Social Development Theory
By: Garry Jacobs and Harlan Cleveland
November 1, 1999
November 1, 1999
Importance of Theory
The formulation of valid theory possesses
enormous power to elevate and accelerate the expansion and development of human
capabilities in any field, leading to fresh discoveries, improvement of
existing activities and capacity for greater results. Science is replete with
examples of theoretical formulations that have led to important breakthroughs,
such as the discoveries of Neptune and Pluto,
electromagnetic waves, subatomic particles, and new elements on the periodic
table. Today scientists are discovering new substances on computer by applying
the laws of quantum mechanics to predict the properties of materials before
they synthesize them. In fact, a broad range of technological achievements in
this century has been made possible by the emergence of sound theoretical
knowledge in fields such as physics, chemistry and biology.
As management expert Peter Drucker put it,
“There is nothing more practical than a good theory.” Valid theory can tell us
not only what should be done, but also what can be done and the process by
which it can be achieved.
Social development can be summarily described
as the process of organizing human energies and activities at higher levels to
achieve greater results. Development increases the utilization of human
potential.
In the absence of valid theory, social
development remains largely a process of trial and error experimentation, with
a high failure rate and very uneven progress. The dismal consequences of
transition strategies in most Eastern Europe countries, the very halting
progress of many African and Asian countries,
the increasing income gap between the most and least developed societies,
and the distressing linkage between rising incomes, environmental depletion,
crime and violence reflect the fact that humanity is vigorously pursuing a
process without the full knowledge needed to guide and govern it effectively.
Advances in development theory can enhance
our social success rate by the same order of magnitude that advances in
theoretical physics have multiplied technological achievements in this century.
The emergence of a sound theoretical framework for social development would
provide the knowledge needed to address these inadequacies. It would also
eventually lead us to the most profound and practical discovery of all – the
infinite creative potentials of the human being.
Hierarchy of learning
Social development consists of two
interrelated aspects – learning and application. Society discovers better ways
to fulfill its aspirations and it develops organizational mechanisms to express
that knowledge to achieve its social and economic goals. The process of
discovery expands human consciousness. The process of application enhances
social organization.
Society develops in response to the contact
and interaction between human beings and their material, social and
intellectual environment. The incursion of external threats, the pressure of
physical and social conditions, the mysteries of physical nature and
complexities of human behavior prompt humanity to experiment, create and
innovate.
The experience resulting from these contacts
leads to learning on three different levels of our existence. At the physical
level, it enhances our control over material processes. At the social level, it
enhances our capacity for effective interaction between people at greater and
greater speeds and distances. At the mental level, it enhances our knowledge.
While the learning process takes place
simultaneously on all these planes, there is a natural progression from
physical experience to mental understanding. Historically, society has
developed by a trial and error process of physical experimentation, not unlike
the way children learn through a constant process of physical exploration,
testing and even tasting. Physically, this process leads to the acquisition of
new physical skills that enable individuals to utilize their energies more
efficiently and effectively. Socially, it leads to the learning and mastery of
organizational skills, vital attitudes, systems and institutions that enable
people to manage their interactions with other people and other societies more
effectively. Mentally, it leads to organization of facts as information and interpretation
of information as thought.
The outcome of this learning process is the
organization of physical skills, social systems, and information, which are
then utilized to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of human activities.
It is a cyclical process in which people are continuously learning from past
experiences and then applying that learning in new activities.
This learning process culminates in a higher
level of mental effort to extract the essence and common principles or ideas
from society’s organized physical experiences, social interactions and
accumulated information and to synthesize them as conceptual knowledge. This
abstract conceptual knowledge has the greatest capacity for generalization and
application in other fields, times and places. The conceptual mind is the highest, most conscious human faculty.
Conceptual knowledge is the organization of ideas by the power of mind.
That conceptual knowledge becomes most powerful when it is organized into a
system. Theory is a systematic organization of knowledge.
A comprehensive theory of social development
would provide a conceptual framework for discovering the underlying principles
common to the development process in different fields of activity, countries
and periods. It would also provide a framework for understanding the
relationships between the accumulated knowledge generated by many different
disciplines. If pursued to its logical
conclusions, it would lead to not just a theory of social development, but a unifying theory of knowledge—which does
not yet exist in any field of science or art.
Search for a social operating system
Rapid advancement in computer technology and
application has primarily been the result of dramatic progress in two parallel
but interrelated fields – development of the processing capacity of the silicon
chip and development of more advanced operating systems that enable users to
utilize the chip’s greater computing power. Chip development increases the potential power of the computer.
Development of more powerful, intuitive and easier to use operating systems increases the practical
power of the technology.
As a parallel,
advances in scientific and technical knowledge have vastly increased the
potential productivity and developmental achievements of society. But full
utilization of this potential requires the capacity to consciously direct and
accelerate social development processes. The discovery of methods to
genetically engineer improved varieties of food crops or to control population
growth through improved medical devices would have little practical value
unless we also possessed the know-how to promote dissemination and adoption of
these advanced technologies.
Historically, advances in our understanding
of material and biological process have far outstripped advances in our
understanding of social processes. As a result, vast social potential has been
created, but society has not yet acquired the capacity to fully utilize it for
its own development. A theory of development should aim at a knowledge that
will enable society more consciously and effectively to utilize its development
potentials.
Why a framework has not yet emerged
A question naturally arises. If such a
framework is possible, why with all the attention focused on development for so
many decades has it not yet emerged?
Social development theory has been elusive
for several reasons. First, because of the very practical importance of this
issue, attention in this field has very largely focused on the material results
of development and on those strategies that have proven most effective for
achieving those results, rather than on abstract principles or theoretical
concepts. Rapid economic progress in North America and Europe after the Second
World War, which was followed by even more stunning achievements in Japan and
other East Asian nations, imbued governments and the international community
with the confidence that development was primarily a question of money,
technology, industrialization and political will. Confident that the lessons of
early achievers provided all the knowledge necessary for those that were to
follow, there was an urge for concerted action and an expectation of results,
rather than a quest for theoretical knowledge.
In most discussions, development was
conceived in terms of a set of desirable results—higher incomes, longer life
expectancy, lower infant mortality, more education. Recently emphasis has
shifted from the results to the enabling conditions, strategies and public
policies for achieving those results—peace, democracy, social freedoms, equal
access, laws, institutions, markets, infrastructure, education and technology.
But still little attention has been placed on the underlying social process of
development that determines how society formulates, adopts, initiates, and
organizes, and few attempts have been made to formulate such a framework.
Second, a very large number of factors and
conditions influence the process. In addition to all the variables that
influence material and biological processes, social processes involve the
interaction of political, social, economic cultural, technological and
environmental factors as well. Development theorists have not only to cope with
atoms, molecules, material energy and various life forms. They must also cope
with the near infinite variety and complexity of human beliefs, opinions,
attitudes, values, behaviors, customs, prejudices, laws, social institutions,
etc.
Third, the timeframe for social development
theory cannot be confined to the modern day or even the past few centuries.
Human development has been occurring for millennia. The basic principles of
development theory must be as applicable to the development of early tribal
societies as they are to the emergence of the post-modern global village.
Development theory must be a theory of how human society advances through space
and time.
