Mechanical dogma (Part 2)
Mechanical dogma (Part 2)
Last week we ended on how our collective global problems are based upon how we think and what we choose to believe1. It is as if we consciously prefer to remain ignorant by being: Glued to mind numbing TV; Believe in doomsday mongering from mass media; Preferring entertainment above self-discovery and self-empowerment1. This kind of living is made easier because of our ingrained Mechanistic, Newtonian, or Linear view of the universe, supporting self-interest, above all. Another danger of mechanical linearity is the inherent assumption where we see ourselves as isolated parts of a predictable system. A deep flaw keeping us oblivious as to how our individual beliefs and actions contribute to socially harmful practices. This acute & ingrained mental model of how the world works, virtually force us to ignore the warning signs & falsities of “being in capable hands” of world leaders and experts, knowing they lack the commitment & creativity to protect our basic human rights, and liberate us from socio-economic captivity1-4.
Concerns echoed by movements, individuals, & scientists from diverse fields1,3,7,8. Particularly important are the social and political forces that define & shape our learning, and influence our action & interaction7. The growing and diverse criticism of moving us away from a mechanistic mindset, or way of thinking, toward a systemic mindset, or way of thinking, is helping to reshape the global system toward mutual interest. Despite these efforts, the power and sheer depth of mechanical dogma are insufficient for the needed change. Considering the natural world is non-deterministic & non-linear, is enough reason to abandon attempts at understanding and relating to it, using a mechanistic mindset. Classic Cartesian mindsets have taught us to seek control over dynamic systems (natural world), but natural world systems cannot be understood by linear, mechanical minds. The Cartesian, Mechanical or Newtonian mindset (where the universe is seen as a large predictable mechanical clock – the clockwork universe), remain an obstacle to embrace systemic knowledge, since it requires us to let go of mechanical dogma. Thousands of years of trying to predict & control systems using mechanical mindsets, are now giving way to new ways of understanding natural dynamics (real life), like chaos, disorder, emergence, and self-organisation1&7 - insights that recognise organisations & societies as complex adaptive systems8. In other words agents (people) & agencies (corporations, countries, economies) are all composed of semi-independent agents seeking viability (fitness), by adjusting, interpreting & taking action in a highly interconnected system (global economic system)1. Such views, when contrasted to our current mechanical orientation, make plain to see that continuing to use the wrong approach to resolve global challenges only make things worse. More bluntly, we expect our mechanical leadership to solve systemic problems1, when such mindsets are incapable of understanding organisations, markets, economies as complex adaptive systems (CAS)8&9. These being systems that have capacities to learn & adapt (change) in order to survive (remain viable)1&9. As human agents & the systems we create (transport systems, energy systems, communication systems, etc.), all link to our natural eco-system, cannot be divorced from each other (systemic inter-connectedness). We interact with & within these systems, in a constant loop of discovery, choice and action. It is like an interlocked, co-evolutionary feedback process, where the action of one, affect the others and vice-versa1,7,9. The effects of actions may be negligible or it may be large, the point however is to highlight the tight relationship between poverty and wealth, since this self-inflicted blindness is part of our bigger global problem. Systemic co-evolution is not considered in classic Newtonian theory, thus our challenge with leadership across public-private sectors, stuck in dated paradigms and worldviews, dealing with problems in isolated, distinct and linear parts, when in fact they are all intimately linked1.
References:
- Udemans, F., 2008, The golden thread: escaping socio-economic subjugation, an experiment in applied complexity science, Authorhouse UK;
- Crocket, A., 2011, Reforming the global financial architecture: Key note address – Asia and the global financial crises; Asia Economic Policy Conference; White, M., 2010, Complex Adaptive Systems in Finance and Strategy, https://www.oocities.org/whitemark1/; Claessens, S., & Kodres. L., 2014, The regulatory responses to the global financial crisis: Some uncomfortable questions: IMF working paper; Research department and institute for capacity development;
- Arthur, W.B. et al, 2013, Economics and the Modern Theories of Cognitive Behavior, SFI working paper;
- Pinker, S., 1995, The language instinct: the new science of language and mind, Penguin Books; Cohan, P., 2010, Big risk: $1.2 Quadrillion derivatives market dwarfs world GDP, Investor center, InvestorCenter;
- Mantega, M., & Stanley, H., 2000, An introduction to Econo-physics: correlation and complexity in Finance, Cambridge University Press;
- Antonacopoulou, E., & Ricardo Chiva, R., 2005, Social Complex Evolving Systems: Implication for organisational learning: Paper accepted for presentation at the OKLC 2005 Conference, Boston;
- Gell-Mann, M., 1994, The quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the simple and the complex, New York: WH Freeman; Stacey, R.D., 1996, Complexity and creativity in organizations, San Francisco: Berret-Koehler publishers; Stacey, R.D., 1995, The science of complexity: an alternative perspective for strategic change processes, Strategic Management Journal, 16: 477-49; Anderson, P., 1999, Complexity theory and organization science, Organization Science, 10 (3), 216-232; Axelrod, R. and Cohen, M.D., 1999, Harnessing complexity, New York: The Free Press; Sherman, H. and Schultz, R., 1998, Open Boundaries, New York: Perseus Books;
- Brown, S.L. and Eisenhardt, K.M., 1997, The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 1-34.
- Coleman, H.J., 1999, What enables self-organizing behavior in business, Emergence, 1 (1), 33-48; Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G., 1963, A Behavioural Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall; Deetz, S., 1995, Transforming communication, transforming business: building responsive and responsible workplaces. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press; Kaufmann, S.A., 1995, At home in the Universe, Oxford: Oxford University Press;