‫دوبعد ‪ :‬چهار‬
‫پارادايم‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫پيش فرضهاي مربوط به ماهيت علوم را مي‬
‫توان برحسب بعد ذهني ـ عيني‪ ,‬و پيش‬
‫فرضهاي مربوط به ماهيت جامعه را بر‬
‫حسب بعد نظم دهي ـ تغيير بنيادي در نظر‬
‫گرفت‪.‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫مناقشة ذهني ـ عيني درون جامعه‬
‫شناس ي نظم دهي در قالب مناقشة بين‬
‫جامعه شناس ي تفسيري و كاركردگرايي‬
‫ظاهر شده است‪.‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫به همين ترتيب در زمينة جامعه شناس ي‬
‫تغيير بنيادي نيز بين نظريه پردازان كه‬
‫به ديدگاههاي ذهني و عيني ملتزم‬
‫هستند شكاف وجود دارد‪.‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫اگر اين ابعاد را با هم در نظر‬
‫بگيريم چهار پارادايم جامعه‬
‫شناختي متمايز بدست مي آيد‪.‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫كه مي توان آنها را براي تحليل طيف‬
‫وسيعي از نظريه هاي اجتماعي به‬
‫كار برد‪.‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫روابط بين اين پاراديمها كه ”انسان گراي‬
‫بنيادي“ ‪” ,‬ساختارگراي بنيادي“ ‪” ,‬تفسيري‬
‫و ”كارگردگرا“ مي باشند در نمودار ‪3 – 1‬‬
‫نشان داده شده است‪.‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫جامعه شناس ي تغيير بنيادي‬
‫عيني‬
‫ساختار گراي‬
‫بنيادي‬
‫انسان گراي‬
‫بنيادي‬
‫كاركردگرا‬
‫تفسيري‬
‫ذهني‬
‫جامعه شناس ي نظم دهي‬
‫نمودار ‪ 3 – 1‬چهار پارادايم براي تحليل نظرية اجتماعي‬
‫‪8‬‬
‫با توجه به نمودار روشن مي شود كه هر‬
‫يك از پارادايمها با پارادايم مجاور خود در‬
‫محورهاي افقي و عمودي بر حسب يكي از‬
‫دو داراي مجموعه اي از ويژگيهاي مشترك‬
‫است‪.‬‬
‫‪9‬‬
‫اما از جهت بعد ديگر با آن متفاوت‬
‫است به همين علت پاراديمها را بايد‬
‫مرتبط و درعين حال مجزا از هم‬
‫دانست‪.‬‬
‫‪10‬‬
‫مرتبط به خاطر ويژگيهاي‬
‫مشترك آنها ‪ ,‬اما مجزا به‬
‫خاطر تفاوت ميان آنها‪.‬‬
‫‪11‬‬
‫چهار پارادايم مزبور ديدگاههاي‬
‫ا‬
‫كامل متفاوتي را براي تحليل‬
‫پديده هاي اجتماعي بيان مي‬
‫كنند‪.‬‬
‫‪12‬‬
‫بارل و مرگان اين چهار پارادايم را به پيشفرضهاي فرانظري‬
‫بسيار اساس ي كه چهار چوب مرجع ‪,‬شيوة نظريه پردازان و‬
‫شيوه كار )‪ (modus operandi‬نظريه پردازان‬
‫اجتماعي مشتغل در پارادايم را مشخص مي كند در نظرمي‬
‫گيرند‪.‬‬
‫‪13‬‬
‫پارادايم واژه اي است كه هدف از كاربرد آن تأكيد بر‬
‫اشتراك ديدگاهي است كه كار گروهي از نظريه پردازان‬
‫را به گونه اي به هم مرتبط سازد كه به طور‬
‫سودمندي بتوان آنها را به عنوان كساني كه از دريچه‬
‫يك مسأله مشترك به نظريه اجتماعي وارد مي شوند‬
‫نگريست‪.‬‬
‫‪14‬‬
Paradigm is a term which is intended to
emphasise the commonality of
perspective which binds the work of a
group of theorists together in such a
way that they can be usefully regarded
as approaching social theory within the
bounds of the same problematic.
15
‫اين تعريف بر وحدت كامل فكر داللت نمي كندو اين‬
‫واقعيت را مجاز مي شمارد كه زمينة هر پارادايم بين‬
‫نظريه پردازاني كه نقطه نظرهاي متفاوت را مي پذيرند‬
‫مناقشه بوجود آيد‪.‬‬
‫‪16‬‬
This definition does
not imply complete
unity of thought.
17
It allows for the fact that
within the context of any
given paradigm there will be
much debate between
theorists who adopt different
standpoints.
18
‫به هر حال پارادايم بر حسب‬
‫ا‬
‫پيشفرضهاي اساس ي و غالبا‬
‫”مسلم“ خود داراي يك وحدت‬
‫زيربنائي است‪.‬‬
‫‪19‬‬
The paradigm does , however , have an
underlying unity in terms of its basic
and often “taken for granted”
assumptions , which separate a group
of theorists in a very fundamental way
form theorists located in other
paradigms.
20
‫كه گروهي از نظريه پردازان را با شيوه‬
‫اي بنيادي از نظريه پردازاني كه در‬
‫پارادايمهاي ديگر قرار گرفته اند‬
‫متمايز مي سازد‪.‬‬
‫‪21‬‬
The “ unity” of the paradigm thus
derives from reference to
alternative views of reality which
lie outside its boundaries and
which may not necessarily even
be recognized as existing.
22
‫بدين ترتيب وحدت پارادايم از مراجعه به‬
‫ديدگاههاي بديل يا جايگزين از واقعيت كه خارج‬
‫از مرز آن قرار دارد و حتي ممكن است‬
‫موجوديت اين گونه ديدگاهها مورد شناسايي‬
‫هم قرار نگيرد نشأت مي گيرد‪.‬‬
‫‪23‬‬
All social theorists can be
located within the context of
these four paradigms according
to the meta - theoretical
assumptions reflected in their
work.
24
‫تمام نظريه پردازان اجتماعي براساس پيش‬
‫فرضهاي فرانظري كه در كار آنها منعكس‬
‫است درون يكي از پارادايمهاي چهارگانه‬
‫قرار مي گيرند‪.‬‬
‫‪25‬‬
The four paradigms
taken together provide
a map for negotiating
the subject area,
26
‫به اين پارايمها اگر به صورت مجموعه اي‬
‫نگريسته شود نقشه اي را براي بحث و مذاكره‬
‫دربارة حوزةنظريه اجتماعي فراهم مي آورند‪.‬‬
‫‪27‬‬
Which offers a convinient
means of identifying the
basic similarities and
differences between the work
of various theorists,
28
‫اين نقشه وسيلة آساني را براي‬
‫مشخص كردن شباهتها و‬
‫تفاوتهاي اصلي بين كار نظريه‬
‫پردازان مختلف‪,‬‬
‫‪29‬‬
And , in particular, the
underlying frame of
reference which they
adopt.
30
‫و بخصوص چهار چوب مرجع‬
‫زير بنائي كه مورد پذيرش‬
‫آنهاست ارائه مي دهد‪.‬‬
‫‪31‬‬
It also provides a
convenient way of locating
one’s own personal frame
of reference with regard to
social theory,
32
‫اين نقشه همچنين شيوة مناسبي را براي‬
‫انسان جهت مشخص كردن موقعيت چهار‬
‫چوب مرجع شخص ي خود در رابطه با‬
‫نظريه اجتماعي فراهم مي كند‪.‬‬
‫‪33‬‬
And thus a means of
understanding why certain
theories and perspectives
may have more personal
appeal than others.
34
‫ودر نتيجه ابزاري را براي شناخت اين‬
‫نكته فرا روي او قرار مي دهد كه چرا‬
‫نظريه ها و ديدگاههاي خاص ي براي او‬
‫جذابيت بيشتر دارد‪.‬‬
‫‪35‬‬
Like any other map L it
provides a fool for
establishing where you are ,
where you have been , and
where it is possible to go in
the future.
36
‫مثل هر نقشه ديگر ابزاري را براي‬
‫ا‬
‫تعيين مكان فعلي شما‪ ,‬جايي كه قبل‬
‫درآن بوده ايد و مسير احتمالي كه در‬
‫آينده به آن خواهيد رفت فراهم مي‬
‫كند‪.‬‬
‫‪37‬‬
Each paradigm
defines a range of
intellectual territory.
38
‫هر پارادايم حوزه اي از يك‬
‫منطقه فكري را تعريف مي‬
‫كند‪.‬‬
‫‪39‬‬
Given the overall meta –
theoretical assumptions
which distinguish one
paradigm from another,
40
‫با ملحظة پيش فرضهاي‬
‫فرانظري كلي كه متمايز كننده‬
‫يك پارادايم از پارادايم ديگر‬
‫است‪,‬‬
‫‪41‬‬
There is room for
much variation
within them.
42
‫درون پارادايمها نيز تنوع‬
‫در ديدگاه به چشم مي‬
‫خورد‪.‬‬
‫‪43‬‬
Within the context of the
“functionalist” paradigm , for
example , certain theorists adopt
move extereme positions in
terms of one or both of the two
dimensions than others.
44
‫براي مثال ‪ ,‬درون پارادايم ”كاركردگرا“‬
‫بعض ي از نظريه پردازان در مقايسه با‬
‫ديگران موضعهاي بسيار افراطي دربارة‬
‫يك بعد يا هر دو بعد اتخاذ كرده اند‪.‬‬
‫‪45‬‬
Such differences often account
for the internal debate which
goes on between theorists
engaged in the activities of
“normal science” within the
context of the same paradigm.
46
‫ا‬
‫اين گونه تفاوتها غالبا مناقشة دروني‬
‫بين نظريه پردازان مشتغل در فعاليتهاي‬
‫” علوم هنجاري “ در زمينه پارادايم مي‬
‫شود‪.‬‬
‫‪47‬‬
Some inter paradigm debate
is also possible.
48
‫امكان نوعي از بحث‬
‫ميان پاراديمي نيز وجود‬
‫دارد‪.‬‬
‫‪49‬‬
Giddens maintains
“that all paradigms …
are mediated by
others”
50
‫گيدنز معتقد است كه ”در تمام‬
‫پاراديمها ‪ ...‬پاراديمهاي ديگر‬
‫نقش واسطه دارند‪“.‬‬
‫‪51‬‬
And that within
“normal science”
scientists are aware
of other paradigms.
52
‫ودر حوزه ”علوم هنجاري“‬
‫دانشمندان از پاراديمهاي‬
‫ديگر آگاه هستند‪.‬‬
‫‪53‬‬
He posits that : “the
process of learning a
paradigm … is also the
process of learning what
that paradigm is not”.
54
‫او اشاره مي كند كه ” فرايند يادگيري‬
‫يك پارارايم ‪ ...‬فرايند يادگيري اين كه‬
‫پارادايم چه چيزي نيست را نيز فراهم‬
‫مي آورد‪“.‬‬
‫‪55‬‬
Interestingly , he
confines his discussion
to the mediation of one
paradigm by another
one.
56
‫نكته جالب اين است كه وي بحث‬
‫خود را به ميانجي شدن يك پارادايم‬
‫براي پارادايمهاي ديگر محدود مي‬
‫كند‪.‬‬
‫‪57‬‬
Burrell and Morgan
believe that a model of
four conflicting paradigms
within sociology is move
accurate,
58
‫بارل و مرگان معتقدند كه ارائه‬
‫يك مدل مبني بر چهار پارادايمي‬
‫متناقض در جامعه شناختي‬
‫صحيح تر است‪.‬‬
‫‪59‬‬
And that academics
knowledge of “scientists”
within the other three
paradigms is likely to be very
sketchy in some cases.
60
‫ومعتقدند كه آگاهي آكادميك ”‬
‫دانشمندان“ از پارادايمهاي سه گانة‬
‫ديگر در بعض ي از موارد بسيار‬
‫ناقص است‪.‬‬
‫‪61‬‬
Relations between
paradigms are perhaps
better described in terms of
“disinterested hostility” rather
than “debate”.
62
‫ا‬
‫احتماال توصيف روابط بين‬
‫پارادايمها با تعبير ” خصومت بي‬
‫طرفانه “ بهتر از توصيف آن با‬
‫واژة ”مناقشه“ مي باشد‪.‬‬
‫‪63‬‬
The four paradigms
are mutually
exclusive.
64
‫اين چهار پارادايم‬
‫مانعة الجمع هستند‪.‬‬
‫‪65‬‬
They offer alternative views
of social reality, and to
understand the nature of all
four is to understand four
different views of society.
66
‫آنها به ارائة ديدگاه هاي جايگزين‬
‫دربارة واقعيت اجتماعي مي پردازند‪ ،‬و‬
‫شناخت ماهيت هر چهار پارادايم به‬
‫اين معناست كه انسان به چهار ديد‬
‫متفاوت از جامعه شناخت پيدا مي‬
‫كند‪.‬‬
‫‪67‬‬
The offer
different ways of
seeing.
68
‫اين پارادايم ها شيوه هاي‬
‫متفاوتي را براي نگريستن‬
‫مطرح مي كنند‪.‬‬
‫‪69‬‬
A synthesis is not not possible,
since in their pure forms they are
contradictory, being based on at
least one set of opposing metatheoretical assumptions.
70
‫تركيب آنها امكان ندارد زيرا در شكل خالص‬
‫خود پارادايم ها با هم تناقض دارند و حداقل بر‬
‫يك مجموعه از پيش فرض هاي فرا نظري كه با‬
‫پيش فرض هاي پارادايم هاي ديگر متفاوت‬
‫است مبتني مي باشد‪.‬‬
‫‪71‬‬
They are alternatives, in
the sense that one can
operate in different
paradigms sequentially
over time,
72
‫پارادايم ها از اين جهت بديل‬
‫يكديگرند كه انسان مي تواند در‬
‫طول زمان در پارادايم هاي‬
‫متفاوتي عمل نمايد‪.‬‬
‫‪73‬‬
but mutually exclusive, in
the sense
that one can not operate in
more than one paradigm at any
given point in time, since in
accepting the assumption of
one, we defy the assumptions
of all the others.
74
‫ولي پارادايم ها از اين لحاظ مانعة الجمع‬
‫هستند كه انسان نمي تواند در يك مقطع‬
‫زماني مشخص در بيش از يك پارادايم‬
‫فعاليت علمي داشته باشد زيرا با پذيرفتن‬
‫پيش فرض هاي يك پارادايم پيش فرض‬
‫هاي پارادايم هاي ديگر نقض مي شود‪.‬‬
‫‪75‬‬
Burrell and Morgan offer the four
paradigms for consideration in these
terms, in the hope that knowledge of
the competing points of view will at
least make us aware of the boundaries
within which we approach our subject.
76
‫بارل و مرگان چهار پارادايم‬
‫را به لحاظ اين موارد معرفي كردند و‬
‫اميدوار بودند كه شناخت نقطه نظرهاي‬
‫طرف ديگر حداقل ما را به مرزهايي كه از‬
‫درون آنها وارد بحث در موضوع خود مي‬
‫شويم آگاه كند‬
‫‪77‬‬
The functionalist paradigm :
This paradigm has provided
the dominant framework for
the conduct of academic
sociology and the study of
organizations.
78
‫پارادايم كاركردگرا ‪:‬‬
‫پارادايم كاركردگرا چهارچوب اصلي‬
‫را براي سلوك جامعه شناس ي‬
‫دانشگاهي و مطالعة سازمانها فراهم‬
‫كرده است‪.‬‬
‫‪79‬‬
It represents a perspective
which is firmly rooted in the
sociology of regulation and
approaches its subject matter
from an objectivist point of
view.
80
‫اين پارادايم بيانگر ديدگاهي است كه‬
‫ا‬
‫كامل در جامعه شناس ي نظم دهي‬
‫ريشه دارد و از يك نقطه نظر عيني‬
‫گرا به بحث در موضوع خود مي‬
‫پردازد‪.‬‬
‫‪81‬‬
Functionalist theories have been at
the fore front of the order – conflict
debate, and the concepts which we
have used to categories the
sociology of regulation apply in
varying degrees to all schools of
thought within the paradigm.
82
‫نظريه پردازان كاركردگرا در صف مقدم‬
‫منازعة نظم ـ تضاد بوده اند‪ ،‬و مفاهيمي كه‬
‫ما براي طبقه بندي جامعه شناس ي نظم دهي‬
‫به كار برده ايم با درجات متفاوتي در تمامي‬
‫مكاتب موجود در اين پارادايم به كار مي رود‪.‬‬
‫‪83‬‬
It is characterized by a concern
for providing explanations of the
status quo, social order,
consensus, social integration,
solidarity, need satisfaction and
actuality.
