Introduction
Generally, life in society and the social changes that occur as individual spheres develop are influenced by various factors that affect the rate of change, the allocation of resources, and numerous other aspects. The role of concomitant coordinators, such as governments and political elites, amplifies tendencies towards specific shifts and reflects the unique nature of the ideologies inherent in a particular time or place. At the same time, regardless of the era and level of progress, individual doctrines that describe the principles of social transformations offer distinctive views on how such processes proceed.
One of the paradigms formed by evaluating different regulations and political management methods is the theory of spontaneous order. This concept, first formulated by the economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek, contrasts with those associated with the ideas of coordinated social construction (Boettke & Candela, 2015). Relying on spontaneous order to determine social change should be mandatory due to the significant interpretative possibilities inherent in this concept.
Concept Description
The target concept to consider is an ideal construction of spontaneous order, based on the principles of methodological individualism, which extends beyond the purely economic framework and impacts the sphere of social relations. According to this theory, the priority of human freedom is the principal value achieved in the absence of state restrictions or coercion (Brown, 2018; Luban, 2020).
Capitalism is a long-established economic order characterized by cooperation, and its essential features include private property, freedom, and competition (Whyte, 2019). The highest viability, justice, and efficiency characterize this spontaneous order. An artificially created system, namely socialism, cannot surpass in its capabilities a system that arose naturally in the process of evolution (Dale, 2018). As a result, spontaneous order is impossible outside the market economy, which arises and evolves as a result of the interaction of people. Its development takes place in accordance with its own internal logic because, in its formation, people are guided by their practical knowledge, embodied in customs and habits. Therefore, the market mechanism is critical in coordinating spontaneous order.
Systems of Spontaneous Order in Social Change
When social order is achieved through the voluntary interaction of individuals subject only to those laws that are the same for all of them, a system of spontaneous order in society arises. Thus, any social changes are the result of individual efforts, coordinated through the implementation of personal initiatives (Szafruga, 2021). This self-coordination justifies freedom because it serves the public interest. The actions of individuals can be considered free since they are not initiated by any specific order coming from any higher or state authorities. The nature of the compulsion to act, in this case, is impersonal and general.
There are many aspects of an individual’s life when they are not free (Dunn, 2018). They are under pressure to earn a living; they may be exploited by their employer or pressured by family members; they can also be influenced negatively by their own complexes. Assessing freedom involves identifying the opportunities that drive social change. As a result, stimulating change is natural, although rational views do not always accompany this process.
The totality of individuals’ personal motives can lead to the emergence of a spontaneous order only on the condition that each individual, in their actions, takes into account what others have done in the same area before them. When it comes to large groups of people, such mutual adjustments must be indirect; each adapts to the state of affairs formed as a result of the previous actions of others. This implies that information about a specific social area should be available to every member of society (Collins, 2022). When speaking of change, the assessment of the work done by individuals should be considered a prerequisite for transformations and shifts.
With a spontaneous order, there are no distorting factors that can compromise the objectivity of assessing public opinion (Slaev et al., 2022). External incentives do not significantly influence people’s desire to optimize various social spheres. In an ideal world order, this should occur in cases such as social situations, the state of various markets, modern achievements in scientific progress, or contemporary legislative arrangements.
Examples of Spontaneous Order Systems in Social Change
Among the systems of spontaneous order, which form certain areas of the life of society and the changes that take place in it, one can single out some particular examples. The continuity of human activity toward optimizing the individual aspects of life incentivizes searching for objective and reasonable strategies for modernizing and improving the existing order (Askari, Younas, and Saeed, 2020). Under such conditions, areas such as law and science are the spheres where the impact of public opinion is often felt the most.
Spontaneous Order in the Common Law
The judicial system can be a convenient example of assessing the role of spontaneous order in social change. For instance, a judge on a complex case thinks about the decision and consciously refers to numerous precedents. Like many other judges who have previously decided similar cases in accordance with statute, precedent, and considerations of fairness and convenience, the officer of the law in question also needs to make an informed decision.
