> I think Gray says it all. "Release from the constraints of positive
> rationales! Much of the social systems thinking is still in the "newtonian
> phase", whereas the chaos thinking introduces notions that are more akin
> to quantum thinking. The dramatic progress that science has made since
> that breakthrough seems to be lacking in much of the work going on in
> social systems.
>
> The notion that relationships will break down if not actively nurtured is
> is a measure of the departure that such chaos thinking can generate. That
> organization charts have very little to do with organizational workings.
> That job descriptions do not describe jobs. All these notions will only be
> acceptable if one accepts the underlying chaos that pervades all system.
I view a relationship a bit like the bar between the weights of a
dumbbell, the weights being the objects or systems. An issue with social
systems is agreeing the boundaries of a system. This does not seem to
present difficulties in the reductionist approach of the traditional
sciences. A problem with agreeing system boundaries in social science is
the relationship between boundaries and power. When a social scientist
draws boundaries between systems are they recording the power
distributions they observe or are they imposing their view of an equitable
power distribution?
Roy Benford
Fulmer, UK
--Roy Benford <roy@benford.demon.co.uk>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>