Systems theory is the interdisciplinary study of systems in general, with the goal of elucidating principles that can be applied to all types of systems at all nesting levels in all fields of research.^{[citation needed]} The term does not yet have a well-established, precise meaning, but systems theory can reasonably be considered a specialization of systems thinking, a generalization of systems science, a systems approach. The term originates from Bertalanffy's General System Theory (GST) and is used in later efforts in other fields, such as the action theory of Talcott Parsons and the system-theory of Niklas Luhmann.

In this context the word systems is used to refer specifically to self-regulating systems, i.e. that are self-correcting through feedback. Self-regulating systems are found in nature, including the physiological systems of our body, in local and global ecosystems, and in climate—and in human learning processes.

Overview[link]

Margaret Mead was an influential figure in systems theory.

Contemporary ideas from systems theory have grown with diversified areas, exemplified by the work of Béla H. Bánáthy, ecological systems with Howard T. Odum, Eugene Odum and Fritjof Capra, organizational theory and management with individuals such as Peter Senge, interdisciplinary study with areas like Human Resource Development from the work of Richard A. Swanson, and insights from educators such as Debora Hammond and Alfonso Montuori. As a transdisciplinary, interdisciplinary and multiperspectival domain, the area brings together principles and concepts from ontology, philosophy of science, physics, computer science, biology, and engineering as well as geography, sociology, political science, psychotherapy (within family systems therapy) and economics among others. Systems theory thus serves as a bridge for interdisciplinary dialogue between autonomous areas of study as well as within the area of systems science itself.

In this respect, with the possibility of misinterpretations, von Bertalanffy^[1] believed a general theory of systems "should be an important regulative device in science," to guard against superficial analogies that "are useless in science and harmful in their practical consequences." Others remain closer to the direct systems concepts developed by the original theorists. For example, Ilya Prigogine, of the Center for Complex Quantum Systems at the University of Texas, Austin, has studied emergent properties, suggesting that they offer analogues for living systems. The theories of autopoiesis of Francisco Varela and Humberto Maturana are a further development in this field. Important names in contemporary systems science include Russell Ackoff, Béla H. Bánáthy, Anthony Stafford Beer, Peter Checkland, Robert L. Flood, Fritjof Capra, Michael C. Jackson, Edgar Morin and Werner Ulrich, among others.

With the modern foundations for a general theory of systems following the World Wars, Ervin Laszlo, in the preface for Bertalanffy's book Perspectives on General System Theory, maintains that the translation of "general system theory" from German into English has "wrought a certain amount of havoc".^[2] The preface explains that the original concept of a general system theory was "Allgemeine Systemtheorie (or Lehre)", pointing out the fact that "Theorie" (or "Lehre") just as "Wissenschaft" (translated Scholarship), "has a much broader meaning in German than the closest English words ‘theory’ and ‘science'".^[2] With these ideas referring to an organized body of knowledge and "any systematically presented set of concepts, whether they are empirical, axiomatic, or philosophical, "Lehre" is associated with theory and science in the etymology of general systems, but also does not translate from the German very well; "teaching" is the "closest equivalent", but "sounds dogmatic and off the mark".^[2] While many of the root meanings for the idea of a "general systems theory" might have been lost in the translation and many^[who?] were led to believe that the systems theorists had articulated nothing but a pseudoscience, systems theory became a nomenclature that early investigators used to describe the interdependence of relationships in organization by defining a new way of thinking about science and scientific paradigms.

A system from this frame of reference is composed of regularly interacting or interrelating groups of activities. For example, in noting the influence in organizational psychology as the field evolved from "an individually oriented industrial psychology to a systems and developmentally oriented organizational psychology," it was recognized that organizations are complex social systems; reducing the parts from the whole reduces the overall effectiveness of organizations.^[3] This is different from conventional models that center on individuals, structures, departments and units separate in part from the whole instead of recognizing the interdependence between groups of individuals, structures and processes that enable an organization to function. Laszlo^[4] explains that the new systems view of organized complexity went "one step beyond the Newtonian view of organized simplicity" in reducing the parts from the whole, or in understanding the whole without relation to the parts. The relationship between organizations and their environments became recognized as the foremost source of complexity and interdependence. In most cases the whole has properties that cannot be known from analysis of the constituent elements in isolation. Béla H. Bánáthy, who argued—along with the founders of the systems society—that "the benefit of humankind" is the purpose of science, has made significant and far-reaching contributions to the area of systems theory. For the Primer Group at ISSS, Bánáthy defines a perspective that iterates this view:

The systems view is a world-view that is based on the discipline of SYSTEM INQUIRY. Central to systems inquiry is the concept of SYSTEM. In the most general sense, system means a configuration of parts connected and joined together by a web of relationships. The Primer group defines system as a family of relationships among the members acting as a whole. Von Bertalanffy defined system as "elements in standing relationship".

—^[5]

Similar ideas are found in learning theories that developed from the same fundamental concepts, emphasizing how understanding results from knowing concepts both in part and as a whole. In fact, Bertalanffy’s organismic psychology paralleled the learning theory of Jean Piaget.^[6] Interdisciplinary perspectives are critical in breaking away from industrial age models and thinking where history is history and math is math, the arts and sciences specialized and separate, and where teaching is treated as behaviorist conditioning.^[7] The influential contemporary work of Peter Senge^[8] provides detailed discussion of the commonplace critique of educational systems grounded in conventional assumptions about learning, including the problems with fragmented knowledge and lack of holistic learning from the "machine-age thinking" that became a "model of school separated from daily life." It is in this way that systems theorists attempted to provide alternatives and an evolved ideation from orthodox theories with individuals such as Max Weber, Émile Durkheim in sociology and Frederick Winslow Taylor in scientific management, which were grounded in classical assumptions.^[9] The theorists sought holistic methods by developing systems concepts that could be integrated with different areas.

