Society has been viewed analogously as an organism that is seen to grow, display differentiation in structure and function as well as interdependence of parts. This is evidenced in the works of such diverse writers as Plato, Pascal, Hobbes, Hegel, Durkheim, Spencer, Comte and Parsons. The interests of early sociologists with biology encouraged many of them to make comparisons between society and the human organism. Terms such as "organs of society" and "the differentiation of its parts" were utilized extensively in their writings. Herbert Spencer in his famous work, Principles of Sociology, used findings from biology and anthropology to formulate his criteria of complexity, differentiation and integration to human society. Durkheim's links with the "organic school" resulted in the division of sociology into three classifications, a) social morphology, b) social physiology and c) general sociology (Randal, 1998).
While the root metaphor of society--as organism--has had a certain purchase within sociology, historically; it does have a number of constraints that must be acknowledged. Some of these limitations are connected with the problems of inductive reasoning in general and specifically with the structure of arguments by analogy. Analogical reasoning can take many forms, but the two most common ones involve analogies, which are purely illustrative in nature and ones that involve an inference (Manicas, 1976). Inductive reasoning involves attempting to make like-comparisons between two objects, situations, events, or states-of-affair. For instance, any attempt to illustrate similarities between the workings of a computer and the brain in terms of "circuits." The latter involves the construction of an actual argument whereby one identifies two domains of interest (i.e. a human body and society) lists several similarities between the two--for instance, organs and situations in terms of "functions"--and then suggests an inductive inference, which goes beyond the initial comparison. Thus, because "homeostasis" is present in the living organism, whatever happens to one part will have an effect upon the other parts of the system. These relationships are also valid for subsystems. Parsons' classic analysis of a biological system indicates that the function of any element in a system is the role it plays in the operation of the system. Parsons' finding is relevant to systems and subsystems in the societal realm. The unique characteristic of a system is the interrelationship of parts within the system. Every system is made up of two different forces: differentiation and integration. Robbins notes, "In a system, specialized functions are differentiated, which replace diffuse global patterns. In the human body, for instance, the lungs, heart, and liver are all distinct functions. Similarly, organizations (subsystems) have divisions, departments, and like units separated out to perform specialized activities" (Robbins, 1988).
Subsystems of the Cell of Society
Within a socially constructed subsystem there are three systems--social, cultural, and personality--all of which are interrelated to one another and to the larger systems of society, nations, or to the global village--the world. Change in any of the three systems of a subsystem will affect the whole subsystem and ultimately every subsystem within the society. The subsystem or "cell" of society accounts for human actions, reactions, and interactions. Within the cell is socially meaningful interaction (SMI)--the "nucleus" of the cell or subsystem of society (Figures I and IB) (Fredericks, 1998).
[FIGURE I OMITTED]
The social system of the cell of society is the observable structuring of relationships between and among social actors or the many "personalities." Thus the socialization process plays a very important role in this system. The cultural system of the cell of society is the organization of the rules, values, and meanings that direct social relationships within the social system. Since the behavior and actions of individuals, over time, fall into a series of organized pattern of behavior and over time these patterns are located in a spatio-temporal historical context they become institutions, then institutionalization process plays a vital role in taking care of basic human needs in the system or subsystem of society (Searle, 1995). As the culture of the society is incorporated by the individual, a personality unique and distinctive to that person, and more or less adjusted to the demands of society, is developed. Personality then is the dynamic system of ideas, attitudes, habits, and values (internalized from the culture and mediated through society) which is unique to the individual person (Fredericks, 1998).
The genetic (or natural) basis for personality is the combination of traits that results from the person's unique constellation of genes. The genetic basis (N1) of personality represents only potentiality. These potentialities, when developed under the influence of the total environment in which the individual's orientation takes place, are shaped into a personality. Hence, the formation of the personality is one integrating the individual's experience with his physical qualities to form a mutually adjusted, functioning whole. This takes place mainly in childhood and adolescence, and results in the development of distinctive physical as well as emotional responses. The personality system, therefore, is the totality of the actor's personal needs in the cultural world in which he/she interacts. Within the personality system rests the self-concept. The self-concept involves the assumption that personalities act according to the way they perceive themselves (their self-concept) and according to the way they perceive the social situation. Social situations are all the forces acting upon the individual at any given moment in time. The assimilation process is most crucial in the personality system. The finished product is acquired through social meaningful interaction (SMI)--the nucleus of the cell of society. The SMI is linked to socialization, a learning process in a social environment (N2), where the value--attitude system (VAS) of a culture is internalized (Fredericks, 1985).
