Organizational Vectors Theory

Here I share a brief explanation of the Sociological "Theory of the Organizational Vectors"; a theory that I created based on my 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.

Sociological thesis: Organizational forms of the "X ecovillage"

Here I share the link where you can read or download the (qualitative) thesis that allowed me to graduate as a Sociologist. 

ORGANIZATIONAL FORMS OF A CHILEAN ECOVILLAGE: THE "X COMMUNITY" CASE

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rsnTUj60wG8ftlVkoFAQiL0zuL2dQsPG/view

In addition to the concrete conclusions about the ecovillage researched, it emerged some theoretical proposals that might order some ambiguities of some sociological concepts. For example, the concepts of COMMUNITY and SOCIETY.

Besides proposing Four "Organizational Categories" (mechanic-community, organic-community, mechanic-society, organic-society), a new Sociological Theory proposal is raised:

THE ORGANIZATIONAL VECTORS THEORY

Graphic representation of the organizational vectors

The thesis has as Research Question:

- What characteristics of social organization does the X community display?

And as a Tentative Hypothesis:

- The social organization of the X ecovillage is characterized by horizontal cooperation and primary (affective) relationships.

And hence, its General Objective was:

- To characterize X Ecovillage according to its main forms of social organization.

And its Specific Objectives:

- Describe how collective decisions are taken on X Ecovillage.

- Describe the principal forms of economic and financial livelihood of the X Community.

- Describe the forms of social division of work in the X Ecovillage.

- Enunciate the level of security and freedom that individuals express when living in the X Community.

Lastly, for the ones that want to take a brief look without download it, I share you the Introduction and Problem Statement of the thesis, as also the Content (Index), besides some created concepts:

I- Introduction

The idea of community has been one of the most interest for the sociological analysis. From the origins of sociology, in the XIXth century, different authors (Durkheim, 1893/2011; Marx, 1867/2010; Tönnies, 1887/1947; Weber, 1922/2012) have theorized about it. So much so, that Nisbet (2010) affirms that in that century the community idea was the intellectual axis in which everything else revolved, adding that such a notion, within sociology, has been the one with the greatest reach and the most fundamental. Nonetheless, the community theme seems not to be clearly delimited yet – everywhere it can be found mentions about community, a lot of times without explicating what is understood by it (like in Bauman, 2003). In the face of this situation, it merges the problem of reviewing how important is or can be the community concept; if it is a term that was important only in the origins of sociology or if it is still relevant to analyze current social phenomena, and if it is still relevant, what is understood by it. 

The industrial progress with its subsequent labor (and lifestyles) mechanization has contributed to the longing for community for several social theorists: “We have the feeling [writes Zygmunt Bauman (2003)] that community is always something good” (p.7). However, with the supremacy of neoliberal capitalism, and what some authors called ‘the end of history’ (Fukuyama, 1990), it seems to be that alternatives to that model has extinguished. But on the other hand, just at the end of the Cold War, a global movement of ecological communities started to organize themselves: the Global Ecovillages Movement, movement which if diverse and incipient, is characterized by some authors (Gilman et al., 1995) like a “’third alternative’ in opposition to the ‘centralized communism’ and the ‘even more centralized’ multinational capitalism” (p.14). The previous is one of potential reasons of the importance of these experimental communities; they could be an alternative model to the hegemonic today, besides its preventive function of environmental degradation. However, to be open to the previous possibility, it is necessary to research if it is a real alternative model, and if it is, understand in which way this social model is different from the hegemonic ones. 

The present study proposes that the research of the main organizational forms of those ecological communities would allow to delimit the community concept, differentiating it from other ways of social organization. That is why this research has as main objective to understand how the social organizational forms are conformed in a particular kind of communities, the ecovillages, through qualitative methods on the ‘X Ecovillage’, in Chile. The present thesis proposes to characterize the social organizational forms of the X ecovillage, considering as dimensions its decision-making processes, economic finances, the social division of work and the notions of security and liberty.

II- Problem Statement

From the origins of sociology, the idea of community has been relevant, so much so that Nisbet (2019) affirms that on its origins all the sociological discipline hinged around that concept; being this way the broadest concept and the most fundamental. However, community is usually mentioned everywhere but without defining it clearly. This way community concept tends to be used in multiple ways: to refer from a locality, race, a nation or even the whole world, till civil organizations. In the face of this disjunctive, the present thesis questions itself: what is understood by community? How can it be clearly delimited? Is community found diluted in society? Does it exist any difference between these concepts? Or perhaps community is simply a micro-society?

