The systems worldview

The first written thoughts about the new systems view belong to Bertalanffy (Bertalanffy, 1956, 1968). His new ideas was a reaction to science becoming more and more specialised and that scientists became encapsulated in their private universe. Or in the words of Koestler (Koestler, 1967, p. 179-180) “There is a popular superstition, according to which scientists

arrive at their discoveries by reasoning in strictly rational, precise verbal terms. The evidence indicates that they do nothing of the sort”.

Bertalanffy’s idea was to develop a theory of universal principles applying to systems in general as opposed to systems in physics that are of different levels of generality.

Figure 2.6 Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy9

Previous to a further overview of the systems world view, we need a definition of a system, as seen within the systems paradigm, along with the definition of objects, attributes, and

boundaries. Together with the concept of relations, the concept of boundaries will be a major issue in the discussions in this thesis. When emphasis are placed on the systems boundaries, the system will always have an environment, or stated in another way functions that has impact on the system, and as such can be viewed as the supplier and the recipient of the system.

There are numerous definitions of systems and related concepts. The definitions used in this thesis are from an article written by Hall and Fagen.

A system is defined as (Hall & Fagen, 1956, p.63):

“A system is a set of objects together with relationships between the objects and between their attributes.”

Hall and Fagen (Hall & Fagen, 1956) describe objects as “the parts or components of the system” (p. 63). Attributes are “properties of objects” (p. 64), and relationships “tie the system together” (p.64).

Environment is defined as (Hall & Fagen, 1956, p. 66):

“For a given system, the environment is the set of all objects a change in whose attributes affect the system and also those objects whose attributes are changed by the behaviour of the system.”

To the question of what belongs to the system and what belongs to the environment, the lines are not definite (Hall & Fagen, 1956, p. 67).

“In a sense, a system together with its environment makes up the universe of all things of interest in a given context.”

Since the borders between the environment and the systems are not definite, it is important that the boundaries between the system and the environment are defined by an agent. In defining the borders the agent’s understanding of the system under investigation will be shaped, and this may in turn influence future actions of the agent (Midgley, 2000).

A systems scientist is mainly interested in systems that are behavioural and purposive. The systems are of the types biological, social and man-made (M'Pherson, 1974).

M’Pherson (M'Pherson, 1974) divides the systems field into three main components; general systems theory, systems science, and systems philosophy. The term “general systems theory” (GST) has been described in various ways, but Bertalanffy (Klir, 1972), who introduced the term, used GST as a collective noun for systems problems in the same way that “theory of evolution” implies all aspects of the study of natural evolution, not just Darwin’s theory.

Lazlo, the founder of systems philosophy, points out that GST is a realist ontology (Laszlo, 1972, p. 57) “The world exists [....] and [….] is, at least in some respects, intelligibly ordered [....]”. “Realists also assume that, not only is there order in the world itself, but we can have some (albeit imperfect) knowledge of it.” (Midgley, 2002, p. xxv).

According to M’Pherson (M'Pherson, 1974), the philosophy of systems has had several influences, and figure 2.7 gives an overview in the form of a flowchart (according to himself a very selective flowchart):

Figure 2.7 Morphogenesis of Systems Philosophy. Source: M’Pherson (M'Pherson, 1974, p. 134).

For a full explanation of figure 2.7, the reader is referred to M’Pherson’s article. The only comments from the article included here is that systems philosophy has inherited the unification of science and the scientific method in the social sciences from the Cartesian and Empiricist School, and that the holistic thought stems from Aristotle through Spinoza and Hegel.

The unity of science in the mechanistic worldview is apparent in the reduction into physical events. In General Systems theory the contrasting view is termed perspectivism (Bertalanffy, 1968, p. 49)

“We cannot reduce the biological, behavioural, and social levels to the lowest level, that of the constructs and laws of physics. We can, however, find constructs and possibly laws within the individual levels. The world is, as Aldous Huxley once put it, like a Neapolitan ice cream cake where the levels – the physical, the biological, the social and the moral universe – represent the chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla layers. We cannot reduce strawberry to chocolate – the most we can say is that possibility in the last rest, all is vanilla, all mind or spirit. The unifying principle is that we find organization at all levels.”

General Systems Theory (Bertalanffy, 1956, 1968) is based on the existence of systems properties that are general, and structural similarities or isomorphies in different fields. These two characteristics are the means to deal with organised complexity. Bertalanffy points out that Aristotle’s statement “The whole is more than the sum of its parts”, is still valid (Klir, 1972). In addition Bertalanffy builds on the teleological viewpoint from Aristotle that human actions always are directed towards a goal. Important aspects (Bertalanffy, 1968) of General Systems Theory are those of closed and open systems, information and entropy, and causality. The theory is grounded on open systems, teleology and information as meaning, not, as often is thought to be the case, the “Mathematical Theory of Communication” of Shannon and Weaver (Shannon & Weaver, 1949). This theory is often referred to as Theory of Information (François, 1999), but it is built on the concepts of source, code, message, transmitter, signal, channel and receptor.

Boulding (Boulding, 1956, p. 197) has the following comments to GST:

“ ….a name which has come into use to describe a level of theoretical model-building which lies somewhere between the highly generalized constructions of pure

mathematics and the specific theories of the specialized disciplines”,

and further (Boulding, 1956, p. 197 - 198)

“…It does not seek, of course, to establish a single, self-contained “general theory of practically everything” which will replace all the special theories of particular disciplines. Such a theory would be almost without content, for we always pay for generality by sacrificing content, and all we can say about practically everything is almost nothing. Somewhere however between the specific that has no meaning and the general that has no content there must be, for each purpose and at each level of abstraction, an optimum degree of generality. It is the contention of the General Systems Theorists that this optimum degree of generality in theory is not always reached by the particular sciences.”

For a hierarchical arrangement of systems we turn to Boulding (Boulding, 1956). His hierarchy has frameworks (the static structure) as the 1st level and the transcendental as the 9th level (the ultimates and absolutes and the ‘inescapable unknowables’). Over the years many scientists have used Boulding’s article and composed his hierarchy into a table. Table 2.2 are composed by Checkland (Checkland, 1981).

Level Characteristics Examples (concrete or abstract)

Relevant disciplines

1. Structures, frameworks

Static Crystal structures, bridges

Description, verbal or pictorial, in any discipline 2. Clock-works Predetermined motion (may

exhibit equilibrium)

Clocks, machines, the solar system

Physics, classical natural science 3. Control

mechanisms

Closed-loop control Thermostats, homeostasis mechanisms in organisms

Control theory, cybernetics

4. Open systems Structurally self- maintaining

Flames, biological cells Theory of metabolism (information theory) 5. Lower

organisms

Organized whole with functional parts, ‘blueprinted’ growth, reproduction

Plants Botany

6. Animals A brain to guide total behaviour, ability to learn

Birds and beasts Zoology

7. Man Self-consciousness, knowledge of knowledge, symbolic language

Human beings Biology, psychology

8. Socio-cultural systems

Roles, communication, transmission of values

Families, the Boy Scouts, drinking clubs, nations History, sociology, anthropology, behavioural science 9. Transcendental systems

‘Inescapable unknowables’ The idea of God ?

Notes. (1) Emergent properties are assumed to arise at each defined level.

(2) From level 1 to level 9: Complexity increases; it is more difficult for an outside observer to predict behaviour; there is increasing dependence on unprogrammed decisions. (3) Lower level systems are found in higher level systems – e.g. man exhibits all the

distinguishing properties of levels 1 – 6, and emergent properties at the new level.

Table 2.2 An informal intuitive hierarchy of real-world complexity (after Boulding, 1956). Source: Checkland (Checkland, 1981, p. 104)