Although there are a multitude of differences, which exist among cells in the biological realm, there is indeed a profound unity that exists between and among them (Tortora, 1976) (Figures IB and II). The same is true for the myriad of subsystems, which exists in the macro structure of society, culture, and personality.
In the cell of the human organism, the nucleus is embodied in the cytoplasmic matrix. In the subsystem or cell of the SCP (social system, cultural system, and personality system) we have socially meaningful interaction (SMI--which is related to the nucleus) in the sociocultural matrix (related to the cytoplasm of the cell in biology) (Figures II, III and IIIB). These relationships are viewed as a unity of form or structure.
[FIGURE II-III OMITTED]
In biology, there is unity of function among cells since the metabolism of all cells is basically similar (Tortora, 1976) (Figures II, IIIB, and IV). Indeed, the human body is composed of billions of cells that are the units of all living organisms. Aggregates of like cells form the tissue, which, in turn, forms the organs. Different organs that contribute to a common function make a system. All these systems together make an organism. The human body as a system consists of several subsystems. These include the locomotor subsystem (the skeletal, articulatory, and muscular); the digestive subsystem (alimentary canal and associated glands); the respiratory subsystem, the urinary subsystem, the nervous subsystem, the blood vascular subsystem and the lymphatic subsystem. So also, there is a unity of function among all subsystems within the global village since the function of the social system (institutions), the cultural system (values), and the personality system (individuals) is basically the same in any part of the world. Indeed, we are cognizant of the fact that institutions, values, and individuals vary from culture to culture, society to society, from gemeinschaft to gesellschaft and vice versa.
[FIGURE IV OMITTED]
Further, cells show a unity of composition, for the essential macromolecules of living things are made up from the same small molecules--in essence cells are of similar chemical composition (Tortora, 1976). In like manner, the large structure of society is formed from the same smaller subsystems, which are composed of social, cultural, and personality systems. Within each subsystem is a nucleus (SMI) in which two or more individuals (group) act, interact, and react.
In a very broad sense, a cell may be defined as the structural and functional unit of living organisms (Tortora, 1976). So also, a subsystem with a social system, a cultural system, and a personality system may be defined as the structural and functional unit of society.
In a subsystem or a cell of society, the process which links the cultural system to the social system is institutionalization (Figure I). The process of institutionalization affects the values in such a way that they are transformed over time into approved patterns of behavior, which are essentially institutions in a society. Further, the process that joins the personality system to the social system is socialization (Figure I). Socialization is a learning process and it is achieved through interaction. Socialization occurs in a social environment, which is influenced by the values of the individual's culture. It is a movement towards maturity. It affects us from the moment of conception until we die and even beyond depending on our religious beliefs. Assimilation is the process that links the cultural system to the personality system (Figure I). Assimilation is the means by which individuals in society gradually adopt the characteristics of another culture into their personalities. The complex processes of institutionalization, socialization, and assimilation within the subsystem of the cell of society are most essential in the understanding of social phenomena in any group, in any society, in any nation--indeed, the social phenomena of a global village (Fredericks, 1998).
Biological factors are related to the cultural system of the cell of society. Hence, these factors are also related to the social system and personality system. For example, man's biological needs and capabilities limit culture. Among the most basic biological limitations is the need for food and drink, and in many instances shelter in order to live. Biological factors may influence the personality system directly, as shown by endocrine balance, or indirectly, as in their social definition. For example, an individual who is physically weak may have an inferiority complex if he or she believes that other individuals make offensive remarks because of that weakness (Roucek, 1976).
Some of the most important biological factors affecting the personality system are the central nervous system, the metabolic processes, the endocrine system, drives, sexual differences, the maturation process, and various biological characteristics which affect the self image of the individual (Roucek, 1976).
