Main trends of research in the social and human ... - unesdoc - Unesco

5 I 0 Jean Piagel
development remains characteristic, although each state of equilibrium succeeds
the previous one by reason of the imbalances which engender it. For Marx,
conversely, the central mechanism of development is the continuous destruc-
tion of equilibrium, with all the methodological consequences which result’.36
The reason for this difference is strikingly obvious: the development of intel-
ligence culminates in completed structures in which functions and values are
entirely subject to the normative laws of internal structural transformations,
which means that such development is directed by equilibrations or self-regula-
tions leading to the ha1 balance; but biological, economic, political, etc.,
structures, being constantly open, cannot - because of the absence of closure -
involve such complete integration of function in the structural mechanism,
whence the historical role of imbalances which can actually lead to integrations
of structures.
This situation, peculiar to structures incapable of closure, explains the
relative independence of values connected with synchronic balance from the
diachronic formation of the corresponding structure. This is observed in the
case of certain crises (provided they are neither accidents of growth nor durable
disintegrations) where one may find abrupt modifications of economic, political,
or social values (reputation, personal credit) or of the affective values of an
individual. And it also accounts for the difficulty of characterizing sequential
stages (i.e. stages occurring in a necessary order of succession) in the social
sphere and the relatively small success of the ‘stages’ which Rostow believed he
had discovered in the processes of economic growth (from take-off to maturity).
The general problem in this respect consists in distinguishing a sequence of
transformations without organized internal development from a development
with sequential stages involving in particular what Waddington in embryology
called ‘homeorhesis’ (automatic return to the necessary trajectory in the case of
a deviation imposed from outside).
Such facts seem to demonstrate that functions andvalues are the more depend-
ent on history and diachronic explanation as they are better subordinated to the
corresponding structures. A system of values, on the other hand, obeys laws of
equilibrium or of present regulations which are the less dependent on the preced-
ing stages the less those values are normative, that is to say the less they are
conditioned by the structure alone and depend on exchanges whose external
conditions may vary. In other terms, the balance of these values does not in
such a case represent the final stage of a progressive diachronic balancing but
remains the synchronic expression of situations in part independent of develop-
ment; in this case there occurs only a succession of rebalancings whose laws
may be constant but whose contents vary, in part contingently and in part
cyclically.
IV. MEANINGS AND THEIR SYSTEMS
Every structure or rule and every value has meanings, just as every system of
signs has a structure and values. Nevertheless, the relationship of signifiant to