaneity it only means that there was no external managerial (organizing) influence on the system. Moreover, it can be shown that many of these properties are descriptive, not necessary, or inferred from others.
For self-organization (spontaneous ordering), an open system is required (entropy does not decrease in a closed one) and certain conditions(threshold level, control parameter). The complexity of the system only affects the complexity of the organization (ordering). Already here the spasmodic development, positive feedback and the significance of fluctuations for the future of the system are manifested. When ordering, a synergistic effect automatically appears (where else can new properties of a system come from, if not from the connections between elements). These properties are already sufficient for self-organization. The rest manifest themselves through a slightly different process: self-regulation (self-government, automatism). There are self-organizing systems of type I (not capable of self-regulation) and type II. Their main difference is dynamism and dissipation. Type I - not dynamic and not feeding (ice), type II - dynamic, feeding (living organisms).
Dynamism and the need for nutrition make self-regulation (negative feedback, adaptation) a property that makes dynamic systems more likely to survive. The need for self-regulation in unstable conditions leads to the predominance of horizontal connections (heterarchy). Eventually, complex systems with positive and negative feedback (not reducible to a simple “black box” model) exhibit the properties of operational closure (the presence of memory and multiple circuits feedback does not allow one to unambiguously predict its behavior).
In general, self-organizing systems - these are open systems in which a spontaneous process of ordering occurs (or has occurred), determined by the properties of the elements of the system itself. The practical value of such systematic approach lies in synergetics - the science of initiating the process of ordering, influencing it in order to form the desired structure. The evolutionary approach to organizations, the theory of sustainable development, the theory of “chaos management”, etc. are closely related to synergetics.
Ó SMart inov.This group of laws also characterizes the interaction of the system with its environment - with the environment (significant or essential for the system), the supersystem, and subordinate systems.
Communication skills.
This pattern forms the basis for the definition of a system, where the system is not isolated from other systems, it is connected by multiple communications with the environment, which, in turn, is a complex and heterogeneous formation containing a supersystem (metasystem - a higher order system that specifies the requirements and limitations of the system under study ), subsystems (lower-lying, subordinate systems), and systems of the same level as the one under consideration.
Such a complex unity with the environment is called the pattern of communication, which, in turn, easily helps to move to hierarchy as a pattern of constructing the entire world and any system isolated from it.
Hierarchy.
Patterns of hierarchy or hierarchical ordering were among the first laws of systems theory that L. von identified and studied. Bertalanffy.
It is necessary to take into account not only the external structural side of the hierarchy, but also the functional relationships between levels. For example, in biological organizations, a higher hierarchical level has a directing influence on the lower level subordinate to it, and this influence is manifested in the fact that subordinate members of the hierarchy acquire new properties that they did not have in an isolated state (confirmation of the position about the influence of the whole on the elements given above), and as a result of the appearance of these new properties, a new, different “look of the whole” is formed (the influence of the properties of the elements on the whole). The new whole that arises in this way acquires the ability to carry out new functions, which is the purpose of the formation of hierarchies.
Let us highlight the main features of hierarchical ordering from the point of view of the usefulness of their use as models of system analysis:
1. Due to the pattern of communication, which manifests itself not only between the selected system and its environment, but also between the levels of the hierarchy of the system under study, each level of hierarchical ordering has complex relationships with the higher and lower levels. According to the metaphorical formulation, each level of the hierarchy has the property of a “two-faced Janus”: the “face” directed towards the lower level has the character of an autonomous whole (system), and the “face” directed towards the node (top) of the higher level exhibits the properties of a dependent part (element of the higher system).
This specification of the pattern of hierarchy explains the ambiguity of the use in complex organizational systems of the concepts “system” and “subsystem”, “goal” and “means” (an element of each level hierarchical structure goals acts as a goal in relation to lower ones and as a “subgoal”, and starting from a certain level, and as a “means” in relation to a higher goal), which is often observed in real conditions and leads to incorrect terminological disputes.
