On second thought, in matters theoretical, I believe that I have had only two ideas in my life. And I imagine that since were the only two ideas that occurred to me. If none of them is very bright, at least it should put them here by pure exhaustion of inventory.
The first (the second chronologically), was already discussed in the blog (in Power, exchange, and ideology). What would be left would be to develop the second idea (which was the first cronólogicamente).
The idea, as I have already said, is pretty simple: Just three characteristics in order to have all of the relevant attributes of the actors that allow us to understand the formation of social orders. In other words, human beings can be many things, but of them only three are relevant: the set of them is sufficient for producing social order. And, in the same way, any entity that has these attributes produces social order.
The core attributes were:
- Communication. The ability of an actor to indicate things to each other with another actor.
- Learning. The actor’s capacity to develop new rules and partnerships (a central feature of this was that all learning is at the same time something cognitive and something practical)
- Limitations. The two attributes above are limited. The actors do not have an unlimited capacity to communicate or to learn.
- In the development of the matter I was forced to put a fourth attribute (that I never finish like in reality, it was more beautiful when they were only three): a Preference. The actors had the ability to choose an alternative among several. It was critical that we not asignabamos more development than that basic to attribute, or not called for which preferences are well-ordered, that they were complete etc
Then, actors are defined in such a way -or be with those attributes and only those attributes – were capable of generating social order, with characteristic ‘realistic’. Of course the specific argument I do not agree -I only agree that it was enough tinning that I liked-but these actors generate social practices stable.
And the generated continuously. In other words, producing social order, but as this was something they did often, it was the change of the social order, inevitable: The generation of new practices came into conflict with the old. And there was no way of avoiding these actors create order, and to generate continuously new order.
This was the thing that interested me most. Instead of having separate processes of construction of order and of social change (something that is so characteristic of the sociology ‘classic’ of the functionalism and still rebervera today to tell you the truth), the same process used to produce both results. The fact that the actors (their capacity to learn -to develop new rules – and of communicating -of mutual orientation) engarzaran their actions between if and (for that same ability to learn) then tipificaran that, of way of producing social practices, which was something that the actors were forced to make. But neither could stop. And given that (in all that had limitations) could not avoid the consequences of those practices could go over them with various effects (some stabilizers and other destabilizing).
What interested me also was to highlight the fact that all the basic features of the social order could be produced by actors are defined only by a limited set of attributes. In other words, a model of actor could engender a social order.
And I have here the two ideas were combined. Because this was the idea of a model of actor. The other idea was that of a model of interaction. Between the two, in the combination of these models, in the space of possibilities opened up by that combination, it seemed to me possible to generate a social theory of general relatively decent.
But to do so would have had need of a third idea. But, as I said already, only two ideas occurred to me. In the end, if those ideas had some sense, then someone else will happen and someone -with greater luck, vocation, and genius I – will think of a way to combine them. And if you are really interesting, then there will be displayed. One of the advantages of the ideas is that, in truth, are not dependent on one. Even the ideas that occur to her.