NOTE: Images in this archived article have been removed.
In this section I want to explore on a more specific level why we living beings have mostly forgotten or marginalized the notion of life. To do this, I wish to draw attention to the astonishing interconnections and mutual support between the two guiding metaphysics of our culture. These are (Neo-)Darwinism, with its big idea of biological optimization, in which functional adaptations supposedly create biodiversity, and (Neo-)Liberalism, with its concept of economic efficiency, supposedly creating wealth and equal distribution.
For more than 150 years, both assumptions have become intertwined streams of one coherent pattern of thought that forms the basic matrix of our official understanding of reality. The premises of neo-Darwinism and neoliberalism constitute the tacit, taken-for-granted understanding of “how the world works”. Inside its deep and compact logical structure, the two currents of biological and economic optimization theory are so mutually reinforcing and normative that respectable thoughts considers them beyond question.1
It is not by chance that “eco-nomy” and “eco-logy” are nearly identical terms. Both build on the metaphor of housekeeping and the provisioning of existential goods and services (the Greek word “oikos” means “house”, “householding” or “family”). Both concepts have a particular and related manner of treating the organisation of this existential supply. Both start from the idea that keeping a house – or making a living, for that matter – is a theater of competition and contest whose object is an ever-more-optimal efficiency. In the neoDarwinian, neoliberal narrative, the household is not, however, a place where feeling agents pursue their individual good. The householding process is strangely conceived of as completely subject-less. Its logic does not need to take account of the actual presence of agents. Indeed, it does not need to take life into account at all.
Two Major Research Projects (MRPs) — they might be called master’s theses elsewhere — by Zaid Khan and David Akermanis reflect the Systemic Design agenda within the OCADU program on Strategic Foresight and Innovation (SFI). To graduate, all SFI students complete an MRP. With many subjects and techniques covered during SFI studies, only a few exercise Systemic Design at their core.
The September session of Systems Thinking Ontario came shortly after the defence of the two MRPs in August. As we had suspended convening in person during 2020, our monthly meeting was conducted online. This afforded recordings to be shared more widely.
The video file is also available on the Internet Archive, for those who prefer a downloadable option.
(1) A Systems-Oriented Approach to Strategic Communications — Zaid Khan
Systemic Design has emerged as both a theory and a practice that integrates design thinking and systems thinking to help designers cope with complex social systems.
In this Major Research Project, Zaid explores how strategic communications – the planned process of delivering a relevant message to a specific audience to achieve an objective – can be adapted to help organizations better respond to complex issues (wicked problems) and the variety contained within higher-order systems.
The MRP looks at this topic through a case study involving Canadian news media. The issues facing journalism and Canadian news media are complex in nature; multiple stakeholders, different organizations and industries, competing value systems, objectives, perspectives, and interests. This makes it an ideal case to examine the effects that a more systems-oriented approach to communications may have when responding to complexity.
The paper identifies the first set of learnings on: how the principles of Systemic Design can inform the development of “systems-oriented communications”, its potential value for value organizations, and future areas of research.
Biography:
With one foot coming out of the creative advertising world, and the other stepping into systemic design and systems changes, Zaid is exploring the ways people respond to complex issues.
(2) The Brand Stack: Using systems to diagnose and address barriers to organizational alignment and brand identity — David Akermanis
Most business leaders understand that brands are a reflection of cross-functional activity that spans well beyond the traditional scope of the marketing department. But, most don’t approach cross-functional management of their brands with a great deal of formality or intent. It often happens informally, or organically. Few seem to think about designing processes and structure to specifically promote brand outcomes.
In this Major Research Project, David explores how organizations might better diagnose and address systemic misalignments that prevent them from achieving brand-related outcomes. Its aim is to explore whether a “brand system” can serve a cybernetic role. One that helps management more deliberately pursue the integrative effects associated with brand orientation and the consideration of brand as a central managerial pursuit.
By employing a research through design (RtD) approach, the paper proposes that the “brand stack” might be an effective scaffold which can be used to better understand the artefacts, processes and structures that promote brand values across organizations. The brand stack conceptualizes the brand as a type of control system for the organization; one which can be deliberately designed to promote system viability.
Biography:
David has spent the last decade working in advertising, consulting and public relations, helping organizations build their brands, sharpen their strategies, and focus their marketing operations. His unique blend of experience allows him to not only help clients to carve out unique market positions and develop powerful brand expressions, but also to look inside the organisation to help design processes, roles and tools to help ensure brand success.
Akermanis, David (2020) The Brand Stack: Using brand systems to diagnose and address systemic barriers to organizational alignment and brand identity. [MRP] at http://openresearch.ocadu.ca/id/eprint/3114/
January 11: The Systems Movement: Engaging Communities with Traditions and Diversity
This message was not sent to Spam because of a filter you created.Move to spamEdit FiltersFor the first ST-ON session for the new year, we’ll have a conversation with Gary S. Metcalf. What is involved in guiding the multiple schools of systems thinking and cybernetics worldwide? As president of the International Society for the Systems Sciences (2007-2008) and the International Federation for Systems Research (2010-2016), Gary has served as a steward for the systems movement worldwide.
In my previous post, I talked about the idea of the Copernican revolution in philosophy by Immanuel Kant. In today’s post, I am expanding upon the ideas originated by Kant, especially autonomy and how it poses challenges in how we view human systems. I am also heavily relying on the ideas of Ralph Stacey. Kant had a lot to say about human autonomy. Autonomy stands for the ability to set laws for oneself or the ability to perform actions that are not directed by someone else. Kant viewed humanity as an end in itself and not a means to an end. Humans should not be used simply as a means to get something done. Humans, Kant noted, have the power to act according to their own conception of laws.
Kant was one of the pioneers of systems thinking. He understood the idea of circular causality and self-organization. Kant…
Systems Community of Inquiry 
You must be logged in to post a comment.