The New Global Community

Zohar Ben-Asher asked:


Bureaucracy, Organisation and Political Change

A Critical Analysis of Approaches to the Study of Organisation

by Prof. Zohar Ben-Asher

It is of rather common agreement that organisation, at least originally, was formed in order to pursue the common interests of specific groups [1]. It is far from being agreed, however, what roles are played by various sorts of internal organisational structures, especially when somehow related to political change.

Weber, for example, perceived politics in terms of dispositions over weapons and over means of administration [2]. This implies the existence of overt or covert political classification. The key to such a classification would be a certain formula by which organisational structure would be determined. It might resemble the supposed Marxist classification of economic epochs and the “economic” classes that feature in this type of classification. A question thus might arise: Why would Weber have to follow Marx in essence but still differ in as much as he chose to change the keys for classification.

One, perhaps oversimplified, possible answer is that Weber simply “does not see anything attractive in socialism.” [3] This is what Gerth and Mills had suggested, maybe because it was them who found socialism so unattractive. But as it were, the difference between Marx and Weber goes beyond this level of argumentation. It indicates their profoundly different concepts of what is politics. Both of them perceived and understood politics as a process that reveals itself and is reflected through organisation. But it was not the same organisation for these two thinkers. The difference was mainly in the way they viewed the structure of this process.

Bureaucracy represents political organisation, reflecting its very system and its philosophy. It might well be one of the most important (if not the most important) criteria against which examination of the political organisation could be made. Also, it could serve to examine “politics in action” or in other words – political change. While some of the inherent characteristics of bureaucracy would be its political orientation, it does not automatically go the other way around. That is, it would not be necessary that bureaucratic phenomena should characterise every political organisation. It seems, however, highly likely that they would play an important role in political change. In many cases they would reflect the motivational drives of the political organisation and its structural restraints.

Within the political organisation, bureaucracy not only reflects these drives but it also – possibly even more sharply – indicates situational structures. It may thus be that organisations such as a revolutionary movement would tend to place limits on trends towards the development of bureaucracy, or even eliminate them altogether; at least during the time of struggle to change or purge incumbent regime. The shift would come, however, with the actual take over of political power and the establishment of this movement as the sovereign regime. It would be then, almost without fail that development of the new bureaucratic structure begins. The course of development of the new bureaucratic structure would indicate the direction of the political change. More precisely, it would indicate the interests pushed forward by this change. This observation may point at one of the significant differences between Marx and Weber. It is rather outstanding that the former examined bureaucracy – and organisation – mainly as they functioned in and related to economic interests. The latter placed much more stress on the judicial and administrative aspects of bureaucracy. These, for Marx, were means to the end of promoting economic interests. For Weber, they constituted the very end in itself.

Yet, organisational inner structure may be viewed somewhat differently. It could well represent the result of an equation, the components of which are the different interest groups within the organisation. Certain roles within it would be especially sensitive because they could influence its development. For once, they might be able to determine the type of bureaucracy that would develop. Or they even might become themselves bureaucratic. In particular, the ability to exercise control over information and communications system seems to be crucial. This is so because those who control sources of information might be– even in a fully-fledged democracy – the only ones who really have the accurate picture of the situation. If this were to be the case, they would be in a much better position than anyone else and retain a distinct advantage in the political game that takes place within the organisation. [4] This factor, like other such factors pertaining to the inner composition of a given organisation would have direct influence on the prospects of political change. Moreover, as the process of change takes place, the inner structure may determine to a great extent the character and direction of the change.

The Cultural Revolution of China was possible because of the special inner structure that enabled Mao to “go to the people” while circumventing the regular procedures of mass mobilisation that normally practised in China. Liu Shaoqi, Peng Chen and others may have controlled the bureaucratic apparatus of the Party. They could manipulate the people only through the regular channels of operation that were available to them. These channels required certain complicated preparatory work in order to be effective. Mao, on the other hand, dissociated himself from the bureaucratic formation. He managed to establish himself as having “over-bureaucratic” status. This allowed him an unmitigated access to the people and enabled him to mobilise them directly. This difference, between the tools that Mao had and those of his opponents, was the determinant factor that shaped the mode of the Revolution and, in fact, its results.

Role distribution, value structure, authority and other components of political organisation may differ not only from one society to another. They can also change from time to time in the same society due to either internal or external reasons. Yet all of these phenomena, while placed in the timeless and space-less framework, compose a theoretical setting in which generalisation of the relationship between the different factors can be observed. This is what Talcott Parsons called “total society.” [5]

It might be very tempting to deal with generalisations of this sort. Due to their “theoretical level” they can afford to disregard “details” such as background, special socio-economic realities and environment, religious pressures and so forth. But we must be aware of some essential and lingual restraints that have to be placed on such a procedure of investigation. These are not at all like mathematical models that so many social scientists favour – maybe because they should be based on “closed sets.” [6] Here, in social and behavioural sciences the basic presupposition is open-ended since by definition it may assume unpredictable and constant changes. [7] In this sense, attempts “to fill in gaps in different aspects of the total field which any future attempt to deal with a complex society as a whole” [8] can never be satisfactory. It may be merely of a situational value within a certain unit of space and time.

It is only with this in mind that the examination of the relations between bureaucracy and organisation and political change in their general aspects can be done.

* * *

Organisation, we have seen, is really a function – at least as much as it is a structure. Its existence depends on its participants and on a common goal they wish to pursue. It might be valid in some cases to argue that “the output of the organisation is, for some other system, an input.” But it is not necessary that in its mere being, “organisation is a system, which as the attainment of its goal ‘produces’ an identifiable something which can be utilised in some way bay another system.” [9] Thus, it is not necessarily true that description of analysis of an organisation can only be done from “the cultural-institutional point of view.” [10] However, these two approaches to the examination of a given organisation are, presumably, very convenient and enable analytical coverage of the whole scope.

The point of necessity, or the consistency of such a necessity, is further debatable. It was Parsons himself who questioned the internal consistency of Weber’s ideal type of organisation (in regard to authority and obedience within organisations). [11] His arguments repeated above tend to suffer the same sort of disadvantages.

For Parsons, values of organisation function to legitimise its existence as a system and its main functional mode of operation. These, In Parsons’ opinion, are necessary for the implementation of values. [12] Such a legitimisation, he maintain, enables the organisation to determine the codes of loyalty to be demanded of members of the organisation. Yet, no solution is offered for cases where membership can be actively engaged in more than just one organisation. Organisations, according to Parsons, in their very existence, set obligations and demands. They are deduced from the values and goals (that are, as such, embedded in the values) of each organisation. These demands and obligations define and set limits for loyalty and attempt to direct it towards the organisation. But what if the organisation in question is a part of a larger one? Or, as may happen also, what if the organisation favours or prefers interests of another organisation to its own, as far as loyalty is concerned? [13] The direct ratio loyalty – value – organisation cannot, therefore, be “total” and must be changed to an indirect one. Such a change could violate the placement of loyalty in the set of values by detaching the goals from these values. Then there will be room for arguing that values are related to the structure and the inner functions. Or logically, there will be rules for deduction and operation while goals are the presuppositions or the axioms of the system. Only when this consistency is attained – and only in such an order – can changes in goals precede structural changes of an organisation.

The logical order makes the difference in the analysis of political change. It indicates the effect of processes on each other. The Parsonian “logic” enables merely a “cause-effect” system in which the cause is structural change and the effect is the political change. This is unlike the philosophical-mathematical logic that begins in the change of goals as the indicator for political change. Here there is a process in which political change might have an impact on the mode, direction and intensity of the entire social process; certainly as it pertains to organisational structures.

Another point in Parsons that should be noted is associated with his approach to the problem of division of labour and its related aspects. Parsons states: “In a complex division of labour, both the resources necessary for performing technical functions and the relation to the population elements on whose behalf the functions are performed have become problematical. Resources are made available by special arrangements; they are not simply ‘given’ in the nature of the context of the function. And who shall be the beneficiary of what ‘product’ or ‘services’ on what terms is problematical; this becomes focus of organisational arrangement of many different kinds.” [14]

The core of the problems, according to Parsons, lies in the fact that beyond “a certain point” of the progress of division of labour, decisions which determine the mode of this division are concerned more with the relations of the beneficiaries than with the technical employment of resources. The process of decision-making would be one of the essential modifiers of the organisation. It would thus be technically motivated and the organisational capacity to control the involved population would become the supreme criterion for distribution of goods or social amenities. But, distribution of goods is a function of the distribution of labour. Yet, the Parsonian formula, although perceiving this, detaches it from the values of the organisation [15] of which the distribution of labour is an inherent constituent. There is here a gross inconsistency, as the dependency is not expressed.

Adopting Parsons’ approach, one can logically draw a situation where distribution of work, which is a political reality, leads to a situational, non-politically motivated distribution of goods. This is a contradictory description and it is both logically and practically invalid. If such a detachment of distribution of goods from values is assumed, then, an actual given division of labour could be treated as a value of the organisation. Its result, that is, distribution of goods, would also remain within the set. Both might thus be subject to modifications and re-modifications by virtue of them being situational variables. This, while the concept of (cf. actual) division of labour is one of the constituents of the organisational goals. Employment of resources, preferences and “technical functions” as well as manipulation (mode and context) of population by the system are, in this view, reflections and expressions of both the given structural mode and ideological stage of the organisation. They are also a direct function of values and at the same time, indirect function of goals. In this sense, the former presentation [16] is inconsistent but there are examples that can be explained logically. Such are China’s payment of interest to former capitalists as a compensation for their investment in enterprises prior to the take over of the CCP or the Israeli preference of non-developed and developing areas in erecting industry.

The analysed relations are of vital importance for the understanding of the kind of organisations that develop (bureaucracy, in our case) and for the understanding of this development.

S. N. Eisenstadt discusses several conditions that he considers necessary for the development of a bureaucratic organisation. These conditions basically represent differentiation in the social system. The bureaucratic organisation [17] develops in relation to such differentiation because it “can help coping with some of the problems arising out of such differentiation,” [18] especially hose whose main concern is the co-ordination of large-scale activities.

Some of the conditions required for the development of a bureaucracy pertain to the differentiation between roles and institutional spheres. Allocation of roles not in accordance with “natural” groups (like kin and familial cells) but rather in accordance with “artificial” ones (like religious, professional and national groups) is an example of these types of differentiation. It could also result from the existence of “many functionally specific groups” that do not operate within the ‘natural’ organisations. The common ground for these conditions lies in that they represent gaps between the two types of organisations. On the one hand, there is some kind of “natural” organisation (that can be described in biological terms, e.g., the blood relationships). On the other, the “artificial” organisation in which the ties are based on specific interests that may or may not be in contrast with those of the “natural” organisation. This sort of gap can be, in fact must be viewed as basically qualitative one. The other conditions brought by Eisenstadt seem to create gaps whose main characteristics are more of quantitative nature. In this range appear the differences between scopes: of “natural” groups and cultural, social or national ones; of number and complexity of functions of these two kinds of groups and the complexity of ties that should be maintained by different groups. [19]

The last condition, however, seems to involve both qualitative and quantitative characteristics. It is related to the extent of “free-floating” resources like manpower, economic resources, commitments and so forth.

The development of these conditions, maintains Eisenstadt, may very well result in the development of a bureaucratic system. This sort of organisation is likely to be initiated as an attempt by role (and power) holders to mobilise resources and to resolve various problems that they may face.

But it is not an isolated process that brings about the creation and development of a bureaucratic system. These things take place in a particular social organisation. For this reason, they would always also include conscious efforts to achieve equilibrium within this organisation. Equilibrium is needed not only to stabilise the organisation but also because it is a primary condition for the bureaucracy “to maintain its autonomy and distinctiveness” as Eisenstadt puts it.

