Knowledge Management
In Self-Organizing Social Systems
Christian Fuchs, Institute of Design and Technology Assessment, Vienna University of Technology
ABSTRACT:
Talking about knowledge means talking about the
self-organization of society and social systems. Knowledge is a threefold
process of cognition, communication, and co-operation. How can knowledge be managed in a
self-organizing system? Scientists like Hayek and Luhmann have argued that
human intervention into self-organizing social systems isn’t possible and
desirable because their can be no central control of their knowledge. Hence
human beings would have to rely on competition and adaptation to systemic effects,
human intervention would be harmful. I consider participatory systems design as
an attractive alternative to such a systemic fatalism. If one considers human
beings as central moments of social self-organization, one can argue that
knowledge management is a fundamental human activity that transforms social
systems. Social systems can’t be hierarchically steered, but fostering
co-operation and participation in processes of social systems design can
increase the possibility that social systems develop into purposeful systems.
Co-operation and participation allow the shared usage of the knowledge of a
system’s participants. Creative synergies can arise from communicative actions
and result in novelty and innovation.
1. Introduction:
Foundations Of A Theory of Social Self-Organization
The aim of
this paper is to point out some implications of considering social systems as
self-organizing knowledge systems for the notion of knowledge management. For
doing so, I will first point out some foundations of a theory of social
self-organization (section 1), then I will discuss the relationship of
self-organization and knowledge management (section 2), and will make some
conclusions (section 3).
Social analysis has to begin with individuals producing in a society, i.e. the existence of living human individuals. The active human being is the component or element of a social system. We term the self-organization of social systems “re-creation”. Societal structures don’t exist externally to, but only in and through human agency. By interaction of human actors, new social qualities and structures can emerge that cannot be reduced to the individual level. This is a process of bottom-up emergence that is called agency. Emergence in this context means the appearance of at least one new systemic quality that cannot be reduced to the elements of the system. So this quality is irreducible and it is also to a certain extent unpredictable, i.e. time, form and result of the process of emergence cannot be fully forecasted by taking a look at the elements and their interactions. Structures also influence individual actions and thinking. They constrain and enable actions. This is a process of top-down emergence where new individual and group properties can emerge. The whole cycle is the basic process of systemic societal self-organization that can also be called re-creation because by permanent processes of agency and constraining/enabling a system can maintain and reproduce itself (see Fig. 1). This model of social self-organisation was first introduced in Hofkirchner (1998) and elaborated in a number of further works such as Fuchs (2002a, b; 2003a-h, 2004a, b; Fuchs/Hofkirchner, 2003a, b, 2004; Fuchs/Hofkirchner/Klauninger, 2002; Fuchs/Schlemm, 2004). It again and again creates its own unity and maintains itself. Societal structures enable and constrain actions as well as individuality and are a result of actions (which are a correlation of mutual individuality that results in sociality).
Fig. 1.: The self-organization of
social systems
Re-creation denotes that
individuals that are parts of a system permanently change their joint
environment. This enables the system to change, maintain, adapt and reproduce
itself. What is important is that the term re-creation also refers to the ability
of all humans to consciously shape and create systems and structures, an
ability that is based on self-consciousness and, in Anthony Giddens’ (1984)
terminology, the reflexive monitoring of action. Societal systems are
re-creative ones because they can create new reality, the socio-cultural human
being has the ability to create the conditions for his further evolution all by
himself. Creativity means the ability to create something new that seems
desirable and helps to achieve defined goals, it’s a central feature of
communicative action. The mutual productive process of re-creation describes
the reflexive, self-referential nature of society in which structures are
medium and outcome of social actions (Giddens, 1984: 25f, for the relationship
of Giddens’ theory of structuration and social self-organization see Fuchs,
2003c).
Erich Jantsch
says social systems are re-creative ones because they can create new reality
(Jantsch, 1979: 305), the socio-cultural human being has the ability to create
the conditions for his further evolution all by himself (343). Creativity means
the ability to create something new that seems desirable and helps to achieve
defined goals. By anticipating the future and creating new reality, social
systems transcend themselves (self-transcendence). Man can create images of the
future and actively strive to make these images become social reality.
Individuals can anticipate possible future states of the world, society as it
could be or as one would like it to become; and they can act according to these
anticipations. Man has ideals, visions, dreams, hopes and expectations which
are based on the ability of imagination which helps him to go beyond existing
society and to create alternatives for future actions. Based on creativity, man
designs society (see Banathy, 1996): Design is a future-creating human activity
that goes beyond facticity, creates visions of a desirable future and looks for
a solution to existing problems. Design creates new knowledge and findings. Man
designs machines, tools, theories, social systems, physical entities, nature,
organizations etc. within social processes. Such an understanding of design as
a fundamental human capability takes into account man’s ability to have visions
and utopias and to actively shape society according to these anticipated
(possible) states of the world. It is opposed to an understanding of design as
a hierarchical process and as the expert-led generation of knowledge about the
world and solutions to problems. As Ernst Bloch (1986) pointed out, desires,
wishes, anxieties, hopes, fantasies, imaginations play an important role in
society and hence one should also stress the subjective, creative dimension in
the constitution of human and social experience. Bloch has shown that hopes and
utopias are fundamental motives in all human actions and thinking. These are
also important differences between animals and humans.
Terming the
self-organization of society re-creation acknowledges as outlined by Giddens
the importance of the human being as a reasonable and knowledgeable actor in
social theory. Giddens himself has stressed that the duality of structure has
to do with re-creation: “Human social activities, like some self-reproducing
items in nature, are recursive. That is to say, they are not brought into being
by social actors but continually recreated
by them via the very means whereby they express themselves as actors“ (Giddens,
1984, p. 2).
