POWER POLITICS The Dynamics of Social Change First published as a Chapter in P.J.

Arnopoulos, SOCIOPHYSICS: Cosmos & Chaos in Nature & Culture

NOVA, N.Y. 1993 & 2004

Trying to answer the question what is social change and what are its causes, we first look at this phenomenon in the perspective of its larger context and then focus on its details. Change may be defined as an irreversible or irretrievable alteration of an object. It occurs as a major shift in the structures and functions of a system; when the flow rates of matter, energy or information vary significantly from a certain norm. If change means the modification of a system by transforming its structure or altering its state; then acceleration may be defined as the rate of this change. Acceleration, in its positive or negative side, is thus the changing of change, which in its simplest form is shown as: A = v/t = d2s/dt2 In this sense, acceleration becomes the criterion of dynamism. Static systems may have constant velocity or repetitive movement, but only dynamic systems have changing speed and irreversible motion.. As Diagram 210 shows, acceleration transforms linearity into curvature. The straight lines of the previous Diagram 200, thus become curves in this one (for purposes of simplicity, the mirror image below the horizontal is not shown). These curves depict the law of exponential change generated by: Nt+1=cNt or dN/N=+Cdt or N=Noe+ct In this differential equation and its solution, exponential growth (+) or decay (-) become explosive very fast because of positive feedback, of which more will be said in 311. On the contrary, logistic growth gradually slows down and eventually stabilizes below a certain asymptote, because it takes into account deceleration as well as acceleration. Nt+1=aNt-bNt2 Higher order equations depict acceleration in the acceleration resulting in logarithmic, exponential or explosive change: y2=x3 or y=Ax These and other more complicated curves, as we see later on, correspond to various kinds of natural or social phenomena. According to the First Law of Conservation, steady motion is equivalent to rest, since it does not require any effort to be maintained. But any change in either of these states does require an agent who will act upon the system to counter its inertia or momentum. This Chapter looks for the agent responsible for all changes of state. Obviously, we are talking about a very powerful factor that is able to overcome the conservative tendency of things.

The search for the unknown factor requires that we recall the notion of field, presented in Section 113. In reviewing this notion, it is useful to remember that fields are spaces filled with varying potential energy gradients. These spaces exist around all material bodies and extend into the neighboring space like invisible halos. As a result of overlapping fields, things become aware of each other and thus establish relationships and interactions. Without them, materials would exist in perfect isolation and nothing could ever happen among them. Fields are so fundamental to reality that they may be hidden dimensions of space and time. In any case, fields form the life space of a system permeating its existence and determining its form. Because the strength of a field varies directly with the configuration of energy patterns within it, the particular location of something is very important because its role and behavior depend on it. The most significant effect of fields is the influence they have upon everything in them. Influence, as we saw, affects behavior and hence may change the existing state of affairs. Behavior may, thus, be conceived as some change of state in a field: i.e. x/t. Field change comes about via the exertion of an exchange agent. This agent is called force and is the field component responsible for all changes of state. Alternatively, it may be said that a field is characterized by the distribution of forces in a space-time (x, y, z, t) coordinate map. Force and field, therefore are so close that they may be defined in terms of each other. Force plays such a central role in science that constructing a theory means elaborating a scheme of forces acting behind common sense observations. For this reason the next three sections look upon the nature of force and n its two most important manifestations: work and power. As we did in the first part, we continue the metaphoric method of comparing natural and social systems and deriving general laws applying to both. FORCE TELE-ACTION The question of what causes change presupposes that of how things influence each other. Influence travelling through space-time is known as action-at-a-distance and has baffled scientists for a long time. Euler and his generation identified force with the classical vis viva. By now, however, this age-old problem has been solved by the introduction of a certain class of elementary particles, called bossons. Accordingly, interaction between two or more bodies may be explained by the exchange of these particles. It should be recalled that so far we presented two other kinds of elementary particles on the ultimate microscopic level: leptons and quarks (cf. 1111). These particles, collectively called fermions, make up all matter in the universe. Yet, in order to build any structure or communicate any influence among them, it is necessary to postulate another kind of particles that could effect connections and carry messages. Unlike fermions, bossons have neither any significant mass nor charge. Their sole raison d'etre is to transport a unit of force between two material particles. With this new type, we complete the necessary and sufficient matter-force duality of the structureless