The Nucleus (SMI) of the Subsystem or Cell of Society
In biology, the cell may be considered to consist of several basic parts, including the cell surface which includes the cell membrane; the extracellular materials which are substances external to the membrane; and cytoplasm--the ground substance of the cell. Within the cytoplasm of the cell exists the nucleus, organelles, golgi bodies, lysosomes, endoplasmic reticulum, and centrioles (Tortora, 1976) (Figure II, IIIB, and IV).
The nucleus is a constant and essential component of the cell. Somewhat related to the nucleus of the cell in biology is the SMI (socially meaningful interaction)--the nucleus of a subsystem in society. Before any subsystem or cell of society can become functional, a nucleus or agent is necessary. That nucleus is SMI (Figure III). Prerequisites for SMI are social contact (SC) and communication (C2). These in turn, presuppose the concepts of entree (to enter) (E) and rapport (R).
In the development of SMI, the actor enters society and establishes some degree of rapport. After this has been accomplished, social contact (SC), the simplest unit of relationship between two or more persons, is possible. Communication (C2), which is involved in social contact, is the basis of socially meaningful interaction (SMI)--the nucleus. In a sense, it is SMI. Communication is a thoroughly social activity which involves socialized persons as actors and reactors (Merrill, 1965).
Social contact plus communication result in socially meaningful interaction which is sustained, reciprocal, purposeful, meaningful, and a predictable series of relationships between two or more socialized human beings. In the SMI process, each actor takes the other(s) and appraises the other(s). However, SMI can occur at various levels. For example, interaction between two individuals (I [left and right arrow] I); and between the individual and the group (I [left and right arrow] G) (Figures III and IIIB)(Fredericks, 1985).
It is important to note that within the "nucleus--SMI" there is the concept of motivation, which enables the human organism to behave in a certain way. Some scholars including Tamotsu Shibutani (1961) focus upon the nonconscious aspects of motivation. In his book Society and Personality, he notes four categories for nonconscious and/or nonverbalized reasons for behavior. These are a) preservation of a self-image; b) status maintenance; c) reference group behavior and d) the human equation (Shibutani, 1961).
For Parsons, the individual is motivated to select objects as goals, the achievement of which is satisfactory to the person. He notes that human behavior is an activity which is focused on obtaining a particular goal and simultaneously meeting a need or action. The behavior is predictable due to the interaction of the three systems (social, cultural and personality) within the subsystem or cell of the society (Jensen, et al., 1971).
Motivation, as well as attitudes and perception are shifted by group interaction. An example of this process can be seen in the classic experiments at the Hawthorne Plant of the Western Electric Company. Researchers put fourteen male production workers in a special room called the Bank Wiring Observation Room. Although the workers were capable of handling more than the norm of six thousand soldering connections a day, the observers discovered that the workers honored a "code of ethics" that determined the average production of each man. Although there was an economic incentive for increasing production, the group feared that management would lower their piece rate, causing them to do more work for the same wages, and used this argument to justify their policy of output restriction. These experiments demonstrated that informal work groups establish and enforce norms and motivations, which guide the production and other behavior of workers on the job.
Cell Division in Biology and the Social Processes and Social Change in the Subsystem or Cell of Society
In biology, one of the basic processes of living cells is called cell division. Cell divisions result in cells that are identical to those from which they arose (i.e. daughter cells). A special nuclear division, called meiosis, is a process in which egg and sperm cells are formed. Mitosis, cell division, is divided into four stages: prophase, metaphase, anaphase, and telophase. The interphase is generally a time of high metabolic activity during which DNA is synthesized and replicated (Figures IV). These processes and changes in the cell in biology are related to the various changes and complex processes found in the subsystem or the cell of society.
For example, in organisms there is interdependence and specialization in aggregate of cells, in societies there is an interdependence and specialization of mutually adapted personalities. Integration is at the psychological level in societies and at the physical level in organisms. Because of the fact that situations are entered into by component individuals rather than societies and subsystems acting as wholes, integration in psychological adaptation is often much less apparent than interdependence in organisms. The individual is shaped by one's social environment, not obliterated by it, and in fact, the individual may even change it. Societies, then, act at emotional and behavioral levels, with rational and motivational activities remaining in the hands of component individuals who act, interact and react with each other within various subsystems or cells (Miller, 2002).
