The point of this
document is therefore to draw attention to a series of constraints or difficulties
which seem to prevent mankind from responding successfully to the current crisis condition of
the world. It is not the intention to focus on conventional, well-publicized difficulties or
inequalities which many assume to be at the origin of the current unsatisfactory
situation. Arguments of this type have been put forward on many occasions and from many
points of view. Many are summarized in the Yearbook which describes some 2600 recognized
world problems.
This document is
concerned with highlighting those difficulties which prevent the successful
achievement of the objectives of any remedial programme of social significance at this
time. It is particularly concerned with those cases where there is consensus concerning the
desirability of remedial action, specially where some coherent plan of action has been
formulated, and where the usual problems of funding and other programme resources have
been eliminated.
This document is
also concerned with highlighting those difficulties which prevent the
successful implementation of programmes designed to facilitate human development
and for the full realization of human potential not as remedial action, but in an attempt to
go beyond what has already been achieved.
Just as it is not
the intention to focus on well-publicized difficulties, the focus is also restricted to
the kinds of difficulty experienced even when the individuals and organizations
concerned perceive themselves to be sincerely working in the interests of mankind as
a whole, whether within their community or through transnational bodies. It is not concerned
with difficulties deriving from corruption, deliberate misuse of structures, procedures and
processes, or actions of other than benevolent intent, however limited the domain of
application.
The question could
be raised as to whether there is any benefit in identifying such difficulties,
given that we all know that there are obstacles to significant change. Also, many of these
difficulties have been described at great length in more suitable contexts. In answer, however,
there does seem to be a case for attempting to portray within one framework the variety of
interacting difficulties as they stand at the moment. There Is usually a tendency to bury such
recognition in the postmortem on some programme which has failed - and, to avoid offence,
such analysis is usually made informally or in documents whose circulation is highly restricted.
By treating these difficulties as independent of any particular named context, they can be
considered with less emotion and defensiveness. Hopefully by expressing them in this way, it
will be possible to provoke a creative response which will show a way past the limits as
defined.
Many would also
claim that most of these problems would be eliminated if humanity organized
itself within one ideological framework, under one governmental system, with one system of
ethics or values, with one religion, within one legal framework, etc. Whilst any or all of these
may emerge as an attempt to respond to the immediate crises, it is unclear just how long
humanity would be satisfied with such frameworks. History would seem to indicate that the
period of satisfaction becomes increasingly shorter. It is brought to an end by the re-emergence
of one or more of the limits or constraints on social interaction which are noted in this
document. These limits would seem to function to protect the psycho-social diversity of
humanity - which may be of most importance for its long-term survival. At the same time, we
are faced with the paradoxical situation that they also appear to prevent the degree of social
interaction and organization which seems to be essential for any adequate response to the
current crises.
The full realization
of human potential is associated in some way with the development of
diversity restrained or contained by some unifying framework. Debate and social experiment
will continue to focus on the meaning to be attached to "diversity" and "unifying framework
and
the forms to which they can usefully give rise under different conditions.
---------
Few of the perceptions
in this document are original. Some have been recorded many times. It
may be useful to include references in a later version.
1. Limited tolerance
of interaction
In discussion about
the psycho-social system within which we are immersed and of which we
form a part, we define features of that system such as as concepts, organizations, roles, etc.
We are aware that these interact in a variety of ways. There is consensus that the extent of this
interaction is very great, because society is so complex. It is therefore widely agreed that it is
impossible to give adequate consideration to all interactions. This is the basis for the current
division of labour in which special concern is given by some people or groups to some features
of society - but few are able to give consideration to much beyond their own central concern.
We cannot allow ourselves to be sensitive to too many interactions or else we would be
recognizing a situation of such complexity that we would be unable to determine where or how
to act.
It becomes increasingly
easy to act as we limit the number of interactions to which we are
sensitive and which we feel obliged to define as relevant. To the extent that we can manage to
define interactions as irrelevant, we therefore increase our immediate freedom of action.
Clearly, however,
those interactions which we define as irrelevant and which we successfully
avoid taking into consideration, will eventually have some impact on the actions which we
undertake. Very strong interactions which are ignored may prevent our project or programme
from even getting through its first phase, thus necessitating a general re- assessment during
which those factors would presumably be taken into account. Weaker interactions which are
ignored may simply prevent the project or programme from being evaluated as a success once
terminated. The evaluation may not even clearly identify them and the responsible organizations
may justify the continued use of the same project formula by deliberately or unconsciously
interpreting the project evaluations in order to highlight whatever positive results they can claim
to have achieved without fear of credible contradiction.
Interactions of
an even weaker nature may never be detected. They may simply have the effect
of completely eroding the positive achievements of a programme over periods of time
corresponding to the degree of weakness of the interaction. Clearly such interactions will not be
noted if they are only evident 5, 10 or 50 years after the completion of the original programme -
namely beyond the time horizon of any political group bent on re-election.
Interactions are
not all negative in consequence by any means. Clearly ignoring positive
interactions may prevent them from being used to ensure the success of the programme -
whether In the short-term or in the long-term.
1.1 Limits to
inter-organizational interaction
Although we have
a very clear theoretical and operational understanding of the way single
organizations, groups or institutions function, this understanding does not extend to include
the way groups of organizations function together as a network. Even when a person within an
organization interacts daily with client organizations, competitor organizations, pressure groups,
etc., the perspective is still very much a case of "we" and "they"
This therefore
means that the ability of a particular group or institution to function skillfully within
a network of other bodies is essentially limited to a strategy of self-advantage. This may
however be partially compensated by some understanding of the needs or responsibilities of the
larger group of bodies to which it belongs (e.g. industrial sector, charitable bodies, or academic
societies. etc.), but again this is largely seen in terms of self-advantage.
Cooperation between
organizations, if it occurs, is most developed between two organizations,
where each is directly aware of its own advantage. Such cooperation is decreasingly successful
as the number of organizations involved in the network increases. This is matched by a rapid
decrease in the sophistication of interorganizational mechanisms used as well as a reduction in
expectation of the benefits of such cooperation. So, for example, a group of 20 or more bodies
might be quite satisfied to have an occasional meeting together at which praise would be given
to the notion of cooperation between them and to the exchange of ideas. Any activities for the
group proposed within such a contexts would tend to be of symbolic or token significance only
and would have to be defined such as not to constitute any form of threat to the sensibilities of
any of the group.
These difficulties
are increased where the organizations involved are of a different nature, have
a different structure, or use different modes of action (e.g. governmental/ nongovernmental,
profit/nonprofit, research/action programme, etc.). As the diversity increases, so does the
tendency of each subgroup to perceive the activity of others as being of marginal relevance or
importance.
Clearly with such
constraints, it is difficult to achieve any concerted interorganizational strategy
to make best use of the resources of the network in question in order to achieve significant
change. In fact, even if the organizations are of an extremely activist nature, the conservatism
and paralysis of the network as a network - increases as the number of organizations involved
increases.
It Is for this
reason that any attempt to "mobilize" a network of organizations behind some
particular issue or banner succeeds to the extent that large numbers of organizations are
prepared to express agreement on fundamental issues (e.g. environment, human rights, etc.). It
fails to the extent that such expressions, whilst sincere, are usually of a token nature and do not
constitute an operational mobilization of any significance. The simplistic attempts by activist
organizations to achieve such mobilization appeal to only a limited number of bodies. The
others do not wish to be absorbed into activities which deny the significance of their own
special approach or concern.
1.2 Limits to
inter-disciplinary interaction
The need to interrelate
the approaches of different disciplines, in order to understand a social
problem situation and to be able to recommend appropriate remedial programmes, is now
increasingly recognized. The "inter-disciplinary" approach is now in fashion and an essential
element in many requests for programme funds. However, on closer examination, it is possible
to discover that this requirement, far from constituting any form of progress, is only the
symptom of the pathological state of knowledge at this time. The specialization without limit of
scientific disciplines has resulted in an increasing fragmentation of the epistemological horizon.
Specialists cannot be asked to testify with regard to the unification of the sciences insofar as
these specialists by their vocation and training are ignorant of, or deny this very unity. Even
those who profess to stand for the unification of the sciences cannot be trusted, for each one of
them would be satisfied in defining their familiar point of view, and more or less justifying their
own individual presuppositions.
Teaching and research institutions reinforce the above separation through administrative
procedures which tend to eliminate communications with Institutions associated with other
disciplines. The division of intellectual space into smaller and 'Smaller compartments and the
multiplication of institutions which assume the management of each such territory results in the
formation of a feudal system which governs the majority of scientific teaching and research
enterprises.
When an "interdisciplinary" approach is used it most often consists in bringing together (for
a
meeting or project) specialists from different disciplines, in the simplistic belief that such an
assembly would suffice to bring about a common ground and a common language between
individuals who have nothing else in common. The reports or results of such activities neither
achieve nor attempt to achieve any synthesis other than the purely spatial juxtaposition of
viewpoints and constraints.