The information concept
helps us to grasp the dynamics of self-organizing systems. Information is a
process that exists as a relationship between specific self-organized units of
matter, it is a relationship of reflection between a fluctuation that causes
inner-systemic changes and the system’s structure. A certain fluctuation causes
nonlinear changes in the system, i.e. new order in the system emerges, the
system changes its structure due to interactions of its elements. The
fluctuating instability is reflected within the system’s components, their
relationships, and interactions. Reflection means that the system reacts to
fluctuations and reproduces fluctuations in its inner structure as
self-organized change. Information is not a structure given in advance, it is
produced within material relationships. Reflection doesn’t mean that an outside
reality is mechanically copied or reproduced within the system, it means that a
complex, nonlinear relationship between cause and effect is established in a
self-organizing social system. All self-organizing systems are
information-producing systems.
In the case of a social system,
we speak of knowledge as the social manifestation of information and the units
of organized matter are active human (individual or collective) actors
(Fuchs/Hofkirchner, 2004). Knowledge is neither purely a subjective cognitive
attribute nor purely an objective entity, it is a process and relationship
between active human agents that participate in a self-organizing social system
and co-ordinate their subjective knowledge in such a way that objective
knowledge emerges. Knowledge is a manifestation of information in social
systems that involves the interpretation, evaluation, and usage of data and can
be found in various subsystems of society. It is a threefold process of
cognition, communication, and co-operation (ibid.). Cognition refers to the individual
dimension, that is, to the elements of social systems, communication refers to
the interactional dimension, co-operation to the integrational dimension, that
is, to the social system itself that is constituted by the interaction of its
elements.
The brain enables the
subjective knowledge production of human beings (cognition). Cognition is a
human activity and stands in relationship with an outside environment that is
constructively reflected. Based on cognition, human beings enter social
relationships where they communicate and co-operate in order to produce
objectified knowledge structures that interact with and are mutually coupled to
their subjective knowledge. Structures are totalities of durable and
institutionalized behaviour. They can be found in all subsystems of society.
Structures mediate communications and actions, they are medium and outcome of
actions and communications. Structures are social relationships and objective
knowledge in society. Social knowledge is a communicative relationship between
actors where artefacts are included in order to produce sense and achieve
goals. Knowledge as an organized form of data that are interpreted, assessed
and compared, is contained in artefacts and social relationships. Artefacts
store dead labour and knowledge about society, collective social actors
(organizations) are an expression of the durable connectivity of human beings,
they are shared spaces of living and working, and incorporate both interacting
human actors and artefacts that the latter make use of. Social structures are
media of society because they mediate social actions and communications. They
store and fix knowledge and hence they simplify actions and communications
because the foundations of these processes don’t have to be newly produced
permanently, they can be achieved by making use of structures. Hence by storing
knowledge, social structures reduce social complexity. Structures are carriers
of knowledge, they are the foundation of temporal and spatial extension of
social systems. Social structures make possible a continuity of social
reproduction across space and time, they result in the temporal and spatial
distanciation of social relationships without the loss of continuity. Social
structures are storage capacities in society which enable the existence of
institutional forms which persists across generations and shape past
experiences that date back well beyond the life of any particular individual.
Structures also produce specific forms of contiguousness and hence they
dissolve distances by reembedding social relationships that are disembedded in
space-time. Social structures are a foundation of action and communication,
they enable a certain degree of mobility, they mediate, organize, and
co-ordinate social relationships and communications.
In re-creative, i.e. social
systems, self-organization produces what can be termed objective social
knowledge: The word "social" in the term that such a form of
knowledge is constituted in the course of social relationships of several human
actors. We consider the scientific-technological infrastructure, the system of
life-support elements in the natural environment and all else that makes sense
in a society, i.e. economic property, political decision power, and the body of
cultural knowledge, norms and values to be objective social knowledge. So we
can distinguish five different types of objective social knowledge: ecological
knowledge, technological knowledge, economic knowledge, political knowledge,
and cultural knowledge. These forms store knowledge about past social actions
and simplify future social situations because by referring to social knowledge
the basics of acting socially do not have to be formed in each such situation.
Objective social knowledge can be seen as a durable foundation of social
actions that nonetheless changes dynamically.
On the informational level
social self-organization is a threefold process of cognition, communication,
and communication. These three moments form interrelated aspects of knowledge
as a productive process that is based on a dialectic of subjectivity and
objectivity. When two human systems interact (see fig. 2), they enter an
objective relationship, i.e. a (mutual) causal relationship is established. A
portion of subjective, systemic knowledge (“cognition”)
is communicated from system A to system B (and vice versa, “communication”). The cognitve structural
patterns that are stored in neural networks within the brains of individual
human agents can be termed subjective knowledge. Human actors are knowledgeable
beings. Communicating knowledge from one system to another causes structural
changes in the receving system. If there is a knowledge relationship between
the two systems, it is determined that there will be causal interactions and
structural effects. The structure of the systems (structural, subjective
knowledge) changes, but we don’t know to which extent this will actually be the
case, which new subjective knowledge will emerge, how knowledge structures will
be changed etc. There are degrees of autonomy and freedom (=chance). If
structural changes in system B take place and are initiated by system A, this
means an objectification of subjective knowledge of A in B from the point of
view of A. From the point of view of B it means subjectification of objective
knowledge from its environment. In a communication process, this also takes
place the other way round. As a result of communication it cannot only be the
case that an objectification of knowledge in some of the involved systems takes
place, it can also be the case that due to the synergies between the systems
new qualities (knowledge) emerge in their shared environment (“co-operation”). Structural, subjective
knowledge of the involved systems is co-ordinated, synergies arise and hence
something new is produced commonly in a self-organization process. The new
structure or system that arises is an objectification of (parts of the)
subjective knowledge of the involved systems. Knowledge in self-organizing
social systems has cognitive (subjective), communicative (new subjective
knowledge (=cognitive structures) emerges in systems due to interaction) and
co-operative aspects (interaction results in synergies that cause the emergence
of new, objectified knowledge in the shared environment of the involved systems).
