Dear Organlearners,
Bill Harris <billh@lsid.hp.com> writes,
> Rol and At have started something interesting (again). I wonder if it's
> related to a puzzle I struggled with for a long time until I saw it work
> (but I'm still not sure I could describe to someone else how to replicate
> it). A few years ago, I was intent on moving a group towards
> self-direction and towards the use of certain 'action science' techniques
> (I was their manager). Chris Argyris writes somewhere that part of the
> ethical application of action science involves not using closed (coercive)
> methods to create an open environment. He seemed to argue on two levels,
> one ethical and one pragmatic.
Bill, it is almost as if you could read my mind. I ended my reply
(LO15981) to Rol with
> Here is another question to think of in the mean time:
> Can we and may we manipulate other people?
I believe that your "working puzzle" has very much to do with the thread
(topic). You will remember that apart form the positive and negative
meanings of "manipulation" given by the dictionaries, I also ventured a
neutral meaning: "A change of anything on purpose by a human." A forced
(coercive) change by "action" techniques falls under this neutral meaning,
if not under the positive or negative meanings themselves.
Let us try to articulate your "working puzzle".
One of the topics sometimes discussed in "complexity theory", is that of
self-organisation. This topic originated through the studies of Ilya
Prigogine on dissipative systems. A system is called dissipative when it
produces entropy internally, apart from the entropy entering or leaving
the system. Self-organisation is not studied and discussed as much as it
should be because of the concept entropy involved. The reason is that this
concept induces an apathy towards itself in most people, even those who
study complexity. A "theory of complexity" which can explain and predict
this "induced apathy" will have advanced considerably.
Any way, let us think intuitively what the phrase "self-organisation"
will commonly mean rather than thinking of its technical meaning. Now try
to relate this meaning of "self-organisation" to the meaning of
"manipulation". Clearly, something seems to be out of order here when
manipulation does not include self-manipulation. It is as if
"self-organisation" and "manipulation" exclude each other! Is not your
"working puzzle"?
I have not yet explained this "working puzzle". I can only do so after you
have evaluated my attempt to articulate it. But for this explanation I
will, unfortuantely, have to pull in that hairy, slimey monster called
"entropy".
> I liked the philosophy, but I didn't know what to do next. It seemed to
> turn out that I really didn't need coercion; a lot of discussion about
> each of our values and about the job and business and ... --- mutual
> advocacy and inquiry, so it seems --- got us to a good spot.
In other words, there were lots of self-organisation?
> At any rate, that ethical component of action science seemed related to
> Rol's and At's comments about manipulation.
>
> Comments?
Yes, I believe so. If you or other readers are interested in me explaining
this ethic, (for which I again will have to pull in that hairy, slimey
monster called "entropy"), I will gladly do so.
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/>