The Harmony of Interaction and the Facilitation of Network Processes
- / -
Revised version of a presentation to an international
symposium on the environment:
"The Dilemma Facing Humanity" (Spokane
WA, USA on May 1974).
Published in International Associations, 1973, pp. 538-543
From the programme
Never before in human
history has so much attention been paid to the interrelated problems of
economic growth, energy, environment, and human, potential. Despite the
ever- increasing number of meetings and conferences, there is no agreement
about the policies we should pursue or even directions we should try to
develop. There can be no excuse for planning just another series of symposia
unless they promise to illuminate the fundamental issues we confront. We
need to begin to learn on an international basis why we are faced with
such basic disagreements. This symposium is designed to demonstrate the
deep differences of opinion which presently threaten effective policy-making
both nationally and internationally. .
Presentations were made from six very different
viewpoints. For each viewpoint, a presentation was made by a speaker from
the national level and by an, international counterpart .. The viewpoints
Mystic- religious viewpoint: William I Thompson (Lindisfarne
Association); Peter Caddy (Findhorn Foundation)
Economic growth viewpoint: Anthony J Wiener (Hudson
Institute); Williarn Wallace (Olin Corporation)
Preservationist viewpoint: David Brower (Friends
of the Earth); Perez M Olindo (Kenya National Parks)
Limits to growth viewpoint: Robert Alien (Author);
Mihailo D Mesarovic (Case Western Reseve University)
Third World viewpoint: Raul Prebisch (Consultant);
Don Moraes (Author)
Harmonizing approach viewpoint: Roger Hansen (Rocky
Mountain Center on Environment); Anthony Judge (Union of International
Printed in G M Dalen and Clyde R Tipton Jr (Eds).
The Dilemma Facing Humanity: proceedings of an intrernational symposium
(1974, spokane). Batelle Memorial Institute, 1974, pp. 47-53).
Reprinted in Transnational Associations
26, 1974, 11, pp. 538-543
It is a great pleasure for me to be able to address this question of
harmonization as it relates to man's apparent inability to come to grips
with the breakdown and divergent viewpoints afflicting modern society.
I am especially pleased that we are asked to look at these matters from
a perceptual angle. There are few occasions on which this is possible.
It is a beautiful topic; I only wish that I could do it justice.
Before sharing with you my perception of where we are and why we are
there. 1 should like to clarify for you the position from which my understanding
has been derived. 1 work at one intersection point of a number of transnational
networks. The Union of International Associations (whose members are individuals
- not organizations) was created back in 1907 in Brussels and functions
as a clearinghouse for information on the network of over 3.000 international
governmental and nongovernmental organizations of the non-profit variety
(1). These organizations have every kind of objective and structure and
we are constantly confronted with the problem of finding ways to use information
networks to facilitate the interrelationship of these activities
in a non-directive manner(2). In another network we are concerned
with the interrelationship between key concepts which are the basis for
international discourse for we are increasingly faced with a problem of
conceptual babelism (3).
In a fourth activity, we have in our own way attempted to address the
problem of harmonization as we perceive it. Together with Mankind 2000
(the transnational association which organized the first International
Futures Research Conference) and the Center for Integrative Studies, we
are currently engaged in a three-part project to produce a Yearbook of
Worldwide Problems, Integrative Disciplines and Human Development [currently
titled Encyclopedia of
World Problems and Human Potential]. This attempts to interrelate the
networks of perceived problems (3700 registered to date). the international
organizations concerned with them (over 3000), the disciplines focusing
on them (1100 to date). and the values which make them visible (500 to
date) (4). Through each successive edition of the yearbook, this then becomes
a delphi-type exercise in harmonization. We hope to produce, maps and atlases
of these interlinking networks to render the current complexity more transparent.
Why are things going wrong ?
Now clearly there are many things going wrong. We have registered some
3,700 interlinked worldwide problems so far in our own work. It is not
these which I am here to discuss however. Instead 1 want to talk bluntly
about the problems which prevent us from coming to grips with the 3.700.