Yet, according to Eisenstadt, there is also another process that may take place in such a situation: that is, de-bureaucratisation. He claims, and it appears to be a rather solid argument, that “the tendencies toward bureaucratisation and de-bureaucratisation may, in fact, develop side by side.” This is because the process of refining and definitions made by the bureaucracy as to its autonomy and goals may very well lead to the taking over of some of its “very functions and activities” by “other groups of organisation.” This could happen “when some organisation (i.e., a parents’ association or a religious or political group) attempts to direct the rules and working of a bureaucratic organisation (school, economic agency and so forth) for its own use or according to its own values and goals.” [20]

This approach towards the phenomenon of bureaucracy may seem contradictory. But given the conditions for the evolution of bureaucracy, it is in fact consistent one. The bureaucratic organisation in itself consists of well-defined groups of role holders. So constituted, any given bureaucracy seeks to refine the definitions for each role within itself. This contributes to further isolation of groups of role holders. Although this isolation is initially a functional one, it may extend itself to other spheres of life. Moreover, such a process that leads to isolation not only can be seen in itself as a process of de-bureaucratisation. It can also be perceived as a source of tacit – or even open – competition for power. During the stage of inception of the bureaucracy, there are attempts to make definitions of functions and group as accurate as the can be. The motivation behind this is the aspiration to increase and improve the co-operation and effectiveness of the different branches so they all would contribute to the consolidation of the bureaucracy in question. But now, once it is established and secure, the motivations change. The mere fact of progress along time span changes conditions. Gaps that could be ignored at the initial stages slowly enter the focus of the debate (either the internal one or even the public discourse). What previously had been regarded as organisational and – or – functional relations may now become political relations and struggle for power. On the other hand, the more the bureaucracy has been able to establish itself as a complex system, the greater would be the power required to operate and control this system. The intensity of the struggle for power also becomes greater and certain roles that involve functions of control and power could be used (and normally they are indeed being used) against or over opponents and – or – supporters in such areas as education, communications, information, etc. Accordingly, they also become more and more important.

The holders of such roles recognise the increasing importance of their roles. It would only be expected, therefore, that they would try to further promote such a definition of their role(s) that would help them to perpetuate their hold on this role. This would, in turn, increase the important of the role even further. But other role holders would do the same, at the same time and within the same bureaucratic framework. This creates an internal competition within the bureaucracy that paradoxically would create forces of disunity. Stress on competence and de-centralisation of power would be likely to follow and would contribute to the undermining of the entire system. At this stage it could be expected that various pivotal forces – or it could be frustrated ones – that would attempt to break the framework of the bureaucracy. Amongst those that would be likely to participate in this process we could find not only those in power, but also role holders whose roles are less important or under threat. The members of this last group wish, of course, to promote their position and the best way to do so would be to elevate the importance of their role. This creates tension because in effect, such a process is nothing less than a clear attempt to break the monopoly of the important roles and to actually neutralise them. The struggle might be focused on the issue of “what should replace the existing format of bureaucracy.” Each contesting group would come up with quite different solutions, naturally.

In light of this discussion, it seems that the presentation offered by Eisenstdt’s would be not only useful but also consistent and valid.

There might be an inference from this to the arena of political change. Political change, it might be argued, should be regarded simultaneously as input and an output of the process of bureaucratisation and de-bureaucratisation as described above. When analysing an organisation, it could be attached to the set as one of the essential values of the bureaucratic organisation. Not only philosophically (to support logical validity) but also practically.

This attitude differs significantly from Weber’s view of the ideal bureaucracy. [21] Moreover, Weber stated that “when those subject to bureaucratic control seek to escape the influence of the existing bureaucratic apparatus, this is normally possible only by creating an organisation of their own which is equally subject to the process of bureaucratisation.” [22] That is to say, according to the approach presented, that Weber really failed to see the entire picture. While it may well be true that such a tendency (of bureaucratisation of the group) could exist, it is precisely this process that indicates the de-bureaucratisation of the roof organisation (of which this group has been or still is a part). Bureaucratisation of a sub-system implies a tendency to organisational – and many times also ideological – detachment from the system. The weakening of the bureaucratic system by one or more of its sub-systems cannot but result in the de-bureaucratisation of the system. Only in this way could a sub-system aspire and may achieve autonomy and create an independent bureaucratic structure. Equally, only by becoming more and more bureaucratic, can such a sub-system establish its autonomy and weaken the parent system to which it previously belonged.

Another important difference lies in the possible answer to the question of “who controls the existing bureaucratic machinery?” Weber maintains that “such control is possible only to a very limited degree for persons who are not technical specialists.” [23] The other approach, that to great extent views bureaucracy as a reflection of political reality, tolerates the existence of “non-specialist” power and control holders. [24]

Weber maintains that “bureaucratic administration means fundamentally the exercise of control on the basis of knowledge.” [25] Here, he mainly mean technical knowledge or more accurately, professional knowledge that was acquired through previous training. His model might be best fit the professional military. But bureaucracy could exist also in other organisations – formal or informal – certainly if perceived within a political context and even if modified by various changes. If we would stick to the model drawn by Weber, then no political change could result from the operation of the bureaucracy. This is because in his model the role holders can never control in a complete manner the apparatus, without which political changes could not happen. Theoretically, Weber’s ideal bureaucracy is thus very static and as such tends to be practically impossible. It may seem permissible to say that political change would bring about bureaucratisation. But the opposite – which is in fact what happens left, right and centre – is not logically valid if we follow Weber’s pattern and apply to it the same rules of deduction that operate in his own theoretical system.

According to the same theoretical process, struggle of role holders of different professions cannot exist once control has been established and practised. Moreover, use of roles by other role holders would be logically impossible. In this sense, most of Weber’s followers, who may have suggested that such a possibility is implied in Weber’s system, committed a logical error, even if their argument as such proved to be practically true. Indeed, as March and Simon have indicated, in many respects “Weber’s essential proposition that bureaucratises are more efficient (with respect to the goals of the formal hierarchy) than are alternative forms of organisation” is – as a matter of fact – undeniable. [26]

The main logical and philosophical troubles with the Weberian perceptions are anchored not so much in his descriptive model as in the deterministic approach and the inflexibility of the model. While it might be – in situational terms – an accurate description of a given system, analysis of the bureaucratic phenomena in general should have rather focused itself on the process of change. A. Etzioni says: “Modern society is to a large degree a bureaucratic society… Not only does modern society as a whole tend to be bureaucratic, but the most powerful social units of modern society are also bureaucratic.” [27] Yet, the Weber’s approach – and to a great extent also Etzioni’s approach – treat the social complex within a static framework and fail to capture its inherent element of dynamism and change. Thus, in light of these descriptions, it would be impossible to analyse quite a few political events as phenomena that belong in the framework of organisation and bureaucracy. For example, the Chinese protracted warfare prior to the 1949 take over, the Cultural Revolution or the Israeli Protest Movement that followed the 1973 “Yom Kippur” War. Furthermore, if the methodologies adopted by Weber, Etzioni and their like were to be followed, it would also be impossible to analyse, on their own terms, such phenomena as inner struggles within bureaucratic systems, like – say – the Soviet Communist Party to name but one.

Etzioni points out the allocation of means and social integration as other “functional requirements” of society that are carried out and controlled by complex organisations. To him, this is the very bureaucratisation of society. [28] It is true that many functions or roles in almost all societies are characterised by bureaucratic processes. But it would be false both methodologically and logically, as well as a practical error, to ignore the inter-relations of the different agencies between and among themselves and between these agencies and that centre that at least theoretically represents the source of power and control within society. An argument was put forward to “justify” or at least explain this type of false. Arguably, it stems from the fact that at the time when the main theories of bureaucracy and organisation were first formulated, such important factors (or means) as the mass media and mass communications did not exist or were not as central as they are today. Only when, in time, these factors grew more important and significant, could they also enter the theoretical setting as functional agencies rather than mere isolated factors. Factually, this is very true. But these factors must still be considered as independent factors – at least as far as the interplay between the factors themselves takes place. There is no doubt that even in societies where the media are operated and controlled by the state they still influence significantly the system itself and even the entire society. If this is ignored, no real analysis can be offered that would be able to consider political changes – particularly if and when these are somehow related to changes that the organisational system might be undergoing. Such omission is not unavoidable if the Weber-inspired methodology is employed; certainly if without a measure of criticism. [29]

Indeed, it is not really surprising that the definitions of complex organisations tend to be somewhat fluid. We may find, for example, the following:

“The unit organisation exists at a point in time. It remains in existence and is operative only as long as the co-ordinated activity of which it is composed is continuous. Many unit organisations do come into existence, engage in activity and accomplish some unit objective, but they do so within the framework of a total pattern of activity and toward a common goal. Individuals also may engage in individual activity that has as its purpose a fraction of some common purpose rather than a personal goal of the individual. This hierarchy of unit organisations and individual activity, all a part of some common design, may be said to constitute a complex organisation. The latter entity is not continuous and it may be seen as a time-lapse photograph of unit organisations and individual activity, all structured under some common purpose and contributing activity toward some common goal.” [30]

Such a definition cannot hold philosophical validity from its very beginning. Firstly, limitation of time could not be detached from that of space. [31] Secondly, a deterministic, total approach as taken here (”It remains… only as long as… etc.) may easily be countered and upset by examples of deviation (e.g., when part or all of the constituents are changed or cease to operate while the framework of the organisation remains in existence). And once deviation occurs, a set of arguments could not be considered as a complete theory with a closed set of provable theorems based on agreed axioms and rules of deduction. At best, it might be a collection of suggestive arguments that may or may not be true for a given and particular private case. If this is the case, emphasis should be placed on the causality of the arguments stipulated. It must also be noted that any particular description cannot be but a fairly loose proposition. Most of the arguments discussed above attribute some sort of “necessity” to their content. But this cannot be, of course, logical. In fact, it is not even relevant. The entire discussion could only remain within the boundaries of descriptive themes. Any attempt to claim otherwise defies logic and is thus misleading.

Entirely different is the approach offered by G. L. Lippitt in his Organisational Renewal. [32] Lippitt tries to examine organisations and behaviour of both organisations and their particles from a psychological point of view that weighs aspects “that benefit the individual and group in the organisation.” [33] He maintains that the “normal” situation of a system is some sort of a status quo and that change is really a deviation from this status quo. He does not draw the limits – or boundaries – of this status quo and he refrains from a strict definition of the range of the possible changes and from a clear reference to such changes. The organisational world of Lippitt can thus be viewed as either being in total and perennial stability or as subject to total and constant change. Both are permitted if plain logic is applied to the drawn models of Lippitt. Definition of particles, or constituents and their roles cannot be found in his 305-page long book. The same is true as to possible indications of internal or external relations of organisational systems. Even his annotated bibliography that holds additional 9 pages and contains some 52 works seems to be one-sided and heavily biased – and hardly useful.

The following short passage is a typical statement of this work:

“Frustration is experienced by those who think success in mobilising human resources, or in initiating organisation renewal, is simply a matter of education and, perhaps, of using persuasive stimuli reinforced by annual picnics, newsletters and adequate coffee-breaks.” [34]

This is so because: “Organisation renewal is the process of initiating, creating and confronting needed changes so as to make it possible for organisations to become or remain viable, to adapt to new conditions, to solve problems, to learn from experience and to move toward greater organisational maturity.” [35] Not only is the definition itself empty and of no use at all, in terms of the argument or for the examination of theorems (for example, what is “organisational maturity”?) The argument itself, that begins as highly deterministic one, fades and loosens so as to end as a rather simplistic “saloon talk” that cannot be taken seriously.

