systems+(Brucato)

=Systems=

//System// is a meta-concept.

The founder of General Systems Theory (GST), Ludwig von Bertalanffy provided many descriptions of 'system,' a most succinct of which is "a set of elements standing in interrelation among themselves and with the environment" (1972, p. 417).

Many dictionary definitions utilize //assemblage// for their several definitions of //system//. From the Greek //sýstēma//, meaning "whole compounded of several parts," the etymology points directly to Aristotle's holism, or //holos//, from his //Metaphysics// in which he claimed "the whole is more than the sum of its parts" (ibid.).

General Systems Theory (GST)
//**There exist models, principles and laws that apply to generalized systems or **// //**their subclasses irrespective of their particular kind, the nature of the component **// //**elements, and the relations or "forces" between them. We postulate a new discipline **// //**called General System Theory. General System Theory is a logicomathematical **// //**field whose task is the formulation and derivation of those general **// //**principles that are applicable to "systems" in general. In this way, exact formulations **// //**of terms such as wholeness and sum, differentiation, progressive mechanization, **// //**centralization, hierarchial order, finality and equifinality, etc., become **// //**possible, terms which occur in all sciences dealing with "systems" and imply **// //**their logical homology. **//(in Bertalanffy, 1972, p. 411)

General systems theory was originally developed beginning in the 1920s through the 1950s by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, and then along with Ashby, Boulding, Fagen, Gerard, and Rappoport (Bánáthy n.d.a). Bertalanffy was concerned about the sciences becoming compartmentalized within increasingly strict boundaries and, as a result, obscuring the potential to gain the understanding of the material world that they sought.

Following a philosophical genealogy from Aristotle's holism to Leibniz's monadism to early ecological studies in biology, Bertalanffy saw GST " systems approach or recent technique, but in the context of the history of ideas" (1972, p. 407). For Bertalanffy, "the problems with which we are nowadays concerned under the term 'system' were not 'born yesterday' out of current questions of mathematics, science, and technology. Rather, they are a contemporary expression of perennial problems which have been recognized for centuries and discussed in the language available at the time" (ibid., p. 408).

Bertalanffy countered the mechanical view of the universe that proliferated from the Scientific Revolutions forward.

//**The evolution of machines by events at random rather appears to be self-contradictory. Wristwatches or nylon stockings are not as a rule found in nature as products of chance processes, and certainly the mitochondrial "machines" of enzymatic organization in even the simplest cell or nucleoprotein molecules are incomparably more complex than a watch or the simple polymers which form synthetic fibers. **// (Bertalanffy 1972, p. 409)

He was intrigued by developments by Driesch, Bergson and others that confronted these Cartesian metaphysics with biological sciences but saw these approaches ultimately reverting back to an Aristotelian //entelechy// (ibid., p. 410). The solution, in part, was to combine the natural, physical, behavioral and social sciences with philosophy into a general theory of systems, and to focus on the whole, being richer than the sum of its parts, in which organizational context was given special attention.

It is important to note that from the perspective of GST, systems do not exist outside of human communication. According to Bertalanffy, "'system' is a model of general nature, that is, a conceptual analog of certain rather universal traits of observed entities" (ibid., p. 416). //System// is the meta-concept of the sciences. "The difference from conventional disciplines is not essential but lies rather in the degree of generality (or abstraction): 'system' refers to very general characteristics partaken by a large class of entities conventionally treated in different disciplines" (ibid.).

General Systems Theory and "System Problems"
In discussing "system problems," Bertalanffy called for developments in the sciences that seem like an imaginary for the contemporary disciplines of STS and science studies, writing:

//**Modern technology and society have become so complex that the traditional branches of technology are no longer sufficient; approaches of a holistic or systems, and generalist and interdisciplinary, nature became necessary. This is true in many ways. Modern engineering includes fields such as circuit theory, cybernetics as the study of "communication and control," and computer techniques for handling "systems" of a complexity unamenable to classical methods of mathematics. Systems of many levels ask for scientific control: ecosystems, the disturbance of which results in pressing problems like pollution; formal organizations like bureaucracies, educational institutions, or armies; socioeconomic systems, with their grave problems of international relations, politics, and deterrence. Irrespective of the questions of how far scientific understanding (contrasted to the admission of irrationality of cultural and historical events) is possible, and to what extent scientific control is feasible or even desirable, there can be no dispute that these are essentially "system" problems, that is, problems involving interrelations of a great number of "variables." The same applies to narrower objectives in industry, commerce, and armament. **//