While the continuation of the aggregate (group) which constitutes the subsystem of society is accomplished through biological means, the continuation of a subsystem as a functional aggregate (group) is accomplished through the transmission, from generation to generation, of the common stock of ideas and values (cultural identity). It is also accomplished through the mutual adaptations in behavior that make it possible for the members of the group to live and work together. This transmission and mutual adaptation often become so habitual as to be unconscious, but frequently conscious patterns of behavior are also present. However, societal patterns change; and individual and group behavior is usually altered in relation to the altered societal pattern. Ideal patterns (types) are built on the presumption that conditions are constant, but in reality, they are endlessly variable. For this reason, ideal patterns still remain the models for the subsystem and other subsystems within a society. The sum total of the ideal patterns which control reciprocal behavior between individuals and between the individual and the subsystem (group) within a society constitute the social system under which a particular subsystem (group) or cell exists.
Somewhat related, therefore, to changes in the cell of an organism are the changes occurring in each subsystem of a society. A subsystem, or cell in modern society, will undergo rapid change that can be viewed to be the norm. Persistent patterns of behavior continue to exist for human subsystems even though rapid change has occurred. Society would become impossibly turbulent if patterns of behavior did not exist which enable individuals to predict the behavior of others.
Social Processes [(SP) in Figure V] refers to changes within society or within a group or cell within society. These social processes or changes can be characterized as associative Social Processes. These are behaviors that cause the social system or cell (group) within the system to work harmoniously for the maintenance and/or improvement of the system or subsystem and its current social patterns. There are also disassociative Social Processes. These are behaviors that cause the social system or cell (group) within the system to act destructively to the detriment of the current social pattern or to the social system itself.
For example, each subsystem or cell of an organization undergoes change; that change can be analyzed as falling somewhere on a continuum between accidental or substantial (essential) (Figure V). Accidental references those organizational changes in the subsystem that reflect normal alterations in structure, functions, and responsibility. These changes do not strike at the core of the organization or its mission. Essential change refers to major alterations of the sub-system or cell of the organization's identity, value systems, culture or mission. Change within the subsystem can be internal or external. It can also be proactive (initiated by an agency or an externality) or reactive (reaction to a demand, need or event). Another dichotomy rests in the planned or unplanned nature of change. This division of change is distinct from proactive and reactive in that while proactive change is normally planned, reactive change may be planned or simple "knee jerk" reaction--unplanned change in the subsystem or cell of the organization.
[FIGURE V OMITTED]
Once a subsystem or cell of an organization has planning as part of the change process, a series of phenomena occur. It is helpful to distinguish between the actual plan and the process by which the planning occurs. The process usually begins with some sort of vision and it is heavily affected by the subsystem's or cell's organizational culture, the management theories to which the organization adheres, and the leadership style of the individuals. The process will generate a strategic plan (S1) from which operational plans (OP) or action plans are developed (Chabotar, 1987)(Figure V). Those plans may be tactical, single--use, involving programs and projects, or standing plans incorporating policies, standing operating procedures and roles and regulations (Griffin, 1984).
The relationship between Cellular Biology and Cellular Sociology can now be summarized (Figure VI). As the individual is an entire biological system composed of multiple subsystems (e.g. circulatory system, digestive system, nervous system, etc.), the social system is composed of many subsystems or institutions. As the biological subsystems are composed of organs, with cells being the building blocks directed by the nucleus, this is related to the social systems each possessing a SCP dependent on SMI. The nature and nurture of cells is its genetic make-up and cellular environment. As societies and cultures move along a continuum of G1 to G2, cells divide (mitosis and meiosis) as part of the growth process. Cellular adaptation (e.g. hyperplasia, metaplasia, dysplasia, and neoplasia) is how cells respond to internal and external stimuli. This is related to how the socialization process may produce associative and disassociative interactions or relationships. These relationships and adaptations require communication. In the SCP model, the individual may communicate with other individuals (I), mass communication (MC), culture (C1), and a group (G). In Cellular Biology, the individual cells may communicate and contact other cells within an organ (I), the entire biological system (MC), the entire organ within a subsystem (e.g. a cardiac muscle cell to the heart which is part of the circulatory system) (C 1), and other organ systems (G) (Figure VI).
