Ever pondered on any of these questions?

     Why and what are the major political ideologies (such as liberalism, socialism, etc)? Why does empirical analysis suggest that there are five fundamental dimensions to human personality? Why are there two main forms of social structure (bureaucratic and community) and how do they arise? Does social and cultural progress really happen? How and why did human civilisation first start?

A THEORY OF SOCIAL INTERACTION The Lancefield Theory
by Julian Hart

DRAFT
SUMMER 2010
NEED INTERACTION PROCESS 5 NEEDS 5 TENSIONS OF DEVELOPMENT EVOLUTION DEVELOPMENT

a new theory of human development which spans the whole of the social sciences
SHORT INTRODUCTION

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

SYNOPSIS The Lancefield Theory is a new theory of social interaction. It is a construct, which spans and connects the whole social sciences from psychology to macro-economics. The proposed theory provides a completely new way to understand human development and to appreciate the natural progress and evolution of cities and civilisations. While the theory challenges existing approaches to constructing the social sciences and the various academic silos, it ties together many of the most important observations and theories which have been made over the last 200 years. This theory of social interaction suggests that the progress of human society is driven by five fundamental social processes. These social processes manifest as positive feedback systems, which exist wherever there is interaction between human beings, from pair interactions to nation states and beyond. The processes are a-scalar. One way, in which we are already aware of these processes is through the political ideologies of (1) liberalism, (2) socialism, (3) fundamentalism and (4) sustainability. The apparent social processes each drive the evolution of human societies in different directions, creating tensions of development: one process acts to tear a human society apart, two of the processes create different types of social structure, a fourth helps a human society to adapt to a changing outside social or physical world and the fifth provides a society with the capacity to transform itself. The processes can be construed to be the processes of Birth, Growth, Health (health maintenance), Adaptation and Transformation of cities. Only when all five processes operate together does human development progress in an even manner; being positive feedback systems, each process acting alone would (and has been seen in the past to) drive human society to inevitable self-destruction. The five social processes are driven by each and every human being seeking to satisfy his or her basic Needs, his or her desire to survive and thrive and to experience happiness in its various guises. This new theory for the first time creates a comprehensible connection between all aspects of the human scale world, that which we experience in our daily lives, and the macroscopic society – our cultures, social structures, ideologies and large scale economic patterns of behaviour. This theory of social interaction is not contained only to the domain of human civilisation. It is equally applicable to the whole history of Man’s evolution and by extension to all species and the natural world. This new startling theory in fact provides a template for a general theory of evolution, extending from the social sciences across the natural sciences and embracing the physical sciences too. This new theory completes the picture initially drawn by Darwin, by showing how both competition and cooperation operate in human society and in natural systems.

Contents Introduction Premise: simplicity leading to complexity Initial validation of the theory Social processes in operation Chronology of city origin and development Experience of individual within society Life of a human as a social animal Assumptions and building blocks Basic structure of the theory of social interaction Detailed Interaction Process Manifestation of the social processes in city form Application to the modern business Expression of the process in natural evolution

Author Julian Hart was born in 1969, a month before Man first stepped onto the Moon. He lived a sheltered, middle England, home counties life until the age of 8, when his parents moved to work in Chile, South America. Soon thereafter he went to boarding school at Oundle, near Peterborough. Julian studied Chemistry at Bristol University and later obtained a Masters in Environmental Science at Brunel University. His first career job was with the international engineering consultancy, Ove Arup & Partners. Over 7 years at Arup he migrated from environmental consultancy into town planning and sustainable design and helped to develop the organisation’s worldwide strategy on sustainable development. He also began doctoral research on the evolution of cities, became involved in the Urban Task Force and lectured at Harvard on green architecture. After a year at Arup Associates, the architectural arm of Arup, Julian went ‘client side’ and spent the next 6 years as development manager for Stratford City, now centre piece for the Olympics 2012. He helped take Stratford from concept to planning permission for a new metropolitan centre for London. After that he set up Lancefield Consulting, providing advice to clients on planning and sustainability issues in the property sector for 3½ years. With the economy changing, he joined the newly formed Homes and Communities Agency as Design Manager for London. In this capacity he oversees the quality of design for all publicly funded housing development across London.
© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Page 2 of 51

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

INTRODUCTION The proposed theory of social interaction was formulated by the author because of a perception that existing interpretations of sustainable development have little, if any, intellectual credibility. This led the author on a journey of philosophical discovery, which first produced a new way of appreciating the evolution of cities and civilisations and was then seen to have wider application. What began as an innocent investigation into constructs for sustainable indicators for cities morphed into a new theory of human development. This booklet will seek to set out this new theory through the lens of the human world and how it describes the process of societal development. Justification for the validity of the theory of social interaction will be provided. The new construct will then be generalised to the natural world to achieve a general theory of evolution. Summary This theory of social interaction suggests that the growth and development of cities (as an example system within the universe) can best be described through the continuous interplay of five identifiable and quite distinct and observable social processes. These macroscopic processes originate at the microscopic level from individual humans interacting as they seek to satisfy their personal Needs to survive and thrive. Scaled up, the macroscopic phenomena represent the processes of Birth, Growth, Health (health maintenance), Adaptation and Transformation of cities. All five processes are positive feedback systems. All five processes are continually operating within human society, to greater or lesser degrees; the extent to which any particular process is apparent at a particular point in time will strongly influence the direction of development of any particular society. The five processes create opposing tensions within society, such that when all five are functioning in equal measure development or evolution is a progressive, fairly gradual process. If, or when, any individual process accelerates faster than the other processes, then human societies can very quickly become unbalanced in development and rapidly move down a path of self-destruction. Each social process is pure, where the real life we experience represents a complex interplay of each pure phenomenon. We experience the influence of these social processes in a variety of ways, including how we are each stimulated to prioritise fulfilment of our personal Needs (becoming materialistic, a workaholic, a religious zealot or addicted to an iPhone) or in the choices we make to achieve a work-life balance. For reasons, which will become apparent, our experience of these five processes is only now, in modern democratic societies, becoming objectified and thereby more easily observable.

Civilisation has arisen because of the emergence and on-going existence of cities. Cities and thence civilisations have progressed as a result of the continuous interplay between five fundamental social processes. These processes of human development represent the processes of Birth, Growth, Health, Adaptation and Transformation of cities.
The Birth Process In civilisation, the Birth Process drives the human activity of trade. It initially arises from our fundamental daily material needs (food and water), extending in modern society to all our material desires. It can most readily be associated with the political ideology of liberalism. As people are driven to interact in material exchanges, this affects in a deep way how they behave, how they see others and themselves, how they perceive space and time and what they think. The Birth Process drives individualism and desire for freedom of behaviour and a strong focus on the present. The process acts to tear society apart. From tribal systems to modern bureaucracies, the Birth Process operates to atomise society, breaking apart social structures and erasing social boundaries. It has also been the driver behind Modernity: increasing rationality in human society. Its logical extreme is anarchy. It operates by forever creating new possibilities, insinuating competition and opportunism, wherever cooperation has a hold. It manifests as the process of material entropy in human society. The Growth Process The Growth Process can most easily be associated with the formation and expansion of bureaucratic systems, noting the tendency of the latter for inexorable growth. It creates rigid social structure and through this provides human societies with the ability to build physical structures. In its pure form the Growth Process represents simple replication of structure: another brick on the wall, another identical car produced from the manufacturing line, another identikit role created in society. It is a process, which is driven by people seeking safety and security, to ensure that their material needs will continue to be available tomorrow (in the immediate future) as well as today. Counterintuitively this process inculcates in human society a total focus on the past, seeking to extend and perpetuate agreeable trends and the status quo: extending the security and predictability of the known past into the near future. The Growth Process can most readily be associated with the ideologies of socialism and capitalism (these are different expressions of the same underlying process). The Growth Process has also been the driving force behind ever-increasing division of labour. When allowed to spin
© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Page 3 of 51

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

out of control, this process can cause a human society rapidly to coalesce into a singular bureaucratic entity (most explicitly demonstrated in the last century in the form of communism). The Health Process The Health Process corresponds to the reproduction of city populations and all that is required to create and nurture future generations. It is the process, which generates much looser, more fluid social structures, commonly referred to as communities. It provides the basis for creating the social, cultural and physical environments, which are conducive to the successful rearing of children and maintenance of mental and physical health amongst the wider population. As a process it produces the moral fabric of society, historically manifest in the form of religions, and engenders a focus on the future – beyond tomorrow. However, when allowed to run out of control, this process can cause societies to layer into distinct castes (or classes) and eventually to the emergence of apartheid or even slavery. But without a functional Health Process, societies lose sight of their own future, stop caring for their children and the environment they inhabit. People literally lose the ability to value their own health or that of anyone or anything else. The Adaptation Process The Adaptation Process underpins both democracy and our modern information economies. It is driven by people seeking autonomy and social mobility, to achieve individual freedom within a society which has been vertically (Growth Process) and horizontally (Health Process) structured, without completely destroying the underlying social fabric (as happens under the influence of the Birth Process). The Adaptation BIRTH 1 Liberalism Economics Trade / Free Market Economy Anarchy Modernity Materialism / Consumerism Throw Away Society Feeding the masses Freedom and Anonymity
Page 4 of 51

Process enables individuals to unlink from their own inherited roles and to navigate their own personal trajectories through social space. In this respect social space itself becomes objectified – a new landscape to explore. As individuals within society become mobile, society itself becomes more flexible and adaptable, changing to accommodate external influences. The Process relies upon and engenders respect and inclusivity, not just between people but of all that is important and worth valuing. The process directs us to see things in balance: today, tomorrow and the future. The ideology created by the Adaptation Process is none other than Sustainability: the ideology of democratically structured societies. Physical manifestations of the Adaptation Process include public transport and non-lethal sports. The Transformation Process The Transformation Process enables whole cities and their societies to be creative and to take control of their destinies. It is a process, which allows thinking and action to transcend scales in time and space. Beyond that, the author can tell you no more. We have yet to experience the Transformation Process across wider society. And may not do so for many centuries or millennia to come; even assuming we survive the current crises facing humanity. Five Social Processes – Five Tensions of Human Development Together these five social processes drive and have always driven the progress of human evolution. To this end they are simply the social, cultural, economic and psychological manifestation of deeper processes, which have crafted the evolution of all life on our planet.

Commonly experienced expressions of the social processes
ADAPTATION 4 TRANSFORMATION 5 Creativity Technological Science Creativity Economy ? Technological Development ? ? ? ? Openness ? Creativity
© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

GROWTH 2 Capitalism / Socialism / Communism / Nationalism Sociology Industrial / Manufacturing / Construction Economy Social Structures (bureaucracies) Division of Labour Growth Agenda Must build more society Housing for everyone Trust and Regulation Agreeableness Culture of the Past Legality Religion Sociology

HEALTH 3

Democracy Sustainability Management Science Information / Communications Economy Social Mobility Communications Revolution Inclusivity / Accessibility “Those lying politicians” Respect Agenda Consultation Conscientiousness Awareness of travel of time Inclusivity

Health / Education / Management Economy Communities Division of Nurture* Value and Heritage Nimby-ism Localism / environmentalism Faith and Ethics Neuroticism Culture of the Future Morality

Extroversion Culture of the Present Rationality

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

PREMISE – SIMPLICITY LEADING TO COMPLEXITY The simple premise, on which the Lancefield Theory is built, suggests that Needs drive actions, which cause types of interaction. Such interactions can be cooperative (leading to mutual Need satisfaction) or competitive. The typical interactions become reinforced on repetition by participants and propagate outwards across social groups to become social processes. The human experience of happiness represents the feedback mechanism, confirming to an individual involved in an interaction whether he or she has been successful.

INITIAL VALIDATION OF THE THEORY OF SOCIAL INTERACTION An initial validation of this theory can be achieved by consideration of the Five Factor Model. The latter is a construct developed within the field of psychology, which is the best solution to-date for summarising 100 years of empirical research. Results from many years of psychological analysis indicate that the personality or identity of human beings can best be described across five dimensions: degree of extraversion, degree of neuroticism, etc. Starting from a proposed adapation to Maslow’s original Hierarchy of Human Needs, this theory of social interaction provides a theoretical prediction of exactly the same five dimensions of personality. Adaptation of Maslow’s Hierarchy Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Material and Energy Needs Safety and Security Needs Health and Reproduction Needs Autonomy and Mobility Needs Control and Success Needs Process BIRTH GROWTH HEALTH ADAPTATION TRANSFORMATION Five Factor Model Extroversion Agreeableness Emotional Stability / Neuroticism Conscientiousness Intellect / Openness

     

Need drives action. Action in a social world leads to interaction. Each interaction is a process (see Page XX). Interactions propagate out across social groups to give rise to social processes. Social processes in a social group drive the development of that social unit. There are five tensions of development – Birth, Growth, etc.

An interaction between any two people (or between any two groups of people) can be seen as a process. Inherent in any interaction are process steps, which affect people’s behaviour, attitude, perceptions, narrative about themselves and characterisation of others and relationship with time and space. When scaled up to the level of a social group or wider society, these influences on each individual manifest in terms of different aspects of our cultures, our social structures, economic patterns of behaviour and our ideologies. The social, economic and cultural environments created by the processes further influence individuals and so give rise to positive feedback. Each process takes on a ‘life of its own’. The five resultant social processes generate tensions of development in human society. These have been experienced, for example, through the different political ideologies of liberalism, socialism, fundamentalism and sustainability (the fifth not yet apparent across wider society). Each social process directs the progress of human development in a different direction. Only by being in balance does human society achieve, in effect, sustainable development. However, this new construct challenges our existing notions of sustainable development. As the decisions we each have to make in life change, depending on our age and circumstances, then so too the choices of a whole society evolve depending upon its current level of development and its wider economic and environmental context. The interplay between the five social processes creates the highly complex world, which we inhabit.
Page 5 of 51

At the macroscopic scale, validation is best achieved by the correlation between the outcomes of the predicted social processes and the well known ideologies of modern society. Another piece of macroscopic evidence to support the theory is that it predicts there to be two fundamental forms of social structure: akin to (1) bureaucracies and (2) communities. It has been a long held belief in sociology that this is so, including the assumptions underlying cultural theory. Examples of different types of interaction 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. hunting in a tribe or buying sweets from a shop standing guard / keeping watch for someone or employment in a company or partner of a firm or building a fence together reciprocal grooming or doctors nurturing a patient or looking after children sharing information or buying a newspaper applauding a virtuoso performance or playing in the orchestra © Julian Hart
jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

SOCIAL PROCESSES IN OPERATION The best way to explain how the social processes work is by considering the chronology of the formation of early city development. The same processes happen in the modern day; it is simply easier to paint the picture in a less complicated past. Travelling back to the human world before civilisation, we see a landscape populated by competing tribes. The identified social processes would have operated only within each tribe, arising from cooperation between individuals and family groups (1) in the sourcing of food, (2) in defence, (3) in reproduction, grooming and nurture, and so on. Initially no cooperation could over-span tribal boundaries: the tribes competed in all respects. For each process there would have been a social contour (each tribe essentially wrapped by all five contours), demarcating the social unit within which cooperation took place. In tribal times these would have been entwined for each tribe to create only one apparent encasing social contour: the identity of the tribe occupying a distinct territory. Through occasional, and over time more frequent, encounters at tribal boundaries, involving occasional mutual giving and receiving of peace offerings, individuals within participating tribes would gradually become less prejudiced towards their neighbouring tribe. Increasing degree of exchange between adjoining tribes would have incrementally dissolved the ‘outer’ (or lowest) social contour, the tribal boundary, which is associated with Material Needs – sharing in the sourcing of food (hunting and gathering) from within the tribal territory (Level 1). As the tribal boundary disappeared, the two tribes would have eventually merged to become a larger social group. This most likely happened through the formation of a nascent market place or proto-city (a trade centre). This represents the Birth Process in action – activity of economic exchange leading to the dissolution of cultural and social differences to create larger, more uniform, seamless social entities. This process is strongest within city centres, where trade activity is greatest. In city centres we experience the cultural consequences of this through anonymity and an associated sense of rootlessnes (known as anomie) (see Page XX). Only once the outer social contour, the tribal boundary, had disappeared and previously competing social factions had come to cooperate in respect of Material Needs, could cooperation at a higher Level begin to occur. A modern-day example is the formation of the European Union: now there is a commonly accepted currency across the EU (Level 1 Cooperation), the member nations can begin to consider seriously a higher level cooperation in terms of common defence (Level 2). This could eventually lead to complete dissolution of nation state boundaries. We see by this example how social processes cause the creation of social contours: sharing the sourcing of food creates an impermeable outer contour across which
Page 6 ofgiving The 51

cooperation cannot happen (except for instantaneous interactions). However, when sharing converts to exchange (trade), then these outer contours dissipate. The other social processes create different types of social boundary. For example, in the modern world contours associated with the Growth Process (Level 2) include nation states and businesses, each of which are clearly membership organisations. An example of social contours associated with the Health Process (Level 3) is affiliation to a church, football club, union or political party. (Growth Process contours tend to map onto the physical world much more directly than Health Process contours do. The Growth Process creates more spatially structured social organisations, whereas the Health Process generates more fluid social organisations, including communities.) The progress of civilisation has taken place by means of a gradual peeling away of these social contours, from the lowest level upwards, allowing cooperative social processes to operate across larger and larger numbers of human beings.

