The Theory of Social Pulsation is a new social theory elaborated from the social phenomenology and philosophy of sciences’ standpoint. It represents an innovative interpretation of social phenomena postulated as active states of social actors including individuals, social groups, and social facts (organizations, institutions, systems). As an active state of social actors, pulsation is defined by eight variables that constitute social phenomena as a whole: (a) intention, (b) reaction, (c) reflection, (d) communication, (e) institutionalization, (f) internalization, (g) structuration, and (h) innovation.
Ivo Komsic argues that social states are pulsating and within those states, social causality is transferred from one social actor to another. Social actors continuously transfer social causality from one to another, depending on the intensity of its pulsation. Balanced or unbalanced, functional or dysfunctional, consensual or imposed, a system will be classified in the presence or absence of one of these phenomena, by its greater or lesser intensity. The theory posits a new paradigm that tends to overcome the "eternal" problem in sociology—relations between individuals as social actors and social structure, that is, "social statics" and "social dynamics," the role of the great historical personalities and the "objective law of history," freedom and necessity in social action, micro and macro social levels.
The model of social communication analyzed in the book can be used as a general model of social and political communication, particularly in multiethnic and multicultural societies considering the contemporary state of affairs globally.
Sociology, from its beginning until today, has navigated between social structures and social action (“social statics” and “social dynamics”), attempting to determine the causality of social facts and events. In this oscillation, causality is located either within social facts or within actors’ activities which are mutually or self related. In both cases the method is the same—either one or the other is presumed “an immutable cause.” The social structure, social facts, and institutions that present themselves as givens for social actors, have become utterly transparent and comprehensible, with perceivable possibilities of perfection and positive stabilization, up to the point of natural necessity. On the other hand, social actors as individuals are deemed creators of social actions that resulted in an understanding of the cognitive capacity of consciousness and all assumptions of its social creations—cultural and traditional values, morals, language, religious inclinations, etc.
However, this oscillation always pauses on either one side or the other, its gait remains empty and unexplained. Sociology could, finally, comprehend and explain precisely that which is between these two ends of the spectrum, that which is encompassed in the movement between them, and that which appears elusive. Whichever end of the spectrum we take, the other side remains incomprehensible in its reality and understandable only from←1 | 2→ our point of reference. That is why time has come to abandon these two firm and fixed points, as well as the methodological postulate which attempts to explain society and its activities...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.