and indivisible units of reality. According to the Theory of Super-symmetry (SUSY), all elementary particles should be paired: one partner belonging to the fermion (cf.0121) and the other to the bosson family. It is by now recognized that influence is exerted by bossons which fall into the three classes of force-fields: gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear (GEN). Gravity, introduced in 1213 is a very weak-acting but far-reaching force, carried by gravitons. Electromagnetism, also discussed (cf.1131), is of medium strength and range, carried by photons. Lastly, nuclear forces (including radiation, cf. 1233) are of strongest effect but of shortest range, carried by gluons. The relative position of the GEN forces is shown in diagram 211. According to the general principle that the stronger the force, the shorter its influence range; the strength of gluons is almost 1040 times that of gravitons, while their range is the reverse. This tremendous difference is in the same order of magnitude as that of size: i.e. the Universe is 1040 times as large as the atom! In the meso level between these macro and micro extremes, both in force and size, lies the human scale that is most sensitive to electromagnetic forces. In this range, photons exert strong enough influence and cover sufficiently long distance to dominate social time and space, as rigorously specified by the famous Maxwell equations. Nevertheless, all three forces are responsible for every action at a distance and therefore all exchange of influence. So much so that force may be thought of as any interactive exchange. In general, whenever two particles interact, they exchange some energy and/or momentum. Force is thus related to energy and always acts in the direction of energy flow: from higher to lower potential. For that reason, the three kinds of force correspond to the three manifestations of energy discussed in Section 1.2. The importance of force is evident because it is indispensable for any change of state. Mathematically this may be shown as: F = md2s/dt2=q/t=mv/t=ma=m'm"/s2=Ps2=I/t = G These transformations mean that force relates the fundamental SET of reality that it can then manipulate in various ways. By producing an acceleration of motion or a shift on its direction, force becomes the cause for change. Thus the force vectors in a system determine its net field configuration. Moreover, according to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, there is a definite equivalence between inertial and gravitational masses or forces. This Principle of Equivalence meant that there is no difference between acceleration and gravity. Inertial forces, such as the centrifugal force, are therefore indistinguishable from gravity. Both are fictitious, since they are really acceleration in either linear or curved space. Force is also directly related to pressure, defined as force per unit area (cf. 1221) and impulse, defined as force in time: i.e. P = F/s2 & I = Ft = mv The application of force in space is thus equivalent to pressure as well as to gravity; just as the application of force in time is equivalent to impulse. Force is thus related to all the basic concepts making up the vocabulary of system dynamics. In the vanguard of contemporary research in mathematical physics is the effort to build a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) which integrates the three forces of nature into a single superforce, so that: FGUT = {GEN}

So far, String Theory (based on elements 10 -40 times as small as humans) is considered as one of the most promising means to a GUT. Until one of these promises is realized, however, we continue to distinguish the three forces of nature as the ultimate vehicles of natural influence. LANGUAGE Although permanence is the necessary underlying condition of existence, change is a much more interesting empirical phenomenon. That is why science is primarily the study of how things change. In that endeavor, we are interested in the effect of force upon matter, whether this is in the natural or social context. Therefore, taking for granted the basic stability of all systems, we now move to the more complex phenomena associated with social change. Social forces have been recognized for a long time to be the operant factors of social dynamics. As we saw, gravity operates at the macroscopic level to hold large systems together; while nuclear forces integrate matter at the microscopic level. In between, electromagnetic forces are more relevant to human society. It is primarily these intermediate forces which account for the dynamism of social systems. Influence in society is transmitted through the senses either by physical contact (touch), chemical reaction (smell and taste) or electromagnetism (sound and light). The last, audio-visual communication has developed into the oral and written languages that dominate human interactions. So much so, that intelligence is sometimes defined as the ability to communicate by electromagnetic waves. Unlike physical, social force is exerted through the communication of information. In human societies, the primary vehicle of such communication is language. It is by this sophisticated form of exchanging electromagnetic signals that human beings influence each other. Since all interpersonal relations result from the capacity to affect each other's behavior, language has become the most important vehicle for social interaction. From bilateral communication to group socialization, language provides the ubiquitous medium pervading the human milieu and penetrating all aspects of social life. The common element in all languages is the word -logos- representing the smallest meaningful string of sounds (phonemes) or symbols (morphemes). As such, words can be taken to be the primary units of social force and the principal carriers of influence among human beings. Just as physical strings are supposed to channel the forces of nature, verbal strings carry the forces of society. The information contained in strings of sound or light influences human behavior according to the meaning it is given in different contexts by semantic, syntactic and pragmatic conventions. Coding and decoding these messages depends on the compatibility between the terminals involved in the communication and their intervening channels. Humans, like all material systems, transmit and receive such forceful messages; thus influencing each other in various ways. One who applies social force is able to make others behave in an intended way. In that sense, applying socioforce means getting people to do something that they would not otherwise have done. The infusion of such force, thus accelerates the motion of people in a certain direction by getting them to perform some activities rather than others. It is this effect on human behavior that gives social forces their significance