2. The most important feature of hierarchical ordering as a pattern is that the pattern of integrity/emergence (i.e., qualitative changes in the properties of components is more high level in comparison with the combined components of the underlying) is manifested in it at each level of the hierarchy. In this case, the unification of elements in each node of the hierarchical structure leads not only to the appearance of new properties at the node and the loss of freedom for the combined components to manifest some of their properties, but also to the fact that each subordinate member of the hierarchy acquires new properties that were absent in its isolated state.
Element, subsystem, connection, state. behavior, stability, purpose
Another way is to present not the entire object, phenomenon, or process under study as a system, but only its individual sides, aspects, facets, sections, which are considered essential for the problem under study. In this case, each system in the same object expresses only a certain facet of its essence. For example, a single object, the state, has many different facets that make up military system, political, economic, educational, scientific, cultural, etc.
Thus, when structuring a complex object for the purpose of its analysis, it is possible to identify subsystems or elements in it, both by dividing it into parts and by highlighting its various faces or aspects.
Famous one more way highlighting systems in a complex object without dismembering it into parts. The faces there are significant processes occurring in a complex object, therefore those subsystems that take part in these processes are considered. For example, processes of change in the level of organization and processes of evolution can be distinguished.
As the various options systems theories and the systems approach in general, the role of establishing strict definitions of system concepts is increasing. Let us consider at a qualitative level the basic concepts that characterize the structure and functioning of systems.
Element. An element is usually understood as the simplest indivisible part of a system. An element is the limit of division of a system from the point of view of solving a specific problem and goal.
Subsystem. Subsystems are components larger than elements and at the same time more detailed than the system as a whole. The possibility of division into subsystems is associated with the isolation of sets of interconnected elements capable of performing relatively independent functions, subgoals aimed at achieving the overall goal of the system.
External environment. The external environment refers to many elements that are not part of the system, but a change in their state causes a change in the behavior of the system. The immediate environment of the system, in interaction with which the system forms and manifests its properties.
Connection. General definition. Within the system and between systems, an important role is played by connections that connect elements to each other into a system. It is assumed that connections exist between all system elements, between subsystems and systems. In particular, elements (subsystems) are considered interconnected if changes in what is happening in one of the elements can be used to judge changes occurring in other elements.
More technological definition. Communication is the exchange between elements of matter, energy, and information that is important for the purposes of consideration. A single act of communication is impact. Denoting all effects of an element M 1 per element M 2 through x 12,a element M 2 on M 1 - through x 21, you can depict the connection graphically (Fig. 1.).
In nature and society, all integral systems are characterized by a certain internal and external orderliness, without which their stable existence is impossible. This is one of the fundamental differences between any system and a chaotic multitude doomed to fragility.
A system, especially a social one, can exist, function and develop only in an orderly form, expressing its organization and viability. The property of orderliness must also be possessed by government system, and the legal system, and economic system, and any society as a whole. Understanding this objective pattern is especially important in modern Russian conditions.
Depending on a number of factors, the orderliness of social systems may be at different levels of perfection, but none of them is able to exist normally if its internal organization and forms of manifestation externally are not at least minimally established.
The orderliness of social systems has economic, social, political (including state-legal) and spiritual foundations. Nevertheless, one cannot but agree that regulation and order are one of the decisive conditions for the life of any society.
The orderliness of certain systems can be considered as a consequence of a certain regulation that continuously occurs in nature and society. Such regulation is actually of two kinds: spontaneous and conscious, and they differ significantly from each other.
When ordering is carried out under the influence of spontaneous factors, it turns out to be the average result of the collision, crossing and intertwining of the entire set of different things - regular and random, harmonious and opposing, repeating and one-time, etc. - forces acting beyond the consciousness and will of people. Accordingly, spontaneous regulation takes place here, where there are no interacting subjects. When, on the contrary, ordering is, one way or another, mediated human will, is achieved with the help of purposeful operations, there is conscious regulation carried out by the corresponding social subject.