While judges analyze various aspects of the case, their minds are in constant contact with the minds of their predecessors (Hayek, 2021). In addition to the analysis of exclusively legal references, the analysis of current trends in jurisprudence and the characteristics of the social environment is a significant incentive in making a decision. Only after all aspects of the case are established, correlated with existing precedents, and analyzed from the standpoint of one’s own professional judgment, does the decision become final.
The additions made by judges to the Common Law may be significant or insignificant. However, in any case, they represent an interpretation of the previous legislation, strengthening or changing it to a certain extent (Deakin et al., 2017). As a result, the legislation takes on a new dimension, and society also receives a new signal on how to respond to a given situation and new incentives. Each new decision in the court guides all subsequent judges in issuing verdicts on cases that do not yet exist.
Thus, the functioning of the Common Law system is a series of updates introduced by successive judges, who are guided by the mechanism of parallel interaction between the judiciary and society. The result of this is the orderly development of the Common Law system through the constant use and paraphrasing of the same fundamental rules (Brown, 2019). These rules are transformed into a legal system under the influence of prevailing trends, including in social life, which indicates the role of mass views in shaping the corresponding changes.
The consistency and stability that this system possesses are a direct consequence of the successive order. In this order, the successive generation of judicial verdicts is regulated in relation to the entire body of previously adopted verdicts and any justified changes in public opinion (Chen & Burgess, 2019; Levy, 2019). Accordingly, the operation of the Common Law judiciary is the area of influence of spontaneous order in society.
At the same time, people may see significant differences between the Common Law judicial system and systems of production or consumption. As a basis, the idea can be given that the legal system can achieve more than temporary advantages (McKee, 2017). An economic system of spontaneous order coordinates the actions of individuals with the sole purpose of serving the momentary material interests of its participants. An orderly law-making process creates a balanced and stable system of legal thought. As a result, one can say that spontaneous order is a significant driver of social change because the nature of the functioning of the judiciary directly determines the principles of interaction and responsibilities between people.
Spontaneous Order in Science
Another example of the role of spontaneous order in social change can be given through the evaluation of this concept in the scientific field. Every scholar in search of discoveries faces the scientific results and hypotheses of all previous scholars(Andersson, 2021). In formulating one’s hypothesis and drawing conclusions, the scholar uses the methods accepted in science with their own variations that he or she considers true in this case.
A scholar differs from a judge in that there is no specific case to reach a verdict; on the contrary, the choice of the subject of study should be independent. Each newly proposed hypothesis is invariably accepted by the scientific community with some degree of skepticism, and the author often has to defend their own idea from possible objections, thereby demonstrating their individual vision (Beddeleem, 2020). Thus, each new scientific hypothesis is subjected to a regular process of scrutiny. Arguments for and against are discussed in public discussions before the scientific community makes a decision to accept or reject the ideas under consideration.
Public debate, during which scientific hypotheses are tested before being accepted by the scientific community, is a process of mutual adaptation. This form is demonstrated at a court hearing by a lawyer and a prosecutor who seek to convince the jury of their position. When such discussions take place in wider circles, each participant orients their position on what was said before (Cardell, 2022).
As a result, all the various and mutually exclusive aspects of the case are revealed, and the public tends to accept one or more hypotheses and reject others. It can be argued that the people involved in the dispute, as a result of which this result is achieved, cooperate in a system of spontaneous order. This type of coordination resembles the competitive order in terms of the role played by the rivalry of individuals seeking to achieve mutually exclusive advantages (Herron, Sovacool, and Phillips, 2019). Nevertheless, in a sincere dispute, participants primarily strive to find the truth, relying on it in the name of avoiding mistakes. Thus, coordination should be classified separately as a system of spontaneous order based on persuasion.
Law and science are only two areas of the intellectual kaleidoscope of society. Although no other intellectual activity forms such well-defined systems as legal and scientific thought, they all flourish equally through the mutual adaptation of the efforts of their individual participants. For instance, language and spelling are developed by individuals who use them to communicate with each other (Werfel, Melanie Schuele, and Reed, 2019).
Various arts, professions, religious concepts, political thoughts, and many other areas of human culture are formed by methods of spontaneous order similar to those that have been described in relation to science and law (Cornelissen, 2017). Each of these areas represents a common heritage accessible to all. It is enriched by talented people in each successive generation through the proposed innovations, which, if accepted, are included in the common heritage and passed on for the guidance of new generations.