Few of the societal problems at this time can adequately be handled within any one discipline.
Such problems result from the interaction of social, economic, technological, political religious,
psychological, biological and other factors. Understanding requires an integration of the relevant
disciplinary perspectives. Such integration however must be much more than the synthesis of
results obtained by independently conducted unidisciplinary studies. The synthesis, to be useful,
must come during not after the performance of the research.
Where such interdisciplinary synthesis does take place, however, it is most successful between
two closely related disciplines. Such integration is decreasingly successful as the number of
disciplines involved increases. This is matched by a rapid decrease in the sophistication of the
synthesis and a reduction in expectation of its benefits by those involved.
The difficulties are increased when the disciplines are of a different nature, have fundamentally
different methodologies, or focus on very different subject matter. As the variety of disciplinary
perspective increases, so does the tendency of each subgroup to perceive the activity of others
as being of marginal relevance or Importance.
Clearly with such
constraints it is difficult to achieve any concerted interdisciplinary activity to
make best use of the intellectual resources available in order to guide significant change.
1.3 Limits to
interaction between ideologies
Clearly the subtle
and dramatic distinctions between the viewpoints of different ideological
camps, and the political and governmental positions to which they give rise, impose severe
limitations on the viability or permanence of any compromise.
1.4 Limits to
interaction between information systems
In most domains
of social activity large quantities of information are generated, stored,
transferred, manipulated, retrieved, etc. To do this increasing use is made of sophisticated
information systems which are being progressively transferred to computers. Once an
information system has been developed, and the necessary administrative procedures and
computer programmes have been adopted, modifications are costly and difficult to justify .
Since most information systems are designed to support and facilitate the activities of particular
institutions by which they are funded, the constraints on inter-organizational collaboration (see )
and the inertia associated with such systems combine to prevent any interaction between
information
systems - even when this is acknowledged by all parties as being beneficial.
The consequence is that even when essential information is available it cannot be brought
together easily, if at all, in order to guide decisions with regard to effective action. Also, the
more different the information systems or the organizations responsible for them, the more
difficult it becomes to achieve any useful degree of integration between such systems. This is
particularly the case when such systems, although containing related data, have such different
purposes as: research, education, programme administration policy formulation, etc.
1.5 Limits to
interaction between classification systems
Classification
systems are widely used by disciplines and administrations, and within information
systems of every kind. They are essential as a means of filtering and ordering the large amounts
of information which must be handled within every social domain.
Most classification systems are designed and developed by a limited group of organizations
whose priorities are necessarily reflected in the actual structure of their chosen system. The
intellectual and financial investment in such systems, in the associated information systems (see .
. ) and the constraints on inter-organizational collaboration (see .... ) combine to prevent any
significant interaction between classification systems - even when this is acknowledged by all
parties as being beneficial.
The consequence is that even when essential information is available, it cannot be converted
from one classification system to another in order to interrelate corresponding data - even when
the relationships between the information systems creates no obstacle. Comparing relevant data
emerging through incompatible classification systems then becomes time-consuming and costly,
if not impossible.
1.6 Limits to
interaction between action programmes
Even when organizations
and Institutions have some degree of inter-communication or common
policy, their programmes in some particular geographical, topic or problem area may
nevertheless be only nominally integrated if at all. This may lead to situations in which bodies
which are supposedly collaborating In fact have programmes which compete for resources,
conflict with one another, or even nullify each others positive achievements.
Such programme conflict, whatever its extent, may even be recognized and deplored by the
responsible organizations. However, because of the cumbersomeness of the procedural and
administrative apparatus through which they are obliged to work, it may be almost impossible
to alleviate the situation. (Perhaps the most classical example is the situation in which a single
road is dug up and repaired five times in succession by the local road authority, electricity
authority, gas authority, water authority and telecommunications authority - because it Is easier
to use resources in this way than to coordinate schedules.)
Clearly this situation imposes limits on the range of programmes which can be undertaken in a
given area without the emergence of some form of conflict and wastage of resources.
1.7 Limits to
resource sharing
There are many
cases in which organizations of every kind have similar administrative problems
and facilities (e.g. office space, office equipment, mailings, billing, secretarial and specialist
staff, etc.). In such cases, whether or not they have similar concerns and there is any possibility
or justification for actual programme collaboration, it would be possible for such organizations
to save resources and increase their efficiency and effectiveness . This could be done by sharing
those administrative facilities they have in common in order to reduce their general office
overheads. A typical example Is for two bodies to share a photocopier, permitting them to
eliminate one machine (if they each have one) or to justify the rental of a larger and more
efficient one at greater cost.
The same argument can be applied to mailing and invoicing systems, accountancy staff,
telephone and telex equipment, etc. And clearly the more organizations that can combine
together, the greater the possibility of developing a resource saving formula which can lead to
greater effectiveness.
Where different organizations with overlapping memberships hold separate meetings to which
the same individuals are obliged to travel, there is a strong case for holding such meetings at the
same place - if only to allow the individuals to save travel expenses. But clearly this approach
also saves meeting overhead costs, allows for more cross-fertilization and facilitates the
emergence of any joint meeting sessions or projects.
Resource sharing of this kind is relatively rare, even though in its absence many groups cannot
function or have to reduce the level of their activity and hence their effectiveness. It is very
difficult for organizations to distinguish their separate programme concerns from their common
administrative problems leading, in the extreme, to cases where an organization refuses to share
an accountant or a photocopier, for example, because it might be interpreted as approval or
support for the other's programme or condoning the other's interference in its own
programmes.
Clearly with such constraints much remedial programme action is severely handicapped, if not
impossible; and this is self-righteously accepted as being due to lack of adequate resources.
1.8 Limits to
interaction between modes of action
For many domains
of activity special attention must be given to such disparate concerns as:
research to advance knowledge, education to disseminate that knowledge to students, public
information to reformulate that knowledge for a wider public, programme administration to use
that knowledge in the course of programme activity, policy formulation to use that knowledge
to reformulate programme strategy, etc.
These different concerns may be the responsibility of different departments within one
institutional framework, or else they may be the prime activity of several distinct and
independent organizations. In either case, the different approaches and emphases - the different
modes of activity - make interaction between such activities difficult to maintain and easy to
treat as of low priority. This is so despite the fact that inadequacy In any of such special
concerns has more or less delayed negative effects on the others. If, for example, a research
advance takes several years to enter the educational system, it will take longer to be taken into
account in policy formulation and programme management. Equally, if so new difficulty emerges
in the course of an action programme, it may take years before it is recognized as a valid topic
of research.
Clearly such lack of integration, and the consequent lags introduced, constitute a severe
handicap in any attempt to respond to rapidly evolving crises.
1.9 Limits to
interaction between preferred perceptual modes
Different modes
of communication appeal to different people due to a mix of factors such as:
educational background, tradition, cultural context, personal preferences, experience, etc. A
particular Individual, or class of individuals (e.g. sociologists, artists, etc.) will therefore tend
to
have a preference for material structured according to one or more such fairly distinct modes
as: written textual presentation, formal verbal presentation (at a lecture), informal verbal
presentation (face-to-face dialogue) , dramatic representation (theatre, cinema, etc.), concrete
experience (in physical contact with the situation) , audio- visual representation, use of abstract
structured presentations (matrices, graphs, models, etc.), mathematical equations, and so on.
If, therefore, a person prefers to receive information through a formal lecture or debate It may
then be very difficult to communicate with that person through written material in the form of a
report - however well it is structured and illustrated. The opposite will also be true.
It is very costly and time consuming to "translate" the same information content for presentation
in terms of each of these different perceptual modes, particularly since each mode lends itself to
certain emphases which are lost in the others as Is the case between any language.
Clearly it then becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to communicate between very different
groups of people without loss of impact, distortion or complete loss of significant content.
1.10 Limits
to interaction between preferred modes of change
People tend to
move or drift through the social system into those groups and organizations
which are engaged in the change processes most congenial to them. As individuals develop they
may reach stages when a given change process and its organizational support seems unfruitful
or unsuited to their desire for self- expression. The individual needs fresh fields to conquer, a
new life-style or a new mode of work. The development of the individual implies life-style
mobility and organizational and social change. Social change and development requires
development of the individual to adapt to new challenges.
The difficulty is that society currently sanctions movement within organizational and career
systems but not between them. The individual is therefore forced into one particular mode of
self-expression for his whole working life unless he wishes to run the risk of being labelled a
grass-hopper or dilettante, or of being viewed as an ignorant outsider (a "foreigner") in
the
systems into which he attempts to move.
Within one system an individual can of course develop other modes of self-expression but only
as secondary modes within the constant and overriding primary mode (e.g. as an executive in
the business system, an individual can move from a high technology corporation to a
commercial art corporation; the switch from science to art is contained within the unchanging
management framework.).
The problem is therefore whether it is possible to provide an organizational setting in which an
individual can develop secondary modes of expression and allow any of them to become
primary for any desired length of time.
The problem is complicated by the very radical nature of the differences between approaches
to change as well as between the corresponding modes of expression of the individual engaged
in them. There does not appear to be any systematic listing of change strategies, but the
following list is an indication of the variety.
-
political action
- scientific and technological development
- economic and financial development
- education, training
- art, music
- architectural and machine design, urban
planning
- religious faith, prayer
- social engineering, social development
- philosophical or esoteric understanding
- behavioural and perceptual modifications
by drugs
- public information, media, propaganda
- community development
- drama, theatre
- organizational development
- legislative action
- military or police action
- direct action, violent civilian protest
- personal encounter, dialogue, sex
- self -exploration, meditation
- mediation, negotiation
- manual labour
Ironically, the
proponents of a particular form of change tend to perceive it as the only viable or
significant form (e.g. to a political activist everything of any significance is political). They are
unable to detect the manner in which their action is counter-balanced, checked, contained or
even undermined by the other forms of change. Similarly it is not possible to determine how
such different strategies can be blended harmoniously together into a mix which can ensure
appropriate change. No body has a mandate to attempt this, and no integrative discipline exists
to legitimate such an approach.
1.11 Limits
to interaction determined by levels of ability
Intellectual, affective
and physical skills are very unequally distributed within any society. Aside
from constituting a problem in its own right (and as such not dealt with here), such unequal
distribution introduces major obstacles to interaction within society. These may of course be
aggravated by associated problems of class, culture, race, etc. but they may also be
independent of them as well as of factors such as: educational background, experience,
tradition, etc. Affective handicaps, for example, are common in those with intellectual skills
whatever their background.
In such a situation it is difficult to find a suitable content and a suitable mode of expression
which will be considered meaningful by all those who need to be Involved in a coherent
programme to remedy any problem situation. Excessive appeals to those with, or without,
particular skills may merely serve to aggravate a crisis by ignoring either the contribution or the
problem constituted by those with, or without, those skills .
1 .12 Limits
to inter-species interaction
Humanity dwells
upon this planet as one species amongst several million plant and animal
species upon many of which it is directly, or indirectly, dependent. The relationship is not one-
sided, for many of these species are increasingly dependent, whether directly or indirectly, on
humanity's activities and protection.
In an increasingly urbanized environment, however, a decreasing proportion of the voting
population has much direct conscious contact with more than a few species. The vast majority
of plant and animal species, and the complex ecosystems In which they are embedded, have
little more than curiosity value for most people.
It is probable that the full realization of human potential cannot be achieved by progressively
limiting the amount of contact between human and other species if only that the degree of such
contact is one factor in any measure of the quality of human life. But the ability to sustain such
contact is also an indicator of the ability of humanity to function as gardener or steward of the
planet upon which it depends for its continued survival. Paradoxically, it is also the maturity
associated with the ability to perceive the value of the total range of species which will also
determine humanity's ability to respond adequately to extra- terrestrial species, whether
intelligent or not.
1.13 Limits
to interaction between disciplinary languages
To the extent that
each science is a well-formed language, each language thus created encloses
the associated knowledge in an axiomatic space isolated from that of similar languages.
Knowledge expressed through one language cannot be "translated" Into that of another
language by any theoretically acceptable means. In particular any such attempt cannot be
legitimated from within the language of origin or from within the receiving language. (This is
equivalent to the problem of translation between natural language - for which there is no
theoretical basis) . As with natural language translation, all that is possible is the establishment
of
some degree of analogy or isomorphism between statements in two languages. Clearly any such
parallels are increasingly difficult to establish as the difference between the structure of the
disciplinary languages increases.
Clearly the constraints that this imposes upon interdisciplinary discourse and the consequent
inability to make full and widespread use of existing knowledge are a considerable handicap to
the dissemination and application of that knowledge to remedy problem situations. The situation
is not help by the development of specialized jargons incomprehensible outside a limited circle
of initiates.
1.14 Limits
to interaction between languages
The multiplicity
of languages is a major dividing factor in world society, reinforcing
geographical, socio- economic, political, ideological, professional and religious separatism. It
prevents or hinders communication and the spread of education, and thus aggravates
misunderstanding and mutual suspicion.
Clearly it may take many years, if ever, before a particular document is translated into any but
the major world languages. This limits the opportunity of those who are not conversant with the
major languages and creates isolated cultural pockets. The very quantity of material published
in the major languages, and the natural disinclination to read in other than one's own language,
may also establish significant barriers to transfer of knowledge even between major languages.
The problem is not simply one of translation, however, which may be relatively easy between
languages of the same group (e.g. indo-european languages) or between industrialized countries
. Where the translation is between languages with very different conceptual frameworks (e.g.
English and Chinese) or into a language whose concept structure is relatively underdeveloped
(or highly developed) in some domain, considerable difficulties may arise. Equivalent terms,
tenses or distinctions may be lacking or else be present in an embarrassing abundance creating
a problem of choice.
Points of significance may emerge as insignificant or naive in the translated context or take on
excessive significance which make them unacceptable. Points clearly made may emerge as
extremely ambiguous or poorly thought out whereas those made ambiguously may emerge as
categoric. Metaphors and examples may render the translation unacceptable (because of their
religious or moral connotations).
1.15 Limits
to interaction from territoriality
It is widely assumed
that people or organizations acting on problems are attempting to improve
the system (as a whole). But in the case of politicians, academics, and organizations in general,
it is not always the substantive problem which is important. This is in many cases merely a
symbol for the territory constituted by the issue.
a . In the case of diplomacy or politics, issues are viewed as an opportunity
for
advancement of the nation or party and only incidentally, and as an unforeseen and
occasional by-product, as a question which requires solution in its own right, independent
of national interests or party politics.
b. Organizations in general, including supra-national agencies, are locked into complex
games. Again it is not program effectiveness which is the criterion but rather the territory
constituted by the problem for which the program was created. Organizations become
"learning environments" and role habitats and have a system maintenance, rather than a
system change, function. "The organization is the message."
c . In the academic environment, again it is territory which is the prime concern. A new
hypothesis is viewed, if at all, as a territorial intrusion. Even if it is satisfactory, in terms of
explanatory power, it will be analyzed in terms of opportunities for publishable criticism or
counter proposals which will
improve the academic status of the scholar. A scholar must dissent to distinguish himself
from his fellows.
Activity in politics,
organizations or academe may be more directed to stabilizing a condition of
fulfilling behaviour. As a result "more effective" or "more truthful" may become
interpreted as
doing more activity of the same kind. The tension required to detect and solve the problem, and
the associated behaviour, may be considered a desirable feature of the environment and
therefore oppose convergence to any "solution".
Much activity is therefore a question of "toumer autour du pot" in order to ensure maintenance
of the status quo. One perceives a central but unintegrated truth which one does not wish to see
integrated and expressed explicitly because this would "take apart" and render "transparent"
one's system and life style.
Problems are recognized and organized for in order to provide a structured environment of
such dimensions and complexity as is adequate for one's ability to respond.
The stimulus of the presence of the problem is a reinforcement to one's identity. It is selected to
provide a domain on which one can demonstrate one's ability to master one's environment.
"Progress"
and the acquisition by an individual or group of adequate "identity" may be basically
incompatible. "Identity" is achieved in terms of certain organizational or conceptual structures
or
invariants which become progressively more widely recognized as one's identity is accepted as
a reference point in society. But each person reaches a stage at which he feels he has found and
is satisfied with his identity and associates it closely with a unique set of invariants defined as
his
territory.
Progress and social
change are essentially the change in the constellation of organizational and
conceptual patterns which govern behavior. Progress must therefore threaten those identified
with any existing set of invariants. Their loss of identity may not be compensated by the
opportunities for new identity in the new situation. The society may be stripped of identification
opportunities causing the culture to decay or decrease in richness.
1.16 Limits
to recognition of interaction between problems
Despite of much
publicity, the number and complexity of the interrelationships between societal
problems, whether at the world or community level, is still only adequately conceived by
specialists. It is this large number of interrelationships which, whether ascertained or not, greatly
restricts the range of action open to the policy maker. And it is this situation which has brought
about the tendency for the solution of one problem to create a number of new ones, often in
fields only distantly related at first sight to the original matter.
In this situation, even specialists have limited ability or inclination to determine just where other
problems may emerge as a result of the implementation of their recommendation. Few
specialists would refuse to accept that their own particular discipline had a key role to play in
the response to any complex societal problem.
It is legitimate to query whether the question as to which are the 5 or 10 most important world
problems is as ecologically inappropriate as asking which are the 5 or 10 most Important plants
or animals in a complex food web interrelating hundreds of species. The relationships between
problems may even be usefully conceived as analogous to the webs and trophic levels within
which animals are embedded.
Because this situation Is not fully understood, there is a general disposition to envisage and treat
the symptoms of trouble, particularly the more obvious ones, rather than to seek out and deal
with root causes . Each specialist or decision-maker approaches the inter-problem complex
from the point most familiar and relevant to him in the simplistic belief that such an approach will
enable him to encompass all the problems relevant to the crisis which he faces.
Clearly in such circumstances there is a strong possibility that the complexity of the inter-
problem network with which humanity is faced is greater than that which its organizational and
intellectual resources are capable of comprehending and containing. Over-ready acceptance of
this is used to justify simplistic crisis management policies and priorities.
1.17 Limits
to recognition of interaction between values
The debate on social
policy at the local, national or world level is full of appeals to concepts
such as equality, justice, peace and liberty. These are abstract concepts of great ambiguity and
imprecision. In part, their power and usefulness is due to this, since each generation is then
obliged to redefine the content to be associated with such terms.
The vagueness attached to the notion of values in the formulation of social policy has led to the
proposal of a multiplicity of definitions and key values. Despite the interest in the matter and the
vigour of the ongoing debate, no means has been discovered of interrelating the variety of
currently proposed values in a manner which has any universal appeal or significance.
Indeed there is widespread recognition that the rate of value change is increasing to a point at
which it is no longer possible to predict with any accuracy the major value shifts which now
occur within the time period of one generation.
Clearly under such circumstances, when there are conflicting appeals to different values and
ethical systems, it is extremely difficult to formulate any stable value-based social policy.
1.18 Limits
to interrelating pre-logical personality biases
At the basis of
the personality of every person or group there is a set of pre-rational
temperamental biases which are reflected in the individual or group aesthetical or theoretical
products and In the value preferences. These may be positioned somewhere along axes of bias
such as the following:
1 . Order vs disorder, namely the range between a preference for fluidity, muddle,
chaos,
etc. and a preference for system, structure, conceptual clarity, etc .
2. Static vs dynamic, namely the range between a preference for the changeless, eternal,
etc. and a preference for movement, for explanation in genetic and process terms, etc .
3. Continuity vs discrete, namely the range between a preference for wholeness, unity, etc.
and a preference for discreteness, plurality, diversity, etc.
4. Inner vs outer, namely the range between a preference for being able to project oneself
into the objects of one's experience (to experience them as one experiences oneself), and a
preference
for a relatively external, objective relation to them.
5. Sharp focus vs soft focus, namely the range between a preference for clear, direct
experience and a preference for threshold experiences which are felt to be saturated with
more meaning than is immediately present.
6. This world vs other world, namely the range between a preference for belief in the spatio-
temporal world as self- explanatory and a preference for belief that it is not self-
explanatory (but can only be comprehended in the light of other factors and frames of
reference) .
7. Spontaneity vs process, namely the range between a preference for chance, freedom,
accident, etc. and a preference for explanations subject to laws and definable processes.
Such pre-logical
biases may be at the base of choice of life- style, discipline, policy, mode of
action, mode of presentation of information, etc. To the extent that people have very different
profiles In terms of these axes, every particular position, viewpoint or programme will have only
limited appeal.
1.19 Limits
to interaction between religions
Despite of increasingly
widespread recognition of common or overlapping values and concerns
underlying the majority of religions, the ability of organized religions to find some basis for
formal interaction amongst themselves remains low. This is not only the case between religions
having the same historical origin, but even more so between religions of different historical
origin.
Clearly to the extent that organized religions continue to be considered the guardians of social
values, the difficulties they and their converts have in acknowledging the significance of each
other's values are an indicator of a fundamental constraint upon the full realization of human
potential.
1.20 Limits
to interaction between tribes or ethnic groups
1.21 Limits
to interaction between classes or castes
1.22 Limits
to interaction between cultures
1.23 Limits
to inter-personal trust
In an increasingly
urbanized and mechanized society people are forced into positions of greater
physical proximity and face-to-face contact with one another. In many cases there Is an
increasing possibility that they will either incur unwelcome obligations as a result of such contact
or be exploited. Consequently people feel it necessary for their own psycho- social well-being
to limit severely the confidence they place In others in such daily encounters to the point of
avoiding involvement in assisting at the scene of accidents or in other personal crises to which
they are exposed.
Clearly this increasing tendency, whilst a protection for the individual, constitutes a constraint
upon the full development of human potential in modern society.
1.24 Limits
to relationships between sexes
Clearly the difficulties
encountered In organizing social and personal relationships to take into
account and balance the qualities and attributes of both sexes constitute a fundamental barrier
to the full realization of human potential. The complications resulting from persistence in
inadequate attempts to achieve this balance, or to compensate for the failure to achieve It, or to
create the impression that it has been achieved, only serve to aggravate the situation.
1.25 Limits
to intra-familial relationships
Clearly the progressive
erosion in the ability to create and maintain a family environment rich in
psycho-social meaning constitutes a significant deprivation both for the growing child and for
the maturing adult. This is the case whether it is a question of the traditional nuclear family, an
extended family circle or any communal living substitute. This impoverishment of the psycho-
social environment, and its significance for the psycho-social integration of the individual,
constitutes a fundamental constraint upon the full realization of human potential.
1.26 Limits
to inter- generation relationships
Due to the fragmentation
of society and the alienation of significant proportions of the younger
generation from the values, social structures and modes of activity of the elder generations, the
difficulties arising from the generation gap are increasing. It Is no longer certain that the younger
generation can be significantly involved in programmes of importance to the older generation. It
is no longer certain that the younger generation will be particularly interested in the plight of the
very old. Equally, however, it is certain that the older generations will refuse to relinquish their
traditional hold on the direction and manner of evolution of society. This built-in conflict
situation clearly constitutes a significant constraint upon the full realization of human potential
in
society.
2. Absence of
over-arching psycho-social structures
In most psycho-social
domains there is an acknowledged lack of any overarching structure
which could provide a framework to interlink the preoccupations within that domain. Examples
include: the absence of any world governmental structure of significant power, the absence of
any value or ethical system of universal significance, the absence of any adequate system of
world law, the absence of any world religion, the absence of any worldwide comprehensive
information system, the absence of any worldwide subject classification system, the absence of
any philosophy or ideology of universal appeal, the absence of any system unifying the sciences,
etc. Whilst any such structure might well have a negative or constraining influence on activities
of the domain in question, the importance of its integrating effect must be recognized, whether
or not it is implemented by force or without the full understanding of those whose dissenting
viewpoints are suppressed or condemned. The absence of such structures also hinders any
recognition of the interrelationships within the domain in question.
Paradoxically it
appears that, just as in natural ecosystems, it is only where such over-arching
structures are present that a wide variety of subordinate units can be tolerated, for otherwise
such units "compete" amongst themselves for resources, thus maintaining the variety of the
system at a relatively low level. (The presence of such structures also makes It possible to
conceive of the world as "functionally round" rather than in terms of completely unrelated
"functional continents".)
Clearly despite the repressive threat that they constitute, the absence of such structures
constitute a constraint upon the full realization of human potential.
3. Limits to
the use of hierarchical approaches
In every social
domain there is a predilection for simplistic hierarchical organization of the
interrelationships between concepts, between organizational units, between problems and
wherever else there is a need for classification. And yet society is constantly exposed to
evidence that these hierarchies do not contain the complexity with which they have to deal, nor
do they facilitate the emergence of styles of organization more complex than the hierarchical.
Category systems of a hierarchical nature tend to become concretized in information retrieval
systems and the hierarchical structure of organizations and their programmes. They tend to
govern the way meetings or curricula are organized. In every such case they emphasize the
vertical part/whole relationship and preclude any focus on part/part relationships, or
relationships of one part to several distinct wholes . The ability to focus on interrelationships is
therefore severely limited at a time when it is precisely such a focus which is required to grasp
the social complexity to which we are exposed. At the same time it is the hierarchical approach
which is easiest to formulate, implement and communicate and therefore in time of crisis, it is
the approach most likely to be used.
(An interesting parallel is the ease with which individuals are organized within regiments within
the traditional army hierarchy and the handicaps under which they operate in attempting to
handle guerilla networks.)
4. Limits arising
from behaviour in complexity
In a complex psycho-social
environment In which those involved must simplify their perception
of their surroundings in order to be able to act and survive, additional dynamics occur.
Individuals, groups and institutions use that part of the environment upon which they have some
conceptual or operational hold as a "territorial" base from which to interact with others.
There
therefore emerges a form of territorial behaviour in which each attempts to build up the
significance and size of his own territory at the expense of others. This occurs between
organizations, between disciplines or schools of thought, between languages, between cultures,
between ideologies, between religions, between values, etc; in fact within all the domains
denoted by the "inter" limits identified earlier.
Having acquired a hold on a part of any domain, the individual or group in effect transforms it
into a fortress which has to be defended against enemies from without and against rivals from
within. Survival demands an expertise in strategy and tactics which may well involve obstructing
the development of the portion of the domain over which control has been achieved.
There is a marked parallelism between the well-known behavioural dynamics evident in the
history of the relations amongst groups established on geographical territories (from tribes to
nation-states) and the seldom- acknowledged dynamics of the relations amongst individuals and
groups which have established the 'functional territories' noted above. Both the geographical
and functional territories offer opportunities for equivalent structures and processes, with the
latter providing an opportunity for a psycho-culturally satisfactory substitute for geographical
area dynamics in a world with limited space. It is evident however that this opportunity is used
wherever possible to repeat the unfortunate historical experiences associated with geopolitical
territory. Thus parallels to the well-known systems of empire- building, colonialism, feudalism,
slavery, cold-war, isolationism, fascism may currently be found amongst organizations, amongst
disciplines and schools of thought, amongst cultures, amongst religions, amongst value systems,
amongst languages, etc.
clearly when every new field of opportunity provokes and encourages a repetition of the same
social learning cycle, merely displacing the associated oppression to a new domain, this
constitutes a significant constraint upon the full realization of human potential.
5. Limited ability
to cooperate
There is a marked
inability for individuals, groups or institutions to cooperate. This is the case
whether their interests and concerns are the same or different. When the same, they compete
for the same resources and find themselves obliged to safeguard and promote their own
advantage by denigrating the merits of others and emphasizing their weaknesses. When
different, they may still compete for the same resources and find themselves obliged to
safeguard and promote their own advantage by denigrating the concerns of others and
emphasizing their irrelevance. In both cases hostility may well be overt.
Clearly this constraint prevents the full realization of human potential.
6. Limits of
knowledge and experience
Individuals, groups
and institutions which have built up a fund of knowledge, experience and
understanding for themselves tend to be primarily concerned with the elaboration,
implementation, and wider recognition of their own perspectives - whatever the merits of other
perspectives . The experiences which they have had to endure to bring them to their position of
expertise, understanding and eminence frequently leave them battle-scarred, idiosyncratic and
unable to work with others. They may well be unconscious of their own defects and their
negative effects in any situation.
Such individuals and groups usually acquire their knowledge and understanding in contexts
upon which they are not free to comment, because of the classified or sensitive nature of the
information. Consequently a situation develops in which those who know are severely limited in
their ability to pass on or disseminate their knowledge, whilst those who are able to do so are
usually misinformed but cannot be contradicted.
Clearly these constraints upon the use of expertise impose restrictions upon the full realization
of human potential.
7. All in everything
It is frequently
appreciated that everything is interconnected and that every issue has to be
examined in terms of its potential relationship to other issues. But in debate on any matter, there
is seldom consensus on how issues should be distinguished and interrelated. One response is to
consider issues in isolation and assume there are no relevant interconnections. Where there is
consensus on the importance of interconnections, the only others response is to attempt to
consider everything in every forum of debate. This is then used as an excuse for simplifying the
issues and picking out those which are "most important" .
Consequently whatever the macro-issue under discussion, debating points on any related topics
are considered relevant. However, since the relative importance accorded to such points is
based on changing political considerations rather than substantive ones, such debates are
unable to converge on any implementable programme of significance which takes account of
the manner in which the problems are interlinked. Such debates then become arenas in which
the desire to resolve the Issues is merely reaffirmed and the participants blame each other or
third parties for not coming to grips with a situation they are unable to focus on.
8. Constraints
of space and time
Increasingly people,
particularly those in positions of responsibility, find that they have little time:
to read and absorb information relevant to their tasks, to learn new skills relevant to their tasks,
to travel to environments where they could absorb alternative perspectives on their concerns,
or to relax and digest what they have acquired.
Compounding the problems of shortage of time are those of distance. The physical separation
of locations from which useful experience may be obtained, and the cost of transport, are such
as to hinder the widespread dissemination of knowledge and understanding.
By the time a person has determined what information he really needs, found the appropriate
document, requested it from some distant location, obtained it, absorbed the relevant
information, and formulated some plan of action, that information may well no longer be
relevant to the problem as It has subsequently evolved. The time of access to information
(particularly for non-elites) now tends to be a significant proportion of (if not greater than) the
life-cycle of the crisis for which it is required.
These constraints lead to a simplification of the messages which are considered to be
transferable through society. As a consequence society is divided up into pockets within which
more complex and subtle messages can be successfully and usefully communicated - the more
subtle the message, the smaller the pocket.
9. Erosion of
confidence In organized relationships
In an increasingly
urbanized and mechanized society, people are forced to depend to a greater
extent upon a wide variety of organized relationships. These relationships which define some of
the individual's different roles in society include: citizen/local government, citizen/state
government. citizen/law enforcement agency, worker/trade union, consumer/advertiser,
consumer / manufacturer, student/education system, reader/newspaper, employee/corporation,
viewer/television, etc. These relationships become progressively more organized and out of the
control of the Individual bound into them.
The perceived "distance"
between the individual and the body controlling the relationship is
increasingly greater. However, as this distance increases and information concerning
manipulation, distortion and similar abuses of the relationship become Increasingly widespread,
the individual's confidence in them as meaningful and beneficial to him decreases.
The next decades
will probably see an increasing disenchantment on the part of the individual
with any "distant" structure or chains of conceptual or organizational relationship which
are
supposed to be relevant to his concerns . The acceptable number of links in such chains "out"
from the individual may be decreasing year by year. There is liable to be a general loss of
confidence in links which the individual cannot inspect for himself. This applies to news media,
TV documentaries, advertising, expert and political statements . This is significant because it is
the projection of this confidence into such structures which provides the energy and oil to make
our more sophisticated control structures work. Without such confidence, such structures can
only persist as shells with symbolic value. Individuals will isolate themselves into relatively small
communities.
It is widely recognized
that the whole system is becoming less and less credible and acceptable
to (i) the younger generation, (ii) the man- in-the- street, (iii) the developing world. As yet,
however, we have no clear historical parallel to provide the necessary perspective. Perhaps a
useful parallel is that of the place of the Catholic Church and religion in society after the
Renaissance.
We now have a new
Universal Church with its orders, namely the intergovernmental
organization and its components bodies. In the interstices of this system we have new
"protesting" sects, namely other organizations, governmental, academic, business, voluntary,
trade union, and otherwise The Church considers itself the one true church and is anxious to
enfold the dissenting and in some cases, heretical groups. The latter are anxious to spread their
message at all costs. Most organizations are anxious to proselytize. There are ecumenical
movements amongst the protesting organizations, for they realize that they lack the strength of
unity.
We have with this
system an organization-based society, just as that period had a religion-
based society. One must belong to an organization. Organization has become a religion with a
strangle-hold on thinking in the Western world. It is "the only way of getting things done"
. The
processes that cannot be organized are ignored or condemned - just as the activities in the past
which could not be given a religious association were ignored or condemned. A non-religious
perspective was inconceivable and smacked of heresy.
Today it is the
younger generation which is opting out of the societal religion in search of a more
organic life style. The results are condemned, as quackery, superstition, witchcraft and deviltry
were condemned.
But the weakness
of the organized society is that it is detached from the needs and individuality
of the person - but particularly from his perspective. It is becoming "irrelevant". People
increasingly slip through the grasp of organizations. (Our preoccupation with static
organizational and conceptual structures may appear to the eyes of the future as irrelevant and
irritating as does Columbus' preoccupation with the religious salvation of the Caribbean Indians
.)
Clearly this erosion
of confidence constitutes a real constraint on the realization of human
potential within modern society.
10. Loss of
community of discourse
The Increasing
uniformity of terminology, and the reduction in the problems of translation and
interpretation, undoubtedly facilitate formal communication and apparent agreement. Despite
this however, such agreements are not well- grounded. Behind the misty wall of words, the
diverse, even contradictory, interpretations, motivations and utlizations, are an indication of
fundamental divisions concerning values, for example.
Meaning is no longer well-communicated, if it ever has been other than amongst an elite. There
is much misinterpretation of meaning and intention in every domain. Each group works from
different data sources, with different experience, and feels justified in rating the views of others
as of secondary importance or irrelevant.
The written and spoken words are "babelizing" . Use of the written word with precise meanings
is becoming equivalent to that of Latin as a medium useful for communication between those (in
the academic and administrative worlds) committed to a rationalized, abstract perspective. It is
increasingly irrelevant to the "lower" reaches of society. People can no longer read and
comprehend items which do not reinforce their own views. For many, the written word is used
as a visual symbol with floating meanings aimed at achieving an impression and an Involvement
(cf. McLuhan). "Lower" here means poorly informed rather than the usual class distinction.
Visual imagery is as yet at a crude stage of development equivalent to the old peasant dialects -
the "Bible" has not yet been translated.
Those who can understand each other most completely are often precisely those forced to
compete for resources, prestige, etc. , or who are fundamentally opposed to the point of being
enemies. They therefore feel obliged to minimize the extent to which they exchange their latest
thinking in any face- to-face contact by which their conflict might be resolved.
11. Erosion
of communication and travel ability
Despite the very
large investments made in communication and transport, the accessibility and
usability of such facilities tends to be eroded. In the case of postal services, the cost of mailing
increases, the number of deliveries decreases and the delivery delays increase (e.g. 2 to 4
months for intercontinental surface mail). In the case of the telephone service, the cost of
telephoning increases, the installation delay increases, and the amount of traffic overloads many
exchanges. In the case of air travel, the cost increases in a manner which effectively prevents
travel to distant destinations which were accessible until recent years (and despite empty seats
and unused planes) . The cost of fuel and speed limits are also reducing the possibility of long
distance road travel.
In an Increasingly
complex society, which is highly dependent upon communication to maintain
its coherence, the ability of the "average individual" to communicate is being eroded. At
the
same time the ability of the elites to communicate amongst themselves and at the mass of the
population is increasing. The delays incurred in ordinary communications may be such as to
ensure that the goods or information are received long after the time at which they could have
been relevant to ensure an appropriate response to a crisis situation.
Increasingly such
communication and transport facilities that are available are structured to
facilitate priority or bulk traffic between a limited number of key locations. The priority of traffic
between other locations is reduced and may well be much more costly. (It is, for example,
often cheaper to fly from one African country to Europe and then back to a neighbouring
African country, than to fly from one to the other directly.) Such restrictions pose considerable
problems for the political, social and economic development of any regions. More genErally
they pose a problem for the development of variety in isolated areas as opposed to the
convergent development at a limited number of central locations.
12. Assumption
that the observer or change agent does not change
There is an implicit
assumption that the psycho-social environment can be observed and acted
upon without there being any associated change in the observer or in the change agent. The
academic assumes the ability to take up some neutral stance, often at a higher level of
abstraction, from which effective observation can take place without either changing the
observed social processes or being changed by them. Organizations and institutions act in the
belief that they can intervene in social processes without there being any negative consequences
and without their being changed by the action. In both cases there is an assumption of
independence from social processes, although both are forms of social activity.
Such change agents tend not to be aware of their own role as social entities . They have no
built-in self-reflexive capacity. No academic discipline provides for serious examination of its
own social role (e.g. the sociology of: sociology, political science, chemistry, economics, etc.).
And no institution can build in a self-critical capacity which cannot be ignored or restrained to
guarantee the continued functioning of that institution.
Associated with this is the assumption that (new) content can always be treated formalistically
without the necessity for exposure to (new) learning experience. This is particularly the case
with values. It is assumed that all those who make reference to "peace" , "quality of
life" ,
"justice" , "freedom", etc. have been exposed to positive experiences with which
such terms can
be associated - and that such experiences are equivalent to those experienced by those with
whom they are communicating. There is thus a widespread assumption of common
understanding of values which obviates any need for shared experience or any self-change in
order to acquire that understanding. This assumption justifies the absence of macro- social
experiments to determine whether particular social policies and value mixes are viable and in
conformity with the verbal formulations and claims.
13. Limitation
of ability to discover and choose
Despite the increasing
availability of goods, services, facilities, and experiences, and the
investment of considerable amounts of money in publicizing the existence of many of them,
there is relatively little that is done to facilitate the process of choice and discovery in the midst
of such diversity. This is the case in almost every situation where the problem arises.
Examples include the following: occupation selection is in most cases a haphazard process
based on the vagaries of location and information availability and presentation; vocational
guidance is limited to the commonest job categories with little thought as to how the individual
can gain some gut feeling for the meaning the occupation would have for him. The selection of
wines and perfumes is governed by the products actually available at the point of sale and is
hampered by the difficulties of achieving unambiguous use of a limited range of terms to
describe a highly complex experience; these difficulties are aggravated where the staff have
limited experience and are primarily interested in the sale of a particular product range. As with
wines and perfumes, the selection of music is hampered by the difficulty of sampling a
sufficiently wide range in order to guide further exploration and choice; only limited sampling is
possible at the point of sale.
In the case of books, although the browsing process is acceptable to some people it constitutes
a barrier for others and in the larger libraries it is increasingly forbidden (because of theft).
Theatre, ballet and opera , where the visual dimension is important, are very time-consuming to
sample as a guide to choice. This is also true of painting and the plastic arts, when photographic
reproductions are unsatisfactory or difficult to obtain, and sampling is dependent upon
exhibitions or costly visits to distant locations. Difficulties are also encountered in determining
which places, or cultural environments to visit. And it is also difficult to determine beforehand
which psycho-cultural experiences or personal relationships to develop.
In each such case, there is little or no assistance to the individual in obtaining the answer to the
question of what experience or knowledge of which he is ignorant would in fact prove highly
significant to him. His exploration and selection is hindered by commercial misinformation, the
time required to sample, limited physical accessibility; the risk of an indifferent performance (in
the case of the performing arts), and the difficulty of recapturing an experience (of a performed
or distant work). However these would be relatively unimportant were it not for the inability to
present such experiences to the individual In terms of their relative significance to his current
developmental needs. Organizing the problem of choice by author, composer, artist, or
manufacturer, or a limited number of unrelated categories or styles, does little to ease the
individual's difficulty.
Clearly the obstacles noted above constitute a significant limitation on the full realization of
human potential.
14. Limited
ability to recognize problem displacement
Frequently a social
problem can be eliminated to the satisfaction of all concerned (from the
electorate to the policy- maker) by eliminating the particular set of symptoms by which it was
recognized and which gave rise to the call for remedial action. Action of this kind merely
ensures that a new set of symptoms emerges in some other social domain. The new set may
well be considered more acceptable or may be less easy to focus on as the basis for an
effective campaign for remedial action. Some time will also be required before the new set of
symptoms can be effectively recognized. It may in fact be very difficult for an organization to
see that its programmes merely displace a problem into the jurisdiction of some other body -
whose own actions will eventually result in the problem being displaced back again or into the
jurisdiction of a third body. (Institutions may deliberately move problems through a network of
jurisdictions as a way of legitimating their own continued existence.) Such displacement may be
difficult to detect because one set of symptoms may be apparent in legislation (e.g. legal
discrimination), but when eliminated may then take on an economic character (e.g. economic
discrimination), which if eliminated may then take on a social character (e.g. social
discrimination), and then a cultural character, etc. Such displacement chains may loop back on
themselves and develop side chains which are difficult to detect since each organization is only
sensitive to the problem symptoms in its own domain and considers symptoms of the same
problem in other domains to be acceptable or of secondary importance.
This situation makes it difficult to compare the presence or absence of problems in different
geographical areas because of the different forms its symptoms take, the acceptability of some
forms in some areas, or the lack of sensitivity to them.
15. Erosion
of democratic processes
The complexity
of society has resulted in the proliferation of governmental units and procedures
designed to respond to the multiplicity of issues and requirements for regulation. This
proliferation has not been accompanied by any commensurate development In parliamentary
procedure, nor any significant increase in the amount of time available for debate and
legislation. Consequently the responsibility for processing information on increasingly complex
matters falls upon units of bureaucracy. Frequently the complexity of the issues precludes little
more than token parliamentary debate on the matter. There is therefore little more than
symbolic parliamentary control under such circumstances.
Even within government agencies, the complexity of many issues precludes effective review by
the head of the agency. Pockets of expertise throughout the governmental system therefore
acquire considerable effective power, and are protected by the limited possibilities for review,
and frequently by security classifications which prevent review by other than interested parties.
Under such conditions, there is very limited possibility for systematic, democratic control of the
government policies and programmes. There are frequent opportunities for bureaucratic abuse
or the use of bureaucratic privileges to advance programmes of interest to a particular agency
or unit, irrespective of the probable views of any parliamentary body.
It is therefore increasingly questionable whether the elected representative can perform other
than token functions. The dynamics of the political process, which reduce the number of parties
(often to the one- party level), and minimize any distinction between the policies of opposing
parties and candidates, further decrease the significance of elections. (The corruption
associated with these processes makes their ability to fulfill their originally intended function
even more doubtful.)
16. Constraints
imposed by secrecy
Many aspects of
government policy formulation and government agency activity are
increasingly shrouded in secrecy. The same is true for the activities of many commercial and
industrial enterprises. This secrecy is not only passive but is reinforced by various forms of tacit
or explicit censorship in the media . It is accompanied by use of the media to disseminate
distorted information and various forms of propaganda.
As a consequence few people have any clear understanding of the real nature of any crisis or of
the resources which can be used to contain it. The average voter is unable to determine the
reality of a crisis if government feels obliged to withhold any information on it, or failing that,
to
disseminate misinformation about it. At any time, therefore, the average voter cannot determine
whether there are real crises of which he is ignorant, or whether the information he receives,
minimizing some current crises, is in fact undistorted. All information becomes suspect, because
it is in the interest of government to keep the population as calm and unpanicked as possible.
