1986
Comprehension of Appropriateness
- / -
Paper submitted to Rome workshop, 10-13 September 1986, of the
Project on Economic Aspects of Human Development (EAHD) of the
Regional and Global Studies Division of the United Nations University
Introduction
Assumptions
Concrete vs Theoretical
Comprehending complexity
Metaphors: a resource for inter-paradigmatic comprehension
Collective comprehension span: the time dimension
Diversity and its comprehension
Diversity of complementary functions: ordering requisite variety
Configuration of modes as a resonance hybrid
Need for insightful metaphors
Comprehending the status of the new mode
Patterns of policy cycles
Impotence of appropriateness: the dilemma of Nth order modes
Paradoxical strategies
Conclusion
References
Annexes
1: Dimensions of comprehension diversity
2: Communicable insights
3: Interpretation of cross-cultural information processing
Figures 1-8
Introduction
This paper explores certain assumptions associated with the comprehension of
socio-economic systems appropriate to optimum human development. It questions the notion
which seems to prevail that any desirable alternative is readily comprehensible and that
the inherent logic of it can render it credible, whether in scholarly discussion or in the
court of public opinion.
In particular, although recognizing the vital importance of such initiatives, the paper
questions the status enthusiastically attributed to socio-economic alternatives, such as
have been recently articulated in The Other Economic Summit series (London, 1984, 1985)
and presented in book form (1). In contrast this paper focuses not on the merits of
particular modes of organization (however attractive), but rather on the apparent need to
shift periodically between policies or modes of socio-economic organization - as
exemplified by the very recent decisions of the Chinese leadership to correct certain
inadequacies in their own economic system by switching from an established Maoist mode to
"other approaches", where appropriate, including approaches characteristic of
modes opposed to theirs (e.g. legalization of bankruptcies, discontinuation of guaranteed
job security).
This paper also questions our collective ability to produce a rationally designed response
to the global problematique as is, for example, suggested by recent studies emerging from
United Nations University projects. In criticizing progress towards a New International
Economic Order (2) or in reflecting on the global problematique in terms of
"development as social transformation" (3), the authors of these studies believe
in the possibility of bringing about some "fundamentally new" mode of
socio-economic organization, "but only if we recognize (the NIEO) for what it is and
what it means in terms of the fundamental logic of world economy....it is not possible to
grasp the wholesomeness of this fundamental logic outside the emerging 'world-system
approach' to the study of our contemporary capitalist historic world system."(2, p.
x). Whilst the penetration of such studies is highly valuable, it is argued here that
their assumptions concerning their own privileged relationship to the new mode fail to
embody dimensions vital to the appropriateness of such a mode.
The body of this paper develops work done by the author in the UNU project of Goals,
Process and Indicators of Development and published in the Encyclopedia of World Problems
and Human Potential (4, especially Sections CM and KD). The Annexes are adapted from work
done for the UNU project on Information Overload and Information Underuse (5).
Assumptions
The following assumptions are frequently implicit in discussions of alternatives to
present approaches to economic and political organization, especially as they impact on or
constrain human development in ways which are considered undesirable.
Given recognition of any alternative mode of socio-economic organization that builds on
the strengths of what has been achieved, but remedies the factors giving rise to the
perceived defects, a set of such assumptions might include:
- 1. That the new mode is inherently better in some absolute sense and that, conversely:
- the old mode must necessarily be permanently abandoned as historically outmoded;
- the defects in the new mode will not eventually prove to be as significant as those
under the old mode.
- 2. That the new mode is equally appropriate to all societies and to all sub-cultures
within those societies, especially if adapted to local contexts and requirements.
- 3. That, if it can be comprehended, represented and discussed within one frame of
reference, the mode can nevertheless be of sufficient complexity to respond to the
concerns perceived by constituencies preferring other frames of reference.
- 4. That an appropriate new mode can be readily articulated in its entirety, rather than
necessarily provoking a set of partial comprehensions which people, of whatever level of
competence, experience considerable difficulty in integrating/reconciling, even if they
are motivated to do so.
- 5. That an appropriate mode can be readily implemented by a consistent pattern of
actions, rather than requiring a set of seemingly inconsistent and incompatible actions,
each favoured or condemned by some different configuration of constituencies.
- 6. That the coherence and integrity of an appropriate mode derives from a hierarchical
relationship between its components, as opposed to other possibilities with
characteristics such as:
- configurations of incommensurable conceptual or organizational groupings in which the
hierarchical dimension, if any, is secondary or implicit;
- cyclic phases of emphasis over time;
- alternation between seemingly opposed or contradictory policy modes.
- 7. That credible articulations of a seemingly attractive approach do not effectively
obscure hard realities to which the advocating group may be insensitive (or anxious to
avoid discussing in order to further some hidden agenda).
- 8. That any readily devised approach will not necessarily provoke counter-strategies or
strategies which exploit the situation created by the implementation of the new approach,
undermining it and eventually rendering it ineffective.
- 9. That, during the implementation of the appropriate new mode, it is possible for any
given constituency to avoid being trapped into recognizing any necessary practical
strategy in either a "positive" or a "negative" light, and
consequently to be entrained to further or oppose that partial strategy, without
consideration of whether such effort is excessive in the light of the contextual mode to
which it contributes.
- 10. That the essence of being human, and of human development, involves processes free
from ambiguity, paradox and counter-intuitive phases, permitting an appropriate new mode
to be articulated in a manner free of such non-rational characteristics.
The above assumptions do not constitute a tidy set. In fact the last six could be
considered as reformulations of aspects or implications of the third.
The intention here is to illustrate the comprehension dilemmas arising from these
assumptions, bearing in mind that if the assumptions do not hold, such explorations can
only be indicative rather than unambiguous. The object is to highlight the practical
implications for the design of an appropriate new mode and how it might be perceived and
received. Before doing so, however, it is appropriate to address the dynamic associated
with the debate between those emphasizing a "concrete" approach as opposed to
those emphasizing a "theoretical" approach.
Concrete vs. Theoretical
The issues raised by such assumptions, and any effort to explore their possible
significance, can be relatively easily avoided by taking either a "concrete"
position or a "theoretical" position. This can be used as a practical
illustration of the dilemma to be discussed subsequently.
For those emphasizing a "concrete" perspective, such questions appear to be a
device to avoid getting to immediate grips with pressing problems and devising practical
solutions to deal with them. What needs to be done appears obvious and the only
difficulties in implementing such solutions are the ones created by those who resist
unreasonably the envisaged steps. Because such groups can be defined as unreasonable, they
can also be defined as part of the problem which needs to be remedied. The merit of this
position is that it can indeed respond effectively to current crises by ignoring
subtleties of significance, whether for a wider geographical area, for a broader social
context, or for a longer period of time. The approach to the time dimension is one of
intense focus on the present, ignoring longer term perspectives in a spirit of "let
us cross each bridge as we come to it". Such effectiveness is effectiveness according
to short-term rather than long-term criteria.
For those emphasizing a "theoretical" perspective, the pressing need is seen to
be one of understanding the processes involved, in terms of some appropriate model, in
order to be able to make an informed appropriate decision at some future time, when
sufficient insight has been gained. The question of when that moment will be is avoided,
because the commitment is to understanding and not to deciding and implementing particular
decisions. Any practical response to the crises of the present are thus avoided, with the
possibility of continually postponing the moment of decision by the need to obtain further
insight to render it sufficiently appropriate. This perspective solves the problem of
other competing schools of thought by declaring their arguments to be poorly formulated,
ill-informed, or in some subtle way inappropriate.
Within neither of these emphases is it considered appropriate to envisage the possible
inappropriateness of the priorities which emerge from pursuit of that emphasis. Neither
can envisage constraints on its own relevance or conditions under which the other may be
more appropriate. The fact that both approaches are actively and usefully pursued in
society is a result of considerations which neither emphasis could articulate within its
own perspective, and certainly could not justify.
Comprehending complexity
The remainder of this paper considers the possibility that the appropriate global
socio-economic mode of organization is necessarily more complex than is accepted within
any particular frame of reference. It is therefore more than probable that it cannot be
fully comprehended within any single frame of reference.
The probability is increased in the light of the classic study of axiomatic systems by
Kurt Gödel (6). Prior to this a climate of opinion existed among mathematicians in which
it was tacitly assumed that each sector of mathematical thought can be supplied with a set
of axioms sufficient for developing systematically the endless totality of true
propositions about a given area of inquiry. Gödel demonstrated that no system can be
comprehensible without being self-contradictory. In doing so he showed that it is
impossible to establish the internal logical consistency of a very large class of
deductive systems, unless principles of reasoning are adopted which are so complex that
their internal consistency is as open to doubt as that of the systems themselves
(7).
