First International Conference on Anticipation 5-7 November 2015, Trento The Strongness of Weak Signals: Self-Reference and Paradox in Anticipatory Systems Dr. Alberto Cevolini (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia)

1. Introduction Social sciences are experiencing an anticipatory turn "Anticipations are ubiquitous" (Riegler 2001, p. 534) Anticipation is a "neglected concept"

2. The Idea of "Weak Signal" Weak signals are "the real foundation of the whole society" (Poli 2013, p. 32) mid-1970s: "strategic management" or "strategic surprise" (Ansoff 1975)

In public opinion there is a surfeit of signals referring to social changes Stable reality everybody can refer to / signals of a reality that will never stabilize

Revival in the 1990s "Wildcards", "seeds of change", "emerging issues" The definition of "weak signal" is now more ambiguous and unclear than before

Weak / Strong Who handles this distinction? Who is the observer? Either the observer belongs to the world he is observing, or he is outside the world that is observed

Observers are always inside, although they may observe the world as if they were outside Two reflexive uses of the distinction between inside and outside

3. The Strongness of Weak Signals Contradiction hidden behind the current debate on weak signals To worry about weak signals is reasonable only if you already know that they signalize strong changes

Retrospective form Why nobody understood the strongness of weak signals?

Weak / strong is used to symbolically bridge the temporal gap between signalized and signal, and only seemingly to solve the unsolvable problem of lacking information

Weak / strong refers to the observer, not to the observed reality, it marks the ignorance the observer has to cope with when he tries to get his bearings in the darkness of the time-to-come Weak is not the signalized change, but the attention paid to the signal

Operational closure of social systems Society can communicate on the environment, yet not with the environment In turn, the environment can not communicate with the system

Environment behaves as irritation in disruptive way

The environment can not beget, nor specify the nature of systemic operations Environmental perturbations are never instructive for a system

Structural coupling refers to any environmental condition which allows systemic self-irritation

Every irritation is reproduced by the system through its own operations, and arises against the background of those structures of expectation which do coincide with the system’s current state

Irritations are "purely internal constructs" (Luhmann 1992, p. 1432) Perturbations, deviations, surprises Irritation / indifference

Distinction: —— 8 meters The observer can oscillate between over and under Signal is a difference for information processing

Information is never transmitted by the environment, rather it is "generated by observers" (Glanville 1984, p. 658)

Technology and computer hugely increased the irritability of social systems Nowadays they help –if not even substitute– perception in many fields

Increase of "structural uncertainties" "Social signalling" While actually living in a safer society, we feel that we live in a society that is much more vulnerable than before

It is not the signal that informs the system, but the system that informs itself through the signal

Simultaneousness of system and environment / problem of synchronization Anticipation is possible just because environment can not be anticipated

4. The Culture of Alertness Semantics of "vulnerability" Disaster as interruption of organizational routines

The system doesn’t know that it doesn’t know Second-order ignorance, or "superignorance" (Wildavsky 1988, p. 23)

Why did you not know that you didn't know that you didn't know? "Weak signal" symbolically invisibilizes the paradox of (lacking) information about the lack of information

Blindness of management routines compensated by "routinely suspecting" that organizational expectations are incomplete "Chronic fear", "mindfulness" "Strong responses to weak signals" (Weick/Sutcliffe 2001)

"Chronic lack of redundancy" In social systems any signal is actually weak, never strong this jeopardizes the validity of the difference between weak and strong