Indeed, the Chinese situation under Mao is a clear blow to Lippitt’s statement. There, the system was anchored in the belief that success in mobilising human resources is simply a matter of education and the Chinese leadership who thought so did not seem to have been frustrated. But there is a crucial point that lies beyond this level. It must be referred to the logical structure of both definitions. These would serve in a logical model as the axioms while the argument would be, for all practical matters, the theorem. Lack of accuracy is not only a matter of aesthetics. It is precisely what determines the framework of the entire discussion. If any component of either the definition or the argument were to be removed nothing would happen. There is no close definition, nor any solid argument could be found that together might lead to any possible range of strongly based conclusions. This pulls away the ground from underneath Lippitt’s structure, leaving him with no model what so ever. The tendency to observe the organisational phenomena from the viewpoint of a behavioural pattern is, however, interesting. It must be, of course, limited to either individual participants or to particular mechanisms (that are operated by individuals). Under the limit of this condition it might be interesting to examine possible relations between role holders and functions of the system, between and among role holders themselves, etc.

Indeed, within this sort of framework, a discussion concerning the internal communications within organisations could be useful. The question of whether or not some undefined individual is frustrated – or why – could not be traced and answered in general terms. On the other hand, it would be certainly possible to observe the behavioural patterns that result from a specific position of individual within the system. Questions that seek answers as regard to the extent or mode of change that results from the exercising of a particular role in the system that enable its holder to manipulate other people are certainly legitimate. But such questions cannot be found in Lippitt’s work. Also, open-ended or multi-ended answers could be useful, but not if they fail to be within any logical context. A mere collection of statements without foundations and directions cannot replace a serious discussion and analysis.

* * *

Organisations are important as they appear to be because – as March and Simon say – “people spend so much of their time in them.” [36] This is rather a superficial answer, as they admit themselves. But the importance of organisations or the understanding of them is embedded in the fact that distribution of wealth, labour and power, as well as the well being of each of us and the prospects of change – are all related functions of organisational patterns. This in itself means that limitations are placed on the possibility to understand and – or – to describe the core of the organisational activity. This is because the means to do so, that is: language, is by itself a related function of organised patterns. Hence, the only “open” field of understanding is that by which we try to describe through definitions and deductive rules some of the mechanisms of organisational activity. We cannot break out of the framework by merely providing suggestive formulas that can only refer to situational realities.

In this sense, the attempt made by March and Simon to seek explanations that could correspond to the most basic and simple questions arising from the observation of the organisational phenomena, is fruitful. It is so because in this way a methodology for such an observation can be developed. Albeit it is still more inductive than deductive, this type of observation is a key for the understanding of the processes that take place within a given organisation. Furthermore, it serves as a basis for correlating such processes to political change or other activities that are associated with the observed organisation, even if they are not an integrated part of it.

Adopting this policy of observation, March and Simon can cover a relatively large number of viewpoints while not slipping too much to the “absolutist approach” that characterise quite a few other works in the field of organisation.

An important aspect covered by them is that of the relations between the motivational setting of an organisation and the alternatives open to it. This is a question that, as they rightly mention, “has not been examined in any detail in the literature.” [37] The way in which they bring forward this issue is typical of their work and it is certainly worthy of praise. First they suggest a hypothesis while using theorems based on a set of previously formulated definitions. They refrain from falling into the trap of the determinist and absolutist approach and thus they keep from merely offering baseless suggestions. They put forward a series of examples taken from different private cases and make sure to comment on each of these. Only then they attempt to draw a framework for conclusions, while not ignoring that these could only be suggestive in their nature. When dwelling on the questions of motivations and alternatives they suggest the following: “In general, the greater the objective availability of external alternative, the more likely that such alternatives will be evoked.” [38] The terms are well defined and the problem of the “intentions” of the authors is avoided.

These relations seem to be crucial. They correspond to the previously mentioned inter-relations between the components of the bureaucratic system. They also have much to do with the source of political change that may occur within, or in connection with, a certain bureaucracy. Availability of alternatives, as March and Simon indicate points at two kinds of ranges. One is the objective range of alternatives. The other range is that of what seem to be as alternatives to various participants within the system. Considering the interplay of groups of interest within a bureaucratic set, the distinction between the two ranges tend to be associated with and influenced by the structure of the set. This is also true for the attempts made by the set – or its leadership – to materialise such alternatives in the least disharmonious manner. The motivational factor must therefore be closely associated with the identity of the players. It would be so both in the realm of individual-group relations and in the realm of inter-group relations.

There seems to be “an identification mechanism” that works within the system. Also, “even in the absence of positive identification, the strength of group pressures as the uniformity of group opinion increases.” It therefore seems to be valid to assume that “the perceived consequences of alternatives are, at least partly, a function of the strength of group pressures and the direction of these pressures that stem from sub groups and extra-organisational groups.” [39]

The structural organisation of a given set of groups is influenced by the alternatives – both real and imaginary. Simultaneously, it influences the range of possible and desirable alternatives. It is impossible to determine exactly where the starting point lies. But it is quite obvious that this complex of factors, namely, group identity and pressures, the nature of the structural organisation and the existence of several ranges of alternatives, are all, in fact – and when they interact – the core of any possible political change. This basic assumption must be acknowledged when dealing with any of these factors. Otherwise, the analysis will be incomplete and rather arbitrary.

There is an inherent essential difficulty that attempts to analyse bureaucracy – or even organisations in general – face. Such attempts could basically be either descriptive or theoretical. Yet, a descriptive attempt, particularly if it would also try to be accurate, must refer to particular phenomenon (or phenomena) that only exist in exact and particular frame of time and space. It would then be confined to inductive suggestions that may only concern some aspects of the general phenomena. It cannot state absolutely proven theorem and remains logical at the same time. Moreover, if accuracy is to be maintained, it should also refer at least to the previously mentioned factors. At the same time, it cannot confine itself merely to the structural aspects. Motivations, alternatives, technical operation of the system, definitions of power for the various levels of hierarchy and other such factors must also be referred to.

The theoretical type of attempt is even harder to pursue. For once, it has to cover all of these aspects that must be included in the theoretical setting. The main factor, however, is the theoretical “backbone” on which the entire movement within the suggested system depends. It must remain open-ended and in a constant flux so as to enable changes in the forms and – or – essence to enter the set, either as new givens or as renewed or unchanged ones. These act and perceived in accordance with the changing conditions. The effort here must include, therefore, a logically closed theory of dynamics as well as techniques that allow the work in several levels of definition that may vary according to different natures of the qualitatively different components of such a theoretical setting.

In order to deal with the complexity and to study the phenomena of bureaucracy, organisation, political change and their like, some of the logical and philosophical strict limitations must be sacrificed. Thus, some of the observations and theoretical relations between components of a given theoretical setting would be treated out of the frame of the formal logic. Yet the demand for examination of such relations must not e neglected altogether. It is still of great importance. Martin Albrow in his Bureaucracy reveals many of these. He also tries to analyse them and to seek justification for them. Thus, when touching the relations between bureaucracy and ideology he suggests that “some justification for paying even slight attention to the concept of bureaucracy in ideological contexts appears to be necessary.” There are three reasons for this. Firstly, while ideologies are designed to incite men to action, this does not mean that their content is wholly emotive. On the contrary, it is a feature of modern ideologies that they purport to be based upon an objective view of the nature of man and society. Secondly, it is notoriously difficult for the social scientist to remove all traces of ideological commitment from his or her work and it is therefore important to be aware of the nature of the ideological concepts of bureaucracy. Thirdly, Marxist (or self-proclaimed Marxist) and to a lesser degree also Fascist ideologies claim to erase the distinction between ideological and scientific thought – at least as far as their own doctrines are concerned. Political leaders set themselves up as arbiters of scientific truth and academicians avowedly direct their work to political ends. That the scientific element in this conflict of ideology and knowledge cannot be lightly disregarded is obvious when we consider the high prestige as a political scientist that Karl Marx, the most successful ideologist of all time, has in non-Marxist circles. [40]

Albrow’s approach is highly advantageous. Not only does he lack the absolutist tendency that characterises many of the writers dealing with the discussed phenomena. While examining some of the literature, he tries to gain access to pieces of information that could be consulted when pursuing the study of related subjects. [41] In this he uniquely achieves a degree of reliability that many works fail to maintain because they do not concede the possibility of open-ended changing relations. Adhering only to a one-way solution, as is the case with many of the works in the field (and most of those mentioned here) tend to culminate in the construction of static models and limited understanding – not only of bureaucracy and of organisation in general. But also, it confines and limits the discussion of political change and only allows for a static model and formulas to be presented. This is inadequate logically and academically but even more so – it is entirely unrealistic and untrue. It must be noted, however, that such works can still benefit their readers even though they suffer from such important shortcomings. If not with insight, they can at least still provide us with information pertaining to bureaucracy, organisation and political change and to their inner and inter relations.

Notes & References

[1] Peter M. Blau (1968), “Organization: Theories” in David L. Sills, ed., International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, New York, Macmillan & Free Press, Vol. II, pp 297-98

[2] Max Weber (1928), Essay in Sociology [edited & translated by H. H. Gerth & C. Wright Mills], New York, Oxford University Press, “Introduction”, p. 47

[3] Ibid., p. 49

[4] Israel, in the aftermath of the 1973 war could be a case in point. The incumbent leadership managed to retain power mainly because it had full control over the sources of information (albeit not over all of the means of communications).

[5] Talcott Parsons (1960), Structure and Process in Modern Society, Glenco, Il The Free Press

[6] These, in fact, consist of limited number of agreed presuppositions that in many times have been selected arbitrarily. On these operate some rules of mathematical deduction so as to allow desired conclusions. Unlike in statistical models, where they might be permitted, in pure mathematical models deviations would not be acceptable and be considered as false.

[7] This is because social and behavioural sciences deal with human beings of which the definition includes such values as “individualism,” “mind,” “brain,” feelings,” “sensitivity” and so forth. These values cannot be measured and summed-up mathematically, nor can they be reduced linguistically to the status of concrete value.

[8] For a detailed discussion see: Ben-Asher, Z. (1972), “Language, Mathematics and Social Sciences” in Philosophia, VII (1): 85-127 (March) and Pears, D. E. (1973), Logic by Set Theory, London, Durham & Barr, pp. 321-60

[9] Parsons, op. cit., p. 2

[10] Ibid., p. 17

[11] Ibid., p. 20

[12] Weber’s administrative staff was defined as having professional expertise as well as the right to give orders. Parsons argues that such attributes may well give rise to a conflict within a given bureaucracy, as it would be impossible to ensure that higher authoritative positions should be matched by equivalent professional skills. Also, members of the organisation would face the problem of whether to obey those who have the right to give orders or to obey those with higher degree of expertise.

[13] Parsons, op. cit., p. 21

[14] For example, political parties that demand of its members that their loyalty to, say, the state should take priority over loyalty to the Party.

[15] Parsons, op. cit., p. 61

[16] Ibid., p. 62, 116-128 passim

[17] Ibid., pp. 130-31 (reference to the Israeli case)

[18] Eisenstadt, S. N. (1969), “Bureaucracy, Bureaucratisation and De-bureaucratisation” in A. Etzioni, ed., A Sociological Reader on Complex Organisations, New York, Holt & Winston, Inc. [Enlarged; first published in 1961 as Comlex Organisations: A Sociological Reader], pp. 304-305

[19] Ibid., p. 305

[20] Ibid., p. 306

[21] Ibid., p. 307

[22] And also from his sub species of bureaucracy like “Patrimonial bureaucracy” etc.

Max Weber (1967), “The Ideal Bureaucracy” in Organisational and Human Behaviour [edited by G. D. Bell], Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, p. 88 [reprinted from Weber (1947), The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation [translated by T. Parsons], New York, the Free Press]

[23] Ibid., p 89

[24] At least the two cases mentioned above, of China and of Israel, seem to represent such a mode of control.

[25] “The Ideal Bureaucracy” op. cit., p. 89

[26] March, J. G. and H. A. Simon (1958), Organisations, New York, John Willey & Sons

[27] Etzioni, op. cit., p. 293

[28] Ibid.