As electromagnetic ones, linguistic forces are bipolar, because if they do not leave their targets indifferent, they either attract or repulse each other. In fact, social activities depend on whether there is sympathy or antipathy among the interacting units. As a result, language may be used either constructively or destructively, depending on whether it pulls individuals together or pushes them apart. Under normal conditions, most of these opposing forces balance or neutralize each other, so society is in dynamic equilibrium. In critical times, however, some forces predominate over others, in which case there is social change. When most forces polarize their vectors in a particular direction, they overcome systemic inertia and alter the status quo. Thus, changing anything in society is a matter of applying a sufficient increment of force on an appropriate point in a desired orientation. As a result of this net influence in one direction or another, there is some degree of social change. Physical force is often used as a means to social (political; economic; cultural) ends, as armed force threatens or uses violence and destruction to attain political goals. Societies may use such force to stop or bring about change. The threat or use of violence has been quite common in human history; so both physical and social force must be recognized as complementary sources of influence. ALTERATION On the basis of the force equation (F=ma), we are now able to state the first law of change that is really Newton's Second Law of Motion: i.e. in order to alter the state of anything, one must apply a force proportional to its mass and acceleration. This denotes that the larger the mass and the faster the change, the stronger has to be the force necessary to perform the required task. Translating this law in social terms means that social change requires an application of force proportional to the size of the system and the speed of its movement. Change in large societies obviously requires more force than change in small. Similarly, revolution demands much more force than evolution. In either case, force has to be larger than the inertia of the system, so as to overcome it and change the status quo. Combining this law with that of gravitation, it is evident that force is inversely proportional to time and directly proportional to space. Force has to be increased as the time needed for change decreases and the distance over which the force has to act increases. This means that to foment a revolution far away requires much more force than to do so nearby. Similarly, the concept of social pressure can be used to measure the application of force over a geographical area. Force concentrated in a small area can exert a much higher pressure than if it is diffused over a large surface. In order to save force and energy, it is better for pressure groups to focus on a specific sector of a system than on society as a whole. Just as using a lever multiplies the force brought to bear upon a certain mass, so the leverage of social pressure on critical points of the system is more effective than otherwise. In either case, whether physical or verbal, some effort must be exerted in proportion to the task at hand. Great social change socially arrived at, require a lot of

discussion and expenditure of words; just as diverting a massive system from its course requires great physical force and energy cost. When the force of words fails to bring about the desired social change, people may turn to force of arms to achieve the same end. If they have more of the latter than the former kind of force, violence may succeed where conversation has failed. Either way, the Second Law holds true as the expression of natural and social dynamics. Relating various familiar concepts is useful in describing both natural phenomena and social behavior. Starting with force as the basic impulse for change, one can then utilize its law to explain more complex concepts, such as work and power. It is to this task that we now turn. WORK DISSIPATION From what has been said so far, the concept of force seems sufficiently versatile to be applied in various contexts. One such important context is work : defined as an activity in which some force is exerted through space. This definition says that a moving force does work. In other words, work is the product of a force covering some distance. But, as we have seen already, force itself is the result of an accelerating mass, so that: W = Fs = mas = mvs/t = mv2 = E The last identity of this mathematical transformation is very similar to that for energy; so one may say that work and energy are practically equivalent. Indeed, energy is the capacity to do work which requires the expenditure of energy. Because of its inherent dissipability or workability, the flow of energy cannot help but disturb the status quo one way or another: sometimes creatively but ultimately destructively. This equivalence of energy and work is useful because it connects physical and chemical activities. Work is done when physical mass or energy potential falls. Whether it involves falling matter or lowering temperature, work always expends energy by losing potential. In order to work, a system must either use its internal energy or be moved by an external force. In the first case, the work done equals the energy spent. If the system can draw external energy from its environment, it replenishes its own energy and thus keeps on working indefinitely. In this case: W = Ee-Ei The significance of these equations is enormous because it underlies the common sense notion that it takes energy to do work. In other words: working is tiring. This energy has to come from somewhere: either by depleting the energy reserves of the system or the environment. Living beings work metabolically by dissipating the free energy of their environments; so they are called dissipative systems. As long as the environment provides enough energy, mechanical or organic systems alike can keep on working. If not, they use up any stored energy they contain and then drop dead. This condition for work is identical to that of life and reflects the general law enunciated at the end of this section. LABOR