Trade is a cooperative endeavour between trading parties.

Level 1 – Materials boundaries of tribes have become area of common currency Level 2 – Security boundaries manifest as nation state borders originating tribal landscape

Many competing tribes gradually merged over centuries to create a larger cooperating society
Level 3 – Health (nurture) boundaries manifest as local communities (such as Swiss Cantons) with local government responsible for local health and education

and receiving of gifts would likely have represented the first expression of trade in human society.

© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

CHRONOLOGY OF CITY ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT Civilisation progresses through a series of transitions as the social processes have converted humanity from a population of competing tribes into a global cooperating society. Over time the depth of cooperation (increasing depth from Birth to Transformation) and breadth of cooperation (number of human beings cooperating across defined social groups) has increased as social units (initially tribes) have been merged and new societies reconstituted into more civilised forms, then they in turn have connected together and merged. An example of increasing breadth is the incremental extension and merging of monetary currencies across Europe since the Dark Ages, eventually leading to a common currency for a single trading society across the continent. Examples of increasing depth include the creation of modern health and education systems and more recently the current communications revolution based on information exchange. Each of the processes brings about a different type of transition. The inherent hierarchy to the social processes and the social contours created by them has meant that there has been a natural chronology to the increasing breadth and depth of human cooperation. The Birth Process (through trade) always leads the way, followed by structure created by the Growth Process.

54 3 21
Level 1 : Birth Process Competition between social groups for the sourcing of energy and materials (originally food) leads to divergence in use of materials between social units, which eventually flips into cooperating in the sourcing of materials, manifest as trade. Competing tribes convert to cooperation in the market place. Level 2 : Growth Process Competition between social units in growth (equating more recently to manufactured outputs) leads to divergence of product, which eventually flips to cooperating in manufacture of more complex outputs. The latter manifests at the microscopic level as increasing division of labour. Competing city clans convert to cooperation in constructing the city. The physical manifestation of the appearance of cooperation is market places and trade routes, giving rise to cities and thereafter continually driving the heart of cities. The physical expression of the appearance of cooperation is the emergence of supply chains and more complex constructed outputs, including construction of the city itself. Physical expressions of the appearance of cooperation are public buildings and spaces, from temples to hospitals and schools.

LEVEL

BIRTH

GROWTH

HEALTH

Level 3 : Health Process Competition between social groups in terms of population growth and nurturing future generations manifests as competition for space. This leads to divergence in use of space, which eventually flips to cooperation in the use of space. Competing communities learn to share space.

ADAPTATION

Level 4 : Adaptation Process Competition between social units for autonomy and mobility leads to divergence in “direction of travel”, which eventually gives rise to cooperation in social and physical mobility. Physical expressions include public transport systems, while social expressions equate to elections. Competing individuals learn to exchange information and share transport. Level 5 : Transformation Process This process has not yet manifest at the larger scale of society. Examples of localised interactions of this nature include members of a band or orchestra working together.

TRANSFORMATION Page 7 of 51

© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

EXPERIENCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL WITHIN SOCIETY

How the different social processes have crafted and continue to influence our experience of society in the modern world.
MATRICES Matrices are the pan-societal underlying social ‘structures’, which are created by the actions of the social processes. For example the Trust Matrix of a nation state, confined to the territory of that nation state, manifests as the legal system, system of property rights and associated mechanisms for enforcement and application. SIMS Systems Inhabiting Matrices Each type of Matrix can support different types of systems (essentially social organisms). Examples include: tribes, bureaucracies, unions. These can be egalitarian or hierarchic. 3. HEALTH PROCESS – VALUE MATRIX Background Value Matrices created by the Health Process lie within each Trust Matrix and are represented in modern day by health, social services and education systems and religious communities. Value Matrices provide the underlying moral fabric to society and enable communities within that society to value and maintain that which is important. Social structures which can occupy the Value Matrix include religious cults, unions, charities and political parties. Caste and class systems represent overlapping Value Matrices, which occupy the same territory, where there is no mutual nurture between members of the different castes (or classes).

bureaucracy

Centre of one’s world is the nuclear family, within which material needs are shared (as opposed to exchanged in the wider Peace Matrix) and within which the core security and nurture needs are met. As material needs are shared within the family unit, it represents the residual tribal entity in modern civilised society. The individual works in a social structure, usually a bureaucracy, which is a social organisation which inhabits the Trust Matrix. Surrounding the nuclear family are close relations and friends, all of whom have an interest in the on-going health of that family. In this way, the nuclear family is a Value Node within the Value Matrix.

value node

1. BIRTH PROCESS – PEACE MATRIX Background Peace Matrix, created by Birth Process, represented by money and common currency: a society of accepted individuals all able to trade with each other.
Page 8 of 51 Physical structures created by Birth Process are market places and the core of cities. Social structures occupying the Peace Matrix are tribes – now seen as individuals and nuclear family units.

2. GROWTH PROCESS – TRUST MATRIX Background Trust Matrices created by Growth Process lie within Peace Matrix and are represented by nation states, their legal systems and police forces, etc. Social structures, which occupy this Trust Matrix are bureaucratic entities (businesses, government, etc), all of which rely on Just application of © Julian represent all rules and regulations across society. Physical structures Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com that is built – infrastructure, the city, buildings, etc.

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

THE LIFE OF A HUMAN AS A SOCIAL ANIMAL

The dimensions of personality identified by the Five Factor Model are part nature and part nurture (circa 50:50). The theory of social interaction provides an explanation as to why this might be so. This diagram works on the assumption that the identified connection between the theory of social interaction and the Five Factor Model is broadly correct.
INFANTS Individuals, who have partially formed personalities, but who are natural social animals, absorbing and learning how to operate in a social world through emulation of others. BEHAVIOUR INFORMS ATTITUDE

If the theory of social interaction is correct, then it will have operated as much in modern society as in our tribal and deeper past. The processes would have been the evolutionary mechanisms for selecting social animals – those who are better able to cooperate to meet fundamental Needs. Hence this would have influenced our genetically inherited personalities from birth. Thereafter, our experience of living in a social world leads to adaptation of our born personalities through daily social interaction with other people.

CHILDHOOD
A child is born with a natural set of personality attributes, defined genetically. Through immersion in society, exposure to the social processes through interactions with adults, and also in the modern day through the media, these initial template personality attributes become further moulded and adapted. This is the process of socialisation. Some children will naturally adapt to certain cultural environments, while others may find the socialisation process much more difficult if their innate genetic temperaments are very different to the social and cultural environment they have been born into.
BEHAVIOUR

ADULTHOOD
The sum of all the interactions of the adult population create the social processes, which generate the cultures, social structures and ideologies of social units within society and of societies as a whole. Since two social processes act to create structure, their perpetual operation represents a process of continual reinforcement of the social boundaries, social structures and associated cultures which exist across a society. The child is born innately selfish, but through the process of socialisation can be taught to become essentially altruistic, to see the full benefit of cooperation.

ATTITUDE

B I R T H

SOCIALISATION PROCESS

Interactions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Material Labour Nurture Mobility Success

D E A T H
ATTITUDE INFORMS BEHAVIOUR

OLD AGE Individuals with very well defined personalities, a product of genetic inheritance and lifetime of social interaction.

Five Factor Model 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Extroversion Agreeableness Neuroticism Conscientiousness Openness

Social and cultural environment created by adult population provides context and conditions for the next generation.
© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Page 9 of 51

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

THE HUMAN PERSONALITY According to the Lancefield Theory, the totality of an individual’s personality arises from:   how that individual learns to prioritise his or her five Needs for each Need, the degree to which the individual is naturally cooperative and competitive The Lancefield Theory suggests that the development of civilisation has depended on there being a slight bias within the general population towards cooperation (at least for Level 1 Needs to start with). The degree of cooperation has increased over time across the wider population and, when human development has progressed, continually enhanced at higher Need levels. For example, the current communications revolution is taking place because, at a statistical level, more people are learning to cooperate in relation to Level 4 Needs than those who continue to compete at that Level. People, who exist at the extremes of the normal curve distribution, are seen by the general population as having fairly aberrant personality types and exhibiting odd behaviours. For Level 1 Needs, most people are mild cooperators. This is evidenced through the Five Factor Model, where it is understood that there is a mild bias in the American population (for example) towards extraversion, compared to introversion. Those who do exist in the centre of the spectrum can fluctuate between cooperation and competition, depending upon circumstances and the company they are keeping. These predictions seem to be corroborated by the Five Factor Model. In the Five Factor Model, each individual can be understood in terms of five dimensions of personality, where each dimension represents a spectrum between extreme personality types (for example, Surgency (equating to Lancefield Theory Level 1) is characterised at one extreme by strong extraverts and at the other extreme by acute introverts). LANCEFIELD THEORY AND FIVE FACTOR MODEL The above individual is most cooperative in respect to Level 1 Needs and most competitive in regard to Level 5 Needs. He/She prioritises satisfaction of Level 1 and Level 3 Needs over desire to satisfy Level 2, 4 and 5 Needs. In relation to degree of cooperation/competition across the wider population, there would most likely be normal curve distributions for each Level. extravert agreeable cooperation eg: extraversion competition eg: introversion emotional wellness conscientious LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5
© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Example Personality Profile Degree to which individual is naturally a cooperator/ competitor in relation to Level 1 Need

COOP

COMP

Level 3 Need is top priority

Level 5 Need is low priority

NATURAL COOPERATORS

NATURAL COMPETITORS introvert

LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2

disagreeable neurotic

disrespectful closedness

openness
Page 10 of 51

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

ASSUMPTIONS The theory of social interaction relies on three basic assumptions: 1. 2. 3. That cities are natural systems That human beings have a limited set of fundamental needs to survive That human beings are both social and individual simultaneously

if human beings have a set of fundamental Needs … if those Needs motivate action in the real world … when humans inhabit a very social, highly populated world … then actions cause interaction with other people
grown to sexual maturity) need to be healthy enough to be able to reproduce. And as animals, we need to be mobile (physical and mental immobility is not good for our long-term health and sanity). The simplest existing framework for understanding human needs is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Humans Needs, which was incidentally developed through observation of rhesus monkeys. Maslow’s Hierarchy postulates five Needs: (1) Material Needs, (2) Safety and Security Needs, (3) Social or Belonging Needs, (4) Self Respect and (5) Self-Actualisation. There are, however, inconsistencies in Maslow’s Hierarchy: the hierarchy does not systematically or consistently address the physical and mental aspects of the human condition. Furthermore Maslow notably ignored any consideration of an organism’s need to remain healthy or driving desire to reproduce. Assumption 3 : individual Human Beings are both social and

Assumption 1 : Cities are Natural Systems The assumption that cities are natural systems requires the acknowledgement that the development processes for all cities must be the same. Further, the processes of growth and development of cities can be expected to transcend existing academic silos, from psychology through to economics and sociology. By way of example, each and every oak tree is different, but every tree grows and develops through exactly the same set of biochemical processes. By the end of this paper, it will be seen that the processes, which drive city growth and evolution, are the very same as those which drive the development of that great oak. Assumption 2 : Human Beings have Needs Human beings are undoubtedly biological creatures, as any other animal, plant or other organism. To this end, they clearly have some fundamental needs in order to survive. Water and food is required on a daily basis. As biological systems, they need to be able to grow from infant to adult. For the species to survive, human beings (once

Maslow’s Original Hierarchy Hierarchy Level 1 2 3 4 5 Material Needs Safety / Security Needs Social / Belonging Needs Self-Respect / SelfEsteem Self-Actualisation

More consistent adaptation of Maslow’s Hierarchy Biological Needs Energy / Materials Safety Physical Health / Biological Reproduction Autonomy Environmental Control Psychological Needs Experiences Security Mental Health / Cultural Reproduction Locus of Control Success Social Needs Presence of Others Predictability in Others Dependability Of Others Consideration by Others Recognition from Others

In the field of sociology, it is finally coming to be accepted that human beings cannot be purely understood in terms of their individuality or their sociality. To understand humans properly, their individual nature and their social animal tendencies need to be embraced simultaneously. One of the best historic frameworks, which brings together this approach is Karl Popper’s Objective Theory of Knowledge, in which he describes the human experience through his Three World’s Theorem: the human as a biological animal, the human in his own mind and the human in a social world. Bringing together Maslow’s Hierarchy with the tripartite human, a much more consistent Needs framework can be formulated.

Page 11 of 51

© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

BUILDING BLOCKS There are three basic building blocks, which underpin the theory of social interaction: 1. 2. 3. Needs motivate action leading to five Ideal Types of interaction Human Beings can choose to cooperate or compete with others to satisfy personal Needs Action / interaction to satisfy a Need represents a process

Building Block 2 : Tempers of Interaction – competition or cooperation The second proposition of the theory of social interaction is to suggest that human beings can choose to cooperate or compete in the physical world in order to enable them to meet their individual needs at each level of the hierarchy: for example, human beings can fight over or share food. Or, another example, human beings can threaten each other’s safety or work together for mutual benefit (say, building a security fence). Looking specifically at Material Needs and how humans cooperate or compete with respect to food resources, it can quickly be seen that the manner of cooperation, which takes place in modern civilised society, is very different to that which happened in our tribal past. This has led to the realisation that there are two fundamentally different ways in which competition and cooperation can occur (Active or Passive). This enabled formulation of the Tempers of Interaction provided in the table below.

Building Block 1 : The Emergence of Ideal Types of Interaction If it is acknowledged that human beings have fundamental Needs, then it is a reasonable immediate deduction that those Needs motivate our actions in the real world. However, human beings live in highly social contexts, where any action that we each individually initiate almost invariably leads to interaction with other human beings. With a little further thought, it can quickly be recognised that the types of interaction, which might arise, would be very different according to which Need is driving an action. How a human interacts in modern society with another to obtain food (for example: purchasing sweets and drink from a shop) is very different to the manner of interaction required to raise off-spring. Buying, for example, is instantaneous, repeated regularly and may happen with a different person each time (many shops to choose from). Rearing children, on the other hand, is (or should be) a long process of continuous engagement with a single other human being (mother and father). Within the history of sociology, there is a precedent for thinking of social actions in discrete ways. Max Weber developed the notion of the Ideal Type of Social Action, in which he suggested that, underlying the messiness of everyday life, every single action can theoretically be broken down into Ideal Type components. The theory of social interaction transforms this notion from social action into social interaction. The idea is that each interaction a human being has with another can be construed to be made up from five Ideal Types of Social Interaction, where people enter into interactions in order to satisfy their own Needs. In the real world, some interactions (for example purchasing food) may be purer than others. Other social interactions may combine several different Ideal Types at the same time, because the interacting parties are seeking simultaneously to satisfy several different Weber’s Ideal Type Needs: two people may share a pot of tea, while exchanging Social Actions: useful information or nurturing each other’s mental health. - affectual Detailed consideration of these Needs-driven-interactions, - traditional these Ideal Types of Social Interaction, will be provided later. - zweckrational

Tempers of Interaction Competition

Passive Acting Individually (Latent Competition) Exchanging

Active Taking

Cooperation

Sharing

1. Material Interaction 2. Labour Interaction 3. Nurture Interaction 4. Mobility Interaction 5. Success Interaction

The notion of different tempers of interaction is most explicit in relation to human material needs: sharing or exchanging of the sourcing of food. However, these tempers apply equally for all the identified Ideal Types of Social Interaction. It should further be clarified that in each case the sharing and exchanging tempers apply to the sourcing of something. For instance, two humans sharing the source of some food (a fruit tree or an animal kill, for example). In the exchange context, they would swap apples for pears or trade meats killed in different hunting grounds. In both tempers of cooperation, they do not share or exchange the food itself, but the source. In the case of two humans seeking safety and security, they can share or exchange in the source of increased safety and security, provided from some form of exerted effort: for this Level 2 interaction, sharing manifests as both doing the same work (using same learnt skills, same past experience), whereas exchange represents division of labour (different experiences brought together). In more detail, for two people to share in the source of a particular food, they are both relying entirely on the health and productivity of, say, a single fruit tree. For the same two people to exchange the sourcing of food infers that one is bringing to the exchange fruit from one tree and the other fruit from another tree. They are therefore not both wholly reliant on the health of a single tree. Reverting back to the comment
© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Page 12 of 51

wertrational

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

earlier about the comparison between human tribal history and modern society, it can quickly be appreciated that all the members of a tribe shared the food from within their bounded tribal territory: a single source of food. In contrast, through exchange in modern society each of us has effectively spread our risk to many geographical areas: many sources of food.

Cooperation Good Light Right Yin Life Altruistic

Competition Evil Dark Wrong Yang Death Selfish

If the theory of social interaction were to be valid, it would be expected that the duality of cooperation verses competition would be deeply embedded in human cultures. It is. These tempers of interaction are represented by human notions of good and evil, light and dark, yang and yin, altruism and selfishness.

As with all positive feedback processes, there is the potential for these social processes to accelerate out of control. The control mechanism, which stops each process from spinning society to self-destruction is the interplay between the five social processes. We experience this in our daily lives through the choices we make in relation to, for example, work-life balance: how much time to dedicate to work verses time given to family and friends. When, say, a whole society becomes workaholics, then a culture has become unbalanced.

Needs-drivenInteraction … as a Process

NEED ACTION / INTERACTION HAPPY? NO YES

When interactions become scaled up to social processes, then the tempers of interaction come to be expressed as modes of operation of a process. For example, two nation states, which are terrorising each other, experience the Growth Process (Level 2) in competitive mode between them, but in cooperative mode within each society. A business based on all individuals doing the same work would be operating in cooperative sharing mode, whereas a business drawing on division of labour is operating in cooperative exchange mode. Building Block 3 : Social Interaction is a Process The activity of fulfilling Needs can be construed to be a process:     A human being senses that he or she has a Need; He or she acts (usually interacts) to seek to fulfil that Need; He or she feels a sense of accomplishment (happiness); and Next time the Need arises, he or she draws on the recent positive experience and repeats.

Useful Terminology Level – any reference to Level, whether to interactions or processes, derives from the adapted Needs hierarchy. Temper – interactions can be cooperative or competitive, active or passive Mode – nature of social process, depending upon underlying social interactions

It can immediately be seen that this is a feedback process, where if actions are successful they reinforce behaviours on next recurrence of Need. A successful interaction with another person to help meet a perceived Need will likely motivate the first human to seek to repeat this particular interaction, whether with the same other or another. As the full theory of social interaction emerges, it becomes apparent that these self-reinforcing processes at the individual level develop into full positive feedback processes in the social context.

Page 13 of 51

© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

BASIC STRUCTURE OF THEORY OF SOCIAL INTERACTION The theory of social interaction is based on a simple framework:

DETAILED INTERACTION PROCESS Drawing on the assumptions and building blocks, a detailed interaction process can be constructed.  There are (as a minimum) six detailed components involved in any interaction from the perspective of an individual involved in an interaction: Need, Focus, Ethos, Form, Event and Response (see next page for further definition of components).

 Human beings have Needs (five), which require fulfilment in order to be happy
(happiness interpreted in its broadest sense).

 The Needs motivate action in the physical world, thereby forcing interaction
with others. This gives rise to Needs-driven-interactions.

 Each Need leads to a different type of interaction, creating a set of five Ideal Types
of interaction. All interactions with other people can be interpreted as a combination of Ideal Types.

 Needs-driven-(inter)actions are processes, where experienced happiness (in
different guises) is an indicator of success.

1. NEED

 Interactions can be cooperative or competitive. Only cooperative interactions
are mutually beneficial: these can manifest as sharing or exchanging.

 An interaction can be broken down into components (minimum of six), starting
with Need and ending in happiness or sadness (details provided next).

6. RESPONSE

2. FOCUS

 Successful interactions become reinforcing on repetition.

Experienced happiness provides the feedback mechanism to make actions and interactions reinforcing. Wants.

 Interactions can become self-serving, by-passing the Need stage. This generates  Successful interactions propagate outwards across a social unit through
emulation and communication.

x5
processes
5. EVENT 3. ETHOS 4. FORM

 Social interactions also take place between social units – between families,
between businesses, between nation states.

 Once an Ideal Type of interaction has spread beyond a pair interaction to
encompass a wider group of people or social units, it can be considered to have become a social process. Five Ideal Types of interaction generate five pure Social Processes.

 A social process is inherently a positive feedback system. Each social process
generates within a social unit, or between social units, a developmental tension.

 Development of a society takes place in a progressive manner when the tensions
created by the social processes are in balance. When social processes become unbalanced, then a society can quickly become self-destructive.

Being a cyclic process, the actual sequence of components is a little arbitrary and, in fact, matters little. In certain respects, all steps could be construed to take place simultaneously. For each identified component, there are different elements, each of which has a physical and mental aspect. The first element represents the actual physical or mental Experience of the individual; this may precede the interaction. For example, a Level 2 Need may be experienced as either need for Security (mental)
© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

 An individual’s exposure to the different social processes will strongly influence
how they perceive the world, their attitudes, beliefs and the way they come to treat other people and the animate and inanimate world and how they individually prioritise satisfaction of their personal Needs.
Page 14 of 51

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

or need for Safety (physical) or both. As an interaction takes place, there arises a Consequence to the individual involved. The Consequence of a successful Level 2 interaction would be that the individual is physically safer and mentally less stressed.

Interaction Elements

Experience
A S P E C T

Consequence
A S P E C T

Social Animal
A S P E C T

physical mental

physical mental

physical mental

I N T E R A C T I O N C O M P O N E N T

NEED

This is the felt or perceived Need by the individual, which in some way requires fulfilment or resolution. (Needs can extend into Wants when the interaction process becomes self-serving.) This is the focus of attention and physical action of the individual while the Need still requires satisfying (for example, while I am hungry, I focus on obtaining food). This relates to the required behaviour and attitude necessary for an individual to initiate and enable and complete a successful interaction with another human being. This corresponds to the manner in which an interaction takes place in time and space (is it instantaneous or does it occur over a discrete timespan and does it require spatial proximity?). Each interaction gives rise to an economic outcome in the physical universe (an object exchanging hands, work completed, health maintained or information shared), which we observe. If an interaction is successful, a person feels happy: if unsuccessful, sad. The nature of the happiness depends upon the Ideal Type of interaction.

FOCUS

ETHOS

FORM

EVENT

The Social Animal in physical terms represents the sum total of the physical Experiences of and Consequences for an individual for all components of each interaction and across all five Ideal Types of interaction. This is the Outward Expression of a Person (expressed behaviour, physical form, seen to be happy or sad, etc). The Social Animal in mental terms represents the sum total of the mental Experiences of and Consequences for an individual for all components of each interaction and across all five Ideal Types of interaction. This is the Inner Identity of a Person (perceptions, attitudes, personal narrative, etc). The consequence of the exposure to interactions on who we each are (identities, perceptions, attitudes, personal experience of time and space, physical condition, beliefs and ideologies) begin from before we are born and first start interacting with other human beings. We each have an initial bias, according to the Five Factor Model (nature), which is influenced through our lives by our social conditioning (nurture). By early adulthood, the outcome of this nature/nurture interaction has taken its course and produces a human with fairly fixed attitudes, beliefs, etc, which strongly inform our experiences from then onwards.

RESPONSE

We experience the social processes in our day-to-day lives in terms of the daily choices we have to make:    Life-work balance – how much time and effort do I spend at work or at home? Spend or save – how much money do I spend today verses how much should I save for a rainy day or for the more distant future? Rationality, Legality or Morality – which, or which combination, of these should inform my actions?

In the context of the theory of social interaction:   Rationality represents acting in the present for immediate, optimal benefit without any consideration of the past or future Legality equates to abiding by rules and regulations, which have been put in place in the past and represent maintenance of the status quo Morality infers consideration of the long-term future implications of one’s actions for one’s own and other’s future health and well-being
© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

To be social a human must be an individual. To become an individual, a human must be social.


Page 15 of 51

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

Generic Structure of a Social Process
Inner Identity of a Person Psychological Need Person as Social Animal Comparison to Others Society

DRAFT

7/9/10

Physical Expression of a Person Need Biological Need

Interpretation of Success in Society

Focus

Focus of Activity

Focus of Attention

Perception of Role of Others and Self

Cultural ways of thinking about others

Ethos

Behaviour

Attitude

Treatment of Others and Self

Cultural ways of treating others

Form

Physical and Temporal Form of Interaction

Experience of Space and Time

Perception of Space and Time

Social Structures

Event

Physical Outcome

Observation

Social Identity / SelfCharacterisation

Economic Activity

Response

Emotional State

Narrative

Ethic

Ideology

Happiness leads to repetition of interaction Sadness leads to search for new type of interaction
Page 16 of 51

Reinforced through Repetition

Reinforced through Propagation
© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

EXAMPLE – LEVEL 2 : GROWTH PROCESS ARISING FROM LABOUR INTERACTIONS

GROWTH

Physical Expression of a Person Biological Need
Unsafe

Inner Identity of a Person Psychological Need
Insecure

Person as Social Animal Comparison to Others
Relative level of security

Society

Need

Interpretation of Success in Society
Power and wealth

Focus

Focus of Activity
Labour required

Focus of Attention
Activity that needs doing What skills are needed?

Perception of Role of Others and Self
Opportunity to provide skills to achieve task

Cultural ways of thinking about others
Focus on personal history

Ethos

Behaviour
Predictable

Attitude
Trusting

Treatment of Others and Self
Coded and regulated Judgemental

Cultural ways of treating others
Expectation of rule abiding Strong codes of conduct

Form

Physical and Temporal Form of Interaction
Correlated in space Time bound

Experience of Space and Time
Space = linked / fixed Time = on/off/on/off/on/off

Perception of Space and Time
Space = structured Time = defined

Social Structures
Strict / brittle membership organisations

Event

Physical Outcome
Physical structures built Materials combined

Observation
Activity / efficiency is good Accumulation is good

Social Identity / SelfCharacterisation
Worker, labourer Output maximisation

Economic Activity
Growth / Expansion Manufacturing economy

Response

Emotional State
Re-assured / unstressed Safer / securer

Narrative
Hard working / strong Must not be weak

Ethic
Legality (rules are important)

Ideology
Socialism (structuralism) Legalistic
© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Page 17 of 51

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

EXAMPLE – LEVEL 2 : GROWTH PROCESS ARISING FROM LABOUR INTERACTIONS EXPERIENCE I sense danger and perceive a threat to maintaining my safety, security and current standard of living.

FEEDBACK: The more that individuals have to follow rules and regulations, the more they desire to extend rules to other people and other circumstances. Rules impel an expectation of security and predictability, which drive a desire for more rules. SOCIAL ANIMAL I compare myself to others in terms of my degree of sense of security / insecurity and whether they seem to be more secure than me or not. That in part informs the degree to which I feel secure (relative to others). I learn to see other people in terms of their past, what skills and abilities they have developed over time. I come to see myself likewise. The past becomes important to me; it defines me; it provides me with a sense of security going forwards. I come to be a predictable and trustworthy person, who has the capacity to trust others. I also develop the ability to trust myself (self-trusted = self-assured). I behave very predictably in all circumstances in which I find myself (dress code, etc). I expect to work hard and rest – full on and then full off. There is no inbetween. Things are clearly black and white (trusted or not trusted, working hard or slacking). I can push myself very hard because I expect to be able to rest some time later. I am a hard working individual. I focus my energy on achieving outputs and maximising production, being efficient and delivering contracted requirements. I must maximise my activity. Working hard with other people requires everyone to be predictable. I therefore come to expect everyone to be law and rule abiding and myself likewise. Rules and regulations are good for everyone. CULTURE Society sees people who are selfassured, with strong sense of security and safety, to be successful. This is usually provided by position in social hierarchy and, in modern day, in terms of monetary wealth (or equivalent). Society develops a strong focus on the past, seeking to look for historic trends which support the continuation of the immediate future. The further a society looks into the past, the better it feels able to foresee and control the near future. Society becomes very predictable, with people adopting very clear and understandable dress codes (uniforms) and adopting precise codes of conduct. There is a general expectation of regulated behaviour and for people to act trustworthily. Society becomes very structured both in time (for example, working day, working week, holidays) and space (social bonds, social organisation and clearly defined property rights and delineation of territory). It is a very legalistic culture of right and wrong. The sum total of all contracts represents the labour economy. The sum total of all labour activity gives rise to the manufacturing, construction and other aspects of the growth economy. There is a drive for growth/expansion. Society needs rules and regulations to enable growth of that society. There is a pervasive culture of increasing regulation and structure to society, infusing more and more of people’s lives.
© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

NEED

FOCUS

ETHOS

FORM

EVENT

RESPONSE

Improving my safety and security for tomorrow requires action (labour) today – build a fence, repair the front door, work diligently to earn an income, sign a contract to secure a workstream, etc. This requires certain skills to achieve the right actions. To enter into a labour interaction with another human, I need that other to be predictable for the duration of the interaction, to be trusted to contribute their agreed input into the contract (whether written or not). I too must act predictably to them. Labour interactions have precise beginnings and ends (building a wall or completing a contract). They are time bound. Relationships between interacting parties is strictly correlated in physical space (sharing mode) or social space (exchange mode). Work is done or contract is signed to ensure that individuals work together to achieve a pre-defined output or physical actions (eg. build a bridge). Physical actions happen and work is done. I am happy because I feel assured. My sense of safety and security is improved through interaction with other people. I am less stressed than I was at the outset. This feels good. I would like to repeat this sensation.

CONSEQUENCE I feel unsafe and insecure. I would like to feel more certain about the immediate future and be assured that I survive (maintain my standard of living) into and beyond tomorrow. I want to defend what I already have. For any mutual labour interaction, I am looking for other people with similar security/safety needs, who also wish to secure the immediate future. Since actions require skills, I come to look for others with the right skills and abilities to contribute to satisfying my Need. When people around me, on whom I am relying to help provide for my safety and security needs, prove to be predictable, then I learn to trust them, expect them to continue to be predictable. They are treating me likewise. My life is structured according to action and inaction (working and time-off). My relationships with others are strictly correlated. I therefore come to see both time and space as being clearly structured and well-defined. I see physical activity happening and I am involved in that activity. I come to associate achieving and satisfying my security and safety needs with activity and with being linked into strong contractual relationships with others. I can see that being involved in labour interactions and delivering outputs is something that makes me feel happy. This must mean that working hard is good for people generally. If they feel sad, they should work hard.

Page 18 of 51

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

EXAMPLE – LEVEL 4 : ADAPTATION PROCESS ARISING OUT OF MOBILITY INTERACTIONS

ADAPTATION

Physical Expression of a Person Biological Need
Immobile Lack of autonomy

Inner Identity of a Person Psychological Need
Frustrated

Person as Social Animal Comparison to Others
Relative level of influence

Society

Need

Interpretation of Success in Society
Upwardly mobile/connected Political influence

Focus

Focus of Activity
To obtain relevant, accurate information

Focus of Attention
Filtering information

Perception of Role of Others and Self
Sources of information

Cultural ways of thinking about others
Actors / role players Independent operators

Ethos

Behaviour
Inclusive

Attitude
Respect

Treatment of Others and Self
Considerate, consultative Obliging, respectful

Cultural ways of treating others
Need to be consulted Seeking opinions

Form

Physical and Temporal Form of Interaction
No proximity Relative mobility

Experience of Space and Time
Combined space-time

Perception of Space and Time
Vectors – past, present, future all at once

Social Structures
Decision-making systems Elections, voting

Event

Physical Outcome
Decision made Course of action taken

Observation
Change happening Change is okay

Social Identity / SelfCharacterisation
Decision-maker “mover and shaker”

Economic Activity
Communications economy Information economy

Response

Emotional State
Informed Locus of control

Narrative
Being involved and involving others is good

Ethic
Inclusivity Accessibility

Ideology
Sustainability Democracy
© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Page 19 of 51

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

EXAMPLE – LEVEL 4 : ADAPTATION PROCESS ARISING OUT OF MOBILITY INTERACTIONS EXPERIENCE I see that events happening around me are not optimal for myself or my family. We do not seem to be able to influence them. CONSEQUENCE I feel the need for greater autonomy in my decision-making. I want to make decisions for myself and my family, which benefit us across all our Needs. I need to change my circumstances and improve my prospects. I am looking for people with the necessary information to help me do what I want to do. Other people are the principal source of information. I am looking who can provide me with the right information. In acting inclusively and involving others in decisions, I come to appreciate their entire needs and their objectives. This forces me to develop an attitude of respect towards others. Information, transmitted over distance, provides me with spatial awareness and sense of the progress of time. Information itself has a trajectory, which I can use to give me a trajectory. Those involved in information exchange are better able to make good decisions about their actions and direction of travel in physical and social space. Decisions made are more respecting of all those affected. I see that obtaining information feels good. By extrapolation other people must feel good about receiving accurate information. Consulting people, telling the truth and keeping them informed is a good thing.

FEEDBACK: As people become socially mobile, this causes the social landscape to become a constant changing tableau, which forces all individuals to need more information to make decisions. Change is the norm. SOCIAL ANIMAL I compare myself to others in terms of their level of knowledge and degree of informed-ness. This helps me to decide whether I know enough or need to learn and assimilate more. How much do I/they have control over respective destinies? I learn to see other people as sources of information or signposts to direct me to the right information. I therefore see people in terms of what they know and what mental skills they have. I come to see myself in a similar way. In treating others with respect, I come to be more respectful to myself, to recognise my entire needs. I come to operate in a more balanced way. I extend my respect to other humans to all things (animate and inanimate). I sense things in balance, seeing past, present and future simultaneously. I make more balanced decisions around all my Needs. I see the universe as vectors and relative motion. I am an informed individual about my social and physical environment. I am self-aware about my situation in physical world and role in society. I have self-respect. I rely on information. I am a consultative person, who keeps others in the loop and includes them in decision-making. Compromises on my part often end up being the better solution for everyone. Freedom of information is essential for society. CULTURE Society sees people who are informed and who have a strong degree of influence as being most successful. This drives people continually to want to know about more and more: information hunger. Information comes to be seen as very important in society. This morphs into more and more focus on the validity and veracity of information and information sources. Truth is critical. Lying is severely looked down on. A culture of being more consultative propagates across society, with an increasing expectation of transparency and collective decision-making, which benefits everyone, not just the few. Information travels through society; its progress represents a trajectory through time and space. It gives people social mobility through society and in physical terms. The sum total of information exchange gives rise to the communications and information technology economies. There is a drive to increase flows of information and continuously improve its accuracy. Society develops systems for collective decision-making, for disseminating information and for ensuring accuracy of information. Society is hungry for more information and, as it learns about its environment, it comes to be more respectful of that environment.