[29] It could be seen in many works that examine the process of decision-making. Often it is possible to identify the tendency, in such works, to isolate the particular process and mechanism of the decision-making from the complex of relations that operate between and among the various agencies. Rather, there can be found discussions on the relations between the “centre” and the agencies (or some of them).

[30] Torgensen, P. E. (1969), A Concept of Organisation, New York, American Book, p. 52

[31] See the long standing discussions in this matter in (for instance): Russell, B., Principia Mathematica and Problems of Philosopy, Ryle, G., The Concept of Mind etc. For a discussion and analysis of the problems of time and space in social organisation see also: Ben-Asher, Z. (1972), “Logic and Questions of Time and Space in Descriptive Models of State-Societies” in The Israeli Quarterly of Social Research, II (4): 31-56

[32]Lippitt, G. L. (1969), Organisational Renewal, New York, Meredith Corp.

[33] Ibid., Introduction, p. 1

[34] Ibid., p. 143

[35] Ibid., from the glossary that he wrote because – so he states – “I feel it may be helpful to the reader to have a glossary…”, p. 1

[36] March & Simon, op. cit., p. 2

[37] Ibid.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid., p. 59

[40] Albrow, M. C. (1970), Bureaucracy, London, Pall Mall Press [American edition by Praeger], p. 67

[41] Ibid., p. 125



Myra

Stig Kristoffersen asked:


U.S Vice President Biden said that Ukraine women are gorgeous!

 

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden has made a three day working visit to Ukraine. And he has made statements of both non-political as well as political nature while he has been there. What caught the international and domestic press immediate attention were his comments on the Ukrainian women. Well, it is a compliment that a Vice President makes this statement and could maybe boost a segment in Ukrainian business, who knows?

 

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, on a visit to Kyiv during July 21st – 23rd , has delivered a positive message to a beleaguered Ukraine. Despite Kyiv’s paralyzing domestic political feuds and a deep recession, Biden said Washington’s efforts to repair strained ties with Russia will not hurt U.S. support for Ukraine’s push to integrate with the West. Biden — who is on a tour that will also take him to Georgia — made his comments at a joint news conference in Kyiv following talks with President Viktor Yushchenko.

Wherever Joe Biden goes, so does his mouth. Meeting today with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko in Kyiv, the vice president lived up to his reputation for loose lips making himself out to be a horndog-in-waiting. “I cannot believe that a Frenchman visiting Kyiv went back home and told his colleagues he discovered something and didn’t say he discovered the most beautiful women in the world. That’s my observation,” he told Yushchenko. “It’s certain you have so many beautiful women.”

The U.S Vice President got to meet the sitting president, prime minister and presidential candidates of Ukraine during his meeting. Biden got to cover lots of various topics, but we do not know any details apart from what was said in the various press conferences straight after meetings or by the Ukrainian party afterwards. It is worth mentioning that the pro-western policy of Ukraine was supported by U.S. However, it remains to see what the retorics is worth when it comes to politics in reality. U.S sold out Ukraine in its EU campaign in order to keep their foot in the missile program in former Soviet states in Eastern Europe. However, has proved to be an important economic partner for Ukraine, but not as important as European countries have proven to be in the last decade.

Below, you will find a short summary from each meeting Biden had with his Ukrainian politicians. It also reflects the Ukrainian press coverage of the meetings, and it is interesting to see that the press covers more of Yanokovich’s meetings with Biden than the three others together.

Biden: Ukraine need not worry about U.S.-Russia ties

Vice President Joe Biden assured a nervous Ukraine that its interests won’t be sacrificed as the United States tries to mend ties with Moscow.

Visiting Kyiv two weeks after President Barack Obama attended a Moscow summit, Biden said Russia can claim no “sphere of influence” in its backyard. The U.S. vice president travels next to another former Soviet republic, Georgia, which lost a five-day war with Russia last year over separatist provinces that Moscow insists are independent states.

Russia has responded angrily to efforts by the pro-Western leaders of Ukraine and Georgia to distance their countries from Moscow and seek NATO membership.

As confrontation simmers between Moscow and the West over Ukraine’s future, Biden signaled that Russia has no special rights in the region.

“We do not recognize – and I want to reiterate it – any sphere of influence,” Biden said after meeting with pro-Western President Viktor Yushchenko. “We do not recognize anyone else’s right to dictate to you or any other country what alliances you will seek to belong to.”

Before Biden even spoke, Russia had warned the United States to tread lightly when it courts Moscow’s neighbors.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said all nations are free to choose their partners, but added: “It is important that this be done transparently, without under-the-carpet games and not at the expense of others’ interests.”

Nesterenko suggested Russia’s traditional ties with Ukraine give it a bigger stake in the country’s future, saying nations dealing with Ukraine should take regional context and “historical specifics” into account.

Biden reassured Ukraine that Obama’s bid to “reset” relations with Russia would not hurt Ukraine’s push for integration with the West, saying better ties with Moscow “will not come at Ukraine’s expense.”

“To the contrary, I believe it can actually benefit Ukraine,” he said. “The more substantive relationship we have with Moscow, the more we can defuse the zero-sum thinking about our relations with Russia’s neighbors.”

The Russia-US summit on July 6-8 aimed to make a new start in relations, which reached post-Cold War lows after Russia’s war with Georgia last August. Obama stressed that “NATO seeks collaboration with Russia, not confrontation.”

Mindful of a rift within Ukraine about joining NATO, Biden said the U.S. would not dictate to the nation, but emphasized that “if you choose to be part of Euro-Atlantic integration – which I believe you have – that we strongly support that.”

Polls have shown a majority of Ukrainians oppose NATO membership, and European allies have been more wary than the United States about bringing Ukraine into the alliance. While NATO has stressed that the door remains open, Russia’s war with Georgia deepened concerns by hinting at the lengths Moscow is willing to go to keep neighbors out of the Western alliance.

The war also raised alarms in Ukraine about Kremlin intentions toward a nation many Russians see as inextricably linked to their own. Biden stressed that “the United States supports Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and freedom, and to make its own choices – its own choices – including what alliances they choose to belong.”

Russia’s envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, drily dismissed Biden’s trip as “psychotherapy” aimed to comfort Ukraine and Georgia, and said neither has a chance of joining the alliance any time soon.

Welcoming Biden, Yushchenko called Ukraine a “European country where democracy rules” – seeking to set it apart from Russia, which has often-acrimonious relations with the European Union and has faced accusation of a retreat from democracy in the past decade.

“We are going forward, we have chosen a European path,” Yushchenko said.

He also called for U.S. investment in upgrading Ukraine’s natural-gas pipeline network, which carries large volumes of Russian natural gas to European consumers. Russia turned off the taps during a price dispute in January, leaving many Europeans without gas for two weeks and prompting the EU to step up efforts to find alternative supply routes.

Accompanied by Yushchenko, Biden placed flowers at a memorial to victims of a deadly 1932-33 famine engineered by Soviet leader Josef Stalin’s government – the focus of one of several disputes between Ukraine and Russia over history. Yushchenko is seeking international recognition of the famine that killed millions of Ukrainians as genocide, while Russia adamantly argues that Ukrainians were not specifically targeted.

Biden later met with Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, a former Yushchenko ally who is now a bitter foe and chief challenger in January’s presidential election. He also met with opposition leader Viktor Yanukovych and former parliament speaker Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who also plan to seek the presidency.

Biden urged the feuding leaders to put disagreements behind them and get down to fixing the country’s devastated economy. “Working together, especially in times of crisis, is not a choice, it’s an absolute necessity,” he said. “Compromise … is not a sign of weakness, it is evidence of strength.”

The rivalry has played into the hands of Yanukovych, who has warmer ties with Moscow and is popular in Ukraine’s largely Russian-speaking east.

Biden on Wednesday visits Georgia, whose strategic location along a key energy route has made it a geopolitical battlefield between Moscow and the West.

Russian forces quickly crushed the Georgian army last August after Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili launched an offensive targeting the Moscow-backed breakaway province of South Ossetia to try to bring it under control.

Russia has defied the West by deploying thousands of troops in South Ossetia and another separatist province, Abkhazia, and recognizing both regions as independent nations.  

Biden: U.S. intention to improve relations with Russia cannot compromise relations with Ukraine

The United States intentions to improve relations with Russia cannot compromise the country’s relations with Ukraine, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden has said.

He was speaking at a meeting with Verkhovna Rada Chairman Volodymyr Lytvyn in Kyiv on Tuesday, the press service of the Ukrainian parliament has said.

Biden told those present that his visit to Ukraine was approved while U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to Russia was being planned.

The U.S. Vice-President has noted that his country has maintained two principled positions: firstly the U.S. doesn’t agree that Russia cannot influence any country, and secondly each country can decide, what relations it will be building.

He also noted that all the states that lived through the so-called colored revolutions are always facing a crossroad and assured the Verkhovna Rada speaker that the United States will support Ukraine.

Ukraine, Russia need new agenda of bilateral relations, Yatseniuk tells Biden

Leader of Ukraine’s Front for Change initiative Arseniy Yatseniuk has said that Ukraine and Russia need a new agenda of bilateral relations.

He said this at a meeting with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden in Kyiv on Tuesday

“We have touched on the Ukrainian-Russian relations… We need a new agenda of the Ukrainian-Russian relations and I have briefly expressed my viewpoint on this issue,” Yatseniuk told reporters at a briefing following his meeting with Biden on Tuesday afternoon.

The Front for Change leader also said that they didn’t discuss with the U.S. Vice President the issue of NATO or the upcoming presidential elections in Ukraine, but focused on the global economic turmoil instead. 

Biden, Yanukovych discuss energy security

Viktor Yanukovych, the leader of the Party of Regions, and U.S. Vice President Joe Biden have discussed energy security issues. “It was discussed,” Yanukovych told reporters after a meeting with Biden in Kyiv on Tuesday.

According to him, it is important for Ukraine to build transparent relations with its strategic partners, such as the European Union and Russia.

“Ukraine, as a transiting country, is interested in having an efficiently working gas transportation system and see it modernized in the near future, for which it is definitely necessary to draw investment, and both the EU and Russia should be involved as strategic investors. They can be Ukraine’s partners in this issue,” Yanukovych said.

He also mentioned the initiative of setting up an international consortium.

Ukrainian President Viktor Yuschenko earlier said after his meeting with Biden that Ukraine would welcome U.S. investment in the modernization of Ukraine’s gas transportation system.

Yanukovych assures Biden he is ready for compromise with other political forces

Leader of the Regions Party Viktor Yanukovych has assured U.S. Vice President Joe Biden that he is ready for compromise with other political forces in Ukraine.

“I repeated his own phrase to Mr Vice President that strong politicians, strong people, they always look for a compromise and find it,” he told the press after his meeting with Biden in Kyiv on Tuesday.

The Regions Party’s leader also said that he had announced many times his readiness to “choose peace between war and peace.”

Biden earlier said that the United States called for Ukrainian politicians to join efforts to tackle the recessions.

 

Yanukovych, Biden touch upon future presidential elections in Ukraine

Viktor Yanukovych, the leader of the Party of Regions, and U.S. Vice President Joe Biden have touched upon future presidential elections in Ukraine during their recent meeting in Kyiv.

“As for the future elections, I’ve very briefly emphasized that we’re interested in the fair and transparent elections,” Yanukovych told reporters after the meeting in Kyiv on Tuesday.

He also added that the Party of Regions is interested in U.S. observers at the elections “who could create equal conditions for every candidate.”

Yanukovych also said that he had heard the U.S. Vice President’s viewpoint on the economy in Ukraine, relations with the International Monetary Fund, and democracy-related issues.

Among other representatives of the Party of Regions at the meeting were MPs Serhiy Levochkin, Mykola Azarov and Hanna Herman.

The next election of the Ukrainian president is scheduled for January 17, 2010 and it remains to see if U.S will take a preference amongst the 4 candidates he has met with during his trip to Ukraine this year.