I have a sample list of them on which I will comment briefly. They are
in no particular order:
Organizations, interest groups (and even departments of the same organization)
concerned with related issues find great difficulty in collaborating. And
the more international. interdisciplinary or intercultural they become,
the more difficult it gets. Even the best organizations become the vehicles
of personalities with empire-building tendencies. This alienates other
bodies, however beneficial the empire and however charismatic the emperor
and his entourage. Competition for very limited resources is the price
we pay for such specialization.
Official bodies have great difficulty in collaborating with associations
and groups particularly those which are of an informal or ad hoc nature.
The situation is much worse outside North America. A closer look at these
first two difficulties shows that we are faced with a form of inter-organizational
discrimination which might appropriately be called "organizational apartheid"
Programs are ill-conceived and do not match in complexity the problems
on which they focus. The most tragic example of this is the United Nations
Environment Program. For the first time the interdisciplinary nature of
problems was explicitly recognized by governments at Stockholm -and yet
is completely ignored in the conception and organization of programs in
Nairobi. Only problem categories are considered not problem networks.
We do not know how to interrelate the skills and preoccupations of
different disciplines. Inter-disciplinary discrimination is practiced to
such a degree that it is possible to speak of a form of . conceptual apartheid
Because of the difficulties just mentioned, the inter-disciplinary network
and the inter-organizational network are out of phase with the interproblem
network. Many organizations are simply charming memorials to problems which
no longer exist. Some of us are mainly engaged in building pyramids to
our own memory (6).
It is no longer possible to coordinate adequately a network of organizations.
The network is fragmented and oriented towards decentralization and peripheral
autonomy. Despite the speed of modern communications, information content
does not travel well. Its meanings get transformed and distorted as the
message moves through the network. Organizational systems operate rather
like spastic dinosaurs relative to the dynamism of the problem network
which they should be facing (6).
International treaties, which are the objective of much international activity,
are seldom ratified. When they come into force they are inadequately implemented,
if at all. The various human rights conventions are the most tragic example.
A recent study showed that only three per cent of United Nations and Specialized
Agency resolutions created new activities (7).
Finally, people have turned away from the organizational systems which
have failed them. They are frustrated by inaction or token action. They
have watched UN Days, Years, and Decades come and go with little impact
on the increasing magnitude of the problems. They are bombarded by organizational
propaganda in a vain effort to mobilize them in support of particular perceptions
of the key problems. A massive credibility gap has developed (8). There
is no solidarity, no consensus, and no widespread notion of, we the peoples
of this planet .. Most of us do not lose any sleep when 500,000 people
are rendered homeless, massacred or die of starvation.
Do we really sincerely believe that sufficient can be done in time with
such constraints, in the light of the increasing synergism of problem networks
and our performance over the past quarter- century ?
Problem of perception, paradigms and parables
It is not sufficient to reel off a list of problems as I have just done.
We know about such problems and others like them. What we need is some
perspective which can give us an overview of where we are which helps us
to interrelate the various issues and organizations. A considerable step
in this direction was taken with the Club of Rome's world dynamics exercise.
However, whether one favors its conclusions or not, such models are based
on one set of highly aggregated data on a limited number of problems. They
do not give one a, gut feeling . for where we each are on the basis of
our differing perceptions of the social condition and why we do not work
together. They do not have a perceptual component.
1 would like to share with you three models, analogies or metaphors
(depending on how you wish to use them) which help me to understand the
complexity of our current condition, our difficulty in coming to grips
with it, and the obstacles to communicating priorities today.
1) Problem maps, atlases and globes.
How well have we mapped our current problem situation ? I would like
to suggest that we are at the same stage in our problem mapping ability
as we were in the Middle Ages with respect to mapping the physical characteristics
of the surface of the Earth. The changing psycho-social significance and
status of maps, since such early times. provide us with many clues for
understanding our current situation. Just as the understanding in Europe
of non-European continents was very limited at that time, so today there
are only a few well known problem areas (in this case : population, food,
peace, environment, etc.). Each such territory (the "feudal state") is
more or less poorly controlled by a few major organizations (the "cities")
with a few well-established communication links between them (the "roads").
The relations between these feudal states are the limit of our concern.