[FIGURE VI OMITTED]
In this paper, we have analyzed some select interrelationships between the cell of an organism and the cell or subsystem of the human society. Given that knowledge is never completely compartmentalized, we attempted to bring closer the naturwissenschaften (natural sciences) und (and) sozialwissenschaften (social sciences) forming the concept of "Cellular Sociology."
In our analysis, we have focused upon subsystems or the cell of society; the nucleus (SMI) of the subsystem or cell of society; and cell division in biology and the social processes and social change in the subsystem or society (Figure VI and Table I). In making these comparisons we are not advocating any form of simplified reductionism where, knowledge of society may ultimately be "reduced" to knowledge of Cellular Biology (Rosenberg, 1988). Such attempts would be futile and counterproductive to our basic aim: the articulation of relationships for heuristic and pedagogical purposes. Rather than a reductionalist approach this paper encourages the use of connectionism to these respective sciences. But even within these constraints, we believe we have extended the root metaphor of society-as-organism in a positive and novel fashion (Miller & Fredericks, 2002). For instance, the phases of cell division (mitosis) could be related to various theories of social change elaborating our (G1-G2) dimension. Alternatively, any disturbances in normal cell production could be viewed as having parallels to various strains in SMI, producing in the extreme case social disintegration of the anomie type. Such rapid and chaotic social change could be likened to a failure in the DNA to reproduce accurately, producing in the extreme case neoplasm. (Figure VI)
Nevertheless, how does such an analysis further the discipline of sociology itself?. A partial and tentative answer might be that such comparisons are an initial step in rethinking the importance of the crucial idea of "system" and "structure" in sociological thought and analysis. Individuals are a highly complicated (biological) system existing within an equally complex social system, and the existence of both systems can be empirically verified. It is paradoxical that our "construction" of social reality enables us to develop the methods of scientific inquiry, providing an increasing understanding of the dynamics of life at the (biological) cellular level but without a corresponding precision at the social level. Why is this so, given that biology and sociology are broadly related on many dimensions? A common response is to point out that social systems are too "permeable" or "open" while biological ones are conceived to be "closed" and therefore more susceptible to analysis and understanding (Greenwood, 1989). However accurate this characterization may be, it still begs the basic question of how social systems can create and mobilize knowledge systems in such a way that the "open" one can better understand the "closed" one and not vice versa? The tentative relationships we have been trying to develop here then suggest the need to view the nature of social systems as an empirical issue but one that must ultimately be located within the sociology of knowledge.
The relationships at the social and biological levels reflect more basic epistemological and empirical issues that require a reanalysis of the "systems" approach in these disciplines. Cellular Sociology compliments the developing science of "chaos" theory (Gleich, 1987). According to Gleich, "Chaos breaks across the lines that separate scientific disciplines. Because it is a science of the global nature of systems, it has brought together thinkers from fields that had been widely separated ... Chaos has become not just theory but also method, not just a cannon of beliefs but also a way of doing science." (Gleich, 1987). The analysis of "chaotic" systems involves the understanding of both physical and social systems whose "behaviors" seem to defy analysis because of their constant fluctuations and apparent irregularities. Examples in the physical realm are weather patterns and the great red spot of Jupiter, while in the social realm phenomena include political conflicts, the variability in school achievement patterns cross culturally, economic-ideological transformations, the resurgence of traditional cultural-religious values as reactions to "modern" values, etc. At the psychological level, chaos theory has already produced some suggestive findings in terms of how psychotherapists tend to avoid and restructure the "chaos" of their patients expressed emotional and cognitive states. The basic assumptions being that such chaotic states are "random" and irrational expressions that cannot have any "rational" underlying structure(s).
While natural scientists are most comfortable with linear and predictable systems, social scientists have long recognized the complexity of universal behavior and dynamical systems. Chaos theory applied either to the natural or social sciences demonstrates that an underlying structure(s), what is taken to be "chaotic" on the surface level, exhibits unique and discernable patterns at a "deeper" level. In fact, origins of chaos theory within sociology were presaged by Merton's (1936) early paper on the "unintended consequences" of social action. Merton clearly saw that a fundamental problem of the social systems approach in sociology was to explain the origins of such unintended consequences, which are basically chaotic states that ought not to be there if we possess accurate characterizations of social systems. Merton suggested that such consequences might be the result of yet unperfected methodological approaches which, when perfected, would show such consequences to be capable of rational explanation.