It is important however, to observe that U.S is quite open when it comes to its desire to bring Ukraine towards Western Europe and form a stronger alliance with Europe both in a political as well as in military sense.

It remains to see how U.S will play their cards when it comes to gas politics in the region, as EU has taken ownership in Nabucco gas pipe line, which is in direct competition to North Stream which Germany and Russia favours.

However, U.S has shown its commitment to assist Ukraine in its path towards a true democracy, however, much of the work and responsibility will rest on the shoulders of the present leadership in Ukraine and its future ones. There is no room for Ukraine political leadership to make lots of diversions now. They need to commit themselves to a path that is clear to the outside world as well as the domestic economic forces and business. Unless Ukraine manage to show strength through the economic turmoil they experience at the moment, it can get worse and set Ukraine back several decades. It can be a domestic reset button for Ukraine economy and development towards a democratic state.

Ukraine is looking for the leader that will bring Ukraine out of the crisis, but also can unite its people to pull in one direction towards prosperity of all levels within Ukraine. There is a need to modernize the public as well as in private business sector.

At the moment it looks like there is only one candidate ready to take this challenge on his shoulders and try to unite the people of Ukraine and at the same time have enough stamina to keep international relations at a good stronghold.

This candidate is most likely Arseniy Yatseniuk which collects more and more support amongst the Ukrainian people with his diplomatic skills and experience.



Arnold

Michalle Singh asked:


International Luxury Travel Market is the only international trade event that brings together senior class buyers and suppliers for the unique blend of networking and deal making. It is the only distinguished panel that enable the specialists luxury travel trade buyers from the 52 bound and destined countries to meet exclusively with worldwide luxury travel suppliers.

International Luxury Travel Market is the VIP buyer driven event. The organizers of the event draws the prominent worldwide buyers to this very event by offering them the free flights, VIP transfers and 5 star luxury accommodation. All the International Luxury Travel Market buyers and sellers are examined in order to assure that their products and services are in strict accordance to the luxury of the event. It is the prestigious opportunity for the exhibitors to be seen in the global marketplace, displaying the most exclusive destinations, the most luxurious accommodations, high class transportation and the unparalleled travel experience.

It is the only event that includes both buyers and sellers throughout the hemisphere. For the comfortability of the exhibitors and VIP buyers have pre -scheduled appointments with each other before traveling to the event, using ILTM’s highly acclaimed computerized appointment system.

India too is participating in the event for the last four years. This includes the top luxury hotel chains like- The Oberoi, The Taj, The Imperial, The Leela to individual properties like- Ananda in the Himalayas, Casino Group of hotels, Devi Garh & Samode Palace etc. Top Indian tour operators like- Cox & Kings, Distant Frontiers, Le Passage to India, Ventour International, Creative travel etc. to name a few, are also exhibiting in ILTM.



Dora

Mistabd asked:

FOR ALL CURRENT AUCTIONS GO HERE: search.ebay.com www.corpseoffreedom.com/lloyd.html This is a story that aired on ABC 15 in Phoenix about the author for ‘Corpse of Freedom’ who is selling everything he owns; even his keepsakes. To view his items and learn more about the entire art experience, visit: www.corpseoffreedom.com/items.html

Isiah

Leonard Lee asked:


There is a strong connection between the immaterial aspects of man and his physical constitution. The mind and emotions affect the somatic system via the vital body, the etheric body with its energy-centers and channels called in Yoga philosophy, chakra and nadi, respectively. These chakras affect the glandular-system according to its state of vitality. Negative states of mind and emotions obstruct or irregulates the flow of the life-force or prana emanating from the sun and streaming into the chakras. This in turn causes the associated gland of the energy-center to be hyper- or hypo-active which manifests as the malfunctioning of the organs and the impairment of the metabolic processes. This sets the stage for disease to occur in the body. An unbalanced and dis-eased state in the physical constitution are therefore the reflected images of our habitual thoughts and feelings. It is the manifestation of the inner reality of mind and emotions. This is not to say that all illnesses are the result of the play of the mind and feelings–there are, of course, a small percentage of illnesses the result of physical causes.

There are four fundamental principles to consider in metaphysical healing:

1) The preparation of the Healer

2) Determining the cause of inharmony

3) The choice of metaphysical therapy

4) The actual healing and teaching

Concerning the first point, every healer should realize that what really heals is the divine power of the Universal Mind. The healer is merely a channel for the healing energies to flow, or at the very least, a catalyst for the healing power that flows from the patient’s divine principle. Because energy is tainted by the channel in which it flows, it behooves the healer to purify his lower being from all obnoxious material. In the ancient Mystery Schools, for instance, every would-be-healer would undergo purification in the form of prayers, fasting, meditation, and other spiritual exercises. This had a three-fold effect–the elimination of toxins from the physical system; the strengthening, vitalizing, and magnetizing of the aura and nervous system–both subtle and gross; and the alignment of the lower components of the microcosm with the divine principles called “the spiritual triad” by Theosophists. This purification makes it feasible for divine forces of vital life, which is a higher form of prana, to flow through the healer. Once having filled the physical body with a harmonious flow of the vivifying principle, the surplus energy would strengthen and magnetize the aura. In Christian scriptures we read of saints healing with their “shadow.” This shadow is in fact the aura.

Another relevant point connected with the metaphysician’s preparation is the polarization of the consciousness. Energy flows abundantly from and to the chakra in which the consciousness is daily polarized. The expressions of love and compassion, for instance, which are vital attributes for the healer to possess, reveals that the consciousness is polarized in the heart-chakra. Expressions of self-centeredness indicate a polarization within the solar-plexus center. A strong altruistic will shows that the polarization is within the chakras above the heart. What this means technically, where divine pranic healing is concerned, is that the polarization within a lower center would make it difficult for the healer to reach and heal the organs of the patient associated with a higher center because of a difference in the frequency octave. Heart troubles, for instance, which is associated with a poor functioning of the heart-chakra, a healer polarized in the solar-plexus will find it difficult to heal, because the necessary energies required to correct the patient’s problem is unavailable, inspite the belief that plain unqualified divine energy is sufficient enough to do the work. Without the right level of consciousness, divine energy entering into the healer would simply evaporate having found no correspondence in likeness within him/her. The divine energies entering the healer is qualified with whatever psychic center the healer polarizes himself. The healer may seek to overide this with the exercise of the will and may succeed to a certain degree, but without the correct polarization the healing process will not be optimal. It is therefore, important for the healer to evolve and function on a higher consciousness-level. This is of prime importance in the preparatory stage. Polarization on the highest centers makes the divine energy flowing through all of the other chakras equally accessible.

In the second point to be considered are the causes of disharmony within the physical system. As we have seen previously, the various manifestations of ill health have its major, fundamental causes in the immaterial aspects of man. The psyche of man is twofold: conscious and subconscious, and they play their part in determining one’s overall state of health. Negative thoughts and feelings are self-destructive. If held in the mind for too long without being checked, they would manifest in an unbalanced condition in the body. The conscious mind is responsible with what it feeds the subconscious side. What the subconscious receives it transmits internally to the physical body, and externally to the environment. In order to get to the root cause of psychosomatic illnesses, the healer has to determine the cause of the problem in the nature of the feelings and thoughts of the patient. It would be an aid for the healer to realize that no matter what negative feelings are felt, or what negative thoughts are being formed, they all stem from the misidentification of the Self, or from the false ego. People say that they are sick or hurt, whereas the “I,” the”Self,” is pure and whole and not subjected to any suffering, discomfort, or any other mortal complaints. The first step, therefore, would be to educate the patient in this “true perspective,” of emancipating the mind from its ignorance and delusions. The conscious mind of the patient should also be made to realize the unnecessity of thinking and feeling negatively, and of the adverse effects that it creates in the physical organism. Methods of cleansing the subconscious mind from “engrams,” or negative packets of energy-patterns should be taught. This purification is usually done be various spiritual exercises such as certain meditations where divine forces are invoked and directed for cleansing, or by programming the subconscious mind with affirmations. This latter approach was made use of in the ancient Egyptian healing temples. Such affirmations identify the patient with the Divine Self. For instance, in the manual, the Book of the Dead, translated by E.A. Wallis Budge, are found the following affirmations:

“I am the Great One, son of the Great One

“I am the Mighty One, son of the Mighty One

“I am Horus, the son of Ra

“I am the Sekhem (power) of my father Ra . . . ” (1953:677)

The ancient Egyptians represented the aspects and attributes of the Divine Self with various personages and deities. In the above we see how the mortal concept of one’s being is replaced with an immortal, deific one. In the affirmations one is reminded of one’s divinity untainted by any forms of weaknesses or illnesses. Karmic-related illnesses, which at times defies a cure by superficial treatment in the hands of medical practitioners, may be eliminated by the above processes coupled with an understanding of the karmic lesson, repentance and compensation.

The next point for our consideration is in the choice of therapy. It is a fact that for every illness or ailment there is an appropriate cure, or a system of therapy that would return a healthy condition to the physical body. This also includes death, although from our human limited point of view this would hardly be considered as a valid cure. From the above statements we imply that there is no therapeutical system that would heal every single disease known to man. There is, as yet, no Universal Panacea discovered that would cure every affliction of man unless we consider Truth to be a medicine–and a bitter one at that to most people. Holistic healing, therefore, includes various methods that would reach all of the components making the whole being of man, and the healer should determine the appropriate therapy or therapies for each individual case. The methods of alternative healing may be categorized into the following:

1) Esoteric healing

2) Exoteric healing

Esoteric healing, as its name implies, refers to methods that require intense internal preparation on the part of the metaphysician. This preparation as we have already discussed comes in the form of divine attunement with the aid of prayers, meditation, periodic fasting, and a spiritual way of life. Instant transmissions of attunement or power by master-healers to students only opens the way and is not a permanent condition, for one’s mental and emotional state may neutralize what has been transmitted. Living the divine life is a necessity. Once prepared, the healer may make use of the available energies from various sources surrounding his person, and to direct them into the body of the patient. Pranic Healing, Chakra Healing, Divine Healing, Angelic Healing, and Spiritual Mind Healing are some of the methods used in esoteric healing.

Exoteric healing deals more with the methodologies that the average person may utilize regardless of his/her lack of high spiritual attainment and esoteric preparation. These methods include vibrational healing: gem therapy, chromotherapy, audiotherapy, aromatherapy, chi massage, acupressure, herbalology, acupuncture, reflexology, and many countless others. It would be a standard procedure for the healer to make use of a combination of therapies both esoteric and exoteric for the average healing. An effective way of healing is when both the cause and the effect of an unbalanced body, mind, and soul are attended to.

In this last point we will consider the actual healing and teaching of the patient to self-heal. At the very onset of treatment it should be kept in mind that the receptiveness of the patient determines to a large degree the effectiveness of treatment. The healer should also approach the patient with love and compassion, freed from any judgmental and critical attitude. These two approaches serve to create a temporary psychic bond between the healer and the patient. There are times when the cause of the patient’s problem lies undiscovered. A possible solution is the attunement of the healer with both the healer’s and the patient’s Higher Self. The healer should be open to intuitive impressions coming from within that may shed a light on the problematical causes of the diseased condition.

It is inappropriate for the healer to be solely responsible for the healing. Every patient should be given an opportunity to participate in the healing process. Therefore, laws and principles regarding holistic health should be inculcated, and the patient made aware of man’s healing potential. This is preventive medicine at its best. It should not be the healer’s best interest to make the patient dependent upon him or her because of the financial returns. This would reduce the metaphysician’s value in the eyes of God and humanity. Every metaphysician should, therefore, illuminate the understanding of the patient as to the cause and nature of the problem being experienced, and the way out of it. As is often illustrated in popular self-help books, it is much wiser to teach a man to fish rather than to give him fishes for an indefinite period. Soul-growth occurs in one-case, whereas soul-stagnancy occurs in the other.