NEED

FOCUS

ETHOS

FORM

EVENT

RESPONSE

To achieve my objective to have greater autonomy, I need information. I need to know more to be able to decide what to do, what moves to make, when. I need information about the social and physical worlds around me. I want others to tell me what they know and involve me in decision-making, to be transparent. In order to persuade others to tell me the truth, I have to behave likewise – to be inclusive. I have to tell the truth. Information interactions are instantaneous. Sharing interactions require spatial proximity, but exchange interactions (reliant on being truthful) can operate at a distance. Information is exchanged. Communication happens, which in exchange mode can influence activities in all locations around the globe. In exchange mode, accurate information flows outwards across society I am happy because I feel I am now better informed. I do not feel excluded from what is happening around me. In fact, I feel that I can influence things and have a role and part to play.

Page 20 of 51

© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

MANIFESTATION OF THE SOCIAL PROCESSES IN CITY FORM The five social processes have determined the manner of growth and development of human cities from the outset. They have defined the physical expression of human societies in terms of population distribution across the geographic landscape, as patterns of human activity and through the physical form and structure of our towns and cities. They have led to critical changes in city form, which have thereafter been continually reinforced through operation of the social processes to produce the cities around the world that we know today. Whilst every town and city is different in physical form, economic character and social constitution, every town and city has been affected and developed in the same way. Just as every human being is different, we all experience the same biological processes as we grow and mature. The development of all cities has manifest as a sequence of symmetry breaks. Birth Process – Trading City
radial roads

Growth Process – Constructed City The emergence of cooperation in growth across an entire city arises when labour type activities have become sufficiently differentiated within a local economy that erstwhile competition can morph into cooperation. For example, previously competing manufacturer’s products diverge and then can come together to create more complex products with greater added value. This cooperation is facilitated by a Symmetry break = circumferential cooperation and slow cultural transition to a associated physical structures (eg chord roads, common set of rules across a city city walls, definition of city state territory, etc) society. This allows previously competing family units and urban clans (think, for example, in terms of large Mafiosi families) to begin to cooperate for the benefit of the entire city. The consequence is that a city can begin to act as a coherent system to defend itself from danger (human or natural) and grow itself. The physical expression of this is that the city society can now cooperate in the construction of the entire city – to build city infrastructure, city walls, etc. This manifests in city form as the emergence of circumferential cooperation (orthogonal to the radial cooperation under the Birth Process). Operating together, it can be seen that the Birth Process and Growth Process create the spiderweb city structure, where at increasing distance from the centre such structure more and more approximates the classic gridiron structure. Anecdotally, the gridiron structure of many American cities arose because this was the simplest structural form to enable rapid growth. In space syntax terms, the spiderweb and gridiron represent the most accessible and permeable urban structures, allowing maximum level of internal cooperation across the city society in terms of combined trading and manufacturing activity. Health Process – Public City Before the Health Process becomes expressed at a city-wide level, while cooperation with respect to health and nurture is contained within the extended family and localised racial community, then the physical expression is a need for enclosed space. This can most easily be understood in terms of the space required by extended families for the nurturing and rearing of off-spring and for health, recreation and relaxation of the adult population. Typically such space must provide privacy and be ‘made safe’ for children.

Cities originated from a transition market in the geographic landscape, place whereby latent or active competition between human tribes for the sourcing of material switched over to instant cooperation, expressed as trade. This changed the human condition from a landscape of competing Symmetry breaks: tribes to a landscape of nodal 1) exchange node within landscape centres of trading activity between 2) central exchange node within city arising rural populations of tribal origin. from radial cooperation (inner / outer city) The Birth Process revolves around the activity of trade. To this end it is not surprising that it represents the driver behind the creation of all market places, where the majority of goods are exchanged between the city and the wider world, before onward dissemination into and through the city. The physical expression of this Process is consequently market places themselves, nodes of exchange activity, from historic market centres for cities to modern retail malls. Automatically associated with market places are the radial road networks into and out of the city and the patterning of trade routes to connect the city to its hinterland and other cities. In the city, these radial routes represent cooperation in trading activity between the inner and outer parts of the city. The Birth Process is the living force, which keeps a successful city thriving, making it act like a centre of gravitation within the human landscape.

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

It should in some way be contained. As a city population grows, then nurture competition becomes expressed as direct competition for physical space. Divergence of nurturing activities (for example, smaller family units where use of space varies significantly over time as children grow and mature and leave the household) leads to the potential for cooperation in use of space. The transition to a city-wide (or part of the city-wide) intra and Symmetry break = the emergence of inter community cooperation is expressed in public buildings and public space (other terms of the emergence of communal use of than road network) space, other than roads. This includes public buildings, such as churches, hospitals and schools, as well as open space itself (communal gardens, public squares and public parks). Naturally, as is now known in urban design theory, there will be a hierarchy of different types of public space, from the intimate shared garden to the city-wide public park, or local community hall, doctors surgery and nursery school to cathedral, major hospital and university. The cultural transition, which facilitates the appearance of cooperation in nurture, is the emergence of a common moral fabric to society. This was historically seen through religion, but more recently can be understood in terms of a loosely defined morality spanning the whole of society and the formation of associated society-wide health, education and social support systems. Adaptation Process – Connected City Competition in autonomy is expressed within society in terms of individuals competing to improve themselves and to climb the ladders of the various hierarchies within society. In simpler social systems, such as autocracies and communist states, there are relatively few social hierarchies to climb, so there is intense competition. But in advance economies, where the Adaptation
Page 22 of 51

Process has begun to influence the whole of society, there develop innumerable different social hierarchies up which people can climb (countless numbers of businesses, charitable organisations, government bodies and departments, etc). When there are so many different ways in which people can gain social mobility, then they can begin to cooperate in their real, physical autonomy. This cooperation is expressed in terms of the emergence of public transport systems. With the Adaptation Process driving a proliferation of separately operating organisational structures within society, this manifests in city form in terms of the reinforcement and accentuation of nodes of activity. As the autonomy interaction of exchange allows cooperative interactions to take place at a distance, the result is that city centres can split leading to the polycentric city now observed in some of the largest metropolis (for example, the City and Canary Wharf in London). These multiple centres then become competing entities with respect to the Transformation Process. Transformation Process – Sustainable City The following is a little tentative. It is possible that the polycentres of the advanced democratic metropolis diverge in their activities until such a time that they can begin to cooperate. The result would be the emergence of the polyfunctional city, which has many sub-centres, each of which manifests a different function and purpose for the benefit of the whole city. The analogy is that the city is turning into a genuine organism, with different organs and spatially separated specialist components. Progress to the sustainable city, in which the Transformation Process is operating in cooperative exchange mode across the entire city, is still a distant prospect from where we are now.

the poly-functional city Symmetry break = the emergence of internally competing nodal centres and public transport systems

© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

APPLICATION TO THE MODERN BUSINESS BIRTH PROCESS This Process creates the life-spirit of the company, its thirst to survive through each day and night, taking each 24 hours as it comes. It provides that burning focus on daily cash flow, drawing in an income and paying essential expenses. But if the culture associated with this process comes to dominate then rules (internal and external) will be broken, values ignored and customers will be fleeced, all for the sake of immediate income and foregoing long-term relationships and the future health of the business.

rules being broken. Whilst the future of the company may be assured, it may fail to keep its essential cash flow going and meet its short-term expenditure.

ADAPTATION PROCESS This Process provides the organisation with its senses, seeing beyond its immediate relationships, its existing customers and stakeholders, to observe the currents and fluctuations in its own wider market place and the economy as a whole. It gives the organisation the ability to take in and digest data and correctly interpret what that information means and how best to react. It enables the organisation to take decisions as a singular, operating entity, bringing all staff along with those decisions made. But if this process becomes overly dominant, the organisation will find itself making too many decisions, reacting to the slightest change in the wider world, adapting itself so often that it loses its ability to drive forwards and deliver outputs and services. It may even become indecisive, paralysed from information overload.

GROWTH PROCESS This Process forms the bureaucratic back-bone of the business, providing it with the structural integrity to withstand day-to-day fluctuations in cash flow and resilience to a constantly changing social and economic environment. It provides the organisational hierarchy, down which instructions are passed, and enables creation of both the internal rules of the company and the ability to follow and abide by externally generated rules in society. It gives the organisation its own unique codes of conduct. But if the culture of this process becomes too dominant, then the company will become bogged down in its own internally generated bureaucratic red-tape. It will lose its ability to adapt to change and to grasp new opportunities. It will become stuck in its own past, oblivious to a changing world.

The Modern Business

TRANSFORMATION PROCESS This Process provides the organisation with the ability to be creative and to take advantage of such creativity. It allows the business, as an entity, to see and to realise transformative products and services, which will change the whole market place to its own benefit.

HEALTH PROCESS This Process provides the organisation with its long-term outlook, its vision which transcends day-to-day and month-to-month trials and tribulations. It gives the organisation the ability to focus on those details, which ensure that products and services are of a high quality, delivering exactly what the customer really needs. It gives the organisation the capacity to really focus on the customer and to build up long-term relationships. But if this Process comes to dominate, the company may fail to maintain its own cash flow and might lose its own structural integrity: ends may become seen to justify the means, leading to new opportunities being missed and
Page 23 of 51

There exist at present creative individuals within companies, but the truly creative organisation is a rarity. In these few businesses everyone contributes to the creative endeavour and everyone benefits from the subsequent and consequent successes. As to what happens, if this process comes to dominate, we have little collective experience. It may give rise to an organisation, which is so full of new and transformative ideas that it is unable to capitalise on any one of them, to push them through and make them happen. Or, alternatively, if too much success is shared out amongst the staff, they might each gain freedom beyond the business and choose to leave, causing the business entity to dissipate, while its erstwhile employees leave to explore new avenues.
© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

EXPRESSION OF THE FIVE PROCESSES IN NATURAL EVOLUTION Application of the theory of social interaction to the biological world suggests that the development of all natural systems is driven by these five underlying processes of Birth, Growth, Health, Adaptation and Transformation. Evolution takes place through a continual interplay between cooperation and competition in the survival needs of all living systems. Charles Darwin saw a world of natural selection; but he only identified the competition ‘side of the equation’. This new framework suggests that there is also natural selection for the best cooperators. The cooperative aspect to evolution only makes sense, however, once it has been appreciated that both competition and cooperation are ‘banded’ into survival needs. Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 cooperation or competition for access to food, material resources and daily energy requirements cooperation or competition in growth of systems and ability to withstand fluctuations in energy availability (safety and security) cooperation or competition to maintain health in order to be able successfully to replicate or reproduce cooperation or competition in terms of adaptation, including ability to be mobile (to adapt location) cooperation or competition in terms of (essentially) technological development or innovation, finding new survival strategies

most important for the lion is to be able to cooperate with fellow lions in the activity of obtaining food: hunting. Failure to cooperate pits lone lion against cheetah, where the lion’s chances are not high. Competition between lions then moves up to higher levels, to growth (for males) and reproduction (for females). The division of labour that female lions express in hunting indicates that they have learnt to cooperate to a degree at Level 2. The conclusion from this way of thinking is that species drive their own evolution. Yes, natural selection and environmental conditions have a strong part in the process. But the strongest driver for any individual species to progress is the internal factors of cooperation and competition between members of the same species. Taking these observations on-board and drawing from the theory of social interaction framework, the following predictions can be made:      evolutionary spikes are anticipated, where some species appear to ‘sprint ahead’ of others in terms of development (as observed for human beings); competition in one ‘band’ (at one Level) can become dominant, leading to seeming evolutionary oddities (for example, the dinosaurs arose out of a domination of competition and cooperation in relation to growth); because operation of the Growth and Health Processes represent continual reinforcement of different types of structure, it can be expected that both species and ecosystems would generally undergo very slow change; periods of slow change would be interspersed with events of rapid change, when structural stability broke down (this entirely concords with Stephen Gould’s concept of punctuated equilibrium); and this new framework provides a better way to appreciate the difference between ecosystems and organisms (organisms arise from internal cooperation, whereas ecosystems are the landscape of competition).

This leads to changes in our understanding of how evolution operates. It becomes apparent that the typically conceived competition, say cheetahs verses gazelles, is actually only a mild driver of development. The cheetah/gazelle scenario is in fact Fourth Order competition. However competition between cheetahs is First Order (Level 1) competition, whereas the competition between gazelles to use speed as a defence mechanism is Second Order (Level 2) competition. Gazelles do not directly compete at Level 1 as they have evolved to eat in a herd, sourcing food as a group. This new framework makes it quickly apparent that intra-(within)-species competition is a far more powerful driver of evolution than inter-(between)-species competition. For the cheetah, the real competition is between cheetahs: who can accelerate and run fastest to obtain dinner? The cheetah is no more competing with the gazelle than are you with the potato you dig up for your supper. The most intense form of competition (Level 1) is to obtain daily food. The fiercest competitor to any individual organism (animal or plant) is others of the same species, who require exactly the same energy sources from the environment. In the right circumstances that competition can flip into cooperation: lone cheetah compared to lion pride. Once cooperation emerges, such as the lions, then evolutionary forces change. The cheetah competes against everything, including its own off-spring, who are fairly quickly sent off to fend for themselves. In contrast, for the lion there arise a different set of selection forces. The
Page 24 of 51

This new framework also shines light on a topical debate: the organism verses gene relationship. Day-to-day natural selection takes place between organisms seeking to obtain sufficient energy and nutrients to survive (Level 1 or First Order competition/cooperation). Competition in terms of reproduction and continuation of the genetic lineage represents “Third Order” competition. As seen for human development, these different “Orders” of competition (or cooperation) create developmental or evolutionary tensions within the overall system. If either come to dominate, then a species is likely eventually doomed. A balanced tension is good. The theory of social interaction can be extended further into the physical sciences, where the Birth Process is seen to correspond directly with the concept of entropy. However, this requires a subtle reinterpretation of entropy, to become understood as a measure for (or proxy of) competition within a system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics can then be seen to be a process by which systems naturally progress to a state of competitive equilibrium. However, this reinterpretation of entropy has far reaching consequences to our understanding of the universe.
© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

SUMMARY : EVOLUTION OF HUMAN CIVILISATION

SIM Tribe Original Tribal Landscape MATRIX Peace MATRIX Trust MATRIX Value Market Places Trading City with central core Supply Chains Constructed City Supply Cycles Public City Decision Systems Connected City MATRIX Truth SIM Bureaurcracy SIM Community SIM Modern Business