The contradiction of reductionism in conventional theory (which has as its subject a single part) is simply an example of changing assumptions. The emphasis with systems theory shifts from parts to the organization of parts, recognizing interactions of the parts are not "static" and constant but "dynamic" processes. Conventional closed systems were questioned with the development of open systems perspectives. The shift was from absolute and universal authoritative principles and knowledge to relative and general conceptual and perceptual knowledge,^[10] still in the tradition of theorists that sought to provide means in organizing human life. Meaning, the history of ideas that preceded were rethought not lost. Mechanistic thinking was particularly critiqued, especially the industrial-age mechanistic metaphor of the mind from interpretations of Newtonian mechanics by Enlightenment philosophers and later psychologists that laid the foundations of modern organizational theory and management by the late 19th century.^[11] Classical science had not been overthrown, but questions arose over core assumptions that historically influenced organized systems, within both social and technical sciences.^{[citation needed]}

Developments in system theories[link]

General systems research and systems inquiry[link]

Many early systems theorists aimed at finding a general systems theory that could explain all systems in all fields of science. The term goes back to Bertalanffy's book titled "General System theory: Foundations, Development, Applications" from 1968.^[6] According to Von Bertalanffy, he developed the "allgemeine Systemlehre" (general systems teachings) first via lectures beginning in 1937 and then via publications beginning in 1946.^[12]

Von Bertalanffy's objective was to bring together under one heading the organismic science that he had observed in his work as a biologist. His desire was to use the word "system" to describe those principles which are common to systems in general. In GST, he writes:

...there exist models, principles, and laws that apply to generalized systems or their subclasses, irrespective of their particular kind, the nature of their component elements, and the relationships or "forces" between them. It seems legitimate to ask for a theory, not of systems of a more or less special kind, but of universal principles applying to systems in general.

—^[13]

Ervin Laszlo^[14] in the preface of von Bertalanffy's book Perspectives on General System Theory:^[15]

Thus when von Bertalanffy spoke of Allgemeine Systemtheorie it was consistent with his view that he was proposing a new perspective, a new way of doing science. It was not directly consistent with an interpretation often put on "general system theory", to wit, that it is a (scientific) "theory of general systems." To criticize it as such is to shoot at straw men. Von Bertalanffy opened up something much broader and of much greater significance than a single theory (which, as we now know, can always be falsified and has usually an ephemeral existence): he created a new paradigm for the development of theories.

Ludwig von Bertalanffy outlines systems inquiry into three major domains: Philosophy, Science, and Technology. In his work with the Primer Group, Béla H. Bánáthy generalized the domains into four integratable domains of systemic inquiry:

These operate in a recursive relationship, he explained. Integrating Philosophy and Theory as Knowledge, and Method and Application as action, Systems Inquiry then is knowledgeable action.^[16]

Cybernetics[link]

The term cybernetics derives from a Greek word which meant steersman, and which is the origin of English words such as "govern". Cybernetics is the study of feedback and derived concepts such as communication and control in living organisms, machines and organisations. Its focus is how anything (digital, mechanical or biological) processes information, reacts to information, and changes or can be changed to better accomplish the first two tasks.

The terms "systems theory" and "cybernetics" have been widely used as synonyms. Some authors use the term cybernetic systems to denote a proper subset of the class of general systems, namely those systems that include feedback loops. However Gordon Pask's differences of eternal interacting actor loops (that produce finite products) makes general systems a proper subset of cybernetics. According to Jackson (2000), von Bertalanffy promoted an embryonic form of general system theory (GST) as early as the 1920s and 1930s but it was not until the early 1950s it became more widely known in scientific circles.

Threads of cybernetics began in the late 1800s that led toward the publishing of seminal works (e.g., Wiener's Cybernetics in 1948 and von Bertalanffy's General Systems Theory in 1968). Cybernetics arose more from engineering fields and GST from biology. If anything it appears that although the two probably mutually influenced each other, cybernetics had the greater influence. Von Bertalanffy (1969) specifically makes the point of distinguishing between the areas in noting the influence of cybernetics: "Systems theory is frequently identified with cybernetics and control theory. This again is incorrect. Cybernetics as the theory of control mechanisms in technology and nature is founded on the concepts of information and feedback, but as part of a general theory of systems;" then reiterates: "the model is of wide application but should not be identified with 'systems theory' in general", and that "warning is necessary against its incautious expansion to fields for which its concepts are not made." (17-23). Jackson (2000) also claims von Bertalanffy was informed by Alexander Bogdanov's three volume Tectology that was published in Russia between 1912 and 1917, and was translated into German in 1928. He also states it is clear to Gorelik (1975) that the "conceptual part" of general system theory (GST) had first been put in place by Bogdanov. The similar position is held by Mattessich (1978) and Capra (1996). Ludwig von Bertalanffy never even mentioned Bogdanov in his works, which Capra (1996) finds "surprising".

Cybernetics, catastrophe theory, chaos theory and complexity theory have the common goal to explain complex systems that consist of a large number of mutually interacting and interrelated parts in terms of those interactions. Cellular automata (CA), neural networks (NN), artificial intelligence (AI), and artificial life (ALife) are related fields, but they do not try to describe general (universal) complex (singular) systems. The best context to compare the different "C"-Theories about complex systems is historical, which emphasizes different tools and methodologies, from pure mathematics in the beginning to pure computer science now. Since the beginning of chaos theory when Edward Lorenz accidentally discovered a strange attractor with his computer, computers have become an indispensable source of information. One could not imagine the study of complex systems without the use of computers today.

Complex adaptive systems[link]

Complex adaptive systems are special cases of complex systems. They are complex in that they are diverse and made up of multiple interconnected elements and adaptive in that they have the capacity to change and learn from experience. The term complex adaptive systems was coined at the interdisciplinary Santa Fe Institute (SFI), by John H. Holland, Murray Gell-Mann and others.