In more contemporary sociological analysis, Boudon (1986, 1987, 1988) continues to provocatively suggest that the understanding of social systems is a simultaneous enterprise at both the micro and macro levels of analysis. Without explicitly referring to chaos theory, Boudon has indicated that our continuing inability to fully understand the workings of social systems lies in our lack of understanding of the congruence and essential symmetry of what he calls the "micro-macro" link (see also Boudon 1987, 1988, 1989). For example, a phenomenon such as "mob action" may be viewed as chaotic at the macro-level of analysis, because even though there is an identification of the necessary economic and political conditions for such an action, they may not be sufficient to predict such an action at a particular time. At the microlevel, however, mob action may not at all be chaotic because there is an "underlying" structure that can be determined when such factors as the role of specific leaders and the probability of a single "catalyzing" event are taken into consideration.
We suggest that there are parallels between the cell as a biological system at the micro-level and society as a "cell" with its own system at the macro-level. The relationships we have drawn between the two further suggest that there is a need to explore both empirically but within the framework of the sociology of knowledge. Research in this discipline may explore how it is possible that parallels exist between Cellular Biology and "Cellular Sociology," but yet knowledge of the former is much better understood although "coming from" the latter which is developed and less understood. Further, an exploration of the possibility that the perceived "stability" and/or "instability" at both levels may need a re-thinking in light of the emerging field of "chaos theory." More specifically, the "chaotic" states exhibited by both biological cells and "societal cells" may be "inversely" related to one another (Miller & Fredericks, 2002).
In summary, the inclusion of chaos theory into the social sciences as well as the natural sciences is a new paradigm and a new epistemology and not just a refinement to the existing structuralist models. This discussion has several potential implications for Cellular Sociology. It will allow scholars to identify and integrate the ramifications of both the behavioral and the natural sciences in areas of stem cell research, genetic engineering, organ transplantation, and the human genome project. In fact, according to the White House press release April 2001: "The President will create a new President's Council on Bioethics ... to study the human and moral ramifications of developments in biomedical and behavioral science and technology. The Council will study such issues as embryo and stem cell research, assisted reproduction, cloning, genetic screening, gene therapy, euthanasia, psychoactive drugs, and brain implants." Thus, the relationships explained in this paper may be viewed as a beginning stage for a further analysis of systems. It also opens the door for a new subdivision in Medical Sociology, namely, "Cellular Sociology."
Legend to Figures and Table
Figure I Subsystem or Cell of Society
There is a inter-relatedness of the social system (S), cultural system (C), and personality system (P) that forms socially meaningful interaction (SMI). Personality is shaped by nature (N1) and nurture (N2) through the socialization process (SP); disorders of personality may exist on a continuum of marginality (M) and anomie (A). Societies may be characterized along a continuum of a G1 (gemeinschaft or rural) to G2 (gesellschaft or urban).
Figure IB Subsystem or Cell of Biology
A cell contains the organelles and a nucleus. The nucleus directs and permits cellular adaptation and cellular division from one cell (M1) to two cells (M2), influenced by its genetic make-up and surrounding environment.
Figure II Cell of Organism in Biology
The nucleus is the hallmark of eukaryotic cells, which contains the genetic make-up (chromosomes) of the cell. Between cellular divisions the nucleolus contains the chromosomes in their extended state. The organelles include: mitochondria, lysosomes, peroxisomes, golgi complex, smooth and rough endoplasmic reticulum etc. Figure reproduced with permission by John W. Kimball (2002) (http://www.ultranet.com/~jkimball/BiologyPages)
Figure III SMI or Nucleus of the Subsystem of Cell of Society
The nucleus of the SCP (S = social system, C = cultural system, P = personality system) Model which exists along a G1 (gemeinschaft or rural) to G2 (gesellschaft or urban) continuum as well as a marginality (M) and anomie (A) continuum is socially meaningful interaction (SMI). The socialization process (SP) develops from ongoing SMIs. In the development of SMI, which presupposes entre (E) and rapport (R), there is social contact (SC) and communication (C2). Individuals (I) may interact with other individuals (I), groups (G), their culture (C1) and via mass communication (MC).