Through history different authors has theorized about community. Since the beginnings of sociology, Tönnies (1887/1947) identified essential differences between community and society. However, over time, that dichotomy (with its diverse characteristics) was diluted: already thus in the theories of Émile Durkheim, the organic conception of community from Tönnies is extrapolated to society, while ancient communities would have a mechanic organization. Meanwhile on Tönnies communities would represent the organic and the societies the mechanic, on Durkheim, primitive societies (the community) would organise by a mechanic solidarity, and the modern societies by an organic solidarity. In the face of these apparently contradictory conceptualizations, it would be relevant to ask what is the fundamental characteristic of the organizational form called community? 

The previous seems to be important, especially considering that the classical community (i.e., the community how it was understood at sociology’s beginning) seems not to be completely extinguished with the advent of modernity. A renovated remainder[3] of those communities seems to be the ecovillages, which will be used as object of study to approach the communal phenomena. 

Ecovillages or ecological communities present themselves as a political form of organization alternative to the hegemonic models of capitalism and communism[4] (Gilman et al., 1995); however, it is important to know in which way. If not, lifestyles and practices that generate sense could be confused and mixed (as it seems that it has happened on the theorizations of community) with the same models that they look to transcend.

Concha (2010) understands ecovillages as a subculture in contrast to the hegemonic ways of social organization. Following Gramci’s analysis -among others-, the author points out how hegemony naturalizes signs, annulling critical viewpoints to the prevailing lifestyles, subordinating it through consensus, consent and passivity. Nonetheless it should not be understood that that process is diaphanous nor deliberatively reflected by individuals, because hegemonic ideology acts on an unconsciously way: “Through this process the way to organize the world seems universal and eternal. This sets a specific representational system that crystalizes on the common sense, which is ideologic and unconscious” (Concha, 2010: 28).

This way, through the ideologizing process of the hegemony the sense of reality -and therefore the political efforts to keep it (or change it)- would be naturalized (or kept invisible); due to -explained on Luhmannian language-:

Being communication, luhmannianly understood, “praxis of meaning”, all communication is built operatively making “distinctions to point out one of the sides and provide it with links” (Luhmann, 2007a:49), but, in the same act, the other side of the distinction put on operation keep without being designated, then unobserved. (Miranda, 2012: 14)

That is why is so important to comprehend what the community is, as well as the clear description of the organizational forms of ecovillages, thus saving the possible hegemonizing conceptual deformation[5]:

While by definition all hegemony is always dominating, never is on an absolute or exclusive way. This can ignore or isolate alternatives, but when these are significative, the decisive hegemonic function is control, transform or even incorporate them. (Concha, 2010: 27)

Hegemony that if not made visible, could limit the possibilities of divergent projects to the current status quo: “since hegemonies -and the institutions that accompany them- shape not only our preferences, but also what we believe that are our possibilities” (Concha, 2010: 97). 

---

[3] As it will be seen in the theoretical framework, the ecovillages differ in some aspects from the antique or traditional communities.

[4] To avoid future mistakes in sociological theory, from now on it will be used the apellative Marxist to designate the socio-historical projects that aspire to the state power (inspired on the theorization of Karl Max), as it was for example the case of the Soviet Union in the 20th century. In this way, it can be glimpsed that the starting point to analyze the community differs from that Marxist organizational version, that alludes to a political project of the mass societies.

[5] For example, Touraine (1997) points out that the English language spread weak uses of the term community (such as neighborhoods, religious or ethnic groups, but as long as they were represented before the public authorities); which would demonstrate the liberal interest in deforming the classic concept of community (as a self-regulated entity and relatively autonomous in a political level).

