I was very interested in the remarks you made regarding the interdisciplinary possibilities in the Social Sciences. I wish to contribute the following perspective form Social Psychology and Psycholingusitics (my own specialty). The Table on the next page lists the concepts you presented, arranged in three groupings of concept universes corresponding to the schema below:
STRIVING ISSUES -------------> PLANNING ISSUES ---------> MAPPING ISSUES
things that deal with things that deal with things that deal with
MOTIVATION: ideology PLANNING or intermediate VISIBLE or MANIFEST
commitment, intentionally, between goal and effect: items: effects,
drive, desire, such as management, method, consequences,
impulse, essence, and means, approach, analysis, ends, ultimate,
origin -- in terms of and so on -- in terms of labels, etc.--
THEORY BUILDING; THEORY BUILDING; In terms of THEORY
By dividing all your concepts in these three separate categories, I
am able to see relations between them more clearly. This appears
especially advantageous when I compare what other concepts in political
science I already have in my Dictionary of Concepts and the concepts of
Neubauer and Heenan who were Colloquium speakers before you. You'll
notice that all three of you use concepts that (a) fall readily into the
three basic phases of a BEHAVIOR UNIT (MOTIVATIONAL, PLANNING, AND MAPPING
issues), and (b) that fit in with each other very coherently.
For further theoretical cross-fertilization, I present the following correspondences that might suggest to you theoretical extensions and further explanations of your own concepts since they ought to behave conceptually in accordance with the correspondences:
Page 2 James Dator
|STRIVING ISSUES---------->||PLANNING ISSUES------->||MAPPING ISSUES|
THEOLOGY & HISTORY
BIOLOGICAL BASES OF BEH.
NEW CULTURAL CHANGES
|COLLECTIVE DECISION MAKING CONFLICT RESOLUTION
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW MORAL PHILOSOPHY
LASSWELL (up to 1950)
STATISTICS/COMPUTER MODELS (1950 plus)
MATH MODELS/SCALING TECH.
THE 4 SCENARIOS
NEW AGE POLITICS
JAP. RELIG. & POLITICS
|ROLE OF PSYCH. IN SS
SOCIAL ECOLOGY THAT
PROFESSION PROCESS OF THE SCIENTIST
|TYPES OF PSYCHOLGS.
SOCIAL SCI. PARADIGMS
|UTILIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE
POLICY & APPL. SCI.
|COMMITTMENT TO ECONOM.
|SURVEY DATA RESULTS
You may recall I asked you a question, or rather, made a comment to
the effect that there appeared to be a psychological correspondence between
your three principal concepts and the traditional psychological division
of behavior into three components of MOTIVATION (will, intention, commitment,
drive, etc.), BELIEF (plan, theory, hypothesis, analysis, etc.), and STYLE
(overt, visible component of behaviors). I am enclosing the notes
I took during your presentation. As you can see, I use a form called
the "graphic concept" to locate your concepts as they appear in the stream
of you talk. I am currently developing this method of "listening"
and "organizing" scientific concepts and have other applications should
you be interested in seeing them.
To explain. According to the graphic concept analysis of you presentation, it is obvious that your ideas fall appropriately into the tree fold psychological organization defined by the graphic format, namely MOTIVATIONAL OR STRIVING ISSUES -- these appear in the innermost circle of the various displays; then all the concepts you use that relate to PLANNING ISSUES appear in the intermediate circles, and in the outer circles appear all the concepts you use that relate to visible MAPPING ISSUES. Thus we can make the following graph-table display of your principal ideas as follows:
THE STRIVING ISSUES THE PLANNING ISSUES THE MAPPING ISSUES
COMMITMENT TO AN
SURVEY DATA RESULTS
ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY SOCIO- PSYCH. FUTURES BUSINESS PRACTICES
PERSONAL IDEOLOGY HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS EXPRESSED PREFERENCE
PREFERENCES DOMINATE EFFECTIVE
WALKS OF LIFE CATEGORY INTERNATIONAL MODEL ELITE BUREAUCRACY
VALUES CONTENT ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR STYLES
COMMUNITARIAN ETHIC SURVEY ITEMS ATTITUDES & THOUGHTS
TYPE OF WORKER
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
This tabulation of your concepts and ideas shows that they are divided
in three concept universes. These are independent theoretically,
therefore if they are found correlated in any one study, the indication
is that the conditions are such as to recreate the correlation, and this
needs to be explained according to the individual case.
Some conclusions that may be drawn from organizing your concepts in this threefold psychological organization:
1. All data on PREFERENCES correspond to the psychological
MOTIVATION (drive, commitment, intention, will, etc.); all data on
DOMINATE correspond to the psychological component of PLANNING (belief, opinion,
assumption, theory, analysis, etc.); and all data on EFFECTIVE will correspond to the
psychological component of MAPPING (actions, decisions, sets, behaviors, styles, etc.); Since
each psychological component is distinct and has a particular operation associated with it, it is
potentially useful to know these relations between the MANAGEMENT components and the
PSYCHOLOGY components. Is it?
2. All PREFERENCE data will be related
to DOMINATE data and to EFFECTIVE data in a
manner of prior to ulterior, as in the series ORIGIN leading to CAUSE eventuating in EFFECT.
PREFERENCE data originate DOMINATE data which cause EFFECTIVE data
COMMUNITARIAN ETHIC originates NATIONAL PLANNING which causes ELITE
BUREAUCRACY STLES OF BEHAVING.
COMMUNITARIAN ETHIC and FEET PREFERENCES are STRIVING ISSUES and
originate: NATIONAL PLANNING and HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS which cause:
AN ELITE BUREAUCRACY and EFFECTIVE BEHAVIOR STYLES and particular
5. Along with these concepts there are
many others that relate to them and can be drawn upon for
finding explanatory correspondences. E.g.:
FELT PREFERENCES/COMMUNITARIAN ETHIC: JUDGMENT; CONSUMMATION
OF REWARD; ALTRUISM GOODS;
ENDS; RELATIONSHIP; UNITY;
AGREEMENT; ABILITY; HABIT;
TRAINING; MEANS; etc.
/ ELITE BUREAUCRACY:
EFFECTS; USES; ACTION; PERCEPTIONS;
EXECUTION; PERFORMANCE; REACTIONS;
CONTENT; SETTING; APPEARANCE; etc.
There are many more correspondences from my "Graphic Dictionary" some which may make sense and leads to theory (others may not). I only wished to give you an indication of the idea that scientific concepts are organizable in three concept universes always corresponding to the basic pattern:
I-------------------> II-----------------------> III
ORIGIN--------------> CAUSE--------------> EFFECT
or: PRIORMOST-------> INTERMEDIATE----> ULTIMATE
or: GOALS/ENDS----------> MEANS-----------> CONSEQUENCES
or: STRIVING PLANNING MAPPING
ISSUES----------> ISSUES-----------------> ISSUES
This system comes from eighteenth century scientist/philosopher Emanuel Swedenborg and not known at all today. If this is meaningful to you, I would be happy to explore the method further with you and show you my other correspondences. This system helps organize theory-building, helps organize one's listening to a lecture, helps organize one's concepts. It is listening tool as well as a thinking tool.