Page 25 of 51

© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

APPENDICES

Page 26 of 51

© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

BIRTH PROCESS The Birth Process is driven by human daily material and experiential needs. As with all the processes it manifests in two modes: (1) Sharing Temper and (2) Exchanging Temper. A modern day example of these two modes in operation is that within the nuclear family we share material needs (food and money), but outside of the family unit we exchange material needs (money for food in market place or shops). Tracing back to before the origin of civilisation, only the sharing mode existed within human tribes; there was no (or absolutely minimal) exchange activity. The logic of the theory of social interaction then suggests that civilisation occurred because of the emergence of exchange interactions between neighbouring tribes, presumably first expressed as mutually given and received peace gifts (exchanges). The Sharing Temper leads the Birth Process to create very inward focussed, highly bounded, closed and identifiably differentiated social units: tribes. In contrast, the Exchanging Temper leads to the formation of uniform, unbounded, open, accepting societies; it breaks down all tribal differentiation. The Sharing Temper of interactions acts to bind a group of humans together under a singular tribal identity. This happens because sharing interactions, with respect to material needs, represent half interactions on each event: “I share with you now and later you reciprocate and share with me”: the incomplete nature of each sharing event means that the temporal form of this interaction is indefinite, potentially infinite in time span. Essentially all members of the tribe are forever indebted to each other for their personal survival: in this respect continuing survival of the tribe and of the individual are indivisible or indistinguishable. In contrast the exchange temper of sourcing of materials interactions are complete, instantaneous interactions. The consequence of a switch to the Exchange Temper of these interactions is to reverse the tribal identity bonding process and create individual humans with their own unique identities within a wider unbound society. Instead of a closed tribe, there occurs a breakdown of all tribal identification, all social bonding, all social barriers, until a new society arises consisting, in its logical extreme, of a completely atomised population (at its extreme not even a nuclear family can exist – complete anarchy). As tribes merge to create a wider, more uniform population, the other processes kick-in to form a more civilised society. In the Sharing Temper, the group acts as a unit to source material needs, focusing on where in the physical landscape the group can obtain food today. In the Exchanging Temper, the individual acts alone within a society to source his or her material needs from other people within society: looking to participate in transactions with others. In this respect other people come to be seen, not as collaborative partners in survival, but rather as cooperating sources of food (the fruit shop, the sweet shop, etc). This instils a culture of treating other people merely as opportunities for the individual to obtain essential food (and in due course wanted, less needed, material and experiential items). The pan-societal culture emerging from this process sees those who are most
Page 27 of 51

cooperative and participative in these instantaneous interactions as being most successful. They become rewarded accordingly through financial success. For both modes of the Birth Process, the behaviours and emergent attitudes are the same. To facilitate either sharing or exchanging interactions, an individual must act peacefully (non-threateningly) towards others. This develops within the individual an attitude of acceptance towards those others with whom he or she has shared or exchanged sourcing of material needs: those others have in some way helped that individual to survive and in this respect earned, in the eyes of the first individual, the right to exist and continue to exist as potential competitors for food. In the sharing context, where there is no exchanging activity taking place, then prejudice (as opposed to acceptance) is experienced towards all others outside the tribal unit. When direct, head-to-head competition for food resources arises, then such non-accepting attitude can become one of extreme prejudice: eliminate the competition. Where interactions of exchanging of sourcing of material needs exist, then there is no ‘outside’ tribal boundary; rather acceptance becomes extended to all others who are willing to participate in trade. Over time this comes to be expressed in physical terms through the appearance of a commonly accepted currency (money) spanning all those who are most intensely interacting in trading activity. For both modes of operation, the form of the social interactions, which create the Birth Process, are instantaneous and require spatial proximity. In the tribal context, whilst the physical action of sharing fruit from a single tree takes place over time, the initial decision of whether to accept another’s desire to be shared with is instantaneous. Thereafter sharing simply requires that both parties remain peaceful and nonthreatening; but an indebtedness arises for reciprocation on another occasion or by another means. Exchange of sourcing of material needs (trades or purchases of material items) are manifestly complete and instantaneous, leaving behind no indebtedness, and until recently always required physical proximity (a change instigated by the Level 4 (Adaptation) Process). This instantaneity of interactions instils a sense of superficiality: given the focus of attention is on the object to be obtained, in the instant of the interaction people only see the outward appearance and characteristics of the other cooperating party. People come to see no depth (no time past or future) in others, only the immediate present situation. Culturally this comes to be expressed in terms of being shallow towards everything, animate or inanimate, and engenders within society the senses of anomie and anonymity. The whole cultural perception of a society collapses onto the present, time past and future becoming irrelevant. The Outcome of sourcing of material needs interactions is that each party to an interaction, whether a sharing or exchanging transaction, obtains essential (or in modern society unessential but wanted) material items to help each of them to survive and thrive another day. As already noted above, in the sharing context this leads all members of a tribe to become permanently indebted to each other, as they day-to-day engage in sharing (indefinite / infinite) interactions. In the context of exchange
© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

interactions, this has developed over time into the trading economy, which has progressed from essential food requirements to the modern world where all manner of goods are exchanged on a daily basis. The process arising from all those individual exchange transactions is the driver behind our modern material economies. Within each of the steps of the overall process described so far, there are feedback elements which help to perpetuate the process in either temper – sharing or exchange: for example, behaviour informs attitude, which influences future behaviour. A major part of the positive feedback, which helps to drive forwards this process in the way we experience the unrelenting nature of the Birth Process in modern society, is through the narrative that we each develop surrounding such interactions. The instantaneous sourcing of material needs interactions provide us with a sense of elation: that we have secured necessary food (or money or material item substitute) to survive another day. This represents short-term happiness (happy in the way it is most normally interpreted within modern society), a sensation which we learn to desire to repeat. The process thereby becomes self-serving as we seek to repeat this sense of elation before the real need for food returns. We essentially become addicted to instantaneous trading interactions. Through this we come to interpret our own day-to-day standard of living, as compared to others around us, in terms of the flow of materials through our possession or household. It is not the accumulated quantity of materials or money which becomes important, but the flow – earn and spend, earn and spend and so on. These individual narratives build to form a collective pan-societal ideology associated with material consumption and linked to a perception of society best functioning in its atomised form, where each and every person can act entirely freely and rationally without any legal or moral constraints, and where societal success is determined according to total levels of consumption. The named ideology, which most closely matches the collective thinking and cultural influences that we experience from the Birth Process, is that of Liberalism, accompanied by the science of Economics (in particular microeconomics and macro-market economics).

Page 28 of 51

© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

BIRTH

Physical Expression of a Person Biological Need
Hunger

Inner Identity of a Person Psychological Need
Boredom

Person as Social Animal Comparison to Others
Relative standard of living / level of consumption

Society

Need

Interpretation of Success in Society
Rate of material consumption

Focus

Focus of Activity
Hunting/Looking for Material Items

Focus of Attention
What materials/experience will satisfy sensed Need?

Perception of Role of Others and Self
Opportunity to provide materials / experiences

Cultural ways of thinking about others
Superficial

Ethos

Behaviour
Peaceful

Attitude
Accepting

Treatment of Others and Self
Unprejudiced and uncritical Sense of anomie

Cultural ways of treating others
Anonymous

Form

Physical and Temporal Form of Interaction
Proximity Instantaneous

Experience of Space and Time
Closeness Present

Perception of Space and Time
Space = here, unstructured Time = now

Social Structures
Atomised Free

Event

Physical Outcome
Trade

Observation
Trade is seen as good

Social Identity / SelfCharacterisation
Trader, shopper

Economic Activity
Free market economy Unlimited resources

Response

Emotional State
Elated

Narrative
Identity enhanced Materialistic

Ethic
Rationality

Ideology
Liberalism Freedom

Page 29 of 51

© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

LEVEL 1 : BIRTH PROCESS ARISING FROM MATERIAL INTERACTIONS EXPERIENCE I am hungry or thirsty. Or I really, really want to have or play with that object. I want to experience it.

FEEDBACK: The more that people are able to satisfy their ‘hunger’ through instantaneous gratification, the more they come to expect to be able to do as they please and get what they want, without limitation. It is an addition to materialism. SOCIAL ANIMAL Other people have these, experience these, consume these objects, materials or experiences. I feel less successful if I can’t too. CULTURE Standard of living and high levels of material consumption or experiential consumption are deemed to be attributes of being successful.

NEED

CONSEQUENCE I won’t feel satisfied until I have that object. I perceive that my whole identity would be improved by having or experiencing that thing.

FOCUS

ETHOS

I spend my time and energy actively looking for these objects that I feel that I need. I spend time and energy analysing and assessing these objects / experiences to see which would suit me best. To obtain what I want from another I need to behave peacefully towards them. I need to make them feel at ease. I need to help them feel their own hunger. Interactions require proximity in order to be able to exchange goods and inspect/view those goods during the exchange. All interactions are essentially instantaneous.

FORM

Objects are exchanged or purchased. EVENT

I associate myself with this object. I dream what it will be like to have it, own it, use it and how my identity will benefit. But I realise that I also need something to exchange for it – money or other, in order to get it. I don’t care who this other person is, so long as he is willing to do business, so that I can get what I want. I just accept him or her for the fact that he or she has something which I want. His or her past or future is irrelevant. The individual’s experience of other people is that of many repeated, short interactions, in which they do not learn anything of those others apart from the superficial. Crowded environments, being in close proximity to others, becomes accepted, even desirable. I see trade taking place and money changing hands. I come to associated achieving and satisfying my needs with shopping and market places and being involved in material exchange activity. I can see that being involved in material exchanges feels really good. It makes me very and immediately happy. I assume it must be a good thing for me and for everyone. Trading must therefore be a good thing for society.

Other people are simply a means by which I can get the objects and experiences that I want. In return, I realise that others are only after my money or whatever objects I can offer so that they can get what they want. I am a peaceful, accepting person, who operates without any prejudices towards others. I have an expectation that others will operate in an unprejudiced way too. A person who lives in the present, seeking numerous, fleeting interactions with others. There is no expectation of any enduring relationships. Time between interactions is perceived as void time. This is a very extrovert person. I am an opportunistic individual always on the look out for objects/experiences to experience. I flit from one person to the next, forever seeking new experiences from or through others. I bore quickly. I am a rational person. In each and every situation I find myself< I look for what will give me greatest, immediate happiness. I am free to do whatever I want and merrily do so with no concern for historic or future consequences.

RESPONSE

My hunger is satisfied for now. I have what I want and I feel elated. But wait, what is that? I want that ….

Society only sees the superficial, external attributes of people. There is no depth. People are all merely opportunities for others to obtain objects and experiences that they want. Society is open and accepting to all. Individuals in such society will be completely anonymous. No one really cares what or how they look or anything about their past. People may experience a sense of anomie. Society is entirely oriented around the present. Past and future are seen as irrelevant. Existing relationships weaken and dissolve. Society becomes entirely atomised, unable to maintain any social structure in time or space. The trading economy is the sum total of all the things being exchanged. The process gives rise to material entropy through society. Trading locations seem very chaotic, with each person focussed on their own purpose. Society believes in individual freedom in all respects – expression, speech, action, etc. The individual’s right to do as he or she sees fit, to express his or her own choices, must take precedence. This is associated with free trade and the market economy.
© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Page 30 of 51

GROWTH PROCESS The Growth Process is driven by human need to be safe and to maintain security and consistency in the supply of essential needs – food and, in the modern context, money. It is a need to feel assured that food, while obtained now, today, will also be forthcoming tomorrow. As with the Birth Process, the cooperative temper of this process manifest as either sharing or exchanging. Modern day examples of the two tempers might be: for sharing, the cooperating individuals within a single company, say partners in a law firm, and for exchanging, the cooperating companies or individuals within a supply chain/supply web. The manner in which humans cooperate to secure the immediate future is through exerted effort to effect physical change in the environment. Such physical change could be anything from manufacturing knives and arrowheads for hunting, building a defensive or retaining fence or wall, or constructing an aqueduct or building buildings, bridges and infrastructure or manufacturing anything (today) which can be exchanged to earn an income (tomorrow). Whether by means of sharing or exchanging effort, the logic of the theory of social interaction is that to cooperate to secure their collective future through manufactured or constructed objects, human beings have first to build social structure. So, the Level 2 Need is to improve safety for the individual and secure the immediate future. Both these requirements necessitate physical exertion today to improve survival chances tomorrow. Success gives rise to a more self-assured individual, who is not stressing about what will happen tomorrow, what danger will surface or where essential food (or money and other desired things) will come from. Interpretation of success in this respect in modern society is in the form of the working or busy person who is seen to be employing themselves to useful effect to secure the immediate future and in terms of the individual who has amassed capital and resources (become powerful within human hierarchies or financially rich) to secure their own future within our very social world. The perception developed of others through the process of sourcing safety and security derives from a question of whether another is seen to be a potential competitor or collaborator. This can be experienced in current society in the form of collaborator’s being all those working within a single company and competitors being those who are working within a competing firm within the same market area. Under the Birth Process, competition turns to cooperation by sourcing from different geographical locations or food types, under the Growth Process competition turns to cooperation through division of labour and different individuals contributing very different inputs to a whole task. This represents sourcing from different experiences and backgrounds, different histories: “I have this background and experience, while you have a different background and experience; together we can construct something which neither of us can alone”. Through this interaction, people come to see each other in terms of their lived history and the abilities that they can bring to bear for the

benefit of both. For example, in the business world, everyone is seen through the lens of their curriculum vitae; people then learn to see themselves through their own personal history, their capabilities and skills and what they have historically learnt to do. Whether looking to share or exchange effort, the behaviour which two people need to exhibit towards each other to enable an interaction to take place is that of predictability. They simply need to be very predictable, including being predictably peaceful and non-threatening. In the working world, proof of such predictability is sought through references. Beyond that, people build up a perception of other’s levels of predictability and reliability: “Can I rely on so-and-so to complete that task? How predictable were they last time?”. Clearly this can only relate to known contexts, known historic situations. This represents part of the inherent focus of the Growth Process: to perpetuate the immediate past to secure the immediate future. Predictability and reliability of another can only be known from the past and therefore only predicted for same situations in the future. Arising from this behaviour, there develops an attitude of trust. Extending outwards into wider society, this becomes culturally expressed through people becoming predictable and thereby trustworthy towards each other generally. This becomes expressed in our cultures through our trust in the inanimate world as well; for example, defining the ‘laws’ of nature. All sourcing of safety and security interactions are time bounded, whether sharing or exchanging. In the simplest terms, the interactions are limited to the time period required to achieve the agreed task: say, build a fence. When task is completed, formal interaction ceases. When tasks become repetitive and unlimited, for example instead of building arrowheads for own use, a human converts to fashioning arrowheads for sale in a market place, then this time-boundedness has been adopted by human societies into constructs such as the working day and/or the contract period. For two people to cooperate to build, say, a fence, then they can choose two ways to work together. In the sharing sense they would each do exactly the same set of tasks, each building half the fence. This is a simple division of activity, representing a straightforward division of space. It is easy to observe that each party is ‘pulling their weight’ and fulfilling their half of the necessary exerted effort. In the exchanging context, they would achieve a more complex division of space by specialising: say, one person prepares the wood while the other digs holes and fixes the wood into place. This is a classic division of labour. In both instances, the degree of exerted effort by each individual should be about the same, albeit less easy to compare in the exchanging situation other than through time taken to achieve the sub-divided tasks. This reinforces the focus on time spent contributing to a particular task or contract. The combination of the emergence of trust between two individuals and the need to undertake specified linked tasks gives rise to a social bond between those two people. Such social bond is by definition time limited or time bounded to the period of time necessary to complete the defined task: contract to complete a task or contract of employment to carry out an undefined quantum of repeated identical tasks until such

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

time that either party seeks to terminate the contract. Social bonds give rise to social structure. But the emergent social structures arising from sharing and exchanging interactions are very different. In the sharing situation, the identical nature of the tasks and the simple division of space means that the social structure directly maps onto physical space: the classic factory floor with a hundred weavers weaving identical outputs or the classic army in history with regimented foot-soldiers lined up in battle. In the exchanging context, because of the more subtle division of space and complex nature of tasks, it is necessary for humans to create a social space, termed a Trust Matrix: for example an organisational structural chart with defined roles, which cannot be directly mapped onto real physical space. Another physical expression of the Trust Matrix is the emergence of codes of conduct, which help people both to know each other’s place within organisational hierarchies and also to know who can be trusted (who else is a member of the organisation) and who not. Since the interaction revolves around a division of space, it is inherent to social organisations based on contractual bonds (which includes all bureaucratic organisations) that individuals within organisations become territorial (either in physical space or within social space (within the Trust Matrix)) and that the organisations themselves become exclusionary within space. Such exclusivity within space can be seen to be expressed in the modern context through countries occupying a defined territory or through businesses seeking to capture a defined market share. The businesses themselves exclusively occupy office space for their operations. Property rights at all levels, from individual and family to organisation to nation, are a natural consequence of the appearance of a stable Trust Matrix. The strength of the Trust Matrix in a society in turn defines the maximum durable size of social structures (e.g. bureaucracies), which can exist in that society. The most obvious physical consequence of sourcing of safety and security interactions is exerted effort to build physical structures. But there are many other direct physical manifestations of this process. In particular there is the creation of a robust legal system: rules and regulations and ways of interpreting them to ensure the integrity of the Trust Matrix. The legal system represents the amalgam of underlying rules required for the society to support rigid and durable social structures (a formalisation of the codes of conduct required to support the underlying Trust Matrix) and all the contracts between individuals within society. As would be expected, the legal system is inherently focussed on the past, using history to define, interpret and steer the present and near future. Where the macroscopic economic outcome of the Birth Process is our trading economy, the outcome of the Growth Process is all formal social structures and our manufacturing and construction economies/industries. The individual participating in sourcing of safety and security interactions, achieving a greater sense of safety and security, will be less stressed about the immediate future and feel more self-assured. This is happiness, but not the elated happiness arising from instantaneous interactions; it is a more durable happiness, which persists while security is felt either through having amassed sufficient power or capital or through
Page 32 of 51

productive employment. In modern society lack of such security, expressed as insecurity, fear or stress, is more noticeable than self-assuredness, indicating that our modern (Western) societies are very effective at providing a majority of people with good safety and security. As with the Birth Process, the interaction can become selfserving: an individual who likes the sense of security arising from amassing more money or just from being productively employed can become a workaholic, dedicating more and more time and energy to sourcing of safety and security interactions, well beyond what might be really necessary to secure that individuals immediate future. The pan-societal ideologies, which most closely match the culture and thinking arising from the Growth Process, are those of communism, capitalism, socialism and nationalism. These are all different characterisations of the same underlying influence on society: the Growth Process.

© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

GROWTH

Physical Expression of a Person Biological Need
Unsafe

Inner Identity of a Person Psychological Need
Insecure

Person as Social Animal Comparison to Others
Relative level of security

Society

Need

Interpretation of Success in Society
Power and wealth

Focus

Focus of Activity
Labour required

Focus of Attention
Activity that needs doing What skills are needed?

Perception of Role of Others and Self
Opportunity to provide skills to achieve task

Cultural ways of thinking about others
Focus on personal history

Ethos

Behaviour
Predictable

Attitude
Trusting

Treatment of Others and Self
Coded and regulated Judgemental

Cultural ways of treating others
Expectation of rule abiding Strong codes of conduct

Form

Physical and Temporal Form of Interaction
Correlated in space Time bound

Experience of Space and Time
Space = linked / fixed Time = on/off/on/off/on/off

Perception of Space and Time
Space = structured Time = defined

Social Structures
Strict / brittle membership organisations

Event

Physical Outcome
Physical structures built Materials combined

Observation
Activity / efficiency is good Accumulation is good

Social Identity / SelfCharacterisation
Worker, labourer Output maximisation

Economic Activity
Growth / Expansion Manufacturing economy

Response

Emotional State
Re-assured / unstressed Safer / securer

Narrative
Hard working / strong Must not be weak

Ethic
Legality (rules are important)

Ideology
Socialism (structuralism) Legalistic

Page 33 of 51

© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

LEVEL 2 : GROWTH PROCESS ARISING FROM LABOUR INTERACTIONS EXPERIENCE I sense danger and perceive a threat to maintaining my safety, security and current standard of living.