Biomatrix systems theory[link]

During the 1990s, an interdisciplinary team of PhD students at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, integrated the key concepts of the systems and related fields, together with their unique theoretical contributions, into a coherent meta-theory called Biomatrix systems theory. The theory is also unique in having a graphic alphabet with which it can be explained visually.^[17]

Applications of system theories[link]

Complexity Economics[link]

An emerging field during the last decades, Complexity economics has been pushing for the introduction of new predictive tools that challenge the traditional measures in use in Economics. Among them are the models developed by the Santa Fe Institute or the economic complexity index developed by the Harvard-MIT Observatory of Economic Complexity. Forecasts of expected GDP growth have been already released by this center.

Living systems theory[link]

Living systems theory is an offshoot of von Bertalanffy's general systems theory, created by James Grier Miller, which was intended to formalize the concept of "life". According to Miller's original conception as spelled out in his magnum opus Living Systems, a "living system" must contain each of 20 "critical subsystems", which are defined by their functions and visible in numerous systems, from simple cells to organisms, countries, and societies. In Living Systems Miller provides a detailed look at a number of systems in order of increasing size, and identifies his subsystems in each.

James Grier Miller (1978) wrote a 1,102 pages volume to present his living systems theory. He constructed a general theory of living systems by focusing on concrete systems—nonrandom accumulations of matter-energy in physical space-time organized into interacting, interrelated subsystems or components. Slightly revising the original model a dozen years later, he distinguished eight "nested" hierarchical levels in such complex structures. Each level is "nested" in the sense that each higher level contains the next lower level in a nested fashion.

Organizational theory[link]

Kurt Lewin attended the Macy conferences and is commonly identified as the founder of the movement to study groups scientifically.

The systems framework is also fundamental to organizational theory as organizations are complex dynamic goal-oriented processes. One of the early thinkers in the field was Alexander Bogdanov, who developed his Tectology, a theory widely considered a precursor of von Bertalanffy's GST, aiming to model and design human organizations (see Mattessich 1978, Capra 1996). Kurt Lewin was particularly influential in developing the systems perspective within organizational theory and coined the term "systems of ideology", from his frustration with behavioral psychologies that became an obstacle to sustainable work in psychology.^[18] Jay Forrester with his work in dynamics and management alongside numerous theorists including Edgar Schein that followed in their tradition since the Civil Rights Era have also been influential.

The systems to organizations relies heavily upon achieving negative entropy through openness and feedback. A systemic view on organizations is transdisciplinary and integrative. In other words, it transcends the perspectives of individual disciplines, integrating them on the basis of a common "code", or more exactly, on the basis of the formal apparatus provided by systems theory. The systems approach gives primacy to the interrelationships, not to the elements of the system. It is from these dynamic interrelationships that new properties of the system emerge. In recent years, systems thinking has been developed to provide techniques for studying systems in holistic ways to supplement traditional reductionistic methods. In this more recent tradition, systems theory in organizational studies is considered by some as a humanistic extension of the natural sciences.

The interrelationship of the various concepts of Biomatrix systems theory give rise to a theory of organization of systems. It also explains the similarities and differences between natural, technological and social systems.^[19]

Software and computing[link]

In the 1960s, systems theory was adopted by the post John Von Neumann computing and information technology field and, in fact, formed the basis of structured analysis and structured design (see also Larry Constantine, Tom DeMarco and Ed Yourdon). It was also the basis for early software engineering and computer-aided software engineering principles.

By the 1970s, General Systems Theory (GST) was the fundamental underpinning of most commercial software design techniques, and by the 1980, W. Vaughn Frick and Albert F. Case, Jr. had used GST to design the "missing link" transformation from system analysis (defining what's needed in a system) to system design (what's actually implemented) using the Yourdon/DeMarco notation. These principles were incorporated into computer-aided software engineering tools delivered by Nastec Corporation, Transform Logic, Inc., KnowledgeWare (see Fran Tarkenton and James Martin), Texas Instruments, Arthur Andersen and ultimately IBM Corporation.

The UNIX operating system, as described by Eric Raymond, is a good early example of a symmetrical, integrated system within the area of computer science.

Sociology and Sociocybernetics[link]

Sociology
Outline
Theory · History
Positivism · Antipositivism Functionalism · Conflict theory Middle-range · Mathematical Critical theory · Socialization Structure and agency
Research methods
Quantitative · Qualitative Historical · Computational Ethnographic · Network analytic
Topics · Subfields
Cities · Class · Crime · Culture Deviance · Demography · Education Economy · Environment · Family Gender · Health · Industry · Internet Knowledge · Law · Medicine Politics · Mobility · Race and ethnicity Rationalization · Religion · Science Secularization · Social networks Social psychology · Stratification
Browse
Portal Category tree · Lists Journals · Sociologists Article index
v t e

Systems theory has also been developed within sociology. An important figure in the sociological systems perspective as developed from GST is Walter Buckley (who from Bertalanffy's theory). Niklas Luhmann (see Luhmann 1994) is also predominant in the literatures for sociology and systems theory. Miller's living systems theory was particularly influential in sociology from the time of the early systems movement. Models for dynamic equilibrium in systems analysis that contrasted classical views from Talcott Parsons and George Homans were influential in integrating concepts with the general movement. With the renewed interest in systems theory on the rise since the 1990s, Bailey (1994) notes the concept of systems in sociology dates back to Auguste Comte in the 19th century, Herbert Spencer and Vilfredo Pareto, and that sociology was readying into its centennial as the new systems theory was emerging following the World Wars. To explore the current inroads of systems theory into sociology (primarily in the form of complexity science) see sociology and complexity science.

