Enlarged version: challenges to comprehension
Home/Search
Articles >>
Themes >>
Visuals >>
Context >>
FAQ/Contact >>

Joy in the Present
      

1976

Limits to Human Potential

- / -

Originally published as a joint document of Mankind 2000 and Union of International Associations (Brussels, 1976). Selected "limits" published in Transnational Associations, 28, 1976, 10, pp 444-446; 29, 1977, 4, pp 147-151
Introduction

1. Limited tolerance of interaction

2. Absence of over-arching psycho-social structures
3. Limits to use of hierarchical approaches
4. Limits arising from behaviour in complexity
5. Limited ability to cooperate
6. Limits of knowledge and experience
7. All in everything
8. Constraints of space and time
9. Erosion of confidence in organized relationships
10. Loss of community of discourse
11. Erosion of communication and travel ability
12. Assumption that the observer or change agent does not change
13. Limitation of ability to discover and choose
14. Limited ability to recognize problem displacement
15. Erosion of democratic processes
16. Constraints imposed by secrecy
17. Concept of societal complexity limited by imposed constraints
18. Assumption that further human evolution may be ignored
19. Limited ability to face the unknown
20. Limited ability to face the negative
21. Limited significance of rationality and appeals to values
22. "We" and "They"
23. Apathy, cynicism, hopelessness and disillusionment
24. Entrapment and alienation of committed activists
25. Repetition of learning cycles
26. Limited ability to recognize personality needs and problems
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

Conclusion

Introduction

The perceptions expressed in draft form in this document arose as a result of the preparation of the first edition of the Yearbook of World Problems and Human Potential (1976). That reference book is the first product of an ongoing process initiated in Brussels in 1972 by the Union of International Associations and Mankind 2000 [subsequently entitled Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential, 4th ed. 1994-95].

The collection and processing of a considerable variety of information on every kind of world problem, and on the attempts at their solution, forced the editors to look at the nature of such problems in general and the psycho-social context within which solutions were advocated or attempted. Some reflections on these matters appear in the introduction to some sections of the Yearbook or in its Appendixes. It seemed useful however to try to clarify these perceptions to facilitate further discussion.

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 preferen