FEEDBACK: The more that individuals have to follow rules and regulations, the more they desire to extend rules to other people and other circumstances. Rules impel an expectation of security and predictability, which drive a desire for more rules. SOCIAL ANIMAL I compare myself to others in terms of my degree of sense of security / insecurity and whether they seem to be more secure than me or not. That in part informs the degree to which I feel secure (relative to others). I learn to see other people in terms of their past, what skills and abilities they have developed over time. I come to see myself likewise. The past becomes important to me; it defines me; it provides me with a sense of security going forwards. I come to be a predictable and trustworthy person, who has the capacity to trust others. I also develop the ability to trust myself (self-trusted = self-assured). I behave very predictably in all circumstances in which I find myself (dress code, etc). I expect to work hard and rest – full on and then full off. There is no inbetween. Things are clearly black and white (trusted or not trusted, working hard or slacking). I can push myself very hard because I expect to be able to rest some time later. I am a hard working individual. I focus my energy on achieving outputs and maximising production, being efficient and delivering contracted requirements. I must maximise my activity. Working hard with other people requires everyone to be predictable. I therefore come to expect everyone to be law and rule abiding and myself likewise. Rules and regulations are good for everyone. CULTURE Society sees people who are selfassured, with strong sense of security and safety, to be successful. This is usually provided by position in social hierarchy and, in modern day, in terms of monetary wealth (or equivalent). Society develops a strong focus on the past, seeking to look for historic trends which support the continuation of the immediate future. The further a society looks into the past, the better it feels able to foresee and control the near future. Society becomes very predictable, with people adopting very clear and understandable dress codes (uniforms) and adopting precise codes of conduct. There is a general expectation of regulated behaviour and for people to act trustworthily. Society becomes very structured both in time (for example, working day, working week, holidays) and space (social bonds, social organisation and clearly defined property rights and delineation of territory). It is a very legalistic culture of right and wrong. The sum total of all contracts represents the labour economy. The sum total of all labour activity gives rise to the manufacturing, construction and other aspects of the growth economy. There is a drive for growth/expansion. Society needs rules and regulations to enable growth of that society. There is a pervasive culture of increasing regulation and structure to society, infusing more and more of people’s lives.
© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

NEED

FOCUS

ETHOS

FORM

EVENT

RESPONSE

Improving my safety and security for tomorrow requires action (labour) today – build a fence, repair the front door, work diligently to earn an income, sign a contract to secure a workstream, etc. This requires certain skills to achieve the right actions. To enter into a labour interaction with another human, I need that other to be predictable for the duration of the interaction, to be trusted to contribute their agreed input into the contract (whether written or not). I too must act predictably to them. Labour interactions have precise beginnings and ends (building a wall or completing a contract). They are time bound. Relationships between interacting parties is strictly correlated in physical space (sharing mode) or social space (exchange mode). Work is done or contract is signed to ensure that individuals work together to achieve a pre-defined output or physical actions (eg. build a bridge). Physical actions happen and work is done. I am happy because I feel assured. My sense of safety and security is improved through interaction with other people. I am less stressed than I was at the outset. This feels good. I would like to repeat this sensation.

CONSEQUENCE I feel unsafe and insecure. I would like to feel more certain about the immediate future and be assured that I survive (maintain my standard of living) into and beyond tomorrow. I want to defend what I already have. For any mutual labour interaction, I am looking for other people with similar security/safety needs, who also wish to secure the immediate future. Since actions require skills, I come to look for others with the right skills and abilities to contribute to satisfying my Need. When people around me, on whom I am relying to help provide for my safety and security needs, prove to be predictable, then I learn to trust them, expect them to continue to be predictable. They are treating me likewise. My life is structured according to action and inaction (working and time-off). My relationships with others are strictly correlated. I therefore come to see both time and space as being clearly structured and well-defined. I see physical activity happening and I am involved in that activity. I come to associate achieving and satisfying my security and safety needs with activity and with being linked into strong contractual relationships with others. I can see that being involved in labour interactions and delivering outputs is something that makes me feel happy. This must mean that working hard is good for people generally. If they feel sad, they should work hard.

Page 34 of 51

HEALTH PROCESS The long-term Need, which drives the interactions which underpin the Health Process, is the desire to reproduce, successfully. Clearly this aspect of the Need is not particularly felt in our younger years, while we are still growing, nor especially apparent in much of day-to-day life (until, of course, one has responsibility for rearing children). Rather the manner in which people experience this Need in everyday life is through the requirement to remain healthy. To be eventually successful in reproduction and the rearing of mentally and physically able healthy off-spring, people need themselves to maintain their mental and physical health. Much of the interaction associated with this Need therefore revolves around cooperation or competition amongst humans to maintain health, initially of themselves and ultimately of their off-spring and genetic lineage. For a human to maintain his or her health, he or she must carry out activities today for the longer-term personal benefit. As with the Growth Process, it involves action today for tomorrow, but in the case of the Health Process tomorrow may be much further into the future. Such physical (or mental) exertion may be anything from brushing teeth, to repairing the roof of the house, to removing head lice, to repairing a dam, to physical care of a baby or mental nurture of a young child. These are all a very different set of tasks to those associated with the Growth Process and to this end have been labelled Nurture Tasks as opposed to Labour Tasks. In entering into an interaction with another human, an individual is seeking to participate in a reciprocal arrangement: “I will remove your head lice and then you will remove mine.” It can immediately be seen from this example that, at its most simplistic level, inherent to the interaction around health there is a division of time instead of a division of space. This fundamentally differentiates the entirety of the Health Process from the Growth Process. Good health can be a fickle state; we never quite know what will be ‘round the corner’ and consequently what our personal health needs will be: as in what an individual, or another, will need to be doing to look after the former. To this end, when entering into an interaction with another person, knowing whether they will be able or willing to help, and in turn whether the first person will continue to desire to help in return, requires something more than just knowledge of past history. It is not a matter of seeking to maintain trends and the status quo, but rather knowing how to respond in the right way to previously unknown and unforeseen eventualities: ‘maintaining an even keel in rough seas’. The perceptions we consequently build up of others is not just a question of history and attained abilities, but of their capacity and desire to exert effort in order to participate in and to continue to participate in a reciprocal and mutual health maintaining interaction. Deducing another’s capacity and desire on this matter is achieved by two simultaneous means: by directly through conversation fathoming out whether both parties futures are aligned and through observing each other’s

interactions with many others to ascertain whether both people are consistent in their behaviour in the present. For the Growth Process, people look for predictability in the past, enacted over time. For the Health Process, people look for consistency across physical and social space, demonstrated in the present. The latter, for example, leads to a great deal of socialising, especially amongst individuals in their early adult life looking for long-term partners. It is for the reason of this expression of the Health Process that Maslow originally misconstrued his Level 3 Need as a Social or Belonging Need. Given the inherent reciprocal nature of health related interactions, the Behaviour required to enter into a successful interaction is not predictability but dependability: that regardless of all else changing, someone can still be depended upon to reciprocate. This converts into an attitude of being principled or faithful and engenders a general cultural environment of people being faithful and dependable towards each other and acting with principles (or moral or ethically). The Form of the interactions underlying the Health Process are very different to those associated with the Growth Process, where the latter as already discussed are time bounded and, certainly in the Sharing context, give rise to precise spatial correlations. Health related interactions are instead not time bound; they are inherently indefinite, but intermittent. To build a wall (growth) you have to focus your efforts on the task in hand for a discrete time period; any time taken doing something else will delay completion. Thereafter, to maintain that wall requires occasional attention into perpetuity, or for so long as the wall is deemed useful. The more attention given, the better the state that wall will remain in; but it by no means requires continuous maintenance, just intermittent checks and reparations. Similarly, the relationship between two people involved in a health interaction does not need to be continuous, but rather continual – regular (at a frequency dependant upon the person or object being cared for) intermittent interactions to help nurture and maintain physical and mental health. This leads to a much more spatially fluid social bond than the very rigid growth related bond. The Health bond is instead much more rigid in time, leading to a human culture, which is associated with keeping consistent and repetitive that which we can control, leaving that which is outside of our control to its own devices. It manifests through enclosure of space, looking inwards, in contrast to the Growth Process which gives rise to a mindset of control and structuring space, looking outwards (amongst other things being territorial). Social structures arising from the Health Process are exclusionary in time, not space. This is expressed, for instance, through communities of different faiths being able to peacefully mix within space (consider many modern cities); but each religious community lives by different routines, different holidays and festivals, different prayer times, and so on. Furthermore, whilst the Growth Process gives rise to vertical structure in society, manifest as hierarchic bureaucratic organisations, the Health Process produces strong horizontal links across communities: for example, unionism.

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

In the absence of the Growth Process, such strong horizontal links can give rise to a layering of society, producing classes and castes, or in the extreme apartheid and slavery. The economy, which emerges from the Health Process, are all those aspects of society associated with health, of ourselves and our environment, and the nurturing of future generations. It includes our schools and health systems, the economy relating to management and maintenance of our built environment and infrastructure, and any other aspect of human society associated with the care for and looking after of other people, animals, the environment and inanimate objects. The happiness that we feel from participating in health related interactions is more akin to the notion of contentment or perhaps serenity or just a sense of feeling healthy and satisfied with our exertions. When you tend the garden or clean the house, you feel good about having looked after your immediate environment. The more that someone attends to something or someone, the more they are treating that object as something to be valued. Out of this, we gain the ability to value. Furthermore, when a child is treated accordingly, by being treated as someone who is valuable, they gain a sense of self-value or self-worth. The ideologies that arise at a societal level are all associated with notions of valuing both the self and others and other things. Historically this has been most readily expressed through religions and religious belief. In the modern Western world the narrative of religions seems to be waning, but the ability to value lives on through the third economy, charities and other institutions. Whilst democratic election systems are a manifestation of the fourth social process, the Adaptation Process, political parties themselves build upon the Health Process, seeking to become valued in society by expressing the principles and morals of those they seek to represent.

Page 36 of 51

© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

HEALTH

Physical Expression of a Person Biological Need
Feeling unhealthy Need to reproduce

Inner Identity of a Person Psychological Need
Desire for cultural continuation / legacy

Person as Social Animal Prioritisation of Need
Relative level of health and reproductive success

Society

Need

Interpretation of Success in Society
Leaders, exemplars, celebrities

Focus

Focus of Activity
Nurture activity required

Focus of Attention
Skills needed

Perception of Role of Others and Self
Alignment of paths Mutuality of Interests

Cultural ways of thinking about others
Future focus Personal destiny

Ethos

Behaviour
Dependable

Attitude
Faith

Treatment of Others and Self
Reliable Importance of reciprocation

Cultural ways of treating others
Expectation of principles Strong customs

Form

Physical and Temporal Form of Interaction
Loose correlation Time unbounded

Experience of Space and Time
Centred on self Cyclic

Perception of Space and Time
Privacy / enclosure Repetitive / flexible

Social Structures
Affiliation organisations Unstructured

Event

Physical Outcome
Quality enhanced Improved function

Observation
Long-term performance improved / effective

Social Identity / SelfCharacterisation
Attention to detail Neurotic

Economic Activity
Nurture economies (third sector, health, education)

Response

Emotional State
Relaxed Contented

Narrative
Virtuous Value Oriented

Ethic
Morality Meaning

Ideology
Religion, Charity Localism

Page 37 of 51

© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

FEEDBACK: LEVEL 3 : HEALTH PROCESS ARISING FROM NURTURE INTERACTIONS EXPERIENCE I feel that things are not quite right. My senses in combination tell me that something is wrong or something is going wrong. CONSEQUENCE I worry about my future health and wellbeing and that of those closest and dearest to me. I intuit that our unknown future is in some way at risk. SOCIAL ANIMAL I look to see whether others are concerned about the more distant future too. Have they also sensed problems on the horizon? Or are they unconcerned? How sure are they about the future? I look for others who have similar concerns and worries to me, who have similar perspectives on the future. I feel a sense of camaraderie with them. I sense that if our futures are aligned, we can help each other to influence it. I come to be a very consistently principled person, who operates according to a clear morality, which can be depended upon by others. In a changeable world, I steer a clear and true path. I expect the same of others. I expect to be constantly active, attending to my own needs or those of others. There is always something to do. I see the physical world as shades and colours and highly variable. It would be short-sighted to over exert because I might have no break. I work continuously, but not too hard at any one moment. I have a neurotic focus on detail, improving and maintaining that which I can control. Work should be pleasurable because I do not expect to take time off. I am a highly dependable person with a strong sense of morality and believe vehemently in long-term reciprocal relationships and that good deeds by me will be rewarded and reciprocated by others. CULTURE Society sees people who have a high level of self-worth / self-value to be successful. This is expressed in modern society through celebrity culture: success understood in terms of level of social attention by others. Society develops a strong focus on the future, seeking to manipulate as much in the present as possible to be able to influence the future. The more people focussed on some aspect of life in the present, the more influence we all have on that issue into the future. Society comes to expect people to have and follow strong principles and morals. There is a focus on demonstrating such consistency and to give people faith in each others dependability. Society is very fluid and flexible, responding to needs of individuals and communities as they arise. Society is strongly structured in time with much repetitious behaviour expressed through rituals (from religious ceremonies to birthdays parties). The nurture economy is that part of the whole economy focussed on nurture and education of children, managing and maintaining people’s health and looking after the built and natural environments. Society operates by a strong set of moral principles. These are reinforced by regular involvement in reciprocal activities and encouraged through stories and fables about those who do and don’t cooperatively participate.
© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

NEED

FOCUS

I must act to correct things. This will require work to be done to make sure everything is functioning properly and that I and my family remain healthy and live in a healthy and positive environment. To enter into a nurture interaction with another human, I need to be sure that they will be dependable and will reciprocate goods deeds on my part. I too must be dependable to them.

ETHOS

FORM

EVENT

RESPONSE

Nurture interactions are indefinite into the future. They are not time bound. Relationships between interacting parties correlate strictly in time, but loosely in space. (Sharing mode – correlation in real time. Exchange mode – correlation in social time.*) Work is done in terms of reciprocal actions to help nurture children, to keep the environment clean and healthy and to aid mutual grooming and looking after each other’s well being (mental and physical). I am happy because I feel contented. I sense that my health and long-term future and that of those close to me is being attended to and looked after. I like this feeling of contentment.

There is much about the future which I cannot control. So I focus on those things over which I do have control. I think about the long-term effect of things that I and others do and the implications of actions and events (especially those which repeat). To deduce dependability in others, I look for consistency in their behaviours, to identify what principles they genuinely adhere to, what morals they follow and what values they have (as opposed to just expressed). They are looking at me likewise. My life is rhythmic and repetitious. Activity may speed up or slow down, but does not cease. I see space centred around myself or others, whoever is the centre of attention at a particular moment in time. Space is therefore fluid and unstructured. I observe myself involved with others trying to maintain, manage and influence things in a way which will benefit our long-term future. I associate satisfying my health needs with such activity. I see that being involved in long-term, reciprocal relationships of mutual benefit is some thing that makes me happy. By deduction it must be a good thing for all.

Page 38 of 51

*Real time is externally defined (clock ticking), whereas social time is internally defined between interacting parties (think operation of an orchestra).

