Organizational Vectors Theory

Here I share a brief explanation of the Sociological Theory of the Organizational Vectors, theory that was inspired on the undergraduate thesis research called "ORGANIZATIONAL FORMS OF A CHILEAN ECOVILLAGE: THE "X COMMUNITY" CASE".

Graphic representation of the organizational vectors

GRAPHIC EXPLANATION:

VARIABLES: 

HIERARCHIZATION (Z) From “community” till “society”.

REGULATION(X) From “anomic” till “fatalist”.

INTEGRATION(Y) From “egoistic” to “altruist”.

LAW(D) Continuous “repressive”-“restorative”.

INDIVIDUATION(i) d axis (from “i-” to “i+”).

SOCIAL DIVISION OF WORK(T) y axis (from “T-” to “T+”).

Do not confound axis “x”, “y”, “z”, “d”, with variables “X”, “Y”, “Z”, “D”.

ORGANIZATIONAL CATEGORIES: mechanic community, organic community, mechanic society, organic society, are situated as reference points for the rest of (concrete) social types with their respective forms of social organization.

EXTREMES: community-society, anomic-fatalist, egoistic-altruist, repressive-restorative. 

The extremes of all axis have its inflection point in the “optimum point” (where all the axis crossed each other).

The increase of mechanic solidarity diminishes organic solidarity; that is it increases REGULATION and repressive LAW (Drp), diminishing INDIVIDUATION. The increment of organic solidarity decreases mechanic solidarity; that is to say, it increases SOCIAL DIVISION OF WORK but also restorative LAW (Drs), rising INDIVIDUATION. “LIBERTY” moves in axis “x”, while “SECURITY” in axis “y”. Both reach the maximum harmony in the “optimum point”, being the extreme the points less desirable.

THEORETICAL EXPLANATION:

The Organizational Vectors theory tries to give a clear graphic representation where to put the diverse forms of social organization. Thanks to the integrations of variables such as Hierarchization, it allows to identify different modes of organization, such as community and society, avoiding this way mistakes in terms. Considering all variables, the graphic facilitates the ubication of concrete types of organization, allowing to compare different social types, according to their differences in organization.

From the combinations of variables emerges 4 organizational types, which would be determined by the Hierarchization and the types of solidarity. We see that mechanic solidarity would rule the Regulation of different social types and the organic solidarity the Integration. While organic solidarity increases meanwhile it gets closer to the egoistic pathology (the problem of the modern liberal societies found by Durkheim), the mechanic solidarity reaches its maximum in the fatalist pathology (the collectivist repression, so feared by the liberalism).

In the case of the variable “LAW” (D), due to having a double-sense flux, it indicates that the right superior part (quadrant II) the repressive law gets till a maximum (fascist dictatorship), that is to say, the absolute repression in the hand of a dictator. In the opposite case, the restorative law gets its maximum with the “anarcho-liberalist” dystopia, where each one “charges” the law “according their own hands” (caricaturized in the famous Italian “vendetta”).

We will see with more detail now, the 4 pathological extremes (the dystopias).

From the “pure” community, where is no Hierarchization (maximum horizontality), this grows to reach to the most fatalist and egoistic society, that is, where the Regulation is maximum and the Integration minimum. To this state, as dystopian ideal type, it can be named “Anarcho-capitalist Dystopia”. As we know, the anarcho-capitalism promotes a free-market economy without the presence of the state. This way, the accumulation of the great capitalists would allow to make their will (regulate as they want), producing a competition (not-cooperation or not-integration) without-ending by the private resources, bringing this fight state to a egoistic pathology of disintegration, where individuals would not worry at all about each other, however, being regulated by the capitalist “feudal seigniors”, which could make their will without limitation more than the “free” rejection (to the contract), by part of the hungry unemployed.

Starting from the previous conditions (maximum egoism and fatalism), but diminishing the organic solidarity to the maximum, we come into an altruist-fatalist pathological state. An example of this is the Fascist Dystopia, where Regulation is so strong, that -strongly integrated- individuals submit to it, to the level of being available to die “for the Führer”. In the case of the Nazi Germany, with its post Hitler’s death suicides, it is an example of this state.

Now, if we diminish to the maximum the mechanic solidarity and we increased to the maximum the organic solidarity, we found that the individuals, although they do not have Regulation at all, neither they are Integrated at all. Thus, the “Anarcho-Liberalist” Dystopia manifests; the “absolute” chaos, “lack of laws”, derivate in what the mass media understand by “anarchy”: a state of violence where nobody respects each other and everybody does what they wish without having any consideration for the other. Therefore, a state of maximum anomy (lack of laws) and egoism, where Homō hominī lupus est (“a man is a wolf to another man”). It was given the appellative of “Liberalist” in honor to the tremendous and effective efforts that Liberalism has done (from its triumph in the French Revolution) to dislike, denigrate, tergiversate and manipulate the concept of “anarchy”, signifying it this way as the absolute chaotic state, reaching therefore its hegemonic objective: to associate the concept of anarchy to the more undesirable state.

