(2) a. When the 2nd Law Operates in A Single Layer

(2) Combination of the 2nd and 1st Laws

The PKB case implies that people cooperate in the face of common threats such as predators or hunger, which is intrinsically related to the content of the 2nd law. Although the 2nd law, summarized in [Tab.3.21], may seem very simple, it can explain many complex political phenomena in a comprehensive way when combined with the 1st law.

As you have seen in the previous discussion of the 1st law, using it in a dual manner allows for a more specific understanding of political action, and combining the 2nd law with the 1st law enables a more detailed and rich understanding of political phenomena. The relationship between political capacity and political situation is just one aspect of this. Let us examine this in more detail.

 

(In a mathematical model, the 2nd law summarized in [Fmla.3.2.3]~ [Fmla.3.2.5] may seem very simple, but the combination of the first and 2nd laws is already implied in this mathematical model. That is, both the cohesion force() and the invasion threat() at the center of the 2nd law are values of survival capacity(), which is a three-term vector of armed capacity(), economic capacity(), and ideological capacity()^[Fmla.1.1].

 

a. When the 2nd Law Operates in A Single Layer

The starting point of the discussion is to divide the layer in which cohesion force and invasion threat operate according to the 2nd law into three layers. If I call these three layers the "Samjae layer", the Samjae layer consists of the armed force (A) layer, the economic (E) layer, and the ideological (I) layer. In the interaction between these layers, level multiplicity of scale and layer[Ch.2.20] and orderliness of decision^[Ch.2.18] should be directly applied.

In each Samjae layer, the 2nd law operates independently, but different laws operate between different layers. If you keep in mind the following diagram, it should be easy to intuitively understand.

 

[Diag.3.D.5] Operation of the 2nd law in the Samjae Layer

Firstly, an example of the operation of the 2nd law in the armed layer occurs when external aggression invades a political organization such as a state, and political members come together to increase their security force. The nationwide emergence of righteous armies and their fight against the invaders during the Imjin War serves as a typical example.

Secondly, a typical example of the 2nd law operating in the economic layer is when a state, company, or household faces an economic crisis. At the macro-level, I can cite the example of economic leaders cooperating in the face of a global economic crisis, at the middle-level, I can mention the case of Koreans collecting gold during the foreign exchange crisis, and at the micro-level, I can see families joining forces to live frugally when struggling with debt. Of course, when the threat disappears, they tend to split again. The union of companies that participated in one legislative or regulatory battle, but split in another battle is a typical example of the 2nd law. In 2006, US telephone and cable companies joined together to charge higher internet access fees to major internet content companies such as eBay, Google, and Yahoo, who were trying to implement a policy of prohibiting an increase in internet access fees. However, they split up when the telephone companies tried to directly compete with cable companies by offering TV programs.

Thirdly, let me consider the case where the 2nd law operates in the ideological layer. For example, the scholars of group A criticize the theories of group B as a threat to the ideological layer of group B, as they compete with each other in academia (or religion). In this case, the cohesion force of group B's members increases in the ideological layer, and as a result, the theories of group A are rejected. Likewise, members of group A will also cohere and justify their own academic discipline. This is the 2nd law of the ideological layer. An example of this is when the US economic community was hostile to Brian Arthur, who proposed a new perspective by advocating the principle of increasing returns, contrary to the conventional economic view that the economic system was reaching equilibrium in the 1980s. Economic journals led by US economists who advocate the free market regime cooperated with each other to reject Brian Arthur's papers that seemed to collide with their own beliefs without sufficient logical reasons.

Ideas(ideologies) such as race, ethnicity, kinship, and locality have a more distinct impact on political cohesion force and follow the 2nd law. An example of this can be seen in the discriminatory beliefs between white and black people in the American South during the 19th century. Even the socially marginalized white people at the time did not actively oppose the plantation or slavery system that dominated southern society, as the perception of being a different race from black people served as the strongest factor in uniting southern white people. " However poor and miserable white southerners might be, they could still look down on the black populaꠓtion of the region and feel a bond with their fellow whites and a sense of racial supremacy."

The independent operation of the 2nd law in each Samjae layer (level) determines the strength of power relations (cohesion force) in that layer, which in turn affects power relations in other layers according to the 1st law. According to the 1st law, a political actor that lacks armed capacity, which is based on economic capacity, and economic capacity, which is based on ideological capacity, will fail to achieve its goals^[Ch.3.107]. Therefore, an invasion threat in the armed layer becomes a threat in all layers. Accordingly, an invasion threat in the armed layer increases cohesion force not only in the armed layer but also in the economic and ideological layers. On the other hand, an economic crisis does not necessarily lead to an immediate military security threat, as experiencing national bankruptcy or a foreign exchange crisis does not immediately lead to a military crisis in the short term. However, an economic crisis can lead to an immediate shrinkage of cultural activities, thereby causing a crisis in cultural activity. In summary, economic capacity only has a short- term impact on ideological capacity.

When the spatiotemporal structure of Samjae capacities^[Ch.3.103] is combined, I can explain the phenomenon in more detail. That is, when a threat arises in the armed layer, the corresponding cohesion force increases rapidly in a narrow area. On the other hand, when an invasion threat arises in the ideological layer, the corresponding cohesion force increases very slowly in a wide area.