Transdisciplinarity Needs Systemism

systems

Concept Paper Transdisciplinarity Needs Systemism

Wolfgang Hofkirchner

Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science; Paulanergasse 13, 1040 Vienna, Austria, [email protected]

Academic Editors: Gianfranco Minati, Eliano Pessa and Ignazio Licata Received: 1 November 2016; Accepted: 10 February 2017; Published: 16 February 2017

Abstract: The main message of this paper is that systemism is best suited for transdisciplinary studies. A description of disciplinary sciences, transdisciplinary sciences and systems sciences is given, along with their different deﬁnitions of aims, scope and tools. The rationale for transdisciplinarity is global challenges, which are complex. The rationale for systemism is the concretization of understanding complexity. Drawing upon Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s intention of a General System Theory, three items deserve attention—the world-view of a synergistic systems technology, the world picture of an emergentist systems theory, and the way of thinking of an integrationist systems method.

Keywords: systems thinking; systems science; systems practice; way of thinking; world picture; world-view; integrationism; emergentism; synergism

1. Introduction Since we live in an age of global challenges, the responsibility of the members of the scientiﬁc community is a topical issue. The trend towards transdisciplinary studies can be seen in that context. Many researchers devoted to transdisciplinarity use systems terms but may fail in a sound usage of the terms. The further development of systems thinking, systems sciences and systems practice should address that demand. The paper at hand offers three clear-cut speciﬁcations of the systems paradigm that might support the transdisciplinary impetus.

2. Aims, Scope, and Tools of Science From a philosophy of science perspective, sciences can be classified according to three dimensions of knowledge: the technological (praxiological), the theoretical (ontological), and the methodological (epistemological) dimension. Technology is objectivated knowledge about objects for objectives. Theory is objectivated knowledge about objects. Methodology is knowledge of how to objectivate knowledge, that is, to process it in a social procedure such that it is not only subjective but might be used as an objective basis for knowledge about objects, which is required for fulfilling objectives. Technology incorporates the aims of scientific studies; it directs theory towards practical application. Applications intervene in the real world so as to help solve problems. Problems stand at the beginning of any science because they form ends for any science. Problems are, in the last resort, social. Sciences provide the means to reach a goal, given a point of departure. Theory embraces the scope of scientific studies; it gives deep insights in the functioning of the real world—insights that can be functionalised for the solution of problems, by informing the practice about the way to a goal from a point of departure. Methodology provides the tools of scientific studies; it is a framework through which understanding of the functioning of the real world can be generated to serve its function during problem-solving.

Systems 2017, 5, 15; doi:10.3390/systems5010015 www.mdpi.com/journal/systems Systems 2017, 5, 15 2 of 11

3. Transcending the Disciplines Scientific disciplines are determined by specific aims, by a specific scope and by specific tools. The objective is a determinate problem solution, the object of study is a determinate piece of reality, and the objectivation is guided by a determinate mixture of methods. However, given the rise of complex problems, monodisciplinary approaches do not fit the situation any more. Multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary approaches are needed. Transdisciplinarity has been gaining considerable attention since. It differs from monodisciplinarity in aims, scope, and tools. As to the aims, disciplines shall be transcended by the inclusion of stakeholders through participation in the processes of research and development as well as through diffusion of innovations, which allows them to co-determine what shall be regarded as a problem and what shall be regarded as a solution. By doing so, technological knowledge shall be constructed for solving problems that are complex. As to the scope, disciplines shall be transcended by the inclusion of interdependencies between factors across space (long-range effects), time (long-term effects), and matter (side effects) in the focus of the study. By doing so, theoretical knowledge shall be enabled to depict a bigger picture than mere isolated pieces of reality to underpin complex problem-solving. As to the tools, disciplines shall be transcended by the inclusion of a common code that shall perform the translation of concepts of one domain to those of other domains. By doing so, methodological knowledge shall orient towards the identification of similarities across domains to gain a deeper understanding of complex problems.

4. The Systems Paradigm So far, mainstream disciplines have been regarding systems practice, systems sciences, systems thinking—subsumed here under the term “systemism” (Mario Bunge)—as a determinate approach that aims at managing, intervening in, transforming, engineering or designing systems (systems technologies), which presupposes real-world systems, their dynamics and structures, or their elements as in the scope of sciences (systems theories), which, in turn, presupposes tools that frame empirical data as systems phenomena (systems methods). As such, systemism might or might not be the means of choice. Figure1 gives a sketch of systemism that is inspired by Robert Rosen’s conception of the modelling relation. His drawing shows the natural system, that is, the object to be modelled, on the left side and the formal system, that is, the model, on the right side. From the left side to the right side, there is an encoding arrow, and from the right back to the left, a decoding arrow. After Rosen, the model is an attempt to formalise causations in the object to be modelled as inferences, whereas the encoding and decoding processes cannot be formalised themselves but make modelling “as much an art, as it is a methodology”[1] (p. 54). In Figure1 the natural system is speciﬁed as a real-world system of any kind, and the formal system as those sciences that follow a systems approach. Rosen’s encoding process is turned into a framing process and his decoding process into a designing process, both of which involve creative acts. Inside the systems, sciences layers are added to represent aims, scope and tools. The arrows between those layers do not represent entailment operations but operations that involve creative acts as well in order to accomplish the jumps between systems methods, theories and technologies. However, systemism is not merely an option that can be taken up according to the researchers’ predilection. It is far more a well-founded approach best suited for cases in which transdisciplinarity is needed. This holds not only for particular projects. It has the potential to give the whole ediﬁce of sciences a new shape. Systems 2017, 5, 15 3 of 11 Systems 2017, 5, 15 3 of 11

Systems 2017, 5, 15 3 of 11

Figure 1. Modelling Systems. Figure 1. Modelling Systems.

