Third Order Cybernetics as the Evolution of Society Stuart A. Umpleby Department of Management The George Washington University Washington, DC 20052

A presentation with two parts The first part of this presentation will be about expanding the conception of science in accord with the correspondence principle The second part will be a presentation on my understanding of Vladimir Lepskiy’s idea of third order cybernetics Hence, a report 1) on recent work in the U.S. and Europe and 2) in Russia

Part I Expanding the conception of science

The origin of cybernetics The field of cybernetics emerged in the late 1940s during a series of conferences in New York City sponsored by the Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation During World War II many scientists had worked on applied projects They wanted to talk about what they had learned

The Macy Foundation conferences In New York City between 1946 and 1953 “Circular Causal and Feedback Mechanisms in Biological and Social Systems” Chaired by Warren McCulloch, a philosopher at MIT Participants included G. Bateson, Margaret Mead, N. Wiener, J. von Neumann, H. von Foerster, R. Ashby After Wiener’s book in 1948, the name of the conferences was changed to the Macy Conferences on Cybernetics

Experimental epistemology McCulloch was a philosopher who wanted to understand cognition He decided to test existing theories of knowledge from philosophy using neurophysiology How does the brain work? He and Maturana and von Foerster and others conducted biological experiments They concluded that observations independent of observers are not physically possible

Heinz von Foerster

Including the observer Von Foerster wanted to include the observer within science In 1974 he invented the term “second order cybernetics” hoping to shift the focus of attention in cybernetics from technical applications to the study of cognition

How the nervous system works The blind spot Image on your retina Move your eyes within your head Conversations at a party Listening to a speech Two kittens Injured war veterans

First and second order cybernetics in the 1970s Observed systems The purpose of a model Controlled systems Interaction among variables in a system Theories of social systems Observing systems The purpose of the modeler Autonomous sys. Interaction between observer and observed Theories of the interaction between ideas and society

Efforts to make a scientific revolution Tutorials about the history and fundamentals of cybernetics at conferences in the U.S. and Europe beginning in the late 1970s Tutorials were necessary because of the lack of university courses and degree programs After doing this for several years I wanted to move on How does a scientific revolution end?

Kuhn’s description of a scientific revolution Periods of normal science and periods of revolutionary science Kuhn emphasized the transition from normal science to a revolutionary period due to “incommensurable definitions” He said that a revolutionary period ended when the younger generation was persuaded to adopt the new point of view

The cybernetics of science NORMAL SCIENCE The correspondence Incommensurable principle definitions SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION

How does a revolution end? Von Foerster told me about the CP but did not use it in his arguments Karl Popper mentioned the CP but also did not use it in his arguments When I was in Poland in the 1980s, I asked Wladyslaw Krajewski for his opinion on a paper I had written on the CP He said that a new dimension was necessary not just a more general theory So, how could the role of the observer be formulated as a new dimension?

New philosophy of science   New philosophy of science An Application of the Correspondence Principle Old philosophy of science Amount of attention paid to the observer

Niels Bohr

The Correspondence Principle Proposed by Niels Bohr when developing the quantum theory Any new theory should reduce to the old theory to which it corresponds for those cases in which the old theory is known to hold A new dimension or idea is required

Advantages of using the Correspondence Principle The new dimension either was neglected or assumed not to be significant All the data that supported the old theory also supports the new theory (small circle) Now many more experiments can be conducted to investigate the region created by the new dimension (large oval)

Going beyond biological cybernetics Francisco Varela once told me at a conference in Vienna that what I was calling second order cybernetics was not SOC He said I should study biology more I respected the work of Varela, McCulloch, von Foerster and Maturana on biological cybernetics, but I thought that my work with social systems was also interesting

Three theories of knowledge World 1 3 Observer Description 2

How cybernetics expands science The positivist approach to science would be the left side of the triangle Second order cybernetics would be first a theory of knowledge (bottom) and later also a description of how knowledge is used (right side) With the triangle second order cybernetics became not a competing epistemology to positivism but a theory of epistemologies

Strategies for advancing social science For many decades social scientists have tried to imitate the physical sciences Physics was regarded as an example of how to do science More recently the idea is to expand science so the physical sciences become a special case of a larger view of science The new view includes purposeful systems Inanimate objects (physics) are a special case

From second order cybernetics to second order science Philosophers of science usually place the scientist outside what is observed Second order cybernetics claims that descriptions are constructed in the minds of scientists It places a scientist inside the social system that is observed These thoughts are bringing about a reconsideration of our conception of science

How to expand science The Correspondence Principle suggests how to make a persuasive case that science has been expanded: add a new dimension or a new consideration Three new additions can now be claimed The first is von Foerster’s – the amount of attention paid to the observer A second is the effect that a theory has on the system observed

A second new dimension In the Newtonian view of the world scientific theories do not alter the world With the exception of quantum mechanics, physicists usually assume that theories do not change the way that nature works But theories of social systems are constructed in the hope that theories will guide actions that will change the way social systems operate There is a dialogue between theories and societies

A third consideration Currently in the U.S. there is growing interest in design thinking – the design of new products, new services, new apps Government programs are also designed, evaluated and modified New scientific ideas are also invented, advocated and accepted or not How is design related to science?