The continents are only vaguely known (and said to be populated by mythical
monsters). We are each happy with artistic or impressionistic two-dimensional
maps, centred on our own organization justly conceived as being the prime
mover in society as we perceive it. The significance of a three-dimensional
problem globe escapes us - it might even be a heresy to suggest it.
Let us be frank. We are conceptual flat-earthers.
Each of our organizations occupies different parts of this problem territory
- faithful in each case to the local aristocracy, traditions, faiths and
superstitions. Content as we are with sketchy local maps of our problem
environment centred on our own major concerns, why should we care if our
local maps do not mesh with those of neighbouring problem territories or
with a general map of the region? Who needs to travel ? Only fools move
off the beaten track.
Under such conditions one can understand the psychological and communication
difficulties which make any general mobilization impossible. Communication
frequently breaks down and moments of solidarity are soon forgotten. Warring
between feudal territories is common. The state called "food" clashes with
that called "population". Alliances are formed and each state has imperialistic
ambitions: "development" wants to incorporate "environment", "environment".
lays claim to the territory of "development". Lacking maps, our assemblies
of people from different problem territories are pathetic. The people from
"heavily rainfall" areas cannot understand the constant harping on water
by people from "desert" areas; the people from "arctic" areas cannot relate
meaningfully to those from "equatorial". regions.
The history of the evolution of our geographic perceptions, and the
tools required to move us towards a global perception, indicate the kinds
of difficulty which we have to face. We need local problem maps which mesh
into global maps. so that each can see his place in any world problem strategy,
and so that global decision making can relate to the tactical problems
of groups as perceived in each community. We need road maps, and problem
"atlases" to help us to see and appreciate the relationships, distances
and differences between problem territories.
2) Problem galaxy and universe :
For those with more feeling for the inter- stellar and galactic dynamics
portrayed in some schools of science fiction, another model is useful.
It is suggested there that a time will come when many parts of the galaxy
will be colonized from Earth, and that the Earth-centered galactic empire
will finally break down into isolated planetary empires. As time goes by,
such isolated cultures will come to forget their common origin. their common
language, and any common cause they may have had. They will lose their
understanding of the place of their planet in the galaxy or even in their
1 believe that in psycho-cultural terms we have already reached such
a condition (9). Each planetary body here represents a problem territory
or viewpoint for which differing styles or organization have been developed.
Interplanetary communications are poor to the point of non-existence. We
have lost the art of inter-stellar travel and navigation. Local planetary
politics are of much more significance. How can such a galactic non-system
be mobilized against any menace, whether internal or external ? We need
a precise understanding of psycho-cultural relativity. We need the equivalent
of faster-than-light travel.
3) Psycho-social ecosystem
For those who have more feel for the complexity of natural ecosystems
and the nature of inter-specific interdependence and competition a further
model is useful.
If the many species of the natural environment are each used as a model
for a problem-oriented organization or group. we get a new perspective
on the functioning of organizational ecosystems. Just as species in the
natural environment are embedded in complex foodchains, so organizations
are embedded in complex information webs. (We have mapped neither to any
extent.) Just as intercourse between species is nonfruitful, so interaction
between many organizations is sterile. Nevertheless the ecosystem does
interlink the species and contains those species which attempt to take
over the whole system.
But which organizational species should we eliminate : the crocodile,
the rat, the shark, the wolf, the snake, the scorpion ? Each has its place.
Even the hawk and the dove, or the parasite and the scavenger. It is the
dynamic interrelationship of such species which maintains the equilibrium
of the ecosystem. How do we eliminate inequality and violence from such
an ecosystem? Is the notion meaningful ?
This model draws attention to the understanding which ecologists and
environmentalists could provide for a more subtle comprehension of the
psychosocial system. But experience shows unfortunately, that each discipline
is especially blind to understanding how its own thinking can be applied
to its own methods of organization, let alone the insight it can develop
Ecologists should consider the consequences for the psycho-social system
if every organization concentrated on the same problem set. Complexity
and variety are reduced - the system becomes considerably less stable.