Scriptures in Ministerial Work

Since metaphysics deals with spiritual truths, with laws and principles of the Universal Mine, it may assume a religious character and take on the coloration of a certain religion when tending those who are religiously inclined or when the situation calls for it. The metaphysician himself should have long transcended sectarian and dogmatic viewpoints; and whenever possible, he should stimulate people to perceive the narrow perspectives and ill-logic of the many dogmas that bind the mind to a mortal outlook and to an unnatural way of life. It is for this very reason that the inner essence of religion should be taught of having an eternal and real value and not of the ever-changing cloak fabricated by the fallibility of unenlightened man. Dogmas perpetuate a false perception of man’s true spiritual estate, binding people to the unreal world of Maya. Religion comes from a Latin word which means “to bind.” Its purpose is to bind man to God; however, as can be seen by recorded history, by the Inquisition, the Crusades, the so-called Holy wars, etc., it has resulted in a contra-effect separating man from Truth and his Maker. The Nazarene Master taught a religion of love, whereas the priesthood transformed it into a religion of fear and damnation. Pertaining to the above, Frater Achad in Melchizedek Truth Principles says that,

“. . . religious systems have caused man of earth to become weak in his understanding of God.” (1988:76)

In fact, religious bigotry have caused man to blaspheme God daily by allowing his adoration of the idols of false ideas and dogmatic notions. That which is subject to change is false and unreal–actually impermanent; only Truth is unchanging and is eternal. Nothing endures in the material worlds save the Truth that brought humankind into being. It is for this reason that there is no religion that will last forever except for their quintessential core of Truth that lies in the foundation of their existence.

Humanity’s spiritual development moves at an awkwardly slow pace. One of the many reasons for man’s lack of spiritual development is his non-desire to truly know God, Nature, and himself. In his spiritual pride, like the Demiurgus of the Gnostics, man disbelieves in the higher intelligences and worlds considering himself to be the highest product of Nature. This materialistic philosophy fully formed in the 19th century still sways the thinking of the minds of “educated man.” The truly educated person, according to our reckoning is a spiritually-enlightened being. He knows things that are of eternal value.

Another stumbling block in humanity’s soul-progress lies in their indolence in the search for Truth, for as they say, it is easier to believe than to know. Most people, for instance, desire cheap salvation or deliverance by imposing their burdens upon another’s shoulders believing that another will save them from their sins, karma, and hell-fire. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the Universe does not function in such a manner. All men must learn to be responsible and participate in their own spiritual salvation or liberation. The effort required to know Truth requires some discipline though, for without such, no soul-advancement may be attained. People should be made aware of this, for they have long been too complacent with themselves. Buddhism, since its inception has known this human psychological trait of laziness and had adopted a method for awakening sluggish, tamasic minds by teaching the principle of the imminence of death–where its implication of the value of time and life-opportunity, and the purpose of life are intensely contemplated upon. This methods can sometime be an eye-opener, and may aid the metaphysician with certain types of temperaments. The populace should be acquainted with truths even if it hurts, eventhough these are not accepted at first. Seeds grow well in the darkness of the ground or in the subconsciousness. We have experienced this many times–we taught certain things to others without them accepting the precepts, even vehemently denying them, but later on only to hear these same individuals teaching to others or even ourselves (!) the very thing that they previously denied–this is the power of Truth and is quiet a marvel.

Spiritual truths are to be found in every religion, although in some so deeply buried that one has to contemplate deep down in the soul for the uncovering of it–most of the time religious dogmas blind one from perceiving them; occasionally, truths are skimmed by because being right in front of one’s eyes they are hardly noticed or given their proper value. Certain mental traits such as prejudice, narrow-mindedness, fear and superstition may likewise prevent a person from realizing truths. One’s mental vessel must be freed from them ere spiritual nourishment may fill one’s cup to the brim. Almost all scriptures have an esoteric side to them. They were mostly written by Initiates for the benefit of all the candidates to the higher wisdom. Therefore, to interpret literally what has to be understood in a spiritual, esoteric sense–and without the proper keys–one merely robs holy scriptures of their intended purpose, and that is the awakening of the spiritual, divine nature lying latent within one’s being. It takes a spiritual-conscious awareness to interpret what was written under spiritual influences. St. Paul in one of his epistles, for instance, declared that the many incidents in Abraham’s life are not to be understood as history, but as allegories pertaining to the development of the human soul. As an example, we may take the incident where Abraham was asked to sacrifice his beloved son. Almost about to execute his task, he was interrupted by the voice of God saying in substance that it was unnecessary to sacrifice his son (in this context it does not matter whether it was Ishmael or Isaac) but in replacement a goat struggling nearby in the bushes was to be offered instead. This tale when taken at its face value is usually interpreted as a teaching of the principles of obedience and surrender to God. What it really signifies is the sacrifice of one’s carnal self (the goat) instead of the spiritual consciousness (the son), which has to be preserved and fostered in one’s awaking awareness. As was said by John the Harbinger,

“He (the spiritual consciousness) must increase, but I (the carnal self) must decrease.” (John 3:30)

Another allegory containing a principle of value is to be found in the gospels. At face value, when read literally, it conveys little of any importance. But when interpreted spiritually, it transmits to us a certain truth of spiritual application. This principle of truth lies in the incident at the Garden of Gethsemane. We are told in the tale that the Master Jesus was in the Garden with his three disciples who were fast asleep. Seeking companionship from his three followers at his hour of distress proved to be a disappointment. The only recourse was to direct his attention to God. Interpreted spiritually, the three disciples represent the physical, emotional, and mental being of man who are dead to Reality, or “fast asleep.” The incarnated soul (the Master Jesus), having discovered the unreliability of his lower self for solace attunes with the divine principle within for inner direction. We can see from this how applicable the truths and principles are–as found in scriptures–in our mundane lives when understood from the esoteric viewpoint.

One should not restrict oneself to the scriptures of one’s religion as the “sole word of God,” for all are essentially derived from a single divine source with the intended purpose of teaching the redemption of a wayward and fallen humanity; and it behooves every metaphysician to peruse the texts of any spiritual manuscript containing divine laws and principles that facilitates the unfoldment and expansion of the consciousness. The Tao Teh Ching, Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, or the Gnostic gospels discovered at Nag Hamadi, for instance, contain pearls of eternal wisdom that the metaphysician will find helpful to adopt in his ministerial work and as a spiritual/occult practitioner. The Christian Bible and even the Quran may be better understood when cross-referenced to the scriptures mentioned above. As we see it, the main theme of every sacred, secret teaching is the divine nature of man. It is appropriate, we believe, to base one’s metaphysical work upon this truth. when delving into the esoteric side of the New Testament, it is helpful to adopt one of the gnostic views that Jesus the Nazarene as depicted in the gospels, was not a historical personage but a representative of the myth of the”undying god,” or of the mystical element within man that seeks to incarnate and be resurrected in the waking consciousness. The spiritual import and value of the gospels are therefore preserved. We should use scriptures as a tool of self-transformation; whether they be history is irrelevant for the spiritual aspirant. Their true value lies in the catalytic nature embodied within the hidden meaning of their texts which improves the nature of man when applied.

Copyright © 2006 Luxamore



Inez

Mian Afaq Tariq asked:


This article is about human society.

A civilization is a society or culture group normally defined as a complex society characterized by the practice of agriculture and settlement in towns and cities. Compared with other cultures, members of a civilization are commonly organized into a diverse division of labor and an intricate social hierarchy.

Definition

Civilization is often used as a synonym for the broader term “culture” in both popular and academic circles. Every human being participates in a culture, defined as “the arts, customs, habits… beliefs, values, behavior and material habits that constitute a people’s way of life”.However, in its most widely used definition, civilization is a descriptive term for a relatively complex agricultural and urban culture. Civilizations can be distinguished from other cultures by their high level of social complexity and organization, and by their diverse economic and cultural activities.

In an older but still frequently used sense, the term “civilization” can be used in a normative manner as well: in societal contexts where complex and urban cultures are assumed to be superior to other “savage” or “barbarian” cultures, the concept of “civilization” is used as a synonym for “cultural (and often ethical) superiority of certain groups.” In a similar sense, civilization can mean “refinement of thought, manners, or taste”.

In his book The Philosophy of Civilization, Albert Schweitzer one of the main philosophers on the concept of civilization, outlined the idea that there are dual opinions within society; one regarding civilization as purely material and another regarding civilization as both ethical and material. He stated that the current world crisis was, then in 1923, due to a humanity having lost the ethical conception of civilization. In this same work, he defined civilization, saying:

“

It is the sum total of all progress made by man in every sphere of action and from every point of view in so far as the progress helps towards the spiritual perfecting of individuals as the progress of all progress.

In the sixth century, the Roman Emperor Justinian oversaw the consolidation of Roman civil law. The resulting collection is called the Corpus Juris Civilis. In the 11th century, professors at the University of Bologna, Western Europe’s first university, rediscovered Corpus Juris Civilis, and its influence began to be felt across Western Europe. In 1388, the word civil appeared in English meaning “of or related to citizens”. In 1704, civilization began to mean “a law which makes a criminal process into a civil case.” Civilization was not used in its modern sense to mean “the opposite of barbarism” — as contrasted to civility, meaning politeness or civil virtue — until the 18th century.

According to Emile Benveniste (1954), the earlist written occurrence in English of civilization in its modern sense may be found in Adam Ferguson’s An Essay on the History of Civil Society (Edinburgh, 1767 – p.2):

“

Not only the individual advances from infancy to manhood, but the species itself from rudeness to civilization.

“

It should be noted that this usage incorporates the concept of superiority and maturity of “civilized” existence, as contrasted to “rudeness”, which is used to denote coarseness, as in a lack of refinement or “civility”.

Before Benveniste’s inquiries, the New English Dictionary quoted James Boswell’s conversation with Samuel Johnson concerning the inclusion of Civilization in Johnson’s dictionary:

“

On Monday, March 23 (1772), I found him busy, preparing a fourth edition of his folio Dictionary… He would not admit civilization, but only civility. With great deference to him I thought civilization, from to civilize, better in the sense opposed to barbarity than civility, as it is better to have a distinct word for each sense, than one word with two senses, which civility is, in his way of using it.

“

Benveniste demonstrated that previous occurrences could be found, which explained the quick adoption of Johnson’s definition. In 1775 the dictionary of Ast defined civilization as “the state of being civilized; the act of civilizing, and the term was frequently used by Adam Smith in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). Beside Smith and Ferguson, John Millar also used it in 1771 in his Observations concerning the distinction of ranks in society.

As the first occurrence of civilization in French was found by Benveniste in the Marquis de Mirabeau’s L’Ami des hommes ou traité de la population (written in 1756 but published in 1757), Benveniste’s query was to know if the English word derived from the French, or if both evolved independently — a question which needed more research. According to him, the word civilization may in fact have been used by Ferguson as soon as 1759.

Furthermore, Benveniste notes that, contrasted to civility, a static term, civilization conveys a sense of dynamism. He thus writes that…

“

It was not only a historical view of society; it was also an optimist and resolutely non theological interpretation of its evolution which asserted itself, sometimes at the insu of those who proclaimed it, and even if some of them, and first of all Mirabeau, still counted religion as the first factor of ‘civilization.[5]HYPERLINK \l “cite_note-5″[6]

“

Another source of the word may relate to chivalry: a set of rules of engagement, originally for knights in warfare, but later expanded to cover conduct of knighthood or nobility. The English ‘chivalry’ comes from the French ‘chevalier’: a horseman. England and France would therefore have given rise to the terms at similar times.

Civilizations have distinctly different settlement patterns from other societies. The word civilization is sometimes defined as “a word that simply means ‘living in cities’”. Non-farmers gather in cities to work and to trade.

