Living Systems Theory and Social Entropy

8/10/2019 Living Systems Theory and Social Entropy

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-systems-theory-and-social-entropy 1/10

SystemsResearchand Behavioral Science

Syst. Res.23, 291^300 (2006)

Published online inWiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)

DOI:10.1002/sres.728

& ResearchArticle

Living Systems Theory andSocial Entropy Theory

Kenneth D. Bailey*

Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Although Living Systems Theory (LST) has been widely recognized for its majorcontributions to scholarship in general and systems theory in particular, the full extent of its contribution has never been explicitly presented. The purpose of this paper is twofold:first to discuss LST, and then to relate it to Social Entropy Theory (SET). The paper firstpresents 20 major contributions of LST. This is not an exhaustive list, but is simplydesigned to present simultaneously the wide range of contributions made by Miller,some of which have not been sufficiently recognized nor appreciated. Miller’scontributions focused upon the actions of concrete components in fulfilling the criticalsubsystems processes required by systems at each level. He placed less emphasis on thekey systems variables such as population and technology. Fortunately, Social EntropyTheory has explicated a set of key variables. The second part of the paper discusses SocialEntropy Theory, and shows how it complements and extends LST. Copyright # 2006

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords Living systems theory; major contributions; limitations; social entropy theory

INTRODUCTION

Although Living Systems Theory (LST) has beenwidely recognized for its contributions to scho-larship in general, and to systems theory inparticular, the full extent of its contribution hasnever been explicitly presented. Miller’s most

famous book, Living Systems (Miller, 1978) wasdesigned to present a comprehensive analysis of concrete systems at all hierarchical levels. Thus,

by definition, Miller’s contributions are pri-marily limited to the study of the concrete livingsystem. The book does make contributions toabstracted systems theory, but these are mostlysecondary.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, Iwill discuss LST, and second, I will relate it to

Social Entropy Theory (SET). After summarizingthe aspects of LST that are most salient for ourpurposes here, I will list and discuss 20 con-tributions made by LST, many of which haveremained generally unrecognized. Next I willdiscuss the limitations of LST. These do notinclude any major problems, but are mostlypoints that require clarification. I will conclude

Copyright# 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

* Correspondence to: Kenneth D. Bailey, University of California, LosAngeles, Department of Sociology, 264 Haines Hall, 375 Portola Plaza,Box 951551, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1551 USA.E-mail: [email protected].



by summarizing Social Entropy Theory, andshowing how it complements LST by providinga comprehensive analysis of some topics such astechnology and population size that, while theymay have been mentioned in passing by Miller,were not the focus of Miller’s theory.

LIVING SYSTEMS THEORY

Most readers probably see LST in terms of its basic structure of 20 ‘critical subsystems’ dis-played on each of eight hierarchical levels. Inreality, there are many more contributions. Oneneglected contribution of LST is its consistentemphasis on process. (see contribution number14 below). The discussion of every subsystem inLiving Systems includes both an analysis of

process and an analysis of structure. Further,the basis for classifying the 20 subsystems is bywhether they process matter-energy or informa-tion, or both (Miller, 1978, p. 3).

Miller’s basic analytical strategy for LST can becharacterized in terms of five basic steps orstages.

1. Identify and name the exact number of empirically-occurring hierarchical levels. Thisstep originally yielded seven levels (with adiscussion of other possible levels in Miller,1978), and was subsequently expanded toeight levels.

2. Identify and name the exact number of criticalsubsystems that are assumed to occur empiri-cally at each of the eight levels. This steporiginally yielded 19 critical subsystems (withdiscussion of other candidates), and wassubsequently expanded to 20 critical subsys-tems.

3. Analyse the 20 critical subsystem processes ateach of the eight levels.

4. Identify (when possible) empirical compo-

nents which fulfil each of the 20 criticalprocesses. If a component cannot be foundwhich fulfils the process for the system at agiven level, a search can be made for cases inwhich the processes are fulfilled by dispersal.This includes downward dispersal (appar-ently the most common), upward dispersal,lateral dispersal and outward dispersal. Work

in LST has succeeded in identifying examplesfor most (but not all) of the critical subsystemson the eight levels.

5. Continue to analyse and interpret all 160 cellsof the matrix formed by the 20 criticalsubsystems at eight levels.

The seven original hierarchical levels in LSTare the cell, organ, organism, group, organiza-tion, society and supranational level (Miller,1978). The eighth level, the ‘community’, wasadded later, and was inserted between theorganizational and societal levels (Miller andMiller, 1992). Miller (1978) had originally dis-cussed the inclusion of the community level, buthad decided against it.

The 19 original ‘critical subsystems’ includetwo that process both matter-energy and infor-

mation (the reproducer and the boundary). Eightadditional subsystems are said to process matter-energy only. These are ingestor, distributor,converter, producer, matter-energy storage,extruder, motor and supporter. There wereoriginally nine additional subsystems said toprocess information only. These are input trans-ducer, internal transducer, channel and net,decoder, associator, memory, decider, encoderand output transducer. The tenth information-processing subsystem (and the twentieth sub-system) is the timer, which was not included in

the original list, but was added later (Miller andMiller, 1992).

THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF LIVING SYSTEMS THEORY

Any listing of the contributions of LST is boundto be somewhat arbitrary, and probably incom-plete. Scholars may differ in the value they attachto different contributions. Nevertheless, it seemsimportant to compile, for the first time, a

comprehensive (if not exhaustive) list of thecontributions of LST. The most obvious contributions will be listed first, followed by someothers that may be easily overlooked, but arenonetheless important.

The first major contribution is the specificationof the 20 critical subsystems. This is probably themost widely noted contribution, and may be (in

RESEARCH ARTICLE Syst. Res.

Copyright 200 6 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Syst. Res. 23, 291^300 (2006)

292 K. D. Bailey



some ways) the most important. However, mostscholars would find the task of studying 20subsystems quite intimidating. And further,there is a certain arbitrariness in specifying theexact number of subsystems. Miller (1978, p.1044) asks rhetorically, ‘How do you know there

are exactly 19 subsystems?’ He suggests (Miller,1978, p. 1045) that some persons may wish to adda new ‘recreational’ subsystem. But again, helater added a new subsystem (the ‘timer’, seeMiller and Miller, 1992), but never added therecreational subsystem. He also suggested insome instances that the number of subsystemscould be reduced by combining the associatorand memory, or by combining the channel andnet and the decoder (Miller, 1978, p. 1044).

The second major contribution is the specifica-tion of the eight hierarchical levels. While this

contribution seems obvious and has been widelynoted and discussed, a number of nuances areinvolved which may remain unrecognized. Firstof all, it takes a certain amount of intellectualcourage to even attempt analysis at more than asingle level. By undertaking analyses at eightlevels, Miller is crossing the domains of manyestablished academic disciplines, from geneticsto anatomy to biology, to psychology, to manage-ment, to sociology, to anthropology and topolitical science to name a few. Many (probablymost) scholars spend their lives studying a singleone of Miller’s eight levels.

For example, pathologists concentrate onorgans, psychologists on individuals, socialworkers and family therapists on families(groups), and management theorists on organi-zations. Thus, the very idea of working at somany levels may seem strange and intimidatingto many scholars. Second, the specification of levels is challenging and again requires intellec-tual courage. Miller (1978, p. 1044) acknowledgesthe difficulty of specifying the exact number of

levels, asking rhetorically, ‘How do you knowthere are exactly seven levels?’ He says further,‘It is possible that the tissue is a level between thecell and the organ or that the community is alevel between the organization and the society, insome systems at least’. In fact, He did later addthe community level (Miller and Miller, 1992), but never added the tissue level.

The third contribution is the emphasis oncross-level analysis and the production of numerous cross-level hypotheses. One of Mill-er’s (1978, pp. 89–92, 1031–1032) chief concernswas the development and testing of cross-levelhypotheses. These are hypotheses that can be

tested for two or more levels simultaneously. InChapter 4, Miller lists a large number of hypotheses, with 173 of these being applicableto two or more levels of livings systems (seeMiller, 1978, pp. 89–119, p. 1031). Miller con-sidered the development and testing of cross-level hypotheses to be very important. It isimportant to note that only a broad systemsframework like Miller’s can even offer thepossibility of cross-level research. Most para-digms, including many systems paradigms,include only one or a few levels, thus effectively

precluding the possibility of cross-level research.A fourth contribution is cross-subsystem

research. Another possibility afforded by LST isthe formulation and testing of hypotheses in twoor more subsystems at a time. For example, onecould simultaneously test hypotheses aboutinformation processing in the encoder and deco-der, or in the channel and net and the decider.Miller does not stress this, but it seems clear thatsome scholars might sometimes wish to conductsuch analyses, and Miller’s approach is one of thefew approaches (if not the only one) that is broadenough to facilitate such investigation.

A fifth contribution is cross-level, cross-sub-system research. Miller’s paradigm even affordsthe possibility of simultaneous cross-level, cross-subsystem research. For example, the breadth of LST enables a researcher to formulate and testhypotheses about information processing in theencoder and decoder at both the group andorganizational levels simultaneously. It is safe tosay that no other extant theory (systems theory orotherwise) affords this possibility.

A sixth major contribution made by LST lies inthe detailed analysis of types of systems, asdemonstrated by Miller’s (1978, pp. 16–39)discussion of the variety of systems concept.Miller’s discussion includes notions such asconceptual systems, system states, units, compo-nents, subsystems, suprasystems, joint systemspartipotential systems and so forth.

Syst. Res. RESEARCH ARTICLE


Living Systems Theory and Social Entropy Theory 293



The seventh contribution lies in the distinctionthat Miller (1978, pp. 16–39) made betweenconcrete and abstracted systems. Concrete sys-tems use objects such as individuals as the basicunit of analysis. In contrast, abstracted systemsuse relationships such as the social role as the

unit of analysis (Miller, 1978, p. 19). This is amajor difference between the systems appro-aches of Miller (1978) and Parsons (1951). Millerchose to study concrete systems, while Parsonschose abstracted systems with the role (ratherthan the concrete individual) as the systemcomponent, or basic unit of analysis (Parsons,1979). Miller (1978, pp. 20–22) made a significantcontribution by explaining in detail why aconcrete-systems model is preferred over theabstracted-systems approach.

An eighth contribution is Miller’s (1978, pp. 9–

22) discussion of physical space and time. This isimportant, because he chose to situate hisconcrete approach in physical space-time, whilesome other social-systems theorists, most nota- bly Parsons (1951) rejected the space-time frame-work. Parsons (1979) chooses instead to usedimensions such as cultural space or socialspace.

A ninth contribution lies in Miller’s emphasison information processing. As noted above, 12 of the critical subsystems (including the two dualsubsystems, the boundary and the reproducer),process information. Further, Miller also empha-sizes information processing in his cross-levelanalyses, and makes further important contribu-tions such as his analysis of information over-load.

The tenth contribution of LST lies in thedetailed analysis of matter-energy processing.As noted above, 10 of the critical subsystems(again counting the reproducer and the bound-ary) deal with matter-energy processing. This isan issue that is incredibly important, but has

rather inexplicably been woefully neglected inmost social-systems theories (see Bailey, 1990,1994).

The analysis of entropy qualifies as theeleventh contribution of LST. Miller emphasizesthe role of entropy in the living system, anddiscusses the relation of entropy to information.A further contribution is the presentation of

cross-level hypotheses dealing with entropy(Miller, 1978, pp. 110–111). The emphasis onentropy, coupled with his analyses of equilibrium and homeostasis, provides a link between19th and 20th century equilibrium theory, andlate 20th century and 21st century nonequili-

brium theory, such as Prigogine’s (1955) analysisof systems that are far from equilibrium, andBailey’s (1990, 1994) Social Entropy Theory(SET).

A 12th contribution of LST is the recognition of totipotential systems. Living Systems Theory isone of the few approaches that emphasizes thenotion of a totipotential system. A totipotentialsystem is one that is fully self-sufficient. InMiller’s terms, it is capable of successfully fulfil-ling all of its own 20 critical subsystem processes.That is, all of its 20 subsystems are fully

functioning, with no help needed from externalsystems, or systems at different levels of thenested hierarchy (Miller, 1978, p. 18). This is avery important notion that is totally neglected bymost systems theory.

A 13th contribution of LST, and one that isclearly related to contribution twelve, is thenotion of a partipotential system (Miller, 1978,p. 18). A partipotential system cannot carry outall needed critical subsystem processes, in directcontrast to a totipotential system that is fully self-sufficient. Partipotential systems thus requirehelp of some sort from some other system orsystems in order to function properly. Theirrelations with other systems may take a numberof forms such as parasitic, symbiotic, or becharacterized by different forms of dispersal,such as upward dispersal, downward dispersal,lateral dispersal, or outward (external) dispersal(Miller, 1978).

The 14th major contribution in LST is theinnovative approach to the structure-processissue, as previously noted. Social-systems theory

has long been criticized as being overly static.Critics have charged that system theory, parti-cularly equilibrium theory, emphasizes structureat the expense of process (Bailey, 1990, 1994).Critics say further that systems theory provides a‘snapshot’, or cross-sectional picture of systemstructure, but is overly conservative, and inade-quate for the study of system change (Collins,



294 K. D. Bailey



1975). Miller (1978) took great pains to insure thatthis was not the case for LST.

The analysis of all 20 critical subsystemsincludes an analysis of process as well as of structure. Miller (1978, p. 51) defines process as‘all change over time of matter-energy or infor-

mation in a system’. This emphasis on processmakes a significant contribution by ensuring thatLST is not overly static, but is valuable for thestudy of system change.

A fifteenth contribution is the innovationintroduced into systems theory by Miller in theconcept of a ‘joint subsystem’. A joint subsystemis a subsystem which belongs to two systems(generally on the same level) simultaneously (seeMiller, 1978, p. 32). A common example is wherean individual sits on the boards of two differentcorporations, resulting in a so-called ‘interlock-

ing directorate’. A significant feature of thisconcept is that it entails the simultaneous studyof two different systems. Again, this is rarelyseen in systems theory, which tends to focus onone system at a time.

The sixteenth contribution is another innova-tive concept developed by Miller, the concept of dispersal. This notion is somewhat complex andmultifaceted, and includes at least four types of dispersal: lateral dispersal, outward dispersal,upward dispersal and downward dispersal(Miller, 1978 p. 32). Generally in LST, thesubsystem is one level below the system beingstudied. Thus, if one is studying the system at theorganizational level, the subsystem is at thegroup level or if one is studying the organismlevel, the subsystem is at the organ level.

Dispersal occurs when a particular componentof the system (e.g. ‘Group A’ is unable to fulfilthe needed subsystem process by itself, but musthave help. One way to accomplish this is tolaterally receive help from another componenton the same level within the system (e.g. ‘Group

B’). This is lateral dispersal. Another type of dispersal is to go below the current (group) leveland receive help from the organism level (anindividual person). This is called downwarddispersal. With both lateral and downwarddispersal, the solution to the problem may liewithin the larger system, so that it remainstotipotential. Other times however the system

proves to be partipotential. In these cases thesystem must go above for aid, perhaps to thecommunity or society (or even the supranational)level. This is called upward dispersal. In othercases, the system may seek external aid fromanother system (e.g. an external organization).

This is outward dispersal. As another example of outward dispersal, if the subsystem in questionis a kidney, and it is dysfunctional, one couldhave kidney dialysis, which would mean out-ward dispersal to a machine, or ‘artefact’ inMiller’s (1978) terms.

A 17th contribution is another one of Miller’sinnovations, the notion of inclusion. An inclusionis something from the environment that is notpart of the system, but is surrounded by it. Aninclusion can be either living or nonliving. At thelevel of the organism, inclusions into the system

are ‘artefacts’ or ‘prostheses’ such as eye glasses,hearing aids, or heart pacemakers.

A related notion introduced by LST (and the18th contribution) is that of an artefact. An arte-fact is an inclusion that is constructed by animalsor humans. For example, a tree can be an inclu-sion if it is totally surrounded by the system’s boundaries. However, it is not an artefact, beca-use it was not constructed by humans or animals.However, an inclusion in the form of a spiderweb, or beaver dam or television set would be anartefact, as it was constructed by animals orhumans. Many inclusions that are not artefactswill not serve to fulfil critical subsystem pro-cesses, although they could do this in some cases.Artefacts are more likely to fulfil critical sub-systems processes, as when a pacemaker acts as atimer for the organism. Miller calls an artefact(such as a pacemaker) which performs a criticalprocess a prosthesis (Miller, 1978, p. 33).