ADAPTATION PROCESS Where the Birth Process continuously acts to tear society apart in every respect, culturally, structurally and ideologically, the Growth and Health Processes act simultaneously to reconstitute society by providing vertical and horizontal structure. Such structure binds individual people into roles within civilised society. Historically individuals were pegged to roles, unrelentingly and unwaveringly – women could do little other than fulfil a social expectation to give birth and raise children, men filled the shoes of their fathers. What you were born into, you remained for life … unless you were very, very lucky. Within the context of a highly structured society, the interaction driver, which underpins the Adaptation Process, is for people to regain a degree of autonomy and social mobility – to follow their own dreams and aspirations instead of just filling a fixed role, bequeathed to them at birth. Without destroying the already generated social structure. To obtain mobility within either physical or social spaces (matrices), a human needs information about his or her environmental context. This need for correct information is what ultimately drives the Adaptation Process. And when human beings start to learn to communicate truthfully between themselves at a societal level, the positive feedback quickly kicks-in, leading to rapid exponential growth of flows of information through that society. We are currently in the midst of such an economic revolution, albeit it took many hundreds of years of cultural change to reach the tipping point for the positive feedback to take off. So, the Need from an individual perspective is for accurate knowledge and information. This is the principal focus of attention. Whereas in the Birth Process other people come to be seen merely as sources of material goods, under the Adaptation Process others are seen as potential sources of information or knowledge. This gives rise to a consequential perception of ourselves in terms of our personal degree of knowledge – generally and on particular subject matter. Where, under the Growth Process the perception of others concerns their history and physical skill and ability, this transforms in the context of the Adaptation Process into the mental sphere – mental skill, mental capacity, intelligence, knowledge, decision-making abilities, etc. The behaviour required to enter successfully into an information exchange interaction is whatever is required to convince another that you will be honest and truthful and, in return, that information received from another will not be used against the provider of information. Given that the underlying purpose in obtaining any information is to facilitate decision-making, where the better the information the more effective will be resultant decisions, the behaviour required is to be inclusive. Only by including others within the decision-making process, showing that you are also relying on the information, can another be adequately persuaded that the information is correct. Furthermore, by involvement they can influence the subsequent decision to help ensure that information which they provide will not unduly inhibit or be of detriment to their own aspirations, objectives and desired autonomy and social mobility. Behaving in an inclusive way has consequences for the individuals involved in either information sharing or exchanging interactions. Involving others in decision-making forces the individual to become aware of the Needs of others – their entire Needs. In lower level interactions there arises awareness of the equivalent Need (Level 1 “I need food, he needs money”, Level 2 “I need a job, he needs some work done”, Level 3 “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”). But at Level 4, under the Adaptation Process, people become more aware of each other’s entire set of Needs – material, security, health and informational. This awareness of other’s Needs engenders an attitude of respect, which propagates outwards through society as a culture of inclusiveness, respect, accessibility (in its broadest sense), being consultative, expecting others to speak the truth and so on. To understand the form of this informational interaction requires reversion to first principles. Just as the material interaction is more accurately an interaction of sharing or exchanging of the sourcing of materials, so the Level 4 interaction represents an interaction of sharing or exchanging of the source of information (not the information itself). In the sharing mode two people from different parts of society share information by observing an event together – same place, same time (think relativity). In exchanging mode, events can be ‘observed’ indirectly through reportage, because the same two people believe what each other is saying. At this point of societal development, people no longer all have to trek to the same event to believe; they are willing to rely on other people’s description or portrayal of the object, experience, events, etc. Drawing on this appreciation, it can be realised that the temporal form of the informational interaction is affectively instantaneous – more akin to purchasing food than the time duration of employment or nurturing children. But, contrasted to the Birth Process, in which the switch from sharing to exchanging causes a collapse of time to the present, not affecting perceptions of space, the Adaptation Process switch from sharing to exchanging does not affect the temporal form of the interaction. Instead it affects the spatial form. It allows each and every person to ‘see’ from afar: for example, you no longer have to visit a shop to inspect goods directly before purchase; instead you can buy from afar over the internet. This change has far reaching repercussions for every (every!) aspect of society from family life, to the way trade can be done, to how businesses operate and can be run, to the way religions function, how communities of friends no longer need to be co-located and so on and so forth. We have only just begun this fantastic revolution in social organisation. As the Adaptation Process begins to make its mark by enabling individuals to start to be autonomous and, in due course, socially mobile, a part of its positive feedback begins to take effect. When individuals begin to become mobile in society, they effect change to society. They are the social landscape of others and, by becoming mobile, they are causing that landscape to modify. When change takes place in the social world, people need information about their social environment to be up-dated. Existing information becomes quickly out-dated: “Oh, no, so and so has left that role; he is

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

doing this now”. As this process takes its course, we see the whole social landscape, that social structure created by the Trust and Value Matrices of the Growth and Health Processes, becoming objectified. Social space becomes a landscape, as real as the physical world, which we can all travel across through our lives. Roles and destinations in that social landscape are no longer places to inhabit for life, but just temporary places to visit and occupy, hotel rooms, as we each seek to navigate our own personal trajectories. And, of course, people express their social mobility through actual mobility in the real physical world: travel. But further than this, competition in social space manifests as physical competition: sport. It was no accident that the nascent democracy in Ancient Greece was accompanied by a flourishing interest in sport: the Olympiad. Democracy and sport are intimately related, both created and motivated by the same underlying social process. Rather obviously the economic aspect of this interaction, the exchange of information, has driven the exponential growth in our knowledge and communication economies and helped to transform manufacturing industries into a burgeoning information technology industry. But the change does not stop there. Inherent to the emergence of the Adaptation Process in exchange mode across society is a new way, in which we treat information. Prior to this era, say 200 or more years ago, experts had to be polymaths. No one could fully believe and rely on the mental competency of another unless they had seen or done it for themselves: sharing sourcing of information. For example scientific experiments had to be replicable by others for those others genuinely to believe the conclusions, to see the results for themselves. Now that the Adaptation Process has switched into exchange mode, we see a growing division of competence across society (the mental equivalent to division of labour). This is taking human society from a state, where its total body of known knowledge could not extend beyond that which could be held within the head of a single intelligent polymath, towards that same amount times six or so billion, or probably much more: compare early encyclopedias to wikipedia. The economic revolution created by the Adaptation Process is immense. The happiness that people sense when participating in exchange of sourcing of information interactions is a known modern phenomenon. It is a feeling of being informed and connected; this can be contrasted with the sense of powerlessness, disconnectedness and ignorance that people feel when they accidentally lose their mobile phone, blackberry or iphone. The narrative, which people develop to explain these emotions, revolves around the need to be in touch and an expectation to be kept in touch, to be told the truth, to be respected and included. There develops a social expectation that there should be no secrets, certainly none which might affect people’s circumstances. In turn we all come to believe that respect should be extended outwards to that wider world, which we hear about and now know about and watch believingly on our televisions – that animate and inanimate existence outside our personal sphere experienced directly with our own success. It is for the above reasons why the emerging ideology of sustainability seems to represent an odd mix of
Page 40 of 51

respect for others and concern about the state of the world – the entire needs of our host planet.

© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

ADAPTATION

Physical Expression of a Person

Inner Identity of a Person Psychological Need
Frustrated

Person as Social Animal Comparison to Others
Relative level of influence

Society

Need

Biological Need
Immobile Lack of autonomy

Interpretation of Success in Society
Upwardly mobile/connected Political influence

Focus

Focus of Activity
To obtain relevant, accurate information

Focus of Attention
Filtering information

Perception of Role of Others and Self
Sources of information

Cultural ways of thinking about others
Actors / role players Independent operators

Ethos

Behaviour
Inclusive

Attitude
Respect

Treatment of Others and Self
Considerate, consultative Obliging, respectful

Cultural ways of treating others
Need to be consulted Seeking opinions

Form

Physical and Temporal Form of Interaction
No proximity Relative mobility

Experience of Space and Time
Combined space-time

Perception of Space and Time
Vectors – past, present, future all at once

Social Structures
Decision-making systems Elections, voting

Event

Physical Outcome
Decision made Course of action taken

Observation
Change happening Change is okay

Social Identity / SelfCharacterisation
Decision-maker “mover and shaker”

Economic Activity
Communications economy Information economy

Response

Emotional State
Informed Locus of control

Narrative
Being involved and involving others is good

Ethic
Inclusivity Accessibility

Ideology
Sustainability Democracy

Page 41 of 51

© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

LEVEL 4 : ADAPTATION PROCESS ARISING OUT OF MOBILITY INTERACTIONS EXPERIENCE I see that events happening around me are not optimal for myself or my family. We do not seem to be able to influence them. CONSEQUENCE I feel the need for greater autonomy in my decision-making. I want to make decisions for myself and my family, which benefit us across all our Needs. I need to change my circumstances and improve my prospects. I am looking for people with the necessary information to help me do what I want to do. Other people are the principal source of information. I am looking who can provide me with the right information. In acting inclusively and involving others in decisions, I come to appreciate their entire needs and their objectives. This forces me to develop an attitude of respect towards others. Information, transmitted over distance, provides me with spatial awareness and sense of the progress of time. Information itself has a trajectory, which I can use to give me a trajectory. Those involved in information exchange are better able to make good decisions about their actions and direction of travel in physical and social space. Decisions made are more respecting of all those affected. I see that obtaining information feels good. By extrapolation other people must feel good about receiving accurate information. Consulting people, telling the truth and keeping them informed is a good thing.

FEEDBACK: As people become socially mobile, this causes the social landscape to become a constant changing tableau, which forces all individuals to need more information to make decisions. Change is the norm. SOCIAL ANIMAL I compare myself to others in terms of their level of knowledge and degree of informed-ness. This helps me to decide whether I know enough or need to learn and assimilate more. How much do I/they have control over respective destinies? I learn to see other people as sources of information or signposts to direct me to the right information. I therefore see people in terms of what they know and what mental skills they have. I come to see myself in a similar way. In treating others with respect, I come to be more respectful to myself, to recognise my entire needs. I come to operate in a more balanced way. I extend my respect to other humans to all things (animate and inanimate). I sense things in balance, seeing past, present and future simultaneously. I make more balanced decisions around all my Needs. I see the universe as vectors and relative motion. I am an informed individual about my social and physical environment. I am self-aware about my situation in physical world and role in society. I have self-respect. I rely on information. I am a consultative person, who keeps others in the loop and includes them in decision-making. Compromises on my part often end up being the better solution for everyone. Freedom of information is essential for society. CULTURE Society sees people who are informed and who have a strong degree of selfrespect (see below) as being most successful. This drives people continually to want to know about more and more: information hunger. Information comes to be seen as very important in society. This morphs into more and more focus on the validity and veracity of information and information sources. Truth is critical. Lying is severely looked down on. A culture of being more consultative propagates across society, with an increasing expectation of transparency and collective decision-making, which benefits everyone, not just the few. Information travels through society; its progress represents a trajectory through time and space. It gives people social mobility through society and in physical terms. The sum total of information exchange gives rise to the communications and information technology economies. There is a drive to increase flows of information and continuously improve its accuracy. Society develops systems for collective decision-making, for disseminating information and for ensuring accuracy of information. Society is hungry for more information and, as it learns about its environment, it comes to be more respectful of that environment.

NEED

FOCUS

ETHOS

FORM

EVENT

RESPONSE

To achieve my objective to have greater autonomy, I need information. I need to know more to be able to decide what to do, what moves to make, when. I need information about the social and physical worlds around me. I want others to tell me what they know and involve me in decision-making, to be transparent. In order to persuade others to tell me the truth, I have to behave likewise – to be inclusive. I have to tell the truth. Information interactions are instantaneous. Sharing interactions require spatial proximity, but exchange interactions (reliant on being truthful) can operate at a distance. Information is exchanged. Communication happens, which in exchange mode can influence activities in all locations around the globe. In exchange mode, accurate information flows outwards across society I am happy because I feel I am now better informed. I do not feel excluded from what is happening around me. In fact, I feel that I can influence things and have a role and part to play.

Page 42 of 51

© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

TRANSFORMATION

Physical Expression of a Person Biological Need

Inner Identity of a Person Psychological Need

Person as Social Animal Prioritisation of Need

Society

Need

Interpretation of Success in Society

Focus

Focus of Activity

Focus of Attention

Perception of Role of Others and Self

Cultural ways of thinking about others

Ethos

Behaviour

Attitude

Treatment of Others and Self

Cultural ways of treating others

Form

Physical and Temporal Form of Interaction

Experience of Space and Time

Perception of Space and Time

Social Structures

Event

Physical Outcome

Observation

Social Identity / SelfCharacterisation

Economic Activity

Response

Emotional State

Narrative

Ethic

Ideology

Page 43 of 51

© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

INTERACTION COMPONENTS
1. NEED: This is the felt or perceived Need by the individual, which in some way requires fulfilment or resolution. (Needs can extend into Wants when the interaction process becomes self-serving.) 2. FOCUS: This is the focus of attention and physical action of the individual while the Need still requires satisfying.

INTERACTION EXPERIENCE
PRIORITISATION OF NEED: Each person perceives all five needs to greater or lesser degrees all the time. At any moment in time a person will prioritise a particular Need for acting upon. Either because of social conditioning or personal circumstances, a particular Need can come to dominate over the others.

INTERACTION CONSEQUENCE
DEFINITION OF SUCCESS IN SELF OR OTHERS: Successful fulfilment of a Need gives rise to an individual who is not ‘Needy”. From the perspective of a person who feels a Need, someone else whose equivalent Need is satisfied is perceived as someone who is more successful.

DIRECTION OF FOCUS OF PERSONAL ENERGY AND INTEREST: What is it that needs to happen in the physical or social worlds to enable a Need to be satiated? This will depend entirely upon the Need in question. For so long as the Need requires fulfilling, the individual’s mental attention and physical actions will be his or her focus. BEHAVIOUR: To initiate and then enable an interaction to take place, an individual must behave in a particular way. Each Ideal Type of interaction relies upon a particular Behaviour Type. These are: Peaceful, Predictable, Dependable, Inclusive and Admiring.

PERCEPTION OF ROLE PLAYED BY OTHER PEOPLE: In seeking to interact with other people to satisfy a Need, a person is looking for that other person to provide or do something. This leads to the individual developing a perception of others in terms of how they can assist the former individual to satisfy his or her Needs (eg . seen merely as a source of food or material goods). ATTITUDE: When a person behaves in a particular way, this influences what attitude he or she develops towards other people. For example, someone behaving peacefully towards others develops an attitude of acceptance of others. This becomes extended as a general attitude towards other people and projected onto the animate and inanimate world. PERCEPTION OF TIME AND SPACE: Involvement in interactions with particular Forms influences a person’s perspective of time and space. For example, someone who only experiences instantaneous interactions will come to see life in the present only and lose sight of past and future. This will strongly determine the nature of relationships built up with other people. LONG-TERM PHYSICAL CONSEQUENCES ON MIND AND BODY: Repeated involvement in interactions will have an effect on an individual’s physical and mental condition, including their personal wealth, property ownership and so on.

3. ETHOS: This relates to the required behaviour and attitude necessary for an individual to initiate and enable and complete a successful interaction with another human being. 4. FORM: This corresponds to the manner in which an interaction takes place in time and space (is it instantaneous or does it occur over a discrete timespan and does it require spatial proximity?). 5. EVENT: Each interaction gives rise to an economic event in the physical universe: an object exchanging hands, work completed, health maintained or information shared. 6. RESPONSE: If an interaction is successful, a person feels happy: if unsuccessful, sad. The nature of the happiness depends upon the Ideal Type of interaction.

EXPERIENCE OF TIME AND SPACE: An interaction necessarily represents an event in physical space. The event may require direct physical proximity between two people or might be able to take place at a distance. Events may be relatively instantaneous or take place over a defined or undefined time duration. DIRECT PHYSICAL CONSEQUENCES OF INTERACTION: An interaction gives rise to a physical event in the universe. This may be an object changing hands or work done to change the physical environment or an action to help maintain a person’s health.

EMOTIONAL RESPONSE (HAPPY OR SAD): Human beings are programmed to experience a psycho-physical-emotional response to interactions. The notion of ‘happiness’ is most normally associated with instantaneous gratification. But there are other states of happiness associated with longer-term interactions.

NARRATIVE: When human beings feel happy or sad, they interpret and explain their circumstances: “I feel happy because …”. This influences how they next seek to satisfy a felt Need, remembering when and why they felt happy and seeking to repeat the same sequence of events.

Page 44 of 51

© Julian Hart SOCIAL ANIMAL = sum of Experiences and Consequences across Five Needs jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

INTERACTION DIAGRAM

Generic Structure of a Social Interaction
Physical Expression of a Person Need Inner Identity of a Person Psychological Need Person as Social Animal Prioritisation of Need

x 5 Ideal Types of Social Interaction
1. Material Interactions 2. Labour Interactions 3. Nurture Interactions 4. Mobility Interactions 5. Success Interactions

Biological Need

Focus

Focus of Activity

Focus of Attention

Perception of Others and Self

Ethos

Behaviour

Attitude

Treatment of Others and Self

Form

Physical and Temporal Form of Interaction

Experience of Space and Time

Perception of Space and Time

Outcome

Physical Event

Social / Economic Event

Relative degree of fulfilment of Need

Response

Emotional State

Narrative

Characterisation of Others and Self Reinforced through Repetition
© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Happiness leads to repetition of interaction Sadness leads to search for new type of interaction
Page 45 of 51

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

INTERACTION TEMPERS When an individual seeks to act to fulfil a Need, there are four ways they can do this (the set of four Interaction Tempers): Acting Individually: This can be construed as latent (passive) competition and represents seeking to act without interacting with another human being. An analogy from the animal kingdom is the tiger hunting alone. Competition is latent, because if resources were to reduce it would automatically become active. Taking: This is very clearly active competition: to take from another. It represents denying another of fulfilment of their own Needs. It is most obvious in the context of Material Needs, but applies equally for all Needs. For example, terrorising another corresponds to denying that other of their security. Sharing: This has been interpreted as active cooperation either corresponding to giving another the opportunity to satisfy their Need without expecting immediate compensation or representing direct simple cooperation. In the latter context, this might manifest as cooperating on a task but without any division of labour. Exchanging: This corresponds to passive cooperation, where two people cooperate and both benefit, which allows them to continue in many respects to operate individually. The most obvious example is that of exchanging equivalent goods or purchasing goods for an agreed sum of money. Other examples include direct division of labour.

