Toward a Theory of Societal Guidance1

An attempt to outline the basis for a macrosociological theory. The basic dimension is the ratio of guided over unguided processes. The central variables are those which characterize the guidance capacity and those guided. Mechanisms of societal guidance are explored in terms of downward controlling factors (knowledge, decision-making, and power) and upward consensus-forming processes as well as societal mobilization. In an endeavor to develop a macromany purposes it is useful to treat cybersociology, we focus on one central question: netic and power capacities together, we Under what conditions are societal processes shall refer to them jointly as his ability to more guided by the participants as against control. When his skill in building conthe conditions under which they are more sensus is also taken into account, we refer "ongoing"? The higher the capacity to to his ability to guide. Since we see the subguide, the freer m~'tnbers of a society are units and other units as having in principle of its history; the lower, the more they the same capacities as the actor under are subject to patterns they did not mold. study, his activation obviously cannot be We refer to societal units that have a relaoptimized by maximizing his control catively high capacity to guide their own pacities but by improving his combination processes as "active" and to those that have of control and consensus-building, that is, a relatively low capacity as "passive." his guidance mechanisms. The degree to which an actor is active We turn now to explore the factors which is affected by his cybernetic capacities, his affect the societal capacity to guide. Our relative power, and his capacity to build approach is at first analytic in that each consensus. Each of these factors has both factor is examined as if all the others were an internal and an external dimension: how held constant; in the last section we much he knows about himself and about take a more synthesizing and historical others how much he can mobili e power view of actors that are becoming generally over ~embers and over non-mem~ers, and more activ~ on a!l major dimensions: In t h t d h . th t f the analytIc sectIon we compare briefly 0 w a egree e can gall e suppor 0 b h .. d b .. Th .. b . d f I . S. f ot socIetIes an su socIetIes. e socIetIes su UnIts an 0 externa UnIts. mce or f I t d . t t we ocus on are encapsu a e mas a e 1 This article was first written during my fellowthat serves as their chief organizational tool ship at the Center for Advanced Study in the for both control and consensus-building. Behavioral S~ences. I. also benefite~ from a grant Similarly, the subsocietal actors are colfrom the Na~onal Science Fo~ndatio~ (NS~-<:Slectivities that have organizational "arms " 1475). I am mdebted to Sarajane Heldt, William .' J. Goode, Paul F. Lazarsfeld, and Fred DuBow, as s~ch as a workmg c!ass that ?a~ labo: parwell as to Martin Wenglinsky, Nina Toren, and tIes and trade UnIons. SocIetIes wIthout Miriam Gallaher for comments on earlier drafts. states and collectivities which are not orThe article is the first publication to come out of ganized are treated mainly for comparative a project whose conclusions are reported fully in the author's The Active Society: A Theory of Sopurposes. ... cietal and Political Processes, to be published by The purpose of the followmg dIScussIon The Free Press in 1968. is "programmatic"; it seeks to illustrate