84
‫در نتيجه مي توان گفت اين پارادايم به‬
‫دنبال ارائة تبيين هاي وضع موجود‪ ،‬نظم‬
‫اجتماعي‪ ،‬همرايي‪ ،‬تلفيق اجتماعي‪،‬‬
‫همبستگي‪ ،‬ارضاي نياز و فعليت مي‬
‫باشد‪.‬‬
‫‪85‬‬
The functionalist paradigm is
often problem – oriented in
approach, concerned to
provide practical solutions to
practical problems.
86
‫‪87‬‬
‫پارادايم كاركردگرا در رهيافت خود‬
‫ا‬
‫و‬
‫غالبا مسئله مدار است‪.‬‬
‫علقه مند است كه براي مشكلت‬
‫عملي راه حل هاي عملي فراهم‬
‫نمايد‪.‬‬
It is usually firmly committed to a
philosophy of social engineering as
a basis of social change and
emphasises the importance of
understanding order, equilibrium
and stability in society and the way
in which these can be maintained.
88
‫اين پارادايم به شدت به فلسفة مهندس ي‬
‫اجتماعي به عنوان مبنائي جهت تغيير‬
‫اجتماعي پايبند بوده و بر اهميت شناخت‬
‫نظم‪ ،‬تعادل و ثبات در جامعه و شيوة تداوم‬
‫آنها تأكيد مي كند‪.‬‬
‫‪89‬‬
It is concerned with the
effective “regulation”
and control of social
affairs.
90
‫پارادايم كاركردگرا به كنترل و‬
‫نظم دهي اثر بخش امور‬
‫اجتماعي علقه مند است‪.‬‬
‫‪91‬‬
The approach to social
science characteristic of the
functionalist paradigm is
rooted in the tradition of
sociological positivism.
92
‫رهيافتي كه پارادايم كاركردگرا‬
‫به علوم اجتماعي دارد در سنت‬
‫اثبات گرايي جامعه شناس ي‬
‫ريشه دارد‪.‬‬
‫‪93‬‬
This reflects the attempt, par
excellence, to apply the models
and methods of the natural
sciences to the study of human
affairs.
94
‫اين سنت بيانگر تلش ي همه‬
‫جانبه جهت استفاده از مدلها‬
‫و روشهاي علوم طبيعي در‬
‫مطالعة امور انساني مي باشد‪.‬‬
‫‪95‬‬
Originating in France in the
early decades of the
nineteenth century, its major
influence upon the paradigm
has been through the work
of,
96
‫اين سنت كه در دهه هاي اولية قرن‬
‫نوزدهم در فرانسه شكل گرفت‪،‬‬
‫بيشترين تأثير بر پارادايم‬
‫كاركردگرائي را از طريق كار‪،‬‬
‫‪97‬‬
Social theorists such as
Auguste Comte, Herbert
Spencer, Emile Durkheim
and Vilfredo Pareto
98
‫نظريه پردازان اجتماعي از قبيل‬
‫اگوست كنت‪ ،‬هربرت اسپنسر و‬
‫ويلفرد و پارتو گذاشته است‪.‬‬
‫‪99‬‬
The functionalist approach to social
science tends to assume that the social
world is composed of relatively
concrete empirical artefacts and
relationships which can be identified,
studied and measured through
approaches derived from the natural
sciences.
100
‫رهيافت كاركردگرا اين فرض را دربارة‬
‫علوم اجتماعي مي كند كه جهان اجتماعي از‬
‫ا‬
‫مصنوعات و روابط تجربي نسبتا دقيقي تشكيل‬
‫شده است كه از طريق رهيافت هاي برگرفته از‬
‫علوم طبيعي مي توان آنها را شناسايي‪ ،‬بررس ي و‬
‫اندازه گيري كرد‪.‬‬
‫‪101‬‬
The use of mechanical and
biological analogies as a means
of modelling and understanding
the social world is particularly
favoured in many functionalist
theories.
102
‫استفاده از قياسهاي مكانيكي و زيستي‬
‫به عنوان ابزار مدلسازي و شناخت‬
‫جهان مورد توجه خاص بسياري از‬
‫نظريه پردازان كاركردگرا مي باشد‪.‬‬
‫‪103‬‬
Put very crudely, therefore, the
formation of the functionalist
paradigm can be understood in
terms of the interaction of three
sets of intellectual forces, as
illustrated in figure 3.2.
104
‫بنابراين‪ ،‬به بيان خيلي خام‪ ،‬مي توان گفت‬
‫شكل گيري پارادايم كاركردگرا را مي توان‬
‫برحسب تعمل سه مجموعه نيروي فكري‬
‫شناخت همانگونه كه در نمودار ‪2‬ـ‪ 3‬نشان‬
‫داده شده است‪.‬‬
‫‪105‬‬
The Sociology of Radical Change
Marxist
theory
Objective
Subjective
German
Idealism
The sociology
of Regulation
Sociological
positivism
Figure 3.2 Intellectual influences upon the functionalist
106
Of these
sociological
positivism has been
the most influential.
107
‫از ميان اين نيروهاي فكري‪،‬‬
‫سنت اثبات گرائي جامعه‬
‫شناس ي بيشترين تأثير را‬
‫داشته است‪.‬‬
‫‪108‬‬
By way of overview, again some
what crudely, figure 3.3 and 3.4
illustrate the four paradigms in
terms of the constituent schools of
sociological and organizational
theory which we shall be exploring
later on.
109
‫براي مرور كلي قدري خام مي توان گفت‬
‫نمودارهاي ‪3‬ـ‪ 3‬و ‪4‬ـ‪ 3‬چهار پارادايم را بر‬
‫حسب مكتب هاي تشكيل دهندة نظرية‬
‫جامعه شناختي و نظرية سازماني كه بعدها‬
‫بررس ي خواهيم كرد را نشان مي دهد‪.‬‬
‫‪110‬‬
As will be apparent, most
organization theorists, industrial
sociologists, psychologists and
industrial relations theorists,
approach their subject from within
the bounds of the functionalist
paradigm.
111
‫همان گونه كه روشن خواهد شد بيشتر نظرية‬
‫پردازان سازماني‪ ،‬جامعه شناسان صنعتي‬
‫روانشناسان و نظريه پردازان روابط صنعتي با‬
‫موضوع خود را درون مرزهاي پارادايم كاركردگرا‬
‫نزديك مي شوند‪.‬‬
‫‪112‬‬
The Interpretive Paradigm
Theorists located within the context of
the interpretive paradigm adopt an
approach consonant with the tenets of
what Burrell and Morgan have
described as the sociology of
regulation,
113
‫پارادايم تفسيري‬
‫نظريه پردازاني كه در بافت پارادايم تفسيري‬
‫قرار مي گيرند رهيافتي سازگار با اصول‬
‫آنچه كه بارل و مرگان به عنوان جامعه‬
‫شناس ي نظم دهي توصيف كرده اند‬
‫انتخاب مي كنند‪.‬‬
‫‪114‬‬
The Sociology of Radical Change
Radical Humanism
Subjective
Radical Structuralism
Anarchistic Contemporary
S
Russian
Individualism Mediterranean
French
O
social
Marxism
Existentialism
L
Theory
Critical
I
Conflict Theory
Objective
Theory
P
S phenomenology
Integrative
Social
I
theory
System
Hermeneutics
S
Interactionism
Theory
M
Phenomenological and social action
objectivesm
sociology
theory
Interpretive Sociology
Functionalist Sociology
The Sociology of Regulation
Figure 3.3. The four sociological paradigms
115
The Sociology of Radical Change
Anti
Organization
Theory
Radical
Organization
Theory
Subjective
Objective
Ethnomethodology
and
Phenomenological
symbolic
Interactionism
pluralism
Action Theories of Social
Objectivism
frame of bureaucratic system
reference dysfunctions Theory
The Sociology of Regulation
Figure 3.4 The main schools of organizational analysis
116
Though its subjectivist
approach to the analysis of
the social world makes its
links this sociology often
implicit rather than explicit.
117
‫هر چند رهيافت ذهني گراي آن در تحليل‬
‫جهان اجتماعي رابطة آنرا با اين جامعه‬
‫شناس ي اغلب به جاي اينكه از صراحت‬
‫برخوردار باشد يك التزام ضمني و تلويحي‬
‫است‪.‬‬
‫‪118‬‬
The interpretive
paradigm is informed by
a concern to
understand the world as
it is,
119
‫پارادايم تفسيري با علقه اي‬
‫به شناخت جهان آن گونه كه‬
‫هست شكل گرفته است‪.‬‬
‫‪120‬‬
To understand the
fundamental nature of
the social world at the
level of subjective
experience.
121
‫براي شناخت ماهيت‬
‫بنيادي جهان اجتماعي‬
‫در سطح تجربة ذهني‬
‫‪122‬‬
It seeks explanation within the
realm of individual
consciousness and subjectivity,
within the frame of reference of
the participant as opposed to the
observer of action.
123
‫پارادايم تفسيري در جستجوي توصيف‬
‫در درون قلمرو خود آگاهي فردي و‬
‫ذهنيت گرايي‪ ،‬در چهارچوب مراجعاتي‬
‫فرد شركت كننده است تا مشاهده گر‬
‫عمل‬
‫‪124‬‬
In its approach to social
science it tends to be
nominalist,
antipositivist, and
ideographic.
125
‫پارادايم تفسيري در برخورد با‬
‫علوم اجتماعي گرايش به نام‬
‫انگار‪ ،‬غير اثبات گر‪ ،‬اختيارگرا‬
‫و ايده انگار دارد‪.‬‬
‫‪126‬‬
It sees the social world as
an emergent social
process which is created
by the individuals
concerned.
127
‫جهان اجتماعي را به عنوان يك‬
‫فراگرد اجتماعي پديدار شونده‬
‫مي بيند كه توسط افراد علقه‬
‫مند ايجاد شده است‪.‬‬
‫‪128‬‬
Social reality, insofar as it is
recognized to have any
existence outside the
consciousness of any single
individual,
129
‫واقعيت اجتماعي تا آنجايي كه‬
‫شناخته شده‪ ،‬اگر وجودي‬
‫خارجي از خودآگاهي هر فرد‬
‫داشته باشد‪.‬‬
‫‪130‬‬
Is regarded as being little
more than a network of
assumptions and inter
subjectively shared
meanings.
131
‫به عنوان كمي بيش از يك شبكه‬
‫مفروضات و معاني مشترك ميان‬
‫ذهنيت گرايي در نظر گرفته مي‬
‫شود‪.‬‬
‫‪132‬‬
Interpretive philosophers
and sociologists seek to
understand the very basis
and source of social
reality.
133
‫فلسفه و جامعه شناسان‬
‫تفسيري در جستجوي شناخت‬
‫بنيان دقيق و منبع واقعيت‬
‫اجتماعي هستند‪.‬‬
‫‪134‬‬
They often delve into the
depths of human
consciousness and
subjectivity in their quest for
the fundamental meanings
which underlie social life,
135
‫آنها اغلب در اعماق خودآگاهي انسان‬
‫غور مي كنند و ذهنيت گرايي در تلش‬
‫آنها براي معاني بنيادي كه زير بناي‬
‫زندگي اجتماعي را تشكيل مي دهد ديده‬
‫مي شود‪.‬‬
‫‪136‬‬
Interpretive sociology is
concerned with
understanding the
essence of the
everyday world.
137
‫جامعه شناس ي تفسيري به‬
‫شناخت اساس جهان‬
‫روزمره علقه مند است‪.‬‬
‫‪138‬‬
In terms of the analytical schema it
is underwritten by an involvement
with issues relating to the nature of
status quo, social order, consensus,
social integration and cohesion,
solidarity and actuality.
139
‫براساس طرح تحليلي بارل و مرگان‪ ،‬اين جامعه‬
‫شناس ي خود را به درگيري در مباحث مربوط‬
‫به ماهيت وضع موجود‪ ،‬نظم اجتماعي‪،‬‬
‫توافق انسجام و تلفيق اجتماعي‪ ،‬همبستگي و‬
‫فعليت متعهد مي داند‪.‬‬
‫‪140‬‬
The interpretive
paradigm is the direct
product of the German
idealist tradition of
social thought.
141
‫پارادايم تفسيري محصول‬
‫مستقيم سنت تفكر اجتماعي‬
‫ايده آليست آملاني است‪.‬‬
‫‪142‬‬
Its foundations were laid in
the work of Kant and reflect
a social philosophy which
emphasises the essentially
spiritual nature of the social
world.
143
‫اركان اين پارادايم در كار كانت پايه‬
‫ريزي گرديد و نوعي فلسفة اجتماعي را‬
‫ا‬
‫نشان مي دهد كه اساسا بر ماهيت‬
‫معنوي جهان اجتماعي تأكيد مي‬
‫كند‪.‬‬
‫‪144‬‬
Figures 3.3 and 3.4 illustrate
the manner in which the
paradigm has been explored as
far as our present interest in
social theory and the study
organizations is concerned.
145
‫تا جائي كه به علقة فعلي ما در نظرية‬
‫اجتماعي و مطالعة سازمانها مربوط مي‬
‫شود‪ ،‬نمودارهاي شمارة ‪3‬ـ‪ 3‬و ‪4‬ـ‪ 3‬شيوة‬
‫تحقيقات انجام شده دربارة اين پارادايم را‬
‫نشان مي دهد‪.‬‬
‫‪146‬‬
Whilst there have been a small
number of attempts to study
organizational concepts and
situations from this point of view,
The paradigm has not generated a
precise organizational theory.
147
‫از آنجايي كه تلش هاي محدودي براي‬
‫مطالعة مفاهيم و موقعيت هاي سازماني از‬
‫نقطه نظر اين پارادايم انجام شده است‪،‬‬
‫اين پارادايم به معناي دقيق نظرية سازماني‬
‫چنداني به وجود نياورده است‪.‬‬
‫‪148‬‬
‫داليل موجهي براي اين امر وجود دارد‪.‬‬
‫اصول پارادايم تفسيري وجود سازمانها‬
‫را در معنايي غير از معناي مفهومي‬
‫مورد ترديد قرار مي دهد‪.‬‬
‫‪149‬‬
‫بنابراين مفهوم اين پارادايم‬
‫براي مطالعة سازمانها يك‬
‫مفهوم بسيار بنيادي است‪.‬‬
‫‪150‬‬
‫اين پارادايم روايي پيش فرضهاي هستي‬
‫شناختي رهيافتهاي كاركردگرا در جامعه‬
‫شناس ي بطور عام و در مطالعه‬
‫سازمانها را به طور خاص مورد چالش‬
‫قرار مي دهد‪.‬‬
‫‪151‬‬
‫پارادايم انسان گراي‬
‫بنيادي‬
Radical humanist
paradigm
152
‫پارادايم انسان گراي بنيادي بنا‬
‫به تعريف به ايجاد جامعه‬
‫شناس ي تغيير بنيادي از نقطه‬
‫نظر ذهني گرا توجه دارد‪.‬‬
‫‪153‬‬
‫اين پارادايم مانند رهيافت پارادايم‬
‫تفسيري‪ ،‬جهان اجتماعي را از ديدگاهي‬
‫متمايل به نام انگاري‪ ،‬غير اثبات گرايي‪،‬‬
‫اختيار گرايي و ايده انگاري مي نگرد‪.‬‬
‫‪154‬‬
‫ولي چهار چوب مرجع اين پارادايم به‬
‫ديدگاهي از جامعه تأكيد مي كند كه بر‬
‫اهميت طرد كردن يا رفتن فراسوي‬
‫محدوديت هاي ترتيبات اجتماعي‬
‫موجود پايبند است‪.‬‬
‫‪155‬‬
‫يكي از اساس ي ترين مفاهيمي كه زيربناي كل‬
‫اين پارادايم را تشكيل مي دهد اين است‬
‫كه آگاهي انسان مقهور روساختهاي‬
‫ايدئولوژيكي كه انسان با آنها تعامل دارد‬
‫مي شود‪.‬‬
‫‪156‬‬
‫و اين روساختها باعث ايجاد‬
‫حائل شناختي ميان انسان و‬
‫آگاهي واقعي او مي شود‪.‬‬
‫‪157‬‬
‫اين حائل‪ ،‬حائل از خود بيگانگي‬
‫يا آگاهي كاذب است كه مانع‬
‫ارضاي واقعي انسان مي شود‪.‬‬
‫‪158‬‬
‫عمده ترين توجه نظريه پردازاني كه از طريق اين‬
‫پارادايم وارد بحث در مقولة انساني مي شوند‬
‫رها سازي انسان از محدوديت هايي است كه‬
‫ترتيبات اجتماعي موجود فرا روي پيشرفت او‬
‫قرار مي دهد‪.‬‬
‫‪159‬‬
‫پارادايم انسان گراي بنيادي بر‬
‫تغيير بنيادي‪ ،‬شيوه هاي سلطه‪،‬‬
‫رها سازي‪ ،‬محروميت و امكان‬
‫تأكيد مي كند‪.‬‬
‫‪160‬‬
‫مفاهيم تضاد ساختاري و تناقض نمود‬
‫برجسته و بارزي در اين ديدگاه ندارند‬
‫زيرا آنها ويژگي ديدگاه هاي عيني گراي‬
‫جهان اجتماعي هستند‪.‬‬
‫‪161‬‬
‫پارادايم ساختار گراي بنيادي‬
Radical
stracturalist
paradigm
162
‫اگرچه اين پارادايم در رهيافت خود‬
‫شباهت هاي زيادي با رهيافت نظرية‬
‫كاركردگرا دارد‪ ،‬اما بسوي اهداف‬
‫متفاوتي پيش مي رود‪.‬‬
‫‪163‬‬
Radical structuralism is
committed to radical change,
emancipation and potentiality, In
an analysis which emphasizes
structural conflict, modes of
domination, contradiction and
deprivation.
