SOCIAL STASIS AND DYNAMICS

Evolution has two distinct aspects-- genetic and extra-genetic. When we talk about genetic evolution the obvious reference is to the biological evolution on our planet, whereas extra-genetic evolution is the environmental factors impacting the biological evolutionary process. These two factors are important for all living organism on our planet. However, human evolution has a third important aspect that is the societal evolution. Though, this aspect is included in the extra-genetic bracket: knowing its profound impact it needs separate emphasis, particularly to understand the concept of "social construct"

Society is like a biological organism and is in a constant process of evolution. It is based on two opposite trends-- stasis and dynamics. Both these antithetical trends balance the "social construct"-- an imbalance can lead either to stagnation or revolution. Either of these two trends is likely to cause social decadence or chaos.

"Social construct" involves the whole gamut of social transactions and institutions. It is like circles within circles. For example, the largest circle for the human beings embraces the entire human society. As human beings broadly we share certain beliefs, institutions, moral codes; and also we sometimes tend to create new institutions effective for our social transactions on global perspectives. We also influence one another culturally, economically and politically. This large circle evolves on a continuous basis with the changing time, with participation and adaption by all individuals of human society. A few centuries ago this large circle of human society had a different construct than what it is today. With every new scientific and technological progress the intermingling in this larger circle has become more frequent thereby greatly influencing the smaller circles. The rapid growth in telecommunication, internet and aviation technology has transformed this largest circle in a very significant way.

As regards the inner circles of "social construct", the inner circles, though get influenced by the larger outer circles, display their distinct identities through their unique cultural traits, institutions, belief system, behavioral pattern, languages, ethics and moralities etc. These inner circles further tend to form smaller circles with peculiar local traits. Smaller the circle the individual identification and ties are stronger to the social group. Because of this we find sects, sub-sects, dialects within same linguistic groups, division within religious group. This is a strange human psychological trait that necessitates division of the large to smaller unit for better interaction and assertion of individual identity. But this part of "social construct" evolves unceasingly within the dynamics of the larger framework of "social construct"in the outer circle.

Now coming back to the stasis and dynamics of "social construct"-- these to forces almost act with equal potency in 'social construct" process. The stasis represents conservation and the dynamic represents innovation. This is also sometimes described as generation gap. The conservatives always endeavor to keep their institutions, belief systems, social code of conducts unchanged; whereas the innovation inside the society spares no effort to usher in changes leading to social tension. If these two conflicting forces do not act in antithesis the conservatives will stagnant the "social construct" process to the point of complete regression and if the innovation becomes excessively preponderant, the tendency towards destabilization of the all established institutions will lead to social revolution, loss of equilibrium and construct moving towards chaos and anarchy.

In a "social construct" process over dominance of conservation is fatal-- indicating application of force by the conservatives to stop the power of innovation. Such societies are authoritarian-- ruled either by dictatorial regimes or by totalitarian religious fundamentalists. A society that shows unusual dynamism is, for sure, leading towards a revolution. But to choose between the two, the latter is more preferred to the former from "social construct" point of view.