SOCIAL PROCESS MODES Only when a sizeable proportion of the people within a social group (family, business, community, society, nation state) are all interacting in a similar way do discrete interactions combine together to create a positive feedback driven social process. Sharing interactions writ-large across a social group will tend to bind a group together in a particular way dependent upon the Ideal Type of interactions. The consequence of this is to create “membership” (using the word in its broadest sense) social structures (disparate examples include tribes, nuclear families, discrete businesses, religious communities, nation states), which have clear social boundaries around them (see below for further discussion on social boundaries). An identified social process will operate inside the social boundary it creates; it will not extend directly over that boundary. This creates social units which can then interact with each other. For example, members of a family share food, whereas family units operate on an exchange basis between each other. Exchanging interactions, in contrast, will tend to open up a social group, reducing social boundaries and interlacing an initially discrete and identifiable group into a wider society. For example, through connection to cities over generations original tribes eventually merge into a wider amorphous society. The Mode of Operation of a Social Process is driven by the underlying Tempers of Interaction which dominate within a social group. SOCIAL BOUNDARIES AND NESTING OF PROCESSES

Examples of interactions in different social contexts: In our tribal past, tribes operated on the basis of Level 1 (Material Needs) cooperation within the tribe. Members of tribes interacted to share food resources from within a single tribal territory. Between tribes there existed passive competition, leading to active competition during times of scarcity. In modern society, the nuclear family acts as a sharing unit (members of the family pooling their financial resources to pay for food, shelter and material goods). Between family units, there exists exchange relationships – giving and receiving gifts and purchasing food and goods. A legal partnership of, say, two solicitors working together without any significant division of labour would represent a sharing interaction, providing each of them with greater security of income by working together instead of competing separately.
Page 46 of 51

Maslow originally suggested that Needs sit in a hierarchy, where by necessity daily Material Needs will become prioritised on a day-to-day basis over higher Needs. Social conditioning and the cultural environment can change this, driving some individuals to prioritise Needs in a different order (for example, the religious zealot prioritising his afterlife over current standard of living). But, by and large, the hierarchy holds. Certainly on a statistical basis, lower Needs will be treated with priority over higher Needs. This degree of hierarchy has the effect of causing processes to ‘nest’. For example, in tribal situations the Birth Process (Level 1 Need) in Sharing Mode causes a tribe to knit together under a singular identity forming an impenetrable social boundary around the tribe. No cooperation can take place across this social divide at any level – only competition. Inside the tribal boundary, different tribes may have been structured in different ways. The resultant social structure can be likened to layers of an onion. Social boundaries cannot be crossed to enable any higher level of cooperation, only
© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

Alternative Nested Tribal Structures Five Layers. Level 1 Tribal Boundary on the outside

sharing interactions within tribes. The outer layer of tribal differentiation, arising from sharing interactions within tribes with respect to material needs, consequently dissipated. Direct, physical competition between the descendants of the initial tribal groups then moved up a Level to competition for security needs. But competition for materials needs was not entirely eradicated. Rather it was tamed and transferred from physical space into social space. Competition was no longer direct head-to-head competition for food to eat, but for money to obtain to enable the purchasing of food to eat. Money is a social construction allowing cooperating exchange interactions to propagate across a society. In civilized society, we compete for money (proxy for energy) in order to cooperate in exchange of energy (food). As development of civilised society has progressed, competition has been tamed and transferred from the physical realm to the social world. Step-by-step through a series of cultural bifurcations extending further and further across larger and larger swathes of civilisation. A great example of the taming of competition is the emergence of nonlethal sports in combination with the rise of democratic societies. Cultural bifurcations are characterised by a long, slow process of cultural change as more and more people across a society begin to alter the way they interact with each other. This can take hundreds of years. At a critical point a social phase change happens (the cultural bifurcation itself) and positive feedback kicks-in, directly leading to very rapid economic and structural changes to a society. Classic examples in history of such events include:

lower level cooperation. For instance, cooperation in security cannot cross a divide created by competition for material goods. Cooperation in health and reproduction does not normally or naturally cross a divide created by competition in security (where the latter is often expressed through mutual terror). Contrastingly, trade may continue to take place between to social groups, say neighbouring states, which are acting competitively in respect of security needs. CULTURAL BIFURCATIONS Cultural bifurcations represent none other than grandiose Tipping Points. Examples of cultural bifurcations in our history include the appearance of money (a common currency) within various societies, the emergence of property rights, the arrival of

 

COOPERATION (Level) 1

2

3

4

5
COMPETITION

the appearance of Christianity and Islam, both of which were in gestation for many centuries before suddenly taking the ancient world by storm the current information and communications revolution, which is the result of many centuries of development of notions in and around the concept of democracy and people learning to tell each other the truth

COMPETITION AND DIVERGENCE A fundamental concept embedded within the theory of social interaction is the notion that cooperation can emerge out of divergence. We see this in our everyday lives in the context of division of labour. Two brick layers, for instance, might be able to cooperate together in a Sharing Temper interaction, where there is sufficient work load to employ both of them. In this context, they would be simply splitting the overall task between them. But if there were a contraction in the economy, then the two brick layers would naturally become competitors for employment. However, if one of them diverges into, say, plastering, then they can continue to cooperate, albeit now on an exchange basis – classic division of labour.

monotheistic religions and the creation of democratic election processes. The evolution of human society has taken place through the gradual removal of social boundaries and the step-by-step switching of social processes from sharing to exchanging modes. Originating tribes, with social boundaries relating to all Needs (say five layers) have gradually had those boundaries stripped away and merged into broader societies. This started from the lower Needs. Original tribes, competing for material needs, began incrementally to cooperate through exchanging peace offerings, which in due course developed into early trade. At a critical point, early in our history, a cultural bifurcation took place whence trade came to dominate social interactions across the population (mostly between nuclear family units), replacing the initial
Page 47 of 51

© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

The idea of divergence runs throughout the theory of social interaction, applying to all Levels of the Needs hierarchy and giving rise to the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Division of the Sourcing of Materials – divergence in trading economy Division of Labour – divergence in the manufacturing / construction economy Division of Nurture – divergence in nurture related activities (for example new divergent specialisms in health care) Division of Competence – divergence in the knowledge economy Division of Technology – divergence in areas of creativity

Many interactions between people are not directly egalitarian, but comprise uneven or unequal interactions. A classic example is the prostitute (or just escort or paid for mistress), offering sex (or simply good, interested, nurturing company) in return for money and other material Needs. The paying party to such an interaction has his or her material Needs currently satisfied (adequate amount of money or income) and is looking for a higher Need to be met. The prostitute or escort or mistress is seeking a basic income to survive – money for today’s material needs or to secure an on-going income, but with no expectation of having any higher Needs met, whether health, respect or recognition. If you look around society, then it is quickly apparent that a very large proportion of interactions are unequal. Most paid employment is a Level 1 (Material Needs) to Level 2 (Security) interaction: owner of a company employs staff, who through their work increase the owner’s security (say, production of goods for sale) and in return receive a regular stipend (daily, weekly, monthly). The regular income received meets an employees daily material needs, but provides little in the way of security. This is the basis of capitalism. It is also, to all intents and purposes, the basis of communism (real communism as opposed to idealistic communism/Marxism). MATRICES AND SIMS The entire cultural and social environment arising from the social interactions taking place within a group create a Social Matrix. These are all the cultural and social elements arising from the interactions – perceptions of others, perceptions of success, behaviours and attitudes, comprehension of time and space, narratives and ideologies. Each Ideal Type of interaction, when manifest as a pure social process within a social group, creates a social Matrix. Labels have been suggested for these in the table below. There are therefore five social matrices, which aggregated together represent the entire social consciousness of a society – that is the entire Social World according to Popper’s Three Worlds Theorem. When a Cultural Bifurcation occurs, such that the majority of interactions associated with a particular Ideal Type across a society (for instance between individuals or between families or between businesses) have converted to exchange interactions, then this manifests by a fundamental change in the relevant social matrix. Social Matrices become apparent through physical manifestations. For example, the Level 1 (Birth Process) Social Matrix (here referred to as the Peace Matrix) gives rise to a commonly accepted currency (money) across a society. The European Union has recently undergone a Cultural Bifurcation between nation states, most of them adopting a common currency in the Euro. SIMS stands for Systems Inhabiting Matrices. SIMS can be either hierarchic or egalitarian and represent bounded social systems operating within a matrix. Examples of SIMS include: tribes, nuclear family units, market places, bureaucratic
© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

The concept of increasing division over time, driven by natural competition, becomes particularly important when considering the long-term evolution of a society or city. At critical points, potentially giving rise to Tipping Points of major change, division of activity across a society can enable a new degree of cooperation to emerge. This may be gradual or quite sudden. Examples which are less obvious than straightforward division of labour include the emergence of public space and public buildings, which are dedicated to particular needs of a community, and the appearance of public transport, which arises when people are no longer in direct competition for travel. POWER RELATIONSHIPS The implicit hierarchy of the Needs gives rise to a very familiar, long discussed, but erstwhile still unexplained, phenomenon within human societies: power and why do some people end up with power over others? Social Process Social Matrix Examples of physical and structure manifestations of Social Matrices (when Social Processes are operating in Exchange Mode) Money (common currency) Market places Legal system Property rights Constructed cities Monotheistic religions Health service Education system Public space in cities Election systems Structured sporting competitions Formal consultation systems Public transport Award ceremonies New Technology

Level 1 Birth Process Level 2 Growth Process Level 3 Health Process Level 4 Adaptation Process Level 5 Transformation Process
Page 48 of 51

Peace Matrix Trust Matrix Value Matrix

Decision Matrix

?? Matrix

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

organisations, armies, towns and cities, cults, modern businesses, unions, nation states, etc. One of the easiest examples to draw on to explain SIMS is the concept of the hierarchic bureaucracy. Most bureaucracies, as already alluded, are built up from unequal Level 1 to Level 2 relationships, where the higher up the bureaucracy the better served an individual’s Safety and Security Needs will be. The lower the rank of an individual in a bureaucracy the more an individual is sacrificing his Safety and Security Needs in order to obtain essential daily Material Needs. This is most obvious in history in the context of armies: the king leading his army, which he pays to protect him: the foot soldiers receive a daily hand out, but their lives are most at risk. The maximum size to which a bureaucracy can grow is dependent upon the culture of trust and predictability which pervades a society. This ultimately derives from the strength of the underlying Trust Matrix across a society. Cults represent a very different form of hierarchic social organisation involving a single central figure, elevated in some way above a mass of supporters. The size to which a cult can grow is not dependent on the Trust Matrix (albeit it may have a part to play) but rather is most reliant on a strong underlying Value Matrix.

Social Process Level 1 Birth Process Level 2 Growth Process Level 3 Health Process Level 4 Adaptation Process Level 5 Transformation Process

Social Matrix

Systems Inhabiting Matrices (SIMS) Sharing Mode Exchanging Mode Market Places Supply Chains Communities Group Decisionmaking Systems / Election Systems Award Ceremonies

Peace Matrix Trust Matrix Value Matrix Decision Matrix

Tribes Bureaucratic Organisations Cults Modern Businesses Creative / Learning Organisations

?? Matrix

Page 49 of 51

© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

DECONSTRUCTION OF THE MODERN BUSINESS Material Boundary This outer boundary is an identity boundary, which manifests in the modern context as a brand identity. The modern brand is a competitive entity within social space – the Peace Matrix. It occupies social space (a discrete part of the wider economic market place) as a tribe occupied physical space. This outer material boundary demarcates that all those people operating within this brand identity are reliant on a very specific, identifiable source of materials (energy / income): sale of the products or services under the brand.

social space within the organisation, but, when sufficiently differentiated, can overlap in physical space. When hierarchies are not sufficiently differentiated, then internal conflict will arise. All hierarchies will express an innate tendency to keep growing. Within each hierarchy there is a cultural defensiveness of the area of social space occupied and an intense focus on maintaining status quo and continuation of the hierarchy for its own purposes. The hierarchies in combination translate this into defense of the market share of the outer brand(s), for the organisation as a whole to do what is necessary to maintain revenue into tomorrow and to grow capital reserves. Whilst there is an expressed focus on maximising productivity, efficiency and cost savings, these are counterplayed by the innate drive for growth of each hierarchy.

Material Boundary (outer layer = brand identity)

Some big modern businesses, for example Unilever, have created many specific brands. This is only possible when the market place is large enough that individual brands do not compete within social space. Here the direct analogy to tribe occupying two-dimensional physical space (the geographic landscape) falls down; social space is multidimensional, so the organisational structure connecting the different brands together actually lies inside all brand identity boundaries simultaneously. The most important economic aspect of brand identity is the case flow generated by daily sale of products and services.

The Modern Business

Nurture Boundary (tertiary layer = common set of organisational values – not evident in many organisations)
Health / Nurture Boundary

Security Boundary The Growth Process operating inside the outer brand/identity boundary creates the organisational structure of the business. It enables the social organisation to grow, which allows work to be done to create products or services for sale.

Security Boundary (secondary layer = organisational membership and delimitation of defined codes of conduct)

Relatively few modern businesses have culturally developed to the point of operating according to a unified set of values across the organisation. Exceptions to this rule include charitable organisations (see below) and enlightened companies such as John Lewis. Collective values derived through the Health Process can only emerge from the bottom up. They can not be dictated from the top of a business, like rules and regulations under the Growth Process. Where many organisations claim to have a set of values, these are false as they have been decided at the top and not derived from the bottom. To this end, with most modern bureaucracies there is no unifying set of values within the organisation. Rather each individual, while following the rules and regulations of the business structure, operates independently according to his or her own morality. Organisational structures based on common values do, however, exist within and across modern businesses: these are unions and other similar social structures. In organisations such as John Lewis then the union has essentially been embraced as an intrinsic and instrumental part of the overall operation of the business. Where in other organisations management and unions come into conflict, this represents the top of the business and the bottom of the business coming into competition over the long© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Most modern organisations operate in mixed-mode: a combination of sharing and exchanging of labour interactions. The sharing mode of the Growth Process creates the structural hierarchies. The exchange mode leads to division of labour, allowing the emergence of different parallel structural hierarchies (eg. finance, production, marketing, etc). Each structural hierarchy exclusively occupies a discrete area of
Page 50 of 51

Lancefield Theory – a new theory of social interaction

DRAFT

7/9/10

term future of the organisation. This is expressed during such conflict in terms of a different set of expressed values and divergent morality. Profit oriented businesses develop from the top down, with unions emerging as layers within the structure, arising out of the common situations that different levels of the hierarchy experience (shop floor workers, middle management, senior management, etc). Charitable organisations, in contrast, originate from a common set of values and by necessity develop an organisational structure, under the Growth Process, to enable them to operate. To this end, charities are far more likely to incorporate a common set of values than a common set of rules. Where individuals within an organisation are all operating according to their own morality, then organisational structures, such as unions, can exist within society, which span different bureaucracies. But when an organisation develops in a way that it draws on, and instigates the processes to maintain, a common set of values across the organisation, which are genuinely derived from the bottom up, then the resultant staff community (staff council, dedicated union or other) will become contained within the bureaucratic structure. If this became generalised, unions spanning across different organisations would no longer be able to exist. In its place, however, businesses would generally be much more moral and value oriented, focussing on a much longer time horizon than is the norm at present.

company. The top-down and the bottom-up come together through decision-making processes within the organisation. If they operate successfully, then an organisation as a whole will make fast, accurate decisions and take effective courses of action. But accuracy of information passed up the system relies on respect being passed down, including fair application of rules and recognition of values (i.e. long-term aspirations of staff). The effectiveness of any decisions made by a business thereby depends upon the way that it embraces and recognises all its staff and their entire personal needs and life aspirations. Modern companies are highly reliant on staff telling the truth to each other and upwards to management. This becomes critical when the organisation is reliant on multiple sources of information and multiple types of information (i.e. different technical skills and advice). The information boundary can therefore be conceived as the system of individuals (company staff) within which truth is told. Few modern businesses operate in a way that information remains entirely accurate through the organisation and as it is escalated up the structural hierarchies. A lack of respect of staff and their values has a strong tendency to lead to information being corrupted (a process of Chinese whispers as information is passed up through each layer of management hierarchy). As a consequence most organisations operate significantly below optimal levels in terms of decision-making. This gives smaller businesses a significant advantage over large companies, where the latter are slow to make decisions and inevitably rely on less accurate information about the outside world. Creative Boundary

Information Boundary

The information boundary demarcates the system which must take decisions to follow a defined course of action. In the biological context, this is the animal deciding which direction to move and how fast within the physical world, based on information received and digested. In the social world, this represents an organisation with the capacity to make its own decisions and act on them.

Information Boundary (quaternary organisational layer – structure within which truth needs to be told for effective operation of business)

The Modern Business
Creative Boundary (inner layer – within which creative success of the organisation is fully shared)

No large modern businesses truly operate in cooperative exchange mode at this level of organisational development.

Materials Boundary Security Boundary Health Boundary Information Boundary Creative Boundary

Peace Matrix Trust Matrix Value Matrix Truth Matrix ??

A business might rely on multiple sources of information, but must bring all these together to make a definite decision on a course of action from one moment to the next. Information of the outside world and of the business’s context is, however, received at the bottom of the business and fed upwards through the organisational hierarchy. This feeding upwards of information happens in conjunction with the values of the staff. The top of the organisation sets the company’s objectives and targets and defines the rules and regulations of the
Page 51 of 51

© Julian Hart jal.hart@btinternet.com

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful