Some ideas thinking in the social order at the level of societal or whatever you call it to a set of relationships. I don’t think it’s possible the ‘disorder’ social at lower levels (that is, one will always find with social practices, with nets, with some kind of role), At least, because human beings simply can not act, so that, by necessity, invent something.
But, what the level of the society? How do they relate to each other the various practices that are operational in a particular field?
Two or more practices may be in conflict both continue to have access to resources that allow for the conflict, and the conflict does not affect the reproduction of the practices in conflict
The idea seems to me relatively obvious: the Entire practice, since it is composed of actions, required resources. In both a practice and having access to those resources can continue, even when you are in conflict with one another. What is important is that a practice does not affect the fact that the other practice has access to those resources.
A practice contradictory can be maintained if other practices independent generate the resources required for that practice
A practice contradictory is one in which your operation ends up preventing the operation of their requirements. This you would think that would imply then, that a practice contradictory should be unstable and disappear. But in fact, not; in both the requirements of this practice are not necessarily produced by such a practice: Although the practice of the shop to remove, while other practices produce continually that contradiction can continue indefinitely.
In fact, this allows us to understand some of the celebrity trends of the theory of Marx, as capitalism is contradictory and goes beyond itself because the number of capitalists progressively reduces (or the tendency to the decrease of the rate of profit). The trends are effective, and one can check that in a particular market the number of competitors decreases with the time. But the trend ignores is that given that other practices of capitalism allow us to generate continuously the resource ‘entrepreneurs’ (new markets) this trend does not produce the crisis of capitalism predicted by Marx
The set of practices in the exercise in an area make up a dynamic network and open, has no unit
Ultimately, the practices are relatively independent. You are only concerned with the requirements that have and produce results that are used by others, but such use is not an issue for them. Somehow in the ‘ecosystem’ of a practice are not included all practices but only those practices that affect their requirements (and that is part of the ecosystem of practices whose requirements affect).In this sense, the set of practices does not correspond to any unit, or has no coherence special. The set of practices is contingent and changing. The practices have relationships with some other practices, but the practices are independent: A practical X requires a resource to and provides a And practice, but if practice And disappears, the practice, X is not affected if you can get to it from another source. Although its elements have relationships with each other, and the disappearance (or appearance) of new practices can have far-reaching effects, the specific set of practices in the exercise in one area is contingent and other aggregates are also possible.
The importance of this last proposition is that it allows us to deconstruct the whole problem of the order of the tradition Parsoniana (which is still underlying many of the discussions about social order). An important part of the question of order is for the stability of the order and a course is that the only answers acceptable are those that allow orders balanced, that do not have sources of instability: the question of the order and the stability are treated as the same question (Vanderstraeten, 2002, p. 81). It is the basis, for example, of the idea that any order may be based only on domination because it does not solve the problem in the long term: Only in the short-term work, but do not provide a stable base. And this idea has been applied to criticize explanations regulations: The rules do not serve to explain the given order that can be contradictory and therefore unstable (Lichbach & Seligman, 2000, p. 44).
But the social orders real are unstable and their balances are always only local: the set of practices in operation are always changing. Makes No sense, then, to apply as a criterion of solution of the problem of order which is stable in the long term, when in fact the social life is not.This imbalance does not produce ‘social disorder’ simply because, as we have shown above, the forces that produce new practices are always in play. To exist, the social life does not require a solution that is stable and permanent order, but go to solving permanently the problem with solutions variables.