In sociology, members of Research Committee 51 of the International Sociological Association (which focuses on sociocybernetics), have sought to identify the sociocybernetic feedback loops which, it is argued, primarily control the operation of society. On the basis of research largely conducted in the area of education, Raven (1995) has, for example, argued that it is these sociocybernetic processes which consistently undermine well intentioned public action and are currently heading our species, at an exponentially increasing rate, toward extinction. See sustainability. He suggests that an understanding of these systems processes will allow us to generate the kind of (non "common-sense") targeted interventions that are required for things to be otherwise - i.e. to halt the destruction of the planet.

Systems biology[link]

Systems biology is a term used to describe a number of trends in bioscience research, and a movement which draws on those trends. Proponents describe systems biology as a biology-based inter-disciplinary study field that focuses on complex interactions in biological systems, claiming that it uses a new perspective (holism instead of reduction). Particularly from year 2000 onwards, the term is used widely in the biosciences, and in a variety of contexts. An often stated ambition of systems biology is the modeling and discovery of emergent properties, properties of a system whose theoretical description is only possible using techniques which fall under the remit of systems biology. The term systems biology is thought to have been created by Ludwig von Bertalanffy in 1928.^[20]

System dynamics[link]

System Dynamics was founded in the late 1950s by Jay W. Forrester of the MIT Sloan School of Management with the establishment of the MIT System Dynamics Group. At that time, he began applying what he had learned about systems during his work in electrical engineering to everyday kinds of systems. Determining the exact date of the founding of the field of system dynamics is difficult and involves a certain degree of arbitrariness. Jay W. Forrester joined the faculty of the Sloan School at MIT in 1956, where he then developed what is now System Dynamics. The first published article by Jay W. Forrester in the Harvard Business Review on "Industrial Dynamics", was published in 1958. The members of the System Dynamics Society have chosen 1957 to mark the occasion as it is the year in which the work leading to that article, which described the dynamics of a manufacturing supply chain, was done.

As an aspect of systems theory, system dynamics is a method for understanding the dynamic behavior of complex systems. The basis of the method is the recognition that the structure of any system — the many circular, interlocking, sometimes time-delayed relationships among its components — is often just as important in determining its behavior as the individual components themselves. Examples are chaos theory and social dynamics. It is also claimed that, because there are often properties-of-the-whole which cannot be found among the properties-of-the-elements, in some cases the behavior of the whole cannot be explained in terms of the behavior of the parts. An example is the properties of these letters which when considered together can give rise to meaning which does not exist in the letters by themselves. This further explains the integration of tools, like language, as a more parsimonious process in the human application of easiest path adaptability through interconnected systems.

Systems engineering[link]

Systems engineering is an interdisciplinary approach and means for enabling the realization and deployment of successful systems. It can be viewed as the application of engineering techniques to the engineering of systems, as well as the application of a systems approach to engineering efforts.^[21] Systems engineering integrates other disciplines and specialty groups into a team effort, forming a structured development process that proceeds from concept to production to operation and disposal. Systems engineering considers both the business and the technical needs of all customers, with the goal of providing a quality product that meets the user needs.^[22]

Systems psychology[link]

Systems psychology is a branch of psychology that studies human behaviour and experience in complex systems. It is inspired by systems theory and systems thinking, and based on the theoretical work of Roger Barker, Gregory Bateson, Humberto Maturana and others. It is an approach in psychology, in which groups and individuals, are considered as systems in homeostasis. Systems psychology "includes the domain of engineering psychology, but in addition is more concerned with societal systems and with the study of motivational, affective, cognitive and group behavior than is engineering psychology."^[23] In systems psychology "characteristics of organizational behaviour for example individual needs, rewards, expectations, and attributes of the people interacting with the systems are considered in the process in order to create an effective system".^[24] The Systems psychology includes an illusion of homeostatic systems, although most of the living systems are in a continuous disequilibrium of various degrees.

History[link]

Whether considering the first systems of written communication with Sumerian cuneiform to Mayan numerals, or the feats of engineering with the Egyptian pyramids, systems thinking in essence dates back to antiquity. Differentiated from Western rationalist traditions of philosophy, C. West Churchman often identified with the I Ching as a systems approach sharing a frame of reference similar to pre-Socratic philosophy and Heraclitus.^[25] Von Bertalanffy traced systems concepts to the philosophy of G.W. von Leibniz and Nicholas of Cusa's coincidentia oppositorum. While modern systems are considerably more complicated, today's systems are embedded in history.

An important step to introduce the systems approach, into (rationalist) hard sciences of the 19th century, was the energy transformation, by figures like James Joule and Sadi Carnot. Then, the Thermodynamic of this century, with Rudolf Clausius, Josiah Gibbs and others, built the system reference model, as a formal scientific object.

Systems theory as an area of study specifically developed following the World Wars from the work of Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Anatol Rapoport, Kenneth E. Boulding, William Ross Ashby, Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson, C. West Churchman and others in the 1950s, specifically catalyzed by the cooperation in the Society for General Systems Research. Cognizant of advances in science that questioned classical assumptions in the organizational sciences, Bertalanffy's idea to develop a theory of systems began as early as the interwar period, publishing "An Outline for General Systems Theory" in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol 1, No. 2, by 1950. Where assumptions in Western science from Greek thought with Plato and Aristotle to Newton's Principia have historically influenced all areas from the hard to social sciences (see David Easton's seminal development of the "political system" as an analytical construct), the original theorists explored the implications of twentieth century advances in terms of systems.

Subjects like complexity, self-organization, connectionism and adaptive systems had already been studied in the 1940s and 1950s. In fields like cybernetics, researchers like Norbert Wiener, William Ross Ashby, John von Neumann and Heinz von Foerster examined complex systems using mathematics. John von Neumann discovered cellular automata and self-reproducing systems, again with only pencil and paper. Aleksandr Lyapunov and Jules Henri Poincaré worked on the foundations of chaos theory without any computer at all. At the same time Howard T. Odum, the radiation ecologist, recognised that the study of general systems required a language that could depict energetics, thermodynamic and kinetics at any system scale. Odum developed a general systems, or Universal language, based on the circuit language of electronics to fulfill this role, known as the Energy Systems Language. Between 1929-1951, Robert Maynard Hutchins at the University of Chicago had undertaken efforts to encourage innovation and interdisciplinary research in the social sciences, aided by the Ford Foundation with the interdisciplinary Division of the Social Sciences established in 1931.^[26] Numerous scholars had been actively engaged in ideas before (Tectology of Alexander Bogdanov published in 1912-1917 is a remarkable example), but in 1937 von Bertalanffy presented the general theory of systems for a conference at the University of Chicago.

The systems view was based on several fundamental ideas. First, all phenomena can be viewed as a web of relationships among elements, or a system. Second, all systems, whether electrical, biological, or social, have common patterns, behaviors, and properties that can be understood and used to develop greater insight into the behavior of complex phenomena and to move closer toward a unity of science. System philosophy, methodology and application are complementary to this science.^[2] By 1956, the Society for General Systems Research was established, renamed the International Society for Systems Science in 1988. The Cold War affected the research project for systems theory in ways that sorely disappointed many of the seminal theorists. Some began to recognize theories defined in association with systems theory had deviated from the initial General Systems Theory (GST) view.^[27] The economist Kenneth Boulding, an early researcher in systems theory, had concerns over the manipulation of systems concepts. Boulding concluded from the effects of the Cold War that abuses of power always prove consequential and that systems theory might address such issues.^[28] Since the end of the Cold War, there has been a renewed interest in systems theory with efforts to strengthen an ethical view.

See also[link]

List of types of systems theory Cybernetics Emergence Glossary of systems theory Holism Integral Theory Meta-systems Open and Closed Systems in Social Science Social rule system theory Sociology and complexity science Systemantics Systemography

Systems science portal Systemic Constellations Systems engineering Systems psychology Systemics Systems theory in archaeology Systems theory in anthropology Systems theory in political science Systems thinking World-systems theory Systematics - study of multi-term systems Dynamical systems Multidimensional systems

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Ackoff, R. (1978). The art of problem solving. New York: Wiley.
• Ash, M.G. (1992). "Cultural Contexts and Scientific Change in Psychology: Kurt Lewin in Iowa." American Psychologist, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 198–207.
• Bailey, K.D. (1994). Sociology and the New Systems Theory: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis. New York: State of New York Press.
• Bánáthy, B (1996) Designing Social Systems in a Changing World New York Plenum
• Bánáthy, B. (1991) Systems Design of Education. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications
• Bánáthy, B. (1992) A Systems View of Education. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications. ISBN 0-87778-245-8
• Bánáthy, B.H. (1997). "A Taste of Systemics", The Primer Project, Retrieved May 14, (2007)
• Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Ballantine
• Bausch, Kenneth C. (2001) The Emerging Consensus in Social Systems Theory, Kluwer Academic New York ISBN 0-306-46539-6
• Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1968). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications New York: George Braziller
• Bertalanffy, L. von (1950), "An Outline of General System Theory", British Journal for the Philosophy of Science Vol. 1 (No. 2), http://www.isnature.org/events/2009/Summer/r/Bertalanffy1950-GST_Outline_SELECT.pdf, retrieved 24 October 2010 
• Bertalanffy, L. von. (1955). "An Essay on the Relativity of Categories." Philosophy of Science, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 243–263.
• Bertalanffy, Ludwig von. (1968). Organismic Psychology and Systems Theory. Worchester: Clark University Press.
• Bertalanffy, Ludwig Von. (1974). Perspectives on General System Theory Edited by Edgar Taschdjian. George Braziller, New York.
• Buckley, W. (1967). Sociology and Modern Systems Theory. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs.
• Mario Bunge (1979) Treatise on Basic Philosophy, Volume 4. Ontology II A World of Systems. Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel.
• Capra, F. (1997). The Web of Life-A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems, Anchor ISBN 978-0-385-47676-8
• Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, Systems practice. New York: Wiley.
• Checkland, P. 1997. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
• Churchman, C.W. (1968). The systems approach. New York: Laurel.
• Churchman, C.W. (1971). The design of inquiring systems. New York: Basic Books.
• Corning, P. (1983) The Synergism Hupothesis: A Theory of Progressive Evolution. New York: McGraw Hill
• Davidson, Mark. (1983). Uncommon Sense: The Life and Thought of Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Father of General Systems Theory. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher, Inc.
• Dostal, E. (2005). Biomatrix: A Systems Approach to Organisational and Societal Change. South Africa: BiomatrixWeb.
• Durand, D. La systémique, Presses Universitaires de France
• Flood, R.L. 1999. Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning within the unknowable." London: Routledge.
• Charles François. (2004). Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics, Introducing the 2nd Volume [1] and further links to the ENCYCLOPEDIA, K G Saur, Munich [2] see also [3]
• Kahn, Herman. (1956). Techniques of System Analysis, Rand Corporation
• Laszlo, E. (1995). The Interconnected Universe. New Jersey, World Scientific. ISBN 981-02-2202-5
• François, C. (1999). Systemics and Cybernetics in a Historical Perspective
• Jantsch, E. (1980). The Self Organizing Universe. New York: Pergamon.
• Gorelik, G. (1975) Reemergence of Bogdanov's Tektology in. Soviet Studies of Organization, Academy of Management Journal. 18/2, pp. 345–357
• Hammond, D. 2003. The Science of Synthesis. Colorado: University of Colorado Press.
• Hinrichsen, D. and Pritchard, A.J. (2005) Mathematical Systems Theory. New York: Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-44125-0
• Hull, D.L. 1970. "Systemic Dynamic Social Theory." Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 11, Issue 3, pp. 351–363.
• Hyötyniemi, H. (2006). Neocybernetics in Biological Systems. Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology, Control Engineering Laboratory.
• Jackson, M.C. 2000. Systems Approaches to Management. London: Springer.
• Klir, G.J. 1969. An Approach to General Systems Theory. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
• Ervin László 1972. The Systems View of the World. New York: George Brazilier.
• Laszlo, E. (1972a). The systems view of the world. The natural philosophy of the new developments in the sciences. New York: George Brazillier. ISBN 0-8076-0636-7
• Laszlo, E. (1972b). Introduction to systems philosophy. Toward a new paradigm of contemporary thought. San Francisco: Harper.
• Laszlo, Ervin. 1996. The Systems View of the World. Hampton Press, NJ. (ISBN 1-57273-053-6).
• Lemkow, A. (1995) The Wholeness Principle: Dynamics of Unity Within Science, Religion & Society. Quest Books, Wheaton.
• Niklas Luhmann (1996),"Social Systems",Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA
• Mattessich, R. (1978) Instrumental Reasoning and Systems Methodology: An Epistemology of the Applied and Social Sciences. Reidel, Boston
• Minati, Gianfranco. Collen, Arne. (1997) Introduction to Systemics Eagleye books. ISBN 0-924025-06-9
• Montuori, A. (1989). Evolutionary Competence. Creating the Future. Amsterdam: Gieben.
• Morin, E. (2008). On Complexity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
• Odum, H. (1994) Ecological and General Systems: An introduction to systems ecology, Colorado University Press, Colorado.
• Olmeda, Christopher J. (1998). Health Informatics: Concepts of Information Technology in Health and Human Services. Delfin Press. ISBN 0-9821442-1-0
• Owens, R.G. (2004). Organizational Behavior in Education: Adaptive Leadership and School Reform, Eighth Edition. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
• Pharaoh, M.C. (online). Looking to systems theory for a reductive explanation of phenomenal experience and evolutionary foundations for higher order thought Retrieved Dec.14 2007.
• Science as Paradigmatic Complexity by Wallace H. Provost Jr. 1984 in the International Journal of General Systems
• Rugai, Nick (2011) Computational Epistemology: From Reality to Wisdom, Book, Nitro Rigging LLC, ISBN 978-1-257-78505-6
• Schein, E.H. (1980). Organizational Psychology, Third Edition. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
• Peter Senge (1990). The Fifth Discipline. The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
• Senge, P., Ed. (2000). Schools That Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Cares About Education. New York: Doubleday Dell Publishing Group.
• Snooks, G.D. (2008). "A general theory of complex living systems: Exploring the demand side of dynamics", Complexity,13: 12-20.
• Steiss, A.W. (1967). Urban Systems Dynamics. Toronto: Lexington Books.
• Gerald Weinberg. (1975). An Introduction to General Systems Thinking (1975 ed., Wiley-Interscience) (2001 ed. Dorset House).
• Wiener, N. (1967). The human use of human beings. Cybernetics and Society. New York: Avon.
• Young, O. R., “A Survey of General Systems Theory”, General Systems, vol. 9 (1964), pages 61–80. (overview about different trends and tendencies, with bibliography)