The importance of work in society is evident from the value it adds on matergy. It takes work to transform raw materials into finished goods. The difference that labor makes in all these cases is that it infuses the state of nature with human order and thus supplements matter with mind. It may thus be said that work is to energy as form is to matter. This central trait in both aspects of reality, provided by information, triggers matter to perform work by dissipating energy into entropy, as will be seen in the next chapter. Similarly, labor adds information to matergy. Substance is thereby given form in the degree to which it is worked or processed. At the same time it acquires proportionate value. In that sense, it may be said that the price of something measures its information content. Money is thus a symbolic measure of information as well as matergy. In this respect, Ricardo's Iron Law of Wages reflects the tendency of capital to exploit labor. In order to extract the maximum of surplus value in the conversion process, the price of labor tends towards the minimum required for its subsistence. Poverty and slavery, of course, are the extreme conditions of this tendency, recognized by Marx as the inevitable result of free market Capitalism. As we shall see however (cf. 313), classical economists deny that a truly natural free market will necessarily result in enriching the few and impoverishing the many. Based on Adam Smith's "invisible hand," they believe that the automatic stabilizing mechanisms of nature will keep the system from falling into destructive extremes. In any case, the broadening concept of labor has brought about more sophisticated evaluating criteria. Labor is valuable because it requires capable effort and also produces beneficial effects. The social system is created and maintained by work, so it is valuable. The more complex the system, the more work it takes to build and upkeep, hence the more matergy must be invested in it. As such, society values an energy transformation process proportionately to the surplus it produces. This investment makes life easier and therefore it is preferable and desirable as a social value. As such, social welfare is a measure of the optimal economic efficiency that can ensure the stability and perpetuity of the system. In this case, a crucial aspect of social change consists in altering the ratios of these various functions according to the principles of Pareto Optimality: i.e. the marginal substitution rate between commodities, producers and consumers. As we have seen (cf. 1312), it is the role of the economy to perform the necessary tasks which transform matter and energy into goods and services. Its primary (extractive), secondary (productive) and tertiary (distributive) sectors process natural resources into artificial commodities through human labor and mechanical work. The type of society one has depends upon the percentage devoted to each of its three sectors, as well as the portion which human labor contributes to the economy. Usually, one of the sectors predominates in this division of labor, depending on the availability of the appropriate matter, energy and information in the system. Diagram 212 shows the approximate percentages of the labor force devoted to the three economic sectors in the three social conditions. Human capacity to form matter and store energy creates extrasomatic tools which multiply and eventually take over much of physical and ultimately mental labor.

Most of social work thus becomes mechanized and automated, making human labor inefficient and redundant. In developed economies, the employment of human beings is therefore shifted to the more sophisticated, labor consuming, service sector. Due to more energy efficient tools and techniques, humans have been able to produce much more than they consume. The hunters and gatherers in primitive societies, for example, only extracted ten calories for every one they expended, whereas the workers and scientists of advanced societies can gain two hundred at the same cost. When we take into account that modern people work twice as long as primitive (2000 vs 1000 hours annually), per capita production has risen about four hundred times. This means that the conversion from biological (human-animal) to technological (mechanical) work through automation is one of the major causes of social change. The dictum that "one is what one does," applies perfectly to the relationship between work and culture. As we see later on (cf. 23), this impact of artificial prosthetics on work has brought about great changes in the entire social system. Another reason for the increased efficiency of work is synergy. This concept accounts for the super-additive or multiplicative effects of working together for mutual benefit, i.e. (x,y) > (x)+(y) This means that the combined production of many people working together is greater than the sum of each one working separately. This functional synergism, therefore, is the result of combinatorial effects with positive consequences for the survival and growth of society. UTILITY On the basis of the relationship between energy and work, we are now ready to present the First Law of Thermodynamics that says: energy can neither be created nor destroyed but only converted from one kind to another. A corollary to this law is that everything has a cost; nothing can be gotten for free. Therefore, perpetual motion is a chimera. The implication of this conclusion is contained in the equation: E = Ei-W As seen in 212, this means that the net energy of a system is equal to its energy input minus its working expenditure. Thus, by working, a system cannot avoid losing energy to the environment. Since energy accounts must always balance, the lost energy has to be replaced in some way. If the system is to maintain its stability and working order, a continuous inflow of energy is necessary from the environment. Like any real system, no society can escape this law. The lesson to be learned here is that there is a price to be paid for every change of state: i.e. the price of work is the cost of energy. In order to bring about anything new, one must be willing to sacrifice something old. For anything to have value, it must therefore incur some cost. Of course, value is not necessarily linear with cost. Although energy costs may be objectively determined, values are subjective human desiderata that vary in space (culture) and pace (history). Bernoulli proposed a utility function to describe the changing value of anything by asserting that utility (U) is inversely proportional to

quantity (m): i.e. one increases as the other decreases according to this formula: U(m) = lg(m/m*) = 1/m According to the Marginal Utility Law, this means that the more of anything one has, the less worth is an additional increment of it. This principle forms the basis of utilitarian economics, affirming that the rich get little pleasure out of anything because they have so much of everything. As a result, giving to the poor maximizes social satisfaction. From that, Bentham and Mill concluded that an egalitarian distribution is most utilitarian because it gives the greatest pleasure to the greatest number. Complex systems, however, do not follow such simple principles. Since whoever receives something does not necessarily pay its price, selfish cost-benefit calculations preclude such egalitarian distribution. Social systems distribute costs and benefits unevenly to different groups and individuals, so some end up as net gainers and others as net losers. Pareto, who subscribed to social atomism or chemical behaviorism, introduced the so-called 20/80 ratio as an explanation of the phenomenon of general inequality. According to it, a small number of factors usually accounts for a large number of effects. One example of Pareto's principle is that in a typical society 20% of the population control 80% of its wealth. Inequalities in the production and distribution of cultural values are closely related to the variations in economic efficiency and political equity pursued by different social actors. The former tries to get the most output with the least input, thus minimizing throughput losses inherent in every system; whereas the latter tries to give the proportionate reward to the proper contribution, thus maximizing social justice. Either way, whether naturally or artificially, it is a case of increasing net results: i.e. Net = Out/In = max/min Optimizing the social utility of work would be striking the right balance between these minima and maxima. As modern utilitarianism is trying to do, such policy could satisfy the greatest needs for the greatest number without flying against the laws of nature. A social system that can approach this ideal comes closest to utilizing the First Law of Thermodynamics to its best advantage. POWER VIGOR The first application of force in work, just presented, is the foremost manifestation of energy use. The second important application is in power and to that we now turn. The concept of power is even more complex than either force or work, because it adds a time variable to their equations. Building on what has been said so far about the other two concepts power can be defined as the rate of working or the velocity of force: i.e. P = W/t = mav = Fv = dE/dt This classic definition relates power to energy, work, and force, thus uniting these three important physical and social concepts into a single theme. Since work is equivalent to expenditure of energy, power may also be considered as the rate of energy conversion. Knowing the rate of doing work or converting energy is important because it measures the operating speed of a system. So, most (>99%) of

whatever happens on planet Earth is due to the 50 million megawatts of power received from the Sun per hour. Due to the convertibility between energy and order, this amount is equivalent to 1037 bits of information per second. Either way this gross income and the use of its core capital, fuel planetary dynamics. Since power is proportional to the velocity of force and work; powerful systems move fast because they apply force quickly and work rapidly. But in doing so, vigorous activity burns up energy at very high rates and wears out the system very soon. It is this high conversion rate that tends to make powerful systems more vulnerable or delicate and thereby less durable in the long run. Nature here forces a trade-off between fast, powerful, dynamic, but ephemeral systems and slow, weak, passive, but perennial ones; thus confirming that there is a cost to be paid for every benefit. The faster a system moves or works the more power it needs. As things speed up, they require greater quantities of power because of their increased need for kinetic or potential energy. This increases their dependence on energy supplies and makes them highly susceptible to environmental disruption. Fast living or energy addiction thus goes together to create dangerous and unstable systems. Because of their high needs, powerful systems tend to be very manipulative and exploitative of their environment. If more than one such system exists in a certain environment, competition for scarce resources rises substantially. Inter-systemic relations intensify, thus increasing the possibility of friction and conflict. As a result, power, like force, has a dual character: positive and negative. Since it can effect rapid change, power can improve or deteriorate things much faster. Unfortunately, creative power is much more difficult and rare than destructive power. It takes more work and energy to build structures than to demolish them; because informing a system requires greater intelligence than deforming it. Thus as we see next, at best power is a mixed blessing and at worst a necessary evil. POTENCY Power is a central concept not only in the natural but also in the social sciences. In this context, power is associated with politics, just as work is associated with economics. Unlike economics however, politics has a harder time building a consensus as to what exactly its central concept really represents. Power has proven so elusive as to defy a generally acceptable definition so far. Yet, as we saw, the natural definition of power is both simple and formal. For that reason, we adopt it as the definition of social power as well. Since natural power is the capacity for fast work, social power is the ability for rapid action. The only difference is that instead of moving things physically, social power affects people behaviorally. This definition fits in well with both common sense and academic rigor. Taking Russell's definition of power as the production of intended effects, it is evident that our definition is more precise, yet equally understandable. In either case, power gives the force necessary to get things done by having others do them. Thus, instead of being able to work physically and directly, social power confers an indirect capacity to get one's work or will done by others. In society therefore, the powerful are those who can move people and get things done quickly. As power is directly proportional to mass and space and inversely proportional to