It loses "maturity" (10). We need a rich psycho- social gene pool. We need
the variety which appears to be unharmonious (11).
Each of these three models functions in different ways as a framework
to contain a great deal of complexity and richness. They allow us to recognize
unity in diversity without introducing the simplification which would reduce
the . maturity . of the psycho-social system. We need some such perspective
or context before charging ahead into different courses of action.
My point is that :
If some organization wants to get excited about a particular issue, that's
If another organization wants to try to coordinate the action of a number
of other groups covering issues seen (by it) to be related. that is fine
If a coalition of groups wants to try to convince the world that one particular
issue is the only issue. that also is fine.
This is how organizational species should function. But in pursuing such
a course, we should not expect other groups and people to understand that
enthusiasm or concern and to fall over themselves in their desire to join
our bandwagon. (The same is true for disciplines or schools of thought
and the matrices, paradigms or explanations in which they, often arrogantly,
invite belief.) We need every variety of approach to the evolving problem
network. How can we facilitate consensus formation and integrated action
in such a complex social environment ? How can this be accomplished more
It is my belief that we could by-pass all the well-documented obstacles
to action. We could achieve this without the need to depend on massive
reallocation of funds - which is improbable and if done in the current
manner would bear the seeds of its own futility, despite (or because of)
much heavy-handed monolithic action.
We could achieve this without massive overnight changes to existing
institutions and their interrelationships, which are also improbable -
particularly since there is no consensus on the new structures required.
To do this we need new processes. Such processes must take into account
the following :
The effective implementation of national monolithic policies, formulated
and advocated by central elites, however benevolent and participative,
is no longer feasible without dangerously decreasing the maturity of the
psycho-social system. Such policies are "distorted" into new directions
at each step towards I the periphery by the people with power (and different
priorities) at each such level (6).
The content of the new processes cannot be pre-determined. People and organizations
have very different perceptions of what problems and actions they wish
to focus on and with whom they wish to work. The process must facilitate
the continual emergence of new values, new models. new forms of organizations,
new perceptions of problems and whatever action on them is possible by
whatever organizations wish to act on them through whatever coalitions
are possible for whatever period they are viable.
As I see it there is a vast network of organizations and groups in our
society, extending from the community level to the international level.
They are of all kinds and have all sorts of concerns and links between
them. We know almost nothing about this network as a network; we have only
the vaguest indication concerning the number of bodies in it (23). (Even
in the United States we do not know how many organizations and groups there
are. There may be of the order of 1,000,000 however, including 30.000 environmental
groups, and 360,000 churches. for example.) We do not know what this network
could do if its processes were facilitated - it is an almost totally unexplored
resource. In fact we do not even know how to think about networks, how
they work. or their synergistic potential.
The kinds of minimal, non-directive, low-resource action we could
undertake to facilitate the network's actions against the problems perceived
by different parts of it include the following :
Mapping the problem network. Identify its components and their interrelationships
so that people and groups can move to where the meaningful action opportunities
are for them. Why do the different UN agencies not publish statistics on
organizations and groups ? (24) Why do they try to monopolize the action
? Detailed maps of the network should be as readily available as local
road maps. People should be able to obtain problem atlases and problem
globes. Information on the network can only be obtained and maintained
effectively in people-oriented data banks (13) used by them : to produce
computer-generated maps; for interactive graphic exploration of the networks
(with a three-dimensional perspective); and for videotape programs surveying
particular problem and organizational networks (14).
Design low-cost, supportive ("do-it-yourself".) computer software packages
to be made widely available at the community and regional level to
help people locate the parts of the network to which they could relate.
(in effect this would constitute a much more powerful inter-disciplinary
computerized yellow-pages for social activities.) Facilitate circulation
and exchange of such data tapes at the local, state, national, regional
and international levels, and provide suitable interfaces for technologically
provide administrative aids (e.g. subscriptions management) to groups and
organizations and permit them to share mailing lists where possible.
Facilitative legislation (as is done to a considerable extent for
business and industry). Belgium is still the only country which has facilitative
legislation for international non-profit organizations (15). Little is
done at the national and local level for non-profit organizations.