Yet another innovation introduced into thesystems literature by Miller, and the nineteenthcontribution to be discussed, is the notion of an

‘adjustment process’. Adjustment processes arethose processes that combat stress in a system.They serve to keep key system variables in asteady state, or within a certain range of variation.

A 20th contribution of LST is the notion of acritical subsystem. This distinction recognizesthat while some subsystems are merely conve-






Even a paradigm as comprehensive as LSTcannot include everything. Miller specifically didnot attempt to identify or study in a comprehen-sive manner all of the chief variables of a system,and the interrelationships among them. Millerdid recognize the existence of these variables, but

they were not his main emphasis. For example,one variable of a concrete system mentioned byMiller is its size (population). Another is itsnumber of subsystems (Miller, 1978, p. 17).Fortunately, Social Entropy Theory (SET) hasemphasized the identification of key systemsvariables, a task that Miller left unfinished. Wewill now discuss these key systems variables andthen demonstrate how SET complements LST.

SOCIAL ENTROPY THEORY

Fortunately, Social Entropy Theory (Bailey,1990,1994) did develop six key social-systemsvariables, and these can be used to complementLST. The six key macro-sociological variables of SET are: population size (P), information (I), levelof living (L), organization (O), technology (T) andspace or territory (S). These PILOTS variables arekey systems variables. Together, they determinethe overall state of the system, including itsentropy. While PILOTS was developed for socialsystems, it can easily be extended (with somemodifications) to the cell, organ and organismlevels as well.

The six PILOTS variables apply to systems atall of Miller’s eight levels. They can be seen as themacro structural conditions under which 20critical subsystems operate. That is, for any givensystem at any level, it may be relatively easy orrelatively difficult (or intermediate) for the 20critical subsystems to operate successfully.Whether the work of the 20 critical subsystemsis facilitated or constrained (or treated neutrally)

depends in large part upon the level of each of the six key PILOTS variables.We are interested not only in the absolute size

or level of each of the key variables, but also in itsrate of change. For example, if the populationsize of a given system grows suddenly andrapidly, it can obviously tax the ability of the 20critical subsystems to perform their functions. If

the reproducer is overly active, and/or the boundary fails to function properly the system’spopulation can swell rapidly. This can putpressure on not only the matter-energy subsys-tems such as the ingestor, extruder and sup-porter, but also on the information-processing

subsystems from the decider to the encoder.Another crucial key variable is technology. Acasual reader of LST may be amazed to find thatMiller has extended discussions of matter-energyprocessing and information-processing with barely a mention of technology.

Technology is not totally neglected in LST. It ismentioned six times in Living Systems, generallyin passing. In some instances Miller does relatetechnology to the subsystems. For example,Miller (1978, p. 778) states that ‘The extent of development of a society’s technology deter-

mines not only what sorts of things it is capableof converting or producing but also how effi-ciently it can carry out such processes’. Variousof the other PILOTS variables are mentioned inLST. System size is included in the discussion of structure for every system level, although it is notalways used to refer to the number of membersor population size (see Miller, 1978, p. 516).Population is mentioned a number of times (butprimarily on pages 840–844, 862–866 and 946–948of Miller, 1978). Level of living is not mentioned, but organization is of course mentioned repeat-edly (but as an object, not as a variable) andconstitutes one of the eight key levels in LST.Space is noted in a variety of contexts (see Bailey,1995), but is treated differently in LST than inSET. In SET the spatial border of a social systemis the system’s boundary, but in LST the twoconcepts of system boundary and national border are distinct. Information is of coursestudied repeatedly in LST, but it is defineddifferently in LST than in SET.