However, this then makes it very difficult to mobilize the population in response to any crisis for
which government really does need the people. (It is the old story of the little shepherd boy
who cried "wolf" once too often.) It also makes it very difficult to determine whether
government really represents the interests of the people, particularly since many of the duly
elected representatives are themselves considered to be security risks.
17. Concepts
of societal complexity limited by imposed constraints
In ordering understanding
of societal complexity, there is a well-established tendency to impose
a relatively simple conceptual framework to facilitate the task of grasping and explaining the
environment. Thus irrespective of the diversity present in the environment, it is often considered
satisfactory to distinguish not more than 5-10 categories in any field of concern. If any larger
number is used, the adequacy, credibility and comprehensibility of the explanation becomes
increasingly suspect. (There is evidence that individuals have difficulty in distinguishing between
more than about 7 colours, tastes, sounds, odours, etc.) It is of course permissible to
distinguish a number of levels of sub-categories within any such framework, but again the
scheme becomes increasingly unsatisfactory as the number of levels goes beyond 5-10.
In any argument or debate the same constraint applies , although perhaps more severely. (A
well- known piece of advice to orators is to make not more than 3 points or else the audience
will tend to be confused, and the orator most certainly would be.)
This situation is reflected in organizational structures. The recommended size for committees is
5-10 people. It is rare for an individual in any large organization (including armies) to have more
than 5-10 department heads reporting directly to him. In the case of committees, this ensures
that all views can be adequately represented and discussed. In the case of organizations, it
ensures that one individual can maintain adequate control over his subordinates.
When information has to be presented or discussed, the subject matter is usually distorted or
reordered to conform to space/time and financial constraints. This applies, for example, to: the
length of a book or one of its chapters; the length of a radio or TV programme; the amount of
time available on any meeting agenda; etc. The size of a meeting (or meeting budget) may well
be used as the basis for determining the number of bodies relevant to a representative debate.
Clearly in the classic case of the top policy-maker dictum that any issues should be summarized
on one sheet of paper (or in 5 minutes), if getting it onto one sheet totally erodes the coherence
of the argument to the Point of incomprehensibility, then any complex case cannot be
adequately or credibly presented. In all such cases, external constraints are used to govern
what information is received and processed, irrespective of the complexity of the issue in
question. Information is compressed to a point below that at which it is comprehensible or its
significance can become evident to the reader. (This is especially true when abstractions,
mathematical expressions or jargon have to be used to achieve the necessary compression.)
The above points reflect a widely held belief that because something has been expressed within
an acceptable framework it constitutes a satisfactory representation of the reality to which a
response is required. This ignores the possibility that the framework satisfactory for
comprehension may well be unsatisfactory for any adequate representation. It leads to the
formulation of simplistic programmes which appear satisfactory but which are unable to contain
those aspects of the problem which extend beyond the framework used. This is the case with
many complex social issues.
18. Assumption
that further human evolution may be ignored
The assumption
is made that evolution of man has now ceased or may be ignored and that man
may control his future. But the structures with which we Identify and which we are learning how
to modify may merely be temporary containers for an ongoing evolving life-process. Evolution
may now be mainly along psycho-social lines but it will be as invisible to us as it was to our
physically changing ancestors.
In these terms we should neither expect the sympathy of the evolutionary process for the
preservation of psycho-social structures, nor regret its absence. In evolutionary terms the
criterion is the survival and transformation of the most appropriate. This has never included the
preservation of excessive numbers against the catastrophes which their presence must evoke.
Attempts at preservation may be anti- evolutionary.
It may well be that the system functions entirely satisfactorily and of its own accord in
responding to disturbances to its dynamic evolving equilibrium conditions. As sub-systems
within the system we would be unable to detect the manner and justification of the corrective
measures. If the system is self correcting, then any "within- system" efforts to correct it
are
bound to give rise to counterbalancing responses. It therefore becomes questionable as to
which changes should be proposed or implemented since every such intervention is
counterbalanced in an unforeseeable manner. Each such effort causes system disturbances and
counter- balancing responses, acts as a lure for time, energy and organizational resources and
creates its own school followers and opponents. These are within-system changes and not
changes to the system.
Concern with world problems may be "unnecessary" except as an educational and
developmental experience - a sort of social "training game" in which our culture can be
absorbed. Systems analyses of organizations in trouble generally show that whilst each person
acts as best he could, with the best intentions given the information at his disposal, it is the
interaction of these "well conceived" departmental policies that kept the organization in
its
difficulties. The same may be true of the world system - its problems may be created by the
interactions of well-intentioned programs .
Individuals and groups choose courses of action to protect and extend their identifies. Their
choice generates a flora, fauna and eco-system of roles and structures which must be respected
and observed before any dramatic attempts to "develop" them are made. "Development"
and
"education" may in some ways be equivalent (in difficulty and desirability) to a bio-engineering
attempt at converting one species into another. There is not yet a framework on which the
possibilities and dangers of ontogenetic development can be examined.
The system may not be of a "big bang" developmental type in psycho-social terms, or on the
time scale to which we are exposed. It may be oscillating, cyclical or homeostatic in terms of a
framework which we have not yet clarified explicitly.
19. Limited
ability to face the unknown
In every domain
of society there are unknown factors and circumstances with unpredictable
elements which may combine together in unforeseen ways. The existence and probable future
emergence of these currently unrecognized factors tends however to be more or less
deliberately ignored by the individuals, groups and institutions acting in those domains. It is
much simpler to recognize and respond to the predictable for which the allocation of resources
can be clearly justified in the light of past experience. It is very difficult to conceptualize the
unknown. Consequently it is difficult to justify the allocation of resources and the restructuring
of organizations in order to prepare for unforeseeable events and crises. To legitimate this
stance, the tendency is to treat the unknown as non-existent or irrelevant.
This attitude may be found within organizations, amongst the practitioners of most intellectual
disciplines and sciences, and in most occupations. Thus organizations seldom have procedures
for handling the unexpected. Practitioners of a discipline will seldom acknowledge the existence
of relevant matters of which they are ignorant. Disciplines are structured statically in terms of
the known and cannot define or provide for the existence of what may shortly become known
(through ongoing research) or what will probably continue to remain unknown (at least until
there is a paradigm shift) . Occupations are defined in terms of the needed response to well-
defined problems. Ignorance is only admitted when the knowledge in question can be
considered irrelevant or the responsibility of some other body.
Clearly this constraint limits the ability to look at new conditions or to look at current conditions
anew. People think and act from positions within a context of which they are content to be
unaware. (The attitude is somewhat analogous to that of a fighter who expects a clearly
identified opponent to fight within the framework of known rules, as contrasted with the fighter
who is prepared to respond to any unexpected assailant acting independently of any such
framework.)
20. Limited
ability to face the negative
Individuals, groups
and institutions have considerable difficulty in developing adequate
procedures for soliciting, channelling and processing feedback on the negative consequences of
their own positive action or the absence of any significant consequences at all. They avoid
exposure to and acknowledgement of error, or any attempt to seek out its manifestations and
use information derived from the failure as a basis for learning. Any report on an organization's
actions minimizes any negative references and is usually deliberately written so as to disguise
failures as much as possible. No institution, nor any cultural ethnic, occupational or other group
will make known an analysis of its own weaknesses unless it feels confident that the content can
be ignored or blamed upon external circumstances.
This inability also extends to the explicit recognition of the problem situations with which
organizations are confronted. It is rare to find an organization which explicitly defines the social
problems with which it is concerned. Any such negative descriptions tend to be denatured and
distorted in terms of the planned positive programme action to remedy that aspect of the
problem situation to which the programme is able to respond.
Clearly this inability to face up to negativity openly and collectively inhibits the emergence of
any shared self- consciousness about our limited ability to control our situation well enough to
expect to be successful more often than not. Rather it favours the maintenance of a naive
optimism which inhibits any attempt to evolve a more appropriate response or to identify the
real strength of our complex society.
21. Limited
significance of rationality and appeals to values
There is a widespread
assumption that a rational explanation and/or an appeal to appropriate
values is a sufficient justification and guarantee for valid action or maintenance of a position.
Great efforts are therefore made to generate appropriate rational explanations and to give
expression to them in action plans for organizations .
Such is the mobility of debate and dissemination of (mis) information on any issue, however,
that it is increasingly easy to elaborate any kind of explanation or appeal to values. But it is
increasingly difficult to mobilize sufficiently rapidly the facts and counter-arguments for them to
be significant in a given debate or information campaign - and later counter- analysis, however
devastating and correct, is too late. Given the fragmented nature of the community of discourse,
it is only too easy to question any set of "facts" . The most superior and recent analysis
seldom
has unquestionable credentials, whereas many doubtful analyses may well be produced by
seemingly impeccable bodies. In this situation, every group can legitimately make full use of its
resources to produce the most adequate explanation for its own purposes. Accusations of lack
of expertise, inadequate facts or Information, or irresponsibility become debating points whose
weight is determined by the dynamics of the debate and the skill of the debaters since there is
no recognized court of appeal. Ignorance is not recognized as an absolute (or meaningful)
condition characteristic of all bodies not in receipt of the latest information or explanation.