164
‫ساختارگرايي بنيادي در تحليلي كه بر‬
‫تضاد ساختاري‪ ،‬شيوه هاي سلطه‪،‬‬
‫تضاد و محروميت تأكيد مي كند به‬
‫تغيير بنيادي‪ ،‬رها سازي و امكان پايبند‬
‫است‪.‬‬
‫‪165‬‬
It approaches these general
concerns from a standpoint
which tends to be realist,
positivist, determinist and
nomothetic.
166
‫اين پارادايم‬
‫از طريق نقطه نظري كه متمايل به واقع‬
‫گرايي‪ ،‬اثبات گرايي‪ ،‬جبر گرايي و قانون‬
‫بنيادي است وارد بحث در مقوله هاي‬
‫عمومي فوق مي شود‪.‬‬
‫‪167‬‬
Where as the radical
humanists forge their
perspective by focusing upon
“consciousness” as the basis
for a radical critique of
society,
168
‫در حالي كه انسان گرايان بنيادي‬
‫ديدگاه خود را با تأكيد بر آگاهي به‬
‫عنوان مبنايي براي نقد بنيادي‬
‫جامعه قوام مي بخشند‪.‬‬
‫‪169‬‬
The radical structuralists
concentrate upon
structural relationships
within a realist social
world.
170
‫ساختار گرايان بنيادي بر روابط‬
‫ساختاري در جهان اجتماعي واقع‬
‫گرا توجه دارند‪.‬‬
‫‪171‬‬
They emphasise the fact
that radical change is built
into the very nature and
structure of contemporary
society,
172
‫آنها بر اين حقيقت تأكيد مي‬
‫كنند كه تغيير بنيادي درون خود‬
‫ماهيت و ساختار جامعة امروزي‬
‫نهاده شده است‪.‬‬
‫‪173‬‬
And they seek to provide
explanations of the basic
interrelationships with in
the context of total social
formations.
174
‫و در صدد هستند تبين هايي را‬
‫براي روابط متقابل اساس ي‬
‫درون بافت شكل بندي هاي كلي‬
‫اجتماعي ارائه دهند‪.‬‬
‫‪175‬‬
Common to all theorists within the
paradigm, is the view that
contemporary society is
characterised by fundamental
conflicts which generate radical
change through political and
economic crises.
176
‫وجه مشترك تمام نظريه پردازان اين‬
‫ديدگاه آن است كه جامعة كنوني را مي‬
‫توان با تضاد هاي بنيادي حاصل از‬
‫بحران هاي سياس ي و اقتصادي تغيير‬
‫بنيادي توصيف كرد‪.‬‬
‫‪177‬‬
It is through such conflict and
change that the
emancipation of men from
the social structures in which
they live is seen as coming
about.
178
‫از طريق چنين تضاد و تغييرهاست‬
‫كه رهايي انسان از ساختار هاي‬
‫اجتماعي كه در آن زندگي مي كند‬
‫تحقق مي يابد‪.‬‬
‫‪179‬‬
‫نمودار هاي ‪3‬ـ‪ 3‬و ‪4‬ـ‪ 3‬مروري كلي بر مكاتب‬
‫فكري درون اين پارادايم دارد اين پارادايم كه‬
‫درون ديدگاه واقع گراي جهان اجتماعي قرار‬
‫دارد كاربرد هاي ضمني مهمي براي مطالعة‬
‫سازمان ها دارد‪.‬‬
‫‪180‬‬
‫ ريشه ها‬: ‫جامعه شناس ي كاركردگرا‬
‫و تاريخچة فكري‬
Functionalist Sociology :
Origins and Intellectual
Tradition
181
The mode of social
theorising which
characterises this
paradigm has a
long history.
182
‫شيوة نظريه پردازي اجتماعي يي‬
‫كه توصيف كنندة اين پارادايم‬
‫است تاريخچة طوالني دارد‪.‬‬
‫‪183‬‬
As Raymond Aron has
suggested, Comte may be
regarded, first and foremost,
as “the sociologist of human
and social unity” (Aron ,
1965 , p. 5q).
184
‫همچنان كه ريمون آرو ن مطرح كرده‬
‫ا‬
‫است مي توان كنت را اصوال به عنوان‬
‫جامعه شناس وحدت انساني و‬
‫اجتماعي تلقي كرد‪.‬‬
‫‪185‬‬
He believed that knowledge and society
was in a process of evolutionary transition,
and that the function of sociology was to
understand the necessary, indispensable
and inevitable course of history in such a
way as to promote the realisation of a new
social order.
186
‫او معتقد بود كه دانش و جامعه در فرايندي از‬
‫انتقال تكاملي است و وظيفه جامعه شناس اين‬
‫بود كه نقش الزم‪ ,‬حياتي و اجتناب ناپذير تاريخ‬
‫را به شيوه اي كه تحقق نظم اجتماعي جديد را‬
‫افزايش دهد بشناسد‪.‬‬
‫‪187‬‬
From Comte’s point of
view this evolution
passed through three
stages of development
188
‫از نظر كنت‪ ,‬اين تكامل‬
‫از سه مرحلة رشد عبور‬
‫كرد‪.‬‬
‫‪189‬‬
“the Theological, or
fictitious; the
Metaphysical, or abstract;
and the scientific, or
positive”.
190
‫”مرحلة رباني يا تخيلي‪ ,‬مرحلة‬
‫مابعدالطبيعه‪,‬يا انتزاع‪ ,‬ومرحلة‬
‫علمي‪ ,‬يا اثباتي‪“,‬‬
‫‪191‬‬
He defined the
positive mode of
thought in the
following terms:
192
‫وي شيوة اثباتي تفكر را‬
‫اين گونه تعريف كرد‪:‬‬
‫‪193‬‬
“In the final, the positive
state, the mind has
given over the vain
search after absolute
notions,
194
‫”در مرحلة پاياني‪ ,‬يعني حالت‬
‫اثباتي‪ ,‬ذهن تحقيق بيهودة وراي‬
‫عقائد مطلق‪“,‬‬
‫‪195‬‬
The origin and destination of the
universe and the causes of
phenomena, and applies itself to
the study of their laws, I.e. their
invariable relations of succession
and resemblance.
196
‫منشاء و غايت جهان و علت پديده ها را كنار‬
‫گذاشته و توجه خود را به بررس ي قوانين آنها‪,‬‬
‫يعني روابط تغييرناپذيري كه در توالي و‬
‫همانندي آنها مشاهده مي شود معطوف مي‬
‫نمايد‪.‬‬
‫‪197‬‬
Reasoning and
observation duly
combined are the means
of this knowledge (Comte,
1853, vol. I, pp. 1-2).
198
‫استدالل و مشاهده كه به‬
‫نحوي مطلوب تركيب شده اند‬
‫ابزار اين دانش مي باشند‪.‬‬
‫‪199‬‬
Comte’s vision was of a
world in which scientific
“rationality” was in the
ascendancy, underlying the
basis of a well regulated
social order.
200
‫بينش كنت جهاني بود كه در آن‬
‫”عقلنيت“ علمي تفوق داشت و‬
‫مبنايي را براي نظم اجتماعي خوب‬
‫تنظيم شده شكل مي داد‪.‬‬
‫‪201‬‬
Comte believed that all
sciences passed through his
three phases of development
but did so at different times
according to their complexity.
202
‫كنت معتقد بود كه تمام علوم از مراحل‬
‫سه گانة تحول به ترتيبي كه وي بيان كرده‬
‫است مي گذارند اما براساس پيچيدگي‬
‫علوم اين فرايند در زمانهاي متفاوتي‬
‫صورت مي گيرد‪.‬‬
‫‪203‬‬
For Comte the
“positive” approach
provided the key to
man’s destiny,
204
‫به عقيدة كنت رهيافت اثباتي‬
‫كليدي را برا ي سرنوشت انسان‬
‫فراهم مي كند‪.‬‬
‫‪205‬‬
Or, as Aron has put it, the
“one type of society which is
absolutely valid” and at which
“all mankind must arrive”
(Aron, 1965, p. 59)
206
‫يا همچنان كه آرون گفته است اين‬
‫رهيافت خود نوعي جامعه است كه‬
‫ا‬
‫كامل رواست‪ .‬و تمام افراد بشر بايد‬
‫به آن برسند‪.‬‬
‫‪207‬‬
Comte thus laid the
foundations for the mode of
social theorizing
characteristic of the
functionalist paradigm.
208
‫كنت پايه هاي شيوة نظريه‬
‫پردازان اجتماعي را كه بيانگر‬
‫پارادايم كاركرد گرايي است بنا‬
‫نهاد‪.‬‬
‫‪209‬‬
Based upon the “positive”
model of the natural
sciences, utilizing
mechanical and organic
analogies,
210
‫وي براساس مدل اثباتي علوم‬
‫طبيعي‪ ,‬با استفاده از قياسهاي‬
‫مكانيكي و ارگانيكي ‪.‬‬
‫‪211‬‬
Distinguishing between statics
(structure) and dynamics (process),
and advocating methodological
holism,Comte initiated important
ground rules for a sociological
enterprise geared to an explanation of
social order and regulation.
212
‫تمايز ميان ايستائي (ساختار) و پويائي (فراگرد)‬
‫را تشخيص داد و باحمايت از روش شناس ي كل‬
‫گرايي‪ ,‬اصول مهمي را براي سازمان جامعه‬
‫شناختي ابداع كرد با تبين نظم و تنظيم‬
‫اجتماعي توافق داشت‪.‬‬
‫‪213‬‬
Herbert spencer’s principal
contribution was to develop
in a more detailed and
extensive manner the
implications of the biological
analogy for sociology.
214
‫هربرت اسپنسر (‪ )1820  1903‬تأثير‬
‫عمده اي بر پيشرفتهاي جامعه شناس ي در ده هاي‬
‫‪ 1870‬و ‪ 1880‬داشت سهم اصلي وي‪ ,‬به عنوان يك‬
‫”اثبات گرا“ در مكتب كنت ‪ ,‬اين بود كه به شيوه هاي‬
‫مفصلتر و گسترده تر اثرات قياس زيست شناس ي را‬
‫براي جامعه شناس ي مطرح كند‪.‬‬
‫‪215‬‬
Influenced by the work of
Darwin, he saw the study
of sociology as the study
of evolution in its most
complex form.
216
‫او كه از كار داروين تأثير پذيرفته بود‪,‬‬
‫مطالعة جامعه شناس ي را به عنوان‬
‫مطالعة تكامل در پيچيده ترين شكلش‬
‫مي دانست‪.‬‬
‫‪217‬‬
His work did much to lay
the foundations for the
analysis of social
phenomena in terms of
“structure” and “junction”,
218
‫كار او تأثير زيادي در پايه گذاري‬
‫شالوده هاي تحليل پديده هاي‬
‫اجتماعي بر حسب”ساختار“ و‬
‫”فراگرد“ داشت‪.‬‬
‫‪219‬‬
Elaborating Comte’s
notion of totality and the
need to understand the
parts in the context of
the whole.
220
‫كه تفصيل توضيح‪ ,‬همان‬
‫كليت كنت و درك اجزاء در‬
‫قالب كل مي باشد‪.‬‬
‫‪221‬‬
In this respect, however, he was
more of a methodological
individualist than Comte,
maintaining that the properties of
the aggregate are determined by
the properties of its units.
222
‫به هر حال‪ ,‬در اين خصوص ‪ ,‬وي از نظر‬
‫روش شناختي بيشتر از كنت ‪ ,‬فردگرا بود و‬
‫معتقد بود كه خواص كل براساس‬
‫خصوصيات واحدهاي تشكيل دهندة آن‬
‫تعيين مي گردد‪.‬‬
‫‪223‬‬
Many of the notions
underpinning what we
now know as structural
functionalism derive from
spencer’s work.
224
‫بسياري ا زمفاهيم زيربنائي آنچه كه‬
‫ماآن را به عنوان كاكردگرايي‬
‫ساختاري مي شناسيم از كار‬
‫اسپنسر گرفته شده است‪.‬‬
‫‪225‬‬
In particular the parallels which he
drew between societies and
organisms, and the view that the
parts of society function in ways
which contribute to the maitenance
of the whole, have been highly
influential.
226
‫ا‬
‫مخصوصا‪ ,‬مشابهت هايي را كه وي بين جوامع و‬
‫ارگانيزمها ترسيم كرده است و اين ديدگاه كه‬
‫اجزاي جامعه به شيوه هايي عمل مي كنند كه‬
‫باعث بقاي كل مي شود بسيار تعيين كننده و‬
‫اثرگذار بوده اند‪.‬‬
‫‪227‬‬
Spencer’s focus of attention was
primarily , though not exclusively
, directed at the level of the
organism rather than the
species. Societies were seen as
super – organisms
228
‫توجه محوري اسپنسر به هنگامي كه بين جهان‬
‫ا‬
‫زيستي و جهان اجتماعي مقايسه مي كند عمدتا‬
‫ا‬
‫هر چند نه انحصارا معطوف به سطح ارگانيسم‬
‫است تا گونه ها‪ .‬به جوامع به صورت‬
‫”ابرارگانيسم ها“ مي نگردد‪.‬‬
‫‪229‬‬
This organismic frame of
reference emphasises the
unity , interdependence
and ordered nature of
constituent relationships.
230
‫اين چهارچوب مرجع ارگانيسمي بر‬
‫وحدت ‪ ,‬وابستگي متقابل و ماهيت‬
‫منظم روابط تشكيل دهندة آن‬
‫تأكيد مي كند‪.‬‬
‫‪231‬‬
A some what different
view emerges from an
analysis conducted at the
level of the specicies.
232
‫از تحليلي كه در سطح گونه ها‬
‫انجام مي گيرد ديدگاهي تا حدي‬
‫متفاوت تجلي مي يابد‪.‬‬
‫‪233‬‬
As Buckley has noted,”the particular
level of biological organization that is
chosen as the basis for a model of
society determines (or may be
determined by) whether we see society
as pre - eminently cooperative or
basically conflictual.
234
‫همچنان كه با كلي متذكر شده است ”سطح مشخص ي از‬
‫سازمان زيستي كه به عنوان پايه براي مدل جامعه انتخاب‬
‫ا‬
‫مي شود مشخص مي كند (يا احتماال بر اين اساس‬
‫ا‬
‫مشخص مي شود) كه آيا جامعه را عمدتا به عنوان نظام‬
‫ا‬
‫بازيگر ببينيم يا به صورت نظامي كه اساسا هم ستيزانه‬
‫است در نظر بگيريم‪.‬‬
‫‪235‬‬
If society is like an
organism, then its parts
co-operate and do not
compete in a struggle for
survival,
236
‫اگر جامعه به صورت ارگانيسم در نظر‬
‫گرفته شود ‪ ,‬در اين صورت اجزاي آن با‬
‫هم همكاري مي كنند و در جهت تنازع بقاء‬
‫با هم رقابت نمي كنند‪,‬‬
‫‪237‬‬
But if society is like an
ecological aggregate, then
the Darwinian (or Hobbesian)
model of competitive struggle
is more applicable.
238
‫اما اگر به صورت يك مجموعة بوم‬
‫شناختي نگريسته شود در اين صورت مدل‬
‫دارويني (ياهابزي) در مورد تنازع رقابتي‬
‫مصداق پيدا مي كند‪.‬‬
‫‪239‬‬
Whilst spencer did draw parallels
between the evolution of
societies and the evolution of
species – emphasizing the role
of conflict , including warfare , as
a force of change 240
‫اگرچه اسپنسر بين تكامل جوامع و تكامل‬
‫گونه ها مشابهت هايي ترسيم كرده ‪ ,‬و بر‬
‫نقش تضاد ‪ ,‬از جمله جنگ ‪ ,‬به عنوان‬
‫عاملي جهت تغيير اجتماعي تأكيد مي كرد ـ‬
‫‪241‬‬
It was within the context of a
theoretical perspective which
emphasized the inevitable
march towards more
complex and integrated
social systems.
242
‫اما در قالب ديدگاه نظري بر‬
‫پيشروي به سوي نظامهاي اجتماعي‬
‫بسيار پيچيده و منسجم تأكيد مي‬
‫نمود‪.‬‬
‫‪243‬‬
Industrial society
was viewed at its
most advanced
form.
244
‫جوامع صنعتي در پيشرفته‬
‫ترين شكل خود در نظر‬
‫گرفته مي شدند‪.‬‬
‫‪245‬‬
As parsons has
commented,”spencer’s
god was Evolution,
sometimes also called
progress.
246
‫همچنان كه پارسونز اظهار‬
‫داشته است تكامل خداي‬
‫اسپنسر بود ‪ ,‬كه گاهي پيشرفت‬
‫هم مي ناميد‪.‬‬
‫‪247‬‬
Spencer was one of the
most vociferous in his
devotions to this god, but
by no means alone
among the faithful.
248
‫اسپنسر يكي از جنجالي ترين‬
‫افراد وفادار به اين خدا بود ‪ ,‬اما‬
‫به هيچ وجه تنها طرفدار آن‬
‫نبود‪.‬‬
‫‪249‬‬
Emile Durkheim (1858 – 1917)
explicitly recognized the
influence of comte and spencer
upon his sociological thought
250
‫اميل دوركهايم (‪)1858 – 1917‬‬
‫ا‬
‫صريحا به تأثير كنت و اسپنسر بر‬
‫تفكر جامعه شناس ي خود اعتراف‬
‫مي كند‪.‬‬
‫‪251‬‬
But he approached
their work in a
critical vein.
252
‫اما وي به كار اين دو از‬
‫نگاهي انتقادي وارد مي‬
‫شود‪.‬‬
‫‪253‬‬
As Lukes (1973) has
noted , comte’s influence
on Durkheim was a
formative rather than a
continuing one,
254
‫همچنان كه كوكس (‪ )1973‬متذكر‬
‫شده است ‪ ,‬تأثير كنت بر دو ركهايم‬
‫تأثير ابتدايي است نه تأثيري مداوم‪,‬‬
‫‪255‬‬
The extension of the
“positive” , or scientific
attitude to the study of
society probably being
most important.
256
‫كه در اين ميان گسترش نگرش‬
‫”اثباتي“ يا علمي او نسبت به‬
‫ا‬
‫مطالعة جامعه احتماال مهمتر از‬
‫همه چيز است‪.‬‬
‫‪257‬‬
Although Durkheim specifically
dissociated himself from many of
comte’s beliefs, he was firmly
influenced by the comtian notion of
a concrete social reality capable of
rational scientific investigation.
258
‫اگرچه دوركهايم به طور اخص خود را از‬
‫بسياري از عقائد كنت كنار مي كشيد ‪ ,‬اما‬
‫ا‬
‫شديدا از عقيدة طرفداران كنت دربارة وجود‬
‫واقعيت اجتماعي مشخص كه قابليت تحقيق‬
‫علمي عقلني را دارد تأثير پذيرفته بود‪.‬‬
‫‪259‬‬
Durkheim believed that
causal analysis was
required in addition to
what we would now call
functional analysis:
260
‫دوركهايم معتقد بود كه علوه بر‬
‫چيزي كه ما امروزه تحت عنوان‬
‫تحليل كاركردي مي شناسيم تحليل‬
‫علي نيز الزم است‪.‬‬
‫‪261‬‬
“to show now a fact is
useful is not to explain
how it originated or why
it is what it is.
262
‫نشان دادن مفيد بودن يك حقيقت اين‬
‫نكته را بيان نمي كند كه آن حقيقت‬
‫چگونه بوجود آمده است يا اينكه چرا‬
‫اين حقيقت به آن گونه كه االن هست‬
‫مي باشد‪.‬‬
‫‪263‬‬
The uses which it
serves pre-suppose the
specific properties
characterizina it but do
not create them …
264
‫فوايدي كه يك حقيقت ايجاد مي كند ويژگيهاي‬
‫خاص ي را كه توصيف كننده آن مي باشد پيش‬
‫فرض تلقي مي كند اما اين فوائد ايجاد كننده‬
‫آن ويژگيها نيستند ‪...‬‬
‫‪265‬‬
When , then , the explanation of
a social phenomenon is
undertaken , we must seek
separately the efficient cause
which produces it and the
function it fulfills.
266
‫لذا ‪ ,‬زماني كه به تبيين پديدة اجتماعي مي‬
‫پردازيم بايد علت وافي كه پديده را به وجود‬
‫آورده و كاركردي را كه پديده برآورده مي‬
‫كند جداگانه بررس ي نمائيم‪( .‬دوركهايم‪,‬‬
‫‪ , 1938‬ص‪.)89‬‬
‫‪267‬‬
In terms of method ,
therefore , Durkheim ,
following comte and
spencer , borrowed freely
from the natural sciences
268
‫بنابراين ‪ ,‬دوركهايم به تبعيت از‬
‫كنت و اسپنسر روش خود را به‬
‫صورتي آزاد از علوم طبيعي‬
‫اقتباس كرد‪.‬‬
‫‪269‬‬
A methodological holist ,
distinguishing between causes ,
functions and structures , he
added much in terms of
sophistication to the thought of
these earlier theorists,
270
‫او به عنوان كل گرا در روش شناس ي ‪ ,‬بين‬
‫علل ‪ ,‬كاركردها و ساختارها تمايز قائل شد‪.‬‬
‫براي پيشرفت افكار اين نظريه پردازان‬
‫پيش از خود نكات زيادي به آنها افزوده‬
‫است‪.‬‬
‫‪271‬‬
And as will become apparent
later , provided a firm
foundation for subsequent
work within the context of the
functionalist paradigm.
272
‫ا‬
‫وآنچنان كه بعدا روشن خواهد شد‪,‬‬
‫شابوده هاي مستحكمي را براي‬
‫كارآتي در زمينة پارادايم كاركردگرايي‬
‫فراهم كرده است‪.‬‬
‫‪273‬‬
Durkheim’s sociology thus
reflects a power full
predilection for “order” as
the predominant force in
social affairs.
274
‫جامعه شناس ي دوركهايم‬
‫منعكس كنندة تمايلي قوي به ”‬
‫نظم“ به عنوان يك نيروي غالب‬
‫در امور اجتماعي است‪.‬‬
‫‪275‬‬
Judged by the yardstick by which
we have defined the “sociology of
regulation” (a concern for “the
status quo” , “social order” ,
“consensus” , “social integration
and cohesion” , “solidarity” , “need
satisfaction” and “activity”).
276
‫اگر براساس معياري كه باآن ”جامعه شناس ي‬
‫تنظيم“ را تعريف كرديم قضاوت كنيم (توجه‬
‫به وضع موجود‪ ,‬نظم اجتماعي توافق‪ ,‬تلفيق‬
‫اجتماعي و انسجام ‪ ,‬همبستگي ‪ ,‬ارضاي نياز ‪ ,‬و‬
‫فعاليت) روشن خواهد شد‪.‬‬
‫‪277‬‬
Durkheim emerges as a
sociologist as a
sociologist of “order” and
“regulation” par
excellence.
278
‫كه دوركهايم جامعه شناس ي‬
‫است به تمام معني علقه مند‬
‫به ” نظم “و ” نظم دهي “‪.‬‬
‫‪279‬‬
A fuller account of the origins
of the functionalist paradigm
would call for the analysis of
the thought of a number of
other social theorists
280
‫ارائه شرح كاملتر از خاستگاههاي‬
‫پارادايم كاركردگرا ‪ ,‬تحليل تفكر‬
‫تعداد ديگري از نشريه پردازان‬
‫اجتماعي را مي طلبد‪.‬‬
‫‪281‬‬
Alfred Marshall , Max Weber
, Vilfredo pareto , John
Stuart Mill , George Simmel
George Herbert Mead and
William James , among
others
282
‫از ميان آنها افرادي از قبيل آلفرد مارشال‪,‬‬
‫ماكس وبر ‪ ,‬ويلفرد و پارتو ‪ ,‬جان استورات‬
‫ميل ‪ ,‬جرج زيمل ‪ ,‬جرج هربرت ميد و ويليام‬
‫جيمز استحقاق بيشتري دارند‪.‬‬
‫‪283‬‬
All have a strong claim
to be considered here
along with the founding
fathers.
284
‫كه به عنوان مؤسسين‬
‫اين پارادايم مورد توجه‬
‫قرار گيرند‪.‬‬
‫‪285‬‬
Burrell and Morgan conclude
their discussion of the
foundations of the functionalist
paradigm here with a discussion
of certain aspects of the work of
pareto.
286
‫بارل و مرگان در اينجا بحث‬
‫مباني پارادايم كاركردگرائي را با‬
‫توضيح بعض ي از ابعاد كار پارتو‬
‫به پايان مي برند‪.‬‬
‫‪287‬‬
Vilfredo pareto (1848 – 1923) came to
sociology from economics , with a view
to supplementing the scientific theories
of economics , based on their
assumptions of logical and rational
conduct , with a scientific theory of nonlogical or non-rational conduct
288
‫ويلفرد و پارتو (‪ )1848 – 1923‬از اقتصاد پا‬
‫به حوزة جامعه شناس ي گذاشت با اين ديدگاه‬
‫كه نظريه هاي علمي اقتصاد ار كه مبتني بر‬
‫پيشفرضهاي رفتار عقلئي و منطقي آنها است‪.‬‬
‫با نظرية علمي رفتار غير عقلئي و غير منطقي‬
‫تكميل كند‪.‬‬
‫‪289‬‬
Among the main features of his
work which are relevant for
comment here are the that after
establishing the extent and
significance of the non-logical in
social affairs,
290
‫از مشخصه هاي عمدة كار پارتو كه ذكر‬
‫آن در اينجا روا مي نمايد اين حقيقت است‬
‫كه وي بعد از اثبات اهميت و گسترة‬
‫رفتارهاي غيرعقلني در امور اجتماعي‪,‬‬
‫‪291‬‬
He proceeded to
explain it terms of a
social systems model
based upon the notion
of equilibrium.
292
‫درصدد برآمد آنها را بر حسب مدل‬
‫نظام هاي اجتماعي كه بر مفهوم‬
‫تعادل بنا شده است تبيين كند‪.‬‬
‫‪293‬‬
His view of society was that of a
system of interrelated parts
which , though in a continual
state of surface flux , were also
in a state of unchanging
equilibrium,
294
‫ديدگاه وي دربارةجامعه ‪ ,‬ديدگاه يك نظام‬
‫متشكل از اجزاي وابسته به هم بود كه اگرچه‬
‫در حالت مداومي ا زبي ثباتي هاي ظاهري قرار‬
‫داشتند اما حالتي ا زتعادل تغيير ناپذير نيز در‬
‫آنها وجود داشت‪.‬‬
‫‪295‬‬
In that move movements
away from the equilibrium
position were counter
balanced by changes
tending to restore it.
296
‫به نحوي كه حركاتي كه آنها را از حالت‬
‫ا‬
‫تعادل دور مي كرد فورا با تغييراتي كه‬
‫درصدد بازگرداندن به اين حالت بود‬
‫تعديل مي شد‪.‬‬
‫‪297‬‬
Pareto saw in the concept
of equilibrium a useful tool
for understanding the
complexities of social life.
298
‫پارتو در مفهوم تعادل ابزار‬
‫مفيدي براي درك پيچيدگيهاي‬
‫زندگي اجتماعي مي ديد‪.‬‬
‫‪299‬‬
As far as the development of
the functionalist paradigm is
concerned , it is through the
notion of equilibrium that
pare to has had most
influence.
300
‫تا جائي كه به بررس ي روند ايجاد‬
‫پارادايم كاركردگرايي مربوط مي شود‬
‫پارتو از طريق مفهوم تعادل بيشترين‬
‫نفوذ را نصيب خود كرد‪.‬‬
‫‪301‬‬
Where as it was implicit in
many earlier social theories,
after pare to it became much
more explicit as a guiding
principle.
302
‫در حالي كه اين مفهوم در بسياري از نظريه‬
‫هاي اجتماعي پيشين يك مفهوم ضمني و‬
‫غير صريح بود‪ ,‬بعد از پارتو به صورت‬
‫بسيار صريحتر به عنوان يك اصل راهنما‬
‫مطرح گرديد‪.‬‬
‫‪303‬‬
The distinction which he
drew between the logical and
non-logical elements in
human conduct has , as we
shall see , also been of some
importance.
304
‫چنانكه به زودي خواهيم ديد‪ ,‬تمايزي‬
‫كه وي بين عناصر منطقي و غيرعقلئي‬
‫رفتار انساني قائل مي شود از اهميت‬
‫چندي نيز برخوردار بوده است‪.‬‬
‫‪305‬‬
The structure of
the paradigm
306
‫ساختار پارادايم‬
‫كاركردگرايي‬
‫‪307‬‬
The functionalist paradigm has
provided the dominant framework for
academic sociology in the twentieth
century and accounts for by far the
largest proportion of theory and
research in the field of organization
studies.
308
‫پارادايم كاركردگرايي چارچوب حاكم بر‬
‫جامعه شناس ي دانشگاهي در قرن بيستم را‬
‫فراهم كرده و بيشترين سهم نظريه ها و‬
‫تحقيقات در حوزة مطالعةسازمان را نيز به‬
‫خود اختصاص داده است‪.‬‬
‫‪309‬‬
Its structure reflects the
dominant influence of
sociological positivism , as
described in the previous
section,
310
‫ساختار اين پارادايم چنانكه در‬
‫بخش قبل توضيح داده شد‪ ,‬نفوذ‬
‫مسلط اثبات گرايي جامعه شناس ي‬
‫را منعكس مي سازد‪.‬‬
‫‪311‬‬
Fused at its junction
with the interpretive
paradigm with elements
of German idealism.
312
‫ودر محل اتصال خود با پارادايم‬
‫تفسيرگرائي ‪ ,‬عناصري از ايده‬
‫آليسم آملاني با آن تركيب مي‬
‫شود‪.‬‬
‫‪313‬‬
It contains many separate
schools of thought , each
occupying a distinctive
relationships one with
another.
314
‫اين پارادايم حاوي مكاتب فكري‬
‫متعدد و جداگانه اي است كه‬
‫هر يك رابطه متمايزي با ديگري‬
‫دارد‪.‬‬
‫‪315‬‬
Burrell and Morgan traced
these relationships in
terms of the two
dimensions which define
the paradigm
316
‫بارل و مرگان به بررس ي اين روابط‬
‫بر حسب دو بعدي كه اين پارادايم‬
‫را تعريف مي كنند پرداختند‪.‬‬
‫‪317‬‬
To facilitate this task , they
identified four broad
categories of functionalist
thought and addressed
each in turn.
318
‫براي سهولت در اين كار ‪ ,‬آنان چهار‬
‫مقولة كلي از تفكر كاركردگرايي را‬
‫مشخص كرده و به توضيح هر يك از‬
‫آنها پرداختند‪.‬‬
‫‪319‬‬
They describe them as:
(a) Social system theory,
(b) interactionism and social
action theory,
(c) integrative theory,
(d) objectivism.
320
‫اين چهار مقوله عبارتنداز‪:‬‬
‫ب)‬
‫الف) نظرية نظام اجتماعي‪,‬‬
‫تعاملگرايي و نظرية كنش اجتماعي ج)‬
‫نظرية تلفيق گرا‬
‫د)عيني گرائي‬
‫‪321‬‬
Each of these broad categories
occupies a distinctive position within
the paradigm, as illustrated in figure
3.3 social system theory represents
a direct development of sociological
positivism in its most pure form.