Conscious regulation, in turn, is also heterogeneous and has varieties, each of which is quite specific. It is expressed, first of all, in the ordering of one or another social subject’s own way of life: a person, a community of people or their formations coordinate their behavior with the patterns, requirements and attitudes that exist in a given society. Here, purposeful self-regulation occurs, in which the closest subject of regulation is the subject’s own behavior.
But in human society, the ordering of certain systems does not end there. It has long been known to everyone that if each individual musician controls himself, then the orchestra needs a conductor. Just for such “conducting” there is another type of conscious regulation, intended to organize the harmonious functioning of the entire “orchestra”, i.e. corresponding social systems.
The distinctive feature of the just noted phenomenon is that here: firstly, the subject and the subject (object) of regulation are clearly demarcated; secondly, the regulatory entity performs functional tasks, guided by certain interests; thirdly, for these purposes, he necessarily performs certain external operations undertaken to influence in a given direction the remaining components of this system.
Accordingly, this type of conscious regulation acts as a specific activity, which can be called social-functional regulation, thereby distinguishing it from spontaneous regulation, targeted self-regulation and all kinds of regulatory operations of a technical nature.
The meaning of this activity is, first of all, to stabilize the system being ordered, to preserve its vital activity, to protect it from undesirable influences of a temporary, random or purely volitional order. But its ability to influence the development and dynamics of the social system is also very significant. Depending on the goal of the subject of regulation, the nature of the program he has chosen and some other factors, socio-functional regulation can influence the course of events in one direction or another, accelerating and strengthening or, conversely, slowing down and destroying the ongoing processes.
Consequently, in principle, social systems are subject to all existing varieties of ordering. Spontaneous regulation, targeted self-regulation and socio-functional regulation influence such systems simultaneously, complementing and correcting each other. Their actual ratio and intensity change historically, determined by the degree of organization of a particular society, the level of consciousness of its members, their mentality and the nature of the mission that they carry out in the natural historical process. This circumstance must be taken into account when studying the entire state and legal reality, as well as its role and place in the life of society.
This is especially necessary if we're talking about about the possibility of combining regulatory and self-regulatory principles in the organization of certain relationships. This combination, for example, is observed when creating business partnerships and companies, when their founders (participants) establish in the constituent documents general rules life activities of the organizations being created, and then they themselves, on a self-regulatory basis, conform their behavior to these norms. Something similar is observed in contractual relations, where their participants, using the principle of freedom of contract, define in the contract the rules of conduct, which they themselves then follow. But in a similar situation, what occurs is not a confusion of legal regulation with self-regulation, but a combination of them, which is necessary for organizing the corresponding life relationships.
In social systems, functional regulation is largely associated with social management. They are united by “human nature”, the conscious direction of the system towards a given goal, the alignment of this goal with conscious needs, value orientations, etc. Even in modern conditions When economic and mathematical methods and computer technology are increasingly used in social management, social, “human” factors remain decisive.
However, there are certain differences between social regulation and social management. It has long been noted that the regulation of social relations plays the role of one of the components social management, existing along with leadership, organization, coordination and control, that management should not be correlated with any conscious regulation, but only with its one variety - with functional regulation. Each cycle of the management process consists of numerous operations (collecting and processing information about the object of interest, forecasting its trends, determining the strategy and tactics of influencing it, developing and making decisions, organizing its implementation, control, etc.), where functional regulation appears in the role of core element and method of achieving the goal.
Social management inevitably involves continuous two-way interaction of two subsystems, one of which is the manager, the other is the managed. The control subsystem, which plays the role of the subject of management, is who and what controls, the managed subsystem, acting as a social object of influence, is who and what is controlled.
As a social object, i.e. The controlled subsystem here consists of individual members of society, their groups, collectives, formations and natural-historical communities, production and other associations, various spheres of human life, society as a whole. Moreover, each of them belongs to the class of large mixed objects, contains, as a rule, both human and material components, and is extremely complex in the number and structure of the elements that form it.