Fig.
2: A model of knowledge as a threefold process of cognition, communication,
and
co-operation in social systems
In knowledge management
research a distinction between data, information, and knowledge is made (cf.
e.g. Willke, 2001: 7-18): Data is considered as a coded resource of operations,
it is transformed into information when it is integrated into a relevant
context where it makes a difference as a difference, it gains relevance and
meaning relative to an integrating system. Information is transformed into
knowledge when it is integrated into a context of experience. Knowledge is
information embedded into experience. Such a distinction fails to identify a
concept that generalizes all three forms, it is only interested in specific
aspects, not in the common aspects that integrate these forms. We suggest that
information is a general concept that can be found in all self-organizing
physical, biological, and social systems. In knowledge management information
is confined to the social realm, this is a narrow concept of information. In a
human living system, data is a manifestation of information, when it is
interpreted and integrated into the cognitive system it is transformed into
knowledge, knowledge that is embedded into practical experienced situations is
transformed into practical knowledge. Hence we suggest that the triad is not
data-information-knowledge, but data-knowledge-practical knowledge as a
manifestation of information in the human realm.
2. Self-Organization
And Knowledge Management
Knowledge management seems
to arise as a fundamental task of the knowledge-based society. I will first
clarify what a knowledge-based society is (2.1.), then I will argue that
connecting the notion of self-organization with the one of knowledge management
can be done in two distinct ways. One is a functionalistic one that puts
forward a systemic fatalism (2.2.), the alternative is one that stresses the
role of the human being as a creative actor in social systems (2.3.).
2.1. The Knowledge-Based
Society
All social structures store
knowledge about society, they contain a history of social relationships, reduce
the complexity of society, and enable future actions. All
societies are based on human activity that produces subjective and objective
knowledge. Hence all societies are knowledge societies. But not all
societies are knowledge-based societies (KBS). This
term is reserved to characterize a social formation that is shaped by a
specific type of knowledge, scientific and technological knowledge, in all its
realms. The emergence of the knowledge-based society is a
multidimensional shift that involves the rise of knowledge as strategic
resource in all societal areas. All human labour is based on a dialectical
interconnection of mind and body. Hence all labour is both mental labour and
manual labour. But nonetheless there is a difference: mental labour mainly
based on cognition, reflection, logical operations, etc., manual labour on the
human production of physical energy. In the KBS knowledge in the sense of the
cognitive foundation of mental labour (subjective knowledge) and the products
of mental labour (objective knowledge) has become besides physical labour,
capital, property, and power the central productive force of modern society.
This manifests itself e.g. in a boom of service and knowledge industries, an
increasing importance of innovation, universities, expertise, research,
knowledge work, knowledge products. The first phase of capitalist development
was based on extensive technological development, the quantity of technology,
labour, and capital applied in the production process was steadily increased,
but technology only changed slowly. In knowledge-based capitalism there is an
intensive technological development that is based on a series of fast
qualitative technological innovations. We today live in knowledge-based society
in the sense that knowledge products, scientific expertise and computer-based
technologies as forms that are an expression of mental labour have become
immediate forces of production that influence and change all subsystems of
society. The increased knowledge-based character of society is due to the
rising importance of expertise, scientific knowledge and knowledge-based
technologies.
Some important basic
characteristics of knowledge are:
·
Knowledge is a manifestation of information in
the human-social realm. Knowledge doesn’t exist in nature as such, it is a
human and cultural product.
·
Knowledge exists both in the human brain and in
social structures and artefacts. It has subjective and objective aspects that
are mutually connected. Subjective and objective knowledge is constituted in
social practices of active, knowledgeable human beings, knowledge is related to
human practice.
·
Objective knowledge is stored in structures and
enables time-space distanciation of social relationships. It reduces the
complexity of social systems, foundations of human existence don’t have to be
re-produced permanently due to this storage-function. Objective knowledge is a
supra-individual structural entity, but is based on human agency, it is medium
and outcome of social actions, it constrains and enables human practices.
·
Individually acquired knowledge can be put to
use efficiently by entering a social co-ordination and co-operation process.
Synergetical advantages that can’t be achieved on an individual basis can be
gained by such a co-ordination of knowledge. Emergent knowledge and qualities
show up and are due to the synergies produced by the co-operating efforts of
knowledgeable actors. Intelligent organizations are based on the effective use
and management of emergent knowledge.
·
Knowledge must be permanently enhanced and
updated
·
Knowing is intrinsically coupled to not
knowing.
·
Knowledge has relevance for a system and is
constituted within and part of human experiences .
·
Knowledge is a social, common, public good that
has a historical character. Knowledge production is a social process, in order
to produce new knowledge one must refer to prior knowledge produced by others.
Frequently knowledge production has a highly networked and co-operative
character. Knowledge is a self-expanding resource, but can only be artificially
transformed into a scarce resource (e.g. by Intellectual Property Rights).
·
Public knowledge gains importance
when its distributed freely in high numbers, proprietary knowledge looses
importance when the same happens to it.
·
Knowledge is a non-substantial good that is
generally not used up by its manifold usage.
·
Knowledge expands during its usage.
·
Knowledge can be compressed.
·
Knowledge can replace other economic resources.
·
By making use of fast technological networks
knowledge can be transported at the speed of light.
·
Purchasers of knowledge only buy copies of the
original data.
·
The costs of reproducing knowledge are
generally very low and are further diminished by technological innovations and
progress.