322
‫همان طور يكه در نمودار ‪ 3 – 3‬نشان‬
‫داده شده است نظرية نظام اجتماعي‬
‫توسعة مستقيم اثبات گرائي جامعه‬
‫شناختي را د رخالص ترين شكل آن ارائه مي‬
‫دهد‪.‬‬
‫‪323‬‬
Adopting mechanical and
biological analogies for the study
of social affairs , it is most clearly
represented in the schools of
thought described as structural
functionalism and system theory.
324
‫اين نظريه كه قياسهاي مكانيكي و زيستي را‬
‫در بررس ي امور اجتماعي پذيرفته است‪ ,‬به‬
‫شيوه اي بسيار واضح در دو مكتب فكري‬
‫كاركردگرايي ساختاري و نظريه سيستمي‬
‫بررس ي گرديده است‪.‬‬
‫‪325‬‬
Interactionism and social action
theory is the category of thought
which directly combines elements of
sociological positivism and German
Iealism and as such can be
considered as defining the most
subjective boundary of the
326
‫تعاملگرايي و نظرية كنش اجتماعي مقوله هاي فكري‬
‫است كه عناصري از اثبات گرائي جامعه شناس ي و‬
‫ايده آليسم آملاني را به طور مستقيم تركيب كرده و به‬
‫اين ترتيب مي تواند به عنوان ذهني گراترين مرز‬
‫پارادايمي كاركردگرايي در نظر گرفته شود‪.‬‬
‫‪327‬‬
Integrative theory occupies a
central location within the
paradigm, seeking to bridge the
gap between social system
theory and interactionism.
328
‫نظرية تلفيق گرا منطقة مركزي پارادايم را‬
‫به خود اختصاص مي دهد و درصدد است‬
‫شكاف ميان نظريه سيستم اجتماعي‬
‫وتعامل گرائي را پر كند‪.‬‬
‫‪329‬‬
It is not fully committed to
either of these two categories
; it takes something from
both and contributes
something to both.
330
‫اين نظريه به هيچ يك از اين دو مقوله‬
‫ا‬
‫كامل پاي بند نيست‪ ,‬چيزي را از هر‬
‫دوي آنها مي گيرد و چيزي را در هر دو به‬
‫وديعه مي گذارد‪.‬‬
‫‪331‬‬
It is truly a brand of theory
characteristic of the middle ground, and
is reflected in the schools of thought
which we describe as conflict
functionalism , morphogenic systems
theory , Balu’s theory of exchange and
power , Mertonian theory of social and
cultural structure.
332
‫اين نظريه در واقع نظريه اي است كه ويژگيهاي حد‬
‫وسط دارد و در آن مكاتب فكري كه ما از آنها به‬
‫كاركردگرايي تضاد‪ ,‬نظرية سيستمي ريخت زائي نظريه‬
‫مبادله و قدرت بلو و نظرية ساختار اجتماعي و‬
‫فرهنگ مرتون تعبير مي كنيم منعكس شده است‪.‬‬
‫‪333‬‬
The category of thought which
we describe as objectivism
9comprising behaviourism and
abstracted empiricism) is very
closely related to social system
theory,
334
‫مقوله اي از تفكر كه ما با عنوان عيني‬
‫گرائي از آن نام مي بريم (كه خود شامل‬
‫رفتارگرائي و تجربه گرائي انتزاعي است)‬
‫ارتباط بسيار نزديكي با نظرية نظام‬
‫اجتماعي دارد‪.‬‬
‫‪335‬‬
In that it again is firmly
committed to the
tradition of sociological
positivism.
336
‫از اين جهت كه مانند آن به‬
‫تفكر اثبات گرائي جامعه‬
‫ا‬
‫شناختي كامل پايبند است‪.‬‬
‫‪337‬‬
Burrell and Morgan identify it as a
separate category, in recognition of
the fact that it reflects a particularly
extreme form of commitment to the
models and methods of the natural
sciences.
338
‫بارل و مرگان به اين جهت اين نظريه را به‬
‫صورت يك مقولة مجزا مي شناسند كه‬
‫شكل افراطي خاص ي از پايبندي به مدلها و‬
‫روشهاي علوم طبيعي در اين نظريه‬
‫مشاهده مي شود‪.‬‬
‫‪339‬‬
Behaviourism, for
example, derives from
physiological models
employed in psychology
340
‫براي مثال‪ ,‬رفتارگرايي ازمدلهاي‬
‫زيستي كه در روان شناس ي به كار‬
‫مي رود گرفته مي شود‪.‬‬
‫‪341‬‬
Abstracted empiricism is
dominated by quantitative
methodologies which
often have no distinctly
social qualities.
342
‫تجربه گرايي انتزاعي هم تحت الشعاع‬
‫روش شناختيهاي كمي مي باشد كه‬
‫ا‬
‫غالبا فاقد كيفيتهاي اجتماعي مشخص‬
‫مي باشند‪.‬‬
‫‪343‬‬
We commence our
analysis with a
consideration of social
system theory
344
‫تحليل خود را با در نظر‬
‫گرفتن نظريه سيستم‬
‫اجتماعي شروع مي كنيم‪.‬‬
‫‪345‬‬
Social System
Theory
346
‫نظريه سيستم‬
‫اجتماعي‬
‫‪347‬‬
Under this heading we consider two
schools of thought which, in many
respects, have provided the
dominant framework for analysis in
contemporary sociology – structural
functionalism and system theory.
348
‫تحت اين عنوان ما دو مكتب فكري را كه در‬
‫بسياري از جهات چهارچوب فكري غالب در‬
‫تحليل جامعه شناس ي معاصر مي باشند بررس ي‬
‫مي كنيم كه عبارتند از كاركردگرائي ساختاري و‬
‫نظرية سيستمي‪.‬‬
‫‪349‬‬
Both have had a
particularly important
impact upon the field of
organizational analysis.
350
‫هر دوي اينها تأثير‬
‫برحوزة تحليل سازماني‬
‫داشته اند‪.‬‬
‫‪351‬‬
The terms “structural
functionalism” and
“system Theory” are often
seen as interchangeable.
352
‫واژه هاي كاركرد گرايي ساختاري و‬
‫ا‬
‫نظرية سيستمي غالبا به جاي هم به‬
‫كار مي روند‪.‬‬
‫‪353‬‬
Whilst there is some
measure of justification in
equating the two as far as
the majority of current
systems applications are
concerned,
354
‫اگرچه با توجه به اكثر استعمالهاي‬
‫رايج سيستمها‪ ,‬توجيهات چندي را‬
‫مي توان در معادل قرار دادن اين‬
‫دو بيان كرد‬
‫‪355‬‬
To do so represent an
oversimplification, since systems
theory is consistent with
theoretical perspectives which
extend beyond the confines of
the functionalist paradigm.
356
‫اما اين كار يك نوع ساده انگاري بيش از حد‬
‫است‪ ,‬زيرا نظريه سيستمها با ديدگاههاي‬
‫نظري سازگاري دارد كه فراتر از محدوده‬
‫هاي پارادايم كاردكردگرايي مي رود‪.‬‬
‫‪357‬‬
However, these
remain largely
undeveloped at the
present time.
358
‫به هر حال‪ ,‬اين ديدگاهها تا‬
‫ا‬
‫اين زمان هم عمدا دست‬
‫نخورده باقي مانده اند‪.‬‬
‫‪359‬‬
We trace the
development of the two
perspectives and the
relationships which exist
between them,
360
‫ما توسعة اين دو ديدگاه‬
‫و روابط ميان آنها را‬
‫دنبال كرده‬
‫‪361‬‬
Arguing that the
similarities only exist if
they drew upon a similar
analogy, that of the
biological organism.
362
‫واستدالل خواهيم كرد كه اين مشابهتها‬
‫تنها در صورتي به وجود مي آيند كه بر‬
‫يك قياس مشابه يعني قياس ارگانيسم‬
‫زيستي مبتني گردند‬
‫‪363‬‬
Whereas structural
functionalism inevitably draw
upon this analogy, systems
theory is in principle
consistent with the use of
many others.
364
‫در حالي كه كاردكردگرايي ساختاري ناگزير‬
‫از اين قياس استفاده مي كند نظرية‬
‫ا‬
‫سيستمها اصوال با كاربرد قياسهاي ديگر‬
‫نيز سازگاري دارد‪.‬‬
‫‪365‬‬
Structural
Functionalism
366
‫كاركرد گرايي ساختاري‬
‫‪367‬‬
It is through the notion of structural
functionalism that the use of the
biological analogy in the tradition of
comte, spencer and Durkheim has
had its major impact upon
sociological thought.
368
‫كاركردگرايي ساختاري مفهومي است كه از‬
‫طريق آن استفاده از قياس زيستي در سنت‬
‫كنت ‪ ,‬اسپنسر ‪ ,‬و دو ركهايم بيشترين تأثير‬
‫خود را بر تفكر جامعه شناختي گذاشته‬
‫است‪.‬‬
‫‪369‬‬
Building upon the concepts of holism,
interrelationship between parts,
structure, functions and needs, the
biological analogy has been developed
in diverse ways to produce a social
science perspective firmly rooted in the
sociology of regulation.
370
‫قياس زيستي با استفاده از مفاهيم كل نگري ‪,‬‬
‫روابط متقابل ميان اجزاء ‪ ,‬ساختار ‪ ,‬كاركردها و‬
‫نياز ‪ ,‬به روشهاي مختلف براي ايجاد ديدگاه‬
‫ا‬
‫علوم اجتماعي كه عميقا در جامعه شناس ي نظم‬
‫دهي ريشه دارد توسعه يافته است‪.‬‬
‫‪371‬‬
The major distinction
commonly drawn between
approaches revolves
around the issue of level
of analysis:
372
‫ا‬
‫تمايز عمده اي كه عموما بين‬
‫رهيافتها ترسيم مي شود حول‬
‫مسأله سطح تحليل دور مي زند‪:‬‬
‫‪373‬‬
Wether the focus in
functional analysis is on the
part or the whole, on the
individual institution or the
social system.
374
‫يعني اينكه تأكيد در تحليل كاركردي‬
‫بر روي جزء باشد يا روي كل ‪,‬‬
‫برروي نهاد فردي باشد يا بر روي‬
‫سيستم اجتماعي‪.‬‬
‫‪375‬‬
In addition to this distinction,
however, it is also desirable
to draw attention to at least
two other lines of
development.
376
‫ولي ‪ ,‬در اين جا شايسته است علوه‬
‫بر اين تمايز‪ ,‬به حداقل دو مسير‬
‫ديگر تحول در اين پارادايم نيز توجه‬
‫شود‪.‬‬
‫‪377‬‬
The first follows on from
Radcliffe – Brown’s focus
on structure in the
tradition of “social
morphology”.
378
‫نخستين تحول بر گرفته از توجهي‬
‫است كه رادكليف برون در سنت ”‬
‫ريخت شناس ي اجتماعي“ به ساختار‬
‫كرده است‪.‬‬
‫‪379‬‬
In defiance (or at least ignorance) of
his warning that “the social structure
as a whole can only be observed in
its functioning” , the notion of
structure has become increasingly
reified as some social theorists
sought identify its key elements
380
‫در ايستادگي در مقابل (يا حداقل ناديده گرفتن) هشدار او‬
‫دربارة اينكه ”ساختار اجتماعي“ به عنوان يك كل را تنها در‬
‫كاركرد آن مي توان مشاهده كرد ‪,‬مفهوم ساختار در كلم‬
‫برخي از نظريه پردازان اجتماعي كه در صدد تشخيص‬
‫عناصر كليدي ان برآمده اند به طور فزاينده اي حالت‬
‫جسم انگاري به خود گرفته است‬
‫‪381‬‬
The “search for structure” has
led to an increasingly hard and
indiscriminate application of the
models and methods of the
natural sciences to the study of
social phenomena.
382
‫”جستجو براي ساختار“ منجر به‬
‫كاربرد بي اندازه شديد و بي حساب و‬
‫كتاب مدلها و شيوه هاي علوم طبيعي‬
‫در مطالعة پديده هاي اجتماعي شده‬
‫است‬
‫‪383‬‬
The second line of development
has focused upon what Radcliffe
– Brown called the “problems of
social physiology” , that is , upon
explaining the way in which
social systems function.
384
‫دومين مسير تحول بر چيزي تأكيد دارد كه‬
‫رادكليف براون آن را ”مسائل مربوط به‬
‫”فيزيولوژي اجتماعي“ مي نامد‪ ,‬يعني تبيين‬
‫شيوه اي كه سيستمها ي اجتماعي براساس‬
‫آن عمل مي كنند‪.‬‬
‫‪385‬‬
For the most part these studies
have drawn heavily upon the
organismic analogy, attempting to
understand the functioning of social
systems in terms of system needs
or conditions of existence.
386
‫ا‬
‫اين مطالعات كامل به سمت قياس‬
‫ارگانيزمي گرايش يافته و تلش مي كنند كه‬
‫كاركرد سيستمهاي اجتماعي را بر حسب‬
‫نيازهاي سيستم يا شرايط حيات سيستم‬
‫بشناسد‪.‬‬
‫‪387‬‬
This is particularly evident,
for example, in the work of
Talcott Parsons and his
analysis of the social system
( 1951 ).
388
‫براي مثال‪ ،‬اين موضوع به طورخاص در‬
‫كارتالكوت پار سونز وتحليلي كه او از‬
‫نظام اجتماعي ارائه كرده مشاهده مي‬
‫شود‪.‬‬
‫‪389‬‬
Parsons takes as his Point of
departure the system as a
whole and analyses the
conditions necessary for its
survival ,functioning evolution
and change.
390
‫پارسونز نقطه عطف خود را نظام به‬
‫و‬
‫عنوان يك كل قرار داده‬
‫شرايطي را تحليل مي كند كه براي‬
‫بقاء‪ ،‬كاركرد‪ ،‬تكامل و تغيير آن‬
‫ضروري مي باشد‪.‬‬
‫‪391‬‬
As Rocher notes ,in Parsons
Perspective the term function
refers to various solutions to a
particular complex of problems
that a system can adopt in
order to survive,
392
‫همچنان كه روشه مي گويد‪ ،‬در ديدگاه‬
‫پارسونز واژة كاركرد اشاره دارد به راه حل‬
‫هاي مختلف مجموعة خاص ي از مسائلي‬
‫كه يك نظام جهت بقاي خود مي تواند آنها‬
‫را بپذيرد‪.‬‬
‫‪393‬‬
And survival here
includes persistence,
evolution and
transmutation.
394
‫و بقاء در اين تعريف‬
‫شامل استقامت‪ ،‬تكامل‬
‫و دگرديس ي مي شود‪.‬‬
‫‪395‬‬
So far Parsons, functional
analysis consists in establishing
a classification of the problems
which every system must
resolve in order to exist and
keep itself going.
396
‫لذا‪ ،‬در نظر پارسونز‪ ،‬تحليل كاركردي‬
‫عبارت است از‪ :‬ايجاد يك طبقه بندي از‬
‫مسائلي كه هر نظام بايد آن را حل كند تا‬
‫بتواند به حيات خود ادامه دهد و استمرار‬
‫خود را حفظ كند‪.‬‬
‫‪397‬‬
This leads parsons to the notion
of what are called functional
prerequisites “ or ” functional
imperatives – the functions
which must be performed if a
society is to survive.
398
‫اين موضوع پارسونز را به مفهومي سوق مي‬
‫دهد كه پيش نيازهاي كاركردي يا ضرورت‬
‫هاي كاركردي ناميده مي شود‪ ،‬يعني‬
‫كاركردهايي كه انجام آنها براي بقاي جامعه‬
‫ضروري است‪.‬‬
‫‪399‬‬
As parsons has put it, any social
system is subject to four independent
functional imperatives or problems
which must be met adequately if
equilibrium and/or continuing
existence of the system is to be
maintained ( parsons, 1959, p.16 ).
400
‫همچنان كه پارسونز اظهار داشته است‪ ،‬هر‬
‫سيستم اجتماعي در معرض چهار ضرورت‬
‫كاركردي مستقل يا مسائل قرار دارد كه در‬
‫صورتي كه حفظ تعادل و حيات مستمر‬
‫سيستم مدنظر باشد بايد اين ضرورت ها‬
‫برآورده شوند‪.‬‬
‫‪401‬‬
These are most clearly illustrated in
his so – called AGIL scheme, which
identifies the four basic functional
imperatives which parsons regards
as being relevant to the analysis of
all social systems.
