![](/sites/default/files/editorial_images/Auto1000_0.jpg)
I have always been interested in the idea of autonomy in a social setting. In this article, I’m looking at autonomy in a social setting—such as an organization—from a cybernetics viewpoint. I’ll lean on the ideas of Heinz von Foerster and Stafford Beer.
ADVERTISEMENT |
Von Foerster came up with the notion of first-order and second-order cybernetics. First-order cybernetics is the study of observed systems; second-order cybernetics is the study of observing systems. Von Foerster would say that ethics can’t be articulated. He was influenced by the writings of his family friend and distant relative, Ludwig Wittgenstein. All systems are descriptions of some phenomenon and require a describer. All systems are human systems.
We can’t ignore the human condition that sets the background and foreground for systems. Every description is rich with possibilities; however, we can’t ignore the fact that they are constructions of an observer or observers. We can’t stipulate that only our version is the right one, and that the others are incorrect. I may choose to draw a boundary in one place, whereas you may choose to draw it in another. I may choose to include these 10 things, whereas you may choose to include the 10 things and add 20 more. Even if our systems may look the same on a sheet of paper with nice boxes and arrows (sometimes curved arrows), what those mean could be entirely different.
Von Foerster’s view was that there is no “I” without the other. He came up with the ethical imperative—I shall always act so as to increase the number of choices. To me, this is his urging to always consider the other co-constructors. We should act to increase the possibilities so that the common good prevails. In a social realm, ethics is always involved. As noted earlier, ethics can’t be articulated; they must be based on action. This is where von Foerster’s ethical imperative comes in.
Beer created the viable system model (VSM) as a means to diagnose and study a social structure, such as an organization. As the name suggests, VSM is a model and therefore doesn’t claim to be the most accurate representation. A system such as an organization is said to be viable if it’s able to maintain its identity and survive in its environment. To be sustainable, it must be able to manage complexity.
Variety is the measure of complexity.
In cybernetics terms, a system must be able to deal with the variety thrown at it. Variety is the measure of complexity. A key idea in VSM is recursion. To stay viable, an organization must deal with variety at multiple levels. This means that at every possible level, there must be “sub” systems that are also viable. The organization should contain viable systems within viable systems to stay viable.
A common description of this is Russian nested dolls. An organization has multiple levels of recursion, and at each level of recursion, we can depict that viable system using the same structure that we used to depict the larger viable system. I welcome the reader to explore these ideas.
To ensure viability, each viable system should have maximum autonomy. This ensures that the variety thrown at it from the environment can be dealt with. However, this autonomy can’t be absolute. There has to be maximum autonomy without compromising the identity of the larger viable system it is part of. The larger viable system has to have means to ensure this for its viability. It needs to ensure maximum autonomy of the subsystems while not compromising its own viability. This is the case at each recursion level. An example of the levels of recursion is shown below. It’s taken from Project Cybersyn.
At the smallest level, we have the operators who are viable systems; at the largest level we have the whole nation. The same viability model applies at all levels of recursion. Each level has to have the maximum autonomy possible without compromising the viability of the larger viable systems. Each larger viable system has to allow maximum autonomy of the lower viable systems to stay viable.
One can see a common theme emerging—one of interdependence and having a common identity. In this realm, ethics can’t be articulated. We must act to increase the number of choices. If you are to remain in a social realm, then to maintain its viability one must always act in the name of the common good.
I will finish with some wise words from one of my favorite philosophers, Simone de Beauvoir:
And it is not true that the recognition of the freedom of others limits my own freedom: To be free is not to have the power to do anything you like; it is to be able to surpass the given toward an open future; the existence of others as a freedom defines my situation and is even the condition of my own freedom.
Always keep on learning....
Published April 28, 2024, in Harish’s Notebook.
Comments
Recursive nature of systems
Harish explains the interconnectedness of systems well in this piece. Sustaining a community is not only a nested concept like the Russian Dolls. It is a Mobius strip. The sequence folds back in on itself through feedback and sustainability. The interface between governance and humans is a vibrant interplay of standards and variability. The figure Harish presents appears to be one way. It is not. The figure can be graphed onto a Mobius strip where the macro level 12 can either be the beginning or the end of the Mobius strip. Or the sequence can begin anywhere along the continuum. The critical relationship is the sequence. One level builds and learns from the other. Harish shows the arrows on the right side providing feedback up the levels. This feedback is critical for sustainability and continuous improvement. It does not matter which level of community you enter the sequence. Once the community is established, the give and take of the autonomous elements work together to make ethical choices and sustain the system. Chaos begins when an aspect seeks to remove choice or disrupts the system through unethical behavior. Autonomy must be balanced with responsibility and accountability. That is the value of ethics. Our books, Validating a Best Practice (Van Nuland and Duffy), and Human-Centered Lean Six Sigma (Le and Duffy) address the integration of systems and humans in more detail.
Add new comment