19 further concepts_28.03.2012

Further Concepts in Collaboration

Nese TuncerMarch 28,2012

Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft 

• (generally translated as "community" and "society")

• sociological categories introduced by the German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies in 1887.

Gemeinshaft• Gemeinschaft (often translated as community) is an association in which

individuals are oriented to the large association for their own self interest.

• Individuals in gemeinschaft are regulated by common beliefs (mores) about the appropriate behavior and responsibility of members to each other and to the association at large;

• Associations are defined by "unity of will".

• Tönnies saw the family as the most perfect expression of gemeinschaft; however, he expected that gemeinschaft could be based on shared place and shared belief as well as kinship, and he included globally dispersed religious communities as possible examples of gemeinschaft.

• Gemeinschaft community involves ascribed status. You are given a status by birth.

• Gemeinschaften are characterized by– a moderate division of labour, – strong personal relationships, strong families, and – relatively simple social institutions.

• In such societies there is seldom a need to enforce social controlexternally, due to a collective sense of loyalty individuals feel for society.

Theory of Community(Gemeinschaft) 

• Nature of authority: fatherhood or paternity; authority of age, authority of force, and authority of wisdom/spirit 

• Key social groups/relations: kinship, neighborhood, friendship, ‘relations of kin and individuals’

• Real foundation of unity and possibility: blood relationships, physical proximity, intellectual proximity

• Common state of mind (custom and belief) and volk: mutual possession and enjoyment (collective ownership and communal consumption),’common goods - common evils; common friends—common enemies’

Gesellschaft

• Gesellschaft (often translated as society, civil society or association) describes associations in which, for the individual, the larger association never takes precedence over the individual's self interest, and these associations lack the same level of shared beliefs (mores).

• Gesellschaft is maintained through individuals acting in their own self interest. A modern business is a good example of gesellschaft.

• Gesellschaft society involves achieved status. You reach your status by education and work, for example, through the attainment of goals, or attendance at University.

• Unlike gemeinschaften, gesellschaften emphasize secondary relationships rather than familial or community ties, and

• there is generally less individual loyalty to society. 

• Social cohesion in gesellschaften typically derives from a more elaborate division of labor (interdependence). Such societies are considered more susceptible to class conflict as well as racial and ethnic conflicts.

Theory of modern society(Gesellschaft)

• Artificial being: an artificial construction of the aggregate of human beings, isolation/separation, common values and fictions

• Exchange, contract, money=power, bourgeois society, zero-sum game, competition and coalition T

• The form of the general will: convention or tradition? System of conventional rules, dependence on relations with state vs. church 

• Gesellschaft as the final culmination of developed Gemeinschaft: general trade economy, industry, the world market, capitalists vs. noncapitalists, hierarchy of control.

Gemeinschaft vs Gesellschaft

• In a Gesellschaft everything is clearly spelled out, so that everyone has clearly defined rights. If anyone asks us to go beyond our duties then they must give a reason, demonstrating why this extra demand is part of our“job description.” Only when this is demonstrated are we obligated to take on something further.

• In a Gesellschaft it is the performance of a contractual obligation that matters. Whether it is done willingly or grudgingly, with affection or calculatingly, makes no difference. All that matters is that the contract is fulfilled to the letter, for example that the goods are delivered.

• In a Gemeinschaft the opposite is the case. We feel we cannot say “no” to virtually any demand. Indeed, it would not occur to us to assess the demand as a demand. This kind of calculation does not enter the picture. Here the burden of proof is on us to say why we should not respond positively, and if we feel we cannot, there will be a great deal of inner struggle. In a “full” Gemeinschaft this inner struggle does not occur at all, and we unreflectingly meet our obligation. As with a close family member, we are bound to them “come what may,” “for better or worse,” because the love involved is unconditional.

• In a Gemeinschaft how things are

done is of interest. It matters, for example, that food is served in the family setting with love (though the food may be burned); it is the care that goes into the act that is at least as important as the act itself. It matters that the gift is carefully wrapped, showing that the giver has taken trouble.

Further Theories following Tönnies

Émile Durkheim,• Durkheim introduced the terms "mechanical" and "organic solidarity" as part of his theory of

the development of societies in The Division of Labour in Society (1893).• Mechanical solidarity: its cohesion and integration comes from the homogeneity of

individuals—people feel connected through similar work, educational and religious training, and lifestyle. Mechanical solidarity normally operates in "traditional" and small scale societies.

• Organic solidarity comes from the interdependence that arises from specialization of work and the complementarities between people—a development which occurs in "modern" and "industrial" societies. Individuals perform different tasks and often have different values and interest, the order and very solidarity of society depends on their reliance on each other to perform their specified tasks. Organic here is referring to the interdependence of the component parts. Thus, social solidarity is maintained in more complex societies through the interdependence of its component parts (e.g., farmers produce the food to feed the factory workers who produce the tractors that allow the farmer to produce the food).

Talcott Parsons  • Parsons developed ‘pattern variables' which are five dichotomies, to draw out the contrasting

values to which individuals orient themselves in social interaction. • One side of the dichotomies reflects the value patterns dominant in traditional society (

Gemeinschaft), the other reflects the dominant values of modern society (Gesellschaft).• The variables, listed with the traditional side of the dichotomy first, are: affectivity - affective

neutrality; diffuseness - specificity; particularism - universalism; ascription - achievement; collectivity orientation - self orientation.

Asabiyya

• Although the term existed in pre-Islamic era, Ibn Khaldun’s asabiyyah describes the bond of cohesion among humans in a group forming community.

• Asabiyyah is often translated as a "group feeling" and it determines how well one group can produce something together.

• It is also the feeling of belonging to something that is expanding and expansion can only come about through effective leadership.

What factors affect asabiyyah ?

Why a tribe has higher asabiyyah?

• share common blood ties

• driven by the shared need to survive

• have to utilize fewer resources

• encounter competition from other tribes

Why a city has lower asabiyyah?

• not everyone is related by blood

• job specialization and diversification

• luxury, wealth, status and class set people apart

• government is more distant and decision making is delegated to a few

Relevance of asabiyyah

• Idea of small teams, cross-functional and bottom-up self-governed structures increase asabiyyah.

• On the other hand, luxury, status and classes as well as a distant government are factors that decrease productivity of a team.   

• The golden rules of Ibn Khaldun to increase asabiyyah of a team:– Create a common purpose - gather together and write

down a manifesto. make ensure that evangelists will spread the word (agile development)

– create an authority - (the team commitment) that directs energies of people towards a common purpose

• Life cycle of a team can also be explained through asabiyya

Understanding Asabiyya for Conflict Resolution

• Asabiyyah, as group feeling, is not a subject-based concept but a process of identification with the collective at a strategic time. It is the state of mind that makes individuals’ identify with a group and subordinate their own personal interests to the group interest.

• Asabiyyah is not an interest-based theory. It goes beyond the cost-and-benefit assumption among individuals when they join new social movements and advocate alternative worldviews.

• Ibn Khaldun’s methodology was based on the ‘mant.iq’, the logic of Aristotle. It entailed a “complex interactive dynamic of inductive and deductive reasoning” informed at all times by personal experience and an encyclopedic knowledge of the differences in time and place in world history.

• Above all, Asabiyyah offers a temporal understanding of social change. When a dominant Asabiyyah declines, another more compelling may take its place; thus, civilizations rise and fall, and history describes these cycles of Asabiyyah as they play out. Ibn Khaldun argues that each dynasty (or civilization) has within itself the seeds of its own downfall.

.

http://solonsimmons.wordpress.com

[The] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism.

We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service....

This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely."

August Comte

Altruism

• The term first coined in 19th Century by August Comte, the French founder of positivism,

• The word "altruism" (French, altruisme, from autrui: "other people“), derived from Latin alter: "other")

• Comte believed that individuals had a moral obligation to renounce self-interest and live for others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest

Altruism vs. Utilitarianizm

Altruism prescribes maximizing good consequences for everyone except the actor.

Utilitarianizm prescribes acts that maximize good consequences for all of society

Arguably, however, since the rest of society will almost always outnumber the utilitarian, a genuine utilitarian will inevitably end up practicing altruism or a form of altruism.

"An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent."

• Live for others (A. Comte)

• ....the doctrine that each of us has a special obligation to benefit others. (Charles Dunbar Broad)

• A duty to relieve the distress and promote the happiness of our fellows...Altruism is to maintain quite simply that a man may and should discount altogether his own pleasure or happiness as such when he is deciding what course of action to pursue.“ (W.G. Maclagan)

Critisms

• Friedrich Nietzsche held that the idea that to treat others as more important than oneself is degrading and demeaning to the self. He also believed that the idea that others have a higher value than oneself hinders the individual's pursuit of self-development, excellence, and creativity. However, he did assert a "duty" to help those who are weaker than oneself.[7]

• David Kelley, says that "there is no rational ground for asserting that sacrificing yourself in order to serve others is morally superior to pursuing your own (long-term, rational) self-interest. Altruism ultimately depends on non-rational 'rationales,' on mysticism in some form..." Furthermore, he holds that there is a danger of the state enforcing that moral ideal: "If self-sacrifice is an ideal - if service to others is the highest, most honorable course of action - why not force people to act accordingly?" He believes this can ultimately result in the state forcing everyone into a collectivist political system.

• Norwegian eco-philosopher Arne Naess argues that environmental action based upon altruism — or service of the other — stems from a shrunken "egoic" concept of the self. Self-actualization will result, he argues, in the recovery of an "ecological self", in which actions formerly seen as altruistic are in reality a form of enlightened self-interest.