402
‫ا‬
‫اين ضرورت ها به صورتي كامل واضح در طرح‬
‫بيانگر چهار ضرورت‬
‫كه‬
‫او معروف به‬
‫‪AGIL‬‬
‫اساس ي كاركردي است و پارسونز آنرا براي‬
‫تحليل تمام سيستم هاي اجتماعي روا مي داند‬
‫توضيح داده شده است‪.‬‬
‫‪403‬‬
Simply put it, these are :
Adaptation : the complex of unit acts
which serve to establish
relations between the
system and its external
environment.
404
‫با بياني ساده‪ ،‬اين چهار ضرورت عبارتند از ‪:‬‬
‫انطباق ‪ :‬مجموعة پيچيده اقدام هاي در سطح‬
‫واحد كه براي ايجاد رابطه ميان سيستم و‬
‫محيط خارجي آن صورت مي گيرد‪.‬‬
‫‪405‬‬
Goal attainment :
The actions which serve to
define the goals of the system
and to mobilise and manage
resources and effort to attain
goals and gratification.
406
‫كسب هدف ‪:‬‬
‫اقدامهايي كه براي تعريف اهداف‬
‫سيستم و بسيج و ادارة منابع و تلش‬
‫در جهت تحقق اهداف و رضاي‬
‫خاطر انجام مي گيرد‪.‬‬
‫‪407‬‬
Integration :
The unit acts which establish
control, inhibit deviancy, and
maintain co – ordination
between parts, thus avoiding
serious disturbance.
408
‫تلفيق ‪:‬‬
‫اقدامهاي در سطح واحد كه كنترل ايجاد‬
‫مي كند‪ ،‬از انحرافات جلوگيري كرده‪ ،‬و‬
‫هماهنگي ميان اجزاء را حفظ مي كند و در‬
‫نتيجه از بروز اغتشاش جدي جلوگيري مي‬
‫كند‪.‬‬
‫‪409‬‬
Latency or pattern
Maintenance:
The unit acts which
supply actors with
necessary motivation
410
‫نهفتگي يا حفظ الگو ‪:‬‬
‫اقدامهاي در سطح واحد كه‬
‫انگيزه هاي الزم را براي كنشگران‬
‫فراهم مي آورد‪.‬‬
‫‪411‬‬
As Radcliffe – Brown noted ,the
notion of needs or conditions of
existence is implicit in the use
of the analogy of a biological
organism for analysis.
412
‫همچنانكه رادكليف ـ بروان گفته است‪،‬‬
‫مفهوم نيازها يا شرايط حيات نظام در‬
‫استفاده از قياس ارگانيزم زيستي براي‬
‫تحليل اجتماعي صريح نيست‪.‬‬
‫‪413‬‬
In placing them at the centre of
analysis ,however ,parsons ignors
the limitations of this analogy for
the study of society which
Radcliffe –Brown was so careful to
Specify and redirects the main
thrust of functionalist enquiry.
414
‫به هر حال پارسونز‪ ،‬كه اين مفهومها را محور تحليل‬
‫خود قرار مي دهد‪ ،‬محدوديتهاي موجود در اين قياس‬
‫را براي مطالعة جامعه كه رادكليف بروان در تصريح‬
‫آنها دقت زيادي مي كرد ناديده مي گيرد و نبرد اصلي‬
‫تحقق كاركردگرايي را دوباره جهت مي دهد‪.‬‬
‫‪415‬‬
Both Malinowski and
Radcliffe – Brown had
assumed that social
structures were implicit in the
operation of social systems,
416
‫هم مالينوفسكي و هم رادكليف‬
‫برون فرض كرده بودند كه ”‬
‫ساختارهاي “ اجتماعي در عملكرد‬
‫اجتماعي صريح نيستند‪.‬‬
‫‪417‬‬
And that the problem of
empirically based social
analysis was to identify the
functions which the various
elements of structure
Performed.
418
‫و مسألة تحليل هاي اجتماعي كه داراي‬
‫مبناي تجربي است براي شناخت‬
‫كاركردهايي است كه عناصر مختلف‬
‫ساختار انجام مي دهند‪.‬‬
‫‪419‬‬
Parsons in effect inverts this
Problematic; starting with the
functions which must be performed
the problem of empirical social
science becomes that of identifying
the structures or elements of social
systems which serve given
imperative functions.
420
‫ا‬
‫پارسونز اصوال بر عكس اين مسأله عمل مي كند‪ .‬كار‬
‫خود را با كاركردهايي كه بايد انجام شود شروع مي‬
‫كند‪ ،‬آنگاه مسألة علوم اجتماعي تجربي‪ ،‬مسأله‬
‫شناخت ساختارها يا عناصري از سيستمهاي‬
‫ضروري و معيني را دارند‪.‬‬
‫اجتماعي كه كار كرد‬
‫‪421‬‬
As David lock wood (1950) has
observed, Parsons’ approach to the
analysis of the social system has
been heavily weighted by
assumptions and categories which
relate to the role of normative
elements in social action,
422
‫همچنانكه ديويد الك وود ملحظه كرده است‬
‫رهيافت پارسونز در تحليل نظام اجتماعي به‬
‫شدت با مفروضات و مقوالتي سنجيده شده‬
‫است كه با نقش عناصر هنجاري در كنش‬
‫اجتماعي مرتبط است‪.‬‬
‫‪423‬‬
And especially to the
Processes whereby
motives are structured
normatively to ensure
social stability.
424
‫ا‬
‫و خصوصا با فرآيندهايي كه از‬
‫طريق آنها انگيزه ها جهت اطمينان‬
‫از ثبات اجتماعي به شيوه هاي‬
‫هنجاري ساختار مي يابند‪.‬‬
‫‪425‬‬
This normative orientation has
attracted the charge that
Parsons; scheme is inherently
conservative, geared to a
reaffirmation of the status quo
and unable to deal with change.
426
‫اين جهت گيري هنجاري اين اتهام را سبب‬
‫ا‬
‫شده است كه طرح پانسونز ذاتا محافظه‬
‫كارانه بوده و با تثبيت وضع موجود‬
‫هماهنگ است و نمي تواند با تغيير برخورد‬
‫كند‪.‬‬
‫‪427‬‬
Parsons, in the tradition of comte,
Spencer Durkheim, has underwritten
his approach by the implicit
assumption that modern industrial
society vests at the pinnacle of human
achievement, and that the
predominant problem is that of
regulation.
428
‫پارسونز‪ ،‬در مقايسه با سنت كنت‪ ،‬اسپنسر و‬
‫دوركهايم‪ ،‬ديدگاه خود را با اين پيش فرض‬
‫ضمني تثبيت كرده است كه جامعة صنعتي بر‬
‫قلة پيشرفت انساني قرارگرفته و مسألة اصلي‬
‫در آن نظم دهي است‪.‬‬
‫‪429‬‬
As Lockwood notes, one of the central
themes emerging from Parsons /
classic early work “ the structure of
Social Action “ is that order is possible
through the existence of common
norms which regulate ” the war of all
against all “ (lock wood, 1950,p.137 ).
430
‫همچنانكه الك وود متذكر مي شود‪ ،‬يكي از‬
‫موضوعات محوري كه از اولين كار كلسيك پارسونز‬
‫تحت عنوان ساختار كنش اجتماعي بر مي آيد اين‬
‫است كه ” نظم از طريق وجود هنجارهايي عمومي كه “‬
‫جنگ همه در مقابل همه را نظم مي بخشد ممكن مي‬
‫گردد‪.‬‬
‫‪431‬‬
Parsons/ later work strongly
reflects this basic orientation,
though he has in fact been
aware of the need to make
his model a dynamic one
capable of accomodating and
explaining change .
432
‫ا‬
‫كار بعدي پارسونز قويا اين جهت گيري اساس ي‬
‫را منعكس مي كند‪ ،‬به رغم اينكه وي در حقيقت‬
‫از ضرورت پويا ساختن مدل خود به نحوي كه‬
‫قابليت سازگاري و تبيين تغيير را داشته باشد نيز‬
‫آگاه بوده است‪.‬‬
‫‪433‬‬
Radcliffe – Brown identified
as his third set of problems
those of development – that
is how do new types of
social structure come into
existence?
434
‫رادكليف ـ براون سومين مجموعه از مسائل‬
‫خود را مسائل مربوط به توسعة قرارداد‪،‬‬
‫به اين معنا كه گونه هاي جديد ساختار‬
‫اجتماعي چگونه پا به عرصة وجود مي‬
‫گذارند؟‬
‫‪435‬‬
It is of great significance that the
structural functionalists have had
the most difficulty with this issue
and that it remains the least well
explored.
436
‫اين نكته بسيار حائز اهميت است كه‬
‫كاركردگرايان ساختاري بيشترين مشكل را با‬
‫اين مورد داشته اند و كمترين بررس ي و‬
‫تحقيق نيز مربوط به همين مورد است‪.‬‬
‫‪437‬‬
Interestingly enough, the principal
contribution to this problem area
have come from theorists who have
sought to provide a whole or to
provide alternative methods of
analysis.
438
‫نكتة بسيار جالب توجه اين است كه تشريك مساعي‬
‫هاي اصلي در قلمرو اين مسأله از جانب نظريه‬
‫پردازاني صورت گرفته كه به دنبال ايراد انتقادي بر‬
‫كاركرد گرايي ساختاري در كل يا در صدد ارائة شيوه‬
‫هاي تحليلي بديل بوده اند‪.‬‬
‫‪439‬‬
Merton’s contribution ,for
example, provides a good
illustration of the former and
Buckley’s morphogenic systems
theory an example of the later.
440
‫براي مثال‪ ،‬كارمرتون نمونة خوبي از‬
‫مورد اول و نظرية سيستمي ريخت‬
‫شناس ي با كلي از نمونه اي از مورد‬
‫دوم است‪.‬‬
‫‪441‬‬
By way of summary, there fore, we
conclude our discussion of
structural functionalism with the
observation that from its start it has
been dominated by the use of
biological analogy for the study of
society.
442
‫بنابراين بحث در مورد كاركردگرايي‬
‫ساختاري را به طور خلصه اينگونه به‬
‫پايان مي بريم كه از ابتداي پيدايش‪ ،‬اين‬
‫ديدگاه تحت نفوذ استفاده از قياس زيستي‬
‫براي مطالعة جامعه بوده است‪.‬‬
‫‪443‬‬
Different varieties
can be observed in
practice.
444
‫در مرحلة عمل گونه هاي‬
‫مختلفي از اين ديدگاه مشاهده‬
‫مي شود‪.‬‬
‫‪445‬‬
There are those
approaches which focus
upon system parts rather
than upon systems as a
whole.
446
‫بعض ي از رهيافتها به جاي تأكيد‬
‫بر سيستم به عنوان كل‪ ،‬بر‬
‫اجزاي سيستم تأكيد‬
‫ميورزند‪.‬‬
‫‪447‬‬
There are approaches in the
tradition of Malinowski and
Radcliffe-Brown which are most
concerned with establishing the
functions which various elements
of society perform.
448
‫رهيافتهايي در سنت مالينوفسكي و‬
‫رادكليف ـ براون وجود دارند كه بسيار‬
‫علقهمندند كاركردهايي به وجود آورند‬
‫كه عناصر مختلف جامعه انجام‬
‫ميدهند‪.‬‬
‫‪449‬‬
There are those which
focus upon social
morphology and often
result as abstracted
empiricism.
450
‫گونه هاي ديگري از رهيافتها بر ”‬
‫ريخت زائي “ اجتماعي تمركز دارند‪ .‬و‬
‫ا‬
‫غالبا محصول آنها تجربه گرايي انتزاعي‬
‫است‪.‬‬
‫‪451‬‬
There are those which focus
upon functional imperatives or
system needs and which seek to
analyse society in whole or part
with this perspective in mind.
452
‫گونه هاي ديگر از رهيافت ها‪ ،‬رهيافت هايي‬
‫هستند كه بر ضرورتهاي كاركردي يا نيازهاي‬
‫سيستم تأكيد ميكنند و به دنبال آنند كه تحليل‬
‫جامعه در كل يا قسمتي از آن با داشتن اين‬
‫ديدگاه در ذهن خود بپردازند‪.‬‬
‫‪453‬‬
All these approaches adopt
an approach to social
science characteristic of the
objectivist region of the
functionalist paradigm.
454
‫تمام رهيافت هايي كه بيان شد رهيافتي‬
‫را در علوم اجتماعي ميپذيرند كه‬
‫بيانگر موقعيت عيني گراي پارادايم‬
‫كاركردگراست‪.‬‬
‫‪455‬‬
Ontologically,epistemologically
and methologically ,structural
functionalism has been based
upon models derived from the
natural sciences.
456
‫از نظر هستي شناس ي‪ ،‬معرفت شناس ي‬
‫و روش شناس ي‪ ،‬كاركردگرايي ساختاري‬
‫مبتني بر مدلهايي است كه از علوم‬
‫طبيعي گرفته شده است‪.‬‬
‫‪457‬‬
For the most part, this
has carried with it a
relatively determinist
view with regard to
human nature.
458
‫ا‬
‫اين امر تا حد زيادي ديدگاهي نسبتا‬
‫جبرباوري در بارة ماهيت انسان به‬
‫همراه دارد‪.‬‬
‫‪459‬‬
In terms of its characterisation of
society, the overriding fact that the
needs or necessary conditions of
existence of social systems under
write the very notion of function has
inevitably committed structural
functionalism to a perspective located
within the sociology of regulation.
460
‫بر حسب توصيفي كه اين ديدگاه دربارة جامعه‬
‫ميكند‪ ،‬اين حقيقت مهم كه نياز ها يا شرايط الزم‬
‫براي حيات سيستمهاي اجتماعي هر مفهوم كاركردي را‬
‫تضمين مي كند‪ ،‬كاركردگرايي ساختاري را ناگزير به‬
‫ديدگاهي مقيد كرده است كه درون جامعه شناس ي‬
‫نظم دهي قرار مي گيرد‪.‬‬
‫‪461‬‬
The current state of structural
functionalism ranges from
grand theory to abstracted
empiricism with a general
emphasis in the latter upon
structure rather than function.
462
‫وضعيت موجود كاركردگرايي ساختاري در‬
‫طيفي از ” نظرية كلن “ تا ” تجربه گرايي “‬
‫انتزاعي قرار مي گيرد كه در تجربه گرايي‬
‫انتزاعي به جاي كاركرد بر ساختار تأكيد مي‬
‫شود‪.‬‬
‫‪463‬‬
The notion of functional
process which was so
important to its founding
fathers has, for the most part,
either been ignored or lost.
464
‫مفهوم فرآيند كاركردي كه در نظر بنيان‬
‫گذاران ديدگاه كاركردگرائي ساختاري از‬
‫ا‬
‫اهميت بسيار برخوردار بود عمدتا ناديده‬
‫انگاشته شده يا از بين رفته است‪.‬‬
‫‪465‬‬
The qualification which were
identified in drawing
analogies between biological
and social phenomena seem
largely to have gone astray.
466
‫به نظر ميرسد شرايطي كه در ترسيم‬
‫قياسها ميان پديده هاي زيستي و‬
‫ا‬
‫اجتماعي مشخص شده بودند عمدتا به‬
‫بيراهه كشانده شدهاند‪.‬‬
‫‪467‬‬
Fostered by utilitarian
demands for pragmatic
theory and research geared
to piecemeal social
engineering – political,
managerial, and the like.
468
‫بينشهاي نظري كه با تقاضا هاي‬
‫سودجويانه براي نظريه و تحقيق عمل‬
‫گرا كه با مهندس ي اجتماعي تدريجي ـ از‬
‫قبيل سياس ي‪ ،‬مديريتي و مانند آن ـ‬
‫منطبق است‪.‬‬
‫‪469‬‬
Theoretical insights have
been largely submerged
under a deluge of
empirical research.
470
‫ا‬
‫عمدتا در سيلي از‬
‫تحقيقات تجربي فرو رفته‬
‫اند‪.‬‬
‫‪471‬‬
Indeed, structural functionalism
as represented in the work of
Radcliffe – Brown has proved a
rare and transient phenomenon.
472
‫در واقع‪ ،‬كاركردگرايي ساختاري آنچنانكه‬
‫در كار رادكليف ـ براون ارائه شده است در‬
‫عمل در عمل به صورت يك پديدة نادر و‬
‫گذرا در آمده است‪.‬‬
‫‪473‬‬
Systems theory
Since the early 1950s the
systems approach has
assumed increasing
importance in various
branches of social analysis.
474
‫نظرية سيستمها‬
‫از اوايل دهة ‪ 1950‬رهيافت‬
‫سيستمها در شاخههاي مختلف‬
‫تحليل اجتماعي از اهميت‬
‫فزايندهاي برخوردار شده اند‪.‬‬
‫‪475‬‬
In sociology, psychology,
anthropology, archaeology,
linguistics,organization theory,
industrial relations, and many other
social sience subjects, systems theory
has become established as an
important method of analysis.
476
Among the more prominent studies, it is worth
citing by the way of illustration the work of
Parsons(the social system, 1951), Homans(the
human group, 1950), Katz and kahn(the social
psychology of organizations, 1960), Easton(the
political system, 1953), Dunlop(Industrial
Relations Systems, 1958)and Buckly(sociology
and modern systems theory, 1967).
477
Despite its popularity,
however, the notion of
system is an elusive one.
478
‫ولي‪ ،‬علي رغم شهرت نظرية‬
‫سيستمها‪ ،‬مفهوم سيستم مفهومي‬
‫مبهم ( اغفال كننده ) است‪.‬‬
‫‪479‬‬
Many books on systems theory
do not offer a formal definition of
the systems concept, and where
a definition is attempted, it is
usually one of considerable
generality.
480
‫بسياري از كتاب هاي نگاشته شده دربارة نظرية‬
‫سيستمها تعريف رسمي از سيستم ها ارائه نمي‬
‫دهند‪ ،‬و هر جا هم تلش ي در جهت تعريف اين‬
‫ا‬
‫واژه صورت گرفته‪ ،‬معموال از كليت قابل‬
‫ملحظهاي برخوردار بودهاند‪.‬‬
‫‪481‬‬
For example, Angyal
suggests that there is a
logical genus suitable to
the treatment of wholes.
482
‫براي مثال آنجيال مطرح ميكند كه‬
‫” يك قسم منطقي كه مناسب با‬
‫برخورد با كلها باشد وجود دارد‪“ .‬‬
‫‪483‬‬
We propose to
call it system
(Angyal,1941, p.243)
484
‫پيشنهاد ما اينست كه نام اين‬
‫قسم منطقي را سيستم‬
‫بگذاريم‪.‬‬
‫‪485‬‬
Again, in the words of von
Bertalanffy, the founding father
of general system theory, there
are correspondences in the
principles which govern the
behavior of entities that are
intrinsically, widely different.
486
‫همچنين‪ ،‬به تعبير فون برتالفني بنيا نگذار‬
‫نظرية عمومي سيستمها ‪ :‬در اصولي كه بر‬
‫رفتار موجوديتهايي كه في حد نفسه‬
‫تفاوتهاي گستردهاي دارند حاكم است‬
‫همسانيهايي وجود دارد‪.‬‬
‫‪487‬‬
This correspondence is due to
the fact that they all can be
considered, in certain respects,
as systems, that is, complexes of
elements standing in interaction
( von Bertalanffy, 1956, pp. 1-2).
488
‫اين همساني ( مشابهت ) معلول اين حقيقت‬
‫است كه تمام آن اصول را از جنبههايي خاص‪،‬‬
‫مي توان به عنوان‪ ،‬سيستمها در نظر گرفت‪ ،‬به‬
‫اين معني كه آنها مجموعهاي از عناصري هستند‬
‫كه در تعامل با يكديگرند‪.‬‬
‫‪489‬‬
The notion of holism and interaction of
parts are not exclusive to system theory,
and skeletal definitions such as these
have led many social scientists to the
view that systems theory often
represents little more than old
conceptualizations dressed up in new
and needlessly complex jargon.
490
‫مفاهيم كلي گرايي و تعامل اجزاء با هم مختص نظرية‬
‫سيستمها نيست و تعاريف كلي همانند تعاريفي كه اشاره‬
‫شد باعث شده است بسياري از دانشمندان اجتماعي به‬
‫ا‬
‫اين ديدگاه سوق يابند كه نظرية سيستمها غالبا چيزي بيش‬
‫از مفهومسازيهاي قبلي نيست كه در پوشش ي جديد و‬
‫زبابي بي جهت پيچيده بيان شده است‪.‬‬
‫‪491‬‬
For many, it is
another case of the
emperor having no
clothes.
492
‫به عقيدة بسياري‪ ،‬اين شكل ديگري‬
‫است از امپراطور كه به سبب‬
‫ا‬
‫نداشتن لباس نميتوان او را كامل‬
‫شناخت‪.‬‬
‫‪493‬‬
However, the situation
is, in fact, much more
sophisticated than this.
494
‫ولي در واقع‪ ،‬وضعيت‬
‫بسيار حساستر از اين‬
‫است‪.‬‬
‫‪495‬‬
Von Bertalanffy wishes to use
the notion of systems as a
means of cutting through the
substantive differences which
exist between different
academic disciplines.
496
‫فون برتالنفي درصدد است كه مفهوم‬
‫سيستم را به عنوان ابزاري به كار برد كه از‬
‫طريق آن تفاوتهاي اساس ي را كه بين‬
‫رشتههاي مختلف دانشگاهي وجود دارد از‬
‫بين ببرد‪.‬‬
‫‪497‬‬
The subject matter of chemistry,
physics, biology, sociology, etc,
are linked in his view by the fact
that they study complexes of
elements standing in interaction,
that is, systems.
498
‫در ديد وي‪ ،‬موضوع رشتههاي شيمي‪ ،‬فيزيك‪،‬‬
‫زيستشناس ي‪ ،‬جامعهشناس ي‪ ،‬و غيره بر مبناي اين‬
‫واقعيت با هم مرتبطند كه همة آنها ” مجموعههايي از‬
‫عناصر را كه در تعامل با يكديگرند “ بررس ي ميكنند‬
‫و نام اين مجموعه ها سيستم است‪.‬‬
‫‪499‬‬
The task of his general
systems theory is to
discover the principles of
organization which underlie
such systems.
500
‫كار نظرية عمومي سيستمهاي‬
‫برتالنفي اين است كه اصول‬
‫سازماندهي را كه زير بناي اينگونه‬
‫سيستمهاست كشف كند‪.‬‬
‫‪501‬‬
One of his general aims is to
achieve a unity of science
based upon the isomorphy
of laws in different fields
(von Bertalanffy, 1956, p.8).
502
‫يكي از مقاصد عمومي او اين است‬
‫كه به ” وحدت علم “ كه مبتني بر‬
‫همساني قوانين در حوزههاي‬
‫مختلف است برسد‪.‬‬
‫‪503‬‬
In many respects von
Bertalanffy’s aim can be
regarded as archetypical of
the positivist perspective:
504
‫از بسياري از جهات كار فون‬
‫برتالنفي را مي توان نمونة آرماني‬
‫از ديدگاه اثبات گرايي دانست ‪:‬‬
‫‪505‬‬
It is based upon epistemological
assumptions dominated by a
concern to search for and explain
the underlying regularities and
structural uniformities which
characterise the world in general.
506
‫كار او مبتني بر پيشفرضهاي‬
‫شناختشناس ي است كه تحت الشعاع‬
‫تحقيق و تبيين نظمهاي زير بنايي و‬
‫همسانيهاي ساختاري است كه توصيف‬
‫كنندة جهان در كل است‪.‬‬
‫‪507‬‬
However, his perspective differs
from that of most positivists, in
that he does not take his point of
departure from the traditions of
conventional science.
508
‫ولي‪ ،‬ديدگاه وي از ديدگاه بيشتر اثبات‬
‫گرايان ديگر در اين نكته متفاوت است كه‬
‫او نقطة آغازين خود را از سنتهاي علوم‬
‫متداول نميگيرد‪.‬‬
‫‪509‬‬
Indeed, the contrary is true. Von
Bertalanffy is firmly set against the
reductionism which characterises
most areas of scientific endeavour,
with its emphasis upon modes of
enquiry based upon the methods and
principles of conventional physics.
510
‫در واقع‪ ،‬نقطة مقابل اين سنت دربارة وي‬
‫ا‬
‫صادق است‪ .‬فون برتالنفي شديدا در مقابل‬
‫كاهشگرايي ( جزء نگري ) كه بيشتر در‬
‫قلمروهاي تلش علمي مطرح بوده و بر‬
‫شيوههاي تحقيقي مبتني بر روشها و اصول‬
‫فيزيكي سنتي تأكيد ميكند ميايستد‪.‬‬
‫‪511‬‬
He views his general systems
theory as providing an alternative
to this ; instead of reducing all
phenomena of study to physical
events, he advocates that we
study them as systems.
512
‫او ميخواهد نظرية عمومي سيستمها‪ ،‬جايگزيني براي‬
‫اين جريان باشد‪ .‬او بجاي تنزل كردن تمام پديدههاي‬
‫تحت مطالعه به رويدادهاي فيزيكي‪ ،‬از اين ديدگاه‬
‫حمايت مي كند كه تمام آنها را تحت عنوان سيستمها‬
‫مطالعه كنيم‪.‬‬
‫‪513‬‬
His positivism is thus of a
non-traditional kind and is
dominated by the metaphor
of system as an organising
concept.
514
‫درنتيجه‪ ،‬نوع اثباتگرايي از نوع غير‬
‫سنتي است و استعارة سيستم به‬
‫عنوان مفهوم سازمان دهنده بر آن‬
‫حاكم ميباشد‪.‬‬
‫‪515‬‬
Von Bertalanffy makes much
use of the limitations of
conventional physics as a
means of advocating his
general systems approach.
516
‫فون برتالنفي در حمايت از رهيافت‬
‫نظرية عمومي سيستمهاي خود‪ ،‬در‬
‫موارد زيادي از محدوديتهاي فيزيك‬
‫سنتي استفاده ميكند‪.‬‬
‫‪517‬‬
In this the difference
between closed and
open systems plays a
very important part.
518
‫دراينباره‪ ،‬تفاوت ميان‬
‫سيستمهاي باز و بسته نقش‬
‫بسيار مهمي ايفا ميكند‪.‬‬
‫‪519‬‬
Von Bertalanffy argues that
conventional physics deals
mainly with closed systems,
that is, systems which are
considered to be isolated from
their environment.
520
‫او استدالل ميكند كه فيزيك سنتي‬
‫ا‬
‫عمدتا با سيستمهاي بسته‪ ،‬يعني‬
‫سيستمهايي كه مجزا از محيطشان در‬
‫نظر گرفته ميشوند‪ ،‬سروكار دارد‪.‬‬
‫‪521‬‬
The method of the controlled
experiment, in which the subject
of study is taken out of its
environment and subjected to
various tests, provides a very
good example of this.
522
‫روش آزمايشهاي كنترل شده كه در آن‬
‫موضوع مورد مطالعه از محيطش مجزا‬
‫ميشود و در معرض آزمونهاي مختلف قرار‬
‫ميگيرد مثال بسيار خوبي از اينگونه‬
‫سيستمهاست‪.‬‬
‫‪523‬‬
Such closed systems
are characterised by
equilibrium.
524
‫اينگونه سيستمهاي بسته‬
‫بامفهوم تعادل شناخته‬
‫ميشوند‪.‬‬
‫‪525‬‬
As von Bertalanffy puts it, a closed
system must, according to the second
law of thermodynamics, eventually
attain a time independent equilibrium
state, with maximum entropy and
minimum free energy, where the ratio
between its phases remains
constant(von Bertalanffy, 1950).
526
‫همچنان كه فون برتالنفي ميگويد ” يك سيستم بسته‬
‫براساس قانون دوم ترموديناميك بايد سرانجام به يك‬
‫حالت تعادل مستقل زماني با بيشترين روال و كمترين‬
‫انرژي آزاد دست يابد كه در آن زمان نسبت بين مراحل‬
‫آن ثابت ميماند‪“ .‬‬
‫‪527‬‬
Open systems are quite
different, in that they are
characterised by an
exchange with their
environment.
528
‫ا‬
‫سيستمهاي باز ازاين جهت كامل‬
‫متفاوت هستند كه با محيط خود‬
‫در تبادل هستند انها با محيطشان‬
‫مراوده دارند‪.‬‬
‫‪529‬‬
They engage in transactions
with their environment,
importing and exporting and
changing themselves in the
process.
530
A living organism provides a good
example of an open system, since it
maintains itself through a process of
exchange with its environment,
during the course of which there is a
continuous building up and breaking
down of component parts.
531
The concept of an
open system is thus
essentially
processual.
532
Whilst a closed system
must eventually obtain
an equilibrium state, an
open system will not.
533
Given certain conditions, an open
system may achieve a steady
state, homeostasis, in which the
system remains constant as a
whole and in its phases, though
there is a constant flow of the
component materials.
534
However, such a
steady state is not a
necessary condition
of open systems.
535
This is a point of the
utmost importance,
and it needs to be
emphasized.
536
An open system can take a
wide variety of forms. There
are no general laws which
dictate that it must achieve a
steady state, be goal directed,
evolve, regress or disintegrate.
537
In theory, anything can happen. One
of the purposes of open systems
theory is to study the pattern of
relationships which characterise a
system and its relationship to its
environment in order to understand
the way in which it operates.
538
The open systems approach does
not carry with it the implication
that any one particular kind of
analogy is appropriate for
studying all systems, since it is
possible to discern different types
of open system in practice.
539
‫رهيافت سيستم هاي باز با خود اين پيامد را‬
‫به همراه ندارد كه هر نوع خاص ي از قياس‬
‫براي مطالعه تمام سيستم ها مناسب است‪،‬‬
‫چون در عمل اين امكان وجود دارد كه به‬
‫انواع متفاوتي از سيستم هاي باز پي برد‪.‬‬
‫‪540‬‬
The above point has not been
clearly articulated and stressed
in the literature on systems
theory, at least not in the
systems literature most often
read by social scientists.
541
‫نكته فوق به طور واضح در متون موجود‬
‫درباره نظريه سيستم ها‪ ،‬حداقل در ادبيات‬
‫ا‬
‫سيستم ها كه دانشمندان اجتماعي غالبا آن‬
‫را مطالعه ميكنند تبيين نشده و مورد تأكيد‬
‫قرار نگرفته است‪.‬‬
‫‪542‬‬
As for as most social
scientists are concerned,
there are two types of
systems perspectives;
open and closed.
543
‫از نظر بيشتر دانشمندان‬
‫اجتماعي دو نوع ديدگاه‬
‫سيستمي وجود دارد؛ باز و‬
‫بسته‪.‬‬
‫‪544‬‬
The fact that the former
encompasses a whole
range of possibilities is
hardly ever recognized.
545
‫اين حقيقت كه اولي يعني ديدگاه‬
‫سيستم باز طيف وسيعي از محتملت‬
‫را شامل مي شود به ندرت به آن‬
‫پرداخته شده است‪.‬‬
‫‪546‬‬
As a theoretical perspective
in social science, the notion
of a closed system tends to
be avoided like a dreaded
disease.
547
‫از مفهوم نظام بسته‪ ،‬به عنوان‬
‫ديدگاه نظري در علوم اجتماعي‪،‬‬
‫همانند مرض ي مخوف دوري شده‬
‫است‪.‬‬
‫‪548‬‬
Von Bertalanffy’s argument that closed
systems are characterized by isolation from
their environment has proved
overwhelmingly successful in persuading
social theorists that the closed systems
approach is inappropriate as a guiding
principle for the conceptualization of social
phenomena.
549
‫استدالل فونبرتالنفي درباره اين كه مشخصه اصلي‬
‫سيستم هاي بسته جدايي از محيطشان است‪،‬‬
‫موفقيت خود را در متقاعد كردن نظريه پرداران درباره‬
‫نامناسب بودن رهيافت سيستم هاي بسته به عنوان‬
‫اصلي راهنما جهت مفهوم سازي پديده هاي اجتماعي‬
‫ا‬
‫كامل نشان داده است‪.‬‬
‫‪550‬‬
Indeed, it has become almost
obligatory for social systems
theorists to decry the inadequacies
of closed system theorizing, and the
sport of attacking exponents of this
now redundant perspective has
become an extremely popular one.
551
‫در واقع‪ ،‬براي نظريه پردازان سيستم هاي اجتماعي‬
‫يك امر الزامي شده است كه از نارساييهاي نظريه‬
‫پردازي نظام بسته انتقاد كنند‪ ،‬و مسابقه تاختن‬
‫به طرفداران اين ديدگاه كه هم اكنون ديدگاهي‬
‫زائد و بي ثمر به حساب مي آيد به مسابقه اي‬
‫بسيار متداول تبديل شده است‪.‬‬
‫‪552‬‬
In the field of organization studies, for
example, an attack upon the closed
system thinking implicit in Weber’s model
of bureaucracy or classical management
theory provides a convenient springboard
for lauding the praises of the
contemporary perspective of open
systems theory.
553
Paradoxically, however, as
a method of analysis the
notion of a closed system is
still dominant in many areas
of social enquiry.
