Dear Organlearners,
Rol Fessenden <76234.3636@compuserve.com> writes in LO15951:
after I have noted in LO15931:
My dictionaries give two main meanings:
1) Positive: A skillful use of the hands -from artisans to artists,
2) Negavtive: A deceptive tampering with an action or a result -
from jugglers to sorcerers
which I have composed into:
3) Neutral: A change of anything on purpose by a human.
> It seems to me that your new definition of 'manipulation' is a very good
> one, and that it removes the connotation of deception. Is this your
> intent? I accept that. The original discussion was about the deceptive
> manipulation that occurs in organizations. Or, at least it was perceived
> to be deceptive by the writer. Perhaps that is your point.
>
> I am unsure how to proceed.
Rol, I did try to find a neutral definition for manipulation. It struck me
that in English the word has both a positive and negative meaning while in
my own mother tongue Afrikaans the word "manipulasie" has only a negative
connotation. I suddenly realised that the word manipulation traces
bifurcations and can thus be used with fruit in giving an account of
chaos, order and complexity.
It also struck me that coming from the Latin ("manipulus") and the immense
influence which the Stoics had on Roman thought, that the concept has very
much to do with deeds, the fruit of thoughts. That is why I added the
qualification "on purpose by a human".
Finally, it struck me as I worked through the various dictionaries, how
much manipulation had to do with any sort of change in which the learned
or skillful use of hands played a role. Firstly, the concept change keeps
on recurring in discussions on this forum, for example, the present topic
"Resistance to change". Secondly, there is very little which we do in
which the hands do not play a role. Compare, for example, those of whom
the hands are disabled with other physically disabled persons. They can do
nothing for themselves whereas the deaf and the blind can still use their
hands.
The word culture has for me the meaning that it is the total of all
humankind's creations, physically and mentally. Thus the word manipulation
distinguish that part of our creation's (culture) which has to do with
purpose.
I am intrigued by the fact that the word manipulation traces bifurcating
changes caused by humans on purpose. What gives rise to this bifurcating
aspect of manipulated changes? In other words, why are purposeful human
creations bifurcative?
I think the answer has very much to do with the concept paradigm. A
paradigm connects to some things of reality. It makes such things
accessable through learning. In other words, a paradigm is like the hub of
a network. But those things which do not connect to the paradigm, remains
inaccessable. We will remain ignorant of those things.
We can try to ensure that a certain manipulation is constructive
(emergent) rather than destructive (immergent) with respect to all things
which connect to our paradigm. But we cannot even try to ensure that this
manipulation is constructive with respect to the things which we are
ignorant of.
We here in South Africa live in very troublesome, but also very
interesting times. Take as example the TRC (Truth and Reconcilliation
Commission). Most of the white people have a paradigm according to which
they believed that the PURPOSE of the TRC was to uncover the truth about
human misconduct on both sides during the era of Apartheid. In other
words, they accepted the TRC as a neutral manipulative instrument. They
are now discovering to their dismay that the manipulations of the TRC are
not neutral, just as the Apartheid manipulations were not neutral. Just as
the Apartheid regime denied that its manipulations were negative, the TRC
and the ANC government deny that the TRC's manipulations are negative.
They insist that the white people perceive the TRC negatively because they
are still clinging to Apartheid. What then is the truth which the TRC try
to establish?
I have never observed anybody in the TRC's hearings commenting on the role
played by paradigms. The white people follow a paradigm which connects to
individualism whereas the black people follow a paradigm which connects to
collectivism. Thus, according to the collectivism involved, the blacks
insist that the misconducts of one particular white should be seen as
misconducts sanctioned by the majority of whites for which they all have
to take responsibility. But on the other hand, according to individualism,
the whites insist that one black should be made responsible for his/her
misconducts and not be protected by the excuse that it was done for the
good will of the whole black community.
It all could have been so much different if there was a true spirit of
learning.
Here is another question to think of in the mean time:
Can we and may we manipulate other people?
Best wishes
--At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>