Subsidize post and telephone communications between social action
organizations. (The WATS system in the USA is a useful precedent.)
Design facilitative environments where organizations and people
can meet and interact informally to catalyze, wherever and whenever
possible, the emergence of action programs and formal collaboration (16)
low-cost shared office facilities are one example, whether at the community,
national or international level. (What is the appeal to business of the
existing network of computerlinked World Trade Centres ?)
multi-meetings or idea fairs, where sessions of many organizations run
concurrently, are another. (Why does business make such frequent use of
multi-stand trade fairs ?)
Develop a network vocabulary as a means of changing our atomistic
perception (17). We need a rich set of (basically topological rather than
systemic) concepts to give us a feel for networks as networks. rather than
as organizations (or problems) with relationships. Without such a holistic
vocabulary and the organic strategies to which it can give rise, organizations
can only act as fragmented components of an essentially spastic network,
focusing on problems erroneously isolated from the network in which they
Develop the concept of an autocoordinated network strategy for networks
or organizations, and the new kinds of information system and display to
These are just a few of the simple
things we could do to enable
this vast network to galvanize itself as it changes and evolves over time
in response to new issues, insights and resources. Ad hoc organization
crystallizes from it and dissolves back into it. Hierarchical organizations
are embedded in it, hopefully to evolve into more adequate structures as
confidence in the network develops (18). Such a network concept is the
psycho-social equivalent of the planetary globe so frequently used as a
symbol at international environment conferences.
What we need is to provide a means whereby a network strategy can evolve
By developing and disseminating adequate maps of the network of organizations
and the network of problems, the maximum amount of decentralized auto-
coordination will occur with the minimum amount of structural violence.
Problems, organizations, concepts and personal development are usually
considered as though they were unrelated. But we have to have a more integrated
conceptual structure in society before we can perceive the interrelationships
between problems. We need both before we can attempt to interrelate organizational
units to handle the interlinked problems. And in an important sense, our
individual ability to tolerate and comprehend the complexity and dynamism
of these interrelationships is directly related to our own degree of personal
development. Furthermore, a general increase in integration in any of these
four domains will tend to increase integration in the other three. Equally,
progressive fragmentation in any of the domains will provoke disintegrative
tendencies in the others (20).
A fundamental difficulty today is our predeliction for simplistic hierarchical
organization of the interrelationships between concepts, between organizations,
and between problems. And yet we are constantly exposed to evidence that
these hierarchies do not contain the complexity with which they have to
Neither a hierarchical organization nor a hierarchy of concepts can
handle a network of environmental problems without leaving many dangerous
loose ends. It is rather like trying to use classical redcoat tactics to
fight guerillas. The redcoat military hierarchy is completely out- manoeuvered
by the guerilla network activity. To respond adequately to our current
situation, we need to be able to evolve conceptual networks and organizational
networks and we need to be able to understand how to use them and support
them by adequate information networks.
It is my belief that the concept of networks will replace that of hierarchies
and simplistic systems. The network approach permits us to handle much
greater complexity in the real world of incomplete information on incommensurable
phenomena. (A link in a topological network is equivalent in some ways
to pointing, which is the only communication technique left to a fragmented
people whose languages contain no common or unambiguous elements. Repeated
use of this primitive technique, when plotted as a network, may be the
only remaining means of interlinking the multiplicity of referents to the
satisfaction of all parties.) But at some future time the network notion
will itself be replaced by the notion of fields. It is at this stage that
we can get some convergence with the mystico-religious viewpoint (21).
For the moment, however, the topological structure of networks is both
meaningful in terms of information flows and other relationships (which
can be facilitated by information systems and represented with a high degree
of iconicity on graphics devices) and conceptually rich. Fields are conceptually
rich but are as yet very difficult to handle, support or represent on information
devices, except as psychological meaningful graphic art which we are as
yet unable to marry to a scientifically meaningful data base. Networking
is therefore the next step for our society. It bears the same potential
relationship to the psycho-social world as use of the wheel has done to
the physical world. Using the network concept as a foundation or scaffolding
device, our ability to perceive, tolerate and prefer progressively higher
degrees of order in the organizational, conceptual and problem environments
is a reflection of our ability to complexity our perceptions of ourselves
as individuals (or eventually as structured fields) in resonance with such
While I believe action to be feasible, and based on as yet untapped
human and organizational potential, I do not personally think that the
right sort of action will take place. Each new organizational and conceptual
insight will be distorted to its lowest level of applicability rather than
developed to its highest.
The difficulty and potential value of achieving the kind of interdisciplinary
synthesis needed at this time, and the relatively low priority accorded
to it. is perhaps most analogous to that currently experienced in magnetohydrodynamics
in building a suitable configuration of conditions to contain plasma for
a sufficient time to permit controlled nuclear fusion reactions.
Controlled fission was easy in comparison. as is analysis compared
to conceptual synthesis.
People are too locked into their own visions of the global psycho-social
system and each man's vision serves as the basis for some other man's alienation.
(And perhaps we do not fully understand the importance of this process
as a means of preserving variety and stability in a society threatened
by homogeneity and explosive change.). We could achieve a breakthrough,
but we won't. Not because we do not already have the technical knowledge
or the facilities, but because we do not understand ourselves and the dynamics
of how we interact in interdisciplinary inter-organizational, and intercultural
environments (such as this symposium). We lack a self-reflective awareness
and we do not use sensitive individuals to give us feedback on the dynamics
of our meetings. (And even if we could locate such people, and implement
the procedure, do we seriously believe that we could or would change our
actions constructively ?) Our consensus formation difficulties in such
settings are usually a reflection of our inadequacy as human beings (22).
There is of course a paradox in advocating the perception which I have
attempted to clarify. It has the same status as other perceptions in the
ecosystem of ideas even though it attempts to harmonize them. But when
we have such paradoxes, I think we are on the right lines. We have had
enough of what I would call "conceptual imperialism".
But if we did release the powerful forces in our society. necessary
to master the problems we face, do we have the knowledge and understanding
to control them ?
Supposing, in the face of these crises, that we could tap the power
of a fundamental psycho-social relationship, in the same way nuclear physics
has enabled us to unleash the power bound into a fundamental physical relationship?
I believe we could. But should we do so ? And who is "we" in this network
context ? (23)
1. The organizations are described in the Yearbook
of International Organizations. Brussels, Union of International Associations,
1974, 15th Edition, ca. 1100 pages.
2a. The world network of organizations; a symbol for the 1970s. International
Associations, 24, January 1972, pp. 18-24. [text]
2b. International organizations
and the generation of the will to change - the information systems required.
Brussels, Union of International Associations, 1970, 89 P, plus appendices,
UA1 Study Papers INF/5. [text]
2c. Nature of organization in transnational networks. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 1, 3, Summer 1972. [text]
3a. Toward a concept inventory; suggestions for a computerized procedure
(presented to Research Committee 1, 9th Congress, International Political
Science Association, Montreal 1973). [text]
3b. Conceptual gaps and confused distinctions;
possible ambiguities in the translation of interrelated concepts. International
Associations, 26, 3, pp. 156-159 (see other article in that issue and
the following.) [text]
4. World Problems and Human Development. Brussels, UIA, 1972, 37 p.
News of the project is reported in a Newsletter which is incorporated into
International Associations (Brussels, UIA, monthly, 1949-) [text]
5a. Organizational apartheid. Who needs whom in the Second United Nations
Development Decade? International Associations, 21, October 1969,
p. 451-456. [text]
5b. Discrimination and fragmentation in the 1970s; an organized
response to global crisis. International Associations, 23 January
1971, pp. 28-48. [text]
5c. Summary of the crises in interorganizational relationships
at the international level. International Associations, 24 May 1972,
p. 287-295. [text]
6. Donald Schon. Beyond the Stable State; public and private learning
in a changing society. Temple Smith, 1971.
7. Chadwick F. Alger. Decision-making in the United Nations. In: Edwin
H, Fedder (Ed.), The United Nations; problems and prospects. Center for
International Studies, University of Missouri, 1971, pp. 165-188.