554
555
The use of controlled experiments and
interview programmes, and the attempt to
measure social phenomena through attitude
questionnaires, all provide examples of
closed system methodologies based upon
the assumption that the environment
generated by the investigation has no
impact upon the subject of study.
556
557
The paradox is compounded by the
fact that such closed system
methodologies are often employed
within the context of theoretical
perspectives which emphasise the
importance of an open systems
approach.
558
559
This link between theory
and method is an
extremely problematic
one in many areas of
social science.
560
The majority of systems models used in
the social sciences tend to be based
upon mechanical and biological
analogies, though in recent years
increasing attention has been paid to
cybernetic models as a basis of
analysis.
561
The mechanical models have been
derived directly from the physical
sciences and tend to be
underwritten by the assumption that
the system has a tendency to
achieve an equilibrium state.
562
Since, as we have already noted,
equilibrium is only possible in
closed systems, does this imply that
all those theorists using mechanical
models are working upon closed
system principles?
563
To the extent that most of
these theorists recognize the
influence of the environment,
the answer is no.
564
Though adhering to the underlying concept
of equilibrium- albeit mistakenly in
theoretical terms- they modify their analysis
to allow for the fact that disequilibrium is a
very common feature of the system; or that
the situation is one of dynamic
equilibrium,with system moving from one
equilibrium state to to another,or that the
system is characterized by homeostasis.
565
All these three strategies can be
understood as attempts to save
the notion of equilibrium as an
organizing concept in open
system situations where it is
fundamentally inappropriate.
566
Homeostasis is an acceptable
open system concept, but it
implies an organismic as opposed
to a mechanical analogy as an
organizing principle.
567
Mechanical models of social systems,
therefore, tend to be characterized by a
number of theoretical contradictions
and are thus of very limited value as
methods of analysis in situations where
the environment of the subject of study
is of any real significance.
568
Among the most sophisticated and
systematically developed
mechanical equilibrium models in
social science are those developed
by Harvard School of sociologists,
who took their lead from Pareto
and L. J. Henderson.
569
Of these the models of
Parsons(1951), Homans(1950),
Barnard(1938), Mayo(1933), and
Roethlisberger and
Dickson(1939), are perhaps the
best known and most readily
recognized.
570
As noted earlier, the organismic analogy is
built into Parsons(1951)analysis of the
social system.It is also found in the work of
Katz and Kahn(1966), the Tavistock group
of researchers, for example, Miller and
Rice(1967), and countless other systems
theorists, particularly those who have
addressed themselves to the study of
organizations.
571
Such analyses are usually
organized around general
principles such as the following:
(a) that the system can be
identified by some sort of
boundary which differentiates it
from its environment;
572
(b) That the system is essentially
processual in nature; ( c ) that this
process can be conceptualized in
terms of a basic model which
focuses upon input, throughput,
output and feedback;
573
(d) That the overall operation
of the system can be
understood in terms of the
satisfaction of system needs
geared to survival or the
achievement of homeostasis;
574
(e) That the system is composed of
subsystems which contribute to the
satisfaction of the system’s overall
needs; (f) that these subsystems,
which themselves have identifiable
boundaries, are in a state of mutual
interdependence, both internally and in
relation to their environment;
575
(g) That the operation of the system can
be observed in terms of the behavior of
its constituent elements; (h) that the
critical activities within the context of
system operation are those which
involve boundary transactions, both
internally between subsystems and
externally in relation to the environment.
576
Most of these general principles apply
to open systems of all kinds. Of
particular importance as far as the
organismic analogy is concerned are
those which imply that the system has
‘needs’; that these are necessarily
geared to survival or homeostasis; and
that the subsystems contribute to the
well-being of the system as a whole.
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
Buckley’s analysis opens
up new horizons as far as
systems theory in social
science is concerned.
587
Buckley’s morphogenic view of
society takes him away from that
of the majority of more
conventional social systems
theorists, in that he sees social
structure as emerging from the
process of social interaction.
588
He argues that in the realm of human
activity it is the morphogenic nature
of social arrangements which is all
important, and that systems models
adequate for the task of analysing
these processes need to be adopted.
589
Walter buckley(1967) has
provided a critique of the
inadequacies of conventional
models used in social science
in similar terms.
590
It illustrates that systems
analysis need not be confined
to the use of a particular kind of
well-worn analogy, such as that
of the organism.
591
Other choices offer
themselves for consideration.
One of these, which has
already been explored to a
certain extent, is that of the
cybernetic model.
592
Cybernetics has
concerned itself with
the study of
phenomena which
behave as if they had
goals.
593
More specifically, it is concerned
with the theory of complex
interlocking ‘chains of causation’
from which goal seeking and
self-controlling forms of
behaviour emerge.
594
Cybernetic models seek to cut
through the substantive
differences which exist between,
for example, machines and
organisms, in an attempt to focus
upon common systems.
595
Such models offer a useful
alternative to the traditional social
system analogies in situations
where the study of social
regulation or social engineering is
a primary concern.
596
Other analogies also offer themselves as
a basis for systems analysis. If the
concern is to study situations in which
conflictual relationships tend to
predominate, then an analogy which
emphasises that the system has a
tendency to break up or divide may be
more approperiate.
597
‘Factional’ or ‘catastrophic’
systems models may
provide a better
explanation of the subject
under study.
598
One of the central problems
facing the systems analyst is
that of choosing an analogy
which reflects the basic nature
of the phenomena to be
investigated.
599
Figure 4.1 presents an array of
systems models arranged along
a continuum describing the
extent to which they emphasize
order and stability as opposed to
conflict and change as a normal
tendency in system operation.
600
Type of system analogy
Mechanical organismic Morphogeni
Fractional catastro
Principal tendency
Equilibrium Homeostasis
Order and
stability
Structure Turbulent
elaboration division
Conflict and
change
Complete
reorganization
601
In certain respects a rough
parallel can be drawn between
this continuum and the regulationradical change dimension of the
analytical scheme which we are
using to differentiate between
paradigms in social theory.
602
Generally speaking, the mechanical,
organismic and morphogenic models
are consistent with a perspective
characteristic of the functionalist
paradigm; the other two models are
more characteristic of the radical
structuralist paradigm.
603
The emphasis in our discussion
here has been placed upon the
fact that systems theory in
principle is not liked to the use
of any one particular type of
analogy.
604
The fact that most applications
have been based upon the
mechanical and organismic
models, especially the latter, has
often disguised this fact.
605
The focus in modern systems
theory is upon the way in which a
system is organized internally
and in relation to its environment.
It seeks to penetrate beyond the
substantive nature of machine,
organism or whatever to reveal
its principle of organization.
606
Systems theory is about
organization –the organization
of ‘complexes of elements
standing in interaction’, to use
von Bertalanffy’s words .
607
The automatic selection of one
particular kind of analogy to
represent a system pre-empts
systems analysis, since each kind of
analogy presumes a specific kind of
structure and concommitant pattern
of information process, exchange,
behavior and the like.
608
The selection of a particular type
of analogy to represent a system
in advance of a detailed analysis
of its structure and mode of
operation is akin to prescription
in advance of diagnosis.
609
This has been the
principal problem with
systems analysis in
social science.
610
It will be clear from the above
discussion that systems theory is
not intrinsically tied to any specific
view of social reality, except insofar
as its general positivist orientation
implies a social world characterized
by some form of order and
regularity which can be captured in
the notion of ‘system’
611
Classical Influences on
Organization Theory:
There are really two
streams contained within
what organization theorists
now call the Classical
school.
612
The sociological stream
focused on the changing
shapes and roles of formal
organizations within society and
the broader influences of
industrialization on the nature of
work and its consequences for
workers.
613
This was the
interest of classical
scholars such as
Emile Durkheim,
Max Weber, and
Karl Marx.
614
The other stream comprises
what organization theorists
sometimes call Classical
management theory to
distinguish it from the more
sociological approach.
615
This stream was shaped
by Frederick Taylor, Henri
Fayol,and Chester
Barnard, among others ,
and focused on the
practical problems faced
by managers of industrial
organizations
616
In a way, the tension between
theory and practice that has
been present in organization
theory since its inception can be
traced to these two influential
streams of Classical thought.
617
The ideas of both streams
can be traced back even
further to the influence of
the famous politicaleconomist Adam Smith.
618
I will introduce you to some
of the ideas of these
influential pioneers of social
science and suggest links
between their ideas and the
three perspectives of
organization theory.
619
Since organization theory did
not emerge as a
recognizable field of study
until sometime in the
1960s,what is called the
Classical period is really part
of its prehistory.
620
Adam Smith, PoliticalEconomist(Scottish)
If you search for the origins of
organization theory, you will
most likely meet the politicaleconomist Adam Smith, who, in
1776,published The Wealth of
Nations.
621
In this book, Smith
described techniques of
pin manufacturing and, in
doing so, was the first to
record and explain the
efficiencies inherent in the
division of labor.
622
The division of labor has to
do with the differentiation of
work tasks and the resulting
specialization of labor, ideas
that are central to the
concept of social structure in
organizations.
623
This is why many
organization theorists
give Smith the place of
honor in their
intellectual histories.
624
Karl Marx,PhilosopherEconomist(German)
Karl Marx is perhaps best
known for his theory of
capital and related ideas
about alienation.
625
The theory of capital is
built upon Marx’s belief
that collective work, or
labor, forms the foundation
for the social world.
626
He sees labor as emerging
from physical needs defined
by the fundamental
relationship between humans
and their physical
environment.
627
Society and culture then
emerge from the challenges
presented by discovering that
collective work is more
productive than individual
work.
628
In other words, the human
need to survive, which
derives from the dangers
and opportunities
presented by the physical
world, leads to the
emergence of the social
and cultural world.
629
The particular form taken by
the social and cultural world,
which then acts back upon the
physical world, is subject to
the relations of power worked
out politically between those
who compromise and organize
the labor-based collective.
630
In his theory of capital,Marx argued
that capitalism rests upon a
fundamental antagonism between
the interests of
capital(capitalists,e.g.,the owners of
factories and the means of
production) and those of
labor(i.e.,the workers whose
activities form the core of the
production process).
631
The antagonism, in part,arises over
how to divide the surplus value(i.e.
excess profits)generated by the
combination of labor and capital
produced when products or services
are exchanged on a market at a price
that is higher than production costs.
632
Each side, naturally, argues that
the surplus should belong to
them,and therefore the capitalist
system is characterized by a
struggle between the interests of
capital and those of labor.
633
But antagonism between
labor and capital also
arises from the necessity
to ensure profitability.
634
Without profitability, the
survival of the individual
firm and the entire
capitalist economy would
be in jeopardy.
635
Profitability depends
upon the organization
and control of work
activity.
636
This is because competition from
other firms puts downward pressure
on the prices for a firm’s products
and services, which translates into
a need to reduce the costs of
production, of which labor is a large
component.
637
This encourages capitalists to
pressure labor to work more
efficiently,which is accomplished by
inventing new forms of managerial
control over workers and work
processes.
638
The control systems become
additional sources of
antagonism between
management and workers who
attempt to resist this control.
639
Marxist theory considers control to
be one of the key themes of
organization theory, which in
Classical management theory and
modernist organization theory is
interpreted as a primary function of
the executive, and in postmodern
theories becomes a foundation for
critiques of managerialism.
640
Because capitalists own the means of
production(i.e., the plant, equipment, and
other necessities of economic
enterprise),they often have greater
political power to design organizational
control systems than do their workers who
depend upon them to supply
employment,machines, and other
resources needed to transform their labor
potential into marketable products or
services.
641
Capitalists tend to use their greater
power to further disempower workers,
for example, by replacing worker
control over work with managerial
control, creating competition among
workers via differential pay or through
the division of labor.
642
All of these tactics reduce the
workers’ collective political
influence and hence their ability
to resist management’s efforts
to control them.
643
Once labor is defined as a cost of
production,rather than as a means to
achieve a collective purpose for the
good of society,workers are
disenfranchised from the product of
their own work efforts,a condition that
Marx characterized as alienation.
644
According to Marx, alienation
occurs when labor is transformed
into a commodity to be bought
and sold on an exchange market,
which leaves humans with only an
instrumental relationship with one
another based on the economic
value of their labor potential.
645
Unless the workers organize
their resistance(e.g.,via
unions), managerial
exploitation and the
disempowerment and
alienation of workers will
grow unabated.
646
Thus, according to Marx, the result of
antagonism between capital and labor
is build up of institutionalized forms of
mutual control and resistance(e.g.,
management vs.unions)temporarily
held in place by the dynamics of a
capitalist economy.
647
This line of thinking has
been a major influence on
contemporary discussions
in industrial sociology and
labor process theory.
648
Emile Durkheim,
Sociologist(French)
Over one hundred years after
Smith introduced the concept of
the division of labor,French
sociologist Emile Durkheim
wrote his book on the subject.
649
In The Division of Labor in
Society,published in 1893,
Durkheim extended the concept
of the division of labor beyond
manufacturing organizations to
explain the structural shift from
agricultural to industrial
societies that accomplished the
industrial revolution.
650
Durkheim described this
shift in terms of increases
in specialization, hierarchy,
and the interdependence
of work tasks.
651
Early modernist
organization theorists
regarded these concepts
as key dimensions for
defining and describing
complex organizations.
652
Durkheim also proposed the
distinction between formal and
informal aspects of organizations
and emphasized the need to attend
to workers’ social needs as well as
the demands of formally organizing
their work efforts.
653
The theme of social needs is
of major interest within the
fields of organizational
behavior, and industrial and
organizational psychology.
654
The distinction between formal
and informal aspects of
organizing exposed the tension
between economic and
humanistic aspects of organizing
that vex organizers and have
traditionally divided organization
theorists into opposing camps.
655
In addition to his work on the
division of labor, Durkheim
made a major contribution to
establishing sociology as a
scientific discipline through
his work on methodology.
656
Particularly with his books The
Rules of Sociological Method and
Suicide, which emphasized
objective measurement and
statistical description and analysis,
Durkheim helped lay positivistic
methodological foundations, not
only for sociology, but also for
modernist organization theory.
657
Frederick Winslow Taylor, Founder of
Scientific Management(American)
At the turn of the century,
Frederick W. Taylor proposed
applying scientific methods to
discover the most efficient
working techniques for manual
forms of labor.
658
Taylor called his approach
Scientific Management, and he
claimed that its successful
application would fully exploit the
efficiencies of specialized labor
through the close supervision of
employees carrying out highly
specialized physical work.
659
Efficiency was to be encouraged
and supported by a piece-rate
incentive system in which workers
were paid according to the amount
of work of a pre-specified nature
that they performed in a given
period of time
660
The new system permitted
management to define the
tasks that workers
performed, and also
determine how they
approached these tasks.
661
Notice also how Taylor’s
method shifted control of
work tasks from
craftsworkers to
management.
662
In Taylor’s view, Scientific
Management was a direct attack on
worker soldiering, a practice in
which workers limited their output in
the interests of maximizing their
incomes and assuring job protection
for themselves and fellow workers.
663
( workers reasoned
that a given amount
of work done slowly
requires more
workers).
664
Taylor’s system undermined
the authority of the workers
and their master craftsmen
by introducing managerial
control and supervision, and
by offering differential pay for
performance which eroded
worker solidarity.
665
These aspects of Scientific
Management earned it
considerable and lasting ill-repute
as being ruinously ignorant of the
trust and cooperation between
management and workers upon
which organizations depend.
666
So much furor was
created by Taylor that
Scientific Management
was the subject of an
American Congressional
investigation.
667
This controversy has recently re-emerged
in postmodern criticism of modernist
management practices where Taylorism
and its subsequent developments by
Henry Ford (involving the mass-production
assembly line which some postmodernists
refer to as Fordism) are a favorite target
along with the Tayloristic practices
associated with the total quality
management(TQM) movement.
668
Perhaps the most
enduring image of
Taylor is as a promoter
of rationalization in
organizations.
669
His belief in the powers of objective
measurement and the discovery of
laws governing work efficiency are
carried into the modernist
perspective in organization theory
where Taylor’s techniques lay the
groundwork for management
control systems.
670
Today, postmodern
organization theorists
reinterpret Taylorism as
an early manifestation
of the managerial
ideology of control.
671
They see Taylor’s system,
not so much as a means of
the value for rationality that
was unquestioningly
accepted during the early
part of the twentieth century.
672
In this view, Taylorism
legitimizes management,
particularly in its role as
control agent, by asserting
that the practices of Scientific
Management must be
accepted because they are
rational.
673
Henri Fayol, Engineer, CEO, and
Administrative Theorist(Fremch)
674
675