Care should be taken in dismissing the relevance of such insights to the comprehension of
social systems. A recent discussion of their relevance in the Financial Times concludes
that although "he was concerned specifically with systems of symbols such as
mathematics and other languages... experience indicates that the principle applies to
organizational systems too. Its implications are particularly destructive for bureaucratic
attempts at management. Their tendency is to lay down systematic rules intended to cover
every eventuality and, when they don't, to lay down more rules supposed to close the
loophole. Whilst Gödel's principle suggests that any such process is necessarily
self-frustrating, almost all bureaucracies seem determined to believe
otherwise."(8).
This also suggests the merit of reflecting on the relationship between the political
axioms in terms of which attempts are made to govern countries and groups of countries,
especially to the extent that they are embodied in political slogans reflecting values
which are "axiomatic". Such slogans presumably preclude consideration of modes
of organization which are not built directly upon such axioms. But Gödel also showed that
there is an endless number of true arithmetical statements which cannot be formally
deduced from any given set of axioms by a closed set of rules of inference. The dramatic
implications of this has just recently been demonstrated in the world of chess,
traditionally referred to as the "Game of Kings" because of the manner in which
it simulated the strategic problems of a leader. There are many axioms governing the
different possibilities of winning in a chess endgame situation. To the considerable
astonishment of the chess community, a very recent computer analysis of endgames has
however demonstrated that there are many other ways of winning, unforeseen by such axioms,
and in some cases inconsistent with them (9). Comprehending appropriateness might be
illustrated by the problem of comprehending the nature of an n-dimensional object (e.g. a
hypercube) whose elements represent factors in a mathematical model of a socio-economic
system. Portions of the representation can be comprehended when they are represented as 2
or 3-dimensional diagrams of cross-sections of the n-dimensional structure. Integrating a
set of such representations tends to be a task beyond the current abilities of the human
mind.
It could be argued that it is not vital that the n-dimensional object be comprehensible in
its entirety, provided the mathematical representation can be proved to be satisfactory.
This is the case with the current use of hypercubes as the basis for the organization of
new, and more efficient, forms of computer memory. Provided the product finally works,
people do not feel that it is necessary to understand it in its entirety. The wiring
diagram can be represented, even though it is meaningless to those making the sequence of
connections between the parts.
This attitude is not however acceptable in the case of the presentation of some new mode
of socio-economic organization, whether at the macro or the micro level. It is one thing
for people to have confidence in leaders (or experts) who can claim to comprehend such a
mode in its entirety, even though their followers do not. Most social innovations in the
past have been implemented on this basis. It is quite another thing when the appropriate
mode of organization cannot be fully comprehended by any leader (or expert), especially,
as is the case at present, when the motivations of such elites are increasingly considered
questionable.
The situation is further complicated by the learning dimension. If the appropriate mode
was fully comprehensible, it would then exclude the possibility of a learning dimension.
It would permit learning within that mode, but it could not render explicit (and would
therefore probably preclude) learning beyond the framework imposed by that mode. It could
not permit learning by which the framework itself would be challenged. It would thus be
consistent with human development within a framework implemented at a particular
historical moment, but opposed to human development arising from insights emerging
subsequently. Such a mode would therefore be consistent with human development in a
"minor" key but not with human development in a "major" key, namely
development requiring paradigm shifts.
A response to this situation is not to expect or require that the appropriate mode be
comprehensible in its entirety to any one person or group. It could be expected that
different people or groups would be capable of comprehending different features or
processes of that mode and would then act to ensure their implementation. But,
necessarily, such people or groups would then not comprehend the justification for the
activities of other people or groups concerned with other features or processes.
The socio-political situation would then be one in which:
- Constituency A would support strategic components P, Q and R, but would oppose, possibly
violently, strategic components I, J and K;
- Constituency B would support strategic components E, F and K, but would oppose Q, J and
T;
- Constituency C would support strategic components I, T and R, but would oppose F, G and
P.
The difficulty is that, in such a context of partial comprehension, no group (e.g.
Group A) would be in a position to distinguish between:
- 1. A condition in which some other group (e.g. Group C) was acting dangerously,
inadequately or irresponsibly in terms of its contribution to the contextual mode, and
should therefore be considered as inconsistent with the successful implementation of that
mode.