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Systems theory

Look up systems theory in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of Systems Theory

• Systems theory at Principia Cybernetica Web

Organizations[link]

• International Society for the System Sciences
• New England Complex Systems Institute
• System Dynamics Society
• Institute of Global Dynamic Systems, Canberra, Australia

Immanuel Wallerstein
Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein giving a talk at a seminar at European University at St Petersburg (May 24, 2008)
Born	(1930-09-28) September 28, 1930 (age 81) New York City, U.S.
Nationality	United States
Fields	Sociology
Institutions	Binghamton University
Alma mater	Columbia University
Known for	World system theory
Influences	Karl Marx Fernand Braudel Paul A. Baran Andre Gunder Frank Vitorino Magalhães Godinho C. Wright Mills Joseph Schumpeter

Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein (born 28 September 1930 New York City) is a US sociologist, historical social scientist, and world-systems analyst. His bimonthly commentaries on world affairs are syndicated.^[1]

Education and Academic Career[link]

Wallerstein first became interested in world affairs as a teenager in New York City, and was particularly interested in the Indian independence movement at the time. He attended Columbia University, where he received a B.A. in 1951, an M.A. in 1954 and a PhD degree in 1959. He subsequently taught there until 1971, when he became professor of sociology at McGill University. In 1973 he was president of the African Studies Association. As of 1976, he served as distinguished professor of sociology at Binghamton University until his retirement in 1999, and as head of the Fernand Braudel Center for the Study of Economies, Historical Systems and Civilization at Binghamton University until 2005.

Wallerstein held several positions as visiting professor at universities worldwide, was awarded multiple honorary titles, intermittently served as Directeur d'études associé at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris, and was president of the International Sociological Association between 1994 and 1998.

During the 1990s he chaired the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences. The object of the commission was to indicate a direction for social scientific inquiry for the next 50 years.

In 2000 he joined the Yale sociology department as Senior Research Scholar. He is also a member of the Advisory Editors Council of the Social Evolution & History journal. In 2003 he received the Career of Distinguished Scholarship Award from the American Sociological Association. In 2004 he was awarded with the Gold Kondratieff Medal^[2] by the International N. D. Kondratieff Foundation and the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RAEN).

Theory[link]

Wallerstein began as an expert of post-colonial African affairs, which he selected as the focus of his studies after an international youth conference in 1951. His publications were almost exclusively devoted to this until the early 1970s, when he began to distinguish himself as a historian and theorist of the global capitalist economy on a macroscopic level. His early criticism of global capitalism and championship of "anti-systemic movements" have recently made him a éminence grise with the anti-globalization movement within and outside of the academic community, along with Noam Chomsky and Pierre Bourdieu.

His most important work, The Modern World-System, has appeared in four volumes in 1974, 1980, 1989 and 2011, with two planned volumes still forthcoming. In it, Wallerstein mainly draws on three or four intellectual influences:

• Karl Marx, whom he follows in emphasizing underlying economic factors and their dominance over ideological factors in global politics, and whose economic thinking he has adopted with such ideas as the dichotomy between capital and labor, the view of world economic development through stages such as feudalism and capitalism, belief in the accumulation of capital, dialectics and more;
• French historian Fernand Braudel, who had described the development and political implications of extensive networks of economic exchange in the European world between 1400 and 1800;
• Dependency theory, most obviously its concepts of "core" and "periphery";
• and — presumably — the practical experience and impressions gained from his own work regarding post-colonial Africa.

Wallerstein has also stated that a major influence on his work was the 'world revolution' of 1968. He was on the faculty of Columbia University at the time of the student uprising there and participated in a faculty committee that attempted to resolve the dispute. He has argued in several works that this revolution marked the end of 'liberalism' as a viable ideology in the modern world system.

One aspect of his work that Wallerstein certainly deserves credit for is his anticipating the growing importance of the North-South divide at a time when the main world conflict was the Cold War.

He has argued since 1980 that the United States is a 'hegemon in decline'. He was often mocked for making this claim during the 1990s, but since the Iraq War this argument has become more widespread. Overall, Wallerstein sees the development of the capitalist world economy as detrimental to a large proportion of the world's population.^[3] Similar to Marx, Wallerstein predicts that capitalism will be replaced by a socialist economy.^[4]

Wallerstein's theory has also provoked harsh criticism, not only from neo-liberal or conservative circles but even some historians who say that some of his assertions may be historically incorrect. Some critics suggest that Wallerstein tends to neglect the cultural dimension, reducing it to what some call "official" ideologies of states which can then easily be revealed as mere agencies of economic interest. Nevertheless his analytical approach, along with that of associated theorists such as Andre Gunder Frank, Terence Hopkins, Samir Amin, Christopher Chase-Dunn and Giovanni Arrighi has made a significant impact and established an institutional base devoted to the general approach. It has also attracted strong interest from the anti-globalization movement.

Wallerstein has both participated in and written about the World Social Forum.

The World-system[link]

Wallerstein rejects the notion of a "Third World", claiming there is only one world connected by a complex network of economic exchange relationships — i.e., a "world-economy" or "world-system" in which the "dichotomy of capital and labor" and the endless "accumulation of capital" by competing agents (historically including but not limited to nation-states) account for frictions. This approach is known as the World Systems Theory.

Wallerstein locates the origin of the "modern world-system" in 16th-century Western Europe and the Americas. An initially only slight advance in capital accumulation in Britain, the Dutch Republic and France, due to specific political circumstances at the end of the period of feudalism, set in motion a process of gradual expansion. As a result only one global network or system of economic exchange exists. By the 19th century, virtually every area on earth was incorporated into the capitalist world-economy.

The capitalist world-system is far from homogeneous in cultural, political and economic terms — instead characterized by fundamental differences in social development, accumulation of political power and capital. Contrary to affirmative theories of modernization and capitalism, Wallerstein does not conceive of these differences as mere residues or irregularities that can and will be overcome as the system evolves.

A lasting division of the world in core, semi-periphery and periphery is an inherent feature of the world-system. Areas which have so far remained outside the reach of the world-system enter it at the stage of 'periphery'. There is a fundamental and institutionally stabilized 'division of labor' between core and periphery: while the core has a high level of technological development and manufactures complex products, the role of the periphery is to supply raw materials, agricultural products and cheap labor for the expanding agents of the core. Economic exchange between core and periphery takes place on unequal terms: the periphery is forced to sell its products at low prices but has to buy the core's products at comparatively high prices. This unequal state which once established tends to stabilize itself due to inherent, quasi-deterministic constraints. The statuses of core and periphery are not exclusive and fixed geographically; instead they are relative to each other: there is a zone called 'semi-periphery' which acts as a periphery to the core and a core to the periphery. At the end of the 20th century, this zone would comprise, Eastern Europe, China, Brazil or Mexico. Peripheral and core zones can also co-exist in the same place.

One effect of the expansion of the world-system is the commodification of things, including human labor. Natural resources, land, labor and human relationships are gradually being stripped of their "intrinsic" value and turned into commodities in a market which dictates their exchange value.

In the last two decades, Wallerstein has increasingly focused on the intellectual foundations of the modern world system, the 'structures of knowledge' defined by the disciplinary division between sociology, anthropology, political science, economics and the humanities and the pursuit of universal theories of human behavior. Wallerstein regards the structures of knowledge as Eurocentric. In analysing them, he has been highly influenced by the 'new sciences' of theorists like Ilya Prigogine.

Terms and definitions[link]

Capitalist World-System
This definition of Wallerstein follows Dependency Theory, which intended to combine the developments of the different societies since the 16th century in different regions into one collective development. The main characteristic of Wallerstein's definition is the development of a global division of labour, including the existence of independent political units (in this case, states) at the same time. There is no political centre, compared to global empires like the Roman Empire; instead the capitalist world system is identified with the global market economy. It is divided into core, semi-periphery and periphery, and is ruled by the capitalist method of production. The ideal type of market is a free one.

Core/Periphery
Defines the difference between developed countries and developing countries, characterized e.g. by power or wealth. The core stands refers to developed countries, and the periphery is a synonym for the dependent developing countries. The main reason for the position of the developed countries is economic power.

Semi-periphery
Defines states that are located between core and periphery, they benefit from the periphery through unequal exchange relations. At the same time, the core benefits from the semi-periphery through unequal exchange relations.

Quotations[link]

From Historical Capitalism with Capitalist Civilization, p. 98:

It is simply not true that capitalism as a historical system has represented progress over the various previous historical systems that it destroyed or transformed. Even as I write this, I feel the tremour that accompanies the sense of blasphemy. I fear the wrath of the gods, for I have been moulded in the same ideological forge as all my compeers and have worshipped at the same shrines.

From The Modern World-System, vol. I, p. 233:

In the sixteenth century, Europe was like a bucking bronco. The attempt of some groups to establish a world-economy based on a particular division of labor, to create national states in the core areas as politico-economic guarantors of this system, and to get the workers to pay not only the profits but the costs of maintaining the system was not easy. It was to Europe's credit that it was done, since without the thrust of the sixteenth century the modern world would not have been born and, for all its cruelties, it is better that it was born than that it had not been.

It is also to Europe's credit that it was not easy, and particularly that it was not easy because the people who paid the short-run costs screamed lustily at the unfairness of it all. The peasants and workers in Poland and England and Brazil and Mexico were all rambunctious in their various ways. As R. H. Tawney says of the agrarian disturbances of sixteenth-century England: 'Such movements are a proof of blood and sinew and of a high and gallant spirit. . . . Happy the nation whose people has not forgotten how to rebel.'

The mark of the modern world is the imagination of its profiteers and the counter-assertiveness of the oppressed. Exploitation and the refusal to accept exploitation as either inevitable or just constitute the continuing antinomy of the modern era, joined together in a dialectic which has far from reached its climax in the twentieth century.

Works[link]

• 1961: Africa, The Politics of Independence. New York: Vintage Books.
• 1964: The Road to Independence: Ghana and the Ivory Coast. Paris & The Hague: Mouton.
• 1967: Africa: The Politics of Unity. New York: Random House.
• 1969: University in Turmoil: The Politics of Change. New York: Atheneum.
• 1972 (with Evelyn Jones Rich): Africa: Tradition & Change. New York: Random House.
• 1974: The Modern World-System, vol. I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York/London: Academic Press.
• 1979: The Capitalist World-Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• 1980: The Modern World-System, vol. II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600-1750. New York: Academic Press.
• 1982 (with Terence K. Hopkins et al.): World-Systems Analysis: Theory and Methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage.
• 1982 (with Samir Amin, Giovanni Arrighi and Andre Gunder Frank): Dynamics of Global Crisis. London: Macmillan.
• 1983: Historical Capitalism. London: Verso.
• 1984: The Politics of the World-Economy. The States, the Movements and the Civilizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• 1986: Africa and the Modern World. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.
• 1989: The Modern World-System, vol. III: The Second Great Expansion of the Capitalist World-Economy, 1730-1840's. San Diego: Academic Press.
• 1989 (with Giovanni Arrighi and Terence K. Hopkins): Antisystemic Movements. London: Verso.
• 1990 (with Samir Amin, Giovanni Arrighi and Andre Gunder Frank): Transforming the Revolution: Social Movements and the World-System. New York: Monthly Review Press.
• 1991 (with Étienne Balibar): Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities. London: Verso.
• 1991: Geopolitics and Geoculture: Essays on the Changing World-System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• 1991: Unthinking Social Science: The Limits of Nineteenth Century Paradigms. Cambridge: Polity.
• 1995: After Liberalism. New York: New Press.
• 1995: Historical Capitalism, with Capitalist Civilization. London: Verso.
• 1998: Utopistics: Or, Historical Choices of the Twenty-first Century. New York: New Press.
• 1999: The End of the World As We Know It: Social Science for the Twenty-first Century. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• 2001: Democracy, Capitalism, and Transformation. Documenta 11, Vienna, March 16, 2001.
• 2003: Decline of American Power: The U.S. in a Chaotic World. New York: New Press.
• 2004: The Uncertainties of Knowledge. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
• 2004: World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.
• 2004: Alternatives: The U.S. Confronts the World. Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm Press.
• 2006: European Universalism: The Rhetoric of Power. New York: New Press.
• 2011: The Modern World-System, vol. IV: Centrist Liberalism Triumphant, 1789–1914. Berkeley: University of California Press.

See also[link]

• Dependency theory
• World system theory

References[link]

External links[link]

• Immanuel Wallerstein's Official Website
• KPFA radio interview November 12, 2008 about the structural constraints faced by Obama and the current economic crisis.
• I. Wallerstein papers at the Fernand Braudel Center
• Presentation of I. Wallersteins "Worldssystem Modell"
• Wallerstein's own fortnightly commentaries on current events
• Festschrift for Immanuel Wallerstein - Part I Journal of World-Systems Research, Vol. VI, Number 2, Summer/Fall 2000
• Festschrift for Immanuel Wallerstein - Part II Journal of World-Systems Research, Vol. VI, Number 3, Fall/Winter 2000
• "Modern History Sourcebook: Summary of Wallerstein on World System Theory"
• Introduction to Social Macrodynamics: Compact Macromodels of the World System Growth by Andrey Korotayev, Artemy Malkov, and Daria Khaltourina [1]
• [2] Wallersteins World-Systems Theory
• Interview on Cultural Globalization (1999) videos, text & graphics
• Interview with Wallerstein (2008) on the End of Capitalism and World-Systems
• http://www.agenceglobal.com/author.asp?type=2&id=245

Videos[link]

• [3] Immanuel Wallerstein speaking at Harvard Law School, 2007.
• The United States facing its decline Conference given at the Université de Montréal Fall 2006 (in French)
• Interview on Cultural Globalization (1999)

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Immanuel Wallerstein