Mariusz Gulczyski

Transformations of the Social Systems

Methods and Directions
The transformations of the social systems is when the existing form of organization of social life are replaced by another one. The most favorable methods of forming functional the social systems are possible not by revolutions and wars, but by means of evolutionary transformation, by the gradually introduced reforms with consent and support of the majority of the society.
Whether, how and to what degree a social system can be changed, in other words the entirety of ideas, rules and institutions organizing correlative behaviour of the society? It becomes a key question again, in the presence of Polish and other European post communist countries citizens not being satisfied with the previous form of societal system and of the efforts to organize their social life better. Conclusions drawn from historical experiences could be helpful in answering that question, and especially the analyses of the process of the two succeeding full-scale life transformations in Poland: forty years of building autocratic socialism and twenty years of democratic capitalism. Changes are sometimes beneficial - when they modify or replace the outdated or less humanitarian societal system with the one which increases chances to survive and to gain life satisfaction by members of the society. Changes can also be negative, resulting in the social system degradation or replacing it by a worse one from the point of view of social life reproduction requirements. However, history of mankind does not confirm the idea, characteristic of scientific communism", of giant steps forward. Social systems transformation are carried under the influence of various factors. They are the result of the changes in the natural environment (cataclysms, degeneration of environment), as well as people's actions. People influence on the social system changes both in an unintended way, and by conscious actions. Both happen to be an outcome of the internal forces of a given society, and, which is most common, also of the outside forces directed towards the society, such as wars or the influence of the victorious powers on the post-war order. The influence of human behavior and actions on forming a social systems usually assumes a double shape:

1. An organized action of forces aiming at implementing or arresting changes. This kind of conscious, intentional actions aimed at modeling social systems I define as social system engineering. This notion is a derivative of social engineering, but it is narrower, as the second one contains all forms of influencing people's views and behavior, including the most distinct and, in this day and age, the most common form, that is advertising. 2. The spontaneous reaction of different groups of the society to social system transformations. Such a reaction can be of a triple nature: a) forcing changes, b) assenting to changes, c) resisting changes. The final shape of a social system happens to be the resultant of the above-mentioned factors. The progress of civilization is here based on the assumption that in the prehistoric, ancient and medieval times people tended to be dependent on the traditionally shaped social system, and therefore changes were most often an unintended effect of the workings of spontaneous elements, both external and environmental. However, since the Enlightenment an increasing conviction as far as adjusting the social system to the aspirations of significant groups of the society can be observed, and therefore also an eventful development of actions termed here as social system engineering. It was distinctly started by the French Revolution, it reached its zenith after the October Revolution in the form of "building" real socialism. It does not disappear, however, when this social system collapsed in East-Central Europe, which is expressed by the attempts to make use of the methods and means of social system engineering in "building" capitalism in these countries. Therefore, scientific reflection on the methods and directions of the executing of social order transformations is necessary, especially on the conditions of their efficiency. While generalizing historical experience it can be recapitulated that the instruments of social system engineering happen to be of a dual type: 1. persuasion and compromise, and 2. command and constraint. Most often we deal with the reaching for both sets of these instruments by those trying to influence the form of social system. When the first type is predominant we deal with democratic methods and if the second type is dominant with the despotic ones. The form of the State's social system can be most effectively influenced, as it is proven by historical experience, by means of social system engineering. Mostly by changes in legal regulations and by transforming state institutions. Next, the state authorities become the main center of the forming political, economic, social, and axiological order, in other

words, the remaining components of the social structure. although they arc more refractory to the constructivist exertions, especially the ones from the arsenal of command and constraint. These spheres of social matter undergo transformation the least painfully, and at the same time most lastingly, when the measures aiming at them arc assisted by the spontaneous processes of constraining societal systems changes by significant groups, or at least agreeing to them, but they neither replace nor block them. The optimum method of transforming a societal system is therefore the supporting the natural, spontaneous social processes in the desirable direction. It is somehow more related to the technique of crops production, than to the technocratic construction of unrestricted forms, admissible as far as inanimate matter. The social system engineering serves various purposes:
preservative, aiming at the defense social order (which usually causes an sometimes not only of some specified of the society, the classical example is and conservation of the existing ongoing degeneration and decline. form of the social system, but also the fate of Byzantium);

modification, aimed at adjusting the declining social system to new requirements by applying minor corrections but without changing its essence (as a rule non effective in saving the falling formation, the examples of which are both the 3 May Constitution of Poland, as well as various modifications of real socialism); evolutionary modernization - pragmatic adjustment of a societal system losing its functionality to new requirements by authoritatively enforced progressive reforms (enabling sometimes the overcoming of critical situations and enabling social progress, the most expressive examples of which are modern capitalist democracies); revolutionary replacement of the existing social system by a quantitatively different one by means of force (we have witnessed and participated in its results since the socialist revolution); refolutionary transformation - peaceful replacement by combination of revolution (therefore the beginning part of the name "re"), and evolutional transformation of the social system losing its functionality by another better suited to the new requirements groups (what is reflected by the end of the first part of the name "ref) [Ash: 9]; restoration - aiming at the reinstatement of the former form of government overthrown by the revolution (the deceptiveness of this type of attempts is most clearly demonstrated by the results of the Restoration in France after 1815; transplantation - the adoption of the form of societal system from other, usually better developed societies (which usually takes place in post colonial and dependent countries).