·
In contrast to capital, knowledge appreciates
with use, its marginal utility increases with its
use.
Social systems in the KBS
are characterized by:
·
a high degree of flexibility and complexity
·
a networked character
·
an increasing global character
·
dynamic communication
·
complex knowledge patterns
The central question that
arises is how one can cope with this increased knowledge-based character and
complexity of organizations in order to guarantee the efficiency of an
institution and the well-being of its members? Can knowledge systems be
managed? And if so, what are basic guiding principles of knowledge management?
2.2. Against Systemic Fatalism
The central question that
arises is how one can cope with this increased knowledge-based character and
complexity of organizations in order to guarantee the efficiency of an institution
and the well-being of its members? Can knowledge systems be managed? And if so,
what are basic guiding principles of knowledge management?
One answer to these
questions has been that all forms of human intervention should be minimized
because intervention would be harmful and would produce problems. Such
arguments have e.g. been put forward by Friedrich August von Hayek and Niklas
Luhmann. Luhmann has argued that society is functionally differentiated which
means that each subsystem self-organizes autonomously and is controlled by an
internal logic. Hence it wouldn’t be possible for a single system to control or
steer other systems.
Hayek distinguishes two
types of orders: spontaneous, self-forming orders which he calls kosmos, and
deliberately arranged and planned orders which he calls taxis. All cultural
(and natural) evolution would be a process of continuous adaptation to
unforeseeable events and contingent circumstances. Social development would due
to the complexity of social relationships be something that is largely
determined by chance, it would be “unavoidably unpredictable” (Hayek, 1988:
25). Hayek emphasises a spontaneous nature of society. He distinguishes two
types of orders: spontaneous, self-forming orders which he calls kosmos, and
deliberately arranged and planned orders which he calls taxis. The first type
of order couldn’t be designed because complexity and knowledge would be created
permanently by people making many decisions independently from each other
according to their own purposes. The market would spontaneously and
undesignedly co-ordinate the activities in such a way that order is created.
Some actors would gain economic and competitive advantages, but these
advantages would be communicated to others over the market, this would allow
them to adapt to these changes. This would advance evolution. Evolution would
happen spontaneously, not in a humanly guided way. Evolution would be a
“self-ordering process of adaptation to the unknown” (Hayek, 1988: 76).
“The information that
individuals or organisations can use to adapt to the unknown is necessarily
partial, and is conveyed by signals (e.g., prices) through long chains of
individuals, each person passing on in modified form a combination of streams
of abstract market signals. Nonetheless, the whole structure of activities
tends to adapt, through these partial and fragmentary signals, to conditions
foreseen by and known to no individual. […] The market is the only known method
of providing information enabling individuals to judge comparative advantages
of different uses or resources of which they have immediate knowledge and
through whose use, whether they so intend or not, they serve the needs of
distant unknown individuals” (Hayek, 1988: 76f). In the extended order, most ends
of actions wouldn’t be conscious or deliberate. Anonymous competitive market
activities would result in “synergetic collaboration” (80) that makes use of
dispersed knowledge in order to generate order and enhance productivity. “The
efforts of millions of individuals in different situations, with different
possessions and desires, having access to different information about means,
knowing little or nothing about one another’s particular needs, and aiming at
different scales of ends, are coordinated by means of exchange systems. As
individuals reciprocally align with one another, an undersigned system of
higher order of complexity comes into being, and a continuous flow of goods and
services is created that, for a remarkably high number of the participating
individuals, fulfils their guiding expectations and values” (Hayek, 1988: 95).
Activities of single individuals would benefit other individuals whom they
don’t know and will never meet. “When the market tells an individual
entrepreneur that more profit is to be gained in a particular way, he can both
serve his own advantage and also make a larger contribution to the aggregate”
(ibid.: 99).
Man could neither create nor
design the extended order by reason. The fatal conceit would be the assumption
“that man is able to shape the world around him according to his wishes”
(Hayek, 1988: 27). Decentralised mechanisms like markets would allow the
fullest exploitation of dispersed knowledge, central planning or active design
would imply a central actor overseeing all social knowledge. But such perfect
knowledge would be impossible. Co-operation, solidarity and altruism would be
impossible in an extended order because there would be a high complexity of
dispersed, uncontrollable knowledge and social relationships. Human beings
could best achieve their ends by “relying on the self-ordering forces of
nature”, hence they should keep from deliberately trying to arrange elements.
“For in fact we are able to bring about an ordering of the unknown only by
causing it to order itself” (83). “Most defects and inefficiencies” of
spontaneous orders would result from “attempting to interfere with or to
prevent their mechanisms from operating, or to improve the details of their
results” (84).
It is a mistake to assume
that order can best be achieved by fully unconscious, spontaneous, chance
effects of individual actions and that hence conscious co-operative
co-ordination of social activities is impossible in modern society and should
be fully replaced by anonymous competition mediated by market forces. Hayek
does not take into account that the human being is a knowledgeable, conscious,
social being that has to enter social relationships and must try to consciously
change nature and culture together with others according to their common wishes
in order to survive. Without successful attempts of conscious co-ordination,
society wouldn’t be possible. Without social mediation, individual existence
wouldn’t be possible. Hayek overemphasizes individual being and neglects the
social character and shaping of all individual thinking and actions. Conscious,
goal-directed production is a necessary condition for individual and social
being, the human being must consciously identify goals that he wants to achieve
and produce means in order to achieve these goals. This is both a conscious and
social process. Human existence is purposeful existence, the conscious and
purposeful production of a natural and social environment delimits the human
world from the animal world.
