up to a fairly comprehensive textbook on hierarchic
order (which may see the light some day). But this is not the purpose
of the present volume. As already said, the hierarchic approach is a
conceptual tool -- not an end in itself, but a key capable of opening
some of nature's combination-locks which stubbornly resist other methods.*
* Cf. also Jevons: 'The organisation hierarchy, forming as it does a
bridge between parts and whole, is one of the really vital, central
concepts of biology.' [11]
However, before attempting to use the key, it is necessary to gain some
insight into the way it works. The present chapter is meant to convey
some of the basic principles of hierarchic thought in order to provide
a platform or runway for the more speculative flights that follow.
5
To say it once more: if we look at any form of stable social organization,
from the insect state to the Pentagon, we shall find that it is
hierarchically structured; the same applies to the individual organism,
and, less obviously, to its innate and acquired skills. However, to prove
the validity and significance of the model, it must be shown that there
exist specific principles and laws which apply (a) to all levels of a
given hierarchy, and (b) to hierarchies in different fields -- in other
words, which define the term 'hierarchic order'. Some of these principles
might appear self-evident, others rather abstract; taken together,
they form the stepping stones for a new approach to some old problems.
'A good terminology', someone has said, 'is half the game.' To get
away from the traditional misuse of the words 'whole' and 'part',
one is compelled to operate with such awkward terms as 'sub-whole', or
'part-whole', 'sub-structures', 'sub-skills', 'sub-assemblies', and so
forth. To avoid these jarring expressions, I proposed, some years ago [10] , a new term to designate those Janus-faced entities
on the intermediate levels of any hierarchy, which can be described
either as wholes or as parts, depending on the way you look at them
from 'below' or from 'above'. The term I proposed was the 'holon',
from the Greek holos = whole, with the suffix on , which,
as in proton or neutron, suggests a particle or part.
The holon seems to have filled a genuine need, for it is gradually finding
its way into the terminology of various branches of science, from biology
to communication theory. It was particularly gratifying to discover that
it has also insinuated itself into French: in Professor Raymond Ruyer's
much discussed book La Gnose de Princeton [12] there is a chapter
entitled: 'Les accolades domaniales et les holons' -- with a footnote
which says: 'If I am not mistaken, the word originated with Koestler.'
New words are like parvenus: once their origin is forgotten, they have
made it.
Unfortunately, the term 'hierarchy' itself is rather unattractive and
often provokes a strong emotional resistance. It is loaded with military
and ecclesiastic associations, or evokes the 'pecking hierarchy' of the
barnyard, and thus conveys the impression of a rigid, authoritarian
structure, whereas in the present theory a hierarchy consists of
autonomous, self-governing holons endowed with varying degrees of
flexibility and freedom. Encouraged by the friendly reception of the
holon, I shall occasionally use the terms 'holarchic' and 'holarchy',
but without undue insistence.
6
We have seen that biological holons, from organisms down to organelles,
are self-regulating entities which manifest both the independent properties
of wholes and the dependent properties of parts. This is the first of the
general characteristics of all types of holarchies to be retained; we may
call it the Janus principle. In social hierarchies it is self-evident:
every social holon -- individual, family, clan, tribe, nation, etc. --
is a coherent whole relative to its constituent parts, yet at the same
time part of a larger social entity. A