These are directions and way's to influence the shape of the social system defined in a model manner. However, in practice a compilation of different

tendencies and types of social system engineering is the-most frequent case. Faith in the efficiency of social system engineering, in other words the faith in the possibility of constructing social system in accordance with the attempts of people executing it, is the strongest in the case of revolution, restoration, transplantation and, recently, also refolution, that is to say, changes introduced fast and usually forced by significant groups of the society and connected with applying command and constraint. It is a paradox, but it also happens that democracy is introduced "at a command", as it was done by the Americans after they had defeated Japan. Since the conditions there were appropriate at that time, the introduction turned out to be successful. The fate of similar attempts to transplant democratic form of government in the post-colonial African countries seems to testify that Japan was an exception to the rule. In case of evolutionary modernization it depended on the circumstances, since changes were introduced both authoritatively, by the dictate of autocratic leaders (i.e. Bismarck or Atatrk), and also by means of democratic social agreement (vide transformations of Western capitalist countries in consequence of the Great Depression and the Second World War). Generalizing historical experience of many different societies a thesis may be submitted that the more efficient (in other words, permanent in the long run) and beneficial (that is increasing the chances of survival and achieving life satisfaction) were the very cases of social system engineering, convergent with the spontaneous extortion of social system change, or at least allowing it to happen by significant groups of the society. Any efforts to impose a social system against the will of the majority of active social forces usually ended up with negative results to the society and the immediate collapse of the system created this way. Evolutionary transformation assumes the overcoming of what is most painful and negative in strategies based on the acceleration of transformations, in other words, on abusing social system engineering, of revolution, restoration and transplantation. Its substance is as follows:

greater trust in proceedings arising from low levels; spontaneous, evolutionary social system-creating processes and therefore restricting social system engineering to stimulating what is most advantageous in them and blocking what is disadvantageous, mainly by democratic changes in the social system of the state and its policies; tolerance, compromise and co-operation of all citizens irrespective of former involvement and current ideological and political divisions, which could make possible a more complete use of the potential of talents and activities of the society as the most essential factor of every development;

continuation of everything what was objectively beneficial and is still functional in the former social systems, including real socialism, that is to say, creating a new order not "on the ruins", which was the major sin both of the socialist period of forty years and of the capitalist period of the first years of transformation, but "on the foundations" all of the riches of the past; opening the door to innovations and modifications resulting from theory, and experiences of others, flexible initiation by means of an experiment proceeding from the low levels but neither by coercion nor orders given from above.

The shape of the social system formed in the process of evolutionary transformation is not predetermined. It is vastly a result of the gradual "adaptation" of ideas, rules and institutions organizing social life to the changing needs and abilities. The constructive activities are limited to creating general framework of a constitutional type and supporting the advantageous aspects of the transformation process and blocking the disadvantageous ones. And that is what it is all about nowadays, not at all about "building" socialism or capitalism, since in the face of present and future challenges all hitherto existing societal system forms turn out to be unsatisfactory. It is time to grow wise after the loss and to replace the doctrinaire presumptions as to the chances of constructing a better social system with a more pragmatic approach. Such a turn would mean taking into consideration the conclusions drawn from the recent history of Poland (as well as from other societies) and, therefore, disengaging from the repetitive inclination to hypertrophy of social system engineering - an excessive faith in its efficiency and social advantages. However, it is worth noticing that an excessive faith in applying conclusions of science drawn from historical experiences is nothing else but an indication of the presumption regarding the capabilities of social system engineering. Indeed, taking advantage of historical experiences does happen sometimes, but only when there appear forces and conditions creating demand for a rational improvement of social system, as they appeared at the time of constituting the United States of America or, later, in post-Franco Spain. A similar chance came into being during the Round Table period in Poland as well. The reformers, originating from both sides of the barricade united their efforts to improve the Republic of Poland, the indisputable result of such unity was a peaceful initiation of far-reaching transformations of Poland's social system.

Sources:
Mariusz Gulczyski: Methods and Directions of Social System Transformation, [in:] The Future of East-Central Europe, Lublin 1996 ISBN 83-227-0856-4;

Mariusz Gulczyski: Panorama systemw politycznych wiata, Warszawa 2004 ISBN 83-7059-643-6; Mariusz Gulczyski: Nauka o polityce, Warszawa 2007 ISBN 978-83-60197-49-3 Mariusz Gulczyski: Kreowanie demokracji - z dysput o celach i metodach polskiej transformacji, Warszawa 2008 ISBN 978-83-60197-7 Mariusz Gulczyski: Kapita polityczny Okrgego Stou [w:] www.Dysputowanie.Bloog Mariusz Gulczyski: Politologia - podrcznik akademicki, Warszawa 2010 IBNS 978-83-60197-90-5