Looking beyond the instruments
Fourth,
the instruments of development—science and technology, capital and
infrastructure, social policies and institutions—are so compellingly powerful
in their action, that they are often mistaken for its cause and source. Most
efforts to understand the development process have focused on the central
importance of one or a few of these instruments—primarily on money, markets,
the organization of production and technological innovation. Some efforts have
also been made to describe what has been learned about the contribution of
education, skills, laws, public policies, strategies, social systems and
institutions. While it is evident that all of these instruments can and do play
an important role in social development, it has not been adequately explained
what determines the development of these instruments themselves or the extent
to which they are utilized by society or the process by which they can be made
to generate maximum results.
Obviously, the ultimate determinants of
development cannot be the instruments themselves, for none of them exists
independently from society. To understand the central principles of
development, we must look beyond these instruments to the creator of the
instruments. Human beings fashion technology, invent money, erect
infrastructures, establish policies, build institutions and adopt values to
serve their needs and aspirations. Although humanity exhibits a strong tendency
to mistake these instruments for primary determinants rather than created
products of its own initiative, the ultimate power of determination must lie
with the human beings who create and use these instruments, rather than with
the instruments themselves.
Money and technology do have useful power,
including a power of organization and efficiency, a power to increase the
velocity of production and transactions. But they do not possess an intrinsic
living power for growth or development, a source of aspiration or energy that
compels their own advancement. Moore’s
Law describing advances in the speed of microprocessors is not driven by
material forces—the microprocessor does not increase its own speed—it is driven
by humanity’s quest for greater productive power. The surge in value of
financial markets is not driven by impersonal physical or mathematical laws
governing the growth of money, but by the quest of human beings for greater
material prosperity. This self-existent power for growth is an endowment of
human beings, living organisms compelled to develop by a pressure within
themselves, which in turn gives life and energy to the growth of the
instruments and systems they create.
What
has been lacking is an organized theoretical framework that describes the role
of each of these instruments as aspects of a greater whole and shows each in
its proper relation to the others or the greater whole of which they are all
parts. To
arrive at such a framework, we have to
shift our focus from the instruments of development to their creator; from the
role of money and technology to the role of human beings that invent new forms
of money and technology and harness them for productive purposes. The theory
has to place human beings at the center and view all other aspects of development
from the perspective of and in relation to human motivation and action. This
conceptual knowledge of the development process should enable every society to
better utilize the available instruments better, in order more fully to tap its
developmental potential.
Development as a spherical whole
A theory of social development should
generate a framework around which all knowledge of the factors, instruments,
conditions, agencies and processes of development can be integrated. Rather
than singling out a specific set of determinants or giving primacy to a limited
set of instruments, it would reveal the nature of the relationships and
processes that govern the interaction of all these elements to generate
developmental results. Rather than generate a linear formula or ‘right’
perspective, it would make it possible to view the whole field and phenomenon
of development from multiple perspectives that are integrated and unified ways
of knowing the whole, rather than divided and separate ways of viewing the parts.
The modern tendency to divide scientific
inquiry into an increasing number of specialized fields of study has made the
emergence of an integrated perspective very difficult. Philosopher Stephen
Toulmin mourns the absence of broader conceptual thinking in physics over the
past few centuries and argues the need for grand cosmological visions of the
universe to unify and integrate the discoveries of many different disciplines.
Comparatively, the need for synthesis is even
greater for the study of human social development than for understanding the
physical and chemical evolution of the universe. For in human development, we
must not only grapple with four material dimensions in space and time that
preoccupy the physicist and chemist, but also integrate the dimensions of life
and mind—including physical, genetic and biological determinants; social
behaviors, skills, attitudes, customs, traditions, systems, formal
organizations, non-formal institutions, and cultural values; and linguistic
determinants, data, facts, information, beliefs, opinions, systems of thought,
ideas, theories, and spiritual values—all of which interact and influence each
other to impact the course of human development.
The quest for theory in social development
cannot lead to any linear or logarithmic equation that adequately explains and
predicts human progress. The reality we seek to understand is not of that type.
It is not linear or mono-dimensional or, even sometimes a combination of
several dimensions. It is a complex, many-dimensional whole that evolves in
many interrelated directions simultaneously. The development of society is best
represented to our minds as an expansion from a point to a sphere, rather than
as movement along a single line or along multiple lines of progress. Social
development is the gradual discovery and unfolding of the potential of a
complex, integrated whole, a living organization, a living social organism.
From unconscious experience to conscious knowledge
Finally,
social development theory remains elusive because the very nature of social
learning is a subconscious seeking by the collective that leads ultimately to
conscious knowledge. We experience first and understand later. Our mental
comprehension perpetually lags behind physical experience and struggles to
catch up with it.
Our
view is that the very intensive, concentrated global experience of the past
five decades provides fertile soil for the formulation of a more synthetic
conceptual framework for social development. Such a framework can vastly accelerate
the transfer and replication of developmental achievements around the world and
make possible more conscious and rapid progress even for the most advanced
societies in the world.
Basic premises
These observations suggest a starting point
for formulation of a comprehensive conceptual framework:
Development as self-conception
Material and biological sciences focus on the
interaction of physical conditions, materials and forces to generate results.
The tendency to view social development in the same way has led to a host of
mathematical equations seeking to define and predict the consequences of
combining different external variables in different proportions and under
different conditions. The underlying assumption of this approach is that social
development is determined by external conditions.
The hypothesis on which our attempt at theory
is based is that social development is determined by human beings, not external
conditions. External conditions certainly can and do influence the process.
People may even act and react in predictable ways to a given set of external
conditions. But the results of any development equation cannot be reliably
predicted on the basis of external factors. Human development is determined by
human responses based on choices made by people. To our knowledge, external
forces alone have never unleashed a process of social development, but there
are countless instances in which external agents have failed to do so.
Human development is a function of human
awareness, aspirations, attitudes and values. Like all human creative
processes, it is a process of self-conception. As the writer, artist, composer,
political visionary and businessman conceive of unrealized possibilities and
pour forth their creative energies to give expression to them, the social
collective evolves a conception of what it wants to become and by expressing
its creative energies through myriad forms of activity seeks to transform its
conception into social reality. The only major difference is that while the
individual sometimes (but not always) is conscious of the conception he or she
is trying to express, the society is usually (not always) unconscious of the
idea and the urge that move it to create something more out of its own latent
potential.
Society is a subconscious living organism
which strives to survive, grow and develop. Individual members of society
express conscious intention in their words and acts, but these are only surface
expressions of deeper subconscious drives that move the society-at-large. The
consciousness of a true collective organism is not merely the sum of its
individual parts, but acquires its own identifiable character and personality.
This is why the USA
has been able to assimilate such large numbers of immigrants, yet retain its
distinctive (but constantly changing) national character. Immigrants are moved
by the values of the collective to share in the national aspiration for greater
individual freedom, practical organization and material progress. In a similar
vein, the feverish collective behavior of the stock market, fashions and pop
culture are subconscious social collectives that acquire their own distinct
personalities.
Role of the Individual
Society has no direct means to give conscious
expression to its subconscious collective aspirations and urges. That essential
role is played by pioneering conscious individuals–visionary intellectuals,
political leaders, entrepreneurs, artists and spiritual seekers who are
inspired to express and achieve what the collective subconsciously aspires and
is prepared for. Where the aspiration and action of the leader do not reflect
the will of the collective, it is ignored or rejected. Where it gives
expression to a deeply felt collective urge, it is endorsed, imitated,
supported, and systematically propagated. This is most evident at times of war,
social revolution or communal conflict.
India’s early freedom
fighters consciously advocated the goal of freedom from British rule long
before that goal had become a felt aspiration of the masses. The leaders spent
decades urging a reluctant population to conceive of itself as a free nation
and to aspire to achieve that dream. When finally the collective endorsed this
conception, no foreign nation had the power to impose its will on the Indian
people.
Process of value creation
During the World
Academy of Art & Science’s meeting
on development theory in Washington
DC in May 1999, there was a broad
consensus of participants that the formation of values was a critical aspect of
the development process. In this paper, we propose to re-examine the process of
development as a process of value formation.
If gross physical actions are the most
visible and tangible form of human initiative, the creation of values is the
most subtle and intangible. Yet human existence is powerfully determined by the
nature of its values. Physical skills, vital attitudes, mental opinions and
values represent a gradation of internal organizing principles that direct
human energies and determine the course of individual and social development.
All human creative processes release and
harness human energy and convert it into results. The process of skill
formation involves acquiring mastery over our physical-nervous energies so that
we can direct our physical movements in a precisely controlled manner. In the
absence of skill, physical movements are clumsy, inefficient and unproductive,
like the stumbling efforts of a child learning to walk.
Human beings acquire social behaviors in a
similar manner. Here, apart from the physical skills required for communication
and interaction with other people, vital attitudes are centrally important.
Each social behavior expresses not just a movement, but an attitude and
intention of the person. Acquiring social behaviors requires gaining control
over our psychological energies and channeling them into acceptable forms of
behavior. Change the attitude and the behavior changes. The developmental
achievements of modern society are founded upon such intangible social
attitudes as confidence in the government, trust in other people, tolerance and
cooperation. Without such attitudes, our money would become valueless paper and
our institutions would cease to function.
The same process takes place at the mental level.
The mind’s energy naturally flows as thought in many different directions
without any structure to contain or organize it. The acquisition of knowledge
involves construction of a mental structure of understanding that is analogous
to the structure of skills and attitudes that govern expression of our physical
and vital energy. It forms an organizational framework for learning and
application of what is learned.
Human values are formed by a similar process
and act in a similar manner. Although the word is commonly used with reference
to ethical and cultural principles, values are of many types. They may be
physical (cleanliness, punctuality), organizational (communication,
coordination), psychological (courage, generosity), mental (objectivity,
sincerity), or spiritual (harmony, love, self-giving). Values are central
organizing principles or ideas that govern and determine human behavior.
Unlike the skill or attitude that may be
specific to a particular physical activity or social context, values tend to be
more universal in their application. They express in everything we do. Values
can be described as the essence of the knowledge gained by humanity from past
experiences distilled from its local circumstances and specific context to
extract the fundamental wisdom of life derived from these experiences. Values
give direction to our thought processes, sentiments, emotional energies,
preferences and actions.
Centuries of experience have been distilled
by society into essential principles. Values such as hard work, sense of
responsibility, integrity in human relations, tolerance and respect for others
are not just noble ideas or ideals. They are pragmatic principles for
accomplishment which society has learned and transmitted to successive
generations as a psychological foundation for its further advancement. The
values of a society are a crucial aspect of its people’s self-conception of
what they want to become.
Because values are intangible to our senses
and their formation is the result of a very long process, we tend to overlook
their central role in development. Social values constitute the cultural
infrastructure on which all further social development is based. In this sense,
values are the ultimate product of past development and the ultimate determinant
of its future course.
Development and value creation in Independent India
In Human
Choice: the Genetic Code for Social Development[1][1],
we described the development process as one that releases, organizes and
converts human energy into social capacity and material results. In summary,
the process consists of pioneering individuals who consciously conceive and
initiate new forms of activity which give expression to the subconscious
aspirations and preparedness of the society. These pioneers are imitated by others
so that the new activity gets replicated and diffused. Gradually, the general
population comes to recognize, accept and support the new activity by formally
organizing it through laws, policies, programs, systems, organizations and
education. Eventually, the activity may become so fully integrated with the
society that the need for formal structures gives way to non-formal social
institutions and still later becomes assimilated as cultural values of the
society.
Although we describe the process as a clean
linear progression, its actual occurrence is more complex. Each stage of the
process interacts with those that come earlier and later to effect a general
movement in a certain direction. And while the underlying process remains the
same, the external results and strategies employed to achieve those results may
vary significantly from one place and time to another, even within the same
society.
Both the stages and the complexity of the
process can be observed by examining two remarkable development accomplishments
of Independent India—the Green Revolution in Indian agriculture and the high
tech revolution that is making India
an international software powerhouse.
The starting point for free India was a
value base molded by centuries of social stagnation and foreign rule. During
the British Raj, the predominant values espoused by the subject Indian
population were respect for age and tradition, submission to authority, and
acceptance of one’s assigned place and role in society. Fear and insecurity were
powerful social motives. Ambition was frowned upon. Security was cherished.
Industrial and commercial activities were severely restricted by the foreign
rulers. Few had the means or opportunity to acquire education. Those that did
invariably sought employment in the British administration or British firms,
the twin seats of power and prestige in Indian society.
After Indian Independence in 1947, the values
of submissiveness and obedience persisted for several decades, even though they
became increasingly inadequate concepts to meet the nation’s needs or respond
to its opportunities. In the 1950s and 1960s, educated Indian youth sought the
security and prestige of government employment, when what was really needed was
entrepreneurial initiative to build the national economy. Having achieved Independence, the leaders of India’s freedom fight turned to the
challenge of developing the country, but found the same lack of awareness and
responsiveness from the population that the earlier freedom fighters had
encountered at the turn of the century. Waging a war on poverty without the
active support and participation of the people proved even more challenging
than waging a war on foreign rule without an army.
Until the mid 1960s, India’s
economic progress was almost completely overshadowed by the explosive growth of
its population, the combined effect of a release of national energies from the
suppressed condition of foreign domination and the introduction of modern
medical technology which drastically reduced mortality rates. Beneath the
surface, the spread of democratic voting rights, implementation of legislation
to eradicate caste privileges, and rising levels of education were breaking
down traditional barriers, generating national pride and releasing fresh social
energy, creating awareness of possibilities and preparing the society for the
next stages of its collective effort.
These new attitudes could be observed primarily among the youth born
after Independence,
often taking on the appearance of assertiveness and crude self-seeking, rather
than of noble values.
This preparedness was called into action by
the sudden impact of two successive years of severe drought in the mid 1960s,
which threatened the country with famine on an unprecedented scale. The
challenge of widespread famine—estimated by the UN to be threatening the lives
of 10 million people—led to the launching of India’s Green Revolution. With the
support of large food imports, the country averted the immediate threat of
famine. Then in response to a concerted government action to implement a
comprehensive, integrated development strategy, within a very short period of
five years, millions of India’s
farmers adopted new cultivation practices, the nation increased its food grain
production by 50% and achieved food self-sufficiency. Within ten years grain
production had doubled. Within a quarter century it had quadrupled.
The pride and confidence generated by this
remarkable achievement helped spur a dramatic change in India’s social
values that was reflected in many walks of life. Areas in which agriculture had
become prosperous began to industrialize. There was a marked increase in demand
for education and for consumer products. Indian society became more active and
dynamic.
In the 1970s the preference of educated youth
shifted to employment in private companies. Then in the 1980s a generation born
after Independence
established itself in the nation’s workforce, people who had never known a
foreign master or experienced subjection or feared famine. New values began to
emerge among the younger generation. Talented youth began starting businesses
in increasing numbers. Many sought education and work experience overseas, then
returned to India
to establish companies of their own. The value of security gave way to an
aspiration for accomplishment. The sense of knowing one’s proper place gave way
to an urge for higher levels of achievement, status and enjoyment. A
fundamental change in social values underpinned a fundamental shift in the
direction and expression of India’s
national energies from minimum survival to maximum development. This shift has
been by no means uniform, universal or entire. It has occurred at different
rates and to different extents in different communities, classes and parts of
the country, but the change in general direction became increasingly evident.
The development process that led to India’s Green Revolution differed in its
external expression from that which has more recently led to India’s
extraordinary achievements in the global software industry. The very notion
that India
could achieve international fame in a high technology industry was
inconceivable to the national consciousness 20 years ago. As recently as 1983, India was
employing fewer than 10,000 software engineers generating about $10 million a
year in software exports. Sixteen years later, India’s software export revenues
are approaching $4 billion. Most major US and many other large foreign computer
firms have established companies or joint ventures in India to develop software for
export. The country’s two largest software training companies educate more than
a quarter million programmers annually, roughly five times the total number of
computer graduates produced by all US colleges and universities. New
software companies and training institutions are sprouting up in every urban
area. State governments are competing with each other for dominance in high
technology. And Microsoft’s Bill Gates recently christened India as “the
Silicon Valley of Asia”.
This phenomenal accomplishment was made
possible by and has further contributed to a general shift in social values
that is evidenced in the behavior of people at all levels and in all parts of
the society, including youth, students, women, farmers, lower castes,
minorities and entrepreneurs.
Viewed from the perspective of the
traditional values that had characterized India during centuries of foreign
occupation, this shift appears to some as a degradation of social values (a
decline in respect for age, tradition and authority; a loss of deference,
humility, and the spirit of idealistic self-sacrifice) in much the same way
that the advent of democratic values in Europe seemed abhorrent to those who
embraced the values of the feudal, aristocratic society that was disappearing.
Attention has focused on the vulgar self-seeking, greed, crass materialism and
corruption associated with India’s
economic and social awakening -- so much so, that the positive values that have
been responsible for the country’s recent accomplishments and form the
infrastructure for its future progress are often overlooked. The essential
knowledge India has derived from five decades of development experience has
been distilled into a new set of social values based on national
self-confidence, self-reliance, boldness, insistence on one’s rights, greater
social tolerance and social equality, and aspiration for higher accomplishment.
Same process, different strategies
The
challenge for development theorists is to discover in India’s recent
experiences fundamental principles and processes that are common to these two
distinctly different instances of rapid social advancement, as well as to other
instances of development in other countries, periods, and fields of activity.
At first glance, the differences are far more
apparent than the similarities. Green Revolution was the result of a conscious,
planned initiative by government which passed legislation, established new
organizations, widely disseminated information and skills, introduced programs
and offered financial incentives to spur India’s agricultural community to
action. In contrast, the software revolution was the result of initiatives by
individual entrepreneurial pioneers which were not planned by government and
were not part of a conscious national strategy. The role of government was
largely confined to removing administrative and tax barriers that discouraged
import of computer equipment and to investment in the essential
telecommunications infrastructure required to support this industry.
Yet on closer inspection,
India’s
progress in agriculture and software conform to a common process. Both
achievements were made possible by a general social readiness and awakening of
the population resulting from rising levels of education, public awareness,
social freedom and national confidence. Achievement of Independence and self-government prepared the
ground for the Green Revolution. The breakthrough in agriculture prepared the
ground for industrialization. Advances in engineering and science
education, drawing on an historical
Indian endowment in mathematics, the exposure of large numbers of Indians
seeking higher education in the USA
to the latest information technology, and the emergence of a thriving
entrepreneurial business culture in India, prepared the ground for the
country’s active participation in the Information Revolution.
India’s agricultural
achievements were very largely the result of conscious initiatives taken by
visionary political leaders with the support of the scientific community. The
early pioneers of India’s
Green Revolution were public leaders, not private individuals as in the case of
software. But in both cases the acceptance and spread of the new activity
crucially depended on the willingness of the population to respond to the
opportunity.
In the case of Green
Revolution, India’s planners faced the seemingly impossible task of persuading
millions of illiterate, traditional farmers to adopt new agricultural
technology based on new varieties of wheat and rice, which required heavy
investments in hybrid seeds, fertilizers and pesticides. The organization of
more than 100,000 demonstration plots of the new varieties on farmers’ fields,
which proved that the hybrids would not only grow but would also generate many
times higher yields and profits, spurred extremely rapid diffusion of the new
cultivation methods in progressive agricultural regions of the country.
In the case of software, the demonstration
effect was informal and private, but equally dramatic. The spread of
information about young Indian engineers who had found high paying jobs as
programmers in the USA, and about Indian software export companies that were
growing rapidly, generated widespread interest and spurred others to imitate
these successful practices. Examples spread by word of mouth from family to
family about a son or daughter who had been recruited on campus for a job
overseas at ten or twenty times the equivalent Indian salaries. The business
press reported the export achievements of every new software startup. State
governments announced ambitious plans to promote high tech industry.
Politicians vied with each other to appear most in tune with the high tech
culture.
In both cases the initiatives of pioneers
released an explosion of energy and initiative from the general population.
Within less than half a decade in the late 1960s, millions of uneducated
traditional farmers rushed to embrace the new production technology for food
grains. Within a similar period in the mid-1990s, hundreds of thousands of
educated youth throughout the country have been inspired to enlist in computer
programming courses and seek employment in the burgeoning software industry.
For the initiative of pioneers to diffuse
through society requires the active support of formal organizational mechanisms.
Government had a role to play in organizing both India’s agricultural and its
software activities, but its role in the two instances differed markedly. In
the mid 1960s, India
lacked dynamic private initiative capable of responding rapidly to challenges and
opportunities. An adult population born under foreign rule and slow to believe
in its own greater potentials, moved hesitantly to embrace change. India also
lacked the social organization needed to support rapid change. Markets were
undeveloped and inefficient, so that surplus food production in one region of
the country was not efficiently channeled to meet the needs of markets in food
deficit regions. Information flowed slowly. Agricultural education and
scientific research, almost exclusively government activities at the time, had
to be restructured and upgraded to support the new production technologies.
Financial institutions were undeveloped and most wealth was in the form of
tangible assets such as land that could not be readily converted into new forms
of investment.[2][2] As a result, the
government had to play a very major role in supporting and promoting the Green
Revolution through public agencies. Food Corporation of India, Warehousing
Corporation, National Seeds Corporation, Fertilizer Corporation, Agricultural
Price Commission and countless other agencies were established to provide the
social infrastructure for modernization of agriculture.
So prominent was the role of government, that
it led many to the conclusion that the government’s administrative efforts were
responsible for the Green Revolution and that similar results could be achieved
in other fields through administrative mandate. The fallacy in this thinking
was a major reason for India’s
slow progress in other fields following the success of Green Revolution. The
country had achieved, but it had not yet drawn the essential lesson from its
achievement.
The real key to the success of Green
Revolution was the response of the rural population to the opportunity. India’s leaders
astutely recognized that unless the farmer was confident of not only growing
more but also selling more grain at a profitable price, there would be no
motivation to adopt the new technology. In the absence of established national
markets for food grain, bumper harvests in the past resulted in falling prices
and little financial benefit to the farmer. To overcome this problem, the
Government instituted a guaranteed floor price for food grains and established
Food Corporation to market surpluses in food deficit regions.
The importance of these formal institutions
has diminished significantly over the past few decades as the new methods have
become standard practice among farmers and as private firms, markets, and
research organizations have grown in capacity to carry out with greater
efficiency the work initially undertaken by government. Development through
formal organization has gradually matured into an informal social institution
in this field.
In contrast, the principal agencies of the
software revolution have been private companies. The role of government in India’s
software revolution focused primarily on providing a conducive policy framework
to encourage the spread of technology and on investment in upgrading the
telecommunications infrastructure to support a global information industry.
While government did broaden the availability of computer education in
government colleges, the dramatic increase in availability of programmers was
primarily the result of private initiative. Software export companies recruited
and trained their own staff. Software education and training centers
proliferated. Investment in the software industry also came almost exclusively
from private sources—banks, public stock offerings, venture capital and some
foreign investment—with little government support.
Despite these differences, development in
both fields has followed a similar course. The initiative of pioneers led to
widespread imitation and adoption. Society accepted the new activity and
established formal organizations (in one case public, in the other private) to
support the new activity on a wide scale. The knowledge and skills needed for
modern agriculture and computer programming have been incorporated in the
educational curriculum at higher and lower levels. The social attitudes and
expectations of the population have been powerfully influenced by the country’s
success. Progressive rural farming families teach their youth the values of
modern agricultural production. Educated middle class urban families encourage
their offspring to pursue careers in high technology.
Determinants of Development
We have described social development as the
release and channeling of social energies through more complex social
organization to enhance productive capacity and achieve greater results. This
process depends upon mechanisms to direct and channel the collective energies
of the society into new and more productive forms of activity. We can identify four distinctly different
levels or types of mechanism that serve this function—social aspirations,
government authority, social-cultural structure, and social know-how in the
form of science, technology and productive skills.
Social aspirations
Economically, development occurs when
productivity rises, enabling people to produce more, earn more and consume
more. To do so, they have to be motivated to learn new skills, adapt to new
work processes, and adopt new technology, changes which in past ages have met
with considerable resistance.
The driving force behind the whole movement
is psychological. At the deepest level the energies of society are directed by
the collective’s subconscious aspirations. Society’s self-conception of what it
wants to become releases an aspiration of the collective for accomplishment.
That aspiration exerts a powerful influence on the activities of the society. India’s twin
revolutions were spurred by a growing aspiration of Indian society for
security, prosperity and enjoyment. A similar aspiration spurs middle class
Americans today to invest their savings in the stock market.
We have traced the evolution of social
aspirations in India
from pre-Independence to the present day. The earliest expression was an
aspiration for political freedom and self-determination. After Independence this aspiration evolved into an
urge for self-sufficiency, a willingness to try new things and take risks. More
recently it has matured into a movement of rising expectations permeating all
levels of Indian society.
At the turn of the 20th Century,
many Americans of humble birth saw or read about neighbors, friends or others
of their class who rose rapidly out of poverty into prosperity. Their example
raised the aspirations and expectations of a whole generation of Americans and
the generations that followed it. So powerful was this budding movement that it
prompted Henry Ford to conceive of the then outlandish notion of building a car
affordable by the ordinary man. In 1900 only 8000 cars were produced in the
entire USA
to meet the needs of a small wealthy class. By 1929, Ford Motors alone had
built 15 million Model Ts to meet the aspirations of the masses.
The revolution of rising expectations, a term
first used to describe Asia’s awakening in the early 1950s, is the single most
powerful force yet unleashed for social development. It marks a stage in which
individual members of society not only venture to dream or hope or work for
higher levels of accomplishment, but in which those aspirations have coalesced
into a conviction and expectation that they will achieve, possess and enjoy
more than their parents or they themselves have in the past.
Expectations rise when physical security and
essential material needs have been met, when fear of punishment or social
ostracism is withdrawn, when rights are safeguarded democratically, when
information and urbanization expose people mentally and physically to
possibilities and achievements they did not previously know even existed, when
technology facilitates higher productivity, and when education enlightens
attitudes and elevates social awareness.
Without rising aspirations and expectations,
society would not make the effort and take the risks to acquire new forms of
behavior to achieve greater results. The psychological motive is primary, the
mechanical, technological and organizational processes are secondary. Some
forms of economic analysis tend to view these secondary levers as the driving
force and thereby miss the essential determinant of the process.
In the course of social development, society
is moved by a range of different psychological motives--the quest for survival
and self-preservation, the urge to possess land, the seeking for social status
and power, and the pursuit of wealth. The revolution of rising expectations
represents a new and more powerful motive force for development, for by its
nature it is not limited, as all the others have been, to a specific class or
section of society.
Government authority
Like social aspirations, the authority of
government has the capacity to direct the flow of social energies through the
instrumentation of law, public policies, administrative procedures, controls,
incentives and fear of punishment.
Here too there is a graded hierarchy of
stages through which government influences the development process. Monarchy is
a highly centralized form of government organization with significant capacity
to restrict freedom and prevent unwanted activities, but with very limited
power to promote social development, because of its limited power to positively
motivate and direct human initiative. Modern authoritarian states have
augmented the power of government to compel and control by evolving complex
organizational mechanisms to reach out into every field of social activity. Its
members submit by necessity to the power of the state, but continuously seek
for ways around the strictures and demands it places upon them. As the 20th
century experiments in Eastern Europe amply
demonstrate, its power as an instrument for development is severely limited.
Countries with authoritarian governments that have succeeded in releasing
social initiative for economic development, such as China, Taiwan and South
Korea, have done so by loosening social control over economic activities, while
retaining it over political activities.
Modern forms of democracy greatly enhance the
development capabilities of society. They are not only capable of enforcing a
rule of law which to a large extent the population willingly accepts as in its
own interest. They also promote far greater development of individual
aspirations, thought, capacity, skill and initiative. The accountability of a
democratically elected government necessitates that it continuously institute
measures perceived as beneficial to the electorate. Working through
decentralized self-governing structures, it empowers more and more centers of
activity in the society, leading to greater creativity and innovation. The
basic human rights it endorses elevate aspirations and release human energies
for higher accomplishment.
The impact of democracy on development was
illustrated by Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen when he observed that no
democratic country with a free press and independent judiciary has suffered a
famine in this century. India’s
Green Revolution is a powerful testament to the power of governmental
authority, though in this and every other instance, government’s role cannot
substitute for social readiness and social initiative, it can only aid in
preparing that readiness, releasing that initiative and organizing the new
activities.
Social-cultural authority
Government exercises authority over its
citizens through law, administration and enforcement. Society exercises a far
more persuasive authority over its members through its ideas, attitudes,
customs and values. Different societies may develop at very different rates and
in different directions under very similar forms of government, due to
differences in social and cultural authority.
Modern societies are far more free and
tolerant than those of previous centuries, yet they continue to exert a very
powerful force on their members; only, the character of that force has changed.
From being predominantly negative in the form of prohibitions and strictures,
now the force of social authority acts far more as a spur to initiative, than a
bar. The pressure felt by middle and working class families to ‘keep up with
the Joneses’ has become pervasive throughout the world. The bold initiative of
a poor farmer in rural India
to dig a bore well and become prosperous could act as stimulus for the rapid
development of ten surrounding villages because the competitive pressure of
social authority compelled his neighbors to keep up with his level of
accomplishment.
The spread of education tends to enhance this
tendency. Apart from the practical knowledge and skills it imparts, modern
education also instills a greater sense of individual self-respect and social
rights that impels the individual to seek and maintain status in society.
Know-how
Here we include the complete range of
capacities that determine the ability of the people to physically direct their
energies to achieve productive results. The most important of these are
scientific knowledge, technology and productive skills. These may appear very
different in nature and action from
social aspirations, government and social authority, but the character
of their influence on development is quite similar. They provide the direction
for the efficient organization of mental, social and material energies. Each of
them carries with it an inherent authority and imposes a certain discipline on the
expression of social energies. This authority usually takes the form of an
impersonal authority of standards, rules and systems, such as the rules for
maintaining an orderly flow of air traffic.
Adopting a higher level of technology,
whether that involved in the cultivation of hybrid wheat, space travel or
electronic commerce requires adherence to more stringent procedures and greater
organization, without which it does not work. The Internet is a recent example
of a technology that promotes freer and easier commercial and personal
transactions, but accomplishes it by imposing rigorous standards of discipline
on users in the form of a common computer language for communication.
Motives for development
Societies throughout the world are presently
preoccupied with achieving the material results of social development. But it
is interesting to note that the process itself does not appear to be driven
exclusively or perhaps even primarily by material motives, although these are
uppermost in the social consciousness at the present time. Even in instances
where material needs and wants have approached saturation, the process shows no
signs of abating in speed or intensity. On the contrary, the momentum that has
led to such incredible achievements over the past century continues to
accelerate. In our search for the fundamental motive that drives the process,
we have to look beyond the material preoccupations by which it is currently
characterized.
While it is difficult to document at the
social level, at the individual level it is readily apparent that physical
security and comfort are important but by no means the only or even the most
powerful motives for human action. Once these needs are met, there is still the
seeking for social prestige and influence, the impulse of curiosity, the thirst
for understanding, the drive for accomplishment, the urge for invention and
creativity, the attraction of complexity and rich variety of experience—and the
irrepressible and inexhaustible quest for enjoyment that all of these activities
engender.
The process of development, even the limited
sphere of social development, is not driven exclusively by material motives or
confined to material achievements. The goals societies and individuals seek are
determined by their needs and their values. In the hierarchy of needs, physical
survival, security, and comfort are primary. Vital, social and mental needs
gain prominence when the basic physical needs are met. As society prospers, the
vital urge for intensity, excitement, enjoyment, adventure, changing experience
and self-expression become more important determinants. Beyond these lie the
mental urge for curiosity, knowledge, creativity and imagination, and the
aspiration for spiritual realization.
This concept of development holds very
important implications for the future of humanity and the prospects for
progress in the next century. Its suggests that there are no inherent limits
either to the speed or to the extent of the development process, other than
those imposed by the limitations of our thought, knowledge and aspirations. If
we change our view, the character of this process can be transformed from the
slow, trial and error subconscious process we have known in the past to a
swift, sure leaping progress from height to greater height.
Phases of Human Choice
Social development has always involved a
tension between two poles of its existence, collective and individual. The
collective strives to ensure its preservation, perpetuation and development,
preparing and compelling its individual members to abide by its traditions,
laws and values, and contribute their energy and effort to defend and support
the community. At the same time, individual members strive to ensure their
survival, to preserve and, whenever possible, to elevate their material and
social positions, personal comfort and enjoyment.
For a very long period of recorded history,
the collective compelled the submission and obedience of its members to support
the development and free exercise of choice by a very limited number of
individuals constituting its ruling elite. This tendency reached its acme in
the divine right of kings, a doctrine that effectively made the whole society
subservient to the whims and fancies of a single individual as an embodiment of
the collective will and collective good. All served so that one person could
live fully.
Human progress over the past five centuries
has moved very far away from this extreme pole of collective domination. The
collective has discovered a new formula for its progress—all individuals should
be encouraged to develop so that the collective may develop to the maximum. The
translation of this new principle into practice has taken several centuries and
is still only partially realized. But the direction is clearly reflected in the
continuous move toward democracy, universal education, human rights, and access
to social opportunities. Society is discovering that providing the maximum
human choice to its individual members is the most effective means of releasing
human energy, creativity and initiative for the maximum development of the
collective.
The Protestant Reformation was a landmark for
Western society in the emergence of individual choice in the field of religion.
A parallel shift has been identified by historians as one of the root causes
for the decline of feudalism in Western Europe.
The aristocracy discovered that a free farmer working for himself generated
higher production and more tax revenue than an indentured serf working for mere
subsistence. Since then society has experimented boldly with new ways to
increase the range and quality of individual choice within a collective social
framework. In subsequent centuries the rise of democracy extended human choice
to the political field and the market system has institutionalized economic
choice for workers and consumers.
But the collective’s decision to empower
individual choice can best be viewed as the first rather than the last step in
human development. For the decision of the collective to encourage individual
human choice is no guarantee that individuals will accept and exercise that
choice or, if they do so, that they will do so wisely. The phase of human
choice that has characterized this century as the “century of the common man”
can also been characterized as one in which most individual members continue to
define their opinions, attitudes, values, preferences and aspirations very
largely in terms that the collective sanctions and approves. Society may have
consented to creative individuals exercising free choice, but for most
individuals there remains a strong motivation to conform to the views and
expectations of the collective and to depend on the collective as the primary
determinant. So strong is this urge for conformity that even in science, a
person’s social position and prestige are often more powerful determinants of
how the scientific community responds than the objectivity or rationality of
the views expressed.
We can conceive of a time in the future when
society has evolved to what we may term a second phase of human choice. In this
society, not only the collective, but most of its individual members as well
would have the realization that the individual human being is the determinant
of its own future. This would constitute a true society of individuals,
arriving at their own ideals, beliefs and values, discovering and expressing
more fully their own innate potentials, rather than continuously looking to the
collective as a role model for direction and support. We can imagine that this
phase would be marked by an enormously enhanced level of energy, fresh
initiative, innovation, invention, creativity and free expression and a far
more rapid general advancement of the society as a whole in whatever fields of
activity it chooses to develop. It might be a society of pioneers.
Yet such a phase, if achieved, would not in
any way lessen the tension between the individual and the collective. Rather it
might intensify the conflict to the point of threatening social cohesion and
stability, in much the same way as the social and economic liberation of women
in Western society may have affected the social institution of marriage. It
might even become a society of rebels or revolutionaries with little tolerance
for the status quo or the views of the collective.
For an ultimate reconciliation of
individuality with collective existence, we must envision a further phase of
development in which social stability is achieved through the conscious
understanding and consent of its individual members rather than by the force of
collective authority or external limits imposed on the power of individual
self-assertion. In this phase, the individual would advance beyond the
discovery of his own uniqueness and inner capacity to discover the
complementary truth that the individual is a portion and expression of the
collective society and can achieve maximum fulfillment only by discovering and
relating positively with the other aspects and expressions of self which also
form part of the larger social organism.
If this comes to pass, we would then have
witnessed the transition of society through three phases of emergence from
undifferentiated collective existence.
·
The undifferentiated phase is one in which the individuality is undeveloped and
individual choice is suppressed or restricted to a very small ruling elite. The
collective imposes its values on the individual.
·
Gradually the collective comes to recognize the necessity and value of actively
promoting the development and expression of individual human choice in its
members as a means for its own greater development. The collective discovers
the value of the individual human being and the power of free human choice.
This is the phase which most societies are in different stages of transiting: individuality is nominally encouraged, yet
the vast majority of people depend psychologically on the collective as the
primary determinant and power for their development and subconsciously act in
conformity with its expectations.
·
In this phase, individual members of society discover the source of creative
energy and unlimited human potential within themselves and draw on that source
to achieve far higher levels of development in any fields they pursue. The
individual discovers the value and power of individual human choice. Conflict
between the collective and its members would still be possible and could even
increase.
·
A phase could come in which individual members discover that they are only
individual expressions of the collective and that their existence is fulfilled
in consciously lending their energies for the pursuit and fulfillment of the
aspirations of the collective. The developed individual consciously affirms the
values of the collective as his or her own. This achievement would mark a
further phase in the social development of the collective. It might also
prepare the possibility of a truly spiritual development for the human
community founded on the twin truths of spiritual freedom and spiritual
oneness.
Parallels between social and business development
During a workshop presentation at the
November 1998 World Academy Conference on the Global Century held in Vancouver,
Canada, businessman Walt Stinson drew some interesting parallels between the
principles of development theory outlined in the Human Choice paper and principles of business development set forth
in several books by Fred Harmon, Garry Jacobs and Robert Macfarlane. We believe
that the parallels he observed arise from the fact that both societies and
businesses develop according to the same process, one macro, the other micro.
We wish to identify some points of correspondence here as a basis for further
exploration during the Madras
meeting.
1.
In the case of both business and society, development can be defined as an
upward directional movement from lesser to greater levels of energy,
efficiency, quality, productivity, complexity, comprehension, creativity,
mastery, enjoyment and accomplishment.
2.
Businesses, like societies, develop as a result of a self-conception that is
sometimes conscious, often subconscious. Both the democratic union of the 13
original American colonies and India’s
Green Revolution were the result of the conscious self-conception of a few
perceptive leaders, while the population-at-large remained only vaguely aware of
the process it was participating in. In the case of business, the original
self-conception is usually the creation of a founding entrepreneur, but over
time many other people contribute to its formulation. A noted instance of
conscious self-conception was Fred Smith’s idea for establishing an overnight
delivery business to compete with United Parcel Service and the US Postal
Service, at a time when both were already multi-billion dollar operations. The
company he founded in the early 1970s, Federal Express, became for a time the
fastest growing company of all time and now has annual revenues exceeding $12
billion. Smith’s conscious conception may have been partially shared by many of
the company’s managers and employees, but many others may have participated in
the process as part of their routine employment with only a vague notion of the
larger vision that inspired its leaders.
3.
The development of a business, like the development of a society, is fueled by
the aspiration of its people. In the case of business, the aspiration of the
owners and leaders is a critical determinant of how far and how fast the
business grows. In the case of the society, the role of leadership is played by
entrepreneurial pioneers that initiate new activities and the psychological
intensity of their pursuit is a critical determinant of success. But in either
case, the greater the aspiration of all the people involved, the more powerful
the impetus for accomplishment.
4.
We stated in Human Choice that
surplus energy is an essential condition for social development. Only in the
presence of surplus capacity can new activities be supported. The same is true
in business. Companies struggling for survival or to meet the minimum
requirements of their customers lack the excess capacity needed to plan and
initiate new activities or elevate their functioning to a higher level of
organization.
5.
New modes of activity are introduced in society by pioneering individual
initiatives that are imitated and disseminated by others, diffuse through the
society and are eventually accepted and integrated with the normal functioning
of the society. New modes of activity are introduced in a company by pioneering
individual initiatives that are imitated and disseminated by others, diffuse
through the company, and are eventually accepted and integrated with the normal
functioning of the company.
6.
Authority is a fundamental principle of organization that is essential to the
survival and development of both societies and companies. Government, social
and cultural authority as expressed through social norms, systems,
institutions, laws, customs, and values determine the effectiveness with which
surplus energy is converted by society into productive power. Corporate
authority is expressed more and more through the discipline of impersonal
rules, systems, coordination of activities, policies, corporate culture and
values that determine the effectiveness with which surplus energy is converted
by a business into productive power, rather than by top down personal exercise
of authority by a management hierarchy. But regardless of whether the form is
personal or impersonal, this discipline is fundamental to the successful
functioning of an organization.
7.
Social know-how in the form of technology, practical knowledge and skills
determines the conversion of productive power into material results in both
society and business.
8.
The productivity of social resources is not subject to any inherent limits. It
depends on the attitudes, information, knowledge, organization and skills
creatively applied – i.e. on powers of mind. The productivity of a company’s
resources is not subject to any inherent limits. It depends on the attitudes,
information, knowledge, organization and skills creatively applied – i.e. on powers
of mind.
9.
In research for his upcoming book on business in 2010, Fred Harmon is exploring the relationship between the five
essential components of a business—market, technology, people, capital and
organization—and the five parallel components of social development—social
needs, technology, people, resources and organization. As a microcosm and child
of the society, companies develop by attuning themselves to the direction,
trends and changing needs of the wider society of which they are a part in each
of these five major areas. This relationship is especially apparent in larger
national and multinational corporations whose development is often closely tied
to parallel developments in the societies in which they function.
10. The
utilization of social development potential depends on the society’s level of
awareness, aspiration, organization, values, knowledge and skills. The
utilization of business development potential depends on the company’s level of
awareness, aspiration, organization, values, knowledge and skills.
11.
Both companies and societies depend for their development on three levels of
organized infrastructure—a physical organization of production, transportation,
communication, etc.; a social organization of legal, financial, commercial, and
educational systems and institutions; and a mental organization of information,
technology and knowledge. All three are needed for the achievement of
progressively more complex forms of economic activity.
12. For
both businesses and societies, values represent that highest form of
organization for directing human energies in constructive and productive
activities. The quality and height of the values set the limits on the
magnitude of developmental achievements.
Summary of social development principles
1.
We define social development in its broadest social terms as an upward
directional movement of society from lesser to greater levels of energy,
efficiency, quality, productivity, complexity, comprehension, creativity,
choice, mastery, enjoyment and accomplishment. Development of individuals and
societies results in increasing freedom of choice and increasing capacity to
fulfill its choices by its own capacity and initiative.
2.
Growth and development usually go together, but they are different phenomena
subject to different laws. Growth involves a horizontal or quantitative
expansion and multiplication of existing types and forms of activities.
Development involves a vertical or qualitative enhancement of the level of
organization.
3.
Social development is driven by the subconscious aspirations/will of society
for advancement. The social will seeks progressive fulfillment of a prioritized
hierarchy of needs – security of borders, law and order, self-sufficiency in
food and shelter, organization for peace and prosperity, expression of excess
energy in entertainment, leisure and enjoyment, knowledge, and artistic
creativity.
4.
Development of society occurs only in fields where that collective will is
sufficiently strong and seeking expression. Development strategies will be most
effective when they focus on identifying areas where the social will is mature
and provide better means for the awakened social energy to express itself. Only
those initiatives that are in concordance with this subconscious urge will gain
momentum and multiply.
5.
Development of the collective is subconscious. It starts with physical
experience which eventually leads to conscious comprehension of the process.
Conscious development based on conceptual knowledge of the social process
accelerates development and minimizes errors and imbalances.
6.
Society is the field of organized relationships and interactions between
individuals. Only a small portion of human activity is organized for
utilization by society, so only a small portion of development potential (of
technology, knowledge, information, skills, systems) is tapped.
7.
Every society possesses a huge reservoir of potential human energy that is
absorbed and held static in its organized foundations—its cultural values,
physical security, social beliefs and political structures. At times of
transition, crises and opportunities, those energies are released and expressed
in action. Policies, strategies and programs that tap this latent energy and
channel it into constructive activities can stir an entire nation to action and
rapid advancement.
8.
The act is the basic unit of social organization. The evolution of more complex
and productive activities woven together by people to form systems,
organizations, institutions and cultural values constitute the fabric or web of
social organization.
9.
The essential nature of the development process is the progressive development
of social organizations and institutions that harness and direct the society’s
energies for higher levels of accomplishment. Society develops by organizing
all the knowledge, human energies and material resources at its disposal to
fulfill its aspirations.
10. The
process of formation of organization takes place simultaneously at several
levels: the organization of peace and physical security in society, the
organization of physical activities and infrastructure, the organization of
productive processes through the application of skills and technology in
agriculture, industry and services, the organization of social processes we
call systems, laws, institutions and administrative agencies, the organization
of data as useful information, the organization of knowledge through education
and science, and the organization of higher social and cultural values that
channel human energy into higher forms of expression.
11.
Each of these levels of organization admits of unlimited development. Each of
these levels of organization depends upon and interacts with the others.
Elevating the organization at any of these levels increases the utilization of
resources and opportunities and accelerates development.
12.
Development requires an enormous investment of energy to break existing
patterns of social behavior and form new ones. Development takes place when surplus
social energies accumulate beyond the level required for functioning at the
present level. The social energy may be released in response to the opening up
of a new opportunity or confrontation by a severe challenge. Where different
cultures meet and blend, explosive energies for social evolution are released.
13.
Expression of surplus energy through existing forms of activity may result in
growth—a quantitative expansion of society at the existing level of
organization. Channeling the surplus energy into more complex and effective
forms of organized activity leads to development—a qualitative enhancement in
the capabilities of the society. The fresh initiatives that lead to this
qualitative enhancement usually occur first in the unorganized activities of
society that are not constrained and encumbered by the inertia of the status
quo.
14. The
rate and extent of development is determined by prevalent social attitudes
which control the flow of social energies. Where attitudes are not conducive,
development strategies will not yield results. In this case the emphasis should
be placed on strategies to bring about a change in social attitudes—such as
public education, demonstration and encouragement of successful pioneers.
15. The
social gradient between people at different levels of power and accomplishment
in society represents a ‘voltage differential’ that stimulates less
accomplished sections of the population to seek what the more accomplished have
achieved. The urge to maintain this voltage gap compels those at the top to
seek further accomplishments. At the same time, the overall development of
society is determined by its ability to make accessible the privileges and
benefits achieved by those at the top to the rest of its members.
16.
Development proceeds rapidly in those areas where the society becomes aware of
opportunities and challenges and has the will to respond to them. Increasing
awareness accelerates the process.
17.
Social progress is stimulated by pioneering individuals who first become conscious
of new opportunities and initiate new behaviors and activities to take
advantage of them. Pioneers are the lever or spearhead for collective
advancement. Pioneers give conscious expression to the subconscious urges and
readiness of the collective.
18.
Development occurs when pioneering individual initiatives are imitated by
others, multiplied and actively supported by the society. Society then actively
organizes the new activity by establishing supportive laws, systems and
institutions. At the next stage it integrates the new activity with other
fields of activity and assimilates it into its educational system. The activity
has become fully assimilated as part of the culture when it is passed on to the
next generation as values through the family.
19. Development is a process, not a program.
Development is an activity of the society as a whole. It can be stimulated,
directed or assisted by government policies, laws and special programs, but it
cannot be compelled or carried out by administrative or external agencies on
behalf of the population. Development strategy should aim to release people’s
initiative, not to substitute for it.
20. All
resources are the creation of the human mind. Something becomes a resource when
human beings recognize a productive or more productive use for it. Since there
are no inherent limits to human inventiveness and resourcefulness, the
potential productivity of any resource is unlimited.
21.
Human beings are the ultimate resource and ultimate determinant of the
development process. It is a process of
people becoming more aware of their own creative potentials and taking
initiative to realize those potentials. Human awareness, aspiration and
attitudes determine society’s response to circumstances. Development occurs
only at the points where humanity recognizes its power to determine results.
22. The
development of social organization takes place within a larger evolutionary
context in which the consciousness of humanity is evolving along a continuum
from physical to vital to mental. This evolution expresses as a progressive
shift in emphasis from material resources to technological and information
resources; from the social importance of land to the importance of money and
knowledge; from hereditary rights of the elite to fundamental rights for all
human beings; from reliance on physical forms of authority to laws and shared
values. As society advances along this continuum, development becomes more
conscious and more rapid.
23.
Infinity is a practical concept. Human potential is unlimited. Development
potential is infinite.
24. The
same principles and process govern development in different fields of social
life – political, economic, technological, scientific, cultural, etc.
25. The
same principles and process govern development at the level of the individual,
the organization and the society.
[1][1] Human
Choice: The Genetic Code for Social Development, by Harlan Cleveland and
Garry Jacobs, World
Academy of Art &
Science, 1999.
[2][2] Tangible assets give security and courage to venture,
but liquid assets are essential to generate prosperity. In a service economy,
earnings remain largely liquid thereby facilitating economic growth, whereas in
agriculture and industry, earnings go to create assets and the money gets blocked.
0 Comments
To contact Study for Super-Vision, write your comments. Avoid spamming as your post will not be seen by any one.