I have always been interested in the idea of autonomy in a social setting. In today’s post, I am looking at autonomy in a social setting such as an organization, from a Cybernetics viewpoint. I will lean on the ideas of Heinz von Foerster, and Stafford Beer.
Von Foerster came up with the notion of first order and second order cybernetics. First order cybernetics is the study of observed systems, and second order cybernetics is the study of observing systems. Von Foerster would say that ethics cannot 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 cannot ignore the human condition that sets the background and foreground for the systems. Every description is rich with possibilities; however, we cannot ignore the fact that they are constructions of an observer or observers. We cannot stipulate that only our version is the right one, and that the others are incorrect. I may choose to draw a boundary here, whereas you may choose to draw a boundary there. I may choose to include these 10 things, whereas you may choose to include the 10 things and add 20 more things on top of that. 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 cannot be articulated, instead it must be based on action. This is where von Foerster’s ethical imperative comes in.
Stafford 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 does not claim to be the most accurate representation. A system such as an organization is said to be viable if it is able to maintain its identity and survive in its environment. In order to sustain, it must be able to manage complexity. In cybernetics terms, it must be able to deal with the variety thrown at it. Variety is the measure of complexity. A key idea in VSM is recursion. In order 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 in order to stay viable. A common description that is often used to explain this is that of the 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.
In order 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 cannot 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 to ensure its viability. It needs to ensure maximum autonomy of the sub-systems while not compromising its own viability. This is the case at each recursion level. An example of the levels of recursion is shown below. This is taken from Project Cybersyn.
At the smallest level, we have the operator who themselves are viable systems, and 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 in order to stay viable.
One can see a common theme emerging – one of interdependence and having a common identity. In this realm, ethics cannot 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…
My last post was Ppk, Capability Index and Tolerance Interval Relation:
Harish's Notebook - My notes... Lean, Cybernetics, Quality & Data Science. 
“Boundaries” are inherently paradoxical, as they’re “injunctions to make distinctions”. (Laws of form). A constructing a distinction (or distinguishing a construction), both constructs distinguisher and distinguishes constructs. So it’s not only a Russian doll, but also a Russian doll making a Russian doll maker.
the trick here is to understand – construct – that nothing can be constructed from nothing, so something can only construct itself. Like “Laws of Form” shows: time divides and “creates”. (I suddenly notice that “vide” can also mean “empty”. Di-viding invents itself.).
The “worker” in your picture “works” at every “level”: a team member works, as does a team manager, as does …. a civilian, a politician,…. There’s workimg for every-one.
The structure of a Model accounts for its usefulness. “A ship is a model of the sea”, because her (!) structure enables us to go fishing. Also, a ship offers choices: she can be used for various other – even unintended by the constructor – purposes.
The same holds for using metaphors, the usefulness follows its structure. Now, the thing is, in language we implicitly limit the meaning of a metaphor to the (supposed) intention of the sender. This limits the usefulness of language to carry over meaning.
LikeLiked by 1 person