Economic and Political Consequences of Social Change under Spontaneous Order
Freedom within the framework of the economy of spontaneous order is realized in the fact that if authorities refuse to satisfy the needs of people, there is the possibility of an alternative. Since planning creates a monopoly of production, the state decides what and how many material goods citizens can use. Within the framework of Hayek’s concept, the socialist slogans of potential abundance push to choose the path of planning (Dale, 2018; Leeson, 2018). This attracts people because they have an opportunity to free themselves from the need to choose.
However, this can be followed by retribution in the form of oppression, which a free market economy cannot generate. Economic freedom is the freedom of any activity, including the right to choose and the risk and responsibility associated with it. Therefore, it is a necessary prerequisite for any other freedom (Kiely, 2017). Therefore, the construction of spontaneous order serves as an alternative to state regulation.
Suppose capitalism means the existence of a system of free competition based on the free ownership of private property. In that case, it should be understood that democracy is possible only within such a system. If collectivist sentiments prevail in society, the free power of the people inevitably comes to an end.
Nonetheless, it is impossible to talk about democracy as a perfect form of political governance. In the context of spontaneous order, this principle of polity is only a utilitarian means to protect social peace and individual freedom (Velotti, 2019). In other words, democracy itself is neither perfect nor reliable. If it refuses the role of a guarantor of personal freedom, it can also exist under totalitarian regimes (Dizerega, 2019; Walsh & Brady, 2019). The establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship is closely connected with the state planning system since the dictatorship is an ideal instrument of violence and propaganda. The desire for spontaneous order to ensure normal social change is an adequate attempt to take into account people’s moods and be guided not by simple democratic values but by the real state of affairs.
Core Values of Spontaneous Order for Achieving Social Change
Based on the analysis of the aforementioned ideas, one can highlight some of the characteristic virtues of the spontaneous order, which must be taken into account when assessing social change and how to achieve it. Firstly, this type of order is not created intentionally and therefore has no purpose; at the same time, it is useful from the information and coordination standpoints to implement the necessary transformations (Bowles, Kirman, and Sethi, 2017).
Secondly, spontaneous order is characterized by adaptive capacities that facilitate change. This type of order acts as a mediator in assessing the multitude of individual events and phenomena, the totality of which is not accessible, known, and understandable to anyone individually (Georgalos and Hey, 2020). Finally, spontaneous order is a concept associated with the regularity of interaction between members of society. The coincidence of expectations and the rational use of the skills and knowledge of individuals helps implement the planned changes productively (Schinckus, 2017). All these values are significant criteria reflecting the role of spontaneous order in determining social transformations.
Conclusion
Social change is an essential indicator of the development of both local and global processes, and the concept of spontaneous order, first introduced by Hayek, is a valuable tool for interpreting corresponding transformations. On the example of the areas of common law and science, the implications of this theory are given, which reflect the relevance of individuals’ views on interaction and progress.
Relevant economic and political manifestations also make it possible to reveal the unique features of the spontaneous order model and emphasize the merits of this concept, including in the context of democratic freedoms. Spontaneous development, adaptive capacities, and the regularity of interaction are characteristics that reflect the virtues of spontaneous order. This theory has been developed as an individual framework that has become an alternative to traditional methods of state regulation, which are often associated with negative manifestations, such as pressure and infringement of freedoms.
Reference List
Andersson, D. E. (2021) ‘Spontaneous order and the Hayekian challenge to interdisciplinary social scientists’, Atlantic Economic Journal, 49(4), pp. 363-375.
Askari, Q., Younas, I. and Saeed, M. (2020) ‘Political optimizer: a novel socio-inspired meta-heuristic for global optimization’, Knowledge-Based Systems, 195, pp. 1-25.
Beddeleem, M. (2020) ‘Recoding liberalism: philosophy and sociology of science against planning’, in P. Mirowski, D. Piehwe, and Q. Slobodian (eds.) Nine lives of neoliberalism. New York: Verso, pp. 21-45.
