If »equilibrium« in social systems is recognised as optimum distribution of the system sources among »actors and system members« and the majority of them accept their position for continuity of function and getting a better output of the system, »stability« of this system is underestood as nonoccurrance of repeated accidents, behaviours and stimulations which can cast doubt on the function of that system.
With the increasing emergence of ›› destabilizer systems‹‹ in the 21 centery, the stability of social systems is always expose to annihilation .
So that to avoid »shokes« and unsteadiness these systems need to be reconstructed and changed perpetually. In this relation some questions can be propounded:
1) Can all human systems obtain stability through change?
2) Do changs and reforms destabilize all aspects of social systems?
3) Is it possible to divide these systems to ››monostable‹‹ and ››distable‹‹ systems as J.C hauvallier pointed out or to ››multistable‹‹ as Ashby argued?
J.Chauvallier discussed that monostable systems, emphasizeing on
»structural stability« are capable of self-improvability because they find their stability in temporary unsettling of elements internal stasis, while distabile systems are less capable of change and resist it. But there is a probability that leadership of system exposes some of its subsystems to change and maintains current status in others.
Following to study a bout these subjects the writer derived and called it
»stability in crisis«. Based on this hypothesis, when a social systemed by
»destabilizer organizations« and its communication with the environment is cut, these increase its entropy and creat a critical atmosphere inside it. In such a situation only those elements maintain themselves wkind can cope better with crisis Of course this phenomenon happens when systems‘ sources continue in a limited form.