8. Mobilization for alienation vs. catalysis for participation; the
critical choice for the United Nations system. International Associations,
25, August-September 1973, pp. 407-412. [text]
9. "One of the gravest problems of our day is the lack of commitment
to common sybols" Mary Douglas. Natural Symbols. Penguin Books,
1973, p. 11.
10. R. Margalef. On certain unifying principles in ecology. In: A.S.
Boughey (Ed.) Contemporary Readings in Ecology. Beilnont, Dickenson, 1969.
He suggests that it is possible to measure the "maturity" of an eco-systern
as closely related in one respect to its diversity or complexity, and in
another to the information that can be maintained with a definite spending
of potential energy. A highly diversified community has the capacity for
carrying a high amount of organization and information, and requires relatively
little energy to maintain it. Conversely the lower the maturity of the
system, the less the energy required to disrupt it. Anything that keeps
an eco-system oscillating (or "spastic"), retains it in a state of low
maturity. Hence the danger of simplistic reorganization of organizational,
conceptual or value systems.
11. Stafford Beer. Designing Freedom. Toronto, Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation, 1973.
12. Information systems and inter-organizational space. Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 393, January
1971, pp. 47-64 (Special issue on social development). [text]
13. Inter-organizationai data and data bank design: the use of computergraphics
to visualize social networks. In: Neat E. Cutler (Ed.) Emerging Data Sources
for Comparative and International Studies. Beverly Hills, Sage Publications,
14. Computer-aided visualization of psychosocial structures; peace
as an evolving balance of conceptual and organizational relationships.
(Paper presented to a symposium on value and knowledge requirements for
peace of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Philadelphis,
December 1971). 34 p., xeroxed. ERIC ED060613) [text]
15. See : The Open Society of the Future; report of a seminar to reflect
on the network of international associations. Brussels, Union of International
16. Inter-organizational relationships; in search of a new style in
reference 15, pp. 115-132. [text]
17a. Networking : the need for a new concept. International Associations
26, 3, pp. 170-173. [text]
17b. Network-related concepts; a vocabulary adapted to social
complexity and social process. (Paper presented to a symposium on the conceptual
problems of international discourse, Paris, 1974). To be printed in International
18a. Wanted: new types of social entity. International Associations,
23, March 1971, (The role of the "potential association"), pp. 148-152,
(Matrix organization and organizational networks), p, 154-170. [text]
network of research-and-service, communities; a proposal for an organizational
hybrid. In: Human Needs, New Societies, Supportive Technologies (Collected
documents presented at the Rome Special World Conference on Futures Research,
1973). Rome, IRADES, 1974, 5 vols. [text]
19. Principles of transnational action; an attempt at a set of guidelines.
In reference 15, pp. 104-114. [text]
20. From apartheid to schizophrenia; ecological ignorance and the logic
of depersonalized separate development. International Associations,
23, February 1971, pp. 89-102. [text]
21. Information on this convergence is given in articles in the periodicals:
Main Currents of Modern Thought (Foundation for Integrative
Education and Fields within Fields, World Institute Council).
22. Arthur Koestler, after organizing many such meetings, has recently
produced a novel entitled The Call Girls, to illustrate the interactional
dynamics of interdisciplinary meetings. He concludes that such meetings
are a reflection in microcosm of the difficulties we face in organizing
inter-sectoral relationships in society. A similar experience is recorded
in Worlds Apart, by Owen Barfield. A more optimistic account of interdisciplinary
meetings is given in M.C. Bateson (Our own Metaphor, Knopf.)
23. How is it that chemists and biologists can tolerate the level of
complexity associated with over 1,000,000 distinct molecular compounds
and plant or animal species respectively, whereas those concerned with
the psycho-social system can only tolerate less than 100 species of organization,
problem, concept or value ?
24. Why is it that we have such a well developed ability to count people-units
for statistical and economic policy purposes, but we cannot even see the
need to count organizations and groups and their network relationships
to help facilitate social development and the design of adequate social
indicators ? Thus the ILO Yearbook of International Labour Statistics has
no information on trade unions. The UNESCO Statistical Yearbook has nothing
on scientific and cultural groups (12).