A universal theory of social groups: the actor-system-dynamics approach to agents, rule regimes, and interaction processes

• Autor(a) principal: Burns, Tom R.
• Data de Publicação: 2014
• Outros Autores: Corte, Ugo, Machado, Nora
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10071/9878
• topic: Multi-level; Dynamic systems theory; Agents; Rule regime; Involvement/participation; Resources; Technologies; Universal group bases and functions

Drawing on multi-level, dynamic systems theory in sociology which has been developed and applied in institutional, organizational, and societal analyses, we formulate a general theory of social groups. This social systems approach has not been previously applied in the group area. We claim that this particular systems approach can be systematically and fruitfully applied to small as well as large groups to understand and analyze their functioning and dynamics. In this article, we refer to a group as an aggregation of persons/social agents that is characterized by (1) shared group identity, (2) a shared rule regime (collective culture) shaping and regulating their roles and role relationships and group behavioral outputs (3) its bases of membership and adherence or commitment to the group, its identity and rule regime, (4) its technologies and material resources used in group interactions, 2 performances, and productions (5) it shared places (situations for interaction), and (6) its times for gathering and interacting. The theory identifies three universal bases on which any human group or social organization, including small groups, depends and which motivate, shape and regulate group activities and productions (Section II). The bases are group requisites – necessary for group “functioning” and interacting in more or less orderly or coherent ways, realizing group as well as possibly members’ goals and maintaining and reproducing the group. The group bases consist of, first, a rule regime or social structural base; second, an agential base of group members socialized or partially socialized carriers of and adherents to the group’s rule regime; of importance here are involvement/participation factors motivating member to adhere to, accept, and implement the rule regime; third, there is a resource base, technologies and resources self-produced and/or obtained from the environment, which are essential to key group activities. In the theory presented here in Section II, a social group is not only characterized by its three universal bases but by its universal functions, group actions and outputs -- its interactions and productions/performances and their outcomes and developments including the impact of their productions on the group itself (reflexivity) and on its environment (see Figure 1). These outputs, among other things, maintain/adapt/develop core group Bases (or possibly unintentionally undermine/destroy them). Thus, groups can be understood as action/interaction systems producing goods, services, incidents and events, experiences, developments, etc. for themselves and possibly for the larger environment on which they depend for resources, recruits, goods and services, legitimation, etc. The theory identifies the six (6) universal system functions of groups. A major distinctive feature in our systems approach is the theory of rule regimes, specifying the finite universal rule categories (ten distinct categories) that characterize every functioning social group or organization. A rule regime, while an abstraction is carried, applied, adapted, and transformed by concrete human agents, who interact, exchange, exercise power, and struggle within the group, in large part based on the rule regime which they maintain, adapt, and transform. We emphasize not only the systemic character of all functioning groups – universally their three bases and their six output functions together with feedback dynamics -- but also the differentiating character of any given group’s particular rule configuration. The article ends with a discussion of two major theoretical implications: (1) the identification and analyses of any given group’s particular rule configuration which characterize that group and is sustained under relatively stable internal and external conditions (Section III); for illustrative purposes we present in Section IV a selection of few simple rule configurations that characterize several diverse types of groups. (2) the transformation of group bases and their interaction/production functions. The theory enables from a single framework the systematic description and comparative analysis of a wide diversity of groups, as illustrated in Sections III and IV.