Model of Social Systems

Here is a recording that is more expressive than its text below.

I love models, they feel like teddy bears to me. I always feel a little more secure if I have a few stuffed animals around me. Friendly conversations with imaginary friends can be very useful. I want to suggest that this model of social systems be held lightly, played with, use to explore and better understand your world. Always keep in mind, it is only a model--a little friendly stuffed animal. If that image is not adult enough for you, you can think of it as a touch stone in your pocket and hand, or even a rosary used for meditation.

As I have gotten older I find that my concerns focus mainly on social systems. A few years ago, reading Systems Thinking, Managing Chaos and Complexity, by Jamshid Gharajedaghi, I came across Russel Ackoff's statement that this particular model (Beauty, Good, Truth, Economy) is necessary and sufficient for any social system. His bold assertion caught my attention.

THE PARTS OF ANY SOCIAL SYSTEM:

Beauty (Aesthetics)

Good (Ethics)

Truth (Science)

Economy (Production)

There are only twelve directed connections in a four part system. Like a teddy bear, a touchstone, or a string of beads--this model is small enough to be carried around and handled by anyone. This four part, twelve relationship model has frequently found its way into my marginal notes for a decade.

Of course books are written about each of these parts. However, it is not the parts that interest me. It is the dynamic relationships among the parts which I find revealing. I use it to think about social systems that I am involved in.

If you were to paint four circles on the floor, representing each of the four parts, would they vary in color or size? What color would each be? How big would each be? Which one would you prefer to stand in? How do things look from the different perspectives? Is one stance safer than others? Is one more dangerous than others? How do connections affect parts? Is one a better "starting" place than the others?

Do you feel a deeper identification with one part compared with the others? Does it matter if a society identifies or prioritizes among these parts? What happens to social systems that undervalue or overvalue one or more of these parts? Does our culture value Economy (productivity) equally with Aesthetics? Why do you think that is? Who decides? Could it change? What difference could it make?

I do not think that providing my definitions or my "answers" is particularly helpful. But maybe seeing some of my reflections may help you begin your own explorations of this simple model which can be applied to any social system.

It seems that I have spent most of my life standing in/on Truth-Science.

Lately, I have found that I am most comfortable standing on or starting from Beauty Aesthetics and least comfortable starting from or standing on Economy-Productivity. I can be curious about my experience of Beauty-Aesthetics and it needs no justification.

Ethics, Science, and Economy need justifications. For me they need to be consistent with my primary experience and the innate value I find in Beauty-Aesthetics which just seems to arrive freely.

In my current interpretation of my world, Beauty-Aesthetics is primary and forms a basis for my definition and use of Good-Ethics, Truth-Science, and Economy-Productivity. In some way, Beauty-Aesthetics seems experiential and foundational. Economy-Productivity seems derivative and ideally depends upon the other three.

In some way Beauty and Good seem more social, more human. Truth-Science and Economy-Productivity seem more physical, more technical.

I find much of the discord in our world seems to come from allowing Economy-Productivity to be made primary--reducing Beauty to marketing, Truth-Science to technology, and Good-Ethics to legality.

I find that Truth-Science is often disconnected from Good-Ethics and that in our culture STEM can overpower, dominate, and diminish Beauty-Aesthetics. And it seems that Truth-Science is easily dominated by Economy-Productivity (money).

I suggest that the game is for each of us to move toward a more balanced and internally consistent model of our important social systems. This pocket sized model can help one avoid getting lost in the trees.