|
|
Working
at the Limits of
the Systems Paradigm
The advancement of science
has always depended on individuals thinking beyond and ahead of prevailing paradigms. But
the history of science also shows that the scientific community tends to "discipline"
such thinkers by marginalizing them. Established disciplines often enough seem to
spend more effort for the purpose of defending their paradigm than for overcoming its
limitations. Ironically, the more successful a
discipline is in securing its own paradigm,
the more its advancement will finally depend
on the few thinkers who are working at the
limits of this paradigm.
The Design of Inquiring
Systems is an impressive example of a
pioneer working at the limits of his field's paradigm. Significantly, the first section of
the book (p. 3) is entitled “On the
Limits of the Design of Systems."
The Challenge of
Improvement
For Churchman, the idea of systems design –
"the effort to improve
social systems through planning" (Churchman,
1982, p. 129) – entails a question of paradigmatic importance to applied science in
general, and to operations research
/
management science in
particular: "Is it possible to secure
improvement in the human condition by means of the human intellect?" (1982, p. 19).
Improvement implies learning; can systems design secure learning? And if it cannot, how
can we secure at least a critical understanding of the limits of design, i.e.,
of the sources of deception implied in our relying on design?
This is the fundamental question that Churchman, as I understand him,
poses himself in Inquiring Systems. In an age threatened by global self-destruction,
ecological crisis, hunger and many other complex problems brought forth by
scientifically supported systems design, this
is not merely an academic question. It is a
question of immediate importance to the
applied scientist; for what else is he trying
to achieve but producing knowledge that might
help secure improvement?
The manner in which Churchman seeks to answer his fundamental
question is no less characteristic of this
deeply philosophical pioneer of the systems approach than the question itself. Far from
presupposing that there is any such thing as
one "best" epistemological starting point
(theory of knowledge) for approaching his
question – an early insight (see Churchman, 1948) on which today's prevailing theories of
knowledge have hardly advanced – he turns to
some outstanding philosophical minds of the
past: Leibniz, Locke, Kant, Hegel and finally, his own philosophical teacher, Edgar
A. Singer, who was a disciple of the great American pragmatist William James. Churchman
thus gains five alternative – or, as it turns
out, complementary – epistemological viewpoints from which to elucidate some basic
limitations of present-day Utopias of systems
design (one might think of conceptions such as management information systems, artificial
intelligence, expert systems, social cybernetics, and other applications of systems
science).
Inquiring
Systems
Churchman's idea is to look at these different epistemologies as designs for inquiring
systems, that is, systems that would be capable of securing knowledge about the real
world –
and of knowing how and why exactly they know:
“We can regard the history of epistemology (theory of knowledge) not as a description of
how men learn and justify their learning, but
as a description of how learning can be
designed and how the design can be justified."
(1971, p. 17) This idea opens up two complementary perspectives for reading the
book.
Basically, the book can and should be read as
a philosophical inquiry into the meaning and limitations of systems design. In addition, it
can also be read as a refreshingly unconventional discussion of the meaning and
limitations of traditional epistemologies from
a systems point of view. Both ways of reading the book have their charm; both might also
cause the readers some difficulties in translating the book's insights back into
their accustomed ways of thinking (be it as a systems designer or as a philosopher). As
Churchman explains, his way of looking at the
older texts "requires a translation, not from
one
language to another, but from one
philosophical aim [i.e., the justification of knowledge] to another [i.e., the justification
of design]." (p. 17)
The philosophical reader might find the
translation inaccurate, as there is little direct consultation of the original authors.
Churchman does not belong to the majority of
ivory-tower philosophers, for whom philosophy is largely the same thing as studying its
history (an observation that has lost nothing of its validity since Kant made it over 200
years ago). To Churchman, philosophy is meaningful and important as an
applied discipline, as a stepping stone to improving actual social reality. Hence he is
"less interested in what Leibniz, say, was trying to accomplish, than in what his
attempts mean to the designer. Therefore, when we speak of a Leibnizian inquiring system, we
do not mean that this system is an exact account of how Leibniz conceived the theory of
knowledge; rather, it is a reconstruction of
Leibnizian ideas in the language of the design
of an inquiring system." (p. 17f)
As a basic translation of his underlying
question, Churchman asks "whether it is
possible to tell a computer how to design an inquiring system, or, in other terms, teach a
computer to conduct research." (p. 6)
To be sure, his interest is not in actually developing computer software, for example, in
the sense of artificial intelligence research; rather, the question serves as a conceptual
boundary experiment to clarify the limitations of some alternative designs for
inquiry.
