I have been always loving the art of classification and categorization in the field of systems analysis. In this post, I presented one of the best simple, but the holistic classifications of Russell Ackoff.
In the following classification four main possible classes of relationships between any two groups of people, organizations or societies are shown. Two main factors of this two-dimensional model are Ends and Means/Resources.
As you can see from the diagram, based on two states of each of two factors(Different or Common Ends or/and Different or Common Means), there are four main possible states between any two or more groups as follows: Cooperation, Coalition, Competition and Conflict.
For example when two groups of A and B have different ends for their activities, while they are using the same (sometimes constraint) means/resources, it is most likely they compete with each other or when these two groups (e.g. two political parties) are defending for the same ends for their society and while they have different sources of power, they normally make a coalition.
In my opinion, although this model is a static classification, it can be used very well for analysis and prediction of dynamic movements of any organization in any context such as economic, social and political environments. The main power of this model is that in real world situations, means and ends are "interchangeable". In other words, "Every means can also be considered to be an end, and every end a means".
For example, suppose that group A in the society, has a final end, in which in order to reach to its final end, they need a specific means or a source of power. And since, at this time step, they don't have this means, then they set a new temporary end for themselves, which is reaching to that means/source of power. In this time step, they probably go for a short coalition or cooperation with different parties with common goal to reaching to this temporary goal and after reaching to that (the means/ source of power, which is required for their final end), now the group A is in a new state. Then, first it analyzes its positions and relations and will set new strategies for the new step, independent on its previous relationships and therefore, the new game of relationships is going to start and this iterative positioning is a continuous and never ending process in every social system.
As an example of this dynamic relationship positioning process, I think it can explain the evolution of different political parties in Iran in different stages, once in the years before and immediately after the Islamic revolution and the second time, in the years after 9th presidential election of Iran in 2009, until now.
One can see how different fundamentalist parties with different underlying (hidden) beliefs and values in one step (during the presidential election and the events after that) make cooperation and coalition with each other and after reaching to their desired objectives and overcoming to the third party (at the end of 2010), these days, these groups are breaking their previous coalitions and sometimes they are looking for possible competition or conflict with each other!!
Any way, as we can perceive the started tensions between different fundamentalist groups in Iran as an instance of the above mentioned dynamism in the second step after first step coalition, in my opinion, it is not an effective process and it can be a "death spiral" for a living society.
Hope for better days.
هیچ نظری موجود نیست:
ارسال یک نظر