Let’s assume entities that in all its capacities facing limits of processing and which are unlimited in the scope of application of those capabilities.
Let us assume in addition that are able to learn and communicate, and in both cases, symbolically. If our bodies are living beings, then let’s assume that you have preferences (at least, prefer to live dying).
Let us assume in addition that the world is open: That the distinctions with regard to the world that can make these bodies make up a set undefined. In other words, there is a limited set of possible distinctions, but they are not an infinite set, but determinable of such distinctions (an example of an infinite set, but given the natural numbers, where each of its infinite elements can be determined). For the record that this is compatible with a physical world finite (with a space of states is limited), given that the set of criteria from which to generate distinctions is not defined.
If we assume the above then it is concluded that these entities will build social orders in a way necessary: they can Not avoid to build any form of order. And also it is concluded that these entities will build these orders on a permanent basis, without being able to shut down that process of construction of order: they Cannot ensure the stability of the order that built.
First, argumentemos two statements above will help us to defend the conclusions central.
1. Given the premises, it follows that actors are mutually impredecibles each other.
In a world that is open to the possibility that new information (a new object, a new distinction) that generate a new learning (a new relationship between distinctions or objects) is always present.
Now, this new learning and is not necessarily the same between different entities. If the entities have different experiences, and to do this, simply move around the world, then even if they are using the same learning procedures (i.and having the same initial situation lead to the same conclusion) do not generate the same learning: do Not experience the same situations. If the learning processes are stable (i.and to learn implies that I have stable relationships between elements) the entire initial difference may lead to differences later: Acquire certain skills (for example certain distinctions) allows you to build later learning different with respect to those who do not own (the fact that you have certain distinctions). In addition to the assumption of having same learning procedures is unlikely: Given that the skills have no limit to where you can apply, it follows that it can be applied to themselves, and then it is possible to learn about the learn. Given the above, then the actors can generate different learning procedures, for the same reasons given above that can generate learning different.
Then, the actors generate learnings that can be different, and the process of learning -that can’t be closed completely – it is permanent. Given the above, the actors are unpredictable because an actor can’t predict which will be what you will learn another actor in a given situation.
The set of distinctions from which to generate learning is highly likely to be different, and then you can not just simply apply their own learning and assume that the other actor will apply. Then, what is left as a possibility is that the actor be able to know the whole information of the other actor (the set of distinctions, the set of experiences etc), the procedures by which learn etc, Assuming that we are dealing with an actor with as much complexity as one’s own, and then that has limitations on its processing capacity any capacity (and the same level of limitations), then the possibility of having that set of information and know all the operations carried out by another actor on that set are rather low.
2. Given the premises, it follows that the actors are forced to simplify the complexity of the world they face.
Create rules (learning) is a way of simplifying the world: it Is to establish stable relations between distinctions. The learning then replaces a situation in which everything can be (anything you can relate to any other thing) by a more simple (in that there are certain probabilities that are not there).
But the world is open: The set of distinctions is not determinable. A world in this way has the capacity to be enormously complex (or to be more precise, of being able always to be more complex than expected). Further, it is possible to add new distinctions, with which then the number of possibilities increases.
Subjects with limited capabilities can not cope with a number of alternatives are indeterminate, they require to be able to act to simplify the world to which face. In other words, to generate rules that replace a universe in which everything is possible by one in which only some things are. This simplification is a loss (the world has not stopped having distinctions indeterminate, or has ceased to have the possibility of having distinctions that the subject does not operate), and therefore to simplify is to overlook differences of reality (which is treated as the same thing which is not necessarily what is).
3. The combination of the above, it follows that the actors generate items ‘new’, at least from the perspective of other actors.
The actors create simplifications of the world, these simplifications are elements that are for other players unpredictable. That is, from the perspective of alter, ego ‘create new items’. Beyond if from the perspective of an actor who knew everything (which, by assumption of fact is not possible) all of these ‘creations’ would be already pre-given (and would be a combination of alternatives that would be prerequisites); the case is that for the actors of whom we are speaking, the other actors are generators of novelty.
Let us proceed now to argue, on the basis of the claims before, the two basic propositions.
The actors may not avoid producing social practices (which are a form of social order).