Methodological
individualism reduces society to individual being-in-itself or abstract,
pure-being and doesn’t take into account that society means also
being-for-another/ determinate-being, as well as the unity of both aspects as
being-in-and-for-itself. Methodological individualism doesn’t see the
necessarily societal and material interdependence of individuals and doesn’t
grasp their process of development because it limits itself to advise them that
they should proceed from themselves, it doesn’t adequately reflect the real
conflicts in the world, and it reduces sociality to individuality. “The methodological individualists are
wrong in so far as they claim that social categories can be reduced to
descriptions in terms of individual predicates” (Giddens, 1984: 220). Pierre
Bourdieu stresses in opposition to individualism that social
order is not a simple mechanical addition of individual orders (Bourdieu, 1990:
139; 1986: 483).
Hayek’s reductionistic
misconception of society results in the assumption that all conscious action is
harmful and that hence the human being should not intervene into social
structures. This concept can be characterized as systemic fatalism. This
hypothesis doesn’t see that all social development depends on permanent
creative human agency and that the self-organisation of society is not
something that happens simply blindly and unconsciously, but depends on
conscious, knowledgeable agents and creative social relationships that result
in actions that have both planned and unintended consequences. Human beings try
to act purposeful, society is only possible by ontological security that is
based on the routinization of actions and is made to happen by the actors’
reflexive monitoring their actions. The routinisation of actions is a necessary
condition for the reproduction and persistence of institutions and social
systems. Human beings are frequently successful in achieving their consciously
anticipated and defined aims, without such success society wouldn’t be
possible. Social actions have both intended and unintended consequences.
Society is a complex system that can’t be fully planned, its development can’t
be fully forecasted. But this doesn’t mean that human beings can’t act in
certain ways in order to increase the possibility that certain developments
will be realised and others won’t be realised. Human beings can’t steer the
development of society, but they can design the context of complex social
systems. Actors indeed can’t fully plan the consequences of their actions, but
it is also not the case that they can not at all successfully plan certain
actions and aspects of social life and hence shouldn’t try to do it. Society is
only possible as interplay of chance and necessity, unintended and intended
consequences of actions, spontaneous and routinized agency.
It is wrong to
assume that co-operation means centralization and that competition means
decentralization. Centralization can be defined in systemic terms as the
control of resources and power by one or several specific subsystems of
society. This implies an asymmetric distribution of resources and power,
advantages of the centralising subsystem at the expense of other subsystems.
Co-operation is a networking activity that tries to combine the knowledge of
human beings in such a way that synergies arise from their interactions.
Co-operative systems have a decentralized and networked character, whereas
heavy competition implies heteronomy and the central domination of certain
subsystems.
All social systems are human action systems. This means that human
actors are not outside observers of society, they are active, creative
participants in social systems. All systemic evolution is based on human
activity. Luhmann conceives social self-organization as a self-referential
mechanism where communication produces communication. Hence science is
conceived as a specific self-organizing system that uses the binary code
true/false for maintaining its autopoiesis. The main problem with this approach
is that it is a type of structural functionalism that doesn’t take into account
the importance of knowledgeable, creative, active human beings in society (cf.
Fuchs, 2002a, 2003c). If one wants to consider a social system as autopoietic
or self-referential, the permanent (re)production of the elements by the system
is a necessary condition. Luhmann argues that individual human beings are not
permanently produced, hence the elements of a social system would have to be
communications. In Luhmann’s theory, communication in a social system is both
element and structure, there is no duality of structure and action, only
communication as a self-referential monad. But a communication is not a
subject, a communication doesn’t produce communications, only human beings
produce communications that cause reactions and the further production of
communications by other human beings. Hence the assumption of a duality between
structure and action seems to be a necessary condition for adequately
describing self-referential, circular causal, reflexive processes in a social
system.
Summing up this section of
the paper it can be said that scientists like Hayek and Luhmann have argued
that human intervention into self-organizing social systems isn’t possible and
desirable because there can be no central control of their knowledge. Hence
human beings would have to rely on competition and adaptation to systemic
effects, human intervention would be harmful. I consider participatory systems design as an attractive
alternative to such a systemic fatalism.
2.3. An
Alternative Vision: Co-operation And Participation As Principles of Knowledge
Management In The Sense Of Social Systems Design
Social self-organization
means the permanent production of knowledge by human beings, i.e. the permanent
communication and co-operation in social systems is a dynamic process that
human beings organize in social relationships in order to enable their own
social self-reproduction and systemic self-reproduction. Hence knowledge
management is a fundamental human process in the sense that human beings
permanently have to co-ordinate their cognition, communication, and
co-operation in social relationships.
Knowledge in social system
is based on cognition, communication, and co-operation. These activities can
only be achieved in social co-ordination processes of active, creative human
subjects. Hence knowledge production can only be explained if we assume that
human beings are creative and active beings that have the capability of
permanently producing novelty in social processes as emergent results of social
systems. If knowledge implies creativity and social relationships this means
that full creativity of a system can only be realized if active participation
of all members of a social system is encouraged. Hence knowledge also has
ethical implications, a fully knowledge-based society is a participatory
society. Participation allows a effective usage of the knowledge of human
beings in such a way that they can share and jointly co-ordinate their
knowledge in order to produce new knowledge. Sharing and communicating knowledge in order to
co-operate allows creative synergies between human beings that result in the
emergence of new knowledge in a system. Sharing, partnership, and co-operation
also seem to be ethical imperatives for a sustainable and participatory
management of knowledge that allows benefits for all members of an
organization.
Due to the increasing
complexity of organizations, new strategies of coping with knowledge seem to be
necessary. I suggest that participation and co-operation as aspects of social
systems design are important mechanisms of knowledge management. Design is the
bottom-up-initiation of change in social systems, it is a fundamental human
activity that it is based on visions of a better future and anticipations of
possible futures. Design is an evolving process that permanently integrates new
knowledge about the world that is based on experiences in nature and society.
