A sometimes useful reminder

[Cain]

Societies are not unitary.  They are not social systems (closed or open); they are not totalities.  We never find a single bounded society in geographical or social space.  Because there is no system, no totality, there cannot be "sub-systems", "dimensions" or "levels" of such a totality.  Because there is no whole, social relations cannot be reduced to "ultimately," "in the last instance," to some systemic property of it – like the "mode of material production," or the "cultural" or "normative system," or the "form of military organization."  Because there is no bounded totality, it is not helpful to divide social change or conflict into "endogenous" and "exogenous" varieties.  Because there is no social system, there is no "evolutionary" process within it.  Because humanity is not divided into a series of bounded totalities, "diffusion" of social organization does not occur between them.  Because there is no totality, individuals are not constrained in their behaviour by "social structure as a whole" and so it is not helpful to make a distinction between "social action" and "social structure".

Just in case you forgot.

[[redacted]]

So what would some applications of this be?

I mean sure, societies aren't finite, static, clearly defined things, but surely we can observe certain groups to tend toward certain kinds of behavior, and acting out of these norms or "tendencies" to enough of a degree can produce negative consequences. So what's the application? Am I missing the point?

[Freeky]

Societies are not unitary.  They are not social systems (closed or open); they are not totalities.  We never find a single bounded society in geographical or social space.  Because there is no system, no totality, there cannot be "sub-systems", "dimensions" or "levels" of such a totality.  Because there is no whole, social relations cannot be reduced to "ultimately," "in the last instance," to some systemic property of it – like the "mode of material production," or the "cultural" or "normative system," or the "form of military organization."  Because there is no bounded totality, it is not helpful to divide social change or conflict into "endogenous" and "exogenous" varieties.  Because there is no social system, there is no "evolutionary" process within it.  Because humanity is not divided into a series of bounded totalities, "diffusion" of social organization does not occur between them.  Because there is no totality, individuals are not constrained in their behaviour by "social structure as a whole" and so it is not helpful to make a distinction between "social action" and "social structure".

Erm....


I disagree?

[Golden Applesauce]

So what would some applications of this be?

I mean sure, societies aren't finite, static, clearly defined things, but surely we can observe certain groups to tend toward certain kinds of behavior, and acting out of these norms or "tendencies" to enough of a degree can produce negative consequences. So what's the application? Am I missing the point?

The next time you see someone dressed differently than most people (tripp pants, hair veil, whatever) don't think to yourself "they're in a different subculture than me." That's not possible; you might be at different points in the social space-history continuum, but you aren't in different cultures. "Culture" isn't a plural noun. The social forces acting on each of you are weighted differently and come in from different angles, but they aren't incomparable structures. The two of you have some stuff in common and the stuff you don't have in common is something that you can meaningfully talk about. You aren't the surface through which two distinct cultures have discourse, but ordinary human contact, which is different in scale but not in kind from any other social event. (maybe, I'm low on sleep)

Or it could just be claiming that a large class of political assertions - when you here someone talk about "The normative System" - are full of shit.

We solve the problem of island-bound societies by noting that all discovered societies have had contact with the rest of the world by definition, and all un-discovered societies are either dead or haven't been conclusively shown to exist.

[Elder Iptuous]

this seems like a perfect example of the sri syadasti thing.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I sat on the quote in the OP for a few days, but I still find that it makes no sense, I think perhaps because I'm missing some context.

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

So there is no Us vs. Them, we are all one?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

While I agree with the statement that there are no absolute boundaries, I find the apparent argument that only discrete systems can be considered systems patently laughable.

However, I am assuming that there is context to go with the quote that makes it make some kind of sense.

[LMNO]

I think the quote is trying to say, "you can't blame 'society' for the actions of an individual," but I could be wrong.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

While I agree with the statement that there are no absolute boundaries, I find the apparent argument that only discrete systems can be considered systems patently laughable.

This. 

You are correct not only in terms of social systems, but even mechanical ones in any complex facility...As anyone who has spent all day troubleshooting system A only to find out that the problem is actually being caused by systems B, C, and D can tell you.

In our plant, there is almost never a hard line as to what is the "offgas" system and what is the "scrubber" system, for example.  They sort of blur together in places...But to say that neither is a system because of that blur is silly. 

Same thing goes for cultures, and damn near everything else I can think of.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think the quote is trying to say, "you can't blame 'society' for the actions of an individual," but I could be wrong.

That's not accurate, either.  While people ARE responsible for their individual actions, to say that society has no role in their behavior is also silly.

People are far too eager to give the credit or the blame to one individual, because A) it's simpler, and B) they don't have to share in the culpability, and C) they get to feel outraged and self-righteous.

[Sita]

A quick Google brought me to this blog post where someone talks about the quote.

Still doesn't make sense to me (non of this stuff does, really) but maybe it'll help y'all. It at least says what book the quote is from.

[LMNO]

I agree with both of your above posts Roger, I was merely trying to take the confusing language out of the OP (OQ).

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think the quote is trying to say, "you can't blame 'society' for the actions of an individual," but I could be wrong.

Welll, to take this line, for example:

Because there is no totality, individuals are not constrained in their behaviour by "social structure as a whole" and so it is not helpful to make a distinction between "social action" and "social structure".

Is it a semantic argument about the unnecessary tacking-on of "as a whole", or is it actually saying that individuals do not experience social constraints?

The first is nitpicky, and the second is just... dumb.

Stating that there is no useful distinction to be made between "social action" and "social structure", if we are still talking about an individual, is also dumb. However, if we have actually shifted gears and are talking about a society taking an action, that is called "social shift" and is part of a social system.

I don't know, without context we could be talking about anything, really. Lifted from whatever made it relevant originally it all just reads as a bunch of, well, fluff and wank.

[LMNO]

I believe the proper term for a large grouping of fluff and wank is known as a "Fappery".