Figure III B The Nucleus of Cell in Biology
The nucleus of the cell directs the activities of cell division (MI-M2) and cellular adaptation, which may be associative or dis-associative. A cell may interact with other individual cells, to its own organ system, to other organ systems, and / or to the entire biological system via cellular communication and cellular adhesion.
Figure IV Cell Division (Mitosis) and Change in an Organism
During interphase the cell grows and replicates its DNA. The commitment to mitosis is prophase. The chromosomes are attached to the spindle fibers and anchored by the centrioles. Metaphase is completed when all the chromosomes have formed bipolar attachments about an equatorial position. The segregation of the sister chromatids from the metaphase plate is anaphase. The re-condensing of the chromosomes and reforming of the nuclear envelope signals telophase. Completion of mitosis via cytokinesis results in two daughter cells. Figure is reproduced from SmartDraw 6 Trial Installation (2002 SmartDraw.com).
Figure V Social Processes and Change in the Subsystem or Cell of Society
The socialization process (SP) of an individual or a society may adopt associative (Assoc) processes (e.g. accommodation, acculturation and assimilation) or disassociative (Disassoc) social processes (e.g. conflict and competition). These processes directly influence how an individual or society respond to essential (Essen) and accidental (Accid) forces of change (which may be internal, external, proactive or reactive). Subsequent plans or adaptations to change will involve a strategic plan (S1) and an operational plan (OP).
Figure VI Processes and Change of Cellular Biology in Relation to Cellular Sociology
A parallel relationship exists between a cell of society and a cell of a biological system. These "cells" are under the direction of a nucleus, are influenced by N1 (nature) and N2 (nurture), are agents of contact and communication, and are able to adopt to change in disassociative and associative processes. Movement along a continuum of G1 and G2 or M1 to M2 is a process of cellular division.
Table I Cellular Sociology to Cellular Biology
The cellular counterparts with examples to the appropriate components of the SCP Model are illustrated. Refer also to Figure VI.
Table I Cellular Sociology to Cellular Biology SCP Model Cellular Model Cellular Examples SCP Cellular Mitochondria, Lysosomes Society, Culture Organelles Golgi Complex Endoplasmic & Personality Reticulum SMI Nucleus Nucleolus Socially Meaningful Interaction [N.sub.1] Cellular DNA/Chromosomes Nature Genetics [N.sub.2] Cellular Cell, Neighboring Cells Nurture Environment Organ System, Biological System SP Cellular Hyperplasia (Assoc.) Socialization Adaptation Metaplasia (Assoc.), Process Dysplasia (Disassoc.), Neoplasia (Disassoc.) [G.sub.1] - [G.sub.2] [M.sub.1] Mitosis and Meiosis Gemeinschaft - [M.sub.2] - Gesellschaft Cellular Division SC Cellular Gap junctions and Social Contact adhesions desmosomes [C.sub.2] Cellular Cytokines, Chemokines, Ions Communication Communications
Dr. Marcel Fredericks wishes to acknowledge the Public Health Service Fellowship at the Harvard University Medical School, granted by the Health Service Research Training Committee of the National Institute of Health.
We wish to express our sincere thanks to Professor Peter Whalley, Chair, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Loyola University Chicago, for his enthusiastic support in making the manuscript ready for publication. We owe a special word of thanks to Patricia Robertson, Administrative Assistant at Loyola University Chicago; Vilma Sorgente Odiet, M.A., and Dr. Martin Molnat. We also thank Dr. Frank Yartz, Robert Barnes, M.D., and Raymond Warpeha, M.D., Ph.D., of Loyola University Chicago for their insightful comments on the original manuscript. We appreciate the assistance of Erin M. Jamen; Dr. David S. Crumrine, Assistant Vice President for Research; Joyce Dinello, Manager of Printing Services, and Marianne Bach, Graphic Designer; Amanda J. Adams and Dr. Thomas Hitcho, Loyola University Chicago. Our gratitude is also extended to all those who contributed to this research project- Loyola University Chicago, Harvard Medical School, and Northeastern Illinois University students, faculty and staff, alumni and alumnae, and members of Loyola University Chicago's Jesuit Community.