Essentially the same social phenomena represent (of course, in other connections) a subject of organizing influence, a control subsystem. In society, there is no strict binding of some elements to the object, and others to the subject of management. What in this particular respect is a social object of influence, in another becomes its full-blooded subject. For example, local and regional organizations, being a social object of management by higher authorities, at the same time act as an important subject of management in relation to all those who are under their organizing influence.
However, this circumstance, which shows the complexity of the nature of social organisms, does not provide sufficient grounds either for refusing to separate an object and a subject in the structure of social management, or for confusing them. It only indicates that these organisms combine the properties of controlled (organized) and control (organizing) subsystems, the ability in different situations to be both an object and a subject of control, depending on specific factors, primarily on the nature of the corresponding social connections.
Within the framework of the same social relationship, not a single element of the system can simultaneously serve as both a managing (regulating) and a managed (regulated) subsystem.
The history of world civilization shows that management in a particular country can be carried out through certain orders (commands), political directives, laws, various combinations of them, etc. In the recent past in our country, the most characteristic was directive management, in which first party bodies developed political directives, set out in decisions of congresses, plenums and the Central Committee of the CPSU, and on their basis acts of direct management were adopted. At the same time, the role of law and the state in organizing the life of society was belittled in every possible way.
Meanwhile Western countries have long switched to the rails of control through law, Law. It is this path that contributes to achieving the greatest results in ensuring democracy, economy and efficiency in the organization of public relations. And one of Russia’s fundamental tasks in modern stage consists precisely in the transition to such a management system so that the remnants of directive management are replaced by the ordering of life relations through law, Law. This applies equally to all spheres of society that require legal influence.
It is very important to keep in mind that all social systems, in one way or another, include the individual. The relationships associated with them occur with the participation of a person gifted with will and consciousness. A person brings a strong-willed, subjective element into these relationships. Not a single social relationship is conceivable in which the objective, natural would not be somehow correlated with the subjective, volitional. It is precisely due to this circumstance that the possibility of conscious regulation of certain social systems opens up. If there were no subjective factor in them, their conscious regulation would be excluded, since any regulatory influence can only be carried out through the consciousness of people.
Of course, the ratio of objective (natural) and subjective (volitional) moments in different spheres of social life is not the same. There is reason to believe that this ratio changes in favor of the subjective as we move from economic to social, from social to political, from political to spiritual relations. In other words, in economic relations there is the least subjective and the most objective, and in spiritual relations it is the other way around. However, one way or another, there is a subjective, volitional moment in any social relations, including economic ones, although here it is very limited due to the predominance of a natural factor that does not depend on the will of a person.
When ordering social systems, the individual is involved in both methods of social regulation - both in conscious self-regulation and in functional regulation. Accordingly, for the active role of the individual in these processes, two types of opportunities are needed, allowing, on the one hand, to improve the beginning of self-regulation, on the other, to more fully participate in the activities of the control (organizing) subsystem, in functional regulation. The personality, in addition, acts as a social object of regulatory influence and, therefore, properties that expand the selective susceptibility of influence from the outside are important to it.
The self-regulatory and regulatory capabilities of the individual, as well as its susceptibility to external influences, have some common roots. Economic independence, positive historical traditions, civil society, proper general and legal culture, constitutional recognition of natural rights and freedoms, modern general legal status, democratic political and legal regime and much more increase the role of the individual in regulating social systems at the levels of both self-regulation and functional regulation, and the perception of external regulatory influence. And vice versa, the denial of private property, refusal to recognize natural (inalienable) rights and freedoms, totalitarian regime, low legal culture and legal awareness, negative traditions of the past and other negative circumstances significantly limit the individual’s capabilities associated with the ordering of the social systems in which he is involved.
But there are also specific factors relating to individual ways of individual participation in the ordering of social systems. To strengthen self-regulatory capabilities, it is important, for example, the guarantee of existing rights and freedoms, the security of fulfillment of legal duties, decentralization of power, the existence of self-government, and for regulatory potential - access to managing the affairs of society, proper determination of the status of management subsystems, the establishment of interaction between them, and the fight against bureaucracy and corruption, responsiveness, etc.
The real involvement of all factors in increasing the role of the individual in regulating social relations largely contributes to the development of democracy in the country in its scientific understanding.
The hierarchical ordering of the world was realized already in Ancient Greece. Such orderliness is observed at any level of development of the Universe: chemical, physical, biological, social.
Hierarchy is subordination, any order of objects agreed upon by subordination.
The term originally arose as the name of the “career ladder” in religion, then it began to be widely used to characterize relationships in the apparatus of government, the army, etc. Currently, when speaking about hierarchy, we mean any order of objects agreed upon by subordination, order subordination of persons of lower position and rank to higher ones in social organizations, in the management of an enterprise, region, state, etc.
The pattern of hierarchical ordering of systems (hierarchy) means that any system consists of other systems and theoretically a system of a higher level can always be found, which contains systems of lower levels (L. von Bertalanffy).
Van Gigh characterizes hierarchy with the following characteristics:
- - a system always consists of other systems;
- - for any specific system, a system can be found that covers it;
- - of these two systems, the system that includes the other is called a higher-level system;
- - a lower-level system, in turn, consists of other systems, and in this respect it can be considered as a higher-level system;
- - the hierarchy of systems exists due to the fact that systems are more low level are components higher level systems.
The laws of hierarchy or hierarchical ordering were among the first laws of systems theory that L. von Bertalanffy identified and studied.
The pattern of communicability means that any system is connected by multiple communications with the environment, which, in turn, is a complex and heterogeneous formation containing a supersystem (a higher order system that specifies the requirements and limitations of the system under study), subsystems (lower order systems) and systems on the same level as the one under consideration.
And so, the group of patterns includes communication and hierarchy.
Communication skills.
Any system is not isolated from other systems, but is connected by multiple communications with environment, which is a complex and heterogeneous formation containing:
- Ш supersystem (a higher order system that specifies the requirements and limitations of the system under consideration);
- Ш elements or subsystems (underlying, subordinate systems);
- Ш systems of the same level as the one under consideration.
Such a complex unity of the system with the environment is called the pattern of communication.
Due to the laws of communication, each level of hierarchical ordering has complex relationships with the higher and lower levels. It follows that each level of the hierarchy seems to have the property of a “two-faced Janus”:
- The "face", directed towards the underlying level, has the character of an autonomous whole - a system;
- The face, directed towards a higher level, exhibits the properties of a dependent part - an element of a higher system.
Hierarchy
The principle of hierarchy is that any system can be represented as a hierarchical formation. At the same time, the pattern of integrity operates at all levels of the hierarchy. A higher hierarchical level unites the elements of the lower one and has a directing effect on them. As a result, subordinate members of the hierarchy acquire new properties that they did not have in an isolated state. And the new whole that emerged as a result of the combination of lower elements acquires the ability to carry out new functions (the pattern of emergence appears), which is the purpose of the formation of hierarchies. These features of hierarchical systems are observed both at the biological level of development of the Universe, and in social organizations, when managing an enterprise, association or state, as well as when presenting the design of projects for complex technical complexes, etc.
The use of hierarchical representations turns out to be useful in the case of studying systems and problem situations with great uncertainty. In this case, it is as if the “large” uncertainty is divided into smaller ones that are better amenable to research. Even if these small uncertainties cannot be fully revealed and explained, hierarchical ordering still partially removes the overall uncertainty and provides at least a more effective control solution.
Example. A specialist is given the task of estimating the demand for computers next year in city N. At first glance, the task seems very difficult - there are too many uncertainties. However, let’s break the task down into subtasks: assess the need for computers in various consumer sectors (commercial organizations, government agencies, students, schoolchildren, and other individuals). In relation to each of the sectors, the task no longer seems so hopeless - even without complete information, it is possible to assess the need for computers. Further, each of the sectors can be divided into subsectors, etc.