Boettke, P. J. and Candela, R. A. (2015) ‘What is old should be new again: methodological individualism, institutional analysis and spontaneous order’, Sociologia, 2, pp. 5-14.
Bowles, S., Kirman, A. and Sethi, R. (2017) ‘Retrospectives: Friedrich Hayek and the market algorithm’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(3), pp. 215-30.
Brown, W. (2018) ‘Neoliberalism’s Frankenstein: authoritarian freedom in twenty-first century “democracies”‘, Critical Times, 1(1), pp. 60-79.
Brown, W. (2019) In the ruins of neoliberalism: the rise of antidemocratic politics in the West. New York: Columbia University Press.
Cardell, D. W. (2022) An investigation into the likelihood that a centrally planned economy can provide greater economic good than spontaneous order created by the free market. PhD thesis. Liberty University.
Chen, J. and Burgess, P. (2019) ‘The boundaries of legal personhood: how spontaneous intelligence can problematise differences between humans, artificial intelligence, companies and animals’, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 27(1), pp. 73-92.
Collins, G. M. (2022) ‘Spontaneous order and civilization: Burke and Hayek on markets, contracts and social order’, Philosophy & Social Criticism, 48(3), pp. 386-415.
Cornelissen, L. (2017) ‘The secularization of providential order: F. A. Hayek’s political-economic theology’, Political Theology, 18(8), pp. 660-676.
Dale, G. (2018) ”Our world was made by nature’: constructions of spontaneous order’, Globalizations, 15(7), pp. 924-940.
Deakin, S. et al. (2017) ‘Legal institutionalism: capitalism and the constitutive role of law’, Journal of Comparative Economics, 45(1), pp. 188-200.
Dizerega, G. (2019) ‘Democracies are spontaneous orders, not states, and why it is important’, Cosmos and Taxis, 7(3-4), pp. 1-25.
Dunn, J. (2018) Setting the people free: the story of democracy. 2nd edn. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Georgalos, K. and Hey, J. (2020) ‘Testing for the emergence of spontaneous order’, Experimental Economics, 23(3), pp. 912-932.
Hayek, F. A. (2021) Law, legislation, and liberty. Edited by J. Shearmur. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Herron, D. J., Sovacool, S. and Phillips, M. T. (2019) ‘Hayek’s theory of spontaneous order and the normative development of the free market and common law’, The Journal Jurisprudence, 39, p. 239.
Kiely, R. (2017) ‘From authoritarian liberalism to economic technocracy: neoliberalism, politics and ‘de-democratization”, Critical Sociology, 43(4-5), pp. 725-745.
Leeson, R. (2018). Hayek: a collaborative biography: part XII: liberalism in the classical tradition, Austrian versus British. Cham: Springer.
Levy, J. T. (2019) ‘Social injustice and spontaneous orders’, The Independent Review, 24(1), pp. 49-62.
Luban, D. (2020) ‘What is spontaneous order?’, American Political Science Review, 114(1), pp. 68-80.
McKee, D. (2017) ‘Neoliberalism and the legality of peer platform markets’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23, pp. 105-113.
Schinckus, C. (2017) ‘Hayek and the use of physics in economics: towards a progressive synthesis?’, Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, 29(2), pp.132-152.
Slaev, A. D. et al. (2022) ‘The spontaneous rules of spontaneous development’, Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 49(9), pp. 2392-2408.
Szafruga, P. (2021) Politics and the theory of spontaneous order. New York: Routledge.
Velotti, S. (2019) ‘The pretense of an economic cosmos and the aesthetic sense: some reflections on “spontaneous orders”‘, Studi di Estetica, (15), pp. 125-145.
Walsh, A. and Brady, M. (2019) ‘Chester Barnard revisited: spontaneous orders and the firm’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 15(6), pp. 951-962.
Werfel, K. L., Melanie Schuele, C. and Reed, P. (2019) ‘Linguistic contributions to word-level spelling accuracy in elementary school children with and without specific language impairment’, American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 28(2), pp. 599-611.
Whyte, J. (2019) ‘The invisible hand of Friedrich Hayek: submission and spontaneous order’, Political Theory, 47(2), pp. 156-184.