Compared with other societies, civilizations have a more complex political structure, namely the state. State societies are more stratified than other societies; there is a greater difference among the social classes. The ruling class, normally concentrated in the cities, has control over much of the surplus and exercises its will through the actions of a government or bureaucracy. Morton Fried, a conflict theorist, and Elman Service, an integration theorist, have classified human cultures based on political systems and social inequality. This system of classification contains four categories:

Highly stratified structuresCivilizations,

with complex social hierarchies and organized, institutional governments. or chiefdoms, with several inherited social classes: king, noble, freemen, serf and slave. Horticultural/pastoral societies in which there are generally two inherited social classes; chief and commoner. Hunter-gatherer bands, which are generally egalitarian.

Economically, civilizations display more complex patterns of ownership and exchange than less organized societies. Living in one place allows people to accumulate more personal possessions than nomadic people. Some people also acquire landed property, or private ownership of the land. Because a percentage of people in civilizations do not grow their own food, they must trade their goods and services for food in a market system, or be receive food through the levy of tribute, redistributive taxation, tarrifs or tithes from the food producing segment of the population. Early civilizations developed money as a medium of exchange for these increasingly complex transactions. To oversimplify, in a village the potter makes a pot for the brewer and the brewer compensates the potter by giving him a certain amount of beer. In a city, the potter may need a new roof, the roofer may need new shoes, the cobbler may need new horseshoes, the blacksmith may need a new coat, and the tanner may need a new pot. These people may not be personally acquainted with one another and their needs may not occur all at the same time. A monetary system is a way of organizing these obligations to ensure that they are fulfilled fairly.

Cultural identity

“Civilization” can also describe the culture of a complex society, not just the society itself. Every society, civilization or not, has a specific set of ideas and customs, and a certain set of items and arts, that make it unique. Civilizations have even more intricate cultures, including literature, professional art, architecture, organized religion, and complex customs associated with the elite. Civilization is such in nature that it seeks to spread, to have more, to expand, and the means by which to do this.

Nevertheless, some tribes or people remained uncivilized even to this day (2009). These cultures are called by some “primitive,” a term that is regarded by others as pejorative. “Primitive” implies in some way that a culture is “first” (Latin = primus), and as all cultures are contemporaries today’s so called primitive cultures are in no way antecedent to those we consider civilized. Many anthropologists use the term “non-literate” to describe these peoples. In the USA and Canada, where people of such cultures were the original inhabitants before being displaced by European settlers, they use the term “First Nations.” Generally, the First Nations of North America had hierarchical governments, religion, and a barter system, and oral transmission of their traditions, cultures, laws, etc. Respect for the wisdom of elders and for their natural environment (7th Generation decision-making) sustained these cultures for over 10,000 years.

The civilized world has been spread by invasion, religious conversion the extension of bureaucratis control and trade, and by introducing agriculture, and writing to non-literate peoples. Some non-civilized people may willingly adapt to civilized behaviour. But civilization is also spread by force: if a non-literate group does not wish to use agriculture or accept a certain religion it is often forced to do so by the civilized people, and they usually succeed due to their more advanced technology, and higher population densities. Civilizations often use religion to justify its actions, claiming for example that the uncivilized are “primitive,” savages, barbarians or the like, which should be subjugated by civilization.

The intricate culture associated with civilization has a tendency to spread to and influence other cultures, sometimes assimilating them into the civilization (a classic example being Chinese civilization and its influence on Korea, Japan, Vietnam and so forth, all of them sharing the fact that they belong to an East Asian civilization, sharing Confucianism, Mahayana Buddhism, a “Mandarin” class an educated understanding of Chinese ideograms and much else). Many civilizations are actually large cultural spheres containing many nations and regions. The civilization in which someone lives is that person’s broadest cultural identity.

Whereas the etiology of civilization is Latin or Roman, defined above as the application of justice by “civil” means, one may also examine and reflect upon Jewish or Hebrew civilization. A Hebrew “civilization” is defined not as an expression or extension of the subjective trappings of culture and society, but rather as a human society and/or culture being an expression of objective moral and ethical moorings as they are known, understood and applied in accordance with the Mosaic Covenant.[citation needed] A “human” civilization, in Hebrew terms for instance, may contrast sharply with conventional notions about “civilization.” A “human” civilization, therein, would be an expression and extension of the two most basic pillars of human “civilization.” These two pillars are, honest standardized weights and measures and a moral and healthy constitution. Everything else, whether technology, science, art, music, etc., is by this definition considered as commentary. Indeed, to the degree the surface terrain of a human society, i.e., culture is “civilized,” is to the degree the internal terrain (characteristics, personality or substance) of the people and leadership must also have been inoculated by, and inculcated with a moral foundation. The Biblically described Sodom, for instance, while being a society of people with a culture, would by Jewish or Biblical standards of “civility” have been uncivilized. And while the Roman sentiment is largely focused upon how justice must “appear” to be done in a “civil” manner, the Hebrew or Biblical approach to justice, in principle, is never limited to subjective pretenses or appearance, but more importantly, justice must be predicated upon objective principles. Ultimately, there is no true or lasting “civility” for any man in the absence of moral composure.[citation needed]

Many historians have focused on these broad cultural spheres and have treated civilizations as single units. One example is early twentieth-century philosopher Oswald Spengler,even though he uses the German word “Kultur,” “culture,” for what we here call a “civilization.” He said that a civilization’s coherence is based around a single primary cultural symbol. Civilizations experience cycles of birth, life, decline and death, often supplanted by a new civilization with a potent new culture, formed around a compelling new cultural symbol.

This “unified culture” concept of civilization also influenced the theories of historian Arnold J. Toynbee in the mid-twentieth century. Toynbee explored civilization processes in his multi-volume A Study of History, which traced the rise and, in most cases, the decline of 21 civilizations and five “arrested civilizations.” Civilizations generally declined and fell, according to Toynbee, because of the failure of a “creative minority”, through moral or religious decline, to meet some important challenge, rather than mere economic or environmental causes.

Samuel P. Huntington similarly defines a civilization as “the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species.” Besides giving a definition of a civilization, Huntington has also proposed several theories about civilizations, discussed below.

Complex systems

Another group of theorists, making use of systems theory, looks at a civilization as a complex system, i.e., a framework by which a group of objects can be analyzed that work in concert to produce some result. Civilizations can be seen as networks of cities that emerge from pre-urban cultures, and are defined by the economic, political, military, diplomatic, and cultural interactions among them. Any organization is a complex social system, and a civilization is a large organization. Systems theory helps guard against superficial but misleading analogies in the study and description of civilizations.

For example, urbanist Jane Jacobs defines cities as the economic engines that work to create large networks of people. The main process that creates these city networks, she says, is “import replacement”. Import replacement is the process by which peripheral cities begin to replace goods and services that were formerly imported from more advanced cities. Successful import replacement creates economic growth in these peripheral cities, and allows these cities to then export their goods to less developed cities in their own hinterlands, creating new economic networks. So Jacobs explores economic development across wide networks instead of treating each society as an isolated cultural sphere.

Systems theorists look at many types of relations between cities, including economic relations, cultural exchanges, and political/diplomatic/military relations. These spheres often occur on different scales. For example, trade networks were, until the nineteenth century, much larger than either cultural spheres or political spheres. Extensive trade routes, including the Silk Road through Central Asia and Indian Ocean sea routes linking the Roman Empire, Persian Empire, India, and China, were well established 2000 years ago, when these civilizations scarcely shared any political, diplomatic, military, or cultural relations. The first evidence of such long distance trade is in the ancient world. During the Uruk phase Guillermo Algaze has argued that trade relations connected Egypt, Mesopotamia, Iran and Afghanistan. Resin found later in the Royal Tombs of Ur it is suggested was traded northwards from Mozambique.

Many theorists argue that the entire world has already become integrated into a single “world system”, a process known as globalization. Different civilizations and societies all over the globe are economically, politically, and even culturally interdependent in many ways. There is debate over when this integration began, and what sort of integration – cultural, technological, economic, political, or military-diplomatic – is the key indicator in determining the extent of a civilization. David Wilkinson has proposed that economic and military-diplomatic integration of the Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations resulted in the creation of what he calls the “Central Civilization” around 1500 BC. Central Civilization later expanded to include the entire Middle East and Europe, and then expanded to a global scale with European colonization, integrating the Americas, Australia, China and Japan by the nineteenth century. According to Wilkinson, civilizations can be culturally heterogeneous, like the Central Civilization, or relatively homogeneous, like the Japanese civilization. What Huntington calls the “clash of civilizations” might be characterized by Wilkinson as a clash of cultural spheres within a single global civilization. Others point to the Crusades as the first step in globalization. The more conventional viewpoint is that networks of societies have expanded and shrunk since ancient times, and that the current globalized economy and culture is a product of recent European colonialism.

Future

Political scientist Samuel HuntingtonHYPERLINK \l “cite_note-13″[14] has argued that the defining characteristic of the 21st century will be a clash of civilizations. According to Huntington, conflicts between civilizations will supplant the conflicts between nation-states and ideologies that characterized the 19th and 20th centuries. These views have been strongly challenged by others like Edward Said and Mohammed Asudi. Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris have argued that the “true clash of civilizations” between the Muslim world and the West is caused by the Muslim rejection of the West’s more liberal sexual values, rather than a difference in political ideology.

Currently, world civilization is in a stage that has created what may be characterized as an industrial society, superseding the agrarian society that preceded it. Some futurists believe that civilization is undergoing another transformation, and that world society will become a so-called informational society.

Some environmental scientists see the world entering a Planetary Phase of Civilization, characterized by a shift away from independent, disconnected nation-states to a world of increased global connectivity with worldwide institutions, environmental challenges, economic systems, and consciousness.[17]HYPERLINK \l “cite_note-17″ In an attempt to better understand what a Planetary Phase of Civilization might look like in the current context of declining natural resources and increasing consumption, the Global scenario group used scenario analysis to arrive at three archetypal futures: Barbarization, in which increasing conflicts result in either a fortress world or complete societal breakdown; Conventional Worlds, in which market forces or Policy reform slowly precipitate more sustainable practices; and a Great Transition, in which either the sum of fragmented Eco-Communalism movements add up to a sustainable world or globally coordinated efforts and initiatives result in a new sustainability paradigm.

