STABILITY
25 January 2008 (DRAFT)
Sam Holliday

HERE ARE SOME THOUGHTS ON STABILITY. THIS PROJECT IS A LONG WAY FROM BEING READY FOR PUBLICATION. HOWEVER, ANY COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS WOULD BE APPRECIATED. SHOULD I CONTINUE THIS PROJECT?

An alternative to the Hegel’s dialectic theory is needed; now that theory influences our behavior even though we are unaware of how it shapes our perceptions or how we are being moved toward Hegel’s utopian vision. A theory of ‘stability through equilibrium’ would be better. The dialectic moves us toward centralization—the “whole” of which Hegel speaks; stability would move us toward decentralization and freedom. The dialectic requires endless self-perpetuating conflict; stability requires self-regulating systems of conflict and cooperation that maintain a stable system through coordinated responses of its parts.

Today political, economic, security, and social issues are argued from extremes positions (thesis and anti-thesis) in searches for a whole solution. The dialectic is widely accepted as the way to make decisions. Most lawyers, politicians, members of media, and professors of the humanities rely on it. Debates, conscious raising, intimidation, bribery, and compromise are tools of the dialectic. In politics the final utopian vision would be world government with the power to enforce “the rule of law” in every corner of this planet.

If more people understood the Hegelian dialectic the odds are that political, economic, security, and social alternatives would be analyzed and compared with the aim of achieving greater freedom. Rather than the aim being a specific outcome, the aims would be a climate of order and satisfaction, which avoids the extremes of both the status quo and chaos. Self-regulating (homeostatic) stable systems involve the interaction of conflict and cooperation in many spheres of human activity: (1) peace - irregular warfare - war, (2) secular - sacred authority, (3) centralization – decentralization governance, (4) indivisible unity - freedom/liberty.

It does no good to debate Hegel’s intentions and motivations, but it is essential that people recognize the outcomes of the Hegelian dialectic in its pursuit of utopian visions. It supports the view that in order to achieve peace people must surrender to absolute rulers. It has allowed demagogues to spin perceptions, and distort reality, in ways to increase their power. It has turned capable, intelligence, people with free will into narrow minded, xenophobic troops for adventures of conquest. It has insured perpetual conflict. It teaches that the only way to spiritual satisfaction is through conflict. It ignores the need for individuals to have an inner compass to guide their behavior.

Many might accept that the way to truth is through thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis, but this cannot be proven it be better than other ways (scientific methods, sacred authority, and secular authority) to determine truth. No matter how the Hegelian dialectic is defined, or the arguments make to support its validity, it remains an unproven theory that leads to conflict, uniformity of thought, a lack of freedom, and world governance.

With all of the limitations of Hegel’s dialectic theory there is certainly reason to seek an alternative. But what is the theory of ‘stability through equilibrium’ and why is it a better theory?

Stability is an important concept. Yet probably no concept is more misunderstood and misused. The word stability is a code for several old and complex concepts. In Western culture it is the Golden Mean: the pragmatic approach that avoids extremes. In Chinese culture it is Yin-Yang: the equilibrium among opposites. In physics it is a stable state: a condition of continual change within an overall state that is not changed. In systems theory it is homeostatic equilibrium: a system that maintains balance among its parts through continual adjustments. Unfortunately many people think of stability as permanence, or preservation of the status quo.

Equilibrium means self-regulating (homeostasis), i.e. the internal stability of the system is maintained through coordinated responses of its parts to any internal disruptions or input for its external environment. Equilibrium requires responsiveness to reciprocal and endless interactions. Stability is not a sub-set of equilibrium; stability is an outcome, or end, while equilibrium is a means. In human affairs equilibrium involves conflict and cooperation.

Conflict and Cooperation is a dynamic whole with two interacting parts. It includes:
Struggles for dominance: Each actor attempts to satisfy its interests, regardless of the impact on others.
Collaborating: Some actors seek to satisfy the concerns of others.
Compromising: Some actors are willing to give up some interests.
Avoiding: An actor withdraws from or suppresses conflict.
Accommodating: An actor gives priority to the interests of others.

Just as with the Hegelian dialectic, ‘stability through equilibrium’ can be applies to all human affairs. However, here it will be described only for international relations.

War – Irregular Warfare – Peace includes three conditions of international relations all involving conflict and cooperation. Each condition has its unique means, methods, strategy, tactics and techniques. To sever total war, conventional war, insurgent warfare and peace is artificial; at best, such separations are a convenience use to classify relative conditions. The use of force is actually a continuum including no use of force (extreme cooperation) to unlimited use of force (extreme conflict)--from zero intensity to maximum intensity. One part of the continuum stresses no use of force (diplomacy if external to a state, and politics if internal). Diplomacy and politics both use identity, argument, spin, propaganda, manipulation, economic pressure, coalition formation, party loyalty, ideological commitment, "horse trading", bribery, and intimidation. The other part of the continuum stresses the use of force during war and irregular warfare.

War is violence between symmetrical armed forces of states to gain territory or to weakening an opponent’s will to resist. When insurgents gain control of part of a country, establish a rival government, and create armed forces symmetrical to the armed forces of the original government, they are a defacto state, or embryonic state; since the combat includes aspects of both irregular warfare and war, but it is within the territory of one country, it is considered a civil war. Irregular warfare and war often overlap.

Irregular Warfare is protracted asymmetrical violence between insurgents and those in authority for influence over people. It is a condition resulting from a breakdown of peace yet not violence between the armed forces of states. Irregular warfare is often conducted simultaneously with peace or war. Irregular warfare and peace often overlap.

Peace is a condition without violence to affect political change; no one has the will to use violence for political purposes even though the underplaying reasons for potential violence might still exist. Peace is an unstable equilibrium preserved through the dynamics of interactions between conflict and cooperation.

Within a state peace exists when there is an absence of political violence, the outcome of acceptance of the structures and processes of governance. Peace within a state results in stability with order and a climate of satisfaction. The violence that does exist is criminal, not political. Peace within a state depends upon a social contract between states and the people within the territory of those states. In Western Culture a social contract (written or unwritten) between the people and their government is the way the structures and processes of governance are accepted. However, in many non-western societies the same is achieved through custom and tradition.

Among states peace exists when there is an absence of war, i.e. the armed forces of states are not engaged in combat, and disputes between states are resolved through negotiations. However, during peace there can be irregular warfare within some states as non-state actors attempt to weaken or overthrow those in authority.

Conclusion. The theory of ‘stability through equilibrium’ would be better than Hegel’s dialectic theory in the shaping of our perceptions and in determining how to conduct human affairs. Hegel’s theory causes conflict in attempts to achieve a utopian vision in the future. The theory of ‘stability through equilibrium” causes conflict and cooperation in attempts to achieve order and a climate of satisfaction in the present and future.

Copyright © 2008
Armiger Cromwell Center, 3750 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 374, Atlanta, GA 30319-1322. 404-201-7374.

Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at armigercc@comcast.net