Conventional explanations and appeals to values are therefore increasingly used by the skilled
as mere decorative cloaks for whatever action conforms to their real purposes. A skilled
individual can produce a sufficiently coherent argument to justify any desired course of action.
As with manufactured articles, such arguments may be designed to last only a short time. That
they should fail after their first use, or should very rapidly be proved obsolescent, is then
irrelevant. (Dependence on conventional explanations and appeals to values leaves an
organization as much at the mercy of its opponents as was the Polish cavalry when faced with a
tank invasion.)
22. "We"
and "They"
Because of the
complexity of society and the individual's increasing sense that he has little
control over his environment, it becomes progressively easier for people to lay responsibility for
conditions they find disagreeable at the door of an ill-defined, amorphous "they" . "They
do this
to us" , "they should change things", etc. "They" is whoever may be considered
responsible or
free to act.
This distinction clarifies and simplifies the situation for the individual, freeing him of
responsibility, and making others the cause (of the persistent) of any perceived Ill. In the face of
any problem, it is "they" who must act or change their policies for "we" are doing
the best we
can and are not free to act. "We" are the "good-guys" with some faults because "we"
are
human. "They" are the "bad-guys"; "their" faults are inexcusable.
23. Apathy,
cynicism, hopelessness and disillusionment
Faced with an increasing
number of Increasingly interrelated problems against which no
programmes seem to have any significant remedial effect, individuals lapse into states of apathy,
cynicism, hopelessness or disillusionment. This occurs whether the Individual has a variety of
social powers and resources at his command, or whether he has none at all. The situation is
aggravated by those who benefit from such circumstances.
Clearly such a state of mind Inhibits any creative response and saps the personal energies of the
individual concerned. It also encourages him to profit by the conditions whilst he can and to the
extent that he is able.
24. Entrapment
and alienation of committed activists
Each generation
produces a number of well-qualified individuals concerned with one or more
social problems and prepared to commit themselves and their careers in an effort to achieve a
significant impact upon them. As in any occupation, some years are spent learning the
dimensions of the problem and the possibilities for action. Thereafter, however, many of these
individuals find themselves forced into positions of compromise. In an effort to stick to their
original values, they come into conflict with structures and resource realities which often prevent
anything more than token action. They are encouraged to be patient and find that patience
changes little. They find that those who have preceded them lapse easily into cynicism or are
satisfied with minimal change. They find that those who are similarly inspired and who should be
their allies are frequently hostile and suspicious of any form of cooperation of more than a token
nature.
Some become aware that even when their recommendations are fully implemented by some
organizational system with apparent success, the system in effect nullifies such achievements by
adjusting itself so that other different problems emerge. There is then no end to such a chain of
displaced problems, many of which are as much internal to the organizational system as they
are external foci of the organization's action. These situations finally lead to a withdrawal (or
"loss of faith") of many of the committed activists. This withdrawal takes place without transfer
of acquired experience and insight to other who might later be able to overcome the dynamics
of entrapment. There is no accumulation of learning. Those who know about the dynamics are
often unable to speak about them, or have lost the desire to do so. Those who do speak about
them are frequently ill-informed and merely provoke a repetition of learning cycles.
25. Repetition
of learning cycles
In many social
domains time and a variety of collective experiences have created amongst those
concerned an awareness of which actions are feasible, viable and useful and which are not.
Such collective learning is difficult to transfer to others in such a manner as to enable them to
understand the (usually relatively sophisticated) dynamics which limit the value of seemingly
obvious positive actions. Since there is a certain turnover of organizations, groups and
individuals concerned with the problem in that domain, those entering the context for the first
time tend to initiate proposals, recommendations and programmes which past experience has
shown to be a waste of resources or of otherwise limited value. They will however have
difficulty in recognizing this and will attribute past failure to ineffectiveness of those involved
at
that time.
The consequence is that any group (possibly of institutions) with experience extending over
several "programme generations" always has latecomers who are drawn together in support of
projects which constitute the repetition of a learning cycle. Such cycles must play themselves
out in order that the latecomers may acquire the understanding as to why those particular
actions are of limited effectiveness. They will however then be repeated when the number of
newcomers again becomes great enough to make it difficult to redirect their attention from such
seemingly obvious courses of action.
This repeated fragmentation of groups and the use of resources in support of ineffective
programmes clearly limits the ability to respond adequately to any problem situation. It is also
discouraging to those who have already acquired, through such learning cycles, the necessary
knowledge base from which more effective programmes could be designed. However, it is also
the desire of the latecomers to apply their creative energies without regard for past experience
which leads to the acquisition of new knowledge. The situation is such that it is seldom possible
to blend both forms of knowledge in an effective response to the problem situation.
26. Limited
ability to recognize personality needs and problems
Wherever individuals,
groups or institutions work to remedy social problems, there is an
inability of all concerned to admit openly the psycho-social needs of the individuals and groups
involved. It is only in informal discussion, and in the absence of the concerned individual, that
there is frank discussion of how to confer a sense of prestige by suitable juggling of
organizational procedures and positions, appropriate use of flattery, etc. The facilitation of
individuals "ego trips", for example, is often an absolutely essential condition to their
further
support of a project. Even when two organizations or initiatives should be merged in the light of
all available information, this will be opposed (behind the scenes) by the personalities involved
unless their status needs can be fulfilled.
Such concerns, whether for a person individually, or for a group as represented by an
individual, are basic to all social action. When they are not even recognized in behind the
scenes planning, they are recognized tacitly in the dynamics of interaction with the person in
question.
The inability to handle these matters in open debate severely inhibits the manner in which
organizations or meetings can function. Even in crisis situations, discussion of action to be taken
will not occur until these other matters have been satisfactorily resolved through behind the
scenes manoeuvering. Frequently it is questionable, even in a crisis situation, whether a given
individual is not more interested in the recognition accorded to himself or his group than in any
substantive matter which may be discussed. Organizational action of any kind (and even in
response to crises) may be perceived primarily as providing a legitimate opportunity for
appropriate organizational ritual to satisfy the psycho-social needs of the individuals and groups
involved. The situation is particularly serious when the personality needs border on the
psychopathic. (There are many well-documented examples of this amongst national leadership,
even in recent years, although such matters cannot be discussed in open debate.)
Clearly the priority accorded to these needs, and the inability to give explicit recognition to
them in organizational documents or debate despite their fundamental importance to
organizational action, constitute a constraint upon the full realization of human potential. This is
the case both because it distorts the manner by which a person develops through action within
an organization, and because it distorts the manner by which an organization is able to act.
27. Nebulous
features of societal problems
28. Limited
ability to tolerate diversity
29. Limited
collective social attention span
30. Limited
ability to perceive and describe social processes
31. Limited
ability to develop meaningful meta- viewpoints or justify the need for them
Positive features of limits and
constraints
The limits and
constraints noted above, whether singly or in combination, effectively split the
psycho-social universe into a multiplicity of overlapping fragments. Within each such fragment,
whether large or small, communication and consensus can be readily established. These
bounded fragments therefore constitute domains within which particular views and forms of
organization are protected, developed or consolidated. They provide protected contexts for the
development of alternative forms which could not survive were the boundaries not present.
The constraints
(and the problems whose solution they hinder) constitute features of society
which provide a challenge and stimulus which may well be essential to its healthy development.
The boundary defined by the whole set of limits may well be the barrier, frontier or shell
through which mankind has to break if it is to emerge into a new phase of development, but by
which It must be protected in order successfully to complete the current phase.
Such constraints
and problems whilst a challenge are also energy absorbents . Each increment
in human development increases the mobility and activity of the individuals in question. This
energy must be channelled and absorbed in an adequate variety of structures and processes for
in their absence the energy may be released in an uncontrollable and disastrous manner.
As in the natural
environment, when such limits are overcome the interaction between the
diverse viewpoints and organizational forms may lead to the predominance of those most
appropriate to the conditions of the time. However, the maintenance of such bounded
environments ensures the preservation and development of alternative forms which may prove
most appropriate under different conditions or in a later time period.
Conclusion
There appear to
be many ways in which mankind is limited. Attempts to by-pass these limits
constantly run the risk of being compromised or entrapped. Many of the limits are difficult to
express in a form which could provide a basis for agreement upon some remedial action, if such
were possible. The existence of some of the limits can easily be questioned by those who have
not been exposed to them and their consequences.
There would appear
to be a strong case for devoting resources to a clarification of these limits
and the extent to which they jeopardize the functioning and success of every action programme
whether currently operational or planned for the future.
1. Schedule