The customary description of sciences involves (see Figure 2) The customary description of sciencesFigure involves1. Modelling (see Systems. Figure2 ) (a) philosophy on the uppermost general level; (a)(b) Theformalphilosophy customary sciences, on thedescription real uppermost-world ofsciences, sciences general and level;involves applied (see sciences Figure on 2) a next level and

(b)(a)(c) philosophysubgroupsformal sciences, ofon the the real-world formeruppermost—as sciences, logicgeneral and and level; mathematics applied sciences in the on case a next of levelformal and sciences, as natural (c)(b) formalsciencessubgroups sciences, such of as the realphysics, former—as-world etc., sciences, and logic social and and mathematics andapplied human sciences sciences in the on case asuch next of as level formal sociology, and sciences, etc., in as the natural case (c) subgroupsofsciences real-world such of asthe sciences, physics, former and— etc.,as as logic and engineering social and mathematics and science human (thatsciencesin the develops case such of as formal technological sociology, sciences, etc., in innovations)as thenatural case sciencessuchof real-world as computer such as sciences, physics, science, and etc., etc., as and and engineering social management and sciencehuman science (thatsciences and develops sciencesuch as technological ofsociology, arts (that etc., develop innovations) in the social case ofinnovations)such real as-world computer in sciences, the science, case andof etc.,applied as and engineering sciences management— scienceand science (that and develops science technological of arts (that develop innovations) social

(d) suchtheirinnovations) assub computer-disciplines in the science, case and of sub etc., applied-sub and-disciplines, sciences—andmanagement and science so forth, and on science ever more of arts specific (that levels.develop social (d) innovations)their sub-disciplines in the case and of sub-sub-disciplines, applied sciences—and and so forth, on ever more speciﬁc levels. (d) their sub-disciplines and sub-sub-disciplines, and so forth, on ever more specific levels.

Figure 2. The Edifice of Sciences from a positivistic perspective.

Those sciences areFigure imagined 2. The Edificeto have of Scienceswell-defined from a boundaries positivistic perspective. and to interact at best without Figure 2. The Edifice of Sciences from a positivistic perspective. undergoing fundamental changes themselves. Thus is the image of positivist sciences. ThoseSystemism sciences comes are imagined with a new to have understanding well-definedwell-defined of boundaries sciences (see and to Figure interact 3). at The bestbest systemist withoutwithout undergoingconception fundamentalfundamental of sciences changeschanges assumes themselves.themselves. semi-permeable ThusThus isis thethe boundaries imageimage ofof positivistpositivist and upward sciences.sciences. and downward interactionsSystemism across comes comes the withlevels wit ah between new a new understanding all understanding sciences.of This sciences is of substantiated sciences (see Figure (see through3 ). Figure The systemist defining 3). The conceptionany systemist science ofconceptionin sciencesthe context assumes of of sciencesdiscovering, semi-permeable assumes describing semi boundaries -andpermeable dealing and boundarieswith upward an overall and and downward systemic upward interconnectedness. interactions and downward across theinteractionsAccordingly, levels between across formal the all sciences sciences.levels between become This is all substantiated part sciences. of a systemsThis through is substantiated methodology defining through any that science embraces defining in the formalany context science and of discovering,innon the-formal context methodsdescribing of discovering, to and understand dealing describing with systems an and overall dealing features; systemic with real an interconnectedness.-world overall sciences systemic turn Accordingly,interconnectedness. into a science formal of sciencesAccordingly,different becomereal - formalworld part systems sciences of a systems that become can methodology be part categorised of a that systems as embraces material methodology formal systems, and that living non-formal embraces (material) methodsformal systems and to understandnonand- formalsocial (living) systems methods systems, features; to understand and real-world applied systems sciencessciences features; turnturn intoout real ato- scienceworld be a science sciences of different of tuthern real-world artificial into a sciencedesign systems of thatdifferentthose can systems. be real categorised-world Any sciencesystems as material is that open can systems, to be further categorised living specifications (material) as material systems of subsystems, systems, and social living sub (living)- subsystems(material) systems, systems and and so andon. social (living) systems, and applied sciences turn out to be a science of the artificial design of those systems. Any science is open to further specifications of subsystems, sub-subsystems and so on.

Systems 2017, 5, 15 4 of 11 applied sciences turn out to be a science of the artiﬁcial design of those systems. Any science is open to Systemsfurther 2017 speciﬁcations, 5, 15 of subsystems, sub-subsystems and so on. 4 of 11

FigureFigure 3. 3. TheThe Edifice Ediﬁce of of Sciences Sciences from from a a systems systems perspective.