Now if we diminish to the maximum the organic solidarity but we also diminish to the maximum Hierarchization, we arrived to a state of excessive Integration but not regulated in any way. This way, we glimpse the Anarcho-Communist Dystopia, i.e., where the excessively integrated collective “suffocates” the individual, to the level that this last one seems to not have “voice nor vote”. This way is produced the “tyranny of the majority”, censuring any individual feat that endangers the collective. 

Besides these dangerous extremes, we can find intermediate states. For example, as it was mentioned in the thesis, the X ecovillage enjoys an Integration state quite “healthy” (which makes it to be close to the x axis). However, it has a tendency to the anomy, probably due to its aversion to (juridical) laws and a profound love for liberty, which makes this one to tend to the libertinage (lack of norms and order). Nonetheless, it is not an extreme tendency, therefore The X Community might be situated between the middle of the anomy and the optimum point of Regulation.

On the other hand, we can find the case of a very Liberal Capitalist state. Being liberal, it has some concern about the Regulation, appealing for that to the laws of the state. Notwithstanding, the excess of Individuation (as in the case of the US society) brings to an excess of organic solidarity, which produces egoistic disintegration (which is reflected in the delinquency states o the multiple murders of school students by part of classmates that suffered “Bullying”).

In contraposition to the Liberal state, the Marxist state mainly regulates by a strong mechanic solidarity. Therefore, the excess of Regulation produces a fatalist state. Even though the integration is relatively close to the harmony (x axis), due to the solid sociopolitical ideals (which brings a common identity) and the potential external -capitalist- threat (threat that as it is well known by the militaries and politicians, it generates social cohesion), the Integration is not “perfect”. This could be exemplified in the case of the Stalin state, by the forced peasant migration to work in inhospitable territory. In the case of more altruist societies (such as for example the Hitlerian Nazi state) probably that work would have done “at will” (as a “sacrifice” in post of Germany). However, because of not reaching that excess of altruism, the Russian individual resisted to be moved (therefore had to be forced to that). Nevertheless, the optimum Integration state tends to a higher Individuation, that is to say, towards greater liberty (of the individual to choose his way of life).

If that Marxist society would regulate in a “healthier” way (in not such excessive way, decreasing its mechanic solidarity, or, which would be the same, increasing its organic solidarity) and at the same time, would augment the level of Integration in an excessive way, it might reach a similar state to the (old) Tibetan Theocracy: a Hierarchic state (society), quite well Regulated (close to the y axis) -due to its solid and accepted religious structure-, but excessively Integrated (far away from the x axis) -due to the negative Buddhist notions about the ego or individual personality-.

Lastly, it should be noted that, (graphically) the (variable) Social Division of Work, as minimum agreement between individuals, situates in the optimum point of Regulation (y axis). Therefore, keeping a constant Regulation, while the individual became excessively individualist (excess of Individuation), the Social Division of Work gets to a maximum (organic society), producing a Regulated work, but extremely egoistic (which is reflected in our Capitalist Organic Societies, where economic inequality -product of disintegration- is abysmal). Thence Durkheim, intuitively wanted to solve the problem of modern (dis)Integration (excess of organic solidarity) increasing the power (Regulation) of the unions, which would serve as intermediate regulative entities (between the individuals and the state); which basically was proposed by Durkheim -interpreted from the language of the graphic representation of the organizational vectors- was to increase the mechanic solidarity (syndicate Regulation), to this way, diminish the organic solidarity, and therefore, to make western societies to tend more towards an optimum Integration, drawing away of the egoistic (dis)Integration (in this sense, the “Durkheimian union” did not look so much to regulate, but this regulation has as goal to integrate).

In the opposite case of the previous paragraph, if the individual is excessively altruist (lack of Individuation), it will happen the minimum Social Division of Work, that is to say, the mechanic community (what Durkheim understood as “primitive societies”). In this variable, as in all the mentioned, the optimum point is the middle point. There, when the Regulation and Integration were in their optimal state, the work would not only be coordinated (regulated), but also it would be perfectly integrated.

Although the optimum point could be interpreted as an utopian ideal of harmony, it will serve as a reference axis to characterize the diverse forms or social organization, identifying them within a graphic that will permit to visualize and compare the different social types, classifying them, according to the (vector) variables considered.