Contents

I- Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4

II- Problem Statement .............................................................................................................. 5

III- Definition of research question, hypothesis and objectives .................................................... 7

IV- Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................... 8

IV.1- Why the study of community? ................................................................................................... 8

IV.2- Society against community? ..................................................................................................... 10

Table of comparations between two ideal types of organization. ............................................... 14

IV.3- Security and liberty ................................................................................................................... 17

IV.4- Ecovillage .................................................................................................................................. 22

IV.5- X Community ............................................................................................................................ 28

V- Methods ................................................................................................................................ 29

V.1- Informants and unit of analysis ................................................................................................. 29

Informative table about the interviewees. ................................................................................... 31

V.2- Techniques of data collection .................................................................................................... 32

V.3- Data analysis .............................................................................................................................. 32

V.4- Operationalization ..................................................................................................................... 33

Thematic framework. .................................................................................................................... 33

Methodological summary chat. .................................................................................................... 34

VI- Results ................................................................................................................................. 35

Codes chart, Atlas.ti analysis. ........................................................................................................ 35

VI.1- The place................................................................................................................................... 37

VI.2- The organization ....................................................................................................................... 38

VI.3- Decision-making ....................................................................................................................... 39

VI.4- Economic distribution and subsistence .................................................................................... 42

VI.5- Social division of work .............................................................................................................. 47

VI.6- Beyond the division of work: Some findings ............................................................................ 49

VI.6.1- Individuation. ..................................................................................................................... 50

VI.6.2- Normativity. ....................................................................................................................... 51

VI.6.3- Mechanic solidarity and organic solidarity. ....................................................................... 52

VI.7- Security ..................................................................................................................................... 53

VI.8- Liberty ....................................................................................................................................... 59

VII- Discussion and conclusions .................................................................................................. 63

VII.1- The X Community: Communitarian park and ecovillage .........................................................63

VII.2- Organization ............................................................................................................................ 65

VII.3- Security .................................................................................................................................... 70

VII.4- Liberty ...................................................................................................................................... 72

VII.5- Society and community ........................................................................................................... 74

VII.6- Limitations of the present study and future lines of research ................................................ 77

VII.7- Final reflections ....................................................................................................................... 80

VII- References ........................................................................................................................... 82

XIX- Annexes .............................................................................................................................. 86

IXI.1- Organizational Vectors Theory ................................................................................................ 86

XIX.2- Photos ..................................................................................................................................... 90

Created concepts:

SOCIETY: 

Hierarchic mode of organization mainly based on instrumental rationality according to ends, with a competitive ethic that records agreements through formal and written proceedings using the juridical violence logic. 

For juridical violence logic is understood all the processes of decision-making based on an oligarchic center of power, where members hold positions of political power, acting according to idealism, self-interest or class consciousness, privileging a specific population sector, being another sector disadvantaged in great or less degree as direct or indirect consequence of those decisions. 

COMMUNITY:

A horizontal organizational mode mainly based on emotional connections, that generates a sensation of unity between its members, with a cooperative ethic that registers its agreements tacitly through the communicative rationality logic.

For communicative rationality logic it is understood all the decision-making processes are based on face-to-face relationships, where all the members participate equally in decision-making processes, having all interests in common, that is to say, acting with purpose unity and the intentionality of getting mutual consensus, resulting in agreements.

LAW:

Regulations created by a juridical elite (governmental political apparatus), structured in a formal written paper with a technical language of law, which is asserted by a specialized constabulary organism.

NORM:

Regulations created by a self-managed community (organized in communal assemblies), that although may be expressed in a written body, they mainly characterize themselves for being asserted by a moral communal body that self-regulates itself in a face-to-face relationship type, through sharing the same lifeworld.

ECOVILLAGE:

Intentional communities -recognized as ecovillage by the members of the community- based in the practice of permaculture, that integrates -at least in some degree- ecological, social and spiritual aspects in their communal way of life.

POLITICAL-INSTITUTIONAL ALIENATION:

The alienation suffered due to the political demands of the civil society would not find full representation on the highly bureaucratized institutions.

SPATIAL ALIENATION:

Frustration that is produced when seeing dispossessed or limited of the possibility of exerting a change in the immediate spatial environment (public-collective).

SOCIAL SECURITY:

Those mechanism of interpersonal trust that enable to foment sense of belonging, and that provide elements of certainty that order the world of the daily life, giving meaning to it.

FREEDOM OF LIFE:

Confidence level that mobilizes to the realization of the objectives and way of life chosen.

NATURAL CONSTRUCTION:

Type of ecological construction, similar to the permacultural one, but that -ideally- uses materials of the place, privileging to not pollute nor to destroy the environment over any other value (convivence, aesthetic, functionality, etc.); and that procures to be close to the antique methods (indigenous or ancestral) of construction (use of clay, wood, etc.).