The Guarantor
Problem: Toward a Theory of Deception
In the first of the two parts of the book, entitled "A Classification of Systems"
(pp. 1-205), Churchman examines the five
chosen epistemologies in the light of his
question. He shows that each of the
thus-gained designs for an inquiring system is bound to remain incomplete (or open-ended) in
regard to the validation of the information it
produces. It cannot serve as its own
guarantor (pp. 22f, 78, 204f). A design's specific gap of guarantee signals its
"lonely," creative part, "the part that cannot
be designed, at least relative to a standard
computer." (p. 6) In other words, it
signals the limit beyond which "man cannot be
bettered by his own designs."
(p. 3)
If not adequately considered, a design's
specific gap of guarantee will become a source
of hidden normative assumptions about how the
world ought to be viewed or redesigned. In Churchman's language: it will become
a source of deception. Because each
conceivable design of inquiry runs the risk of
such built-in sources of deception, a self-reflective, purposeful human inquirer is
called for to take on the responsibility for
the lack of guarantee in a design's premises
and promises.
The Theme of Comprehensiveness and the Heroic
Mood
As I understand Churchman, the fundamental
limit common to all designs for an inquiring system lies in the simultaneous
indispensability and impossibility of a complete (or comprehensive) systems design.
This implication leads Churchman to two of his
favorite themes: the theme of comprehensiveness, which he already discussed
in Challenge to Reason (1968a), and the
"heroic mood" required from a systems designer
who really strives for a comprehensive rationality of his designs – a rationality to
which its own built-in sources of deception would become transparent.
The theme of the "heroic mood" is expounded in
the second part of the book, "Speculations on
Systems Design" (pp. 207-277). It mainly discusses the inevitable role of "imagery" or
Weltanschauung (pp. 209-218) in inquiry and the problem of designing a
guarantor for the choice of such imagery (pp. 237-246). Other aspects discussed
are the implementation of systems design and the psychology of the inquiring system (pp.
219-236, 259-273).
This part of the book,
though impressive, will probably leave most
readers rather helpless. Churchman poses a lot
of thoroughly puzzling questions, and he does
not seek to create the impression that he or
anybody else has the answers. "To me the
essence of philosophy is to pose serious and
meaningful questions that are too difficult
for any of us to answer in our lifetimes….
Thought likes solutions, wisdom abhors them."
(1982, p. 20) The ultimate question with
which the book concludes may convey the flavor
of this second part: "What kind of a
world must it be in which inquiry becomes
possible?" (p. 277)
Personal
Appreciation
What have I learned from this book? Despite a
few critical thoughts, I owe to Inquiring Systems some basic ideas and questions
that have shaped my understanding of the
systems approach. Along with Churchman's
earlier books, Challenge to Reason (1968a) and The Systems Approach
(1968b), Inquiring Systems is a main
reason why I did not prematurely write off
systems theory as a technocratic approach (as
many of my fellow students did) but began to
see in it a critical and emancipatory
potential waiting to be uncovered – the aim of
my subsequent step from Churchman's "heroic" systems approach to "critical systems
heuristics" (Ulrich, 1983).
I think the key insight for me was the
inevitability and critical significance of the
systems idea for an adequate, self-reflective and self-limiting concept of
rationality, which, as I began to realize, had
to replace Churchman's heroic quest for
comprehensiveness (cf. Ulrich 2004,
p. 1128f).
Linked to this was the conclusion that the
systems idea, if only we understand it in the
Kantian sense of an "unavoidable" critical
idea of reason, can make a major contribution
to dealing reasonably with the inevitable
lack of comprehensiveness in all human knowledge and understanding (Churchman and
Ulrich, 1980; Ulrich, 1981; Churchman et al., 1981; Ulrich, 1983).
As a third and last point,
I was led to recognize the fact that not only
modern systems science but also contemporary
practical philosophy has failed to understand the significance of the systems idea for a
critical and practicable approach to
the problem of practical reason: How
can we rationally identify and discuss the
normative implications of our designs? Hence,
my effort to redefine and unify practical philosophy and the systems approach in terms
of critical systems heuristics (CSH).
Outlook to the
"Enemies"
The Design of Inquiring Systems to me
is one of the two books by West Churchman that
best represent the critical program of
research that he proposed at the end of The Systems Approach: "The ultimate
meaning of the systems approach lies in the
creation of a theory of deception and in fuller understanding of the ways in which the
human being can be deceived about his world…."
(1968b, p. 229f)
The other of these two books is The Systems Approach and Its
Enemies (1979). Perhaps a short outlook to
how this later book takes up the basic intent
of Inquiring Systems will interest the
reader. Basically, Enemies offers a
dialectical framework for unfolding the meaning and limitations of concrete systems
designs. Although Churchman does not say it in these terms, I believe that in this book the
systems approach for the first time has become truly self-reflective with respect to the
normative implications of its own quest for systems rationality. In Churchman's terms, the
systems approach cannot realize its search for a comprehensive rationality of planning so
long as it seeks to absorb the "enemies" of such rationality, which to him are:
politics, morality, religion, and aesthetics (some readers might want to replace morality
with economics).
The somewhat provocative term "enemy" is meant
to connote the irreconcilable conflict between
the whole-systems rationality of the systems
approach and the private, subjective
rationalities of these other standpoints,
which are not willing to subject themselves to
the planner's standards of systems rationality even though he may claim to plan for them.
They are in this sense his "deadly enemies,"
that is, the dialectical negation, of the
systems approach.
Rather than by seeking to absorb the
standpoints of the enemies so as to render
them innocuous, the systems approach can hope to claim comprehensive rationality inasmuch as
it learns to reflect on its own limitations,
namely, by listening to its "enemies" and by
understanding them dialectically as what they are: mirrors of its failure to be
comprehensive (Ulrich, 1983,
p. 34).
The ultimate lesson to
which Inquiring Systems and the
Enemies amount for me is this: only that concept of rationality (and hence,
understanding of systems design) can help secure improvement which makes transparent to
itself its own lack of comprehensiveness and which also comprehends this lack of
comprehensiveness – its own self-limitation,
that is – as a necessary condition of
reasonable social practice. Only thus systems design can become an effective instrument for
bringing reason into practice, and for
rendering practice reasonable.
West Churchman has served
the design profession and other applied disciplines by thinking beyond their current
concepts of rationality; but he cannot save us
the trouble of reading and re-thinking his
books for ourselves. So many years after the
publication of Inquiring Systems and Enemies, it is certainly not too late,
but more urgent than ever, to come to terms with this great, difficult pioneer of the
systems approach who, by a lifetime's hard work at the limits of his own paradigm, has
taught us so much more than we have as yet
learned from him.
References for
the Introductory Note
Baecker, D.
(ed.) (2016). Schlüsselwerke der
Systemtheorie, 2. Aufl. /2nd edn.
Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften, 2016 (forthcoming; orig.
2005).
Ulrich, W.
(1985). The way of inquiring systems. Review
of "The Design of Inquiring Systems" by
C. West Churchman, New York, Basic Books,
1971. Journal of the Operational Research
Society, 36, No. 9, 1985, Special
Issue: Systems Thinking in Action, Special
Book Selection: Signposts to Successful
Systems Practice, ed. by M.C. Jackson and
P. Keys, pp. 873-876.
Ulrich, W.
(1987). Critical heuristics of social systems
design. European Journal of Operational
Research, 31, No. 3, 1987,
pp. 276-283.
Ulrich, W.
(1993). Some difficulties of ecological
thinking, considered from a critical systems
perspective: a plea for critical holism.
Systems Practice, 6, No. 6, pp.
583-611.
Ulrich, W.
(1996). A Primer to Critical Systems
Heuristics for Action Researchers. Centre
for Systems Studies, University of Hull, Hull,
UK, 31 March 1996, 58pp. Slightly revised
digital version, 10 August 2014. Werner
Ulrich's Home Page, Downloads
section,
http://wulrich.com/downloads/ulrich_1996a.pdf
(also available from the author's
Academia.edu
page).
Ulrich, W.
(2000). Reflective practice in the civil
society : the contribution of critically
systemic thinking. Reflective Practice,
1, No. 2, pp. 247-268.
Ulrich, W.
(2001a). The quest for competence in systemic
research and practice. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, 18, No. 1, pp.
3-28.
Ulrich, W.
(2001b). A philosophical staircase for
information systems definition, design, and
development. (A discursive approach to
reflective practice in ISD, Part 1).
Journal of Information Technology Theory
and Application, 3, No. 3, 2001,
pp. 55-84.
Ulrich, W.
(2001c). Critically systemic discourse. (A
discursive approach to reflective practice in
ISD, Part 2). Journal of Information
Technology Theory and Application, 3,
No. 3, 2001, pp. 85-106.
Ulrich, W.
(2003). Beyond methodology choice: critical
systems thinking as critically systemic
discourse. Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 54, No. 4, 2003,
pp. 325-342.
Ulrich, W.
(2006a). Critical pragmatism: a new approach
to professional and business ethics. In L.
Zsolnai (ed.), Interdisciplinary Yearbook
of Business Ethics, Vol. I, Oxford,
UK, and Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang Academic
Publishers, 2006, pp. 53-85.
Ulrich, W.
(2006b). Rethinking critically reflective
research practice: beyond Popper's critical
rationalism. Journal of Research Practice,
2, No. 2, 2006, Article P1.
Ulrich, W.
(2007). Philosophy for professionals: towards
critical pragmatism. Viewpoint. Journal of
the Operational Research Society, 58, No.
8 (August), 2007, pp. 1109-1113.
Ulrich, W.
(2012a). Operational research and critical
systems thinking – an integrated perspective.
Part 1: OR as applied systems thinking.
Journal of the Operational Research
Society, 63, No. 9 (September), pp.
1228-1247.
Ulrich, W.
(2012b). Operational research and critical
systems thinking – an integrated perspective.
Part 2: OR as argumentative practice.
Journal of the Operational Research
Society, 63, No. 9 (September), pp.
1307-1322.
Ulrich, W.
(2015a). Kant's way to peace. A review of Hans
Saner's Kant's Political Thought: Its
Origin and Development, University of
Chicago Press, 1973. [PDF]
http://wulrich.com/downloads/ulrich_2015b.pdf
[PDF]
https://academia.edu/12100646/Kants_way_to_peace
Ulrich, W.
(2015b). Kant's public construction of reason.
A review of Onora O’Neill's Constructions
of Reason: Explorations of Kant's Practical
Philosophy, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 1989.
[PDF]
http://wulrich.com/downloads/ulrich_2015c.pdf
[PDF]
https://academia.edu/12101677/Kants_public_construction_of_reason
Ulrich, W.
(2015c). Kant's rational ethics.
A review
of
Immanuel Kant's
Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals,
transl. by H.J. Paton, New York: Harper &
Row, 1964.
[PDF]
http://wulrich.com/downloads/ulrich_2015d.pdf
[PDF]
https://academia.edu/12101835/Kants_rational_ethics
Ulrich, W.
(2016). Forschende Systeme. Über C. West
Churchman, The Design of Inquiring
Systems (1971). In Baecker, D. (ed.),
Schlüsselwerke der Systemtheorie. 2.
Aufl. /2nd edn. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer
VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2016
(forthcoming).
References for the
Review
Churchman, C.
West (1948). Theory of Experimental
Inference. New York:
Macmillan.
Churchman, C.W.
(1968a). Challenge to
Reason
. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Churchman, C.W.
(1968b). The Systems Approach. New
York: Delacorte; pb. edn. Dell.
Churchman, C.W.
(1971). The Design of Inquiring Systems:
Basic Concepts of Systems and
Organizations. New York: Basic
Books.
Churchman, C.W.
(1979). The Systems Approach and Its
Enemies. New York: Basic
Books.
Churchman, C.W.
(1982). Thought and Wisdom. Seaside,
CA: Intersystems Publications.
Churchman, C.W.,
Ulrich, W. (1980). The status of the systems
approach: reply to R.A. Bryer. Omega, The
International Journal of Management Science,
8, No. 3, pp. 277-280.
Churchman, CW,
with Cowan, T.A., and Ulrich, W. (1981). The
systems approach and its enemies. Counterpoint
to Christenson's critique – a dialogue.
Journal of Enterprise Management, 3,
No. 2, pp. 200-202.
Ulrich, W.
(1981). On blaming the messenger for the bad
news. Reply to Bryer's comments. Omega, The
International Journal of Management Science,
9, No. 1, 1981,
p. 7.
Ulrich, W.
(1983). Critical Heuristics of Social
Planning: A New Approach to Practical
Philosophy. Bern, Switzerland, and
Stuttgart, Germany: Paul Haupt; pb. reprint
edn., New York and Chichester, UK: Wiley,
1994.
Ulrich, W.
(1985). The way of inquiring systems. Review
of "The Design of Inquiring Systems" by
C. West Churchman, New York, Basic Books,
1971. Journal of the Operational Research
Society, 36, No. 9, 1985, Special
Issue: Systems Thinking in Action, Special
Book Selection: Signposts to Successful
Systems Practice, ed. by M.C. Jackson and
P. Keys, pp. 873-876.
Ulrich, W.
(2004). Obituary: C. West Churchman,
1913–2004. Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 55, No. 11, pp.
1123–1129.
|
|