Thus, while it is clear that Miller does not

neglect these key variables entirely, it is also clearthat they are not a central focus of LST. One of themajor problems is the degree to which key vari-ables such as technology are viewed as externalto the system, rather than being an integral partof it. Also, Miller’s jargon regarding technologyis somewhat arcane. He considers most examplesof technology such as computers or scanners to






be artefacts. Artefacts are types of inclusions,and were discussed above (see contributionsnumber 17 and 18). Since artefacts and otherinclusions are considered to be part of theenvironment rather than part of the system, thiskeeps technology from being recognized as a

key system variable in LST as it is in SET.Miller does acknowledge that an inclusion canfunction as a subsystem. He says (Miller, 1978,p. 33), ‘An airline firm may have as an integralcomponent a computerized mechanical systemfor making reservations which extends into allits offices’. The basic conclusion, however, isthat in LST technology is primarily defined notas a part of the system, but rather as part of the external environment, unless shown to beotherwise.

Thus, LST’s approach to the key PILOTS

variables is not one of neglect, but one of de-emphasis. The key variables are important notonly as a foundation for quantification, but alsoas a way to compare two or more systems at onetime, or the same system at different points intime. It is difficult to fully understand a livingsystem without analysis of the six key variables,as these variables so greatly affect the work of the20 critical subsystems. Fortunately, it is notnecessary to revise LST to incorporate ananalysis of the six key variables. Rather, PILOTScan be used to supplement, complement andextend LST. In doing so we can also revise andextends PILOTS.

To summarize, LST has virtually no discussionof L (level of living) and little focused discussionof population or technology. It does provideconsiderable discussion of organization andspace, but conceptualizes them quite differentlythan in SET. Only with I (information) is thereconsiderable overlap in the analyses of LST andSET, but even here the differences are great.While LST considers information in a rather

narrow technical sense, SET envisions informa-tion as a broad category, even including suchconcepts as values and norms within it. I will firstdefine the original definitions of the six keyPILOTS variables as used in SET. I will thenmake PILOTS more compatible with LST byadding energy (more correctly mater-energy) toit. I will then show how the new formulation

EIPLOTS can be extended to the cell, organ andorganism levels.

EXTENDING PILOTS

It is clear that LST and SET are extremely andimmediately complementary. While it is cer-tainly true that any system at any level willutilize the 20 critical subsystems as Miller says, itis not clear that they will all do so in an identicalfashion. For example, on a given level such as thelevel of society, specific societal systems will varya great deal on the six key PILOTS dimensions.How well these societies fulfil the 20 criticalprocesses, and the particular components theyuse to fulfil them, can vary greatly depending onthe values of PILOTS possessed by the social

system.Perusal of Living Systems (Miller, 1978) shows

that Miller generally assumes that for a givenhierarchical level (e.g. the organization), that thesubsystems will be found one-level down. Forexample, at the societal level, the subsystemsfulfilling the 20 critical processes in the originalformulation (before the addition of the commu-nity level) were organizations, at the organiza-tional level the subsystems will be at the grouplevel etc. It is also clear that many of the 20 criticalprocesses may not actually be fulfilled by thesubsystems at the assumed level, but often must be dispersed, usually downwardly dispersed, but sometimes also upwardly, or laterally oroutwardly dispersed (Miller, 1978).

One obvious hypothesis is that by determiningthe values of the six key dimensions for a givensystem, we can predict whether it will have touse dispersal or not (i.e. be partipotential) or is infact totipotential, and so not in need of dispersal.For example a small (P) organization withinadequate technology (T) and a dearth of skilled

workers (I), may have many unfilled positions(O), and may have to utilize dispersal much moreto fulfil the 20 critical processes than would alarger (P) organization with more computers (T)and a better-educated (I) staff.

Although PILOTS or IPLOTS complementsLST well, the PILOTS formulation is even morevaluable when we add energy to it explicitly, to



298 K. D. Bailey



form EIPLOTS. Now the presence of both energyand information in SET makes it even morecomplementary to LST, which emphasizes theprocessing of both energy and information. Thevalue of EIPLOTS as a complement to LST is thatit provides the context for the operation of the 20

critical subsystems. In effect, LST makes a latentassumption that all values of EIPLOTS aresufficient for the 20 critical subsystems to operateproperly.

The reality is that the EIPLOTS dimensionsmay not be sufficient for a given system. Theremay not be enough employees in an organization(P), or enough jobs (O), or there could beinsufficient technology (T) or an under-educatedstaff (I). If these deficiencies occur, then it is not atall clear that subsystem processes such asdeciding, encoding, ingesting, transducing etc.

will occur efficiently as Miller envisioned.A little reflection will show that the 20 critical

subsystem processes and the seven key EIPLOTSdimensions are symmetrically related, but gen-erally with a time lag that can very empiricallyfor specific systems, both within and betweenhierarchical levels. For example, at time 1, theoperation of the 20 critical subsystems deter-mines (at least in part) the future levels of EIPLOTS, sometimes directly, and sometimesmore indirectly. The reproducer determinesfuture levels of (P). The decider can determine(S) by specifying the location of systems bound-aries, as when a city expands the city limits byannexing rural land. The technical demands of operations such as encoding and decodingdetermine the type of technology that needs to be purchased.

The operations of the 20 critical subsystems attime 1 determine the particular levels of EIPLOTS at time 2. Subsequently, these particu-lar levels of EIPLOTS at time 2 serve to eitherconstrain or facilitate the operations of the 20

critical subsystems at time 3, and this interlock-ing process of interrelationships between the 20critical subsystems and the EIPLOTS dimensionscontinues throughout the life of the system.

In addition to the interrelationships betweenthe 20 critical subsystems and EIPLOTS, there arealso clear symmetrical relationships among theseven EIPLOTS dimensions, so that change in

one results in change in one or more others(but perhaps only after a considerable time lag).Each of the seven dimensions can be analysedonce as a dependent variable (as a function of theother six), and six times as independent variablesin the respective equations of the six other

variables.

ENTROPY

A point of congruence in LST and SET is that both utilize the concept of entropy. However,SET emphasizes entropy much more than LSTdoes. Entropy has been widely analysed both inphysics and in information theory (see Bailey,1990, 1994). Both notions are directly relevant inLST. Physical entropy applies directly to the 10

matter-energy processing subsystems, while sta-tistical entropy as studied by Shannon (1949) andothers applies directly to the 10 information-processing variables. The first four key EIPLOTSdimensions provide some direct measurement of entropy. If the levels of energy (E), information(I), population (P) and level of living (L) all wentto zero, this would indicate system death, andmaximum entropy. This would leave no viablesystem to organize, or to utilize technology, or tooccupy space. Thus, the larger goal of the 20critical subsystems is to combat entropy, andkeep it well-below maximum levels, as reflectedin optimum values of EIPLOTS.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Living Systems Theory has had an impact far beyond that indicated by measurements such ascitation indices. Its role in maintaining thevisibility and viability of systems theory is trulyimmeasurable. Clearly, LST provides the most

comprehensive analysis of internal-systemoperations with its presentation of the 20 criticalsubsystems.

What is lacking in Living Systems Theoryis chiefly the analysis of the key EIPLOTSdimensions, as provided by Social EntropyTheory. The EIPLOTS dimensions are generallyrelatively easy to measure in numerical terms,






thus furthering Miller’s dream of a quantifiedsystems theory. Together, LST and SET provide acomprehensive analysis of both the macrostructure (as indicated by EIPLOTS) and the 20critical internal processes of all living systems atall eight levels.

REFERENCES

Bailey KD. 1990. Social Entropy Theory. State Universityof New York Press: Albany.

Bailey KD. 1994. Sociology and the New Systems Theory:Toward a Theoretical Synthesis. State University of New York Press: Albany.

Bailey KD. 1995. The use of space in livingsystems theory: applications. Systems Practice 8: 85–106.

Collins R. 1975. Conflict Sociology: Toward an Explana-tory Approach. Academic Press: New York.

Miller JG. 1978. Living Systems. McGraw Hill:New York.

Miller JL, Miller JG. 1992. Greater than the sum of itsparts I: subsystems which process both matter-energy and information. Behavioral Science 37: 1–38.

Parsons T. 1951. The Social System. The Free Press:Glencoe, Illinois.

Parsons T. 1979. Concrete systems and ‘abstracted’systems. Contemporary Sociology 8: 696–705.

Prigogine I. 1955. Introduction to Thermodynamics of Irreversible Processes. Charles C. Thomas: Springfield,Illinois.



300 K. D. Bailey

Living Systems Theory and Social Entropy

Documents

Transcript of Living Systems Theory and Social Entropy