time it does not take much power to get someone to do little, slowly. On the contrary, the more people to be moved farther and faster: the harder it is because more power is needed. The capacity to move masses by influencing their behavior is political power. Such capacity is rare because it requires the adroit manipulation of power which few people can achieve. Because it is grounded on force, power tends to exhibit certain attractive traits. Social power, like electromagnetic force, attracts people. Human beings seek power both as a means of getting things done and as a potential end in itself. Power has such great appeal because it confers upon its holders the possibility of actualizing many potentialities or realizing their desires. Power is valuable because great deeds and heroic acts require large amounts of it. So, people individually and societies collectively try to amass power as the most liquid currency for fulfilling their needs by reducing uncertainty and insecurity. Here we should make an important distinction between power and influence. Strictly speaking, power is the ability to make people behave, whereas influence is the ability to make people believe. Obviously, the two are related but not identical; since one may be able to move bodies while another can more easily change minds. Yet, having either makes the other a much easier task; something that supports the magnetic attraction one ability has upon the other. Like work, power requires the conversion of potential into kinetic energy. To be powerful, one must have a capital stock of potential energy resources available for work. The resources may be material (food) or mental (information); human (people) or symbolic (money); natural (land) or artificial (weapons). The sources of social power in general and political power in particular are thus many and varied. Macro-politics usually measures national power in terms of geographic (size), demographic (population), economic (GNP) and political (arms) factors. According to our formula (P=msc), explained in the next section; these and other aspects of power could be fitted into sociomass (m), sociospace (s), and sociocontrol (c). Although it has not been worked out yet, such formulation would give a more general and accurate comparison of state power than those used now. Power may be considered as a flexible medium of exchange because it is suitable in different places and times. Wealth is best as economic power, whereas knowledge is more suited to cultural power and popularity to political. Although each of these things may be convertible to the others; their exchange rate depend on particular circumstances and specialized tasks. The great destructive power of arms may translate to very small constructive power of food and vice versa. Social power has traditionally been exercised by either warnings of coercive threats or promises of rewarding deeds. The former being mainly political and the latter economic, since the state has the monopoly of violence whereas the market has the oligopoly of exchange. Above and beyond these two is the power of love which of course is overwhelming but extraordinary. The sources of power for primitive societies differ significantly from those of sophisticated ones. Brute force gives way to subtle influence and physical violence to psychological pressure. Although, depending on circumstances, certain power resources are more useful than others, the general tendency is for knowledge to increase in value over time.