We define social practice as a set of relationships locally stable in that, if actors are structurally equivalent (i.and who are occupying ‘the same role’) are replaced each other, there is no changes in the behavior of other actors. In other words, a given actor does not interact with others in both specific individuals but in both performers of a role. Which means, then, that a practice is described when you describe the positions and the relationships expected between them. The argument then reduces to show that a set of actors given can not avoid producing the situation above.
To generate practices is required (a) a set of classifications and (b) allow to connect among themselves the formation of a network of roles (which doesn’t matter with whom you interact). To prove the proposition it is required that these processes are automatic.
In the first place, we proceed to examine the construction of classifications: Suppose a set of actors in interaction. These actors learn things from that interaction: To achieve that ? right-And I have to use such a form of coordination; only with ? but not with ? I can coordinate this with another action. Learning implies a stable link, and given that the distinctions they imply actions, then each agent stabilizes its own behavior, helped by the fact that the limited will be able to handle better the world if it manages to control its complexity. These learnings can be disseminated by communication. It then generates a network of interactions with a certain level of stability.
To go to a social practice that I need is that these types of interactions constitute (pass you be with ? achievement to to do X with the actors of the type ? is achieved to the do action type X). Now, the agents are still learning, and between those learnings can be about other actors and actions, and then they can classify and make distinctions on them. This generates typings, but not yet typings common. This commonality comes from the following: Each classification can be understood as a proposal to produce and achieve coordination. To the extent that those classifications occur coordinations that work, those classifications are to be disseminated; to the extent that some actors act on the interactions, and may even include the things you want them to alter the use classification, this process expands even more. In this situation of competition between classifications, and some will expand more than others, and the expansion will increase its use (if everyone uses this distinction and accommodate it; to me it will be easier to coordinarme with others using it). And because of this we can pass from typings to typings common.
At this time there is a definition of a behavior: In a certain context, it is known that to achieve to be required to do actions of type X with actors of type ?. Now, the same process stated for this action can be performed in other situations. The same ? proceed to perform another action: to get b to perform actions of the kind, And with actors of type ?. These various classifications are isolated are in turn observed by the actors in such a context that they can then recognize those connections: In such a social context, what happens is that is done (to achieve to be required to do actions of type X with actors of type ?; and ? at the same time doing actions And with actors of type ?. In particular, given that in these connections, what is observed is not the actor in particular, but the type; the description does not change if you change the actor in particular that done: Any kind ? it is equivalent to each other, does the same thing (it relates in such a manner with other actors). And for this process to occur the same learning dynamics and stabilization common than in the previous. Then, what is generated is a network of roles.
The practice, in particular, emerges out of processes of criminalization of the action -needed to simplify the world in each actor-which, in turn, are observed (and reported) by the actors; the process of observation that generate learning common -the possibility is always given, and that given which in turn also simplifies the world, it is of high interest for the actors – stabilizes a network of roles: A concatenation of actions tipícas between actors is also typical.
If you review each of the above processes will be observed that all of them operate due to the need of the actors to simplify their world, something they cannot avoid doing; and that given these processes, are necessary practices, which is completed to test the claim.
The actors can continue to produce social practices (and thus destabilize the orders already produced).
The argument here is short: The actors can’t eliminate the possibility of new learning, and in particular that other actors learn: Appear then new estabilizaciones, classifications and proposals of typing. The actors also cannot eliminate the possibility of changes in the bases of the interaction –in the control and representation of the elements. In general, the consequences of an action are not fully known or controllable, and from them we can generate new practices and to change them.
The consequences in the middle of the two previous propositions are, on the one hand, it is not possible to avoid the construction of social order and that, on the other, it is not possible -by the same processes that created it – to ensure their reproduction without change. The social order is, if you will, omnipresent and ever-changing. The processes through which you create an order are the same then destabilize.
As Castoriadis remarks in connection with Greek thought in relation to any existence: “And this existence should be destroyed according to the same principle that produces it” (Castoriadis, What makes Greece 1, Seminar 16 February, 1983, p 235).
This equivalence of the processes of formation and destabilization of the order can be thought of more broadly. In the end, you can argue that the creation of the order is not the same as that of reproduction; and then what is related to reproduction would be different processes of production. However, it can be seen that the process of creation of a practice is a process of reproduction also -the actors stabilize and reproduce to be able to coordinate. Then, the difference also can be maintained for the case of the difference propagation / stabilization.