- 2. A condition in which its own group (Group A) was fulfilling its function, in relation
to the contextual mode, by acting in opposition to some other group (Group C), even though
that group was itself fulfilling its function in relation to the contextual mode in an
appropriate manner.
In such a situation, for the contextual mode to function appropriately, the groups
would act in support or opposition to each other to provide a system of checks and
balances that would permit human development to occur in the optimum manner. No group
could effectively take a position within this context in support of the contextual mode.
It would, because of the necessary partiality of its comprehension, quite validly be
perceived as acting to further certain interests consistent with that partiality.
The challenge then is to explore ways of improving comprehension of fruitful patterns of
interaction between groups and perspectives which of necessity must function in shifting
coalitions in support and opposition to one another.
Metaphors: a resource for inter-paradigmatic comprehension
Metaphors are a special form of presentation natural to many cultures (10). They are of
unique importance as a means of communicating complex notions, especially in
interdisciplinary and multicultural dialogue, as well as in the popularization of abstract
concepts, in political discourse, and as part of any creative process. They offer the
special advantage of calling upon a pre-existing capacity to comprehend complexity, rather
than assuming that people need to engage in lengthy educational processes before being
able to comprehend. Although frequently used in international debate through which
strategies are defined, their strengths have not been deliberately explored to assist in
the identification of more appropriate strategies and in the manner of their
implementation.
Each development policy may be considered a particular "answer" to the global
problematique. And yet no such answer appears to be free from fundamental weaknesses. A
shift to an alternative policy becomes progressively more necessary as the effects of
these weaknesses accumulate. However, since each such policy reflects a
"language" or mind-set whereby a worldview is organized, as indicated above, no
adequate "logical" framework can exist to facilitate comprehension of the nature
of such a shift or of the process of transition between alternatives (11). But many
familiar metaphors of alternation exist through which the characteristics and limitations
of such a shift may be understood.
This paper assumes that the challenge to comprehension is such that, just as in the case
of fundamental physics, discussion of the subtle complexity of an appropriate new
socio-economic mode, and its relationship to human understanding of it, can only proceed
forward with the aid of devices such as metaphors which call upon other faculties of the
human mind.
Collective comprehension span: the time dimension
In order to be able to base some appropriate new form of socio-economic organization on a
new pattern of insights, it is clearly necessary that collective comprehension of that
pattern should persist in a coherent manner over a period of time. The length of time
required must clearly be at least of the same order as that of any major cycle of
processes through which the well-being of that new mode is ensured. By a major cycle is
meant one which encompasses the shifts between the alternative paradigms or modes of
operation required to correct for deviations or the accumulation of characteristics
impeding the long-term development of that society. Since the majority of policy-making is
tied to electoral cycles of from 1 to 7 years, and several electoral cycles may be
required to compensate for each others excesses, it is probable that collective
comprehension of such larger cycles is inadequate, to the extent that it exists at
all.
It is interesting that the dimensions of this collective comprehension problem of time
cycles can be beautifully illustrated by a metaphor whose features are very familiar to
all, namely the circulation of traffic. The movement of traffic of different kinds, of
different densities, at different speeds and with different directions, especially in an
urban environment, is (self-) regulated by a range of techniques. These include:
- basic road rules (driving on right or left),
- prohibited actions (no entry, speed limit, no stopping, no waiting, no parking); -
required actions (stop, keep left, yield, turn right);
- limited access (no cyclists); and
- special warnings (dangerous crossing, etc.).
Whilst drivers may bend and break such rules occasionally, they recognize the wisdom of
them in most situations -- for their own continued survival, if not for that of
others.
To improve traffic flow, traffic signals may be used permitting an orderly alternation in
direction of movement (e.g. from the right or from the left). These may be phased in
various ways to improve flow in an area (e.g. the green phasing for a group of vehicles
moving at constant speed along a route through the area). Area traffic control responsive
to a range of traffic conditions may optimize flows by comparing current conditions to
models based on past experience. Traffic of different types may also be segregated:
pedestrians from vehicles, local from long-distance (e.g. on expressways with merging
lanes and cloverleaf junctions).
Movement of traffic under such conditions is only possible because the collective
comprehension span exceeds that of::
- traffic signal cycles;
- waiting periods at stop or giveway junctions;
- delays associated with traveling in peak period traffic;
- delays associated with multiple accidents and road blockages.