ThusThus a a lively body body of of scientific scientific knowledge can can be be considered considered as as growing and developing along along thethe feed feed-forward-forward and and feedback feedback cycles cycles in in the the direction direction of of new generalisations (upward) (upward) and and new new specificationsspecifications (downward), (downward), while while consistency consistency is is taken taken care care of of and and the the silos silos of of the the disciplines in in the the positivist perspective are broken up for the benefitbenefit of a convergent wholewhole ofof science.science. SySystemismstemism has has been beeneffecting effecting a aparadigm paradigm shift shift that that can can transform transform positivist positivist disciplines disciplines into parts into partsof an overarching of an overarching transdisciplinary transdisciplinary endeavour. endeavour. Of course, Of there course, have there been have drawbacks: been drawbacks: the resistance the resistanceof the positivist of the science positivist establishment science establishment has proven strong;has proven systemism strong; has systemism itself branched has itself into abranched plethora intoof different a plethora schools. of different Though schools. systems Though terms systems have flooded terms the have disciplines, flooded the the disciplines, meaning of the the meaning terms is ofheterogeneous. the terms is heterogeneous. So the paradigm So shiftthe paradigm is far from shift being is far completed. from being completed. TheThe need forfor sciencescience and and technology technology responses responses to to global global challenges challenges in an in intelligentan intelligent way way has beenhas beensupporting supporting the attraction the attraction of transdisciplinarity of transdisciplinarity among among the scientific the scientific community. community. DrawingDrawing on on Ludwig Ludwig von von Bertalanffy’s Bertalanffy’s intention intention to to form form a General a General System System Theory Theory [2], [ 2as], well as well as severalas several other other compatible compatible insights insights revolving revolving around around issues issues such such as complexity, as complexity, emergence, emergence, and selfand-organisation, self-organisation, can help can helpsharpen sharpen transdisciplinary transdisciplinary efforts. efforts. In particular, In particular, it is these it is thesefeatures features that playthat play an innovative an innovative part part in supporting in supporting the the transdisciplinary transdisciplinary agenda: agenda: systems systems technolog technologiesies can can be be characterisedcharacterised by a newnew worldworld view,view, systems systems theories theories by by a a new new world world picture, picture, and and systems systems methods methods by bya new a new way way of thinking.of thinking. TheThe discussion of of these issues here will follow the systems modelling processes sketched in in FigureFigure 11 andand startstart atat thethe bottombottom levellevel withwith framingframing systems.systems.

4.1.4.1. A A New, New, Systemic Way of Thinking for Transdisciplinarity: Integrationism ComplexComplex problems problems need need an an epistemological epistemological approach approach that that does does justice justice to the to complexity the complexity of reality of realityfrom which from systemswhich systems phenomena phenomena emanate. emanate. In many In cases, many if cases, not in if any not case, in any an assumptioncase, an assumption has to be hasmade to aboutbe made which about is the which interrelation is the interrelation of phenomena of phenomena of different degreesof different of complexity: degrees of how complexity: does the howlower-complexity does the lower phenomenon-complexity phenomenon relate to the higher-complexity relate to the higher phenomenon-complexity phenomenon (and vice versa)? (and vice versa)?This is a question of the way of thinking. There are, in principle, three (or four) possibilities [3] (see TableThis is1). a question of the way of thinking. There are, in principle, three (or four) possibilities [3] (see Table 1).

Systems 2017, 5, 15 5 of 11

Table 1. Ways of thinking.

Complexities Identity and Differences levelling down identity at the cost of differences reductionism higher complexity (uniformity not diversity) universalism identity for the beneﬁt of one difference projectionism levelling up lower complexity (uniformity not diversity) segregating degrees any difference at the cost of identity particularism: disjunctionism of complexity (singularity or duality/plurality not unity) identity and differences united conjoining complexity degrees (dialectic of unity through diversity, systemic framing: integrationism of several levels through including as less unity as necessary and as integration and differentiation much diversity as possible)

First, there is a universalist way of thinking that gives priority to uniformity over diversity. It comes in two varieties:

(a) the levelling down of phenomena of higher complexity to phenomena of lower complexity; identity of the phenomena is established at the cost of differences; this is known as reductionism; (b) the levelling up of phenomena of lower complexity to phenomena of higher complexity; identity of the phenomena is established for the beneﬁt of one difference; this is called “projectionism”; higher complexity is erroneously conceptualised at a level where it does not exist.

The second way of thinking is a particularist one. Priority is given to the singularity of a difference or the plurality of all differences over unity. The disjoining of phenomena of different degrees of complexity establishes the identity of a particular difference or identities of any difference, thus an equivalence of differences—indifference—at the cost of an identity common to the phenomena. That is called “disjunctionism”. A third option is that way of thinking that inheres in systemism. It negates universalism and particularism as well and interrelates phenomena to each other through integration and differentiation of their complexity degrees. The union of identity and differences yields unity through diversity. That is the meaning of integrationism here. That is, the phenomenon with a lower degree of complexity shares with the phenomenon with a higher degree of complexity at least one property, which makes both of them, to a certain extent, identical, but the latter phenomenon is in the exclusive possession of at least another property, which makes it, to a certain extent, distinct from the former. So both phenomena are identical and different at the same time. The method of transdisciplinarity can take advantage of bringing this new systems method to bear: framing the phenomena through the equilibration of integration and differentiation during the processes of conceptualisation in order to rule out reductionist, projectionist, and disjunctionist ways of thinking. Example. Let us take the relationship of social science and engineering science as an example for how to transcend the borders of both disciplines by making use of a systemic framing and transform their relationship into a true transdisciplinary one (see Table2). Systems 2017, 5, 15 6 of 11

Table 2. Ways of thinking in society and technology.

Complexities Identity and Differences the conception of the artificial is sufficient technomorphism man is deemed a machine for comprehending social forms the machine is the conception of social forms is necessary anthropo-socio-morphism deemed man-like for comprehending the artificial social forms are construed as distinctive socio-centrism man is deemed exclusive over and against the artificial the machine is the artificial is construed as distinctive over hetero-morphism techno-centrism deemed exclusive and against social forms man and machine are both social and artificial forms are relativism deemed apart construed side by side the understandings of social and artificial systemic framing: man and machine are forms join into the understanding of techno-social systems deemed nested techno-social systems

In order to combine social science with engineering science, representatives of the latter might be inclined to reduce that which is human to that which is engineerable: man is deemed a machine. Operation Research, Cybernetics, Robotics, Mechatronics, the fields of Artificial Intelligence and so-called Autonomous Systems, among others, are liable to cut the understanding of man who is a social being free from the understanding of social relations; the conception of the human body free from the conception of individual actors; and conceiving of mechanics free from conceiving of the organism. Mechanical architectures and functioning that are constituents among others of human life structures and processes are analysed and hypostatised as sufficient for the comprehension of man (“technomorphism”). Or representatives of social sciences—not unlike those of other disciplines—might share a predilection to understand the whole world, including artifactual mechanics, by projecting characteristics of the social world onto the former: the machine is deemed man-like. Actor-Network Theory, Deep Ecology, New Materialism, Info-Computationalism and others are prone to blur the boundaries between the social sciences and the sciences of living things, between the latter and the sciences of physical things and, eventually, between the sciences of physical things and engineering sciences by attributing human features to any of those non-social disciplines. The conception of social forms is thought necessary for the comprehension of everything. That is blunt anthroposociomorphism. Segregation might be made for the sake of either the identity of social science or that of engineering science: anthropocentric or, better, sociocentric positions traditionally distinguish the investigation of man as exclusive and belittle engineering undertakings, whereas trans- and post-humanistic positions argue for an imminent advent of a technological singularity that will make machines outperform man and thus the human race obsolescent. However, segregation might also promote the juxtaposition of social science and engineering science: they co-exist, any of them is worth as much as the other, and there are no grounds for giving supremacy to what counts as social forms or what counts as technological forms (relativism). Both are conceived as reciprocally exclusive (“heteromorphism”). No one of these options does establish true transdisciplinarity. In the case of technomorphism, social science gives up any autonomy and is invaded by engineering science. In the case of anthroposociomorphism, any autonomy of engineering science is forfeited, as social science projects its autonomy onto engineering science. In the case of heteromorphism, each discipline claims full autonomy over its own, self-contained area. A way out can be seen through an approach that assumes an interrelation of both disciplines in a systemic framework that grants (relative) autonomy to each of them according to their place in the overall framework. Both disciplines complement each other for the sake of a greater whole. That greater whole is achieved by framing both disciplines in a systems perspective, that is, by framing them as part of systems science. As such, social and Systems 2017, 5, 15 7 of 11

autonomy over its own, self-contained area. A way out can be seen through an approach that assumes an interrelation of both disciplines in a systemic framework that grants (relative) autonomy to each of them according to their place in the overall framework. Both disciplines complement each

Systemsother for2017 the, 5, 15sake of a greater whole. That greater whole is achieved by framing both disciplines7 ofin 11 a systems perspective, that is, by framing them as part of systems science. As such, social and engineering sciences combine for a common understanding of the systemic relationship of society engineeringand technology sciences—of emerging combine fortechno a common-social systems. understanding They make of the use systemic of systems relationship methodologies of society for andempirically technology—of studying emerging social systems techno-social and the systems.artifactual They in the make context use of of systems technological methodologies applications for empiricallyimplemented studying by social social systems systems design. and By the doing artifactual so, they in thecan contextform a ofnever technological-ending cycle applications in which implementedeach of them has by social a determinate systems design. place: social By doing systems so, they science can formcan inform a never-ending engineering cycle systems in which science each ofby them providing has a determinate facts about place: social social functions systems in thescience social can system inform that engineering might be systems supported science with by providingtechnologi factscal means; about social engineering functions systems in the social science system can providethat might technological be supported options with technological that fit the means;social functions engineering in the systems envisaged science techno can-social provide system; technological social systems options science that ﬁt can, the in social turn, functions investigate in thethe envisagedsocial impact techno-social of the applied system; technological social systems option science in the can, tech in turn,no-social investigate system the and social provide impact facts of theabout applied the working technological of technology. option in the The techno-social social and the system engineering and provide parts facts of techno about- thesocial working systems of technology.science are Thecoupled social so and as to the promote engineering an integrated parts of techno-social technology systemsassessment science and are technology coupled sodesign as to promotecycle in a an transdisciplinary integrated technology sense. assessment and technology design cycle in a transdisciplinary sense.

4.2. A New, SystemicSystemic PicturePicture ofof thethe WorldWorld forfor Transdisciplinarity:Transdisciplinarity: EmergentismEmergentism Systems theories theories provide provide an an ontology ontology in which in which complex complex problems problems are pictured are pictured as complex as complex because theybecause take they part intake an part overall in interconnectedness an overall interconnectedness of processes of and processes structures and that structures are constituted that are by self-organisingconstituted by real-world self-organising systems. real Those-world systems systems. bring Those about systemsevolution bring and nestedness about evolution as emergent and featuresnestedness of reality.as emergent features of reality. The world is pictured according to a multi-stagemulti-stage model of evolutionary systems [4] [4] (see Figure Figure 44).).

Figure 4. Figure 4. TheThe multi-stagemulti-stage model of evolutionary systems.

Systems evolve during a phase n. Spontaneously, atat a certain point in time, a leap in complexity emerges and and one one possibility possibility out out of the of the space space of possibilities of possibilities that are that rooted are rooted in the reality in the of reality the systems of the duringsystems the during phase the n (whichphase n form (which the form necessary the necessary condition condition for the transition for the transition to phase to n +phase 1) is realisedn + 1) is suchrealised that such new organisational that new organisational relations emerge. relations Those emerge. organisational Those organisational relations realise relations a higher realise order in a thathigher they order nest in the that old they systems nest the n asold elements systems nn +as 1 elements of the new n + systems 1 of the nnew + 1 systems during then + 1 phase during n +the 1. Thusphase they n + form 1. Thus another they level form n +another 1 above level the level n + 1n thatabove is being the level reontologised, n that is being reworked, reontologised, reshaped. Emergencereworked, reshaped. of new systems Emergence in the of course new systems of evolution in the (differentiation) course of evolution entails (differentiation) dominance of higherentails levelsdominance through of the higher reconﬁguration levels throu ofgh what the is reconfiguration taken over from ofthe what old (integration). is taken over from the old (integration).Emergentism (another term coined by Bunge) is an important ingredient of systems theories.Emergentism It helps understand(another term events coined and by entities Bunge) that is an function important as ingredient less than strict of systems deterministically. theories. It Transdisciplinarityhelps understand must events take and into consideration entities that less-than-strict function as less determinism, than strict which deterministically. means that the mechanismsTransdisciplinarity of the realmust world take areinto not consideration machine-like. less-than-strict determinism, which means that the mechanismsEmergentism of the real provides world anare not ontological machine- superstructurelike. for epistemological integrationism. IntegrationismEmergentism can integrate provides because an ontological evolution superstructure lets new features for emerge. epistemological integrationism. IntegrationismExample. caLetn integrate us consider because the evolution issue of lets anthroposociogenesis new features emerge. [5 ] as an example for the transcendence of natural and cultural science towards a true transdiscipline of anthropology by a systemic image of the evolutionary formation of society and humans. In naturalistic accounts, the advent of human culture is owed to the development of nature. The former is the necessary result of the latter. Anatomic features such as cerebral growth, the descent Systems 2017, 5, 15 8 of 11

Example. Let us consider the issue of anthroposociogenesis [5] as an example for the transcendence of natural and cultural science towards a true transdiscipline of anthropology by a systemic image of the evolutionary formation of society and humans. SystemsIn2017 naturalistic, 5, 15 accounts, the advent of human culture is owed to the development of nature.8 The of 11 former is the necessary result of the latter. Anatomic features such as cerebral growth, the descent of the larynx, bipedalism and the opposable thumb and the fingers, among others, are named as biologicalof the larynx, traits bipedalism that seem to and have the caused opposable psychic thumb functions and the such fingers, as thought, among the others, ability are to speak named and as thebiological ability traitsto devise that and seem manufacture to have caused artefacts, psychic in functionsparticular suchtools. as thought, the ability to speak and the abilityOne variety to devise of andculturalism manufacture would artefacts, conflate inthe particular distinction tools. between nature and culture as well, postulatingOne variety that cultural of culturalism features would occur conflatein pre-human the distinction life and overemphasising between nature andthe continuity culture as from well, naturalpostulating to cultural that cultural evolution. features occur in pre-human life and overemphasising the continuity from naturalAnother to cultural variety evolution. of culturalism would postulate a discontinuity between nature and culture and denyAnother any comparability. variety of culturalism Both spheres would are considered postulate a to discontinuity be ontologically between independent nature and of cultureeach other, and anddeny therefore, any comparability. on that basis Both they spheres might areinteract. considered to be ontologically independent of each other, and therefore,In contradistinction, on that basis emergentism they might interact.sees nature as the necessary condition upon which culture as an evolutionaryIn contradistinction, contingency emergentism could emerge. sees natureIn turn, as culture, the necessary as a supra condition-system, upon began which to culturedominate as viaan evolutionarythe higher-order contingency structure could from emerge. which it In had turn, taken culture, its departure as a supra-system, (see Figure began 5). toThe dominate key idea via is thatthe higher-orderit is possibilities structure of from co-operation which it hadthat, taken when its realised, departure made (see Figure the difference5). The key in idea evolution. is that Evolutionaryit is possibilities pressure of co-operation unfolded that, a ratchet when realised, effect that made yielded the difference ever higher in evolution. complex Evolutionary cooperation. Michaelpressure Tomasello unfolded acharacterises ratchet effect the that life yielded of our ever great higher ape complexancestors cooperation. as “mostly individualistic Michael Tomasello and competitive”characterises the[6] (p. life 4). of The our ancestors great ape were ancestors “individually as “mostly intentional individualistic and instrumentally and competitive” rational” [6] (p. [6] 4). (p.The 30) ancestors as greatwere apes “individuallyare still today. intentional It was not before and instrumentally taking advantage rational” of going [6] (p.beyond 30) as “individual great apes intentionality”are still today. It and was ado notpting before “more taking complex advantage forms of ofgoing cooperative beyond “individual sociality” [6] intentionality” (p. 31) that early and humansadopting began “more to complex speciate. forms This of brought cooperative about sociality” “shared [intentionality”6] (p. 31) that early and humansenabled beganthem to speciate.achieve sharedThis brought goals. about In particular, “shared intentionality” Tomasello hypothesises and enabled two them steps to achieve towards shared a differentiat goals. Ined particular, shared intentionality.Tomasello hypothesises A first step two occurred steps towards “in the a context differentiated of collaborative shared intentionality. foraging” [6] A (p. first 33) step around occurred two “inmillion the context years of ago collaborative with a culmination foraging” [6 400,000] (p. 33) aroundyears ago. two million This was years a ago step with from a culmination individual intentionality400,000 years to ago. joint This intentionality, was a step from the individual competitive intentionality sociality of to great joint ape intentionality, ancestors to from ad hoc the dyadiccompetitive relationships sociality of with great a ape “significant ancestors other” to ad hoc (G. dyadic H. Mead). relationships Multiple with and a “significantvanishing dyadic other” relationships(G. H. Mead). formed Multiple in andwhich vanishing early humans dyadic relationshipsshared a joint formed goal. A in second which earlystep led humans from sharedearly to a modernjoint goal. humans A second some step 200,000 led from years early ago. toThey modern became humans “thoroughly some 200,000 group- yearsminded ago. individuals” They became [6] “thoroughly(p. 80) in larger group-minded groups, in individuals” which they [6 “had] (p. 80) to be in larger prepared groups, to coordinate in which they with “had anyone to be from prepared the group,to coordinate with some with kind anyone of fromgeneric the other” group, [6] with (p. some 81). This kind was of generic a step other” from joint [6] (p. intenti 81).onality This was to collectivea step from intentionality, joint intentionality a step to to the collective co-operation intentionality, within a alarger step togroup the co-operationorganisation (culture) within a largeras the “generalisedgroup organisation other” (culture)(Mead). Every as the step “generalised was a step other” of emergence (Mead). Every of social step systems was a step in a of new emergence quality owedof social to systems the contingent in a new realisation quality owed of posto thesible contingent social relations realisation that of represent possible social a higher relations order that of cooperationrepresent a higher and orderreconfigure of cooperation the old and system. reconfigure By accepting the old system. the interplay By accepting of emergence the interplay and of dominance,emergence andthe objects dominance, of natural the objects science of and natural cultural science science and reveal cultural their science systemic reveal interrelationship their systemic andinterrelationship give way to and a true give transdisciplinary way to a true transdisciplinary theory of the origins theory (and of the evolution) origins (and of human, evolution) social of systems.human,social systems.

Figure 5. The emergence of cultural systems from natural systems through relations of joint cooperation and collective cooperation.

Systems 2017, 5, 15 9 of 11

SystemsFigure2017, 5 , 5. 15 The emergence of cultural systems from natural systems through relations of joint9 of 11 cooperation and collective cooperation. 4.3. A New, Systemic World View for Transdisciplinarity: Synergism 4.3. A New, Systemic World View for Transdisciplinarity: Synergism Acting in the face of complex problems is based on praxiological assumptions about the Acting in the face of complex problems is based on praxiological assumptions about the interference with self-organising systems. Known mechanisms can be furthered or dampened interference with self-organising systems. Known mechanisms can be furthered or dampened according to what the goal shall be. according to what the goal shall be. In the course of evolution, systems move on trajectories on which bifurcations occur. Bifurcations In the course of evolution, systems move on trajectories on which bifurcations occur. come up with a variety of possible future trajectories. Systems might not be in the position to avert Bifurcations come up with a variety of possible future trajectories. Systems might not be in the devolution (a path that leads to the breakdown of the system) or they might be able to achieve a position to avert devolution (a path that leads to the breakdown of the system) or they might be able leap from the previous level of evolution on which they could enjoy a steady state onto a higher to achieve a leap from the previous level of evolution on which they could enjoy a steady state onto a level which forms part of a successful mega-evolution (a breakthrough to a path that transforms the higher level which forms part of a successful mega-evolution (a breakthrough to a path that system) [7] (p. 314) [8] (pp. 103–104). Ampliﬁed ﬂuctuations of parameters indicate possible and transforms the system) [7] (p. 314) [8] (pp. 103–104). Amplified fluctuations of parameters indicate necessary punctuations (see Figure6). possible and necessary punctuations (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. Bifurcations in systems evolution.

Self-organisingSelf-organising systemssystems have have as as raison raison d’etre d’etre the the provision provision and and production production of synergeticof synergetic effects effects [9]. If[9]. the If organisationalthe organisational relations relations are not are able not any able more any tomore provide to provide and help and the help elements the elements produce produce synergy, thesynergy, system the will system break will down. break Hindrances down. Hindrances of letting of synergyletting synergy emerge emerge are called are frictions.called frictions. Any social Any systemsocial system is a social is a social system system by virtue by virtue of organisational of organisational relations relations of production of production and and provision provision of the of commonthe common good, good that, that is, the is, commonsthe commons are theare socialthe social manifestation manifestation of synergy of synergy [10]. [10]. Hindrances Hindrances of the of commonsthe commons supply supply are frictionsare frictions that arethat systemic are systemic dysfunctions dysfunctions due to due the to suboptimal the suboptimal organisation organisation of the synergeticof the synergetic effects. effects. Any meaningful Any meaningful technology technology is oriented is oriented towards towards the alleviation the alleviation of frictions of frictions and the advancementand the advancement of synergy. of synergy. Thus systems systems technologies technologies can can help help orient orient transdisciplinarity. transdisciplinarity. Meaningful technology is technology endowedendowed withwith meaningmeaning byby (1) the participation of those affected in an integrated technology assessment and design process (1) the participation of those affected in an integrated technology assessment and design process (that is, design builds upon assessment); (that is, design builds upon assessment); (2) for the reflection of the expected and actual usage of technology: the assessment and design (2) for the reﬂection of the expected and actual usage of technology: the assessment and design criterion is social usefulness, that is, the reflection of both; criterion is social usefulness, that is, the reﬂection of both; (a) the adequacy to the purpose (utility; operational knowledge: know-how) and (b) the purpose itself (the function technology serves; orientational knowledge: know why and (a) the adequacy to the purpose (utility; operational knowledge: know-how) and what for). (b) the purpose itself (the function technology serves; orientational knowledge: know why and what for). The purpose is advancing the commons. Synergism, the orientation towards synergy for every real-world system and towards the The purpose is advancing the commons. human value of the commons in the case of social systems—which is a world-view Synergism, the orientation towards synergy for every real-world system and towards the human (weltanschauung) because it is value-laden—is the praxiological superstructure for emergentism. value of the commons in the case of social systems—which is a world-view (weltanschauung) because Synergy emerges, emergence brings about synergy. it is value-laden—is the praxiological superstructure for emergentism. Synergy emerges, emergence Example. Let us turn to the crises that manifest themselves in the tension between social brings about synergy. systems on the level of today’s nation states as well as within every such social system regarding Example. Let us turn to the crises that manifest themselves in the tension between social systems their subsystems such as, in particular, the cultural, the political, the economic, the ecological on the level of today’s nation states as well as within every such social system regarding their

Systems 2017, 5, 15 10 of 11

Systems 2017, 5, 15 10 of 11 subsystems such as, in particular, the cultural, the political, the economic, the ecological (eco-social) and the(eco technological-social) and the (techno-social) technological subsystems, (techno-social) which subsystems, means that which several means branches that of several social sciencesbranches are of challenged.social sciences The are critical challenged. situation The might critical be complicated situation might or complex be complicated to analyse. Sometimes or complex it to is said analyse. that complicatedness—theSometimes it is said that presence compli ofcatedness many factors—the that presence inﬂuence of many each otherfactors —is that not influence an obstacle each that other we would—is not not an be obstacle able to that overcome. we would However, not be the able opposite to overcome. might beHowever, true. The the huge opposite amount might of options be true. of interventions—proposedThe huge amount of options by different of interventions disciplines—might—proposed actually by different pose a practical disciplines difﬁculty.—might However, actually onpose the a otherpractical hand, difficulty. the situation However, we face on nowadays the other is hand, rather the complex. situation In addition,we face nowadays if complexity is entersrather thecomplex. stage, problem-solving In addition, if complexity is also possible enters despite the opposite stage, problem views—in-solving a true is transdisciplinary also possible despite effort. oppositeToday, views enclosures—in a true of transdisciplinary the commons have effort. been aggravated to such a degree that all of them morphedToday, into enclosu global challenges.res of the commons Global challenges have been drive aggravated an accumulation to such of a crises degree that that mark all a decisiveof them bifurcation.morphed into A Great global Bifurcation challenges. lies Global ahead challenges of humanity drive (see Figurean accumulation7)[11]. of crises that mark a decisive bifurcation. A Great Bifurcation lies ahead of humanity (see Figure 7) [11].

Figure 7. The Great Bifurcation in social systems evolution.

