1975
Ninety-Percent Laws of Social Fragmentation
-- / --
LAW I: 90% of any random sample of social actors (individuals / groups, etc.) consider at least 90% of what they do not know or understand to be irrelevant to their own concerns and future.
LAW II: 90% of any random sample of social actors (individuals, groups, etc.) consider at least 90% of what they do know and understand to be specially relevant to everyone else's concerns and future.
LAW III: 90% of any random sample of social actors (individuals, groups, etc.) will have less than a 1% probability of consensus formation on value priorities, choice of analytical method, or formulation of policy.
LAW IV: 90% of any random sample of social actors (individuals, groups, etc.) will have less than a 0.1% probability of consensus formation on policy implementation and operational matters.
LAW V: 90% of any random sample of social actors (groups, organizations, etc.) within which consensus has been reached on policy implementation will develop internal conflict (minority factions, etc.) after one operational cycle (the period required for evaluation of policy effectiveness), with a probability of 10% of consequent fragmentation of the social actor in question.
LAW VI: 90% of the individuals reading the above laws will do so with some degree of approval and will therefore consider themselves as belonging to the englightened 10%.
LAW VII: As enlightened individuals, no more than 90% of the errors and failures relating to the projects and proposals with which you or I are connected, dear reader, are due to people other than ourselves. The other 10% are, of course, due to Acts of Inspiration received from the writings of Russel Ackoff, Hasan Ozbekhan, Stafford Beer, Yehezkel Dror, Donald Schon, and other less likely individuals.
A consequence of the above "Laws" is that "we" cannot arrive at any widespread consensus concerning their significance, if any, or how to formulate a strategy to handle them, if necessary. Question: How could social actors interrelate to formulate a "Network strategy" within such constraints, given that conventional strategy can only be implemented through a stable organizational hierarchy? Alternatively, what adequate containers can be supplied to preserve meaning for the variety of social actors? How and to whom can such containers be delivered, and by whom, within a communication space having such properties?
|
For further updates on this site, subscribe here |
