PRACTICE IN USING KINEOLOGIES
This section on Kineology covers the three archetypes of changing, namely Determinism, Existentialism, and Functionalism. Having read through them first (each covered in a page), then try some of the following suggestions (or do similar things that will also illustrate the desired points): Take any one of the postulates and apply it to a situation of change that interests you. The situation might occur inter-personally (between family, friends, classmates, etc.), socially (in your community, city, or region), politically (in your local or national government), or globally (in international relations, in the transnational economy, or the global environment), or any circumstance similar to those listed. Or it might just be something that springs to mind.
In the case of Determinism, ask yourself “What aspects of the situation under consideration can be considered of a mechanical nature?” That is to say, to what extent does gravity, the laws of mechanics, thermodynamics, etc. apply, and account for the outcome of interest to you? There is never any point in criticizing or questioning an outcome where the predominant source of change was natural forces that made the course of events inevitable. Nor is there any point in asking for, or expecting something which natural forces make an impossible outcome. So, distinguish the extent to which cause and effect determine the course of events, and what real possibilities exist for alternatives, and which do not. What is possible through technological intervention, and what is not? What is possible by setting different causal chains in motion, and what is not? If some causes inevitably produce certain effects, can these causes be avoided, and should they be avoided?
In the case of Existentialism, the question to ask is the exact opposite to that for Determinism, namely “What choices are available in this type of situation?” Choices are available because the resources to implement them can be mobilized, they do not contravene natural forces, and their various outcomes are equivalent in terms of possibilities. How many of the available choices are actually within the field of awareness of those involved? Gravity is not a choice – it exists everywhere, varying in intensity with local conditions. Are habits or traditions equally binding on choices? Not necessarily an easy question to answer – it seems to depend on who is involved, when, where, and why. A history of previous behaviour will likely give some indication of an answer in cases like this. To what extent do we project our choices onto others? If I commit to an ideal for myself, does that choice imply that I believe it is equally applicable to others? [No.]
With Functionalism, the question concerns “Is there a conscious (to the participants) purpose behind this change (teleonomy), or larger forces guiding the sequence (teleology)?” Some people see a “hidden hand” behind market processes, biological evolution, and human development.
The challenge with these types of hypotheses is to show the mechanisms that are mobilized to actually implement the “larger plan”. Ask for, or look for the way the “purpose” is supposed to work – how do facts, events, processes, and forces interact and interlock to give the string of outcomes that produces the plan over time? Are there alternative “bigger plans” that could explain similar outcomes? Would “God” or “Mother Nature” or “Human Nature” serve as equally plausible explanations? Would “no purpose, just chance happenings” also explain?
Then apply each postulate to a single change, and see if they concur or contradict.