Is our society orderly or disorderly?<\/p>\n
By Mochtar Buchori<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Prof. Hans Christian von Baeyer's article on
\n\"Disorderly Conduct\" in the May\/June edition of Sciences has
\nchanged my old notions on order and disorder.<\/p>\n
I am no longer sure how to interpret the political realities
\nin countries such as Myanmar and Turkey: order, disorder,
\nfeatureless order, orderly disorder, or order under apparent
\ndisorder. Or is it disorder under apparent order?<\/p>\n
The chancellor professor of the College of William and Mary in
\nWilliamsburg, Virginia, U.S. discussed the phenomena of order and
\ndisorder as encountered in the world of physics.<\/p>\n
The examples he used were taken from ordinary life situations
\nand from experiments in physics. He suggested that the
\ngeneralizations about order and disorder formulated in physics
\nare not only useful in understanding physical phenomena, but can
\nalso be used to understand social phenomena.<\/p>\n
He said that the intimate relationship between order and
\ndisorder explained in physics in terms of entropy can also be
\nappreciated from a less mechanical, more intuitive point of view.
\nAnd to support this thesis he cited a poem by Wallace Stevens
\ncalled \"Connoisseur of Chaos\". It reads as follows:<\/p>\n
A. A violent order is disorder; and<\/p>\n
B. A great disorder is an order. These<\/p>\n
Two things are one<\/p>\n
Although at first it looks confusing, it is nonetheless
\nbeautiful. It says in a very concise manner that order and
\ndisorder are not separate, but intimately related.<\/p>\n
In his article von Baeyer refers to \"order\" as an elusive
\nconcept. It is also a subjective thing. Reading his explanation
\nabout these two characteristics of order prompted me to think
\nabout my own situation. I have my own way of \"ordering\" my
\nmaterial; books, journals, clippings, notes and magazines etc.<\/p>\n
I put them in various places in my office and in the house,
\nand I know exactly where they are. I can find whatever I want
\nwithin minutes. But my wife and daughter consider the way I
\n\"order\" my things \"disorder\". From time to time they try to bring
\n\"order\" into the house, especially into my office. But every time
\nthey reorder my things, I become confused. I cannot find the
\nthings I want as easily as usual, because the ordering system has
\nchanged. I feel that my office becomes disorderly every time my
\nwife or my daughter puts it \"in order\". This is a situation which
\nevery person must have experienced in his or her daily life.<\/p>\n
Being a subjective matter, order, according to von Baeyer, is
\nlike beauty. It is in the mind of the beholder. If beauty lies in
\nthe eyes of the beholder, order and disorder is lodged \"in the
\nbeholder's growing understanding\". But while beauty is always a
\nsubjective thing, order is \"a precise and powerful instrument in
\nthe tool chest of science\".<\/p>\n
The man who converted the intuitive concept \"order\" and
\n\"disorder\" into quantitative entities was Ludwig Boltzmann, an
\nAustrian physicist. More than a century ago Boltzmann made the
\nastonishing claim -- which history proved right -- that entropy
\n(the gradual process whereby temperature differences tend to even
\nout) is \"molecular disorder\", and that the law of increasing
\nentropy can be interpreted as \"the tendency for things to become
\nmore disorderly\".<\/p>\n
The conceptual bridge that enabled Boltzmann to connect the
\nquantitative term \"entropy\" to the intuitive concept of disorder
\nwas the idea of probability. Boltzmann observed that in any
\ncollection of molecules an orderly arrangement is improbable, and
\nso it is assigned low entropy. On the other hand, a messy,
\ndisorderly arrangement is common and probable, and accordingly it
\nis assigned high entropy. Today, schoolchildren learn the bland
\nmaxim that \"order\" is low entropy, and \"disorder\" is high
\nentropy.<\/p>\n
But to physicists, von Baeyer said, \"the more probable state
\nis more disorderly\". This means that in the natural course of
\nevents my office has the tendency to become more disordered.
\nOrder can be restored, to be sure, and entropy lowered, but only
\nat the expense of energy on the part of my wife or daughter.<\/p>\n
On the basis of this understanding, it can be said that if
\ndisorder is the natural tendency of things, then order can be
\nachieved only at a certain cost. The greater the magnitude of
\norder we aspire, the greater the cost. So what is this cost? And
\nare we capable and willing to pay it?<\/p>\n
In terms of social relations, the cost is the willingness and
\ncapability for self-restraint. Only societies with a high
\ncapability for self-restraint will be able to generate and
\nmaintain order. Societies with a low capability for self-
\nrestraint will never be able to achieve order. In this kind of
\nsociety social entropy, that is the social equalization process
\nor the society's desire to eliminate discrepancies, will remain
\nhigh.<\/p>\n
Von Baeyer introduced two concepts in his article which are
\nvery useful for understanding our society. These two concepts are
\n\"apparent order (or disorder)\", and \"hidden disorder (order)\".<\/p>\n
What is \"apparent order\"? The example from physics used by von
\nBaeyer is the smooth and shiny face of the blank portion of a
\ncompact disc. He called this \"the embodiment of featureless
\norder\". But under a microchip \"that level plane becomes an unruly
\nheap of atoms piled higgledy-piggledy like pebbles on the beach\".
\nWhat we have here is hidden disorder behind apparent order.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, a hologram recorded on a photographic plate
\n\"looks like a jumble of splotches and whirls, devoid of pattern,
\nshape or order\". Yet, laser light shining through it \"creates a
\nnifty 3-D image of the Taj Mahal, revealing the order hidden
\nunder apparent disorder\".<\/p>\n
So, what did the recent general election reveal about our
\nsociety? Did we see hidden order under apparent disorder, or
\nhidden disorder under apparent order? Or was it simply disorder?<\/p>\n
The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.<\/p>\n
Window: Societies with a low capability for self-restraint will
\nnever be able to achieve order. In this kind of society social
\nentropy, that is the social equalization process or the society's
\ndesire to eliminate discrepancies, will remain high.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/is-our-society-orderly-or-disorderly-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}