Anna,
you said
"... my point has always been that systems never change on their
own, it is people who create change (as collective subjects, Paul Dillon is
right, of course), albeit without being aware of the significance and
ramifications of their actions. See?"
You are right. But I think that saying "people" is putting everyone into
the same category. I think that in every situation there are people who
"know more" and those that "know less". Those who "know less" may do thing
which affect a future historical change but at the same time do them
without knowing what effects will they cause. But those who "know more" -
either by the virtue of their position in the activity system, or by
chance, or by spying etc, they may have a better insight into the effects
of their and other people's actions. I am sure (as we are all) that there
were people who KNEW about the imminent collapse of Enron long before it
really happened and who profited from it or who were forbidden to say
anything about it etc.
My point is that in many situations (not all of them for sure) people
differ in the ability to have a complete oversight of all the important
facts about the activity system they are a part of. "Ability" is here not
as a psychological capacity but just as a reflection of their social and
temporal position.
Thus, I am sure that SOME people on the former Soviet Union were in a
better position to know what was going to happen, than other people.
Similarly with Enron. And similarly today there are people who are in a
better position to say if Enron's case will cause a greater disturbance in
the social order or not. So some people might not be aware of the
significance and ramifications of their actions (relatively to some but not
all domains of their actions) and some people might be well aware of them
(but not maybe of some other).
Ana
At 01:09 PM 2/15/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> Philip, you did not notice one aspect of what I was saying, namely, that
>people WERE actively creating the change/history then and are possibly
>creating change/history right now, albeit without knowing it. Take Enron's
>example. I believe only the FUTURE will tell whether Enron is just one more
>(though huge) company collapse or it is indeed part of our history. The
>latter would be the case, for example, if Enron will trigger collective
>social action that would lead to substantial changes in the type of the
>system that exists now (i.e., by changing the fundamentals of what appears
>to be totally corrupted in principle, see e.g. Krugman in NY Times, a couple
>of weeks ago, paper titled "System corrupted"). So, if people will enact
>collective processes that would change the system, following the
>Enron-instigated revelation of how the system actually works, then I bet it
>would become part of everyone's history, including Paul Dillon's. Or, on a
>more modest scale, if a situation like a great depression ensues from the
>Enron collapse, then again it would become part of the history for all of
>us, as we will start loosing jobs, homes etc.
>
>So, Phillip, my point has always been that systems never change on their
>own, it is people who create change (as collective subjects, Paul Dillon is
>right, of course), albeit without being aware of the significance and
>ramifications of their actions. See?
>
>Anna (two n's)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Phillip White
>To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>Sent: 2/15/2002 12:27 PM
>Subject: Re: RE: History and awareness
>
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu writes:
>
> Ana scrobe:
>
> >Paul Dillon introduced collective subject's 'awareness' as the
>criterion
> >for
> >processes to count as historical ones.
> >This brings me back to the question I asked before: how is it that
>people,
> >as collective subjects, are often unaware that they create history --
> >even
> >as they participate in and enact social processes that shape their own
> >history? Why is it that history becomes clear often only in the
>hindsight?
> >it is very likely that Rosa Parks wasn't aware, on the spot, of how her
> >courageos act was going to affect the social processes, was she? But
>even
> >at
> >the level of a collective subject, the real significance of events
>often
> >becomes clear only after the fact, doesn't it? Like with people back in
> >the
> >80s in Moscow who moved very slowly in the subways (in Mike's
> >recollection)
> >but who prepared and eventually enacted, in their collective
>activities, a
> >fundamental historical change, a change of history (for better or
>worse,
> >we
> >still have to see; further history will show).
>
> Ana, i'm glad you came back to this, because it's been on my
>mind ever
>since you first raised the question about why the immenient collapse of
>the soviet union wasn't recognized.
>
> i think that probably Yrjo or Jay could answer this much better
>than i
>because from what i've read of theirs tells me that they've got a much
>better grasp on systems theory than i do. still, i want to put it out
>there half-baked as it might be.
>
> before the collapse of Enron some people could see evidence of
>its
>possibilities - because they had access to particular bits and pieces
>of
>information - they were in a system in which there were those feed-back
>loops.
>
> much of the soviet union was predicated on blocking the free
>flow of
>information - ironically, much like Enron and other hyper capitalist
>organization. i think that the agents within such systems believer that
>they are protected themselves by blocking access to information,
>attempting to keep it from moving through-out the entire system.
>
> so, i would assert that to a great part, the reason that people
>didn't
>anticipate the collapse of the soviet union was because they didn't have
>ready access to the information. certainly they knew that things
>weren't
>working - as frineds of mine have said who lived within the soviet
>union
>at the time - but things hadn't been working for so long - this, i
>think brings up the parable of the frog in the pot of water that has
>such
>a low flame under it that the frog never notices that the water is
>slowly
>slowly incrementally rising to a boil, until it's too late, and he's
>already poached. (Gregory Bateson)
>
> which is where i think Paul is wrong when he suggests that Enron
>is not
>part of his history - unless i misunderstood him. i would think that
>Enron is certainly part of his history because when information in a
>positive feedback loop like Enron enters a system, the entire system
>wobbles to accomodate the information.
>
> what do others who work with systems theory
>(cybernetics/Batesonian)
>think?
>
>phillip
> >
>* * * * * * * *
>
>* *
>
>The English noun "identity" comes, ultimately, from the
>Latin adverb "identidem", which means "repeatedly."
>The Latin has exactly the same rhythm as the English,
>buh-BUM-buh-BUM - a simple iamb, repeated; and
>"identidem" is, in fact, nothing more than a
>reduplication of the word "idem", "the same":
>"idem(et)idem". "Same(and) same". The same,
>repeated. It is a word that does exactly what
>it means.
>
> from "The Elusive Embrace" by Daniel
>Mendelsohn.
>
>phillip white
>doctoral student http://ceo.cudenver.edu/~hacms_lab/index.html
>scrambling a dissertation
>denver, colorado
>phillip_white@ceo.cudenver.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 01 2002 - 01:00:20 PST