C. West Churchman, The System Approach, 1968, 1979 [ ]
pp.227-229
When I began to write this book on a request from the publisher, I thought of it more or less as a popular text on the systems approach in which I would discuss many of the scientist's techniques and methods. But as I started to write in earnest, I began to see how difficult it was simply to describe to the reader how the management scientist behaves and persuade him that this behaviour has some real benefit. In a way the very writing of the book forced me into the debate. The only tolerable way to write a book of this kind was to inject the criticism into the very context in which a technique was being discussed. Indeed, if I were to think of one theme that has been in the back of my mind as I wrote these chapters, it is the theme of deception. You see, the management scientist at the outset felt that the efficiency expert was deceived. The efficiency expert, he said, believes that, when he sees idleness and slack in the system, he is looking at a reality. From the management scientist's point of view, he is looking at an illusion. He is tricked by his perceptions. But then the management scientist, when he becomes very serious about his own models, in which “all” of the objectives are represented and a “proper” compromise is created, also is deceived. In the straight-faced seriousness of his approach, he forgets many things: basic human values and his own inability really to understand all aspects of the system, and especially its politics.
I came to this notion of deception in a brief experience with extrasensory perception. I was amazed to see how many psychologists had taken extrasensory perception so seriously. ...
Carrying over this experience of extrasensory perception to the systems approach, I arrive at the conclusion that however a system is solved -- by planner, scientist, politician, anti-planner, or whomever -- the solution is wrong, even dangerously wrong. There is bound to be deception in any approach to the system.
And yet when one looks at the solution and sees its wrongness, one is also deceived, because, in searching for the wrongness, one misses the progressive aspect of the solution. We have to say that the advocate of the solution both deceives and perceives. We have to say that the solution is ridiculous and serious. We have to maintain the contradiction or else we allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by the consistent.
pp.229-230
The ultimate meaning of the systems approach, therefore, lies in the creation of a theory of deception and in a fuller understanding of the ways in which the human being can be deceived about his world and in an interaction between these different viewpoint.
p.230
In the beginning I listed some things the world could very well afford to do: feed and clothe its poor, for example. But each person looks at this problem in such a one-sided way that the systems approach is lost.
Hence, I, too, am biased and deceived. It's naïve to think that one can really open up for full discussion the various approaches to systems. People are not apt to wish to explore problems in depth with their antagonists. Above all, they are not apt to take on the burden of really believing that their antagonist may be right. That's simply not in the nature of the human being.
pp.230-231
It's not as though we can expect that next year or a decade from now someone will find the correct systems approach and all deception will disappear. This, in my opinion, is not in the nature of systems. What is in the nature of systems is a continuing perception and deception, a continuing re-viewing of the world, of the whole system, and of its components. The essence of the systems approach, therefore, is confusion as well as enlightenment. The two are inseparable aspects of human living.
( THE SYSTEMS APPROACH, by C. West Churchman, 1968, 1979, A Delta Book, (paperback), Eighth Printing, SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY, DELL PUBLISHING CO., INC./PRINTED IN U.S.A., HD 20. 5 C47, )
____________________________________
pp.227-229
When I began to write this book on a request from the publisher, I thought of it more or less as a popular text on the systems approach in which I would discuss many of the scientist's techniques and methods. But as I started to write in earnest, I began to see how difficult it was simply to describe to the reader how the management scientist behaves and persuade him that this behaviour has some real benefit. In a way the very writing of the book forced me into the debate. The only tolerable way to write a book of this kind was to inject the criticism into the very context in which a technique was being discussed. Indeed, if I were to think of one theme that has been in the back of my mind as I wrote these chapters, it is the theme of deception. You see, the management scientist at the outset felt that the efficiency expert was deceived. The efficiency expert, he said, believes that, when he sees idleness and slack in the system, he is looking at a reality. From the management scientist's point of view, he is looking at an illusion. He is tricked by his perceptions. But then the management scientist, when he becomes very serious about his own models, in which “all” of the objectives are represented and a “proper” compromise is created, also is deceived. In the straight-faced seriousness of his approach, he forgets many things: basic human values and his own inability really to understand all aspects of the system, and especially its politics.
I came to this notion of deception in a brief experience with extrasensory perception. I was amazed to see how many psychologists had taken extrasensory perception so seriously. ...
Carrying over this experience of extrasensory perception to the systems approach, I arrive at the conclusion that however a system is solved -- by planner, scientist, politician, anti-planner, or whomever -- the solution is wrong, even dangerously wrong. There is bound to be deception in any approach to the system.
And yet when one looks at the solution and sees its wrongness, one is also deceived, because, in searching for the wrongness, one misses the progressive aspect of the solution. We have to say that the advocate of the solution both deceives and perceives. We have to say that the solution is ridiculous and serious. We have to maintain the contradiction or else we allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by the consistent.
pp.229-230
The ultimate meaning of the systems approach, therefore, lies in the creation of a theory of deception and in a fuller understanding of the ways in which the human being can be deceived about his world and in an interaction between these different viewpoint.
p.230
In the beginning I listed some things the world could very well afford to do: feed and clothe its poor, for example. But each person looks at this problem in such a one-sided way that the systems approach is lost.
Hence, I, too, am biased and deceived. It's naïve to think that one can really open up for full discussion the various approaches to systems. People are not apt to wish to explore problems in depth with their antagonists. Above all, they are not apt to take on the burden of really believing that their antagonist may be right. That's simply not in the nature of the human being.
pp.230-231
It's not as though we can expect that next year or a decade from now someone will find the correct systems approach and all deception will disappear. This, in my opinion, is not in the nature of systems. What is in the nature of systems is a continuing perception and deception, a continuing re-viewing of the world, of the whole system, and of its components. The essence of the systems approach, therefore, is confusion as well as enlightenment. The two are inseparable aspects of human living.
( THE SYSTEMS APPROACH, by C. West Churchman, 1968, 1979, A Delta Book, (paperback), Eighth Printing, SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY, DELL PUBLISHING CO., INC./PRINTED IN U.S.A., HD 20. 5 C47, )
____________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment