TB871: Systems vs Reality in CSH
Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category.
The methodology I used for my doctoral thesis was Pragmatism, a philosophical tradition which asks questions such as what is “good in the way of belief” (William James) and considers ‘truth’ as being that which a community of inquirers would settle upon at the end of inquiry (C.S. Peirce).
As I explore Critical System Heuristics (CSH) it’s interesting to see that the originator, Werner Ulrich, was influenced by the same tradition:
[A]n important heuristic device of CSH [si] the idea of maintaining tensions between contrasting perspectives for critical purposes: “we have to maintain the contradiction or else we allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by the consistent” (Churchman, 1968/79, p. 229/230).
The second main tradition picked up in CSH is the tradition of practical philosophy. This comprises two largely independent strands of philosophical thought. On the one hand, there is the tradition of American philosophical pragmatism as rooted in the works of Charles Peirce (1878), William James (1907) and John Dewey (1925). On the other hand, there is the European tradition of critical social theory as found particularly in the works of Jurgen Habermas (e.g. 1972 and 1984/87). Both strands of practical philosophy are to an important degree rooted in Immanuel Kant’s (1787) critical philosophy, from which CSH derives many of its central concepts… The ‘American’ pragmatic perspective of CSH means that it is oriented towards practical rather than theoretical ends; accordingly, CSH employs an action-theoretical framework, that is, it looks at situations from the point of view of an agent rather than an observer. Its ‘European’ critical perspective means that CSH considers values – and value conflicts – as integral parts of all claims to rational practice; it relies on a discourse-theoretical (or ‘discursive’) framework to assist users in dealing openly and critically with the value implications of boundary judgements… The aim is to develop the two pillars of pragmatism and critique into an integrated framework of critical pragmatism, as a basis for a future ‘philosophy for professionals’ (Ulrich, 2006a, b, c, 2007/16).
(Reynolds & Ulrich, 2020, p.259)
I’m listening to Rory Stewart’s BBC Radio 4 series on The Long History of Ignorance at the moment, and it’s a perfect primer for people who want to take their very first steps into Systems Thinking. It explains why knowledge is useful, but opening the door to not-knowing, and ‘ignorance’ is useful for solving complex problems.
The point of departure for a critical systems approach as CSH understands it lies in the simple notion that the findings and conclusions of all approaches, methodologies, and methods, whether described in systems terms or not, are partial in the dual sense of (i) representing only a selection rather than the
whole of the total universe of possibly relevant considerations, and of (ii) serving some parties better than others (Ulrich 2002, p. 41; 2005, p. 2). No specific proposal, no decision, no action, no system can get a total grip on the situation and get it right for everyone (Reynolds 2008a). The implication is that using a ‘systems approach’ requires us (i) to consider systematically what our systems maps or designs may leave out and (ii) to always examine these maps or designs from multiple perspectives.(Ibid.)
Without providing ready-made step-by-step guidelines, CSH nevertheless helps us avoid three ‘traps’ to thinking that I’ve written about elsewhere: reductionism (i.e. narrow mindedness), dogmatism (i.e. an inability to appreciate other viewpoints), and the combination of holism and pluralism (i.e. presuming complete comprehensiveness and tolerance of all views). CSH is particularly good at helping avoid the last of these (The Open University, 2020a).
Two modes: ‘is’ and ‘ought’
Just like the Viable System Model (VSM), it’s possible to use CSH to evaluate an intervention (no matter which methodology has been used) or to inform a methodology to be used for an intervention. We can compare and contrast these as ‘is’ mode and ‘ought’ mode:
- ‘Is’ mode invites reflection and discourse about what the situation is. This is the descriptive analytical mode of questioning that relies principally on factual judgements.
- ‘Ought’ mode invites reflection and discourse about what the situation should be. This is the normative design mode of questioning that relies principally on value judgements.
(The Open University, 2020b)
Systems vs Reality
One of the traps that I now see people making, and especially in my work with clients through WAO, is that they see things like org charts and workflows as real things that exist in the world. They are, of course, constructs. Power does not always work in the way that an org chart describes, and work does not always happen in the way that a workflow describes.
Ulrich & Reynolds put this quite starkly, explaining that:
Acknowledging the fundamental divide between systems and reality is basic to contemporary systems practice.
(Reynolds & Ulrich, 2020, p.263)
Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and CSH both view systems this way. However, they handle this idea differently. SSM encourages practitioners to create systems models and then compare these models to the real-world problem they are trying to solve. The goal is to reflect on the system and see how well it fits with reality. CSH, on the other hand, challenges the very idea of what we consider the ‘problematical situation’real-world problem’.
Instead of just comparing the system model to reality, CSH asks us to question our assumptions about the problem itself. It suggests that the distinction between the ‘system’ and the ‘situation’ isn’t a clear-cut difference between what we know (concept) and what actually exists (reality). Rather, both are ways of talking about reality, and both involve selecting certain aspects of reality while ignoring others. Therefore, both our system models and our understanding of the problem are shaped by our judgments and assumptions, and neither can fully capture reality in an objective way.
Ways of thinking about reality
Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) uses three terms—maps, designs, and models—to describe different ways of thinking about reality, each with varying closeness to the real world (Ibid.)
- Maps: closest to reality, representing real-world features, like road maps or diagrams in science. A good map accurately reflects a part of reality but also clearly states its limitations, such as its scale or symbols. Importantly, we should remember that a map is not the actual reality, just a representation of it.
- Designs: less direct than maps, focusing on how things could or should be in the future. They help us envision changes or improvements to reality, offering a critical view of the present. Designs show us alternative possibilities, often challenging the current state of things.
- Models: a broader term that includes both maps and designs. Models are tools for thinking about reality, emphasising the idea that they simplify and abstract from the real world. A model isn’t about being close to reality but about helping us understand or design it better. (CSH itself is a type of model used for reflective thinking.)
The key idea in CSH is that whether we’re talking about maps, designs, or models, we must remember they are all just ways of representing reality, not reality itself. Even our perception of reality is like a map —a representation, not the actual thing. CSH suggests that everything we know is essentially a form of mapping or designing, and these tools vary in how abstract or detailed they are.
In summary, maps are close representations of reality, designs are ideas for how reality could change, and models are general tools for thinking about reality. All of these are abstractions, and we must be careful not to confuse them with reality itself. Maps and designs can’t be validated or tested against ‘the situation’ because there is no objective reality of ‘the situation’ against which to test it. What can be done, however, is to use the differences between maps (or designs) to help us reflect on how underlying judgements have led to different models (Ibid., p.264).
References
- Reynolds, M. and Ulrich, W. (2020) ‘Critical Systems Heuristics: The Idea and Practice of Boundary Critique’ in Reynolds, M. and Holwell, S. (eds.) Systems Approaches to Making Change: A Practical Guide, 2nd edn, London: Springer-Verlag, pp. 255-300.
- The Open University (2020a) ‘Identifying traps of thinking’, TB871 Block 6 Tools stream [Online]. Available at https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=2261503§ion=3.1.1 (Accessed 21 August 2024).
- The Open University (2020b) ‘Attributes of CSH’, TB871 Block 6 Tools stream [Online]. Available at https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=2261503§ion=2.3 (Accessed 21 August 2024).
Image: DALL-E 3
