Abstract
This chapter contends that the fact we find “morphogenesis unbound” being a tendency of current societal development does not justify to call the latest social formation “morphogenic society”. What is indicated by “morphogenesis unbound” is rather a crisis threatening the continuation of civilised life on Earth. This crisis can be overcome if and when reflexivity includes systems reflexivity, that is, the decentering of individual actors from themselves and the extension of their concerns to a supra-individual meta-level that serves as point of orientation of their common actions. Such a state of development would deserve the name “morphogenic society” in contradistinction to the current state which tends to restrict self-reflection.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
“die Sorge um den Arbeitsplatz, die Gründung einer Familie, der Statuserwerb und die Zukunft insgesamt.”
- 2.
“der sich nicht nur die Verbesserung der individuellen Position zum Ziel setzt, sondern der die politischen und ökonomischen Strukturen und Diskurse ins Visier nimmt und längerfristig mehr verändern möchte als bloß die eigene Situation.”
- 3.
“Im Gefolge einer Revolution werden Vorstellungen, die man bis dahin ausschließlich mit randständigen Spinnern verbunden hatte, im Handumdrehen zur akzeptierten Basis der Diskussion.”
- 4.
The German term for history, “Geschichte”, which comes from “Geschehen” (something that happened, meaning a series of events) can be interpreted as layered structure as if it were composed of “Schicht” which means stratum. The associated picture is that of archeology according to which different layers give evidence of past historical periods (which has its model in geology).
- 5.
By naming the first stage “tribalism” I summarize Donati’s typology in (2010), but re-organise it in a different way.
- 6.
The sentence “There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families” ascribed to Margaret Thatcher is a nice delineation of the latest step of development.
References
Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, M. S. (2007). Making our way through the world: Human reflexivity and social mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, M. S. (2012). The reflexive imperative in late modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, M. S., & Donati, P. (2008). Introduction. In M. S. Archer & P. Donati (Eds.), Pursuing the common good: How solidarity and subsidiarity can work together (pp. 25–31). Vatican City: Vatican Press.
Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. London: Faber and Faber.
Corning, P. (2003). Nature’s magic. Synergy in evolution and the fate of humankind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Csermely, P. (2009). Weak links. The universal key to the stability of networks and complex systems. Berlin: Springer.
Donati, P. (2008). Discovering the relational character of the common good. In M. S. Archer & P. Donati (Eds.), Pursuing the common good: How solidarity and subsidiarity can work together (pp. 659–683). Vatican City: Vatican Press.
Donati, P. (2010). Reflexivity after modernity. From the viewpoint of relational sociology. In M. Archer (Ed.), Conversations about reflexivity (pp. 144–164). London/New York: Routledge.
Donati, P. (2011). Relational sociology. A new paradigm for the social sciences. London/New York: Routledge.
Graeber, D. (2012). Inside occupy. Frankfurt: Campus.
Heinzlmaier, B. (2013). Performer, Styler, Egoisten – Über eine Jugend, der die Alten die Ideale abgewöhnt haben. Berlin: Archiv der Jugendkulturen Verlag.
Hofkirchner, W. (2009). Walls or bridges? The future of the web. In F. Vidal (Ed.), Bloch-Jahrbuch 2009, Träume gegen Mauern [Dreams against walls] (pp. 205–216). Mössingen-Talheim: Talheimer.
Hofkirchner, W. (2011). Information and communication technologies for a good society. In D. M. Haftor & A. Mirijamdotter (Eds.), Information and communication technologies, society and human beings: Theory and framework (pp. 434–443). Hershey: Information Science Reference.
Hofkirchner, W. (2013a). Emergent information. A unified theory of information framework. Singapore: World Scientific.
Hofkirchner, W. (2013b). Self-organisation as the mechanism of development and evolution in social systems. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Social morphogenesis (pp. 125–143). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hofkirchner, W. (2013c). Potentials and risks for creating a global sustainable information society. In C. Fuchs & M. Sandoval (Eds.), Critique, social media and the information society (pp. 66–75). London/New York: Routledge.
Hofkirchner, W., Fuchs, C., Raffl, C., Schafranek, M., Sandoval, M., & Bichler, R. (2007). ICTs and Society – The Salzburg Approach. Towards a theory for, about, and by means of the information society (ICT&S Center Research Paper Series, No. 3). Salzburg: University of Salzburg. http://icts.sbg.ac.at/media/pdf/pdf1490.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2012.
Jantsch, E. (1987). Erkenntnistheoretische Aspekte der Selbstorganisation natürlicher Systeme. In S. J. Schmidt (Ed.), Der Diskurs des Radikalen Konstruktivismus. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Kraushaar, W. (2012). Der Aufruhr der Ausgebildeten. Vom Arabischen Frühling bis zur Occupy-Bewegung. Hamburg: Hamburger Edition.
Lawson, T. (2013). Emergence and morphogenesis: Causal reduction and downward causation? In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Social morphogenesis (pp. 61–84). Dordrecht: Springer.
Leontyev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress.
Luhmann, N. (2002). Theories of distinction: Redescribing the description of modernity (William Rasch ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Mead, G. H. (1938). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Peirce, C. S. (2000). Semiotische Schriften. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hofkirchner, W. (2014). On the Validity of Describing ‘Morphogenic Society’ as a System and Justifiability of Thinking About It as a Social Formation. In: Archer, M. (eds) Late Modernity. Social Morphogenesis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03266-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03266-5_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-03265-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-03266-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)