On the one hand, a possible change never seen before might be imminent—a transformation of On the one hand, a possible change never seen before might be imminent—a transformation of the current state of civilisation into a new state that brings about a peaceful, environmentally sound the current state of civilisation into a new state that brings about a peaceful, environmentally sound and socially and economically just and inclusive world society by the integration of differentiated and socially and economically just and inclusive world society by the integration of differentiated interdependent social systems. That rise in complexity is possible. If there is a mismatch between the interdependent social systems. That rise in complexity is possible. If there is a mismatch between the complexity of a system and the complexity of the problems faced by the system, that system can complexity of a system and the complexity of the problems faced by the system, that system can catch catch up. It can solve the problem by activating the collective intelligence of the co-systems it is made up. It can solve the problem by activating the collective intelligence of the co-systems it is made up up of and raise the complexity of its organisational relations or by activating the collective of and raise the complexity of its organisational relations or by activating the collective intelligence intelligence of co-systems of its own and raise the complexity of that supra-system in which they are of co-systems of its own and raise the complexity of that supra-system in which they are nested in nested in order to match or surpass the complexity faced. Intelligence is the capability of order to match or surpass the complexity faced. Intelligence is the capability of self-organising systems self-organising systems to generate that information which contributes in the best way to solving to generate that information which contributes in the best way to solving problems. The better their problems. The better their collective intelligence, that is, the better their problem-solving capacity collective intelligence, that is, the better their problem-solving capacity and the better their capability and the better their capability to generate information, the better their handling of the crisis and the to generate information, the better their handling of the crisis and the order they can reach. Higher order they can reach. Higher complexity not only signifies a higher degree of differentiation. At least complexity not only signifies a higher degree of differentiation. At least as importantly, it signifies as importantly, it signifies a new quality of integration. Only a new level of integration can deal with a new quality of integration. Only a new level of integration can deal with an intensification of an intensification of differentiation. The new system would disclose the commons. “It would be a differentiation. The new system would disclose the commons. “It would be a Global Sustainable Global Sustainable Information Society (GSIS). Information Society (GSIS). GSIS requires, GSIS requires,

(1)(1) forfor the the first ﬁrst time time in the history of our planet, on a higher social level—thatlevel—that is, globally—globally— (2) a reorganisation of the social relations within and in between the interdependent social systems (2) a reorganisation of the social relations within and in between the interdependent social such that sociogenic dysfunctions with respect to the social, the social-ecological and the systems such that sociogenic dysfunctions with respect to the social, the social-ecological and socio-technological realms can be contained—that is, a transformation into sustainable the socio-technological realms can be contained—that is, a transformation into sustainable development — development — (3) through conscious and conscientious actors that are not only self- but also (3) through conscious and conscientious actors that are not only self- but also community-concerned—that is, under well-determined informational conditions.” [11] (15) community-concerned—that is, under well-determined informational conditions.” [11] (15) On the other hand, a decline in complexity might be imminent, eventually leading to disintegration of allegedly independent social systems. Civilisation would fall apart. Systemism is key to tackling complex problems such as the reciprocal influences of varying kinds of factors dealt with on the basis of varying disciplinary backgrounds within the social

Systems 2017, 5, 15 11 of 11

On the other hand, a decline in complexity might be imminent, eventually leading to disintegration of allegedly independent social systems. Civilisation would fall apart. Systemism is key to tackling complex problems such as the reciprocal inﬂuences of varying kinds of factors dealt with on the basis of varying disciplinary backgrounds within the social sciences in a transdisciplinary way. It is thus key to tackling global challenges and guiding the transformation of our social systems onto the next level of cooperation through a social systems design based upon social systems technologies.

5. Conclusions In summary, systemic transdisciplinarity

(1) aims—by a systems world-view—at providing scientific knowledge for solving problems of frictions in the functioning of real-world systems, in particular in processes of the provision and production of the commons in social systems through meaningful systems technologies that support the re-organisation of social systems in order to safeguard sustainable development and rule out self-inflicted breakdowns; (2) has as its scope the functioning of emergent real-world systems in the interconnectedness of their evolution and their nestedness, the scientific knowledge of which is a theoretical systems world picture needed for alleviating frictions; (3) uses tools that generate scientific knowledge through a systems way of thinking by the method of equilibrating integration and differentiation for a proper understanding of how complexity grows.

Systemism has the power to transform the disciplines.

Conﬂicts of Interest: The author declares no conﬂict of interest.

References

1. Rosen, R. Life Itself ; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991. 2. Bertalanffy, L.V. General System Theory; With a Foreword by Wolfgang Hofkirchner & David Rousseau; George Braziller: New York, NY, USA, 2015. 3. Hofkirchner, W. Four ways of thinking in information. Triple-C: J. Glob. Sustain. Infor. Soc. 2011, 9, 322–331. 4. Hofkirchner, W. Emergent Information, a Unified Theory of Information Framework; World Scientific: Singapore, 2013. 5. Hofkirchner, W. Ethics from Systems: Origin, Development and Current State of Normativity. In Morphogenesis and the Crisis of Normativity; Archer, M.S., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 279–295. 6. Tomasello, M. A Natural History of Human Thinking; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014. 7. Haefner, K. Information Processing at the Sociotechnical Level. In Evolution of Information Processing Systems; Haefner, K., Ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1992; pp. 307–319. 8. Oeser, E. Mega-Evolution of Information Processing Systems. In Evolution of Information Processing Systems; Haefner, K., Ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1992; pp. 103–111. 9. Corning, P. The Synergism Hypothesis; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1983. 10. Hofkirchner, W. Creating Common Good. The Global Sustainable Information Society as the Good Society. In Morphogenesis and Human Flourishing; Archer, M.S., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2017; in print. 11. Hofkirchner, W. Information for a Global Sustainable Information Society. In The Future Information Society, Social and Technological Problems; Hofkirchner, W., Burgin, M., Eds.; Wolrd Scientific: Singapore, 2017; pp. 11–33.

© 2017 by the author; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).