People are prepared to tolerate the priority given to others, knowing that priority
will be given to the group of vehicles with which they are currently associated in
accordance with the priority of traffic flows at that point. They are prepared to tolerate
traffic moving in directions other than their own, knowing that at some time they may find
it necessary to be moving in those same directions, perhaps on a return journey.
However, if the time span comprehended was reduced to the same order as that of the
traffic signal cycles or less, a very different situation would prevail. A stoplight would
be perceived as an unjust deprivation of rights. The traffic able to move at that time
would be perceived as having acquired undue privileges, since it is composed of vehicles
moving in other (and therefore irrelevant) directions, and especially if relatively few
vehicles were traveling in that direction at that time. The sense of pattern would be
completely lost. Only the direction of one's current journey would be of any significance.
Traffic moving in the opposite direction could quite legitimately be forbidden.
If the appropriate mode of socio-economic organization is to be comprehended in this
light, the implication from the earlier arguments is that it is highly probable that the
prevailing collective comprehension span is less than that of the cycles by which that
mode is to be sustained. Constituencies advocating opposing policies are perceived like
streams of traffic coming "from the right" or "from the left" or even
"from the opposite direction". Since the pattern of the appropriate mode cannot
be comprehended in its entirety, such alternative policies can only be considered as a
misguided or dangerous use of resources. The possibility that implementation of the policy
favoured by one's group might be temporarily interrupted, to ease the build up in the
pressure in favour of another, could only be considered unreasonable.
Use of this metaphor is not intended as a means of rendering existing injustices
acceptable. Even in terms of this metaphor, there are some groups that have been waiting
at a traffic junction a very long time for a green light to give them some degree of
priority. The purpose of the metaphor is to provide a more accessible framework within
which the interplay of priorities can be discussed. When should the flow of traffic on an
expressway be interrupted to allow traffic from a side road to cross or enter the
mainstream? Where is it appropriate to construct merging lane ("cloverleaf")
junctions or underpasses? Where is it more appropriate for low frequency traffic to detour
to an entry/crossover point? What are the major routes on the road map?
The metaphor indicates a way of thinking about how the progress of groups of different
kinds, developing at different rates in complex social environments, could order their
conflicting policies with minimal mutual interference. Some form of cycle of signals might
be used to enable groups with conflicting policies to progress during alternate periods.
Actions of groups of different types may be segregated. The progress of groups with
conflicting but interrelated policies may be facilitated by devising means for such
policies to filter through each other (as at traffic "roundabouts") rather than
cut across each other.
The prevailing approach may be seen, in the light of this metaphor, as one in which groups
promoting different policies are given start/stop priority over each other in succession,
in order to express their viewpoints. In the case of the alternation of political parties
in power, an election is a process through which a decision is taken on the traffic
signals. But in general, present policy control in this metaphor can be compared to a
procession (or "progress") in one direction with the support of security forces
which ensure that all access roads be blocked off and all opposing traffic suppressed.
When the procession has petered out, another such "convoy" may be organized, by
another coalition of forces, in another direction to cater for the traffic stream blocked
by the first. This corresponds to a very primitive traffic control approach. It takes no
account of the sophisticated blend of control and delegation of responsibility to drivers
which is characteristic of modern traffic patterns.
Diversity and its comprehension
Various approaches to diversity and its comprehension are presented in Annex 1 (Dimensions of comprehension diversity) and in Annex 2 (Communicable insights). These are based on work presented elsewhere
(12).
Diversity of complementary functions: ordering requisite variety
The traffic metaphor offers some insights into how the relationships between such
contrasting approaches and policies might be regulated, in a largely self-organizing
manner. It does not help to understand how such a diversity of functions is necessary to
constitute a viable socio-economic organization.
If, as suggested above, the complex of socio-economic functions required to further
appropriate human development is such that only portions of that complex are
comprehensible or meaningful to any one group, it is to be expected that each such group
would build on that feature of the complex which it finds comprehensible. Such clustering
of "comprehensions" could well be partially determined by cultural, historical
and related factors, themselves possibly engendered by the necessary dynamics of the
functional complex.
As an indication of the difficulty of understanding the requisite diversity in such
circumstances, the simplest case is that in which a group understands one "half"
of the functional complex and builds on that understanding. The other "half"
would then necessarily be perceived as incomprehensible or irrelevant, or rejected on some
other basis, possibly as dangerously misguided and a threat to that portion accepted as
meaningful. There are many examples of policies and systems of organization polarized in
this way: centralization vs decentralization, right vs left, industry vs environment,
communism vs capitalism, etc. But although such polarized cases appear simple, they
clearly arouse such violent dynamics in any situation that it it not possible to expect
any creative resolution between them. Their relationship defies comprehension and
automatically calls for the elimination of one or the other.
A more complex case, might be one in which four groups each understand a
"quarter" of the functional complex and each build systems of socio-economic
organization on that understanding. But in this case it is probable that anyone of the
groups, although unable to enter into full understanding of the three other perspectives,
would at least be sensitive to the functional advantages of certain features of them. They
are not rejected so completely or so automatically as in the case of simple polarization.
Nuances emerge as is evident in countries with a diversity of political parties. It
remains true however that there is no "meta-perspective" through which the
complementarity between these different perspectives can be comprehended. From any one
perspective it is not fully apparent what functions the others serve.
It is in this context that it is useful to view the results of Geert Hofstede's
multicultural survey of work-related values discussed in Annex 1 and interpreted in Annex 3 (see especially Figures 5 and 6). Each of his four major
clusters constitutes an alternative way of viewing socio-economic organization. From any
one of them it is possible to generate indicators showing how the others are
unsatisfactory on some important dimension. A typical example of this is the
Anglo-Saxon/American perception of the inefficiency of "latin" approaches to
organization or the utter chaos and incomprehensibility of Asian or African systems of
organization. In the light of such a perspective, there would be many to recommend the
replacement of such other systems of organization by the so obviously successful
American/Anglo-Saxon system. The recent success of such alternative modes of organization
as that of the Japanese, makes this case much less credible. Nevertheless any such cluster
perceives its own preferred mode of organization as performing functions in a manner
superior to that of others --although that superiority may not be measurable in terms of
efficiency.
This raises the question as to whether the alternative cultural perspectives indicated by
Hofstede are not necessary to embody the necessary functional diversity for the healthy
functioning of the global village. It is not, as is frequently assumed, that there are
other, often quaint, modes of socio-economic organization which are simply part of the
"rich pattern of life on the planet". In some as yet poorly understood way, it
would seem probable that each such perspective has some distinctive, essential functional
role to play within the functional complex as a whole. It remains unclear how these
functional contributions are to be recognized, especially when decisions have to be made
to continue or to terminate certain possibilities. As in the maintenance of an ecosystem,
when does the culling or elimination of a species significantly reduce the ability of the
ecosystem to survive and develop?
Configuration of modes as a resonance hybrid
See also (13)
Although David Bohm's perspective on the nature of implicate order (Annex
2) clarifies the challenge further, it does not say anything about the relationship
between the different modes of perception and organization which can emerge, other than in
the sense that they can be re-enfolded into an implicate order. Since the challenge is to
deal with co-existent, and very different, frames of reference another perspective is also
fruitful.
The set of alternative structures, between which alternation takes place in any learning
cycle, may be more clearly understood in the light of the theory of resonance. Johan
Galtung first explored the possibility of using the organization of chemical molecules to
clarify the description of social organization (14). He dealt with fixed structures and
not with the transition between alternatives. The theory of resonance in chemistry is
concerned with the representation of the actual normal state of molecules by a combination
of several alternative "resonable" structures, rather than by a single
valence-bond structure. The molecule is then conceived as resonating among the several
valence-bond structures, or rather to have a structure that is a resonance hybrid of these
structures.
The classic example of a resonance hybrid is the benzene molecule of 6 carbon atoms for
which F A Kekulé introduced the idea of oscillation between two alternative structures.
The pattern of oscillation was later extended by Linus Pauling to include three more
distinct alternates. The actual configuration is a resonance hybrid of the five forms,
which through quantum mechanics has been shown to have an energy less than any of the
alternate structures (see Figure 1). This is potentially of great significance for any
social structure analogue, in view of the call for a low-energy society. Given the
fundamental role of the benzene molecular configuration as the basis for most living
structures, it is worth asking (in the light of the sixfold restraint discussed in earlier
entries) why it is composed of six atoms. The answer is that it is this configuration
which ensures minimal strain on the distribution of the four valency bonds of each carbon
atom, thus resulting in a minimal energy configuration. It is worth reflecting on this
model in the light of the research showing that the upper limit for effective committee or
task force organization, the basis for social organization, is seven, plus or minus
one.
Such structures recall the context of Bohm's arguments concerning unfoldment of explicate
forms. The wave function representing a stationary state of a resonance hybrid in quantum
mechanics can be expressed as the sum of the wave functions that correspond to several
hypothetical alternates. The proper combination is that sum which leads to a minimal
energy for the system. Of significance in any social structure analogue is that the higher
energy of each alternate is associated with some degree of "distortion"
(different in kind in each case), which effectively renders the alternate meta-stable.
(Also worth exploring is the contrasting concept of a "resonance particle". This
is any exceedingly unstable high energy particle, which may be considered as a composite
of several relatively stable low energy particles into which it may decay.)
******************************
Place Figures 1, 2 and 3 here
******************************
Resonance hybrids could well provide a key to the conception, design and operation of
coalitions of people or groups using forms of information or modes of information
processing so different that the coalitions could not cohere for any length of time in one
single form but could be stable if the coalition alternated between distinct forms.
Underlying this possibility, hybrids are also of interest in integrating incompatible
perspectives, paradigms and policies without eroding their distinctiveness in some
simplistic compromise (see Figures 2 and 3). Whilst the value of using such resonance
models may be contested, they do have the advantage of shifting the debate, currently
somewhat sterile, to a level at which the merits of particular answers are no longer the
sole issue. The need is for investigation of "resonable" structures, however
"unreasonable" they may appear from any particular perspective. They open the
way to more fruitful discussions both about how alternation between the contradictory
information characteristic of a complex society can be improved and about the kinds of
social structures that could be based upon such patterns of alternation.
Need for insightful metaphors
It is difficult to obtain coherent patterns of insights from conventional analyses of the
implicit languages used in different sectors of society. There is therefore a strong case
for exploring metaphors, and patterns of metaphors capable of focussing and highlighting
insights concerning the creation, storage and distribution of information.
The difficulty in exploring patterns of alternation between modes of organization is the
seeming lack of concrete (as opposed to abstract) examples by which the credibility of
such patterns in practice may become apparent. The rotation of agricultural crops is
therefore an interesting "earthy" practice to explore in the light of the
mind-set which it has required of farmers for several thousand years.
Crop rotation is the alternation of different crops in the same field in some (more or
less) regular sequence. It differs from the haphazard change of crops from time to time,
in that a deliberately chosen set of crops is grown in succession in cycles over a period
of years. Rotations may be of any length, being dependent on soil, climate, and crop. They
are commonly of 3 to 7 years duration, usually with 4 crops (some of which may be grown
twice in succession). The different crop rotations on each of the fields of the set making
up the farm as a whole constitute a "crop rotation system" when integrated
optimally. Long before crop rotation became a science, practice demonstrated that crop
yields decline if the same crop is grown continuously in the same place. There are
therefore many benefits, both direct and indirect to be obtained from good rotational
cycles (15, pp. 170-8):
- (a) Control of pests: with each crop grown the emergence of characteristic weeds,
insects and diseases is facilitated. Changing to another crop inhibits the spread of such
pests which would otherwise become uncontrollable (to the point that some crops should not
be grown twice in succession). By rotating winter and summer crops, the farmer fights
summer weeds in the winter crop and winter weeds in the summer crop.
- (b) Maintenance of organic matter: some crops deplete the organic matter in the soil,
other increase it.
- (c) Maintenance of soil nitrogen supply: no single cropping system will ordinarily
maintain the nitrogen supply unless leguminous crops are alternated with others.
- (d) Economy of labour: several crops may be grown in succession with only one soil
preparation (ploughing). For example: the land is ploughed for maize, the maize stubble is
disked for wheat, then grass and clover are seeded in the wheat.
- (e) Protection of soil: it was once believed necessary to leave land fallow for part of
the cycle. Now it is known that a proper rotation of crops, with due attention to
maintaining the balance of nutrients, is more successful than leaving the land bare and
exposed to leaching and erosion.
- (f) Complete use of soil: by alternation between deep and shallow-rooted crops the soil
may be utilized more completely.
- (g) Balanced use of plant nutrients: when appropriately alternated, crops reduce the
different nutrient materials of the soil in more desirable proportions.
- (h) Orderly farming: work is more evenly distributed throughout the year. The farm
layout is usually simplified and costs of production are reduced. The rushed work
characteristic of haphazard cropping is avoided.
- (i) Risk reduction: risks are distributed among several crops as a guarantee against
complete failure.
The situation is somewhat different in the case of single-species forests where
"rotation" is the guiding principle in the special sense of the economic age to
which each crop can be grown before it is succeeded by the next one. (For example, on a
100-year rotation required for oak, one per cent of the forest would be clear cut each
year, and a further 20 percent thinned out). In total contrast to crop rotation is the
"monoculture" cropping system in which the same crop is grown every year. This
is possible on a large scale only by the heavy application of chemical fertilizers,
herbicides and pesticides. It leads to long-term problems of soil structure and erosion,
as well as to the accumulation of pollutants.
Because of the short-term advantages of fertilizers, efforts to design new approaches to
crop rotation have been limited. It is only with the resurgence of interest in
non-exploitive, non-polluting agriculture that such possibilities are being investigated
(16). From an agronomist's perspective, the problem is to strike a balance between
harmonizing the three-fold soil-plant-climate relationship and those of the economic
constraints of production. Because such threefold relationships are now fairly well
understood, rotation cycles can now be considered as a whole in which the order and the
plants used are of secondary importance. The problem is to ensure that the
soil-plant-climate relationship is in an optimally balanced state at every moment in order
to become increasingly independent of its past. The production constraints complicate this
evolution and the choices possible, especially when requirements change rapidly without
taking into account the recent history of a crop rotation (16).
There is a striking parallel between the rotation of crops and the succession of
(governmental) policies applied in a society. The contrast is also striking because of the
essentially haphazard switch between "right" and "left" policies.
There is little explicit awareness of the need for any rotation to correct for negative
consequences ("pests") encouraged by each and to replenish the resources of
society ("nutrients", "soil structure") which each policy so
characteristically depletes.
There is no awareness, for example, of the number of distinct policies or modes of
organization through which it is useful to rotate. Nor is it known how many such distinct
cycles are necessary for an optimally integrated world society in which the temporary
failure of one paradigm or mode of organization, due to adverse circumstances (disaster)
is compensated by the success of others. It is also interesting that during a period of
increasing complaints regarding cultural homogenization ("monoculture"), voters
are either confronted with single-party systems or are frustrated by the lack of real
choice between the alternatives offered. There is something to be learnt from the
mind-sets and social organizations associated with the stages in the history of crop
rotation which evolved, beyond the slash-and-burn stage, through a 2-year crop-fallow
rotation, to more complex 3 and 4-year rotations. Given the widespread sense of increasing
impoverishment of the quality-of-life, consideration of crop rotation may clarify ways of
thinking about what is being depleted, how to counteract this process, and the nature of
the resources that are so vainly (and expensively) used as "fertilizer" and
"pesticide" to keep the system going in the short-term. The "yield" to
be maximized is presumably human and social development.
There is no awareness, for example, of the number of distinct policies or modes of
organization through which it is useful to rotate. Nor is it known how many such distinct
cycles are necessary for an optimally integrated world society in which the temporary
failure of one paradigm or mode of organization, due to adverse circumstances (disaster)
is compensated by the success of others. It is also interesting that during a period of
increasing complaints regarding cultural homogenization ("monoculture"), voters
are either confronted with single-party systems or are frustrated by the lack of real
choice between the alternatives offered. There is something to be learnt from the
mind-sets and social organizations associated with the stages in the history of crop
rotation which evolved, beyond the slash-and-burn stage, through a 2-year crop-fallow
rotation, to more complex 3 and 4-year rotations. Given the widespread sense of increasing
impoverishment of the quality-of-life, consideration of crop rotation may clarify ways of
thinking about what is being depleted, how to counteract this process, and the nature of
the resources that are so vainly (and expensively) used as "fertilizer" and
"pesticide" to keep the system going in the short-term. The "yield" to
be maximized is presumably human and social development.
Comprehending the status of the new mode
If a more appropriate mode of socio-economic organization is advocated, the question is
how it is to be comprehended in relation to those which preceded it. Acting on the belief
of continual linear forward progress, its advocates may hope that it will completely
replace preceding modes, since their functions are supposedly more satisfactorily
performed by the new mode. Advocates of other modes, relegated to the status of historical
curiosities, will not of course see things in that light. In which case the new mode must
enter into competit |