It creates new emergent properties in social systems. Social systems are
complex and networked, hence social problems can’t be broken down into small
pieces that are solved independently. Problems need to be solved in an
integrated manner that takes a look at social systems as interconnected wholes.
The self-organization of social systems is based on the creativity of social
systems, hence Erich Jantsch has called such systems re-creative. This means
that human beings are active parts of social systems and that they can actively
create new reality in these systems. Bela Banathy (1996) has distinguished
between systematic design that is based on linear methods from systemic design
that is based on intuition, feedback, nonlinearity and considers each system as
unique. A participatory knowledge management must be based on systemic design
methodologies.
Participatory systems design is based on collective visions of a better
future for a system. Hence the participants in an organization that should be
improved should formulate common visions. Creativity is the ability to produce
novelty that emerges from human co-operation, it is the innovative usage of
knowledge. An ideal system can only be designed based on the collective,
creative, anticipatory usage of the knowledge of all participants in a system.
Co-operatively discussing problems and visions in a social system is the first
step for solving these problems. Formulating visions means the production of
new knowledge as possible solutions to problems. After formulating a collective
vision, this vision can be operationalized, a model of the future organization
can be worked out and implemented, i.e. ways of trying to manage chaos with the help of these visions
can be realized.
Knowledge creates
non-knowledge, in the KBS this dynamic is of special importance because
scientific-technological progress results in a number of unpredictable
uncertainties of development, i.e. modernization risks. These risks threaten to
get out of control, Helmut Willke speaks in this context of a crisis of
knowledge (Willke, 2002). The increased influence of scientific-technological
knowledge on our lives has resulted in an increased fragility of society and
nature (Stehr, 1994). Risks arise a side-effects of a form of modernization
that is “blind and deaf to […] [its] own effects and threats” (Beck, 1994a: 6),
the KBS is a high risk society. Ulrich Beck argues that side-effects of
modernization like the destructive power of modern technologies and
environmental degradation are an expression of non-knowledge. Non-knowledge
would be the medium of reflexive modernization (Beck, 1994b, 1996). The more
modern a society, the more knowledge-based and risk-intensive it would become
(Beck, 1996). There would be two forms of non-knowledge: something that one
doesn’t want to know (Nicht-Wissen-Wollen) and something that one can’t know
(Nicht-Wissen-Können) (ibid.: 300, 302). Further dimensions of non-knowledge
would be selective reception and distribution, uncertainty of knowledge, and
mistakes/errors. All decisions in late modern society would be confronted with
uncertainty, even expert knowledge. But to a certain extent one could try to
manage risks by reflecting non-knowledge, learning to know that and what one
can’t know and avoiding not wanting to know (ibid: 309). Knowledge would be
dependent on modernization risks. Many of the new dangers would not be
immediately visible (e.g. radioactivity). To become visible the perceptive
organs of science would be needed to produce knowledge about risks. “In this
way threat situations create social dependencies of information and knowledge”
(Beck, 1999: 266). Hence knowledge management actually is also risk management
and the management of non-knowledge, its task is to cope with the dialectic of
knowledge and non-knowledge in such a way that risks can be reduced and
systemic problems solved.
In the KBS the velocity,
intensity, and extensity of social change has massively increased, technology
is an important medium of these transformations. But it is hard to cope with
this increased flexibility for social systems. New methods of design are needed
in order to avoid systemic problems. “We have simply failed to match the
advancement of our technological intelligence with an advancement in
sociocultural intelligence, an advancement in human quality and wisdom“
(Banathy, 1996: 315).
The top-down-steering of social systems doesn’t realize the full potential
of human beings. We individually and collectively have the right and
responsibility to design the systems we live in. ”Our design inquiry is to be
guided by ideals of a life that is freer and more compassionate, that is guided
by the desire to create conditions that lead to the unfolding of the maximum
individual and collective potentials, coupled with the achievements of the
greatest social and environmental harmony“ (186). ”It is suggested that the
design can be termed to be ethical only if it enables the self-determination of
the stakeholders and respects their autonomy and uniqueness. Design should be
self-guided and self-directed by the users of the system“ (230). This implies
that systems should be designed in such a way that all its members can adequately
participate in it and can benefit from their participation. All those
individuals and groups who are effected by a system should be able to
participate in the design of the system. Participatory systems design doesn’t
aim at planning and controlling the future, but it fosters inclusion,
communication, and co-operation because it believes that the future is
conditioned by the past, and hence is open in the sense that there are always
several possible paths of development, and that the possibility that a
desirable alternative can be realized can be increased by participatory
communication and action.
Concepts of systems management such as Social Systems Design (Banathy,
1996), Critical Systems Thinking, Liberating Systems Theory, Total Systems Intervention
(Flood, 1990; Flood/Jackson, 1991a, 1991b; Flood/Romm, 1996; Jackson, 1991,
1992; Ulrich, 1987) or Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland, 1981;
Checkland/Scholes 1990) are based on the assumption that systems should be
designed co-operatively and participatively, and should empower human beings.
Participative democracy comes to life when we individually and collectively
develop a design culture that empowers us to create, govern, and constantly
reinvent our systems“ (Banathy, 1996: 37). “The notion of ‚empowering’ people
to make decisions that affect their lives and their systems is a core idea of
true democracy. Much of this power today is delegated to others“ (ibid.: 344).
For Banathy the notion of participatory systems design implies a self-governing,
self-creating society.
How can co-operation and participation as fundamental principles of
knowledge and systemic management be defined?
Co-operation in a weak sense
means co-action, i.e. social action. Co-operation in a stronger sense that I
would like to emphasise means more than co-action (cf. Fuchs, 2003g):
·
In co-operation the involved actors are
mutually dependent.