The fall of civilizations

There have been many explanations put forward for the collapse of civilization. “The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the cause of the destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of the ruin is simple and obvious; and instead of inquiring why the Roman Empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it has subsisted for so long.”Jeffrey A. McNeely has recently suggested that “A review of historical evidence shows that past civilizations have tended to over-exploit their forests, and that such abuse of important resources has been a significant factor in the decline of the over-exploiting society.”Peter Heather argues in his book The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the BarbariansHYPERLINK \l “cite_note-20″[21] that this civilization did not end for moral or economic reasons, but because centuries of contact with barbarians across the frontier generated its own nemesis by making them a much more sophisticated and dangerous adversary. The fact that Rome needed to generate ever greater revenues to equip and re-equip armies that were for the first time repeatedly defeated in the field, led to the dismemberment of the Empire. Although this argument is specific to Rome, it can also be applied to the Asiatic Empire of the Egyptians, to the Han and Tang dynasties of China, to the Muslim Abbasid Caliphate, and others. Bryan Ward-Perkins, in his book The Fall of Rome and the End of CivilizationHYPERLINK \l “cite_note-21″ shows the real horrors associated with the collapse of a civilization for the people who suffer its effects, unlike many revisionist historians who downplay this. The collapse of complex society meant that even basic plumbing disappeared from the continent for 1,000 years. Similar Dark Age collapses are seen with the Late Bronze Age collapse in the Eastern Mediterranean, the collapse of the Maya, on Easter Island and elsewhere. Arthur Demarest argues in Ancient Maya: The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest CivilizationHYPERLINK \l “cite_note-22″ using a holistic perspective to the most recent evidence from archaeology, paleoecology, and epigraphy, that no one explanation is sufficient but that a series of erratic, complex events, including loss of soil fertility, drought and rising levels of internal and external violence led to the disintegration of the courts of Mayan kingdoms which began a spiral of decline and decay. He argues that the collapse of the Maya has lessons for civilization today. Thomas Homer-Dixon in “The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization”, considers that the fall in the energy return on investments; the energy expended to energy yield ratio, is central to limiting the survival of civilizations. The degree of social complexity is associated strongly, he suggests, with the amount of disposable energy environmental, economic and technological systems allow. When this amount decreases civilizations either have to access new energy sources or they will collapse. Peter Turchin in his Historical Dynamics and Andrey Korotayev et al. in their Introduction to Social Macrodynamics, Secular Cycles, and Millennial Trends suggest a number of mathematical models describing collapse of agrarian civilizations. For example, the basic logic of Turchin’s “fiscal-demographic” model can be outlined as follows: during the initial phase of a sociodemographic cycle we observe relatively high levels of per capita production and consumption, which leads not only to relatively high population growth rates, but also to relatively high rates of surplus production. As a result, during this phase the population can afford to pay taxes without great problems, the taxes are quite easily collectible, and the population growth is accompanied by the growth of state revenues. During the intermediate phase, the increasing overpopulation leads to the decrease of per capita production and consumption levels, it becomes more and more difficult to collect taxes, and state revenues stop growing, whereas the state expenditures grow due to the growth of the population controlled by the state. As a result, during this phase the state starts experiencing considerable fiscal problems. During the final pre-collapse phases the overpopulation leads to further decrease of per capita production, the surplus production further decreases, state revenues shrink, but the state needs more and more resources to control the growing (though with lower and lower rates) population. Eventually this leads to famines, epidemics, state breakdown, and demographic and civilization collapse (Peter Turchin.

Criticism

Civilization has been criticized from a variety of viewpoints and for a variety of reasons. Some critics have objected to all aspects of civilization; others have argued that civilization brings a mixture of good and bad effects.

Some environmentalists like Derrick JensenHYPERLINK \l “cite_note-24″ criticize civilizations for their exploitation of the environment. Richard Hienberg argues that through intensive agriculture and urban growth, civilizations tend to destroy natural settings and habitats, and deplete the resources on which it depends. This is sometimes referred to as “dominator culture”. Proponents of this view believe that traditional societies live in greater harmony with nature than civilizations; people work with nature rather than try to subdue it. The sustainable living movement is a push from some members of civilization to regain that harmony with nature.

Primitivism is a modern philosophy totally opposed to civilization. Primitivists accuse civilizations of restricting human potential, oppressing the weak, and damaging the environment. They wish to return to a more primitive way of life which they consider to be in the best interests of both nature and human beings. Leading proponents are John Zerzan and Derrick Jensen, whereas a critic is Roger Sandall.

However, not all critics of past and present civilization believe that a primitive way of life is better. Some have argued that many negative aspects of current ‘civilized’ nations can be overcome. Karl Marx, for instance, argued that the beginning of civilization was the beginning of oppression and exploitation, but also believed that these things would eventually be overcome and communism would be established throughout the world. He envisioned communism not as a return to any sort of idyllic past, but as a new stage of civilization. Conflict theory in the social sciences also views the present form of civilization as being based on the domination of some people by others, but does not judge the issue morally.

Given the current problems with the sustainability of industrial civilization, some, like Derrick Jensen, who posits civilization to be inherently unsustainable, argue that we need to develop a social form of “post-civilization” as different from civilization as the latter was with pre-civilized peoples.



Richard

Samuel Martin asked:


With so many potential investments outside the United States, investing internationally becomes a great way to diversify an equity portfolio. Some people contend that there is an increasing correlation in performance between the United States and international markets. But while world markets often tend to react similarly to news or developments occurring around the globe, over time, international and domestic markets tend to behave differently, helping to smooth out the ride in a diversified portfolio.

Consider the performance of the Morgan Stanley Capital International Europe, Australia and Far East Index, which charts the progress of stocks in developed markets located in Europe, Australia and the Far East, versus the S&P 500, considered representative of the broader U.S. stock market. When one is going strong, the other tends to lag behind, and that has been the case going back as far as 1970. In addition, when the MSCI EAFE outperforms the S&P 500, it has done so by a greater margin than when performances are reversed.

In fact, during the past 10 years, the U.S. stock market has never been the leader in the global investment arena. Top performance has been the exclusive domain of international indices during that time, and the returns of the S&P 500 sometimes have lagged those of overseas peers by wide margins.

Global funds invest about half in the United States and half in the rest of the world, making them a smart way for someone with little or no experience in international investing to test the waters. A good example is American Century Global Growth, whose managers scour the globe for the best growth investment opportunities for the fund’s shareholders.

You should consider the fund’s investment objectives, risks, and charges and expenses carefully before you invest. The fund’s prospectus, which can be obtained by calling or visiting American Century’s Web site, contains this and other information about the fund and should be read carefully before investing.



Mable

Cindy King asked:


There are many basic sales principals that you use for your domestic market that also apply to international markets. These principals can help you when planning for your international business expansion.

Your website is an important platform for your business communication. Ideally it is designed to communicate effectively with your market. It is designed to do something specific for your business in your domestic market.

So what happens when you want to open your business up to other markets in other cultures?

Your communication will change.

But what about its platform…your website?

Internationalize Or Go International

How do you decide whether to internationalize your website or to create an international website?

If you are currently just starting to target foreign markets, one of your first questions will be about your website. At least it should be. There are two very common scenarios:



Many small companies assume the website they use for their domestic markets will work well with their English speaking international markets. They fail to realize their website may actually be sabotaging their international communication.

Many companies also assume they do not need to adapt their online communication until they are actually ready for a website in a foreign language.



This means that very few companies actually ask themselves the real question:



Do we need to internationalize our current website or do we need to create a separate website totally dedicated to our international market?



There are two main factors you need to look into before you are able to answer this question:



Is your current website dependent on a culturally specific message? Is your website already in English?

Are you almost ready to launch a localized website? That is, a website dedicated to one country?



Your answers to these two questions will influence your international website.

Too Culturally Specific

This can be a delicate decision. Your main website must continue to sell to your domestic market. There are some basic steps you can take to make your website more international-friendly. These basic steps rarely influence your communication with your domestic market. They rely on sound internet marketing practices.

The question is just how different are the cultures you want to market to internationally. Most people answer this based on gut feelings. These gut feelings often lead you astray.

The best way to look at this is to do a cultural behavioral comparison between your domestic market and the specific foreign markets you want to target.

Different cultures need to be reassured in different ways.

A cultural behavioral analysis will show you these different needs. There are a few web communication tools you use to respond to these needs. The idea is to see if the tools you need to use on your website to communicate better with your foreign markets actually deter your domestic market. Just how much will these changes affect your primary customer base. You have three solutions:



You don’t really know where your foreign markets are and want to plan for the future – Internationalize your website minimally, evaluate your foreign markets and move onto localized websites as soon as you can.

You want to actively promote your products and services to a broad international audience – create a website for international clients in English.

Your website is not in English – you need to start with an international website in English.



Almost Ready For A Localized Website

If you are almost ready for a localized website, you may only decide to implement some small changes to your current website and concentrate on creating your localized website.

Once you have a few localized websites or sufficient international response you will want to look into an international website, or a global gateway

Internationalization Is Always Good

When you go about internationalizing your domestic website, you learn to acquire some good practices for future international websites.



You will see the value of consistency and clarity.

You will learn discipline in embedding text in images.

You will come to appreciate website templates.



In its basic format internationalization makes your website better for all of your visitors, domestic and international alike.

You can go beyond this. There are different degrees to which you can adapt your current website. The degree to which you internationalize your website depends on your communication needs.

How different is the communication with your domestic market compared to your foreign market?

You need to study the behavioral differences between your primary domestic market and your foreign target markets. This is an exercise you should do when starting your international business development.

The process of looking at your website from different cultural viewpoints will highlight the areas you will need to adapt as your international business grows. You will get insights into your future needs.

Internationalization with cultural behavioral comparisons gives you a good idea of when you will need localized websites as you expand.

Internationalization of your website is an ongoing process. You can start with the basic steps good for all of your audiences, and slowing implement culturally specific web tools.

An International Website

Sometimes it just makes sense to start with an international website. A website with a separate domain name and URL makes it easy to drive all international traffic through one online office. Here are some of the reasons you may want to start with an international website.



You need a different sales message to your international visitors

Your website is not in English to start with



Different Message



If your domestic website uses a very specific localized vocabulary you will probably want to look at creating a separate website.

If your sales pitch is also very localized, or your foreign visitors respond to different sales arguments.



English Is Still Universal

Companies with domestic websites that are not in English will often find it easier to start off with an international website. This has been the situation for some time and is unlikely to change in the near future.

Of course, there are instances where an English language website is not obligatory. If you already have sales in one particular foreign country it makes sense to start there.

Adjust Along The Way

Companies can be in many different situations. The main point to remember is:



any communication with your international markets influences your website.



You will have to decide on the best online platform for your business requirements. Some companies have more options than others. This is the movement most companies look at:



from a domestic website

to an internationalized domestic website

to an optional international website

to one localized website

to several localized websites

to a global website – if you have an international website this could slowly become a global website once you start other localized websites.



Along this process you will learn more about marketing your products and services to your foreign markets. You will adjust your communication along the way. You will want your website to be a good platform for your communication and the changes you will need.

The sooner you become aware of good website practices for international businesses, the more time and money you will save your company.

Are you committed to speeding up your international sales cycles?

Learn how to combine cross-cultural marketing tools and international sales strategies for faster sales.

Join us on the International Sales Road Map

Would you like to develop your international business?

Are you a beginner at international sales and marketing?

Read the Beginners Guide Discover Your International Business



Lacey

Cedric Welsch asked:


One of the most profitable business ventures these days is international currency trading. Despite the fact that the world of trading seem to be unstable with the global economic meltdown posting a threat, entrepreneurs still find themselves dabbling into the world of currency trading on a global scale. In spite of the recession happening in various industries, people who are into the forex trade continue to expand their business in this trade.

Why is this so? The main reason for this is because the international currency trading scene is very dynamic. You never really know how it’s going to spin. Although some people might think that this unpredictability can cause this business to become unattractive, the contrary seems to happen. Alongside with the unpredictability of forex comes the fact that it presents a fair game to everyone. So long as you have what it takes to thrive in this fast paced environment then you can expect a windfall of profits to proceed.

The Pull of Currency Trading

There are many reasons why people continue to get enticed to try their luck with international currency trading. One reason for this is that the business has no strict qualifications. You may enter this business equipped with nothing but the interest to learn and become an expert with it. Anybody can actually enter into the forex game, whether you are still a student or an undergraduate who may not have had the chance to finish a college degree. Everybody is welcome to play the game.

In addition to this, currency trading is easy to learn. Your best ally would be the skill of being observant so you can note how currencies tend to rise and fall within the market. You can also start small with just one account and grow it to trade beyond 200. In a matter of weeks, you can possibly find yourself comfortably opening and closing trading windows among other forex business players. There are also plenty of online and print learning materials that you can use as reference to learn more on the technical side.

Also, the world of forex trading is not dependent on the outcome of the recession. Keep in mind that you are using the money here so there really is no way that they will simply be stuck somewhere. People need money so they need to exchange currencies to facilitate their other businesses. The important thing about forex is that you can easily identify the values of these currencies so you can buy and sell accordingly.

Things to Watch Out for in Forex

Of course international currency trading also has a few notable things to watch out for. First of course is the market trend. Because nothing is certain, you always have to be on a lookout for great currency opportunities. You should also be able to do plenty of forecasting especially if you aim to plunge into new currencies. The trade should always be a continuous learning process for you and because of this, you should expect failures and bad trades to happen along the way.



Lindsey