//**The technological demands have led to novel conceptions and disciplines, some displaying great originality and introducing new basic notions such as control and information theory, game, decision theory, the theory of circuits, of queuing and others. Again it transpired that concepts and models (such as feedback, information, control, stability, circuits) which originated in certain specified fields of technology have a much broader significance, are of an interdisciplinary nature, and are independent of their special realizations, as exemplified by isomorphic feedback models in mechanical, hydrodynamic, electrical, biological and other systems. Similarly, developments originating in pure and in applied science converge, as in dynamical system theory and control theory. Again, there is a spectrum ranging from highly sophisticated mathematical theory to computer simulation to more or less informal discussion of system problems. **// (Bertalanffy 1972, p. 420-1)

Related Social Science Approaches
Niklas Luhmann developed a related systems theory in sociology beginning in the 1970s, taking some influence from Gregory Bateson and a critical engagement with his early mentor, Talcott Parsons [|1] 2

Goldsmith's Homeotelic Systems
Edward Goldsmith saw systems as "units of behavior" to preference the organism (Goldsmith 1974). Most importantly, that behavior was to be homeotelic -- with a unified purpose (or "same goal" to be etymologically pure) (Goldsmith 1998). Homeotely is a neologism from Goldman "that makes explicit the essential goal-directed and whole-maintaining character of co-operation, or for that matter of competition" (ibid., p. 256). Goldsmith, revealing his modeling of systems from biology and ecology, describes a bird as a system, and its relationship of flight as part of a related system:

<span style="color: #808080; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">//**Cuenot notes how birds that fly can do so because a thousand details converge; long wing and tail feathers, pneumatic bones, airsacs, breast bone and pectoral muscles, design of the ribs, necks, feet, spinal column, pelvis, automatic hooking of feather barbules etc. All the features of a bird, in fact, conspire to enable it to fly. All are homeotelic to its flying activities, while flying itself is homeotelic to the maintenance of the critical order of avian populations...**// (ibid.)

Goldsmith believed "the same principle applies to a community and a society" (ibid.). In this way his //systems// were modeled also after the work of Radcliff-Brown (ibid., pp. 256-8), who saw the "function of a behavioral trait is the contribution it makes 'to the total activity of which it is a part,' while 'the function of a particular social usage is the contribution it makes to //the total social life as a functioning unit of the total social system//'" (in Goldsmith 1998, p. 256, emphasis in original).

For Goldsmith, co-operation toward a common goal is the primary order of a system and functions to maintain a "critical order or stability." He criticized other approaches to systems that do not differentiate functional from dysfunctional relationships. His inclusion of conflict as a secondary interrelationship in whole systems is a move that may potentially avoid the typical trappings of functionalism. Because his systems derive from ecology and evolutionary biology, competition and diversity function in service to the unified purpose of the larger system. Systems can be competitive, "serving the interests of the whole, but to the detriment of the less well differentiated and less adaptive parts that may fall victim to such competition" (ibid., p. 472). For Goldsmith, systems break down from heterotelic behaviors (ibid., 261-265). This happens when individual parts pursue ends incongruent with the needs of the whole, when deep fissures exist within systems where incompatible ends are sought.

Systemics
Systemics is the study of systems from a holistic perspective. It has been developed by the International Society for the Systems Sciences ([|ISSS]), the International Institute for Informatics and Systemics ([|IIIS]), and a variety of multidisciplinary scholars in journals like [|//Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and// //Informatics.//]

Some systemic theorists and researchers work toward arriving at reliable modelling strategies for as large of systems as possible. This is a more accurate characterization than that offered by critics who suggest systemics is invested in determining universal laws of systems.

Former President of the ISSS, Béla Bánáthy, chiefly developed systemics as a modification of Bertanlanffy by focusing on a fourfold approach including systems philosophy, systems science, systems methodology and the application of systemics. In comparing systemics to classic sciences Bánáthy wrote that "Classical, traditional, science is based on the //certainty of determinism// and the confidence in //prediction//." Citing Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Einstein's Relativity, he explains that contemporary sciences can no longer rest on those traditional tenets.

From "A Taste for Systemics" by Béla Bánáthy, http://www.isss.org/taste.html

Béla Bánáthy describes "two major types" of systems: //natural// and //designed//. "Natural systems range from subatomic systems to living systems of all kinds, our planet, the solar systems, galactic systems and the Universe. The genesis of these systems is the origin of the universe and the result of the forces and events of evolution" (Bánáthy n.d.b) Designed systems "are our creations and include several major types:

(a) "fabricated-engineered-physical systems (manmade artifacts); (b) "hybrid systems that combine physical construction and nature, (e.g., a hydroelectric plant); (c) "designed conceptual systems (such as theories, philosophies, mathematics, logic, etc.) and their representations in the forms of books, records, and descriptive of prescriptive models; and (d) "human activity systems." (Bánáthy n.d.b)

Banathy provides a number of "various types of human activity systems":


 * **//<span style="color: #808080; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">RIGIDLY CONTROLLED systems, such as man-machine systems or assembly-line work groups. These are rather closed and have only limited and well-guarded interactions with their environment. They have few components and a limited degree of freedom, have singleness of purpose and behave rather mechanistically. //**
 * **//<span style="color: #808080; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">DETERMINISTIC systems are more open than rigidly controlled systems but they still have clearly defined goals, and some degree of freedom in selecting means of operating (less mechanistic). They might have several levels of decision-making; thus they are more complex than the rigidly controlled systems. Examples; bureaucracies, centralized (national) educational systems, small business operations. //**
 * **//<span style="color: #808080; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">PURPOSIVE systems -- such as corporations, public service agencies, our public education systems ---are still unitary (have their goals set), but have freedom in selecting operational objectives and methods. They are considered to be somewhat open in that they are to react to environmental changes. They are often very complex. //**
 * **//<span style="color: #808080; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">HEURISTIC systems -- such as: new business ventures, R&D agencies, nontraditional (experimental) educational programs -- formulate their own goals under some biased policy guidelines (thus, they are somewhat pluralistic). They are necessarily open to changes and interact intensively -- even co-elove -- with the environment. They are complex and systemic in their functions/structures. //**
 * **//<span style="color: #808080; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">PURPOSE-SEEKING systems are ideal-seeking, guided by their vision of the future. They are open and are able to co-evolve with their environment. They are complex and systemic. Being pluralistic, they define their own policies/purposes and constantly seek new purposes and new niches in their environments. Examples: corporations seeking social service roles, communities seeking to establish comprehensive systems of learning and human development and to integrate their social service functions, and societies/nations establishing integrated regional systems. //**(Bánáthy n.d.b)

Technological Systems
Thomas P. Hughes finds problems both with technological determinism and the predominating narratives of the social construction of technology (SCOT). He sought to form a middle path with his discussion of technological systems and technological momentum -- "They are both socially constructed and society shaping" (1987, p. 51). For Hughes, technological systems are "messy" and "complex," comprised of components to solve problems "or fulfill goals using whatever means are available and appropriate; the problems have to do mostly with reordering the physical world in ways considered useful or desirable, at least by those designing or employing a technological system" (ibid., pp. 51, 53). Further, they "are bounded by the limits of control exercised by artifactual and human operators" (ibid. p. 54).

Technological systems are made up of the following "components" (ibid.):


 * physical artifacts: e.g. turbogenerators, transformers, and transmission lines in electric light and power systems
 * organizations: e.g. manufacturing firms, utility companies, and investment banks
 * scientific components: e.g. books, articles, and university teaching and research programs
 * legislative artifacts: e.g. regulatory laws
 * natural resources: e.g. coal mines

An essential element of the system is the interaction of components, "all of which contribute directly or through other components to the common system goal. If a component is removed from a system or if its characteristics change, the other artifacts in the system will alter characteristics accordingly" (ibid.). Some examples of this include:


 * "In an electric light and power system [...] a change in resistance, or load, in the system will bring compensatory changes in transmission, distribution, and generation components" (ibid.).
 * "If there is repeated evidence that the investment policies of an investment bank are coordinated with the sales activities of an electrical manufacturer, then there is likely to be a systematic interaction between them; the change in policy in one will bring changes in the policy of the other. For instance, investment banks may systematically fund the purchase of the electric power plants of a particular manufacturer with which they share owners and interlocking boards of directors" (ibid.).
 * "If courses in an engineering school shift emphasis from the study of direct current (dc) to alternating current (ac) at about the same time as the physical artifacts in power systems are changing from dc to ac, then a systematic relationship also seems likely" (ibid., 51-2).
 * "The professors teaching the courses may be regular consultants of utilities and electrical manufacturing firms; the alumni of the engineering
 * schools may have become engineers and managers in the firms; and managers and engineers from the firm may sit on the governing boards of the engineering schools" (ibid., p. 52). [RPI, anyone?]

Technological systems are build by actors who "construct" or "force unity from diversity, centralization in the face of pluralism, and coherence from chaos. This construction often involves the destruction of alternative systems" (ibid.). Furthermore, technological systems often exist within an environment that constrains the system in some ways as a result of "intractable factors not under the control of the system managers," some of which are organizational and others of which are factors related to the physical ecology. If the environmental conditions do not impact the system, it is a "closed system" in which "managers could resort to bureaucracy, routinization, and deskilling to eliminate uncertainty -- and freedom" (ibid., p. 53). Technological systems tend toward absorption of these environmental components, partly to reduce uncertainty within the system.

In open technological systems, Hughes explains there are two kinds of relations, "ones on which they are dependent and ones dependent on them" (ibid). These are not interacting relationships, but one-way. "Because they are not under system control, environmental factors affecting the system should not be mistaken for components of the system. Because they do not interact with the system, environmental factors dependent on the system should not be seen as part of it either" (ibid.).

Human actors serve two roles in technological systems. The first is "their obvious role in inventing, designing, and developing systems" (ibid., p. 54). The second "is to complete the feedback loop between system performance and system goal and in so doing to correct errors in system performance" (ibid.). The "degree of freedom exercised by people in a system, in contrast to routine performance, depends on the maturity and size, or the autonomy, of a technological system..." (ibid.) Like in Bijker (see technological frame and thick objects), as systems age they grow obdurate and "tend to become less adaptable [...] Large systems with high momentum tend to exert a soft determinism on other systems, groups and individuals in society" (ibid., p. 54-5).

__Further reading__ __Agency__ __Apparatus__ __Assemblage Version 1 (Weiss)__ and Version 2 (Wilcox) Luhmann, Complexity and Systems __Sociotechnical Systems__ __Technological Action__ Systems Thinking [|on Wikipedia] Technological Frame Technological Momentum Thick Objects

__Bibliography__ Bánáthy, B. (n.d.a.) "The Evolution of Systems Inquiry, Part I," available at: http://www.newciv.org/ISSS_Primer/seminara.html --- (n.d.b.) "A Taste of Systemics," available at: http://www.isss.org/taste.html von Bertalanffy, L. (1950) "An Outline of General System Theory," //The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science//, 1(2), pp. 134-165. --- (1972) "The History and Status of General Systems Theory," The Academy of Management Journal, 15(4) pp. 407-426. Goldsmith, E. (1974) "The behavioural basis of culturalism - a general systems approach," available online at: http://www.edwardgoldsmith.org/770/the-behavioural-basis-of-culturalism-a-general-systems-approach/ Hughes, T. (1987) "The Evolution of Large Technological Systems" available at: http://conceptsinsts.wikispaces.com/file/view/hughes_1987.pdf --- (2004) //Human-Built World: How to Think About Technology and Culture//, University of Chicago Press. Peery, N. (1972) "General Systems Theory: An Inquiry into Its Social Philosophy," //The Academy of Management Journal,// 15(4), pp. 495-510. Pouvreau, D. and M. Drack (2007) "On the history of Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s 'General Systemology,' and on its relationship to cybernetics - Part I: elements on the origins and genesis of Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s 'General Systemology,'" //International Journal of General Systems// 36(3), pp. 281–337.