·
All actors benefit from co-operating.
·
Co-operating actors have to a certain extent
shared goals.
·
By co-operating, actors can reach their goals
more quickly and more efficiently than on an individual basis.
·
Co-operation is based on communication about
goals and conventions in order to reach a common understanding.
·
In co-operation the actors make concerted use
of existing structures in order to produce new structures. Co-operation is
based on sharing the existing and the newly produced structures.
·
Co-operation involves mutual learning and the
common production of new reality.
·
Co-operation doesn’t mean the absence of
conflict, conflict on a non-escalating level can be productive. Controversy can
be constructive and conflict creative.
·
In co-operative social relationships there is a
high degree of networked, interconnected activity. The actors depend on each
other. Mutual interconnectivity and mutual responsibility emerge.
Social self-organization in a broad sense covers the re-production of
society in very general terms that apply to all societies and all social
systems, but it does not specify how exactly this self-organization of society
takes places on a more concrete level. So ascending from the abstract to a more
concrete level, one has to distinguish different forms of how society can
reproduce itself. A non-functionalistic concept of social self-organization
that tries to integrate ethical responsibility and participatory systems design
argues that
·
humans are not just auxiliary persons of
objective laws, but can and should positively intervene into society, hence
they are designers of their future
·
participatory democracy is an expression of
self-organization
·
self-organization of social system is oriented
on making possible the effective and humanistic satisfaction of human needs
·
the conditions of living should take on forms
where all can recognise themselves, determine themselves and realize
themselves.
·
self-organization also puts forward the notions
of responsibility, solidarity and tolerance
·
self-organization in terms of
self-determination means the possibility for a person to give himself his own
law and sense
·
there should be active hope for a better
society.
·
social self-organization is the principle of
bottom-up social organization that stimulates the capacity to act
Designing
systems involves assessing the existing systems. For doing so, a typology of
systems is needed. Erich Jantsch (1975) has distinguished
four types of social systems: deterministic, purposive, heuristic and
purposeful ones. They vary according to the rigidity or openness of the
subsystems and transformer systems. Here operational targets (which are part of
the physical milieu), strategic goals (part of civilization) and policy
objectives (part of culture) are important. In deterministic systems, all of
these categories are prescribed and remain fixed, a purposive systems formulates
and selects a target, the goal is kept fixed. A heuristic systems formulates
goals and targets, but still has fixed policy objectives. Purposeful systems
formulae and select all of the three categories themselves. Jantsch says that
these types of systems represent different types of social self-organization,
the purposeful system corresponding to a fully developed human system.
Fig. 6: Jantsch’s typology of
self-organizing social systems (from: Jantsch 1975)
The terms Jantsch uses for the three subsystems
are rather untypical in sociological approaches, hence I suggest that it is
better to distinguish between economy, polity, and culture as the three main
subsystems of the sociosphere. Also the identification of basic structures that
belong to certain subsystems is a little chaotic in Jantsch’s approach, e.g.
policy objectives are not so much a cultural structure than a political one.
Hence in my view it is more plausible to assume that the economy is
self-organizing system involving a duality between human actors and economic
structures (property), polity is a self-organizing system involving a duality
between human actors and political structures (decision power), and culture is
a self-organizing system involving a duality between human actors and cultural
structures (norms/values).
Bela A. Banathy (1996) has based on Jantsch’s work elaborated a useful
typology of social systems (cf. fig. 7). The latter is based on five continua:
mechanistic vs. systemic, unitary vs. pluralist, restricted vs. complex, closed
vs. open, dominating/coercive vs. liberating/empowering. I want to integrate
this typology into my conception of social self-organization and will try to
show how one can quantify based on this approach different self-organizational
types of social systems.
Fig. 7: Banathy’s typology of
systems (1996: 267+269)
The continua mechanistic
vs. systemic and restricted vs. complex are economic ones, they refer to the
basic features of production in a system. Production here is understood in a
broad sense that can be found in all systems and defined as the interaction of
elements that results in synergies that cause the emergence of order. Hence at
the economic level one has to take a look at structure and organizational form.
Structure refers to the type of relationships between elements, organizational
form means the development of structures in space-time. Structure can be
characterized by the continuum restricted-complex, organizational form by the
continuum mechanistic-systemic.
The continuum dominating/coercive
vs. liberating/empowering refers to political aspects of a social system. It
characterizes how procedures of decision-making are designed, who is able to
decide what, and how power is distributed in the system. Hence this political
quality of a system can be termed decision-making.
The continua unitary vs.
pluralist and open vs. closed are cultural aspects of a system. In cultural
processes habitus, norms, and values of a system are determined. This his to do
with how rigidly or dynamically values are constituted, i.e. a distinction
between conservative and progressive can be made here. The quality of
value-creation refers to the continuum unitary-pluralist. In cultural processes
also the management of boundaries is set, i.e. it is determined how open or
closed a system is. The degree of openness of a system can be termed the
quality of coupling. The latter term has to do with the way a system is coupled
to its environment, i.e. other systems. This quality refers to the continuum
open-closed.
Hence for characterizing continua of economic, political, and cultural qualities of a social system, we can give the following definitions. These definitions are based on the ideas of Banathy (1996).