Boudon, R. (1986). Theories of Social Change: A Critical Appraisal. Oxford: Polity Press.
Boudon, R. (1987). The Individualistic Tradition in Sociology. In J.O. Alexander, The Micro-Macro Link (p. 45-70). Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Boudon, R. (1988). Will Sociology Ever Be a Normal Science? Theory and Society, (p. 17, 747-771).
Boudon, R. (1989). Subjective Rationality and the Theory of Ideology. In H. Haferkamp (eds.), Social Structure and Culture (p. 269-288). New York: Walter De Gruyter.
Chabotar, K. (1986-87), Harvard Graduate School of Education, Class notes for Financial Management in Education, Post Doctoral, Dr. Janet Fredericks.
Fredericks, M., Miller, S.I., Fredericks, J (1985) A Model for Teaching the Descriptive and Empirical Findings in the Sociology of Education. Journal of Social Thought. (p. 6-10).
Fredericks, M., Miller, S.I., Fredericks, J (1998) First Steps in the Sociology of Health Care: A synopsis and catalyst for change. Volume I and II. (p. 22-42, 389-403). Chicago: Loyola Research Services.
Gerth, H.H. (1959). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gottweis, H. (1999). Governing Molecules: The Discursive Politics in Genetic Engineering in Europe and the United States (p. 399-754). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gleich, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Viking Press.
Greenwood, J.D. (1989). Explanation and Experiment in Social Psychological Science: Realism and the Social Constitution of Action. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Griffin, R.W. (1984). Management (p.171-181). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Jensen, A.F., & Metcalf, H.C. (1971). Sociology: Concepts and Concerns, (p. 6). Chicago: Rand McNally.Kimball, J.W. (2002) Kimball's Biology Pages http://www.ultranet.com/~jkimball/ biologypages/w/welcome.html
Mack, C. (2001). Faith in Stem Cells. Stem Cells 19(4).
Manicas, P.T., & Kruger, A.N. (1976). Logic: The Essentials. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Merrill, F.E. (1965). Society and Culture: An Introduction to Sociology (p. 23). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Merton, R.K. (1936). The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action. American Sociological Review I. (p. 894-904).
Miller, S.I. (2002) Impact of mixed methods and design in inference quality. Handbook of Mixed Methodology. (p1-38). San Francisco: SAGE. Editors C. Teddlie & A. Tashakkori.
Miller, S.I. & Fredericks, M. (2002) Social Science Research Findings and Educational Policy Dilemas: Additional Distinctions. Educational Policy Analysis Archives (p 1-13).
Randal, F., & Wright, F.J. (1998). Basic Sociology (p. 21-23). London:MacDonald and Evans.
Robbins, S. P.(1988). Organization, Theory, Structure, Design, and Applications (p. 10). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Rosenberg, A. (1988). Philosophy of Social Science, Boulder: Westview Press.
Roucek, J.S., & Warren, R.L. (1976). Sociology: An Introduction (p. 10-11). New Jersey: Little-field, Adams & Co.
Searle, John R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. New York: The Free Press.
Shibutani. T. (1961). Society and Personality (p. 179-280). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Thomson, James (2001). Cellular Biology. Time 158(7), 26-29.
Time. (2001). The Presidency: The Meaning of Stem Cells, 158(7), 14-19.
Tortora, G.J., & Becket, J.F. (1976). Life Sciences (p. 88-124). New York: Macmillan.
MARCEL FREDERICKS, PH.D.
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
and Director of Research in Medical Sociology
STEVEN I. MILLER, PH.D.
Department of Leadership and Policy Studies
School of Education
JEFF A. ODIET, M.D.
Instructor of Medicine
Harvard Medical School
JANET P. FREDERICKS, PH.D.
Dean of Graduate College and Director of International Programs
Northeastern Illinois University
Please address all correspondence to:
Jeff Odiet, M.D.
Lynnfield Medical Associates
6 Essex Center Drive
Peabody, MA 01960