The place of design in science Random variation and selection occur in Darwin’s theory of evolution Popper’s notion of conjectures and refutations is a well-established conception of the scientific process The emphasis is on empirically testing conjectures But where do conjectures come from? Perhaps design methods could be used

Some design methods Those who teach design have developed ways to make people more creative Do not reject ideas too quickly “Think with your pencil” or make many sketches Get to know your client Involve people with varied backgrounds

The importance of second order science Expanding our conception of science opens new lines of investigation for research Treating physics not as an example for all of science but rather as a special case of a larger conception of science will help the unification of the sciences New possibilities for research in the social sciences will mean advances in the social sciences at a time when they are needed

Part II My conception of third order cybernetics

An interpretation of third order cybernetics Vladimir Lepskiy and his colleagues at the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) are developing the idea of “third order cybernetics” Recently the idea was discussed in Moscow I made a presentation on recent work on cybernetics in the US and Europe (previous slides) and offered some thoughts on third order cybernetics (subsequent slides)

Third order cybernetics The “meta subject” can be thought of on three levels At the micro level the meta subject would be the family or the work group At the meso level the meta subject would be a company or a city At the macro level the meta subject would be a country or the world

The micro level The field of family therapy has been influenced by cybernetics Key authors are Gregory Bateson, Paul Watzlawick, Don Jackson, Carlos Sluzki

The meso level At the level of the firm or organization there are authors from cybernetics and systems science Stafford Beer, Russell Ackoff, Peter Checkland, Mike Jackson

The Macro level At the macro level for the key authors one must go farther back in time In the 17th century people were trying to figure out how to create self-governing societies The task was to build a reflexive society, one in which people were both rulers and ruled Eventually the goal became to go beyond both the king and the Pope (both still exist but have diminished power)

Society as a reflexive system The macro level is most interesting because it is the most reflexive There are many feedback loops in a large social system There are many challenges – how to resolve internal conflicts, how to defend the society against interference from outside, how to create an innovative society and how to achieve steady social progress

Key steps at the macro level in Europe Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope in 800 In 1215 the Magna Carta was the first agreement to limit the power of a king Martin Luther (1483 – 1546) initiated the Protestant Reformation, thus limiting the power of the Pope In the thirty years war (1618 – 1648) about 1/3 of the people in Europe were killed in wars between Protestants and Catholics

Peace of Westphalia During the 30 years war many people moved from Europe to N. America to escape the religious conflicts The Peace of Westphalia, which ended the 30 years war, supported the idea of religious freedom and largely created the conception of the nation state Each country could choose its own religion Each person could worship as he or she chose Individuals and nations became self-governing

The problem was aristocracy A political/ religious hierarchy was the idea that supported the aristocracy There were two solutions Move to America and create a new society on the frontier Think one’s way out of the box by inventing ideas like individual rights, a social contract, and majority rule and minority rights Ideas developed in Europe were tested in N. America

Leading theorists were Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) England John Locke (1632-1704) England Voltaire (1694 – 1778) France Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778) France Edmund Burke (1729 – 1797) Ireland

Two goals of self-government Assembling enough power to achieve social purposes Limiting he power of the executive so that the rights of individuals are not compromised

Organizational structure A federal system – local, state and national governments Branches of government – legislative, executive, and judicial branches The branches were independent and could check abuse of power by another branch Other institutions – free press, business organizations, labor unions, non-governmental organizations

Principles of government Majority rule and minority rights Right to private property Limited power of government, trial by jury, right to a lawyer Religious liberty Freedom of speech Secular authority replaced religious authority The state -- the citizenry as a whole -- could regulate both religion and the economy

A note on geography The type of government in a country depends in part on geography. See Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel A country with strong borders (e.g., UK and US) worries less about what people say and do A country with no clearly defined borders (e.g., on the Central European Plain) must keep control of the population in order to repel invaders

A common point of view During the Cold War there were two points of view – capitalism and communism These ideologies gave meaning and purpose to life and provided organizing principles An alternative, more general point of view is what Karl Popper called “piecemeal social engineering” and what Donald T. Campbell called an “experimenting society”

Third order cybernetics If third order cybernetics is seen as a theory of experimentation and reform in social systems, it will connect the earlier work in cybernetics with political reform and the evolution of society This is a major addition to cybernetics and to the unification of science My thanks to Vladimir Lepskiy and his colleagues

Contact information Stuart A. Umpleby Department of Management The George Washington University Washington, DC 20052 USA blogs.gwu.edu/umpleby umpleby@gmail.com

Prepared for a meeting of the International Academy for Systems and Cybernetic Sciences Chengdu, China 21 October 2017