Economic Qualities
|
structure |
restricted a system with few, clearly defined elements, interactions, variables
and permanence of state status |
complex a system with a large number of elements, interactions, variables and
multiple levels of organization |
|
organizational form |
mechanistic a system in which the parts are stable, rigidly set, static, and
operate in a fixed relationship. The elements of the system are mainly
related competitively and the system is related to its environment mainly
competitively. |
systemic indicates a dynamic network character of a system where new order
emerges continuously and dynamically and the interactions are flexible and
dynamic in character. The elements of the system are mainly related
co-operatively and the system is related to its environment mainly co-operatively. |
Political
Qualities
|
decision-making |
dominating/coercive a system that is a hierarchic ologopoly, autocratic, gives little
regard to the desires and purposes of people in the system, and where the members
are there only to serve the purposes of the system that are set by a limited
number of people. Such a system is an exclusive, estranged, heteronomous, and
alienated system. |
liberating/empowering a system in which people are invited to make unique contributions, and
to participate in decision making and use their individual and collective
creativity and intelligence. Such systems are inclusive and self-determined. |
Cultural
Qualities
|
value-creation |
unitary a system where there is a clearly designated or prescribed singleness
of purpose, goals, norms, values. In such systems there is unity without
plurality or plurality without unity. |
pluralist a system where there is unity in plurality of purpose, goals, norms,
values. There is much discourse and communication about these qualities, and
there is a high degree of mutuality, critique and constructiveness. |
|
coupling |
closed a system with well-defined, guarded boundaries, limited and highly regulated
interactions with the environment, low degree of co-operation and exchange of
elements with other systems, and restricted possibility for outside elements
to become members of the system |
open a system with a great deal of interaction and exchange with the
environment, flexible boundary conditions, mutual influence and co-evolution
between the system and its environment, a high degree of co-operation and
exchange of elements with other systems, and good opportunities for outside
elements to become members of the system |
Tab.
1: Economic, political, and cultural continua of social self-organization
These five qualities can be quantified by making
use of a Lickert scale that ranges from 1 to 5: 1…low, 2…moderate, 3…fair, 4…good,
5.excellent. The self-organization of a certain system can be classified by
quantifying each of the qualities, and summarizing the values. For doing so, a
participation matrix can be used.
ECONOMIC
POLITICAL
CULTURAL
|
structure |
organizational form |
decision making |
value-creation |
coupling |
|
1 (restricted) |
1 (mechanistic) |
1 (dominating) |
1 (unitary) |
1 (closed) |
|
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
|
5 (complex) |
5 (systemic) |
5 (liberating) |
5 (pluralist) |
5 (open) |
Tab.
2: The participation matrix of social self-organization
According to the total sum of points, the system
can be characterized:
1…5: rigidly controlled system
6…10: deterministic system
11…15: purposive system
16…20: heuristic system
21…25: purposeful/purpose-seeking system
The five types of
self-organizing social systems shall be described briefly (cf. Banathy, 1996: 267-273)
as follows. All of these systems are self-organizing in the basic sense of
social self-reproduction of a system, they all involve a mutual productive
relationships of actors and social structures, but they have different degrees
and qualities of participation and co-operation.
Rigidly Controlled Systems: rather closed,
have only limited and self-guarded interactions with their environments,
unitary in purpose, clearly defined goals, mechanistic, coercive hierarchy, no
operational freedom, clear prescription of objectives and methods, rules and
procedures regulate behaviour, decisions are made at the top, little or no
self-direction and creativity, rigid structure, well-defined static
relationships between elements, little dynamics
Deterministic Systems: more open to their environment, but still
closely guarded boundaries, more variables, components, complexity, and
interactions than in rigid control systems, mechanistic, clearly defined
purposes and goals, domination prevails, goals are clearly set, operational
objectives are prescribed, decisions are made at the top, clear regulation of
objectives and methods, some discretion in using methods and tools, limited
operational freedom, not much creativity and systemic intelligence, some minor
relational and structural changes can be expected to happen through time,
steady-state system
Purposive Systems: midrange level of organization, rather complex,
rather unitary purposes and goals, middle position between domination and
liberation, purposes are set for the system and strategic goals are prescribed,
operational objectives and methods and means of operation can be self-selected,
occasional rewards for some inventiveness, creativity and intelligence are
limited to making suggestions, state changes are gradual, structural changes
happen gradually over time and are coupled with changes in systemic
relationships, multilevel hierarchy, multiple embeddedness, such systems
frequently embed deterministic and rigidly controlled systems
Heuristic Systems: overall purpose is still rather strictly
defined, but such systems tend toward being pluralist in that they can
formulate their own goals and objectives, complex and systemic in their
functional and structural arrangements, open to and co.evolving with their environments,
tend to be liberating and empower people in the system, they invite
participation and make use of collective intelligence, the overall policy is
rather strictly defined, within this framework goals, objectives, ways and
means, and methods of operation are self-selected, creativity and intelligence
of the members are encouraged, significant relational and structural changes
occur over time, state changes are evolutionary and directed by design,
emergence, ambiguity, and a certain level of uncertainty surround state changes
Purposeful/Purpose-Seeking Systems: complex,
ideal-seeking, guided by images of the future, open to the environment, mutual
interaction and co-evolution with the environment, pluralist, seeking and
exploring new purposes, systemic arrangements and behaviour,
self-transcendence, self-transformation, co-operation with other systems, they
often re-organize at higher levels of complexity, they nurture the liberation
of people’s potential and their empowerment by enabling them to attain design
competence, participatory democratic, policies, purposes, goals are formulated
based on images of the future that people in the system shape collectively,
constant search for ways and means to pursue the ideal, creativity and
intelligence of all members of the system are constantly invited, sought, and
nurtured, significant structural changes occur over time, discontinuity and
re-organization at higher levels of complexity, directed by purposeful design
There is evidence that
people are willing to try to solve the global problems by designing society in
a more co-operative and inclusive manner. Within systems science many
scientists have ethical visions of a better society that is based on
co-operation, participation, and self-determination. Jantsch’s
and Banathy’s concept of purposeful systems points out an ethical dimension of
social systems design. In systems theory terms employed for describing
the necessity of change for the better and self-determining social systems are
e.g. purposeful systems, gylany, and high synergy.