Whether public or private, formal or informal, the social manipulation of power depends on the communication of information. In that sense, power is not only the rate of working, but the speed of informing (i.e. P=W/t=I/t). The faster one is able to transfer knowledge, the more powerful one can be. Toffler's Powershift Thesis reasserts this deep sublimation in the essence of power brought about by the astounding degree to which both force and wealth in advanced societies have given way to knowledge. This power-shift follows the general trend from concrete and tangible objects to abstract and evanescent symbols as social goods. As we see later on (cf. 232) this change results from the increasing role of information during the technological revolution in the Third Wave of macro-history. CONTROL Since power is the rate of applying force, controlling this rate is of utmost importance. Control has been identified as the capacity to modify the rate of change; i.e. to speed it up or slow it down. Therefore, power control is a necessary ingredient of any orderly social change. The mathematical definition of power and its algebraic equivalents show that: P = W/t = Fv = ma(s/t) =m (s/t2)(s/t) = ms(s/t3) = msc This last parenthesis (s/t3) has been defined by Young as control (c); and translates as the rate of change of acceleration. It will be recalled that since v=s/t and a=s/t 2, control becomes the third derivative of velocity. This formal definition of control relates to power in a significant way. According to it, power becomes the ability to control the behavior of masses in space. This capacity is the function of servomechanisms that process feedback varying the rate of system change. In social systems, this function belongs to the polity, governing the application of power in its various forms. Since power is directly proportional to the rate of energy conversion or information flow, dynamic systems require a great deal of control. As people become more energetic or informed, they tend to get out of control; so in order to avoid that, dynamic societies must become more regulated. It may therefore be said that the kind of government a system has depends on the amount of power it disposes. As a result, high powered systems tend to have centralized control structures. This tendency of power seems to be so strong that Michel's Iron Law of Oligarchy has become a dictum of political science (cf. 1232), meaning that as they acquire power, societies concentrate control in fewer hands. The equivalence between the Pareto and Michel formulation is rather obvious. In a similar vein as the former (cf. 2123), the latter explained system inequality as a function of the ubiquitous dichotomy of social class into elite and mass. In both cases, the few end up with much, while the many hoi poloi are left with little. Whether in the economy or polity, these laws reflect the general tendency of unequal value distribution in all societies. Different social systems concentrate power in different classes. Most power in primary (agricultural) societies is controlled by landlord-aristocrats; whereas in secondary (industrial) societies control shifts to capitalist-plutocrats and in tertiary (service) societies it accrues to expert-technocrats. As the social importance of different

functions varies in time-space, so does the power they can exert upon society as a whole. The social dynamics of power, therefore, resemble the natural tendencies of all systems. Since power is so attractive it tends to agglutinate. The more power one has, the more one is likely to get. Conversely, the less powerful risk to loose whatever little they have when the amount they possess falls below a critical mass. As Saint Mathew's Principle puts it "from whoever hath not, shall be taken away even more" and Marx's aphorism echoes "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer": thus exacerbating social inequalities and power imbalances. When carried to either extreme, both the accumulation and evacuation of power indeed corrupt (cf. 2223). This extension of Lord Acton's famous dictum better reflects social reality and puts into context the all too human sin of hubris leading to delusions of omnipotence and ultimate downfall. In this case, the mythical jealousy of the Gods towards human ostentation means nothing more than the countervailing tendency of all things to beget their nemesis. Power, like energy, abhors a vacuum and tries to fill it whenever possible. By doing so, it spreads out and loses its potency. The more unevenly distributed power is, the more difficult it is to maintain its gradient and the easier it becomes to cascade down to form a flat egalitarian landscape. Thus nature counters the tendency of accumulation with an opposite tendency dissipation, something that shall be elaborated in the next two chapters. In order to summarize the relationships of the major concepts introduced so far, they are presented below in Diagram 213. This synoptic view is based on the SET triad, out of which arise all other definitions. In this perspective, force occupies a central position and produces all the other concepts, including work, power and control. It is upon this fundamental complex that is based the rest of this study. --------------------------In concluding this chapter, we should emphasize the reasons for the dynamism of certain systems. Unlike static systems, dynamic systems are in disequilibrium. In general, their instability is due to the multiplicity and variability of forces acting on them. It is these forces that are primarily responsible for unidirectional qualitative change. As defined, qualitative change means an irreversible modification in the structures and functions of a system. The degree and rate of such modification determines the significance of the change. A change that is too fast or too much, brings about a revolution that threatens the identity of the system itself. Otherwise, small and gradual alterations produce evolutionary changes within the overall parameters of the system. Whether, fast or slow, deep or shallow, the direction of system change can either move towards or away from equilibrium. Of course, if the system is already in a stable state, any change will destabilize it; whereas if it is already unstable, any change will either bring it closer to or further from equilibrium. In any case, applying any additional force upon a system will in effect change it in some way. But when the force is great or the change uneven, it would subject its components to various stresses or strains that could destroy the system completely.