• German philosopher Max Scheler distinguishes two different ways in which the strong can help the weak, one which is an expression of love, "motivated by a powerful feeling of security, strength, and inner salvation, of the invincible fullness of one’s own life and existence" and another which is merely "one of the many modern substitutes for love, ... nothing but the urge to turn away from oneself and to lose oneself in other people’s business."At its worst, Scheler says, "love for the small, the poor, the weak, and the oppressed is really disguised hatred, repressed envy, an impulse to detract, etc., directed against the opposite phenomena: wealth, strength, power, largesse."

The Unselfish Gene

• We need systems that rely on engagement, communication, and a sense of common purpose and identity. Most organizations would be better off helping us to engage and embrace our collaborative, generous sentiments than assuming that we are driven purely by self-interest. In fact, systems based on self-interest, such as material rewards and punishment, often lead to less productivity than an approach oriented toward our social motivations.

• The challenge we face today is to build new models based on fresh assumptions about human behavior that can help us design better systems. The image of humanity this shift requires will allow us to hold a more benevolent model of who we are as human beings. No, we are not all Mother Teresa; if we were, we wouldn’t have heard of her. However, a majority of human beings are more willing to be cooperative, trustworthy, and generous than the dominant model has permitted us to assume. If we recognize that, we can build efficient systems by relying on our better selves rather than optimizing for our worst. We can do better.

Yochai Benkler

Social Entrepreneurship

Enterpreneur

• An entrepreneur is an owner or manager of a business enterprise who makes money through risk and initiative.

• The term is believed to be coined by  Jean-Baptiste Say, a French economist, is believed to have coined the word "entrepreneur" in the 19th century - he defined an entrepreneur as "one who undertakes an enterprise, especially a contractor, acting as intermediatory between capital and labour"

• Entrepreneur in English is a term applied to a person who is willing to help launch a new venture or enterprise and accept full responsibility for the outcome and defined as such by the Irish-French economist Richard Cantillon.

• The terms social entrepreneur and social entrepreneurship were used first in the literature on social change in the 1960s and 1970s.The terms came into widespread use in the 1980s and 1990s, promoted by Bill Drayton the founder of Ashoka: Innovators for the Public

Social Entrepreneurship

• A social entrepreneur recognizes a social problem and uses entrepreneurial principles to organize, create and manage a venture to achieve social change (a social venture).

• While a business entrepreneur typically measures performance in profit and return, a social entrepreneur focuses on creating social returns.

• A social entrepreneur is motivated by a desire to help, improve and transform social, environmental, educational and economic conditions.

• Key traits and characteristics of highly effective social entrepreneurs include

– ambition and a lack of acceptance of the status quo or accepting the world "as it is".

– driven by an emotional desire to address some of the big social and economic conditions in the world, for example, poverty and educational deprivation, rather than by the desire for profit.

– seeks to develop innovative solutions to global problems that can be copied by others to enact change

• Social entrepreneurs are most commonly associated with the voluntary and not-for-profit sectors, but this need not preclude making a profit.

Historical Examples

• Although the terms are relatively new, social entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurship can be found throughout history.

• Florence Nightingale (founder of the first nursing school and developer of modern nursing practices), 

• Robert Owen(founder of the cooperative movement), and 

• Vinoba Bhave (founder of India's Land Gift Movement).

Suggested Reading

• Benkler, Yochai. The Penguin and the Leviathan, Yale University Press, 2006.

• Hui,P. et al. Selfishness, Altruism and Message Spreading in Mobile Social Networks

• Axelrod, R., The Evolution of Cooperation, Basic books, 2006.

Current practice

• One well-known contemporary social entrepreneur is Muhammad Yunus, founder and manager of Grameen Bank and its growing family of social venture businesses, who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 2006. Yunus was a professor of economics at Chittagong University where he developed the concepts of microcredit and microfinance. These loans are given to entrepreneurs too poor to qualify for traditional bank loans.

• Ashoka: Innovators for the Public, the Skoll Foundation, the Omidyar Network, the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, Athgo, Root Cause, the Canadian Social Entrepreneurship Foundation, NESsT,New Profit Inc., National Social Entrepreneurship Forum, and Echoing Green among others, focus on highlighting these hidden change-makers who are scattered throughout the world.

Discussions

• There are continuing arguments over precisely who counts as a social entrepreneur. Philanthropists, social activists, environmentalists, and other socially-oriented practitioners are referred to as social entrepreneurs.

• It is important to set the function of social entrepreneurship apart from other socially oriented activities and identify the boundaries within which social entrepreneurs operate.

• Some have advocated restricting the term to founders of organizations that primarily rely on earned income – meaning income earned directly from paying consumers.