© kostov.ru













































































































Kostov Sergey Viktorovich

Novosibirsk State University


A development of any formed system goes on by the simple tectological scheme: «differentiation – counterdifferentiation». From the history of humankind it is known that the most stable social formations were the systems based on authoritarianism. The authoritarian system is a collective constructed on authoritarian cooperation, on authority-submission, i.e. on controlling role of some and executive role of others. Such were patriarchal tribal community, feudal society, serfdom-based and slaveholding organization, police-bureaucratic state; a modern army has the same character, and on the smallest scale — a family; and at last, a modern enterprise is constructed on authority-submission. The authoritarian system has the «Achilles’ heel», the weakest complex, — it is the control center (egressor), which vulnerability is generated by the internal contradiction between it and the periphery. The essence of this contradiction is in that the organizing function, i.e. structural adaptation of all system, depends entirely on the individual brain of an authority, or a ruler, whereas the scale of organizational life is collective. Therefore a partial and at least short-term individual insufficiency is reflected in all collective, sometimes irreparably or even in disastrous way. In tectology such system vulnerability is expressed by the principle of minimum, according to which stability of a system depends directly on stability of its weakest complex. Historically for all period of the development the authoritarian system has already passed the stage of differentiation and at the present moment is in the stage of counterdifferentiation, i.e. of integration into a new stable formation. In other words, the epoch of individualism, which we experience now, is unstable by virtue of that it is the transient stage between two equilibrium systems, the authoritarian one of the old pattern with control centre – an individual brain, and of the new pattern with collective control centre. The aspirants for the role of global egressor integrate all existing social systems, i.e. all authoritarian societies of the old pattern, into a single global whole with new type of authoritarianism, but internally contradictory as well as the old one.

From 1917 to 1991 the process of counterdifferentiation had two tendencies, arogenic and catagenic, i.e. as a matter of fact there were two counterdifferentiations: one globalized the society into a single arogenic whole, in which the coherence of interests of the center and periphery was observed, i.e. their purposes were identical, and the other – into a single catagenic whole with incoherent development of the central and peripheric complexes. Till 1941 there was dominated the second tendency, which after the aggravation in 1941-1945 lost the leading positions, by virtue of what since March 1946 up to 1991 there was established the «cold» confrontation between two competing tendencies, but when, starting from March 1985, the principle of minimum played its fatal role at last, the first tendency lost the parity positions, and since 1991 the global tendency of the catagenic type began to dominate again. However in case of its complete success, and irrespective of the fact, which scenario will be specifically realized at that, a created global system will be knowingly unstable by virtue of the same internal contradictoriness inherent in it, and as a consequence two outcomes of historical development of the global civilization are possible: either its collapse or transition to stable authoritarian system with the center, arogenic to the periphery. In tectology such a transition is referred to as system harmonization, as a result of which the social entropy is minimized and all social energy, which has been formerly spent for internal antagonism of the center and periphery, is inverted to the struggle against the external nature for more successful adaptation to it. Such a system with minimal internal contradictions is in tectology referred to as synergic: the conditions of system stability (preponderance of assimilation over disassimilation and of synergy over dissipation, i.e. of intrasystem harmonization over contradictions) and the condition of organizational symmetry (intra- and extrasystem relations are arranged on complementary basis) are realized in it. The process of systemogenesis «differentiation – counterdifferentiation» described above is a single tectological act, in which the «cold» confrontation of the two most active and largest integrations of the global society is only one of the organizational moments perceived by us as a certain epoch only in comparison with the period of life of one generation. Tectologically this moment is characterized by huge waste of the internal energy on the social antagonism that in whole hampers the development of all social system, thereby considerably reducing its adaptation to the constantly changing external conditions. Meanwhile they can change so unfavourably for it that the system will simply have no time to adapt to them: either it will develop for this no corresponding form of adaptation or it will have no means for this. The presence of huge expenditures on the social antagonism argues the immaturity of humankind as reasonable race.

If humankind, being integrated into a single whole, intends to settle down comfortably in the continuously changing environment, it should enter into the struggle for existence as reasonable race, economically and expediently using the available means, but not to dissipate them on internal «showdowns», thereby reducing the potential of own development. A huge expenditure of social energy is already implied by the very process of forming of a center in general, not to speak of its catagenity, but even more grandiose expenditures are promised in the future by existence of such a center. Humankind with such a «brain» can be compared with a narcomaniac, or more exactly, with a madman. From the energy point of view the ratio of social energy used expediently by humankind to all spent energy can be compared with the coefficient of efficiency of steam engine – and hence the corresponding pace of the development: figuratively speaking, we creep and foul. Humankind will do not survive with such evolutionary engine. It is only the arogenic variant of the global civilization with the center, coherent to the periphery, i.e. to all humankind in whole, that is optimally reliable and simultaneously saving as well.





















































































eXTReMe Tracker