What is interesting in the study of system dynamics is to find the factors and conditions that determine which way the change will proceed. If a system is at a bifurcation point: will it move towards equilibrium or not? Since in principle, either direction is possible, opting for one over the other is either determined or random (cf. 313). Knowing the criterion of choice is obviously important in predicting and explaining the behavior of systems, including society. Social dynamics is a combination of the effects of force, work and power in the human domain. New ideas, actions and circumstances, force a change of direction in the cultural, economic and political traditions of a society. Altered lifestyles, modes of production and distribution of power interact with each other by positive feedback to bring about overall social change and thus push the system to a new operative mode. The next two chapters of this part investigate the alternative possibility of this directional change in its two most significant manifestations. First, we look into the tendency towards entropic devolution and then towards its opposite which is syntropic evolution. As will become clear, these two options represent life and death choices; therefore being able to distinguish them can make all the difference in the world. sciencia potestas est. Bacon --------------------Selected Background Bibliography Adams, R. N. The Eighth Day. Texas U.P. Austin, 1988. R. Abraham, C. Shaw, Dynamics. Aerial Press, Santa Cruz, 1984. T.F.H. Allen & T.B. Starr, Hierarchy. Chicago U.p. 1982. Axelrod, R., Conflict of Interest. Markham, Chicago, 1970. Bar-Yam, Y. Dynamics of Complex Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1992 Barnes, B. The Nature of Power. Illinois U.P. Urbana, 1988 Barry, B. (Ed.) Power and Political Theory. Wiley, London, 1976. Bell, D. Power, Influence and Authority. Oxford, New York, 1975. Berkson, W. Fields of Force. Routledge, Kegan Paul, London, 1974. Burmeister, E. Capital Theory & Dynamics. Cambridge UP, N.Y. 1980 Burns, T.R. , W. Buckley, Power and Control. Sage, B.H. , 1976. D. Cartwright & A. Zander, Group Dynamics, N.Y, Harper & Row, 1968. Cialdini, R. Influence. Scott, Foresman, 1984. Collins, R. Conflict Sociology. Academic Press, N.Y. 1975. Commoner, B. The Poverty of Power. N.Y. 1976

Coulter, A. Synergetics:Wichita Human Study Group, Kansas 1955. Corning,P. The Synergism Hypothesis. McGraw Hill, N.Y. 1983. Crawford, M. & Marsh, D. The Driving Force. Harper & Row, N.Y. 1989. Davies, P.C.W. The Forces of Nature. Cambridge U.P. London, 1980. Davis, P.C.W. Superforce. Touchstone, Siman & Schuster, N.Y. 1984. Debnam, G., The Analysis of Power. Macmillan, London, 1984. M. Eigen, P. Schuster, The Hypercycle. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1979. Elias, N. Power & Civility. Pantheon, N.Y. 1982. Fuller, B.R. Synergetics. Macmillan, N.Y. 1975. Georgescu-Roegen, N. Energy & Economic Myths. Pergamon, London, 1976 Gordon, J.W. Synectics. Harper & Row, N.Y. 1961. Griffiths, J.B. The Theory of Classical Dynamics. Cambridge UP. 1985 Green, H.P. Power & Evolution. I.I.S. South Carolina U. Columbia, 1986. Gunsteren, H. The Quest for Control. Wiley, London, 1976 Haken, H., Synergetics. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1975. Hesse, M. Forces & Fields. Nelson, London, 1961. Jammer, M. Concepts of Force. Harvard U.P. Cambridge, 1957 Kreisberg, S. Transforming Power. SUNY Press, 1992. Lukes, S. , Power. Macmillan, London, 1974. Mann, M. The Sources of Social Power. Cambridge U. P. 1986 May, R. , Power & Innocence. Souvenir, London, 1974. McNeill, W. The Pursuit of Power. Chicago U.P. 1982. Mortimer, E. Faith & Power. Vintage, N.Y. 1982. Nagel, J.H. The Descriptive Analysis of Power. Yale, N.H. 1975. R.E. Osgood, R.W. Tucker, Force, Order & Justice. John Hopkins, Balt, 1967.

Parenti, M. Power & the Powerless. St. Martin's Press, N.Y. 1978.
Parkman, R., The Cybernetic Society. New York, Pergamon, 1972. Perry, R. Hidden Power. Beaufort Books, N.Y. 1984. Ranney, A. Channels of Power. Basic Books, N.Y. 1988. Rothgeb, J.M. Defining Power. St. Martins Press, N.Y. 1993

Rouse, J. Knowledge & Power. Cornell U.P. Ithaca, 1987. Schmookler, A. B. Parable of the Tribes. Houghton Mifflin, Berkely, 1984. Thomas, R. (Ed.). Kinetic Logic. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1979. Toffler, A. Powershift. Bantam, N.Y. 1990. Tosches, N. Power on Earth. Arbor House, N.Y. 1986. White, D.M. The Concept of Power. General Learning, Morristown, 1976. Wing, P.L. The Tao of Power. Doubleday, N.Y. 1986. Wrong, D.H. Power. Blackwell, Oxford, 1979. P.S. The text as presented here has omitted its graphics in the original chapter.