Peace: Making Sense of the Issues

Given the popularity of General Systems Theory today it may come as something of a surprise to some that when it was first proposed it was thought to be fantastic or presumptuous. Here is what Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the founder of General Systems Theory wrote in his seminal work on the subject:

Either—it was argued—it was trivial because the so-called isomorphisms were mere examples of the truism that mathematics can be applied to all sorts of things, and it therefore carried no more weight than the “discovery” that 2+2=4 holds true for apples, dollars and galaxies alike; or it was false and misleading because superficial analogies—as in the famous simile of society as an “organism”—camouflage actual differences and so lead to wrong and even morally objectionable conclusions. Or, again, it was philosophically and methodologically unsound because the alleged “irreducibility” of higher levels to lower ones tended to impede analytical research whose success was obvious in various fields such as in the reduction of chemistry to physical principles, or of life phenomena to molecular biology. [Ludwig von Bertalanffy, (1968). General Systems Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. Braziller: New York. p. 14.]

Many efforts have been made to define a system, each one emphasizing different perspectives. The most effective definition may be the one offered by Gene Bellinger which he claims he owes to von Bertalanffy. He defined a system as “an entity which maintains its existence through the mutual interaction of its parts.” It contains three important ideas about a system: 1. it is an entity, 2. it exists to maintain its existence, 3. It does so through mutual interaction of its parts.

We have already discussed the first in our blog about the distinction between organizations and organisms. The second and third ideas highlight the need for cooperative coexistence, both among humans as individuals and among the various groups into which humans organize themselves. Each system exists to maintain its own existence.

Let us suppose that System 1 has three components: System A, System B, and System C. System A does not exist to be concerned about either the existence of System B or of System C. As far as System A is concerned, the existence of System B or of System C is a non-issue. Any concern that System A has for System B and System C only exists because of System 1 to which all three belong. Under our definition of a system and the concept of systemic reality, it is the responsibility of System 1 to ensure the mutual interaction of System A, System B and System C. System A has no responsibility for System B or System C.

From the perspective of System A, anything that is not one of its components is an enemy, and anything that is perceived to be an enemy will be repelled in order to maintain the existence of System A. It is important to note that this determination does not depend on the geographic placement of that thing.

From a human perspective, it is important to note that group or system identity is independent of geographic location or consciousness. You do not have to be aware that you belong to a system for the principles of systemic reality to apply to you.

Let’s take the case of the hermit sitting all alone on a mountaintop. As far as he is concerned he does not belong to any group, but the universal principle of systemic reality overrides his awareness. Sitting there on the mountaintop he acts in ways that he perceives a hermit should behave because, unknown to him, in his solitude he is a member of a group of individuals called hermits. Even though he is out of touch with any other hermit his very existence helps to maintain the existence of the system called hermits.

You may think that you labor at your particular profession or occupation to provide sustenance. While that is true, it is even truer that by working at that job you are maintaining the existence of that class of professional worker. When it matters you take the side of your profession over that of another. You cannot help it. That is the way of systemic reality.

If we can return briefly to our earlier example, the leader of an organization intuitively knows that he has a responsibility to defend the organization. This is part of belonging to the system. He also knows that “membership” in the system does not mean that the individual identifies with the system. Given the unique human quality of pretence, members of a human system are always on the lookout for plants within the system that do not really belong. Because of the natural, unique quality of pretence, distrust is built-in to our psyche. But this distrust should be against legitimate enemies.

Being at the top of the food chain we should have no natural living enemies. Somehow, we have made enemies of each other. We have a perception problem.